Proposition 51K0128

Projet de loi modifiant 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

July 14, 2003

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

advertising tobacco public health

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR FN

Voted to reject

CD&V N-VA VB

Abstained from voting

Ecolo

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 ¶

July 30, 2003 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The discussions were fruitful and numerous. I think it is not necessary to return to the report, which I find very comprehensive. I am referring to the written report. This will save us time.

This is not yet your maiden speech, I will keep this for later.

I have an anecdote to tell you about the maiden speeches. In the House of Lords, after thirty years, one of the lords who had never said anything made the kind of noise that the English make "Hi, hi, hi!". In this regard, the reporters put between parentheses the "maiden speech". I’m not going to do that to you.

What are the registered? by Mr. Frédéric Mr. Wathelet, Mr. by Ferret, Mr. Van den Eynde, Mr. by Lenssens, Mr. Monfils...

The first author of the proposal.

Let me start with the opposition. by Mr. Courtois is also registered.

Let’s see which speakers are currently registered. I have the gentlemen Verhaegen, Lenssen, Van den Eynde, Wathelet, Frédéric, Monfils, Courtois and Féret. Is that enough at the moment? Ladies and gentlemen, I want to start with you. It’s probably also your maidenspeech, and you’re a member of the opposition.

I will start with mr. and Monfils? There are many fathers here. Mr Monfils, you have the word.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that after my brief presentation, you will not congratulate me for my “maiden speech”! Having been in the House and the Senate for 22 years, I suppose that I have been seen a few times!

You have lost your virginity in some way.

I think so, even though...

I do not judge, I am not an expert in this matter!

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, unless unexpected, within an hour or two, we will have finally voted a derogation from the law that prohibits commercial advertising for tobacco and tobacco products. This is obviously a time-limited derogation as you know, until July 2005, also limited since it only applies to one event of global importance per year and per region.

Finally, it was a year of confrontations and constant presence of the subject in the media. A year during which the Grand Prix of Francorchamps and Francorchamps itself became the symbols of a struggle for regional development. To those who would blame the authors of the proposals, especially me in this case, for having machiavellically organized a dubious struggle on this subject, I would still like to remind some facts.

Initially, during the first proposal, the debate was far from reaching the paroxystic level it has reached for a number of months. In good faith, we, the authors of the proposal – essentially Jean-Marie Happart and I – even since we were together in the Senate – had believed at the time that a derogation of a few days a year, for a maximum of two or three years, to allow the holding of a demonstration as important for the region as the Grand Prix of Francorchamps, did not challenge the shared will of all to fight against the harm of tobacco.

I confess to you that I was very surprised, both by the total rejection of any openness and the extraordinary aggressiveness manifested from the beginning with regard to this proposal. To simplify, I would say that if, at the time, this derogation had been admitted, we would find ourselves today with a Grand Prix where, of course, the cars would bear signs of cigarette cars, at least those that are sponsored, but where, by the effect of the law itself, advertising would have been gradually reduced as it should have been until 2005. This advertisement becomes much more discrete, no one would, I think, have seen an increase in the number of smokers, because Formula 1 would have been present on television two hours a year, Sunday afternoon and one hour a year, eventually, on Saturday trials, all, for three years.

If the proposal had been voted a year ago, the case would have gone almost unnoticed and the smoking candidates would ⁇ not have felt comforted in their vice, if so that smoking is a vice, by this opening of 3 days a year for tobacco advertising. On the contrary, it may be the debate that has taken place for a year that has strengthened the willingness of smokers to continue on this path.

As I said, the prohibition camp has stepped up, giving those who supported Francorchamps for economic reasons the opportunity to make this event an essential element of the region’s economic development. We know that this issue was very present in Wallonia.

It was also present during the election campaign, with the political outcomes that we know. The majorities have changed and here we are, therefore, with the bill, voted yesterday in the Senate. It is even shorter in time, since it was initially running until 2006 and that we have simply complied with the European directive that proposes July 2005. There is therefore no willingness to go beyond what all other countries admit and the directive has been voted by the European Parliament. by

I will now answer quite quickly a few questions. First, I am surprised that the 1997 law that prohibits tobacco advertising was considered intangible. It is incredible to systematically refer to this law by saying, “It has been voted, you must not touch it.” I believe that every law should evolve according to events. Yesterday again, we voted a law on universal jurisdiction that amends the original law of 1993, which, in fact, had been the subject of, I think, two or three amendments. I participated in these debates in the Senate for almost a year. These changes were wanted because a number of elements showed – wrongly or rightly, I don’t go back on that – that its use was not acceptable.

Mr. Speaker, our colleague once again puts forward the argument that a law can best be amended. All laws can be changed, including the Constitution. I hope to see Article 1 of the Constitution amended as soon as possible.

Colleague, it is quite crazy that exactly six years ago a vast majority of the traditional parties in Parliament, including all the current French-speaking government parties, the PS and the then PRL, passed this law with enthusiasm, while they now suddenly want to send this law to condemnation. That’s a bit absurd, don’t you? It is absurd now or it was absurd then, but at least absurd.

But finally, sir, your argument is not serious, I told you that the entourage concerned three days in the year. by

However, I could push the analysis further. I said in the committee that our legislation presents a problem. Very often, we take an extreme position in a whole series of debates and vote laws that leave no room for any possibility of any sort of derogation because we are naturally convinced that they will not be applied in this way. I gave the example, in particular, of the legislation that significantly limits the places where one can smoke in cafes and restaurants. The media is constantly giving indications that the law is not observed. Obviously, we will not send a gendarme or a police officer to every cafe or restaurant to check whether the law has been complied with. This is the Belgian bad. A series of extreme legislation is being voted, which, of course, will not be applied. by

For a year, some believed in good faith that this would not apply to Formula 1 and that an arrangement would be possible. There is no agreement with international lawyers. There is no arrangement with people who get acquainted with the text of the law and who specify – this was said recently in “The Team” by Max Mosley, one of the great leaders of Formula 1 – that the Formula 1 squads have contracts with cigarette manufacturers. As Belgium prohibits tobacco advertising, they comply with Belgian law and therefore do not participate. This is the logical, consistent, legal position taken by international bodies, their lawyers and others.

We obviously found ourselves in a difficult position because many have tried, even at the level of the Walloon Region, to find arrangement formulas for a day or two. A year ago, I said that we would not find an arrangement because there are legal problems. We were not believed at the time. This is a mistake and now we realize that the modification of the law is the necessary, but ⁇ not sufficient, condition for the organization of a manifestation of global importance. I’m not talking about the Francorchamps Grand Prix. It can be anything else.

