Proposition 50K2143

Projet de loi modifiant la date de l'entrée en vigueur de la loi du 10 décembre 1997 interdisant la publicité pour les produits du tabac et créant un Fonds de lutte contre le tabagisme.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

Nov. 5, 2002

Official page

Visit

Status

Rejected

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

advertising tobacco public health

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 ¶

Dec. 5, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Myheer Brouns, I’m going to start. Mr Bacquelaine, you would like to speak at the beginning of our debate, after Mr. Bacquelaine. The brown?

I have the following list of speakers: Mr Brouns, Mr Bacquelaine, Mr Van den Eynde, Mr Frédéric, Mrs Descheemaeker, Mr Paque, Mr Vanvelthoven and Mr Denis.

Dear colleagues, how much time do I give you? and 10 minutes? The grand prizes run at great speed.

Mr Brouns, you have the word for ten minutes.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the scope of the bill is actually that the ban on advertising for tobacco and tobacco products is postponed from 31 July 2003 to 1 October 2006 and this in the context of large demonstrations. Their

Well, dear colleagues, ⁇ it is good to remember for a moment what tobacco use means for our health. Every hour of the day, tobacco kills 560 people worldwide. If we express these figures on a daily and annual basis, we are talking about 13,400 deaths per day and 4,9 million per year. Their

I come to the second determination. Tobacco use is increasing everywhere. One calculation teaches us that with the same parameters each year from 2020, 8.4 million people will die as a result of tobacco use. Their

I come to a third conclusion. In our country, 33% of young people between 14 and 19 years of age smoke. Half of them will later die from the consequences of that tobacco use.

I come to the fourth conclusion. In developing countries, the toll on tobacco use is much higher. Over the next 20 years, more than 70% of deaths will be due to it.

According to a World Bank report, measures to ban tobacco advertising are effective, provided, however, that they appear on all media and on all uses of names, logos and brands. We must fight tobacco use by all means. Some even want to go so far to impose a total ban on tobacco use. For me, the prohibition of publicity around tobacco is the right approach. Advertising has only one goal: to increase the number of users.

The Vanvelthoven Act came into force in 1997 thanks to a large majority in this Parliament. I find that since 1997 the necessary precautions have not been taken to keep the Formula 1 Grand Prix of Francorchamps going on, knowing that tobacco advertising would be banned. Other mass demonstrations have adapted to the legislation on the ban on tobacco advertising. Alternative funding was sought and also found. Therefore, it would be a totally wrong signal to allow tobacco advertising again, making smoking more acceptable in our society. The argument that advertising would have no impact is unacceptable. There are many studies that prove the opposite. There are also countries where it has been scientifically established that after the prohibition of advertising, the use has also decreased. Why would producers want to spend so much money on advertising? Advertising is aimed at young people and potential smokers. The ban was implemented in a serene and democratic way. Why change suddenly? The argument that the ban on tobacco advertising is the cause of the disappearance of the Grand Prix of Francorchamps does not cut wood. The real reason is, after all, the fact that other countries, especially in the East, are too willing to organize this Grand Prix and have a lot of money for it. In short, there are sufficient arguments to keep the 1997 law unchanged.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, we have often gathered in this Chamber, we have often asked for ministers when our regions, whether Wallonia, Flanders or Brussels were experiencing difficult times. We often gathered together, all together, in a broad consensus to try to find ways to avoid relocalizations and closures of ⁇ , to accompany painful restructuring. In terms of relocation, I think of Renault-Vilvorde. In terms of business closures, I think of the recent drama of the Sabena. I think of the painful restructuring that affected the steel industry, the mines of Limburg. Each time, we tried to determine positions. We didn’t always agree on the solutions to bring or on the responsibilities to pinpoint, of course. But, always, the goal was common: to avoid relocation, business closure or to accompany as best as possible a necessary restructuring.

Today, paradoxically, we are gathered in this Chamber to discuss a relocation that some consider desirable. This is a first and you will understand that, from the beginning, I place this debate on the socio-economic terrain. I think this is not a public health debate. I will explain it and I will return to it.

This is ⁇ , and in any case, a debate of a socio-economic nature. It is about discussing whether, yes or not, we will accept and even favor for some, the relocation of a performance economic activity that provides jobs and income to thousands of people.

The vote of this day will therefore determine the future of a whole region but also the future of the employment of hundreds or even thousands of people who provide goods or services within the framework of the Grand Prix of Belgium, its organization and, more broadly, the activity of the circuit of Spa-Francorchamps which risks to lose, by the disappearance of this Grand Prix, an attractiveness that makes its life and activity throughout the year.

This debate is primarily socio-economic and concerns all regions of the country. It concerns all regions because many companies from Wallonia, but also from Flanders and Brussels, participate in the organization of this economic activity, receive orders relating to this organization. Behind these companies that are sometimes easy facades, there are obviously women and men who work there every day and who will undoubtedly suffer the counter-shock of a disappearance that some would want effective.

This concerns tens of companies, thousands of workers. It is also a loss of attractiveness behind the relocation of the Grand Prix of Belgium, a loss of attractiveness for a circuit that must operate throughout the year and which especially affects a number of sectors of activity, in particular the Horeca sector. by

It should be known that the Grand Prix of Belgium represents 100,000 people including 85,000 foreigners who use the Horeca infrastructure of our country, in a very broad way, both in Wallonia and in all regions of the country. We have, indeed, received the testimonies of a number of hotel owners from all regions and cities of our country.

Some say that this is not the real reason, that in fact — I hear these arguments — the Grand Prix of Belgium is already relocated and that this is not to be linked with a law prohibiting or not advertising for tobacco. For them, it would already be a sort of accomplished fact.

Probably they are trying to give themselves a good conscience. It is obviously easier to consider that they no longer have any possible action on the course of events. This is an easy solution. This is also a bit of cowardice. I say this very clearly and without ambiguity. It is also a solution of ease and cowardice to consider — but you know, some have decided to relocate the Grand Prix of Francorchamps, to organize it elsewhere in the world — that we can no longer act and that even if we agree to deviate from the law prohibiting tobacco advertising, that would not change anything, because this is already determined once and for all. I am completely falsely opposed to this argument. It is clear that not only is the Belgian Grand Prix a profitable business in terms of organizing major prizes worldwide. It is one of the most profitable in Europe, with a turnover that increases every year for all sectors involved. Therefore, this activity is economically viable in Belgium.

I hear Mr. President. Bacquelaine calls some decisions cowardice. I would like to know if it includes in this term "slappiness", the fact that we respect the opinion given to us by the Association of Belgian Pharmacists, the Belgian Federation Against Cancer, the Foundation Against Respiratory Diseases and for Health Education, ...

I will come there!

... ... The Scientific Society of General Medicine, which asks us not to vote on this law.

I ask him a question because he has called some taking positions cowardly.

The debate is not a successive monologue.

I ask him if this term also includes the fact that we follow this recommendation. (Applaus op verscheidene banken) (Applaus op verscheidene banken)

This is not an interruption. It is a speech. You can, if you wish, ask for the word and go up to the tribune. However, I will address the arguments invoked in terms of public health.

Some also argue that there are high prices for tobacco without advertising in Europe and that there would be no reason that this could not be the case in Belgium. This is obviously forgetting the specification of charges inherent in any organization of sports events. During the organisation of Euro 2000, a specification of the charges was established and it had to be respected. For all major international organizations, there is a specification of the charges and rules of the game to be observed.

However, it happens that the Grand Prix of Belgium was ranked among the big prizes with tobacco advertising at the level of the Concorde agreements, before the problem as it exists today arises. This is obviously the reason why one cannot unilaterally break a contract that exists. In the case of the affirmative, responsibility must be assumed. What is demanded, today, is to put ourselves in a position that allows to comply with the clauses of this contract for two major prizes: that of 2003 and 2004.

I now come to the public health arguments. I repeat that this is not a public health debate in the sense that no matter where the Formula 1 Belgian Grand Prix takes place, even if it takes place in a foreign country, in every home, the viewers who will watch this grand prize will see tobacco-related advertisements exactly the same way as if this grand prize took place in Belgium. by

Therefore, there is a kind of intellectual scam in claiming that relocating the Grand Prix would remove tobacco advertising for these Grand Prix. (Applause) (Applause) On the contrary, if we take the risk of relocating this Grand Prix for 2003 and 2004, what will happen after 2004? After 2004, we will obviously not recover this Grand Prix, which will be definitively lost. On the other hand, he will be established in a country that will continue to show advertisements for tobacco, as part of the course of this Grand Prix in a country that authorizes it, while if he had remained in Belgium, this advertisement for tobacco would indeed have disappeared. There is therefore a perverse effect to consider that, by relocating the Grand Prix for two years, one would so-called do a good action in the prevention of tobacco. It is quite the opposite that is likely to happen since, after 2005, if this Grand Prix takes place elsewhere, it will perpetuate advertising for tobacco.

I do not want to avoid these public health arguments. You know, I am a doctor, I have led for several years the Provincial Commission of Liège for the prevention of assets and I have the pretense to say that in this matter, I know what I am talking about. Some may consider it irritating, and I am, that parliamentarians want to give themselves a good conscience by presenting the destruction of an international-renowned economic and sports activity, which affects the brand image of our country and its worldwide recognition, as a kind of glorious action to save entire generations from the harm of tobacco. Let them express themselves in their country and in their competences. I would like those who are responsible for public health in our country — and I think of the federal or community Ecolo ministers — to say what they have actually done in terms of protection and prevention from tobacco in recent years. The only initiatives taken in this regard come from the Minister of Finance when he proposed and instituted the increase of the price of cigarette packages, when he proposed the prohibition of the sale of small packaging, when he now proposes to ban the sale of cigarettes to minors, when he proposes a public fund for the prevention of tobacco. All these measures come, not from a Minister of Health as one could have expected, but from a Minister of Finance. Oh the paradox! When I see the action...

The [...]

Madame Gerkens, do you have anything to add? Maybe you suddenly have an idea about tobacco prevention?

I accept an interruption but not a speech in a speech.

I would like to make all possible intention trials. I will tell you a fact that I lived in the assembly this week. We were the only group to demand that the debate on the general policy note be continued in order to actually have true information about the advances on tobacco. Who refused this debate? Who has refused to make this law move forward before we can even hold it? The PS Group and the PRL Group.

The group Mr.

It is awesome! They come here to claim that they do everything for prevention, everything to ban tobacco and they are the first to ban us or postpone the debate in this assembly. I find this extraordinary.

Mr. Speaker, together with you and my colleagues, I note that the final stage of the exchange of views following Mr. Bacquelaine’s speech focuses primarily on public health issues. Mr. Bacquelaine has put forward a number of striking arguments to support part of his argument. He was interrupted by Mrs. Gilkinet.

Mr. Speaker, I note that the Government is represented by the Secretary of State for Energy who makes it especially meritorious to study another file. I ask you to have the Minister of Health represent the government in this debate where spokesmen of the majority put the issue of public health at the center of the decision-making that must follow. I expressly request the presence of the Minister of Health. If you reject my request, something that I see you doing on the edge of the party layout, I ask that the Chamber declare it.

