Proposition 50K2273

Projet de loi prévoyant de nouvelles mesures en faveur des victimes de la guerre.

General information ¶

Authors

Ecolo Muriel Gerkens
Groen Joos Wauters
MR Daniel Bacquelaine
Open Vld Hugo Coveliers
PS | SP Colette Burgeon, Claude Eerdekens, Jean-Pol Henry, Patrick Moriau
Vooruit Fred Erdman, Dirk Van der Maelen

Submission date

Feb. 6, 2003

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Roma Jew war war victim

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Pieter De Crem (CD&V) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

March 12, 2003 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

( ... ...

It is a bill. I should not have a minister, Mr. Hendrickx. You have the word in the general discussion.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, together with a number of colleagues from CD&V, we have insulted Mr. Flahaut for four years because he failed to complete the files for recognition as a refuser of work or expelled. My repeated statements worked on the minister’s nerves — I don’t know if that is why he is not present here now — especially even when some members of the majority went to support me orally in the committee. However, many results did not deliver all of this. Of the 18,907 dossiers submitted under the law of 10 May 1995 with a request for late recognition, there are now, after eight years, still one thousand unfinished while a large percentage literally and figuratively exhausted by the death of the applicant. Those who were deported or refused to work during the Second World War were then between twenty and thirty years old and are now at least eighty or ninety years old. Some will soon be centuries old. Their

Thousands of these stokoud compatriots are still waiting for the completion of their files. Will they ever be recognized? The minister has been hiding behind the staff shortage over the past four years. At the time when I submitted a motion of recommendation, in mid-February 2001, in which I immediately requested measures from the government to complete the remaining files, there were only two courageous members of the majority who supported my motion and abstained in the vote on the simple motion. The chairwoman of the Committee on Public Health, Mrs Avontroodt and Mrs De Meyer, found the manner in which these meritorious countrymen were paid simply inhuman. Their

The majority of people must be bored with this issue. Why, otherwise, suddenly—and yet at the highest urgency—a new bill signed by the most notorious colleagues of the majority? It is clear. A few days before the elections, those war victims for some politicians — apologize the word — become voter cattle. I cannot express it otherwise because respect for those war victims has never been shown. I am ashamed in the place of the majority because I call this bill the bill of the shame, shame because this majority now still wants to make the appearance of wanting to do something for this category of people that they previously left to their fate.

It testifies to a very questionable political, even immoral, institution if one now wishes to hold the appearance high on the back of these people, while all those years one has done nothing to try to satisfy a more than justified requirement. In addition, the applicants of this bill shoot off the upper corner in the category Belgenmoppen. With this bill, in fact, one wants to make it seem to meet the war victims: the displaced and refusing work, the war widows, the Gypsies and the Jews.

First of all, I would like to talk about the displaced and refused workers. The proposers of the bill consider that the life rate should be adjusted. That in itself is a very welcome proposal. However, the increase applies from 1 January 2003 and is spread over four years. From 1 January 2006, deported persons and those who refuse to work will therefore receive the full adjustment of this life allowance. This is a bill for 100-year-olds. Hypocrites cannot, because the subjects of the proposal know too well that only a very small percentage of the rightholders will be alive at that time. Members of the majority, sleep gently if you want to shake your conscience in this way because you have caused this category of Belgians misery in the past years by leaving their files away and by targeting these people in an unacceptable way. You can still save your face if you support my amendments to not spread this benefit over four years, but to pay out immediately.

Of course, it is also ⁇ good that this government wants to accommodate all war victims. There is no discrimination. The Romanians should also be able to enjoy the loyalty of this majority. Is it not ridiculous to have to hear from the Minister during the committee meeting that within the framework of this bill only one single Zigeun is eligible. However, the privacy law does not allow the man in question to be named by name. We decided to submit an amendment to replace the word “Gypsy” with the word “Gypsy”.

I would like to say something about the bill in general. The National Confederation of Political Prisoners and Rightholders of Belgium had rightly asked about the possible discrimination of some war victims and had requested to seek the advice of the State Council in advance. When I submitted a proposal for voting in the committee, it was removed by the majority.