The second question concerns the community nature of the problem. I know that some of my colleagues have advanced that this was the case. No, this is not a community problem. The law applies to everyone, Flanders and Wallonia. Flanders do not like motor sports, and we know that less and less. However, Flanders has a major international rally, the Ypres Rally, which I have attended a few times. It is not the fault of the Wallons if it was decided that the Ypres rally would somehow be downgraded to the rank of a rally of medium importance while Germany, less than 150 kilometers from my home in Liège, has obtained a run of the World Rally Championship where cars, as everyone knows, are sponsored by cigarette manufacturers. Zolder, rightly or wrongly, could also benefit from a global organization of global importance. I’m not going to explain in detail the various automotive competitions currently supported by cigarette smokers.

We, in fact, felt that Francorchamps should be saved and that the Grand Prix should take place. This is ⁇ not a community problem that the VLD has supported us from the beginning, with a very clear position. He recalled that the law is federal and that, therefore, Flanders and Wallonia do what they want. Only the Wallons want it right now, and not the Flamands. We have no reason to block Wallons in their willingness to promote the economic development of the region. I want to thank the VLD for always helping us, even a few weeks before the election, at a time when the sensitivities are alive. I found with pleasure that the VLD’s handshake to the French speakers did not create problems for them in Flanders, on the contrary, if I judge by the excellent results they have achieved.

Third question: We were also told that it was not worth voting this law because it is still flawed. No, it is not foul! This is the necessary condition. The door is open and it must be opened. And this is no longer the problem of the federal government, but that of other authorities. This is the problem of those who, like me, are interested in this issue. Of course, you have to go to see the international authority, you have to meet it, convince it and there are a whole host of possibilities in this regard: 2004, 2005 with extension and contract, etc. We will see well. In any case, if there is no derogation, there will not even be a negotiation on the Grand Prix.

Fourth question: we talked about alternative financing. This is obviously a huge mistake. This is not a matter like social security, there is no alternative financing. Indeed, the question is not to find money to organize the Grand Prix, the question is whether or not the contracts concluded internationally between the major cigarette brands, on the one hand, and the squads, on the other. Unless you told me that you found somewhere in the state or regional budget 1 billion for Ferrari, so much for Mac Laren or for BMW, which I would look forward to. To ask the question, of course, is to answer it.

Contracts exist and, of course, this is what fundamentally blocks. It is not a few hundred million that must be given – as I have heard from some Ecolo colleagues in the Senate – to Mr. Ecolo. Ecclestone to be kind to us. This does not mean anything. It’s an image of Epinal, it’s a weak image because it’s not knowing the organization of Formula 1 that to invent such arguments. There are contracts and we must comply with them. If we do not respect them, Formula 1 will go elsewhere!

We also talk about globalization. The great word is lost. Dear colleagues, the question is not here. We have a majority of Grand Prix in Europe nowadays, it is true. We also know that there are Grand Prix that are drawn, for example in Bahrain, which comes out of the sand, and in Shanghai, where the circuit is under construction. It is true that Formula 1, like all other sports, is becoming internationalized. I have recently read the proposals of Mr. Verbruggen in the field of cycling who said that everything had to be reorganized because one could no longer remain only in Europe and that a number of countries, such as Qatar, should benefit from the presence of our great stars who have illustrated themselves in the Tour de France or in the classics. Everyone internationalizes, this is obvious, but there are 17 Grand Prix and the question is which European Grand Prix will fall. When you are eight or nine and when one or two Grand Prix falls, not complying with the rules of the international federation, it is immediately out of play. It should be known that among those who decide on calendars, there are many representatives of the circuits. You will not even imagine that these representatives will support us! They put one hand on our shoulder and the other, they put a fist in our back. Sometimes this is the case in politics. This is normal, because they have no reason to consider trying to save Francorchamps. Those who are in trouble, such as the Grand Prix of Hungary, the Grand Prix of Imola or others, rub their hands on the idea that Francorchamps excludes himself by office from the debate that should lead to the exclusion of one or two Grand Prix. This is the difficulty we would encounter without the derogation from the law.

It makes a lot of noise for nothing. I confess that I did not read all the editorialists, but in the French-speaking newspapers, there were reports of Flemish editorialists who had released quite surprising titles: “Francorchamps, du pain et des jeux”. I do not understand this attitude because, in this perspective, we could then also abolish the Werchter Festival in Flanders, the shops or cafes at the sea or the Tour de Flanders. It is also bread and games that attract people. All this is not serious, the Wallons cannot accept this type of limited and deliberate aggression. The Formula 1 at Francorchamps, it is not bread and games, it is an element of the tourist development of the region which, in addition, possesses cultural, historical and other economic values. It’s a whole thing that makes this region want to exist. Formula 1 and the development of the circuit are a fundamental element of the whole. Everyone chooses the weapons they possess to ensure their own development, this is also the federal loyalty.

Finally, I would say that there was a lot of noise and fury, a lot of political changes also for a very simple request that, for us, did not challenge the fight against smoking but that highlighted important economic imperatives in the face of the very slight infringement of the law that constitutes this three-day derogation.

Will the Grand Prix be held in 2004? I don’t know, we lost a year and we didn’t wait. For a year, new Grand Prix have been realised outside and the Grand Prix of Imola, in difficulty, has been supported, not only by Ferrari but above all by the Italian government that massively explained that Imola could not "hop".

What do we ask? As we have been doing for a year, we simply ask to be at least on the same starting line as the others. Then, the quality of our circuit, the environment, our “know-how” in general will do the rest.

If the Grand Prix does not take place, the opposition to the project will be satisfied as there will be no derogation from the law. If it is done in 2004 or in 2005, there will, of course, be a very slight blow to the law, but in front, there will be the population of the Walloon Region waiting for this event, who lives in part on the economic and social level thanks to the impacts on small sports, cultural and other organizations, a population whose dynamism is reinforced by the holding of events such as the Formula 1 Grand Prix, as the Francofolies de Spa which together attract hundreds of thousands of spectators. This population could not understand that, for false reasons, one of its elements of development is taken away from it. This population is proud of the international reputation of Spa-Francorchamps, which serves the Walloon Region but also Belgium.

It should be clear that CD&V has always been opposed to any easing of the legislation on tobacco advertising and tobacco products. We want to continue our consistent attitude, especially with respect to harmful, carcinogenic products. There are, of course, good reasons for this. They are known, and they remain intact. First, it is about health interests that should never or never be sacrificed to economic interests. Re-allowing tobacco advertising would be a completely false signal that could make smoking more acceptable in our society. Our strategy, on the contrary, consists in doing prevention and de-trade. These are two crucial keywords.