Mr. Leterme, this is a bill. It became a bill after the approval of the proposal in the Senate. The Government shall be represented by the person it designates for this purpose. In fact, if the government was not present, it made no difference.

The House may always, by a majority, request the presence of the Minister. It is not the president’s responsibility to say who can come or not. It is the House that decides, by a majority, whether it wants the presence of a minister.

The Chamber requires the presence of a Minister other than Mr. The Secretary of State?

The Minister is coming.

The Minister is on arrival. He is coming.

Mr Van Parys, coman. The [...]

And if Minister Tavernier comes, you will ask for another minister. And finally the Prime Minister. I know that too.

Mr. Bacquelaine, you have the word.

The [...]

Mr. Tant, Minister Tavernier is coming.

Mr. Speaker, I recall the initiative, 15 days to 3 weeks ago, of my colleague Philippe Seghin. He asked the Minister of Health why he did not apply the EU directive that provides for the use of 30% of one side and 40% of the other side of cigarette packages to deliver messages in terms of prevention against smoking. Although this directive has been mandatory since 1 October this year, the Minister considered that he still lacked a number of clarifications regarding the application of this directive. France has been using it for a long time. This is also the case for other countries.

Therefore, we do not feel a real will to try to fight smoking effectively. On the contrary, we are sometimes surprised that some ministers, especially community ministers, use methods that are at least suspicious and curious. I will recall, for example, the message delivered by Ms. Maréchal, Minister Ecolo of the French Community, regarding cocaine consumption. We have often talked about cannabis. Today I will talk about cocaine.

I read to you how Ms. Maréchal believes she wants to deliver a useful and effective message to the young people of our country and, more specifically, of the French Community.

She explains that from a large amount of leaves, coca paste is obtained. By a chemical process, we extract a white powder with a slightly bitter taste, the cocaine hydrochloride, also called cocaine, snow, white, coke, coco.

By adding to the cocaine ammonia and soda bicarbonate, further indicating the exact dosage, and water, we obtain after heating a smoky cocaine that appears in the form of small stones called the crack. This crack in the United States and in France, it is bought as it is, on the street, while in Belgium, consumers make it directly themselves from cocaine powder, calling it ‘free base’. She adds that it stimulates the central nervous system, which gives an impression of increased lucidity.

I will try to increase the sound to the microphone from the speaker to the tribune. Mr. Bacquelaine, please talk a little closer to the microphone. Madame Gerkens, Mr. Bacquelaine will finish his reasoning and then you will have the word. Please continue, Mr Bacquelaine.

I can hear nothing, Mr. President.

You may not hear anything at all because too many people talk at the same time. Mr. Bacquelaine, please continue. Mrs. De Permentier is Mr. Backline is speaking.

I would like to ask if Mr. Bacquelaine could resume the chapter on cannabis because we haven’t heard anything. I haven't heard the chapter about cocaine. I would like to say here — and I would like the Ecolos to keep silent — that as a mother, I am much more sensitive to the fact that children are being sensitized to the harm of drugs. If one denounces that five hundred people die every day because of tobacco, I would like to know the harmful effects of drugs in Belgium and elsewhere.

If you want to hear Mr. Bacquelaine, keep silent and let him speak!

I ended up saying that Ms. Maréchal, Minister of Health of the French Community, indicated that in the United States and France, you can buy crack on the street while in Belgium, consumers made it directly themselves from cocaine powder and that they called this the ‘free base’. She added that it stimulates the central nervous system, that it gives an impression of increased lucidity, increases endurance and reduces the feeling of fatigue, that it provides a sense of well-being and euphoria, a sense of power and self-confidence, that it stimulates sexual desire and that when consumed in large quantities, the physical effects intensify to become dangerous, the psychological effects reverse and euphoria sometimes even becomes anxiety.

But she added that recreational and occasional use of cocaine at moderate doses causes little harm to the health of a person in good physical, mental and social condition. She even proposes...

Minister Tavernier is coming in the coming minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I repeat, on the initiative of a key spokesman of the majority, I think, public health as a core element of the debate has been put forward. Rightly we think. and right. You have since said that the Minister of Health, whose presence we demand, is coming. I ask you on what basis and where Minister Tavernier then stays.

I let it check for three to four minutes.

There is better, it seems, than cocaine, there would be an association of cocaine and heroin, what is called the "speed ball". According to the minister, “the simultaneous intake of these two products causes an intense feeling of euphoria followed by a period of well-being but which can result in an increase in doses.”

In conclusion, I will ask the following question: what should be done in relation to the use of these drugs? According to the Ministry of Health of the French Community...

When will the Minister come?

They tell me it will happen.

Mr. Bacquelaine, keep going. Ms. Gerkens will interrupt you in a moment when you have finished this part of your speech.

(Arrival of Minister Tavernier under the applause of the hall)

Mr. Minister, I was reporting on the accomplishments of your colleague in charge of Health at the level of the French Community who, for any policy of prevention in matters of insolvency, issues to the youth of this country brochures which are at least brochures of a advertising nature, much more than brochures of a preventive nature. She said at the end of this brochure...

( ... ...

Madame Gerkens, you wanted to interrupt Mr. Backline, you have the word.

Mr. Speaker, if I shouted spontaneously, it was because I really had the feeling that Mr. Bacquelaine said anything to the extent ...

The information that is given is also given by police officers and it is important, for this kind of matter, to inform about the composition of products, the sensations and impressions of well-being that they give so that, effectively, consumers are warned and can make arrangements. This is actually prevention and you know very well, Mr. Bacquelaine, that doing this has nothing to do with advertising! We have no intention of advertising at all.

I will even tell you that it actually gives a series of advice to reduce the risks. I will give you four:

“ 1 . People who have heart disease, who are hypertensive or prone to epileptic seizures should refrain from taking cocaine.

(Laughter and applause on various banks) 2. Generally speaking, it is better to avoid mixing. If you mix the products, pay attention to the reactions that trigger in your home.

3 of 3. Always test the product in small doses.

4 of 4. It’s important to be surrounded by trusted people, in a pleasant setting and to feel good if you want to consume.”

This is the message, the ecological design of health prevention in matters of asset management.

(Applause on many banks) (Brouhaha in the room) And yet I am one of those who consider today’s debate to be on the socio-economic ground. Simply, I said that I did not want to avoid the arguments that were opposed to me in this matter by those who claim to be, in some way, the good apostles and who, in the field, do not always fulfill the functions with the maximum efficiency.

I would like to repeat here that our group, like others elsewhere, advocates for a uniform and simultaneously applicable regulation at European level. In this regard, since the last debates in the Senate and in the Public Health Committee of the Chamber, things have actually evolved. The new proposal for a directive was adopted in the European Parliament on 20 November, and the Health Council examined this issue very recently — on 2 December last year.

This new proposal for a directive, which, you remember, replaces the 1998 Directive, which was repealed by the Court of Justice of the European Communities in October 2000 on a complaint from Germany, should be adopted in the first half of 2003. Article 5 prohibits sponsorship of events or activities involving or taking place in several Member States or having other cross-border effects with an entry into force in the course of 2005, more precisely, in July 2005.

Let us leave Europe to act and decide for an integrated harmonisation of the different laws of the member countries! We fully agree with this, but we also say that it is not a matter of hurrying things, that it is to act otherwise, it is simply — it seems to me — a certain political irresponsibility, not counting the fact — I have already said it — that if there is a general ban and without exception and confirmed today by the rejection of the bill, the big prize will be made elsewhere and as already mentioned by some, ⁇ elsewhere in Europe. Moreover, this will obviously not prevent the diffusion on our screens of high-price images taking place abroad, with a tobacco advertisement.

I ask you not to be masochistic in this regard. I repeat: let’s wait for the directive and the harmonisation of the legislation desired at European level by 2005.

The [...]

I have not forgotten 2006. I say that if we get an exemption, in terms of tobacco advertising, it does not change anything to the situation since this advertising will always exist through the TV screens. Of the 100,000 spectators of the Belgian Grand Prix, 85,000 are from abroad. The majority that is concerned with tobacco advertising in terms of car racing is through television, and it will remain by television, of course! To deny this is to deny the rational and logical arguments in this matter! When you are in the irrational, arguments can no longer serve, I realize it! Nevertheless, I consider it a duty to recall the truths in the matter, for it is a kind of intellectual deception to claim things that are not accurate and to attribute them to themselves as the thesis of a totally false argumentation. by

Our country deserves an international event of renown. It even deserves several and I think that other regions of the country are affected by major international events, which are also ⁇ a resource for many people who work in this country, who work and who want the companies in which they work to continue to operate as part of the organization of international events that also make the brand image of our country. by

What I want to do here, what my group wants to do, is to prevent the real catastrophe that would represent a relocation that we ourselves would have wanted.

I return to my introduction. This is the most flagrant paradox: wanting to punish yourself, wanting to hurt yourself. This is not in the culture of my group and I ask you to consider seriously with us the economic consequences of such activity, what it represents for the thousands of people who currently live there and who would not understand that the signal we give them is to say that we do not feel concerned with this, that we accept this relocation and that we do not raise our finger to try to prevent it. This is the message I wanted to deliver today.

I appeal to everyone’s conscience. It is not about saying: one group will vote like this, another like this. No to No! Here it is an individual duty of consciousness of each in relation to a problem of a socio-economic nature, in relation to the true human drama that this relocation that we would have decided ourselves could constitute. I ask you to think about it, vote in conscience and save a just and necessary cause.

I thank you.

Mr. Van den Eynde, you have the word. Mr Frédéric will then speak.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for the word by ordemotie.

In all seriousness, we have requested the presence of the Minister of Health, because colleague Bacquelaine in the first part of his speech has very extensively addressed the core of the problem, which is the links to public health and the protection of public health. That is why we promoted the presence of the Minister of Health. In the meantime, the Minister of Health has effectively joined the plenary session of the Chamber.

Now, his physical presence is of course already welcome to us. But we think that the time has come, after the presentation of the spokesman of the MR group, Mr. Bacquelaine, that the Minister of Health...

If the Minister wishes to speak, he will do so at the end of the debate, as is customary. Let the debate go on. After that, the Minister will...

But no, if the minister asks for the word, you must give it to him.

I have to give it to him.

How long will you still be the water carrier of a supposed majority?

No, Mr. Leterme, you will see my attitude later in the vote, like that of all members. The debate is always like this...

We must ask that the Minister be accountable and speak! What is it now? The incident is closed. The incident is closed.

We continue our debate.

I would like to comment on some of Mr. and Bacquelaine. Either I do it now, or I ask to be able to register in the debate.