Mr. Speaker, I was therefore ⁇ pleased that you took the initiative to seek the advice of the State Council. This happened, according to the chairman of the committee, without her knowing anything about it. Let’s be honest: the State Council is making firewood of this bill.

Normally, the applicants should make adjustments, but this is not the case. Even the reference of the State Council that the High Council for War Disabled, Old Fighters and War Victims should be consulted did not get heard. With the express support of colleague Jan Peeters of the SP.A, my amendment was accepted, thus responding to an important note of the State Council in connection with the area description to which war victims were deported. The CD&V group will abstain tomorrow at the vote on this bill. Through this, we want to once again expressly protest against the fact that still thousands of applications for recognition as deported remain unprocessed and that there is nothing to do with it, while now one is looking for a sham with proposals that will favor several centuries and one Gypsies.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, as other colleagues have already stressed, in particular in committees, this bill aims to concrete measures proposed by the Central Commission established by the law of 20 December 1996, and mainly the revaluation of certain rents.

On the other hand, it provides for specific measures in favour of the Jewish and Gypsy communities who suffered from racial persecution during the Second World War. Certainly, the proposal comes within our Assembly somewhat late, less than a month after the dissolution of the Chambers; indeed, one could regret that the legislative initiative does not emanate from the minister having in his attributions the victims of war; but despite these regrets, the CDH group will vote positively on the proposal.

I would have, however, wished that this proposal could go further, not only in the problem of Jewish orphans, but also in the free of charge of health care. A easement had already been brought by the adoption of the law of 14 February 2002, which opened the right to free health care to citizens receiving one or more war rents granted in total on the basis of at least three semesters. This proposal does not come from the Central Committee and obviously carries a budgetary cost.

The amendment that I had submitted and which I am re-submitting today tends to encounter various situations of people who, having earned the homeland, are excluded from the free of charge of health care because their state of service does not extend over the reference period, either one year or three semesters. I think in particular of the soldiers under arms on 10 May 1940 who participated in the 18 Day Campaign. This free of charge has a cost, but I think it needs to be relativized because the beneficiaries, by the fact of the years that unfortunately pass, are less and less numerous. Indeed, these people, former fighters, are all over 80 years old and deserve the recognition of the Nation, as deserve all those who have engaged in patriotic activities.

During the committee work, the Minister paid attention to this amendment which deserves, therefore, to be held by our Assembly.

Before concluding, I have two regrets. The first is due to the fact that the opinion of the State Council was unfortunately not accompanied when considering this proposal. As our colleague Mr. Hendrickx, it was finally at your initiative that this opinion of the State Council was requested. The opinion of the Council of State also contained quite relevant remarks that led to the deposit of the amendment, in particular accepted by our committee. My second regret relates to the four-year extension of the increase in the rent, which will have as an unfortunate consequence that many beneficiaries, given their high age, will unfortunately not be able to benefit from this increase.

Here, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, are the few remarks I wanted to make in this general discussion. I will no longer intervene in the discussion on the articles since I have already defended the amendment.

Thank you for your concision.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, the memory has no price, and if we today, in the face of the war victims, in a modest way — let us emphasize this — try to show appreciation, then I would — if Mr. Hendrickx was still here — say to him that I deeply regret that this is done in a political polemic. I could remind Mr Hendrickx that the law of 1969 dates back and that in the period between 1969 and 2002 nothing has been changed to this law.

Second, the famous committee to submit proposals was established in 1996. In this regard, little has been achieved, except that today we are still trying to give an answer in some way. However, I do not want to enter into that polemic because I, together with Mr. Hendrickx and others — Mr. Paque has just recalled it — indeed find that we do not sufficiently, that we stretch it too long, that we spread it over years and that a series of war victims will not find themselves in it, or that possibly even in their relatives today wounds are opened in the sense that if this had happened before, the person concerned would still have been able to enjoy it.