We must also note that the problem has continued to be encouraged and that it has been pushed forward. In five years of law-Vanvelthoven, the necessary precautions were never taken to allow a Formula 1 Grand Prix of Spa-Francorchamps to continue without tobacco advertising. It was five lost years. This is contrary to other mass demonstrations where adjustments have taken place and where alternative financing has been sought. The possible disappearance of the Grand Prix of Francorchamps simply attributing to a ban on tobacco advertising is for us a drogreed. The real reason is the globalization of motorsport, Mr. Monfils. That is the real reason because other countries, especially in the East, like to organize that Grand Prix. The two new Grand Prix, namely that of China and Bahrain, actually indicate that Ecclestone’s big bonuses see the future of Formula 1 not in Europe, but in the East.

Colleagues, CD&V does not prefer anything but that it goes well with the economy. This also applies to the Wallonian region. However, the recent past has shown that delaying and approaching and reaching the deadline simply does not solve the problems and that there is absolutely nothing prepared regarding alternative financing. I would dare to say here that a fortiori and in view of the upcoming regional elections we expect an offer from the French-speaking parties. I think that is also logical. However, it is ⁇ not the climate for a sustainable solution. It also offers no perspective for the abolition of tobacco advertising. Their

Now to the work in the committee. This really has to come from my heart. The draft law was approved in the committee, which until then. This, however, is the first political file with which I, and with me, some other neofiets are faced here in this Chamber. This case is then taken in with an alternate majority. The Wallish Front is doing it with the hand and the hand of the Flemish majority parties. It promises for what comes. My colleagues, I promise it. Their

We expect that with the same speed and enthusiasm will be responded to other Community files that are of real importance for the Flemish macro-economic developments. I here involuntarily think of the distribution of emission targets across the West versus the viability of the modern, but energy-intensive Flemish industry. This is mainly concentrated along the Albert Canal in the Kempen and of course also in the Antwerp port area.

In all these matters, to which thousands of jobs are tied, we can also expect some kind of federal loyalty. Let me refer to the previous speaker.

Colleagues, what was announced with a big trumpet, with sp.a as the pioneer of a European regulation, now all collapses like a small box of cards. People tell me that the price that Father Vanvelthoven must pay to make his son Secretary of State — the expropriation of his law and parrot — is very high. That people trust me. What is worse is that the SPA denies its own principles. What is worse is that the greenest government ever capitulates. She benefits from the disappearance of Agalev to push through the delay.

In the committee, our group also voted against Article 3 concerning the Tobacco Control Fund. The Fund is an excellent thing, let that be clear. Let there be no doubt about it. First and foremost, however, work must be done on a cooperation agreement between the federal government and the Communities on a global reduction of tobacco use. You can read it all in the proposal that lies on the tables. Now it says: “The Cooperation Agreement of ...”. This is not a legitimate work. Once the cooperation agreement becomes a fact — and only then — the implementation of the agreement with the establishment of the Anti-Tobacco Fund will enjoy more than our full support.

Mr. Minister, we also expect an initiative and a clear, strong signal from the Belgian government to cancel the European Commission’s annual 1 billion euro subsidy to tobacco farming. We expect at least that she will question these transfers.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, we have heard and felt it more in this hemisphere: in Belgium, late LSP governments are in power. You know, in the 1980s, the LSP courses — Leading Success People — were ⁇ in demand. The fighting cry of these superpositives was: be positive, don’t be negative. The appearance here was more important than the reality. Every negative noise was shameful. We now know what happened to those LSP adapters. Many were burned into psychiatry. Others have scammed their company or routinely targeted them. The most haunted now warn in books against the LSP risks. Their

In the danger of losing this "chikaha feeling", I would like to mention three things you should definitely wish for yourself and others, namely health, joy and friends. In order to realize this, I will give another suggestion. Today it is possible, thanks to the royal decree of the 9th of last month, in spite of the prohibition of advertising for drugs in our country, to make widespread publicity for tobacco-borne drugs. Let the Grand Prix organizers enter this market and everything becomes cake and egg. So simple is my story. I thank you.

Mr Verhaegen, this was your maiden speech and I wish you good luck with it.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I will not resume the whole debate that has already taken place on multiple occasions and again in the Justice Committee, a few days ago. I would simply like to draw attention to the fact that, since the first discussions in committees in Parliament, I have the impression that we are rather in a phase of repair.

I explain to myself. During the first Justice Commission to which I attended, we were asked to pass the prescription of non-correctionalizable crimes from ten to fifteen years, a proposal that had been filed earlier by the CD&V and which had not been adopted.

The law of universal jurisdiction has recently been amended, which has been incorporated into the Criminal Code. So we amended a law of April 2003; now, we are only in July 2003.

We will ⁇ also amend this afternoon the regime of granting licenses in the field of arms export, amendment to a law of March 2003.

And here, we will vote again — for my great happiness anyway! — on the exception of tobacco advertising at Francorchamps. I hope that we will also have other files to study which, they, will relate to the future!

As for Francorchamps, as I said in the committee, I would just like to insist today on the word "proportion". Two interests are clearly at stake here: the public health interest and the economic interest, linked to the prestige of the Francorchamps region. However, the public health interest will not be achieved and we know this very well. We know well that if the Grand Prix does not take place at Francorchamps, it will take place elsewhere with tobacco advertising, whether in Sepang, Bahrain or elsewhere. It is therefore known that the public health interest, the entirely legitimate desire to protect mainly young people from tobacco advertising, will not be achieved!

It is known that the only way to ⁇ this goal is to have a strong global vision and at an international level. The directive, which came into force in 2005, bans all forms of tobacco advertising across the European Union. by

We also need to invest in prevention. This bill is aimed at a more comprehensive prevention, clearly and well funded and addressing the real problems. But this public health goal will not be achieved until 2005 and will not be achieved with this total ban on tobacco advertising, even at international events. by

Alongside this public health interest, there is the economic interest and prestige of a whole region. It’s a big deal, especially since we’ve lived for years without the Formula 1 Grand Prix. It is direct. André Frédéric cited in a committee quite accurate figures that show the importance of the economic impact resulting from the absence of the Grand Prix on a region.