I take note of this and I will invite you to speak soon.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State Deleuze, Mr. Minister of Public Health Tavernier, colleagues. Mr. Coveliers, I know very well that I sin against the protocol rules by greeting first the Secretary of State and then only the Minister. I do this consciously. Mr. Coveliers, I do this consciously because Secretary of State Deleuze, who — let us be honest — hates the Flemish Bloc and whom we, in turn, do not really like to see, has at least had the courage to be present at this debate from the beginning. Mr. Tavernier, Minister of Public Health, came later. He will probably have a good apology for that. I do not even doubt the truthfulness of this apology. Mr. Coveliers, what I need from the heart is that when I read the report on the treatment of this draft law in the committee, I must then conclude that the Minister of Health intervened in this debate only at the very end. He began to state that he expressed a personal point of view. You will agree with me that this is very strange. A minister who expresses a personal point of view in a parliamentary debate and does not hold a government position is at least worth mentioning. It is clear that the Minister of Health in this matter has a little less courage than the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State, in fact, was present from the very beginning of this debate alongside his heavily plagued group. So I think I should name him first.

Colleagues, this, by the way, is not the only paradox that I have to establish in the subject we are dealing with here tonight. I talked about the work in the committee. It is strange. It is a draft law which is allegedly accompanied by a bill. It is in fact a parliamentary initiative — I acknowledge this grip — which is being discussed in the Committee on Public Health. When I read the report on this subject, I find that the first presentation was one of a spokesman for the PS, namely Mr Frédéric. He immediately began to state that there is a symbolic reaction that says that tobacco is deadly, but that one must be realistic. Immediately afterwards he switched to the main argument he wanted to bring forward, namely the salvation of the automotive sport. He did so in the Public Health Committee. In French, it would be said: il faut le faire.

The second explanation was that of the spokesman of the MR who just stood here on the tribune, Mr. Bacquelaine, Dr. Bacquelaine. Dr. Bacquelaine of the MR begins in this debate that takes place in the Committee on Public Health by emphasizing that and I quote "events with a global appearance in our country can be counted on one hand and that the Formula 1 Grand Prix of Spa-Francorchamps is one of them". This is also far from the issue of public health, at least in my modest opinion.

But this is only the least of the paradoxes I can establish in this whole case. What is this really about, colleagues? In fact, it is about abolishing a law that was passed in 1997 in fact completely. I want to call a cat a cat and put my cards on the table. It is a law that was not approved by my group at the time, a law that was intended to prohibit the publicity of tobacco products and which we said at the time was useless, unnecessary, meaningless and would function completely counterproductive. Unfortunately, the facts gave us the right because we had to conclude that all studies show that since then the number of smokers in this country has increased considerably.

Nevertheless, this law here was then passed by a large majority, of which a number of parties that they now fight with fire and sword, were part. In the Socialist Party there was one vote against, that of Mr. Dufour, who unfortunately is not present today.

The [...]

Well, I call him welcome because he was prophetic at the time. He could already know that his party would completely change its mind five years later. Mr. Dufour was against, the Socialist Party was in favor. The then Party Social Chrétien, in the meantime changed its name, was also there. Why Why ? Because at that time the political correctness compelled the well-thoughts to approve that law. Colleagues, if you read the 1997 reports of the Committee on Public Health, you would nevertheless find that at that time there was also an argument with Francorchamps. But if it should not benefit, when political correctness requires something — it is a shame to establish — then there is always a majority in this Parliament to approve it. Whatever of them, in the meantime it has become a law, a law with its consequences, a law that has had consequences in Wallonia but also in Flanders, a law whose those who have passed them must at least have the courage to bear those consequences. What am I fixing? A few years later, there is a lobby at work, there is a kind of agitation that has nothing to do with public health — I have already said it later — that even à la limite has nothing to do with tobacco but everything with car rental jobs and in particular with Francorchamps. That politically correct majority of the time suddenly changes their minds and wants to completely undermine this law. Don’t blame me, colleagues — I speak here again on behalf of the Flemish Blok group that did not approve that law at the time — this is something that is fundamentally wrong. When approving a law, one must at least have the courage to continue to accept the position taken at the moment of approval of that law, with all the consequences associated with it.

But that is too much demanded and we have been confronted in the last few weeks with a real "front wallon". All the Wallish parties, with one exception — I will return to it — have since carried out a real campaign to repeal that law. All sorts of arguments have been put forward. They have tried to make us understand that they wanted to save Ieper, or Zolder or I know a lot of other manifestation in Flanders. Let us be honest; it has nothing to do with it all. What the Waals Front wanted was Francorchamps. And that Waals front, Mr. Speaker, we have seen today in this Chamber fulminate because it is surprising that today we are not just sitting in front of our Waals colleagues but that this Parliament was able to rejoice this afternoon in the visit of some ministers of the Waals government. I recognized Mr. Serge Kubla and Mr. Happart. All those people suddenly found it necessary to be here today. Don’t blame me but their presence here had nothing to do with saving the authorally of Ieper or that of Zolder. That is the least of their concerns. They were here for Francorchamps and for Francorchamps alone. I see the people of the PS kicking. I give them right in this case because they dare to come out for the truth. They want to save Francorchamps.

In this regard, colleagues, I must express my respect and even my admiration for the only Wallon faction that has been able to stand up to those plots of propaganda for Francorchamps. Once upon a time is not a custom. (The Romanian)

Mr. Van den Eynde, if you want to be successful with a prevention campaign then you must start by giving the good example. A man who submits a bill and smokes himself is unreliable. A minister who smokes himself and supports that bill is unreliable. A green group that smokes the most of the whole Parliament is unbelievable.

Mrs. Descheemaeker, you want to interrupt the speaker but you will take the word later.

Mr. President, I am confessing. I plead guilty. I am a victim of advertising. (The Romanian)

If, as a member of parliament, she is the victim of advertising, then she should start by giving the example and saying that she can resist the advertising. Maybe other people will be able to do the same.

Let Mr. Van den Eynde go on! Mr Van den Eynde, you have the word, with a male voice and with sufficient volume!

Mr. Speaker, if parliamentarians really want to set an example, let them participate in the work of the committees, where they shine in their absence! (Vive the Protests)

Mr. President, I thank you. This is the first time you encourage me to speak. This is also a premiere for me. I thank you for that. That being said, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Valkeniers makes it easy by accusing the people of Ecolo and Agalev of smoking. Admit, Mr. Valkeniers, that hypocrisy exists on that level in all the camps. In this house, Mr. Valkeniers, — let me say for once — smoking is forbidden, except in the coffee room, in your office and in the restaurant. Don’t apologize to me, but I see in most committees the people are very pleasant at loose paws. People of all parties! So please, let the others also rest.

I will come back to something. I said, “Une fois n’est pas coutume.” They are our opponents. They even see us as enemies. But one can respect an opponent if he is consistent in his principles. Once upon a time is not custom, Mr. President. I will say it once in French. In the name of the group Vlaams Blok, je veux saluer ce soir la constance et le courage du groupe Ecolo, qui a le courage et le culot de résister à l'immense lobby capitaliste, appuyé même par le Parti Socialiste qui essaie, par ailleurs, de les convaincre de changer de point de vue. You salute this courage, even if our arguments are not the same. Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that this is common, that this comes from the heart, from the heart of people who are used to eradicate against a front of opponents. In this case, we greet Ecolo deeply.

After all, I would like to make one conclusion. Because of a number of reasons that are very obscure for me and of which the ratio legis completely escapes me, today also Flemish parties, at least one I fear — that of the prime minister — will support the bill. They will assemble in the camp of the Wallon Front, less courageous than the people of Ecolo, and they will in the name of freedom ...

Mr. Speaker, before Mr. Van den Eynde continues to dictate what we should do — I suppose he would like to — I want to tell him that we are liberals and for liberals freedom is very important. Each member of the VLD, each of the 25 VLD’s who are currently members of our group, votes here as they wish.

Mr. Speaker, I am so touched by the message of Mr. Coveliers, but I would like him to tell this to the Prime Minister from time to time because I think he often forgets that.

Mr. Coveliers, to those Flammers who today for whatever reason will choose the side of the Wallon Front, I have one short message. Mr. Coveliers, you do not have to be angry, we have seen here even Mr. Jean-Marie Happart, and he is still there, le grand patron. Mr. Coveliers, for you and those Flammers who today, for all kinds of obscure reasons, want to change this law — some will even think they are doing it in the name of freedom — I have one very short message: if Francorchamps had been located in Flanders, that law would not have been changed today.

Mr. Speaker, I know that Mr. Van den Eynde has a ⁇ good knowledge of history, modern history and also of the French language, but he would have to learn contemporary history: the VLD voted against this law.

of course . Dear colleagues, you yourself, as members of the Chamber, have a tribune in the Senate and the reciprocal exists in the Chamber. The senators who listen to us are as well "seen" as the deputies who listen to them.

I see the presence of many citizens of this country in the tribunes. I would like this debate to take place in dignity for all those who look at us and who listen to us.

Your call for decency has not been heard. Like you, I would like to say that, so far, I am ⁇ unhappy with the way things are going. There is a total lack of respect for the speakers. And I would like to tell those who talk to avoid going to smoke at the cafeteria! (Applause) That said, I will try very humbly and very modestly to bring back if possible... You can always try, Mr. Grafé, it will be your last cigarette! (Laughs) Mr. Speaker, I would like to try to bring back a little seriousness into this debate, if possible, because if I have to hear laughter, sarcasm and even humor, it is a fundamental problem affecting both public health and a regional economy that is at risk of dying tomorrow. This, in my opinion, is important enough to be taken seriously!

Everything or almost has been said in the debate about the harmfulness of tobacco and the number of deaths it causes. I would like to tell Mr. No one can deny that smoking is dangerous to health. I think that in the discussions we had, there was indeed unanimity on this element. We can quote multiple scientific studies, the conclusions are always the same and we share them without any comment. We discussed it in the Health Committee and, unfortunately, we have already been able to make this notice on this tribune, we have too focused our debate — and it was still the case in the first interventions — on this only aspect of things.

I will repeat what I said in the committee, there are two types of reactions. The first reaction, which I respect — and I want to say it with the eye in the eye, to my fellow ecologists — and which is inspired by a symbol: tobacco is seriously harmful to health, it kills, and any sluggishness in the prohibition policy is unacceptable. The second reaction that wants to be more pragmatic, is that of my political group, it is also that, it must be remembered, of the Court of Arbitration that had decided to postpone from 2000 to 2003 the entry into force of the law with regard to international events. The realistic position consists in balancing, on the one hand, the economic interests of a region and, on the other hand, the least possible infringement on the prohibition justified by public health imperatives.

Mr. Leterme, I see that you are following the text. As you are an intelligent group leader, you know that when you prepare a commission discussion, you try to argue it intelligently. And since in the committee there was an excessively limited number of colleagues — it was not the colleagues CD&V who shone by their presence since there was only one, of high quality, but there was only one of the three — it is normal that I can resume my argumentation because there are no two different explanations to give in this matter. (Applause) First of all, what is the starting point? It is a reaction of the FIA that decides to change its schedule, and we can understand that. It is the FIA who says that, on December 13, if nothing happens in Belgium, if there is no strong signal from the Belgian parliament, it will confirm and relocate, like Mr. Bacquelaine said it, an extremely important activity, a media-important activity for a whole region and for a whole country.

I remain convinced, dear colleagues, that if this strong signal is expressed by an assembly, which has become unanimously aware of the problem, we will be able to return tomorrow to this extremely important event that is, in our eyes, the Formula 1 Grand Prix of Francorchamps. I am not the only one who has this conviction. This is still possible today, it will depend on the outcome of your vote and it will be exclusively indicative.