This is a conclusion that we will always make and which cannot be answered in a human way without prejudice to the fact that such measures must always be taken within the framework of budgetary constraints. In any case, I am pleased that the government has taken the initiative in the first place and concretizes this with a bill and that the minister accompanies it at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Erdman, I hesitate to intervene in the debate because I do not know the dossier. I have only heard colleague Hendrickx speaking. You say that he polemizes, brings it into party politics, in the tension ratio between majority and minority. I thought he was making well-intentioned attempts to submit ⁇ logical amendments to the committee. Mr Erdman, the majority did not want to accept these amendments.

Secondly, I personally have some trouble with the fact that one now improves the status of the recognised people — rightly — without glances or blows, but that one does not appear to be concerned about the fact that there are so many requests pending. I think the government should give it absolute priority.

It is nice to give some kind of recognition to some of the people who have their merits for this country, but allow me to admit that it is all the more frustrating for those who have an application pending to see this again by their nose.

Mr. Speaker, you have the art of cutting off the grass before the feet of the speakers on the tribune. The fact that I have just regretted somewhat that it is polemized does not mean that I fully agree with the statement that Mr. Hendrickx has taken here concerning the handling of files and pending files. This is not the only sector for which it is necessary to find solutions – when victims are generally affected – to relieve suffering as quickly as possible by responding efficiently to the submitted requests. I can fully find myself in it. It was not at that point that I thought that Mr. Hendrickx polemized.

Second, he has indeed formulated certain proposals in the committee of which I fully endorse the good intentions, but with this we are of course within the framework that I have just outlined, in particular the budgetary restrictions that currently do not allow the ministers to do so. There were times, Mr. Tant — they called the golden sixties and their outputs — when there were indeed resources available to efficiently and widerly pay the fees, but those times have passed away. You want to link the effort and at least the intention — which has disturbed me — to the moment, namely the eve of elections. You are looking for the intentions. I can assure you that I have signed the proposal, but it is ⁇ not to be understood in that sense.

With regard to the added categories – which is indeed new – for the victims of the Jewish community and the Gypsy community, I have been pleased to find that there is ultimately an attempt to reach an equalization of statutes. There is no attempt to build up new categories, but there has been an attempt to incorporate them into existing statutes in order to build up similar situations — equally painful in terms of amounts. It is of course the drama that today, more than fifty years after the end of World War II, we must say to these victims who could not be compensated in the earlier legal provisions, that we will recognize them as other categories, but we are obliged to allow these compensations only from now on. This is done under the conditions stipulated in the law, but only from now on. They must forget the last fifty years, because we cannot return to them. This is all the more difficult because the years have indeed played. Now we are facing people who are at the end of their life experience and still carry the wounds of the past. One of the striking situations — which was noted by Mr. Paque and others in the amendment — concerns specifically the status of the Jewish community’s martial arts.

At a certain point, in the texts or in the negotiations held with the various associations, it has been assumed that the possibility of recognizing that being existed in so far as their father or mother had died. Their

Why was the father or mother prescribed? It may be even more painful to put this in context. There stands father or mother because at the same time one stood almost implicitly for someone who had no other relatives anymore. In the dramatic circumstances in which a person becomes an orphan and an orphan becomes an orphan of his father or mother, there are other relatives around him and the surviving parent for the adoption of that child. In most cases, there may have been one lucky person who still survived. The rest was all gone. That was the first determination. The second conclusion is the one I just made. One goes to those people who say that they have not had that status for 50 years and actually did not receive any compensation. In these circumstances, we are obliged to recognize them now as war beasts. Then, of course, came the equalization of statutes as I mentioned it later. If it had been stated for the warworms ab initio that the condition of being a warworm is both father and mother, then in the context of the consideration one could rightly say that there is a discrepancy in the approach and possibly even a discriminatory measure. Therefore, when submitting the proposal, it was opted to make it as much as possible equal to the original status of war war war. Their

It may be a dramatic element that is very strongly felt by those affected. I expect the Minister of Finance on behalf of his colleague to at least show that he has understood the problem and that he will address it to any extent for the future. In any case, my group and I will approve this text. Their

I would like to make another call to the CD&V. It is not because one can arrange everything, it is not because one has rightly followed this matter years after years — you may pass it with my greetings to colleague Hendrickx —, it is not because one possibly does not find in this text everything that could possibly come to these rightholders, that one could not support this text and not keep it with an abstinence that possibly or possibly would have a political connotation. This text was submitted with the best intentions by the signatories.