There are two goals, two objectives to be achieved. One of the two, that of public health, will not be achieved, but one can still try to maintain one: the economic interest of the whole of a region and the prestige conferred by this Grand Prix of Francorchamps. That is why the possibility of ⁇ ining tobacco advertising at international events until 2005 is quite proportionate and allows not to confront these events with a situation of unfair competition. This is the solution that was adopted by the Court of Arbitration, in its ruling that a proportionate solution making admissible the absence of advertising for tobacco in international events must be found on a multinational level. The previous deadline was 2003 and, with the adoption of the new Directive, it was postponed to 2005.

For these two reasons, so that at least one of the two goals of the region can be achieved in 2005, I will ask you to accept this bill and vote for it, as my group is about to do.

With your consent, I would like to immediately defend my amendment.

That is an excellent idea.

Mr. De

Francis Van den Eynde President, Mr. Minister, colleagues, allow me to start today with congratulations, with heartfelt congratulations to the numerous Walesian parties present. That is not the habit. I see here the PRL, somewhat less well represented than the PS, but the PS is a militant, Mr. Eerdekens, that we both know. In any case, the Wallonian colleagues are numerous. Today is a great day for you. Even though I am not politically happy with this, I must admit that this is a victory for you today. I think that we should at least be sporty and that we should be able to grant that to our Wallonian colleagues, though the need, that I am now happy to admit.

It’s a big victory, because today, without giving anything in return, you get two big trophies. On one day — that too may be mentioned, for that is a historical fact. I still know that I stood here a few months ago at the time when we were discussing, on the one hand, the delivery of weapons to Nepal, on the other hand, the possibility of allowing the publicity of tobacco advertising back in Francorchamps. Then came a kind of cow trade, un maquignonnage, of the lowest alloy. I then defined it as "a cigarette for a machine gun." This is no longer the case, my colleagues. Mr. Eerdekens, the MR, and even the CDH—the latter are somewhat less triumphant, but are no longer so numerous—have today the cigarette and the machine gun, and they pay nothing for it.

The [...]

This is indeed a punishment! We owe this – I would like to admit it – to some of those great Whaling qualities – because we must also be able to acknowledge that, we must also be so athletic –, in particular stubbornness, perseverance and toughness. If there is something that is excellent with our southern neighbors, then it is dat. It is all the better to see that this is completely missing from the Flemish parties. Completely !

By the way, I note that the Flemish parties, who surrender here today on all fronts without having fought themselves, are so ashamed of it that they do not dare to show themselves. For one time, our Wallonian colleagues are strongly represented here. Where is the VLD? Well, yes, there have now been two offenders added, besides Mrs. Vautmans.

What do you have against criminals, Mr. Van den Eynde?

Nothing at all, but that trio reminds me of those old-fashioned decorations of the chimneys in Flanders, the Holy Heart. Mrs. Vautmans will not blame me for seeing her as the l’oeuil de Moscou of the government rather than as someone of the VLD. Their

And then there is the SP, so proud of its great election victory. Who is present for the SP? The group leader. He must bite through the shame, that is his duty. We congratulate him for this. The captain must remain on the ship, even if it is torpedoed. He is only flanked by two Spiritists, two more criminal servants if you allow me that comparison. Or rather by three, but such a dark outfit doesn’t fall out and I didn’t see the third member, for which I apologize. I can understand that the SP is not so strongly present here. Since 1997 — just six years ago — this is the third time our Wallonian friends have launched an offensive against this law. This time they win on all fronts, as I said before. Their

Given how the sp.a. over the years, six years, hand-and-tand-fighted for a legal initiative that eventually came out of its ranks — the initiative was of Mr. Vanvelthoven senior —; given how a few months ago Mr. Vanvelthoven junior, son of the former, on this tribune and of course also in the committee touchingly defended the good name and the legislative work of his father; given the fact that at this moment the thirty silver coins have been replaced by a state secretariat and that for the rest of the sp.a-Sitpir — it is now a double political party — capitulates, then I judge, Mr. Van der Maelen, that the color of your party is still red, but that this is no longer the glorious color of the struggling socialism, but red of shame. Their

Indeed, we must be ashamed. You — I repeat it — did not even have the courage to send these two battle points to the famous forum, that misty trouble that Mr. Verhofstadt raises for the second time, but then under a different name, to hide the community problems. Send these issues to that forum because they are community-tinted. Both the Anti-Tobacco Act and the Weapons Act, which will be voted on this afternoon and about which my good colleague Koen Bultinck will talk later on, are community-tinted; community-tinted and only community-tinted.

You could have done this and then we would probably have been critical, but then you could at least have negotiated. You could have asked for a passport. You could have said: you want that tobacco law; we want the abolition — I’ll just give an example — of ... We want the funding of the Flemish school in Komen by the Wallish Region in accordance with the law. The highlight in Belgium is that the Flamings are not even able to get the Whales to just apply the law. The Flemish lion is made impotent by the traditional parties. You could have done this at least, but you surrender because...

The [...]

You surrender for the sake of a government. I repeat that this is a Waal demand.

Flemish colleagues from all parties, especially do not get caught. It is always the same refrain and that refrain is then again sung by Mr. Monfils. It is an old refrain, it is a kind of evergreen that comes from the nineteenth century. When French speakers say, “Ce n’est pas wallon, c’est belge.” The horns begin to grow when they tell you that. This is once again said here: "Mais non, c'est belge! C'est pour Ypres, c'est pour Zolder!"This is not about Ieper or Zolder, it is about Francorchamps, Francorchamps and Francorchamps. That it is Waals is proven by the fact that the three insiders are of the three different Waal formations - the two strong and what remains of the Christian Democrats. It seems that these latter have now become humanists. They are not many, but they can still play a small role in the story.

You have not even thought about it — you should have done this and this is my tip for the next time — to find some Flemish liberal to sign the document. It’s in their genes to surrender, it’s inherited. You didn’t even think of it because that’s wallon, it was wallon and this will be wallon, always. What are the Flemish Liberals doing? They knock, they jump in geef eight and the sp.a., reinforced by the Flemish Senses of Spirit, who say “Aye, aye Sir!” and just go on.

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here as a newcomer all the morning listening and I think in a few weeks I will see the Flemish Block here as they really are. I have heard Mr. Van den Eynde speaking here for five or six minutes now and I have not yet heard anything about the content. The only thing you did, and what a colleague of you did a few weeks ago, is moulding on us, on the sp.a., on the VLD, on your colleagues. I do not want to do this as a newcomer. I thought there were substantial discussions here about a bill that is present today. Unfortunately, you are disappointing me. (Applause to the majority)

Mrs. Vautmans, look, you have success, look who applauds for you. Once again, you play the role of the layman, the servant role. Mrs. Vautmans, do you know what would have disappointed me? If you had said at the end of my presentation, “You will not disappoint me.” So simple is it. Mrs Vautmans, do not play the virgin of Flanders by saying that you are a newcomer in this setting. I have seen you walk around here in all the corridors for years. I met you weekly at the Conference of Presidents, where most MPs have never been. Now come to say that you are a bloodshed, coman!