Excuse me, Mr. Leterme, I will continue my argument, I must do it. You follow in the text. If I forget something, I would like to thank you for telling me.

This is called the parliamentary playback. and laughing)

The second issue concerns the local economy. You are not interested in it. This happens in the district of Verviers, far east! The regional economy is much more interested in your colleagues. But this also affects the Flemish economy, Mr. Leterme. You will have to go and explain to your voters tomorrow that you opposed this event because it was in Wallonia. This poses a fundamental problem for you to support an international event in Wallonia because it is in Wallonia. You should not be afraid to say it! I think it’s your deep motivation and it’s a pity because in the north of the country, there’s also a circuit waiting for an important event for motorcycles, that of Zolder. I will not return to the figures, but I would like to tell my colleagues that the Horeca sector has manifested itself in Flanders. I have, Mr. Speaker, a multitude of letters from hotel owners of the Bruges and Gantois regions. I have them at your disposal. They are dozens saying that if they miss this event that only lasts a week, they will lose a lot of money on their season. This is unacceptable for the Flemish Horeca sector. If I were you, I would be embarrassed about this.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to my colleague Wallon to pay attention to the way he expresses himself. Instead of attacking Flemish friends, some of whom support us, let him attack his majority colleagues, and especially Ecolo!

Mr. Speaker, I hear Mr. Frédéric referring with much pathetic to a Flemish circuit where motorsport is also practiced. I would like to remind him, however, that at the time when Zolder — for that is the matter, Zolder in the province of Limburg, where I was elected — was literally stolen from Flanders by the Francophonie, by the Wallish community, and that Francorchamps was pushed forward as the ideal for international motorsport and the International Autosport Federation, Mr. Frédéric and his own were not interested in the interests of the Flanders economy. They were not interested in the interests of the province of Limburg. They were not interested in the interests of Zolder. So it is enormously hypocritical and perverse of Mr. Frédéric that he comes here to defend that logic. I distanced myself entirely from what he is on the floor to proclaim.

There was an agreement at the time. At that time, I was the Federal Minister of Sports. I presided over the agreement and arbitration concerning Francorchamps and Zolder. To tell you the truth, it was the Royal Automobile Club of Belgium that made the decision to share missions and events between Zolder and Francorchamps. This is not a hold-up of one community against the other. As the Minister of Sports at the time, I can guarantee that this was an arbitration conducted by the Royal Automobile Club of Belgium.

I would like to comment on the three speeches I have just heard. I respect the latter because I respect the experience; with regard to the first, I will judge by the outcome of the votes and with regard to the second, my parents have always taught me not to respond to anyone.

I was talking to you about the consequences and I must weigh the information a little, Mr. Leterme, because it is true that I have no precise numbers, I have testimonies that are brought to me. In any case, what I know is the amount of economic impacts for the Verviers district, in particular for the province of Liège. by

Did you know that quite serious studies estimate that these economic impacts range between 15 and 20 million euros per year, including 8 million euros for the Horeca sector in the province of Liège. This obviously represents an extremely significant mass of jobs and I think it is important enough to attract our attention.

The third element is the inefficiency of the measure in the current context of European legislation. And here, of course, I agree with the intervention of my colleague Bacquelaine. It is very clear that if tomorrow, for the reasons indicated, the Formula 1 race of Francorchamps is withdrawn, it is equally clear that it will be organized elsewhere and that if it is organized elsewhere it will be broadcasted by all international television channels and that advertisements will obviously arrive on all screens, in all squares, whether the Grand Prix is organized in Russia, China or in the Emirates. If it is young people, as we said recently, if it is young people that we want to protect from tobacco advertising, I think the effect will be null, the benefit will be null for health because this advertising, they will continue to suffer anyway. The health benefit will be zero but the loss for the Spa-Francorchamps region will not be zero. Jobs will be lost and a regional growth hub will be significantly diminished.

You are addressing Mr. Leterme because he is the chairman of the CD&V group?

No, but because he follows my text in the speech in the commission.

He is also the president of the CD&V group. Why don’t you speak to Mr. President at the same time? Van der Maelen, who is the president of the SP.A group?

But I have no exclusive, Mr. President.

Well, so look alternately to the left and right.

Here is Frédéric. You look on one side and then on the other.

Mr. Speaker, I will oscillate from left to right, even though my heart will systematically remain on the left, without appearing to whisper. I told you just recently that the message I was spreading was beyond, in my view, the political divisions. This is a message about common sense. And the question is whether the elected people who sit here every week have the desire or not to allow a particular region that is that of the Verviers district in the province of Liège, Mr. President of SP.A, ...

Mr. Leterme, in addition to the text, you take care of the staging, you are wonderful. More seriously, my last argument. The European Ministers of Health have decided. It was December 2, they settled and said that from 2005, any advertising for tobacco in the press, as well as sponsorship by cigarette-makers of major events are prohibited. There was previously a 1998 directive that wanted to require all countries of the European Union to prohibit this advertising for tobacco from 1 October 2006. This directive was repealed by the Court of Justice for lack of legal basis.

If the situation has changed since Monday, since the European text begins in the 2005 and 2006 millenniums, we can only rejoice. The signal is strong and, from now on, given by Europe and our proposal, because the directive must be applied by 31 July 2005, is being strengthened.

I end it. The common sense would want Belgium to now align itself exclusively with European legislation. I would also like to try...

Trying to attack those you need to attack.

Leave the M. Frederic makes his speech and closes it. Go, Mr. Frédéric, try to land.

I will land when I want to. I would like to be heard.

( ... ...

He addresses to the room.

I am addressing all members of this group, without exclusion. And I would like to say to my majority friends, that beyond the economic consequences I have highlighted, there are tens, hundreds of volunteer association activists who work in the framework of organizing the Grand Prix and who can survive the whole year — because the public funds available to them are insufficient — with the money they can earn by making small bullets at the Grand Prix. If you are not interested in the associative world, it is not my case! This represents hundreds of people who put heart and goodwill into their actions and who ⁇ have as much merit as anyone in any other society.

And, I know that you are less interested in it because it is far east of Belgium. But there are also, in some municipalities — I think of Stavelot and Malmedy or others, but Robert Denis knows the subject better than I know by being the mayor of Malmedy — significant tax losses that will turn to the taxpayers. When we voted for the tax reform, we obviously did not imagine that, in a closed camp, we would have to suffer the boomerang effect of such a decision. I finished, and I landed.

Mrs. Gilkinet wants to interrupt you for a moment. But, Mrs. Gilkinet, I advise you to sign up because you are very generous of interruptions.

Indeed, the economic defense of a region is extremely important. This is true, but I ask my fellow parliamentary if he agrees to file a complaint against the FIA for abuse of dominant position. Because it is about that!

I want to put the means of action in order to defend a region, but will you do it with us?

I can assure you that whatever the outcome of the vote that will take place today, we will continue to work, if it cannot take place in 2003, so that this great prize can take place again in 2004. We will, if possible, adopt the appropriate attitude towards the responsible.

In any case, the debate that is taking place today is not a fundamental public health debate but rather a fundamental debate on the question of whether, during a weekend, advertising for cigarette manufacturers is allowed, advertising which, in any case, will appear live on the occasion of the retransmissions of the grand prizes across the globe. That is the question.

I haven’t heard the word “ecolo” in your speech yet. I hope you will define it.

You will be satisfied, Mr. Langendries.

Thank you very much.

Like the mr. Bacquelaine said recently that the Formula 1 Grand Prix concerns 150,000 people, 90% of whom are Germans. The latter are therefore largely majority. It is true that Schumacher is in his garden in Francorchamps.

Aside from the Olympic Games and the World Cup in football — statistics are telling it — it is the most mediated event in the world. by

Following the dioxin crisis, remember, we were determined to rebuild the brand image of our country. This was written in all letters and at least ten times in the government policy declaration signed by all the rainbow partners, including ECOLO-AGALEV and SP.A, Mr. Langendries.

( ... )

I put it anyway. You have to know what you want. (Hilarity on the banks)

The [...]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the speakers to be respected and I do not accept the criticism I have just heard from Mr. Speaker’s mouth. Firewalls because in terms of ridicule, it can be said that it usually shines when it expresses itself from the top of this tribune. by

In conclusion, I would like to say that we are obviously delighted that an amount of EUR 1,859,200 will be allocated annually from 2003 and for at least six consecutive years. This is probably the best prevention opportunity we can have. by

I can say that everyone has been able to express their views. I would like to say that in the committee, the debate was profound. It still lasted three hours. He was serene and led to conclusions of common sense. You know the result. I would also like to emphasize the quite politically responsible and courageous attitude of the CDH, which supported the proposal through its representative Mr. In the area of Huy-Waremme. It was important to emphasize this.

There is no point in making this matter a community debate, because it would not make sense. I therefore appeal to the reason and conscience of each. Let us not add for free and by our stubbornness which has become ridiculous a new catastrophe for employment in this country.

Mr. Speaker, we still have the right to ask the question of whether the government, in the person of the minister who has well wanted to join us, will intervene in this debate.

I will ask him at the end.

No, I ask him now.

Mr. President, the Minister is old enough and mature enough to answer my question on his own.

I know nothing!

Will you participate in this debate?

The Minister has indicated that he will intervene briefly.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, in 1997 the law prohibiting the advertising of tobacco products was approved by a large majority. As a transitional measure, an exception was provided for events at global level until 31 July 2003. The current draft, which was submitted by the Senate, aims to postpone the aforementioned date again, even to October 2006, while on the European level we are talking about 2005.

The arguments that led to the adoption of the original law on the prohibition of advertising in 1997 have ⁇ lost nothing of their force. On the contrary even. In fact, the figures show that the use of tobacco has not declined further in recent years and that especially young people smoke more than in the past.

Since 1991, the percentage of daily smokers has ranged between 25% and 30%. However, a January 2001 study showed that in the age group of 15 to 24 years 37% of the boys and 29% of the girls smoke daily.

Whether a young person becomes a smoker or not has to do with various factors. First, there is a personal factor. Smoking can be a way to give up, to challenge authority, to be part of the adult world.

The second factor is the influence of the social environment. The young people want to belong to a group and take the habits of their friends.

A third factor is the influence of society. As long as smoking is considered an acceptable behavior and allowed without many restrictions, young people are encouraged to smoke. Although young people usually hear and understand the message to stop smoking, the influence of their surroundings is often too strong to counter.

Fourth, there is the impact of advertising. Each advertisement helps to expand the market and aims either to encourage non-smokers to start smoking, or to encourage smokers to switch to a keitof or cooler brand.

The [...]

I have already known.

Studies show that the effect of advertising is three times higher in young people than in adults. Especially young people are thus fishing, because 90%, Mr Valkeniers, starts smoking before the age of 18. ( Tumult ) According to a study conducted by the World Bank, the specific impact of advertising on smoking behavior would be around 7%.

In our country, 20,000 people die each year from the effects of smoking. Of those 20,000...

( ... ...

Mr. Valkeniers, Mrs. Descheemaeker has the right to speak. Please be silent.