Mr. President, Mr. Erdman, I will transmit the message. However, I think that our colleague’s attitude was also a result of his experience in the committee. I know Marcel Hendrickx well as a ⁇ polite and kind man. If he makes such a proposition, I assume that it must indeed correspond somewhat to reality.

Second, you say that the resources are limited and that nothing has been done for a long time. If the majority had wanted to do something, it would have actually had to do it a little earlier, Mr. Erdman, when the resources were available. You say that the fact that it comes into being now has no party-political connotation. Whether you want it or not, it gets this meaning. Per ⁇ it is a pity that people should feel that they are being welcomed for the sake of the elections and not for the sake of the ground of the matter. It was ⁇ even better to have emphasized for a moment, Mr. Erdman.

I have to apologize to Mr. Hendrickx. He told me a few moments ago that he had been stopped by an important obligation in his city at a certain hour. He apologizes to the Chamber for his absence at the moment.

I can get in the reasoning and the worry. I would only like to avoid that, when this text is put to vote, a very important part of this Chamber, for whatever reason, would abstain from voting, so that in the face of those victims — without prejudice to other factions that might take different positions — at least the unanimous concern of each would be translated in the face of those victims.

The reservations and comments of Mr Hendrickx, on behalf of your group, have been acted. I have even told you that I can follow him in it on certain points, but I still make a call so that you may eventually, with regard to the final vote, revise your position.

I will transmit that message.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, our political group is pleased to be able to present today to the assembly this important bill aimed at implementing certain measures proposed by the Central Commission established by the law of 20 December 1996.

In the course of the year 2000, Mr. André Flahaut, our minister, reactivated this Central Commission to be responsible for examining the unmet claims of former combatants and war victims on the basis, of course, of budgetary availability.

Our proposal thus concretizes measures already discussed in the committee and which require a law to be adopted. It is, in essence, the substantial increase, for some refractors or deported for compulsory work, of the war rent they benefit from, as well as the extension of the right to the war widow rent in favour of widows whose husband died before 1 January 1998 and whose marriage lasted at least ten years.

Finally, and equally essential, the authors of the proposal considered it appropriate to adopt certain specific measures in favor of Jewish and Gypsies victims who suffered racial persecution practiced by the occupier during the Second World War.

I will not return to the details of these various measures which have been the subject of a careful review by the committee, given the reactions they have caused on the part of certain associations. I will therefore limit myself to recall some points.

First, it was impossible, under the current budgetary framework, to attribute a flat-rate disability to refractors and deported for compulsory work, like what exists in favor of political prisoners or prisoners of war. It may be regretted, without doubt, but it is proposed here to substantially increase the war rental that benefits the holders of the status of refractor or deported, whose total duration of recognition reaches at least one year. This increase of the pension, which will reach 400, will be granted by the Service of War Victims. Some of my colleagues found this amount ridiculous, but it should be emphasized that this bill is the result of long negotiations with interested associations and a consultation with the departments of Finance and Budget.

Of course, only a part of the claims could be satisfied, but the progress is not negligible when you see the slowness with which these files are usually handled. The minister resolutely attacked the problem of backwardness, but some options were rejected by the associations themselves who wanted to sit in the evaluation and examination committees of files. Subsequently, the provisions relating to wedded wedded wages establish a single regime, allowing all wedded wives whose household lasted at least ten years, regardless of the date of their marriage, to obtain wedded wedded wedded wedded wages. I note with satisfaction that the measure exempts the beneficiary from the obligation to visit the municipal house and to expose unnecessary costs to assert their rights. This is not negligible.