That said, you are being served on your tips because I will also bring forward a few things, in order not to disappoint you, in addition to those four important political matters that of course do not interest you, in addition to that capitulation. I would like you to think about it in the holiday that is coming. First of all, allow me to continue to reflect on what I have already said in the committee. You can read the committee report here. It is just to make your disappointment a little stronger, you see. In the committee I mentioned it: the accumulation of completely illogical arguments.

First and foremost, Mrs. Vautmans and colleagues, this law—which we now, however, torpedo for a large part with regard to Francorchamps—was passed in 1997, not on the initiative of some radical “flaming” group that absolutely wanted to stoke the Wals a pear, but on the initiative of the very respectable – in your eyes sure, because you have found it necessary to defend the SP.A. – Mr. Louis Vanvelthoven, himself former chairman of the Flemish Parliament. He has to leave there at a certain moment, I don’t know under what circumstances, but that’s another matter. The law was then approved, not only by Mr Vanvelthoven’s party, but also by all traditional parties. Not because of yours, you have stood aside for a while, but further through all the traditional Walesian parties. Ask them. They approved that law. The Flemish Bloc, which suspects you of all the evils of the world and that you would rather see somewhere end up on a burning stable — because there belong the heretics at home, isn’t it — has not played the game. We did not vote in favour of this law. I said this in the committee, for the simple reason that we did not believe it. We did not believe in the effectiveness of the law. I then predicted, from this point of view, that that law would have only one result: that the number of smokers would increase.

I was laughed at this by the well-thoughts. This is your camp, no. Unfortunately I got right. In the next few years, the number of smokers will increase. Why did all those Wallonian parties approve this at that time? Was it because they didn’t think of Francorchamps at the time? Yet yes. Mr. Dufour—honour him; I ask Mr. Eerdekens to inform him of these words—has at that moment had the courage not to approve the law. Mr. Dufour spoke about Francorchamps. The whales thought of Francorchamps. Where were they imprisoned? They were trapped in the game of political correctness that — unfortunately for them — is played in Wallonia much stronger than in Flanders. They have bad luck. They do not have a Flemish block. Therefore, there is no one who dares to break the political correctness from time to time. Only out of political correctness — if they are honest, they will admit it — it was impossible for them at that time not to approve the law. That is why they passed the law at that time.

In this regard, I admit the courage to appreciate Mr. Monfils when he says "qu'on allait arranger cela". This is a typical French-speaking Belgian expression. There is a law, but it would not be applied. This is typical Belgian. You understand that I am a little reticent towards that nationality. They went to arrange. However, this did not happen. Because one could not arrange it, because one could not fool for all sorts of reasons, one must at some point decide to abolish the law.

Yesterday, the minister in the Senate quoted my words that I spoke in the committee. I thank him for that. According to the minister, I accuse the majority of a lack of logic. What to say about the Flemish Block! At that time, the Flemish Bloc did not approve the law. Now they are opposed to its abolition. It is beautiful found, Mr. Minister, but it is a syllogism. The Flemish Block has not approved this law. You have approved them. Have the courage to acknowledge that and try at least to apply the law. That is a first thing.

Second, not only Francorchamps has suffered under the approval of the law. Mr. Monfils has rightly stated that also on the Flemish side a lot of income was wasted. How did Flanders react? We reacted in the same way when the mines were closed in Limburg. We reacted as we always do. Faced with economic difficulties, we are doing reconversion. This is a free tip for the southern neighbors. We have done it. I can list a lot of Flemish sports events and other events that used to turn on the money from the publicity for tobacco, but whose initiators have been looking for other income. The reconversion! I am very pleased to hear Mr. Monfils announcing that it has nothing to do with community issues and at the same time announcing, almost threatening to abolish the Round of Flanders.

Mr. Monfils, one has always continued to drive the Tour of Flanders without the support of the tobacco industry. We did not need it, because we had foreseen it. You have qualities, but we also have them. Unfortunately they are different. I would like to see some of your qualities be taken over by the factions of the Flemish majority parties.

What I would like to accuse in this case, Mr. Speaker, is the total lack of logic. Tobacco advertising is encouraged in Francorchamps. It is said that you can see tobacco advertising on television. I said in the committee that it is not because very violent films are shown on certain television networks, we must do so. Thus, one will tolerate tobacco advertising on cars and large signs in Francorchamps without any warning to the public. The colleagues among you who still smoke know that when you buy a pack of cigarettes in this country, on all sides of the package and on 50% of the surface in cows of letters in the three national languages states that tobacco kills. Cigarettes should not be sold without that warning, but in Francorchamps on those giant signs it does not have to.

Mr. Speaker, I found it necessary to submit an amendment based on the Royal Decree of 2002 concerning all measures to further restrict publicity on tobacco. I’m talking about the royal decree that stipulates that 50% of the surface of a pack of cigarettes that should get warning, lineed by a black band. I must say that the Dutch of the Royal Decree is not really perfect. The black frame — I took it from the royal decree — should not be in Francorchamps. That is not logical.

Let me finish my reasoning. When a package of cigarettes is purchased, it will be called. Certainly the progressive wing of Parliament will admit this: prevention is much better. It is better to put that warning on the publicity in Francorchamps, because then they have not bought those cigarettes yet. Mr. Speaker, because of the lack of logic, I have submitted a somewhat revolutionary amendment. However, it can be logically defended.

Mr. President, I thought Mr. Monfils asked for the word.

President: Thierry Giet, First Vice President. Voorzitter: Thierry Giet, first undervoorzitter.

I would like to ask a question to Mr. by Van den Eynde.

Mr. Van den Eynde, just recently, in your lyrical flight, you alluded to one of our arguments, consisting in saying that anyway, we will still see the advertisements for tobacco on television because all the Grand Prix, except one or the other, are made with pub. You have not answered. What do you want to do, Mr. Van den Eynde? Censorship images coming from all countries of the world via RTL-TVI, RTBF or VRT? Anyway, you will see the pictures. You’re not going to make a sign on the screen: “Tobacco is bad for health!” However, there are limits! I ask you again the question: what do you want to do? You make us big lyrical flights and then what? You will see the Ferrari Marlboro and the Mac Laren West until 2005, after which you will see nothing again!