Mr Valkeniers, I repeat it. Advertising has a 7% impact on smoking. There are 20,000 deaths due to smoking in Belgium, so of those 20,000 premature deaths due to smoking, 1,400 can be written on the account of that tobacco advertising. This death rate cannot be ignored.

Mrs Descheemaeker, regarding the numbers you cite, I only have one question to ask: in the AGALEV-ECOLO group, how many people smoke?

Mr. Speaker, what she says is correct, but she would rather go to round zero, take the factions of Ecolo and Agalev and deliver her speech there.

The level of discussion is ⁇ low if one attacks someone’s personal situation. This has nothing to do with the case. Everyone chooses freely in his life and takes a number of options. It has nothing to do with politics and political solutions.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my colleagues that, I do not make this a personal problem but, nevertheless, I am a member of the Public Health Committee since the beginning of this legislature and I regularly see in this committee that it is necessary to interrupt meetings to allow some to go to smoke. I also find that at the bottom of the Chamber, I who do not smoke, am indirectly intoxicated by the smoke of the ECOLO-AGALEV group! (Applause) So there is no lesson!

Mr. Speaker, my group was very motivated to participate in this debate. Collega Brouns approached the content of the dossier in a very constructive way, though briefly, and established our position. We were willing to follow the whole debate very closely, we listened carefully to what everyone said. We will also, in the coming hours, if necessary, listen carefully to what everyone says. However, I must conclude, together with my colleagues from the majority, that, given the personal attacks going back and forth within the majority, the level reached within the majority does not adorn this Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, let this be clear, I do not smoke but I will never blame anyone for smoking. What I simply reproach is that one learns the lesson, while one is himself a smoker.

I am the most recent member of this noble assembly. As such, apologize for my naivety, but I think the fundamental problem of our debate is whether we, political power, are at the balance of multinationals and economic power.

Stop and do not interrupt anymore.

Mr. Speaker, I just heard one of our colleagues speaking in his capacity as the youngest member of the assembly. Let the age dean of the assembly react to you that the real debate here is the defense of the legitimate interests, of the honor of our country not only, but of the workers of the whole region.

Of those 20,000 premature deaths due to smoking in Belgium, 1,400 can be written on the account of tobacco advertising. This death rate cannot be ignored. Tobacco advertising is undoubtedly an important factor affecting smoking behavior, along with all sorts of other factors such as preventive information and eviction, smoking prohibition in public buildings, support for eviction cures and so on. However, the discussion that is now being held here largely goes beyond the essence, namely the negative effect of tobacco advertising, and its effects on public health. However, the discussion focuses on the economic effects on those sporting events that would disappear as a result of that ban. However, the Grand Prix of Francorchamps, regardless of the decision of this Parliament, has already been removed from the Formula 1 agenda for 2003 and there is no guarantee for the subsequent years. In the meantime, agreements were made for Formula 1 competitions in Bahrain and Shanghai. Their

So I need to make a few relevant conclusions. We do not believe that the advertising ban is the only or actual reason for the disappearance of that event. It is irresponsible to adapt legislation again to the blackmail of the tobacco lobby, at Mr. Ecclestone’s plea, while the advertising ban is already applied in a number of countries, and from 2006 in any case applies to the whole European Union. What signal do we, as guardians of public health, give if that advertising ban is again postponed? Taking into account the deadly impact of smoking, for our group, the importance of public health and the avoidable deaths prevails over the economic importance. This does not mean that we close our eyes to the economic consequences, but there are priorities that we, as responsible persons, cannot and want to ignore. We advocate for a credible and consistent action, and therefore for respect for the law that was passed here in 1997 with a large majority, from the legitimate concern for health.

We also call for the establishment of a tobacco control fund to be implemented without delay because the fight against tobacco use must be carried out by all possible means and on all fronts.

Our group adopts a principled attitude towards this draft and will vote against the legislative amendment. This law was discussed in the previous legislature for two years in the Chamber and Senate. The political representatives knew what interests were at stake and then made a resolute choice: public health over economic interest. We hope that you will honour this tradition and give your voice with confidence, whatever pressure is exercised. I would like to remind the doctors among you of the opinion of the Royal Academies of Medicine of 29 September 2001, which makes it clear that the prohibition of any direct or indirect publicity of tobacco products remains the absolute priority of prevention policy.

Mr. Valkeniers, the floor is yielded to Mr. by Paque! If you want to argue, do it out.

Mr. President, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, dear Mr. Valkeniers, tobacco is harmful to health. And worse it kills. About 20,000 smokers die in our country every year. This is a problem that can in no way be denied. Fortunately, the fight against tobacco did not begin today. It began for many years, even before the appearance of environmental parties and before a first definition of sustainable development was attempted. Public authorities, medical professions, mutualist movements, anti-cancer associations, educators and many others, as well as parliamentarians from all walks and convictions, smokers and non-smokers, ex-smokers or repentants, have been mobilizing for many years against this plague that attracts so many young people. Thus, we already have a large arsenal of preventive, dissuasive and repressive measures: the smoking ban in public places that deserves to be better enforced, the regulation of non-smoking spaces, communication and awareness-raising campaigns that need to be continuously updated and supplemented.

In 1997, Parliament decided to give a strong signal to ban tobacco advertising. At the time, the MP supported this law. Today, we do not want to question this principle. Subsequently, the Court decided to postpone the entry into force of the law from 2000 to 2003 for international events. Meanwhile, some MPs had already introduced a bill similar to the one we are considering today. On 28 October, the FIA Formula 1 Committee removed the Grand Prix of Francorchamps from its schedule. At the beginning of November, a bill aimed at granting a derogation to postpone the entry into force of the ban on advertising to 1 October 2006 is filed with the Senate. It was voted by the CDH on November 21.

Today, everyone has to take responsibility. The regional economy is important. It is true that no one can count the economic impacts of a Formula 1 grand prize close to the euro. But among these impacts, as some of my colleagues have already done, I will first mention the Horeca sector. Just ask the hotelers, restaurants, coffee makers in the area – a region that goes far beyond the municipalities of Francorchamps, Stavelot, M or Spa – to realize the drama that the suppression of this demonstration represents. Then come, and it is not negligible, all the associations, all the sports clubs, all the youth movements that draw from this activity the necessary financial resources in order to carry out their actions. Not to mention all the small and medium-sized ⁇ that, from close to far, make a significant portion of their turnover in this single weekend. On a regional and national level, this Grand Prix also has impacts in terms of notoriety and tourism. This notoriety concerns as much Wallonia as Brussels or Flanders.

The Grand Prix of Belgium in Formula 1 is a phenomenon compared to the whole problem of tobacco, with positive consequences, proportionally much greater than the negative effect that some attribute to it. It would be a mistake to mix the two issues.

The solution proposed today will allow all stakeholders to find their account: on the one hand, the supporters of the economic argument, who will ⁇ the maintenance of an essential activity for a whole region, and, on the other hand, the supporters of health, who are not necessarily different from the supporters of the economic argument since the debate that we are dealing with has revealed an absolute need to lead a real fight against smoking.

Today’s vote does not prevent the adoption of legislation on the Anti-Tobacco Fund. This fund must be sufficiently funded to enable the implementation of research, screening and prevention actions to the extent of the efforts of the tobacco industry to attract smokers. It must be funded by the tobacco industry and smokers. It must be a public, independent and influential fund with guarantees that the tobacco industry is not represented. This is also the reason I filed, and others of my colleagues have done so in the Senate, a bill establishing a smoking fund, which we have been demanding for many years. But it’s hard to see that the Greens’ health ministers, both at the federal and EU level, have done nothing over the past three years to reduce tobacco consumption. The creation of a fund for the fight against smoking has, of course, always been included in the general policy notes of the Minister of Health, but despite many questions and inquiries, this measure has never been implemented. Even worse, this proposal was no longer even in the 2003 policy note. Today, the Greens are taking for Schumacher of the anti-tobacco fight. No one will say that nothing guarantees the holding of the 2003 Formula 1 Grand Prix of Belgium if we vote the law today. It is true. But if the Grand Prix had been awarded to another nation, the battle would have been finally lost. So we still have a chance. We have to grasp it fully even though we don’t have the absolute guarantee, today, that the Grand Prix will take place in 2003.

Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, the bill that is being submitted to us is not intended to eliminate purely and simply tobacco advertising, nor to question the 1997 law and its principles. It aims to grant an exception of three to four hours to the Formula 1 Grand Prix at Francorchamps so that an entire region can live. Whether this Grand Prix takes place in Francorchamps or Bahrain, Moscow or Beijing, all TV channels in Belgium will broadcast images with tobacco advertising, whether we like it or not. The same advertisement will appear the next day, on the front pages of all newspapers, magazines, specialized magazines, whether we like it or not. So can we afford, in the name of purely ideological principles, to lose a tool that has vital economic consequences for the companies of the region and even the country? Can we afford to lose a tool that plays a vital social role for many associations, sports clubs, youth movements that, in a single weekend, manage to close a budget for a whole year? Can we lose a tool that gives our country a first-choice showcase in dozens of countries all over the world? The answer to these three questions is no. That is why the CDH group will support, as it did in the Senate, this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that I do not smoke, otherwise I would get colleague Valkeniers over me.

The [...]

I would doubt that. Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that this would be a short debate because everything that has been said today has been repeated to boredom in the House and the Senate. This law threatens to become historical, not so much because of its content, but because of the number of times the law is questioned again. I could understand this when new elements are introduced. Since the end of 1997, however, nothing has changed. The Formula 1 in Francorchamps existed already. The debate was held in 1996 and 1997. There was extensive discussion of the economic and social aspects of a possible disappearance of Francorchamps. Since then, we have repeated this discussion several times and today it is no different. Despite the fact that all these arguments were extensive at the time, the law was passed in 1997 by a large majority. 89 members voted in favour, 22 voted against and 29 abstained.

I have heard Mr. Coveliers referring to recent history to point out that the VLD voted against at that moment. I would like to hear Mr. Valkeniers say...

I voted in favour because Minister Colla promised to stop smoking if I voted in favour. He endured it for three years. Today he recovers his damage.

It was obligated by your father.

I didn’t know that my father had such a great impact in this Room at the time, but that’s not the point. If the VLD today states that the law was unanimously passed at the time...

It is derived from an amendment of the SP.A in the Senate.

These are heavy words I have to hear here from my socialist colleagues.

That is the truth!

These are heavy words, which I regret. But I was not talking about the PS voting behavior, but about the VLD voting behavior. Collega Coveliers praised that they had voted against in 1997. Collega Valkeniers has already made a correction, because he voted in favour at the time.

... persuade, but that is not going to last.

Collega Valkeniers lets his voting behavior in this so depend on whether or not reducing one or several colleagues from smoking.

At the time, I was able to convince at least some. The Greens cannot say that yet, because they cannot convince their own people.

In addition to colleague Valkeniers, seven other VLD Chamber members abstained. Therefore, it was not only colleague Valkeniers. I say this for the correct reflection of the recent history, which has just been cited. In other words, for us today, no new element has been added to the file. I do not fully understand why, because there is no new argument or new fact, we should change our voting behavior.