Finally, measures in favour of Jewish and Roma victims tend to eliminate, in terms of pensions and war rents, the disparity of situations in favour of persons who fulfilled certain conditions of residence and nationality. The granting of a compensatory pension shall give the holder the right to all indirect benefits related to the benefit of such pension, including access to the regime of free medical care provided for war invalids.

Please allow me, Mr. Minister, and I hope you report it to Mr. Flahaut, as regards the conditions for establishing the period of captivity, to recommend its services to consider situations with goodwill, taking into account the difficulties of proof that may exist in this area. This recommendation is explicitly provided in the comments to the articles but I think it is good to recall it again.

Finally, our group welcomes proposals that take into account the recognition of suffering endured and the specific situation experienced by both orphans and children and adults hiding, regardless of the place or institution where they were hiding, proposals that would not fall into any of the existing categories of war victims.

In conclusion, I hope that our assembly will welcome this set of measures in favor of war victims. The time presses to express our gratitude to all those who, sometimes at risk of their lives, fought to save our country and our democracy from Nazi barbarism.

Mr. Speaker, it is always impressive to talk about such projects when you think about what these people have experienced. I will not repeat here the whole development that I held in committee. I would like to address three aspects.

Unlike Mr. Erdman, I am not ⁇ satisfied with the fact that it was considered appropriate to classify these different types of victims into the same categories. It is relatively artificial to have wanted to place hidden children in the STO refractor categories, as well as war orphans and genocide orphans in the same category. I don’t know if this choice is happy, because the people who have fought feel bad in this fictitious equality. People who have been victims of genocide, who have been treated differently, who have not been recognized for many years and who are now included in artificial categories, do not feel taken into account either. I regret that we have not continued our work on the moral status of the hidden child, which had been voted. We could have continued to build from this status.

I will make another particular note on “the need to be an orphan of both parents.” As is known, the chances are high for people who would be "orphans only of one parent" and the rest, the whole family, to be assigned to the other category of hidden child and, therefore, to be enforced by the law. However, it is relatively displaced to have amended the text examined in the Council of Ministers and which provided that one should be orphan only of one of the two parents. I regret that our amendment was not taken into account in this area.

Another regret in relation to this text of law concerns the fate reserved for the Gypsies. Mr. Reynders, you will recall the exchanges we had regarding the spoliation of Gypsies, which could not be taken into account in the text of law that allowed the development of a mechanism for compensation of the Jewish victims spoliated. With regard to these Roma victims, you clearly answered me that the solution would be to incorporate this problem into the war victims file. "With the condition of nationality, with the set of established criteria." by Mr. Hendrickx even suggested that we are talking about the Gypsy victim. In fact, clearly, the Gypsy community will not receive what it is entitled to. by

This is an equality that should have been achieved. You have chosen to do so through this project. Obviously, this is not the case. I believe that this poses a problem of equality and that we should look at it again. I regret that it was not possible for the Gypsy community as well as for the Jewish community to remove this condition of nationality. I heard that the condition of nationality was a sign of attachment to Belgium. Some people are very attached to Belgium, deserve as much as other victims to receive these benefits and will not be taken into account because of this restriction. In this case too, I regret that our amendment was not supported by a majority.

Mr. Speaker, like several speakers, I would like to note that it has been possible to bring about – even if it is at the end of the legislature – a text highly anticipated by various categories of our citizens and resulting from proposals from the commission set up under the 1996 Act.

It was important, during this legislature, to try to bring a solution to some problems related to this tragic period of our history, the Second World War. We had the opportunity, the Prime Minister and myself, to negotiate long-term to ensure that the legislation on the spoiled assets of the Jewish Community can lead to solutions, not only with the banking and insurance sectors but also with regard to the elements concerning the state treasury. All agreements have been concluded and I confirm to the House, in addition, that the problem of hidden folds has also found a solution. We have even already delivered the first elements to the rightholders and the proceedings are ongoing.

An important first part was resolved in this way. I recall that we will have the opportunity to compensate a certain number of individuals individually and then to operate the foundation that the Parliament has desired to set up. The total amount recovered from banks, insurance companies and the state itself exceeds 100 million euros. It is an operation that has been carried out with ⁇ important but quite legitimate means.