I just ask you to be logical. I repeat that I do not want to censor anything. We are too often confronted with censorship. It is against us that censorship laws have been voted in this country. We have learned what censorship is. We will never censor.

I just want to ask you to be logical. It’s not because you can see a very violent film on RTL – I’ll give an example, I’m not saying that that happens on that channel – or on Spanish television, that we must allow an equally violent film to appear on the screen of the RTBf – that’s your business, because that’s autonomy – or of the VRT. With us there are on the cable against payment porn channels that function. Therefore, you cannot stop that either. But is that a reason to bring pornography to the RTBf or the VRT? No, and that’s all I wanted to say.

In addition, I would like to say the following. You will find it absolutely necessary to place such a black-and-white warning on a package of cigarettes already purchased — it is a mourning letter. And I understand that because tobacco is unhealthy. Then I find it logical that that would be on the publicity, with which your Ferrari will drive around in Francorchamps, too. By the way, Ferrari is also deadly, but for other reasons. There could also be something to say about this.

It is a matter of logic, and that is why I submitted this subversive amendment. I explained it then. I would like to admit that it was subversive, but it is also a logical amendment. Whoever obliges ordinary people, whenever they smoke, to be confronted with a tobacco advertisement — and this is one that is not of the pocket — should at least demand that one also put that warning on Formula 1 cars, on which that same advertisement appears. Otherwise, it makes no sense to organize more anti-tobacco campaigns. Then admit that your health and all those things can be stolen from you, and that the money and only the money still counts for you.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, many things have already been said in this assembly and in the committee and it is obvious that all the democratic parties share: tobacco is harmful to health and we must do everything we can to combat this plague, especially among young people. by

The bill that is submitted to us allows, in fact, to balance between, on the one hand, the economic interests of several regions and, on the other hand, the least possible infringement on the prohibition justified by public health imperatives. In this case, only this balance of public interest will truly guarantee the effectiveness of the continued approach in the field of public health.

The argument of the Socialist Party has been the same for months. I will try to make the summary as quickly as possible:

1 of 1. The bill allows advertising for tobacco products until 31 December 2005 following the new EU directive but under strict conditions, namely the organization of a world-class sporting event. I would like to emphasize that, since June 25, the publication by the FIA of the 2004 calendar gives rise to the hypothesis of the return to Belgium of this Grand Prix of Francorchamps on the date of August 29. It is obviously still up to the FIA to formalize this calendar in the coming weeks and to register alongside the date of August 29 the name of Belgium and Francorchamps in particular.

2 of 2. The consequences for the local Walloon and Flemish economies are significant. The distribution sector and the horeca sector are the main concerns, although the Grand Prix represents a direct activity of one week. The annual turnover for traders in the circuit region and consequently the level of employment in these companies, are largely conditioned by this test. by

For information, I would like to remind you of a number of figures. Despite indelicate or poorly conducted studies, in my opinion, the impact for the region would oscillate around 15 to 20 million euros per year, including 8 million for the horeca in the province of Liège.

It is also proven that the economic impacts exceed the framework of the Walloon Region - we keep the documents by hundreds at your disposal - since hotels from the province of Limburg, the Bruges region have declared, in writing, to be interested, because they also benefited from the attendance of spectators during the week of the Grand Prix and there is not only the horeca sector, we know. About forty Flemish companies with direct activity on the circuit were listed.

3 of 3. I must return to the following fundamental argument: banning any tobacco advertising on cars that turn at Francorchamps, while allowing a relocation on any circuit, in the Emirates, in Russia or in China, with the same advertising on the screen, visible to all young people who do not have the means to offer themselves the entrance to the Formula 1 Grand Prix, would have a null effect and an identical result for us. by

4 of 4. The European Directive, which wanted to require all countries of the European Union to prohibit all advertising for tobacco, from 1 October 2006 is annulled by the Court of Justice. The new directive prohibits advertising from 2005. Therefore, we only want to align ourselves with this directive, neither more nor less. by

We have often talked about economic impacts for companies in the region, but we must also emphasize that a significant number of associations, whether sports or cultural, live and manage to balance their annual budget because they work within the framework of this Grand Prix. Colleagues of mayors from the Verviers district and the Francorchamps region are also aware of the difficulties of local finances, since in tax matters, the lack to earn amounts to 513,000 euros for Stavelot and 300,000 euros for Malmédy.

I will conclude, Mr President, Mr Minister. The Formula 1 Grand Prix and the Francorchamps circuit enjoy an international reputation and are of paramount importance, not for the image of tobacco products, but for that of Belgium and the region. The Grand Prix is a showcase for our country around the world. One billion people watch this Grand Prix live, making it one of the most media-driven events in the world.

Finally, Mr. Minister, the project provides for the creation of a tobacco control fund. We are obviously pleased with this and we consider it crucial to concrete the allocation of funds to this fund as early as 2004, so that it can be operational.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I look forward to the fact that this debate takes place in a serene climate, a little less passionate or even less passionate and ⁇ even less exciting than a few months ago. I am delighted that the vote that will be held soon will give us the opportunity to restore hope to a whole region and to refine our image abroad, thanks to the return from 2004 of the Formula 1 Grand Prix to Francorchamps.

Mr. Speaker, Dear Minister, Dear Colleagues, today we are not talking about lifting the ban on tobacco advertising, but about the date that was introduced for major activities with a global appearance. Their

Let it be clear, the VLD is ⁇ not against the new European directive, nor against the regulation drawn up by Europe. The VLD also clearly realizes that smoking can harm health, that it has a nefaste effect on health. In that regard, we have no problem with the directive as it presents today. Their

The only difference is the date. In Belgium, tobacco advertising was banned prematurely and we demand that the European directive be followed and that an exception be made for activities with a large economic but above all a global appearance. And it’s not just about the Grand Prix of Francorchamps, Mr. Van den Eynde.

For me and for us, this is not actually a community file. Allow me to be a little chauvinist, because as a Limburger I hope that Zolder will also enjoy this in the long run. If F1 disappeared, it would be for a long time, and ⁇ forever. We still hope for an interaction in which Zolder will be eligible again to organize the F1.

Mr. Lenssen, apologize for interrupting you. I will try not to do that later.

We must not dream loudly. In your opinion, Mr. Lenssen — and that sounded convincing at first — that would be a good thing for Zolder. “In the long run,” you added for honesty. There is nothing in Zolder at the moment. However, you have said yourself that in 2005 — which is no longer even in the term — the European Directive is in force. In other words, only Francorchamps can possibly – even that is not certain – have something to do with it. Do not make yourself wise or try not to make us wise. The loft is a bad excuse for your surrender.