As regards the substance of the case, the aspect of public health, to which colleague Bacquelaine has dedicated four-fifths of his presentation, though he considers that this was not the case. In this regard, I think that the arguments against tobacco advertising today are still the same as five years ago.

In short, it comes down to this. Scientifically it is as follows.

First, smoking is the leading cause of death in Belgium with fifteen thousand to twenty thousand premature deaths due to tobacco use each year.

Second, tobacco advertising effectively leads to tobacco use.

The [...]

In fact ! Therefore, I ask why it should be repeated for the tenth time, colleague?

Third, especially young people are sensitive to tobacco advertising. This is not what we, the SP.A group, say, but that is what is shown by studies of major international organizations such as the World Bank and the World Health Organization.

If we know all of this, it is indeed incomprehensible that we would allow advertising for such a harmful product, which, in addition, is ⁇ addictive. Tobacco advertising aims precisely to influence young people, to make young people addicted, to make them smoke for a long time, to make money and ultimately to make those people, after so much time, also die early.

For a moment, Mr. Henry wants to interrupt you. Do you want to take the word?

I would like to join in the debate.

I take note of it.

The ban on tobacco advertising is a good thing. Each exception is one too much. These arguments of public health should actually be enough to vote today against that bill, that bill.

What are the arguments of the supporters of a delay? This means that priority is given to the socio-economic importance of the region. Of course, we understand the arguments put forward for this purpose. Of course, we understand the possible socio-economic consequences for a particular region. I would like to say three things.

The first thing is that the socio-economic importance is apparently outdated today. I’m not saying that with triumph, but I’m certain that Ecclestone himself says that in 2003 the match at Francorchamps will not take place. He adds that even if the Belgian Parliament would approve an exception, that the 2003 calendar will no longer change.

All the newspapers were full of them. No matter what the vote will be today, in 2003 — unfortunately ⁇ — there will be no Formula 1 race in Francorchamps. Their

Why should we be satisfied with this? It is not us that decides whether the Formula 1 race will take place. We do not decide on that. Their

Second, VLD colleague Germeaux also talked about this in the committee, it was not the ban on tobacco advertising that caused Francorchamps to disappear from the calendar. In France, England and Germany, there is also a ban on tobacco advertising. There are still Formula 1 competitions. Why should Francorchamps move? This is clear to everyone. This should be because there are other countries and circuits that are pushing and coming to the Formula 1 bonuses with much more lucrative proposals. That is the real reason why Francorchamps should apparently disappear. Their

Collega Bacquelaine later said that it all has to do with a load book that would be there. A book that would be valid for two years. He said that when we can’t do this anymore, we have to blame ourselves for the disappearance of the Formula 1 race. I hope that colleague Bacquelaine also understands what he is saying with this. Even if in 2003 and 2004 the Formula 1 race would continue in Francorchamps, then from 2005 there can no longer be a load book with tobacco advertising for Francorchamps. We must follow what has been decided at the European level. That means — in the logic of colleague Bacquelaine — that from that moment the match will leave. Their

Third, I would like to refer to the example of Zolder. I think the example of Zolder has shown that the disappearance of the Formula 1 race should not lead to a catastrophe, to a social drama. On the contrary, I think Zolder is doing better today than ever before. Their

My conclusion, colleagues, and the conclusion of the SP.A group is that we are going to act consistently. We will consistently incorporate our 1997 attitude into our voting behavior today. We will vote against the Francorchamps Act. For us, the importance of public health continues to prevail over the importance of the money-oriented and capitalist tobacco industry. Their

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I find it remarkable that the supporters of this law and of this delay have been able to argue without difficulty in this hemisphere. I note that the opponents of this postponement were continually interrupted. There were even attempts to prevent them from speaking. I deeply regret this.

Mr. Vanvelthoven, you are an opponent and you are not interrupted. We have the many inscrits. Democracy is reine here.

Mr. Speaker, if democracy is the queen, this will flourish the election campaign tonight. I really have the impression that in our assembly everyone suddenly rages and bombs the torso. On the side of mr. Bacquelaine, everyone agrees, we have those who have held the top of the pavement for at least three years at the service of the market and deregulation. They are increasingly arrogant, this is obvious. I have never seen you like this, Mr. Bacquelaine. And then there are those who swallow swallow on swallow and docilely accompany the previous ones for a good time and who suddenly find the way of a certain rebellion. I thought I could see, a moment ago, the flash of a feeling of rebellion in Mr. Mr.’s gaze. Tavernier, a rebellion which, however, seems to me relatively late. I wonder, dear friends of ECOLOAGALEV, if your communication and political marketing boxes have chosen the theme tonight, while the orientation `"all to the market, all to the security" has not ceased to amplify under this legislature.

Mr Decroly, you claim that you have seen the one or the other in the eyes of Minister Tavernier. How can you see that from gender traiter?

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, there are many who are arguing today on issues that seem more and more symbolic to me as the evening unfolds.

I mean tobacco and this law that damages another of 1997 or the release of nuclear power that is the next dish on our menu and of which it is already said that it will be damaged no later than 2003 or 2004. I wonder if it is the same ones who, on much more concrete issues immediately at the time of voting over the last three years, have issued the aligned votes they have issued. I think of the social benefits of the most disadvantaged, who have only seen an increase of 4% over four years. Only four percent in four years is hardly inflation. I think of the tax reform project that makes the rich richer; I think of the abolition of the 1974 law on the minimex; I think of the Sabena; I think of the sale of weapons; I think of the Americanization of the electoral law, of the imprisonment, ladies and gentlemen, of asylum seekers and young criminals in Everberg. Finally, Mr. Bacquelaine, I think of those who deliberately let the drug policy, under an unprecedented strain of cacophonic political communications, be embroiled again; I will return to it in a moment. by

What is happening in our assembly today? We are discussing a law, a law that has been adopted by our Parliament and that prohibits advertising on tobacco and tobacco products, a law that has been adopted since 1997 and whose effects are still being postponed. And we are only in 2002, Mr. Secretary of State, only five years after 1997. We are not in 2014. So dear friends, yesterday the ecotaxes, today the public for tobacco, tomorrow, many of you are already announcing, the cancellation of the plan to get out of nuclear power. Do these legislative Echternach processions really serve legal certainty and the rule of law in our country, for citizens as well as for ⁇ ? Are they, beyond the somewhat folkloric aspect of some moments of the debate tonight, serving the credibility of political institutions?

I ask myself a lot of questions and I ask myself even more, ladies and gentlemen, to hear some deviations from the debate tonight. Some will eventually lead to the belief that political arbitration can only be conducted from an appreciation of the behavior and privacy choices of individuals, ⁇ of the decision makers.

I absolutely do not understand this kind of personalization and privatization of the political debate, which would mean that someone who smokes his clope from time to time does not have the right, politically and according to the mandate and the program on which he was elected, to develop here arguments and refuse to detricate a law that was voted by a majority of our assembly in 1997.

( by Mr. Vincent Decroly then addresses the banks of the PS ) Frankly, it is not because you support legal cohabitation that I would force you to practice concubination. It is not because you are in favor of tolerance and equal rights for homosexuals that I will require you to switch to homosexuality. Not because you have opened the democratic and legal field on euthanasia that I will force you to do it for yourself or for your loved ones and even less to abortion. I really don’t understand this kind of incredible reduction from the scope of the debates we have here to the exchanges of recently about each other’s habits of smoking or not smoking, in the commission or in the cafeteria, in our assembly, at home, in front of their children or not. But where are we going? What is the scope of this kind of debate for the credibility of our institutions?

What I see in the background, ladies, gentlemen, is that today more than yesterday the power of the lobbies, which have been denounced so often in our assembly, has increased! As I said, a moment ago, at the time of the adoption of the ecotaxes, there was nevertheless no one in our assembly in 1992-1993, if I have a good memory, to say that they would be dismantled a few months, a few years later.

But here, under this majority, there are political leaders, notably from the reformist movement and the Socialist Party, to say — even though we are going to vote tonight on the progressive exit of nuclear energy, at a legislative enclave that will open in a few months — that this law of exit from nuclear power can be easily repealed. I really ask myself questions about this power of lobbies, about this power of the market, about this domination of private interests, about our capacity for debate and forward political arbitration!

Finally, Mr. Bacquelaine — I will conclude with this — by attacking you as you did to Mrs. Maréchal, Minister of the French Community, you admire a quite proven technique of the majority rainbow. I have already seen it often developed and not only by representatives of your group. It is a technique of cross-attack in some way that consists, for example, in drug policy, to take you, with a lot of aggressiveness and bullet in the head, to what would or would not be done within the French Community. But you make the complete impasse on the composition of the majority in the French Community. You forget that you are largely associated with the government of the French Community: of course the Minister Ecolo Maréchal is part of it, but your party occupies a very dominant place and presides over it! It is mr. Hasquin, of your party, who chairs this government of the French Community, of which you say so much bad in matters of drug policy.

Mr. Bacquelaine, I also find it strange that, in your tactics tonight, by engaging in such an aggressive and demonstrative criticism of the drug prevention programme of the government of the French Community, which you lead, you also make the radical impasse on your own political responsibility within the rainbow majority of Parliament and federal governments, where it does not escape anyone that you also occupy a place of choice, not to say predominant. Now, Mr. Bacquelaine, a moment ago, you made yourself the defender, with good people and brave young people, of a drug policy that would be realistic, effective, well thought by the “doctor” that you are. Now, the rainbow majority of your federal government and of the assembly in which you sit has, so far, only been able to give birth to a message to young people even more vague than that of the previous majority.

Those young people who today believe in good faith that cannabis, in particular, is decriminalized while the Criminal Code, the subject of which you are responsible, has not evolved from a iota, your majority preferring to limit themselves to speeches.

It is also a message, and I fear that it will be received five out of five, Mr. Bacquelaine, to the cannabis mafia that allies with your ambiguity to stimulate consumption, especially young people from disadvantaged environments to whom, obviously, it should not be repeated twice that today, the cannabis consumption policy is to tolerance. There was, however, an alternative, Mr. Bacquelaine, dear friends of ECOLO and the PS, dear Mr. Moriau, to which you turned your back too quickly. You abdicated on this point as well as on many others. I want to speak of an alternative regulation in accordance with the bill I submitted. This regulation is the only one that takes the right measure of the failure of the drug prohibition. It is the only one that takes into account the willingness to tackle the mafia drug markets and that simultaneously improves, in its objectives and in its implementation, the public health, especially of young people.

With the regulation, your majority, Mr. Moriau, Mrs. Gerkens, Mr. Bacquelaine, could have moved from the inconsistent and even dangerously counterproductive blabla of your majority’s sweeping tolerance to cannabis to an attitude that, at the same time, would hold young people a truth speech with displaced tags, but much clearer on the permission and prohibition in terms of consumption of products in our society. She is also the only one who could have, under your reforming, renewable, taboo-breaking and sympathetic majority, the only one who could have cut the grass under the foot of the drug mafia by finally confiscating their power on a clandestine market and ensuring the regulation of this market, its recovery in hand by the public authority. Instead of limiting your policy at the federal level to speeches that are hardly more brilliant fundamentally, neither in their costume nor in their content than those of Ms. Marshal that you denounce, there is a moment. Your federal drug policy is a signal that dopes the organized crime of dealers, but also cheats their victims.