On this point, I confirm that we will, of course, continue the approach. As agreed, with regard to the works of art, a logic also continues.

To this first initiative was added, therefore, the idea of seeing what had yet to be settled with regard to a certain number of victims. I agree with the opinions of various speakers. Of course, there can be regrets regarding specific categories or situations. Unfortunately, this is not new in this issue. Many times, we have tried to move forward step by step, but sometimes we have had to encounter limits, budgetary or related to other phenomena.

I would like to complete my speech with two or three elements. The first element relates to the delays mentioned and the risks associated with the slow processing of files. I think we must remain realistic. I understand that a number of victims wanted to be involved in the handling of the files. This, of course, leads to consequences which, however, must be relativized. In fact, information taken, we are talking about about a thousand files. Their processing should therefore be able to take place by the end of 2003, being understood that there are various legal changes from 1995 or 1999. Therefore, we should not exaggerate this problem of delays and arrangements are taken to try to avoid any difficulties.

I have, of course, heard Mrs. Burgeon’s request regarding how to address certain types of problems.

In general, but especially in the case you mentioned, there will of course be a benevolent attitude to try to find solutions. We are not in an area where an administration must be tactile and pointile when examining certain situations, provided, of course, that one remains in a correct interpretation of what is in the texts. I would not want that through this idea of benevolence, one sometimes believes to be able to change a number of situations clearly defined in the law.

I come back to the situation of the orphans, especially following the negotiations that we have been able to have on this subject, first with the Jewish community. I can understand that a very special situation exists. A particular situation that makes some people have never received anything in recognition but, above all, in repair of elements that have affected them on a personal basis.

I know that there is an insatisfaction in the matter, some have recalled it, not only on a specific aspect on which I will return, but in general.

It is true that we may ask ourselves questions about whether or not to take a particular and ⁇ stronger measure with regard to certain categories of people. This was obviously not possible in all the discussions. It can be regretted. Regarding the quite specific problem of orphans of both parents or not, there are of course amendments and a number of proposals, but I would like to draw attention to one element. by

I can share the regrets or hesitations of each other. I would like to share the comments of Mr. Erdman, which means that we must move forward. I would like to join his call to try to move forward in this area, as has been done so often so far, if possible unanimously. Reservations are quite understandable. I myself have expressed a number of regrets and others might also do so, but I think it is important, in matters like these, to try, beyond the reservations and remarks that are acting, to go towards unanimousness. Especially because, on this particular point, I would like to emphasize one aspect. by

It is necessary to avoid, in a very sensitive matter, that certain categories of persons may feel, wrongly or rightly, a sense if not of injustice, at least of discrimination towards them. I said, people have not received anything so far and so they could tell us “why not a special situation for some orphans today since, for a very long time, nothing has been done with them?”

But others who may have benefited from another treatment for a longer time may also refer to the fact that by allowing the consideration of father or mother orphans, discrimination is created.

I really think that one of the worst things, in a case like this, would be to see judicial proceedings launched against a part of the legislation, ⁇ before the Arbitration Court, for discrimination between categories of persons.

As I said on the occasion of the handling of the case on the spoiled property, as it is regrettable that it has had to wait so long to settle a number of situations, as it is important to advance in this stage in the way as fast, as efficient as possible and as less susceptible to criticism before courts. It is equally important, I repeat, to do so if possible in a very broad consensus and if possible unanimously. I think it is desirable to find a solution.

I will only say to Mrs. Genot that with regard to the Gypsy community, it was not possible to find a solution within the framework of the specific legislation on the deprived property of the Jewish community. The procedure that was established in this matter is obviously not applicable to a community of another size. It is true that we had talked about the idea of eventually finding a solution within this framework, as is the case for human offenses — I recall — but not for property offenses. Per ⁇ , if a solution can be imagined in a practical and pragmatic way, there will still be initiatives to be taken in this matter.

This is what I wanted to say in my comment, Mr. Speaker, but I think this is a new step in a long process that we are going through and I hope that we can do it all together.