Mr. Van den Eynde, that is not true. If we fail to keep F1 in Belgium in the coming years, then it is lost for Zolder anyway. If we succeed in keeping the F1 – at least the first years – in Francorchamps through the bill that now presents it, then we may still have a chance to organize that F1 again in Zolder in the future. In the past, this has also been the case. I don’t know if you knew the time that there was an interaction between Zolder and Francorchamps. Well, we still hope that Zolder can qualify for this in the long run.

When a general ban has been introduced at European level, we do not have any economic backwardness in this regard compared to the others.

Mr Lenssens, also as a reputed Limburger, I must point out that this is a postponement and that the long-term here can ⁇ not be discussed. We also note that Zolder, like other Flemish mass demonstrations, has been able to organize itself properly, taking into account the ban on tobacco advertising. What you say here today, I cannot follow properly.

You should listen carefully to what I said, Mrs. Van der Auwera. I have made it clear that I also know that in the very short term this does not apply to Zolder, but if we lose F1 because of this law, then we lose F1 anyway in the long term. If they stay abroad for a few years, they will never return to Belgium. Do not make illusions. Once they have left, they will never come back. Now we still have a chance to eventually get them back, but you are obviously not chauvinist. You apparently don’t dream anymore, you apparently don’t think about your own gossip anymore, I do. I am for Limburg. I think if F1 returns to Belgium, Zolder will have a chance back in the long run.

I suspect and assume — we see it also daily from Limburg — that Zolder has perfectly organized itself, despite the ban on tobacco advertising. You say that we must be chauvinist, but given the globalization, I do not think it is excluded and even almost certain that F1 will definitely go abroad. So, I think you’re going to be adding a narcissist here today.

The future will show it, the near future even. If the F1 does not come to Francorchamps, then this law is also meaningless. It’s not about the organization of Zolder in itself, it’s about keeping the possibility cool – you misunderstand me – that Zolder may also be eligible for the organization of F1 in the long run. When F1 now disappears, I am convinced that it will be forever and that therefore we also have no chance in Zolder in that regard. You need to talk to the people of the circuit. They will give you the right, I am sure.

There is still no evidence — I must confess that — that the ban on tobacco advertising has reduced consumption. Honestly, I think that environmental factors are much more important for addiction than publicity. Nevertheless, I would like to emphasize that we are ⁇ not against the ban, but that we are only against the early introduction of the ban on global activities. I am convinced that the economic disadvantage will be far greater than the negative effects of advertising. If major events disappear, they move to other countries and viewers interested in the sport still have the opportunity to watch these competitions on television. They will also be able to see the tobacco advertising. I even think that someone sitting on a circuit is less affected by tobacco advertising than someone sitting in front of his TV. So when someone looks at a Grand Prix in Poland, where there is tobacco advertising, it will probably be more influenced than when he sits in Francorchamps along the circuit and just follows the race there. Their

Mr. Van den Eynde, I have more faith in the establishment of the fund. So you did not talk about that. We need to put more energy in information, in information, in prevention. That will be much more effective in the long run than banning advertising for a few days in large, global activities.

Dear President, Mr. Minister, Dear colleagues, in these economically difficult times, we must not become masochistic or want to be more holy than the Pope, but we must show some sense of reality and not be hypocritical. The VLD believes that economic interests should be balanced. We are consistent, because we have not passed this law in the past. We will approve this draft today.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give another brief response to Mr. Lenssen’s exhibition. This is actually a European file. I have also tried to explain this in detail, no less or no more. It is a community file that will be approved by hand and spandest of the Flemish members. The Flaming now expects as much that the forces will be bundled when the Flemish interests are at stake.

Mr. Verhaegen, unfortunately, your colleague Dirk Claes is not present, who is otherwise for publicity, even at his Werchter festival. Honestly, I do not intend to allow publicity there too. I just want to say that your group is not entirely consistent.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly respond to what the colleague of the CD&V. said .

All those who seek to communitize this dossier, I point out that the Grand Prix of Francorchamps is everywhere announced as the Grand Prix of Belgium. It is also on the calendar. Flanders is an integral part of Belgium. Flanders also has a lot of car lovers, including myself. Thousands of Flemish car lovers would like to go to the Grand Prix in Francorchamps. They also see it as their Grand Prix. I would like to emphasize that Flemish motorsport enthusiasts are also interested in ⁇ ining the Grand Prix in their own country.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister and especially Mr. Former Minister of Sports of the French Community, dear colleagues, you will not be surprised that the world of sport still keeps to congratulate itself on what is going to happen today.

The sports world can be glad that an event as important as the Grand Prix of Francorchamps, but that could involve other events in Belgium, is saved. The world of sport is first and foremost focused on the fight against smoking, because we have, ⁇ more than others, the desire to fight for the youth of tomorrow in this country. I would like to tell you above all that we must fight in this country, in our regions, for the major international events. Francorchamps is one, but there may be others.

How could one not understand the interest we have for the major international sports events? How, in this country, have we not yet realized that a major sporting event is an important element at the economic level, important to establish the image of a country, of a region? How can we not understand that everywhere else in the world we struggle every day to get great events, to have Formula One Grand Prix, to have World Cup organizations, to have Olympic Games? In this country, one seems to go through the meaning of a major international sporting event. It means the image of a country, the image of a region, the image of a city. This means economic impacts for everyone and not just for a region. As our colleague just said, it is a permanent transbordation of people who go from one region to another to attend a major sporting event.

How is this not yet understood in this country?

The world of sport today is rejoicing: sport has not only a social vocation, it has not only a vocation of integration and multiculturalism, sport is also based on major events.

I congratulate and thank all those who have been at the base of the revision of this law, the MR, the Socialist Party, the VLD and the CDH as well. by Mr. Wathelet doesn’t surprise me, he’s from the region. They understood that this law had to be revised and returned to the essence. We also have the right, in this country, to have great events. We are not an island situated outside of any international context.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, before addressing the height of the subject, I would like to express my satisfaction that the Federal Public Service for Health and the Federal Public Service for Social Affairs are finally reunited in the same ministry. This is a wish that I had already expressed to this tribune under the rainbow government. If the prime minister starts listening to me, maybe not everything is lost.