I was elected in 1995 and 1999 on a voluntary program to reduce the impact of advertising in general and the impact of advertising on tobacco in particular.

I voted, in 1997, the law on this advertising on tobacco products. I will therefore today oppose its detricotage, in the same way that I have respected, since 1995, at all times and on the occasion of all the votes I have cast here, the program on which a number of colleagues and myself have been elected.

The word is now to mr. Henry asked to intervene briefly.

( ... ...

Mr Dufour, he asked to intervene briefly! I cannot refuse to be brief.

First of all, I would like to address Mr. Vanvelthoven, who began his speech by saying that there is nothing new since this law was passed. Yes, there is a new element: there is no more Grand Prix! I think this is an event that can lead us to reflection.

Then I would like to restore the truth to my SP.A colleagues and explain how things happened at the time. We were in coalition with the CVP, PSC and SP and we had to vote on very difficult social security budgets. Your ministers, at the time, rightly reminded us of the impact of smoking and its effects on social security (the cost of asthma, cancer, etc.) It is true that these are quite significant costs. We therefore subscribed to this logic and endorsed — and I would endorse it today — the principle of smoking prohibition or tobacco advertising.

Mr. Vanvelthoven, we also wanted to respect your father’s struggle to ban tobacco advertising. At that time, some, like Mr. Dufour and our friends in Liège, drew our attention to the impact that this could have on an activity such as the Grand Prix of Francorchamps. We signed our agreement to vote on this text in the House.

But I would like to remind you that we were promised, at the time, that in the Senate, we would adopt an amendment that would be inspired by European legislation. This amendment, I negotiated it, sometimes in Strasbourg! At that time, Ms. Lydia Maximus, SP senator, was a member of the Senate Social Security and Health Committee, an assembly where the amendment was rejected and voted against. This is how the law was accepted, while we voted in good faith because we were in favor of principles and were promised, at the same time, this amendment that saved an economic activity.

I would like to address the Socialists because we must still demonstrate solidarity. What is it to be a Socialist? I think it is working for the general interest. by

If one wants to look at the general interest in public health, it is of course about ⁇ ining the ban on tobacco advertising. But if we also want to vote for the general interest in economic and social matters, it is about allowing, for a day two years over, an activity that gives not only a positive image of Belgium but that also has economic and social impacts, my dear friends, because you will touch people who need this to earn their lives in this region.

I make an appeal to reason. By voting on this bill, two objectives are met: ⁇ ining the ban on tobacco and allowing for two days economic activity. by

But those, my dear colleagues, who do not want to take into account the general interest, those who stick only to symbols, not only will they not prevent tobacco advertising on other circuits but they will also kill economic activity in a region that, believe me, often encounters many difficulties. (The applause)

Mr. Speaker, I had registered myself but I see that you are writing "advertising for tobacco products". Nevertheless, I thought it was about the piece — you will have to confirm it to me — 2143/001 and then I read "Draft bill amending the date of entry into force of the law of 10 /12/

Yes, but that can’t be on the screen. That is too long.

I am in the right debate.

I am slowly starting to wonder what we are doing tonight. I refer, Mr. Vanvelthoven, to what I stated on Friday at that late or early hour. I also speak in my own name. I am not against the 1997 law. It cannot. I would like to see who is behind tobacco advertising that is drawing young people into a disease. As a physician, I am there, like Mr. Bacquelaine, the victim of, if I can say so. Nobody is in favor of this, but you are still questioning this here.

The [...]

No, this is another discussion that is unfortunately united here in an amalgam of four files, if you allow me a moment, Mr. Tant. Because what do I see here? Advertising is being thrown on the table today. That is not the matter, I think. The relationship between tobacco advertising and health is also not in my opinion. Everyone is convinced of this. The Tobacco Prevention Fund, who doubts about it? I am not. You are ? and no. Everyone is convinced of this. But what do they do? One puts everything in one pot and one says today that one will have Francorchamps to pay the bill. So I see it. Mr. Leterme, what is the future of your rally? I ask you this question from Ieper. Mr. Vandeurzen, what is the future of Zolder? I just heard that Zolder saved himself. No, Zolder has not saved himself. At the moment, Soleil is a second... Their

The [...]

Mr. Schoofs, I do not follow your reasoning. Neither we, nor they. We are both losers. That is your reasoning, and I do not follow it. In addition to Zolder, we also have a global event in Genk. I would like to go back to the text that says: "As regards the events and activities organized at the global level, article 3 of this law enters into force." In Genk we also have, Mr Vandeurzen, a global event. I would find it unfair to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of tobacco here. I think we are all convinced of this. I do not think this is the debate. Then I look at the French-speaking colleagues and I admire the way they defend an activity in their region. Sometimes I wonder why we don’t do that, with verve. Why Why ? This is really important for the region. I do not think that one should be ashamed of this. I also think that it should be done for that. I find the arguments you cite here weak in the end, because you jump on arguments that are not there. This is about an event. Finally, Francorchamps was equally blackmailed by that contract. I am convinced that if the organizers of the circuit had had the opportunity in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 to escape the contract with the tobacco industry, they would have done it. They simply cannot do that. I just heard the previous speaker: “Francorchamps’ death was a certainty.” Why Why ? Why can’t one come back to a decision? Why can’t one make an exception to an exceptional fact? That is where it actually comes down. A global event is an exceptional fact. What is asked here? An exception for an exceptional event.

I would not know why we could oppose it. I will also support that. I would like to say one more thing. I wonder if we are conducting the process of automotive sport here, Mr. Leterme. I have a bit of the impression of yes.

I would like to ask Mr Germeaux the following. I have a VLD colleague who lives in Ieper. I would like to ask where Mr. Lahaye is in this debate about the future of Ieper. (From the VLD group it is noted that Mr Lahaye is present in the House.)

I have the impression that sometimes one is making the process of motorsport and that there is a somewhat envious reaction, which I regret. I will give you an example. One was killed during the rally of Ieper and this almost led to a popular uprising. Probably right. I then look at Lommel, where a dead man fell during a football match. I assume that they did not immediately have the same consequences. Clearly, it is true that in certain sports, something must be possible that is absolutely not possible in other sports. I have the impression that for one sport one closes the eyes, while for the other sport one tolerates a lot more. This is a feeling, this is not an accusation, Mr. Vanvelthoven.

The comparison is of course flawed. The death that fell in Ieper was a consequence of the sporting event itself. The regrettable death after a match between Lommel and Anderlecht was not the result of the sporting event itself, but of a number of hotheads who thought after the match outside the stadium they had to do something to make themselves interesting. Your comparison is completely flawed and I regret that you are drawing this into discussion here today.

It is just a question I ask in the approach to the problem. I had the impression, Mr. Vanvelthoven, that here at some point the automotive sport itself was fished. When I started, I asked whether this was about advertising for tobacco products or the fact that we are asking for a change in the date of entry into force.

Furthermore, I am afraid — and this to conclude — that the circuit of Francorchamps and the organization of the Grand Prix have been wrapped up in a clutter of discussions about tobacco. In fact, this has nothing to do with the organization and this is ⁇ not the right debate.

I conclude with the fact that as a doctor I ⁇ do not feel involved in a discussion about tobacco and tobacco advertising. I support the global event Francorchamps and I will therefore approve the present proposal.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I will be very brief, especially since I cannot equate the magistral appeal launched by our colleague Jean-Pol Henry, who called to the conscience of the members of this parliament. I will insist on my part on the ECOLO-AGALEV parliamentarians and our friends of the SP.A. I listened to Peter Vanvelthoven and I will tell him this: There is no worse fool than the one who does not change his mind. It is a great statesman who said it, Paul-Henri Spaak, who used to change his mind from time to time. by

As for me, I will not change my mind. I voted against Louis Vanvelthoven’s bill in 1997. I am against advertising in general, because it is paid by consumers, some of whom do not have too much money. In principle, I’m against advertising but I don’t see why tobacco advertising should be banned two years before Europe. I say to the SP.A members who are, like us, close to the sensitivity of the workers, that this risks to be very expensive in terms of jobs in Wallonia and Flanders. I ask them to think carefully about the vote they are going to make soon. I recommend that the former socialists think carefully about the dramatic consequences that will be experienced, as André Frédéric said, by the region of Verviers and the province of Liège.

I will tell the environmentalists that, if they want to be right earlier than Europe, I believe that the population of all Wallonia will not fail to learn the lessons at the next election. Honestly, you are pushing the pedal too far and you are lacking in clairvoyance by not acknowledging that we were wrong in 1997. Agree to give an exemption for two or three years so that an activity and a region do not die too quickly. Otherwise, environmentalists will be sanctioned in the next election and I hope that no one will forget the message I send to them today.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I will not add much to what my colleague, Mr. by Jean-Paul Henry by

At this stage of the debate, I would like to say that in a few moments we will know the verdict of this House. Your vote is expected with anxiety, impatience, anxiety, hope. The hope of many people is likely to be disappointed if your vote is negative. by

I honestly think the tone of this debate was tough.

At some point in this regard, Mr. Decroly isn’t wrong — we’ve fooled personal attacks, which is never indicated in a debate that should remain a debate of ideas. Obviously, let us be careful not to cause unnecessary harm to a region, not to attack an additional symbol, which allows this country to continue to exist.

Before drawing a conclusion, since the government is present at this debate, as Mr. Langendries, I would like to ask a few very short questions to the Minister of Public Health. Is it true that an agreement was reached on Monday between the 15 Ministers of Health to ban part of tobacco advertising from 1st August 2005? Is the answer positive? (A sign of consent from the Minister) The answer is positive. Is it true that within the Community of the fifteen European Ministers of Health, only the German and English ministers opposed the new rule, the German minister for economic reasons related to advertising, the English minister, because the date of application was anticipated. Is it accurate? The German government is made up of the Social Democrats and the Greens. by

Is it true, Mr. Minister, that the new directive no longer bans advertising made by display or in the cinemas? (A sign of consent from the Minister) I am in possession of the report given by Mr. Frédéric Soumois in "Le Soir" on 3 December last year. The journalist says clearly: “The new directive no longer bans advertising made by display or in theaters. It also does not concern indirect advertising: ashes, umbrellas, and especially that of derivative products: clothing, shoes.” Is this true, Mr. Minister? If the answer is positive, I do not understand, dear friends of Agalev, that you do not accept that, for 1 hour 45 minutes, once a year, one can not allow the Grand Prix of Francorchamps to exist, while Mr. Agalev, who is a member of the United States of America, is a member of the United States of America. Tavernier, in his capacity as Minister of Health, has accepted a directive, which allows advertising that, until now, was not allowed. (The applause)

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Mr. Colleagues, in 1997, I contested, in the Health Committee, the proposal for a law aimed at banning tobacco advertising. All my arguments were, at the time, supported by my colleague Philippe Seghin, who sat with me in this committee and who also developed them again last week.

I had, in opposition to the law of 1997, three main arguments. First, there was no reason to anticipate European legislation, as only a global ban could be truly effective. This was the reason for the European Directive.

Secondly, I was and remain convinced that counter-advertising, which could have been fueled by a portion of the revenue linked to advertising itself, would be far more effective than the prohibition of advertising. This belief is now shared by all advertising and marketing specialists who know that an old cowboy who spit his lungs every day on television would have far more impact than the most attractive advertising.

Ladies and gentlemen, today it is unfortunately proven that, despite the prohibition of advertising, more and more young people smoke. Studies that would prove that advertising makes smoking are therefore not convincing, just as are not convincing the majority of studies to which, as everyone knows, one can make say everything one wants.

There was a third argument. If the 1997 law were passed, it would destroy the area of Spa-Stavelot-Malmedy and permanently undermine the visibility of our entire country abroad. Today we are gathered for a new reflection on the subject and we are preparing to vote on a proposal for a derogation. As I said in 1997, if you stick to the Formula 1 and one or the other mechanical competition, whether they are at Francorchamps or elsewhere in Belgium, there can be no question of impact on public health. Indeed, if we did not vote for the derogation and if, consequently, the Grand Prix of Belgium disappeared, another Grand Prix would replace it in a country where advertising remains permitted. And this Grand Prix, and therefore the advertisement, would be seen on television for all Belgians and all other Formula 1 fans. Taking into account what has been said, the anticipation of the European Directive, which previously fixed the cessation of advertising in 2006, and which will be reduced to 2005, will have the sole consequence of causing a distortion of competition between candidate countries to Formula 1 and the disappearance of a major media event.

If we lose the Grand Prix, even for two years in 2003 and 2004, we risk not being able to recover it and its disappearance would have a training effect. The vast majority of communications companies and automotive brands would be less attracted to Francorchamps, by a circuit that would lose the visibility that Formula 1 gives it.

Finally, I think that in the case that we are dealing with now, as in other times, we must take into account the principle of proportionality. Can we really, under the pretext that 30,000 Belgian spectators attend the Belgian Grand Prix live and that it is necessary to avoid putting them in the presence of advertising — advertising that in the absence of seeing live at Francorchamps, they will still see on television — cause the loss of one of the events that most talk about our country?

And at the same time, can we cause a real economic earthquake across an entire region?

Dear colleagues, as Deputy Mayor of Malmedy, the city co-owner of the circuit of Francorchamps, I count on your pragmatism and your objectivity. At the time of voting, you will show that neither intolerance nor integrism have their place in this assembly, as should not have their place the excess of words that could have been said tonight.

Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, that those of you who would have felt unjustly assaulted by one or another colleague would like to consider that it was due to some nervousness caused by the importance of the moment and apologize for it.

Finally, one of our colleagues said: “We will vote against Francorchamps.” This evening, it is not a matter of voting for or against Francorchamps, it is a matter of voting for the economy, for the visibility of our country abroad without harm to public health. I will invite you, dear colleagues, to the next Formula 1 race at Francorchamps in paddocks with Michael Schumacher.

I thank you for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I was not scheduled to speak tonight. I just asked Mr. Bacquelaine, my group leader, to be able to address me to you, to say you a few words. I have heard you all. I am not going to question tobacco advertising today. I think it would be reasonable to say that we are responsible people, who convey an international image.

We all suffered the terrible consequences on the image and prestige of Belgium from the loss of the Sabena.

Daniel Bacquelaine recently reminded that we were talking about the Belgian Grand Prix. You must know that I’ve always been in the middle of Formula 1, having my hobby. And I must confess that just then, I was serene, telling myself that today, we would vote for the survival of the Grand Prix, for two more years, with all the impact in terms of employment that it represents. I want to prove this to all the people present in the public tribunes. I am a Brussels. This is not a political retreat. These people will not vote for me. But the message I want to send is this: my father is French-speaking, my mother is Flemish. I am, for my part, a pure product "zinneke" and I am proud to be. We are defending the image of our country. It is inconceivable for me that people around the world tell you that they do not know where Belgium is located. by

We have a sand-to-sand debate here. We will comply with the EU Directive in 2005. In the meantime, we will continue to ridicule ourselves. In addition, it is terribly damaging to the economic environment.

I call on your common sense, the responsibility you will take now for two days is important. You’re laughing, but in Flanders you’re also affected. This is not just about Wallonia. I am Brussels, I am attached to my country and I don’t want to be one of the people who will bring Belgium into a meltdown. Everything is being criticized now. They criticize the houses. We can also criticize the advertising for the toy when we approach the feast of St. Nicholas. You can criticize advertising for alcohol, why not do it? Do you think that the message they won’t see at Francorchamps, they won’t see it on TF1 or elsewhere? by

Please listen to me, gentlemen of the SP.A., we have almost finished. The Fossilers of SP.A. They don’t even listen, I find that unqualifiable. by

The [...]

It doesn’t matter to me, I do it with my heart and passion. The image of our country that we convey in the media is important. Let’s stop attacking everything that works well in Belgium. I will stop there.

Mr. Langendries, would you like to intervene in the debate?

I would just like to ask the Minister to come to the tribune. by

I do not know if mr. Eerdekens can read on his lips but he said the minister had answered "yes" to his three questions. I can’t hear anything and I can’t read on my lips. by

A leader of the majority group has just asked questions to a minister of his majority. This Minister of Public Health has just attended a meeting of the Fifteen and, in this context, he has taken a number of decisions that are in perfect contradiction with the values advocated by his political group. All this deserves that he comes to speak in the tribune, in front of the television cameras, and that he does not hide behind his bench.

Mr Langendries, as far as TV cameras are concerned, the Room is very well equipped, there is no problem. I cannot force the minister. Everyone has the right to speak, either at the tribune or from his bench. If the Minister prefers to talk about his bank, it is his right. You called him to the tribune, he prefers to stay where he is, what do you want? De spreken van op de plaats die he verkiest.

Mr. Speaker, what is wrong is when a group leader of the majority interrogates the minister and the minister turns around to interrogate his group leader in order to ask him what he should answer.

You know a lot more than I think.

Mr. Speaker, of course, I also thank Mr. Langendries for his offer and his request to address me to him from the tribune. I prefer to answer very explicitly from the government banks, for the very simple reason that the attitude of the government in this file has been that this is a parliamentary initiative, where the government as such does not take a position. Therefore, here too, by speaking on this bench, I want to make a clear distinction between the members of parliament of the various groups, who have debated with each other on the bench in their own name or in the name of their group on the bench. We are here to note. I have clearly expressed the position of the government.

Ask the Minister for an answer, listen! The Minister speaks!

Thus I come to the punctual, informative question on the scope and content of the Directive. The reading of Article 1 of the Directive makes it clear that it concerns advertising in favour of tobacco products and thus the promotion of those products in daily newspapers and other publications, radio broadcasts, in information services and also through sponsorship from the tobacco industry, including the free distribution of tobacco products. Their

Finally, as regards the date of accession, it is referred to 31 July 2005. This is very simple as information. The attitude of most of the other countries was very clear that they wanted to go further, including European ones. They continue on a number of national levels, but they accept this here — including those who voted against it — as a common minimum that in a number of cases — which depends on each Member State individually — will be continued. I believe that this provides all the data that one may need and that the attitude of the government as a government is also clear.

Mr. Speaker, I ask at this time of the debate to be able to communicate the documents of which Mr. Tavernier just read only Article 1, i.e. the object. There is no communication regarding the decision itself. Are these decisions or not in contradiction with what we are going to vote today? I wish to be able to obtain, with all members here present, communication of the text and proceed immediately after a suspension of session.

Mr President Mr. The Minister has read the first article of this new directive. I had asked a third question which was very precise and which was whether the new directive no longer banned advertising made by display or in the cinemas and whether it was true, as expressed by Le Soir of 3 December 2002, that the new directive also did not concern indirect advertising, ashes, umbrellas, and especially that of derivative products, clothing and footwear. I would like to have a precise answer to these precise questions.

I read where it hits. I think it is clear. In this context, I repeat that it is the common minimum programme behind which the European Council of Ministers has stood by a qualified majority. It is the same text that has gained a majority in the European Parliament.

I repeat my request but I assume that the Minister does not see any inconvenience in that we obtain, immediately, communication of this document in such a way that we can read the answer to Mr. Mr. question. by Eerdekens. Since you do not provide it to us orally, we may receive it in writing.

In order for the debate to be correct and comprehensive in relation to the questions raised, it seems to me indispensable that the political groups are in possession of this document.

I have a small language problem, I do not know in which language the text is. The Deputy Secretary went out to investigate the matter. It appears that the text is only in French.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add, on behalf of my group, that if the Minister of Health is unable or unwilling to deliver the document to the members of the Chamber, I consider that you, as the chairman of the Chamber, should make the document available to the members of the Chamber so that, as colleague Langendries correctly asked us, we can immediately bend over the text and see what the answers to Mr. Eerdekens’s legitimate questions are.

Can I ask for one indulgence to the Room? Apparently, I only have a single text. It may be so, I don’t know. If that were not a problem and no precedent — I also do not want misery — then I would immediately have that text multiplied. I can’t do magic at this hour of the evening. Is this text complete?

I have the directive here. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that we held a committee meeting this week to discuss the report on this bill. We held that committee meeting after a qualified majority vote was held in the European Council of Ministers. No one asked me for this document. It is now...

The committee met on November 30 and I have the impression that this decision will be taken later.

I think that decision is wiser. Mr. Langendries, I think there is a mistake. The committee, according to the report, met on November 30. In my opinion, the document came a posteriori. Therefore, it could not have been communicated to the Commission.

If the Chamber agrees that I do not do translation of text...

Unless Mr. President Tavernier in his capacity as a minister denies me, the press reports of an agreement reached on Monday between the health ministers of the European Community. So, if this agreement between ministers came well on Monday, it was after the committee meeting that met on the night of Friday to Saturday.

That is what I just said.

The text of the adopted directive should be distributed. This document is the same as the one adopted by the European Parliament. It is obviously accessible to everyone who consults the European Parliament website.

(Brouhaha in the banks) Since you are not able to go and get it, we will give it to you!

I would like to add, however, that we are living in a somewhat surreal time. We discuss a positioning of Belgium and, as the conversation, the debate and over the years, we refer to European directives, then we return to national provisions. We are here, in Belgium, with a law that had been voted with objectives and about which you are now asking for changes. You have shaken our ears with this directive that existed and that spoke of 2006. We had to prepare for this. And now that things change, you come back with document requests and compliance requests.

The question is not there. The question is what is done in Belgium and how things are viewed.

Mrs Gerkens, I propose this: on the one hand, a request for a document and on the other, a request for a suspension that I believe I cannot refuse.

This is a text for information. I am not in power without precedent to have the translation of that document made at this hour of the day. If you agree, I would like to allow a short suspension, Mr. Minister, but I must have your consent. This is unprecedented. It can also be the reverse.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the document I have provided to you is actually the official text.

I know it.

Ladies and gentlemen, you have to be a little serious. Indeed, a meeting is being held. A text will be voted. Subsequently, the Commission services send the text to all participants and to all countries. This is the official text that is distributed as such.