Regarding the Grand Prix of Francorchamps, I would like to recall once again, even if it hurts some, that it was at the express request of the ecologists that in 1997, the Federal Parliament voted a law prohibiting any advertising for tobacco on the occasion of the Grand Prix of Francorchamps, anticipating thus the application of a European directive that, at the time, was only to take effect in 2006. Our country, usually so rushed to include in its laws a decision of the European Parliament, wanted to distinguish itself by showing an unusual excess of zeal. This national law was supported in its time, it must also be recalled, by the Ecolo deputies of course but also by the PS, by the PSC and by the PRL. That same year 1997, I was speaking at the plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, to defend the survival of the Formula 1 Grand Prix in Europe, while recognizing, of course, the harmfulness of tobacco.

But here is... In the face of the lifting of the shield of those who live in Francorchamps, of those who love Formula 1, of those who know that if there is no more Grand Prix in Belgium, there will be somewhere else, outside the European Union, and that they will be sponsored by the advertising for tobacco, fearing a sanction of the voters, the parliamentarians socialists, liberals and social-Christian Francophone raved and tried, at the end of 2002, to pass a new law repealing the one they had themselves voted five years earlier. Too late, the evil was done.

Then we witnessed in this Room a hallucinating show. The elected PS, without whom all this would never have happened, begged their brothers of the sp.a, who today have lost their language, to support the postponement of the 1997 law. We even had the right to a totally disappointing show given by their group leader, Mr. Eerdekens, in the style of De Funès, who tried to seduce by a rather grotesque flattery the elected CD&V, reminding them, I quote, "that he had not forgotten all the good work that they had done together", before the PS preferred the liberals to them. The MR group leader, Dr. Bacquelaine, was heard fighting against “the integrism of the Greens”. But the nail of the performance was offered to us by Ecolo whose spokeswoman assured us that she would do everything to resurrect Francorchamps and ended her prayer with these now historical words: "Francorchamps yes, tobacco no!"

I myself was entitled to seduction manoeuvres, conducted by elected members of self-proclaimed democratic parties who dared to jump over the sanitary cord to polite, very polite, ask me how I was going to vote. I voted, of course, as in 1997, in favour of Francorchamps, and I think in addition, whether we are for, like some of my Flemish friends, or we are against, that the important thing is not to change your mind.

I am convinced that the Francorchantoises and the Francorchantois, the Spadoises and the Spadois, in a general way the Electrices and voters of Wallonia will remember, on 13 June 2004, that the only French-speaking party that has always supported Francorchamps, is the Front National.

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday in the Senate and in the committee, we are talking here about a limited derogation from the ban on tobacco advertising. The derogation applies only to events organised worldwide until 31 July 2005.

Given the very limited nature of this exception and the fact that we continue to be confronted via television with the advertising carried out at foreign Grand Prix, it is difficult to argue that the derogation is a major public health problem. In addition, as Minister of Health, I can add that I consider the fight against tobacco addiction to be a priority.

Some know that I am from the region of LessenGeraardsbergen-Ronse. This region is called the region of surrealism. I have heard a lot of things here, which are very surreal to me.

If all you say, men must first ask of us from a health problem or from an economic problem speaking. I want to honestly stay. We are looking for a compromise between health economics. It is about drawing a line that is not clear, which is not obvious between Public Health and Economy. It can be said that the other issue, the community issue, is also not drawn with a compass and an obvious line. The people of Limburg know well that there is economic porosity – and that’s a good thing – from one region to another. Personally, I do not feel engaged in the community debate.

I obviously liked the argument of the Vlaams Blok amendment and I recognize Mr. Vlaams Blok’s brilliant intellectual play. Van den Eynde on advertising warning through the “doodbrief”, the “fairepart”, indicating on cigarette packages that tobacco kills. This argument is not to be rejected from the reverse of the hand. I am talking about the logic, not the amendment. This is a reflection that we will have to carry out in the coming months. Of course, subversive character does not escape me, neither do you. We will not enter into the debate on this subject either. I have also the feeling that we are currently engaged with what men, philosophically spoken, would be able to describe as a sophism. Sophism is an aesthetic redemption without the content of reality. If one wanted to push the reasoning of the absurd, of the "nonsense", of the surrealism to the end, shouldn't one write on all the cars of all Grand Prix: "speed damages health"?

We are always placed in front of subtle intellectual games, which do not set clear boundaries. I think that man is led to think about ways to prevent the deviations in the use of tobacco and I ask myself a question. Are there studies available today that show, for our Belgium, Vlaanderen, Wallonia and Brussels, that the impact of the 1997 law is positive on the number of young people who have stopped smoking or who have not started smoking? This is an objective element that might one day be discussed in a committee.

You terminate by a very technical aspect, that of the fund. I think it is dangerous to control a fund only by letting the private sector control it. I think that public authorities should control this. I said in the committee — I repeated it yesterday in the Senate — that so far no credits were provided. Therefore, I have proposed that the Fund should start in 2004, but first a treatment with the Regions and the Communities is needed. The matter is also their competence in terms of prevention. This is a line of horizon. You fix 2004 without giving the date more precise, what is more realistic than the making of promises to the subject of a fund which, for the moment, is not yet alimented.

I will be very brief. I will do it in my place. Mr. Minister, I would like to thank you for your response. It is the second time. I am almost embarrassed to do it. However, I would also like to say that I appreciate the honesty of your answer and your argument, even though I do not agree entirely. I want to push forward two things. Their

First, there is that study on the 1997 law. I think everyone will follow you in it. I think this is indeed necessary. However, we should not call each other a lie. You did not try that either. I appreciate that. You say that this law only applies to manifestations that take place on a global scale. That is beautiful. That’s not a syllogism, but it’s a gift package for an answer. There is only one, which is Francorchamps. Le championnat des mangeurs de flamiches of Mont-sur-Marchienne is not a world-sized event, nor is the Kontich-Kazerne Bird Pick Competition. There is only one. We are talking about Francorchamps. Their

I have already said in the committee that I will even give you that gun. If you ask me if I don’t give that money to Francorchamps? Yes, I will do it. That is not my problem. The problem is that whenever there is a law in this country and that law for one or another good or bad reason is not appreciated in what is called in politically correct language the south of the country, that law then concerns. That annoys me. This is not your fault, it is their fault. In Flanders, it is said that it is so. They go on. That is a first thing.

A second matter is the following. Again this is not your fault, but their fault. It could have been negotiated. One could have said, Francorchamps, you want it and you have good reasons for it, well then we will discuss it. Mr. Minister, you also know that the community negotiations — you may not be there to wait, that will be, but we do — as a result of matters from the previous government are negotiations where Flanders have nothing more to offer. The cards have been shared for a long time. All treasure cards are in your camp. We have nothing more. This could have been a truffle card. Again, that is not blaming you. This is not a blame to your party members. This is a blame for the flames.