Proposition 51K0375

Proposition de résolution relative à l'organisation d'une étude scientifique prospective concernant la prise de décision et les actes médicaux en fin de vie.

General information ¶

Authors

Open Vld Yolande Avontroodt, Miguel Chevalier, Hilde Dierickx

Submission date

Oct. 30, 2003

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

death euthanasia medicine medical science resolution of parliament scientific research

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

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 ¶

April 22, 2004 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mrs. Secretary of State, the other members of the government are not present, but a resolution is therefore a parliamentary initiative, so we can make peace with it.

I report on the discussion in the Committee on Public Health of the proposal for a resolution in connection with the prospective study on medical care operations at the end of life. Subsequently, on behalf of the CD&V group, I formulate some substantive concerns. Mrs Lambert was, as mentioned, a co-rapporter but has been apologized for the schedules. We agreed to present the full report, with my personal concerns, of course.

The proposal for a resolution concerning the organisation of a scientific prospective study on decision-making and medical care actions at the end of life was submitted by Avontroodt and Dierickx and Chevalier. It recalls almost the same text as the draft resolution submitted here on this subject in the previous legislature.

During the hearing, Professor Distelmans, Chairman of the Federal Control and Evaluation Commission on the application of the euthanasia law of 28 May 2002, was heard. He initiated a study on possible life-end interventions by doctors, took part in the initial evaluation of the work of the committee that registers the euthanasia declarations and concluded that that committee only has few data on medical care operations at the end of life. However, the collection of both qualitative and quantitative data is necessary, according to Professor Distelmans. A decision that was unanimously shared by all members of the committee.

I will now address the comments made by the commissioners during the discussion of the considerations of the draft resolution. Mrs Avontroodt emphasizes as the chief speaker that it is not intended to reopen the euthanasia debate. The proposed resolution, which calls on the government to investigate all medical decisions around the end of life, fits in the research results of a European study on deaths. About 38 percent of deaths, colleagues, are accompanied by medical intervention, of which euthanasia accounts for only 0.30 percent. Doctors and nursing staff need clear and uniform guidelines to refer to in making medical decisions with respect to patients who are going through their final stages of life.

Mr Bacquelaine considers that this proposal is completely meaningless, as it does not incorporate any concrete element that can provide any added value. He even fears that the underlying intent of the applicants could be to reverse the euthanasia law.

He emphasizes that he is a strong advocate of the therapeutic and diagnostic freedom of doctors and fears that the scientific study, as requested in the resolution, will cause a constriction and load the medical decisions with a lot of bureaucratic burden. Mrs Lambert has the same opinion.

I am now reading the piece that Mrs. Lambert would have seen normally.

Mr. Goutry reminds the commissioners of the way the euthanasia debate went. A wider debate on all medical care operations at the end of life was not considered appropriate at that time. The supporters believed the law had solved all the problems. However, the law did not meet the expectations of the doctors. With this in mind, CD&V supports this proposal for a resolution, as it is now finally possible for a broader debate.

Mr. Minister, I welcome you. I am pleased that you are there for the discussion of the resolution.

Luc Goutry submits an amendment to explicitly involve the Federation for Palliative Care in the investigation. Mr Goutry, however, fears that the resolution, like any other, will be classified and will not bring a solution. Finally, he also formulated substantive concerns about the excessive collection of statistical data.

Mrs Jiroflée expresses the view that the discussion of the resolution can absolutely not be seen apart from the discussion of euthanasia. Later in the debate, Mr. Bacquelaine also emphasized this view once again. Mrs Jiroflée emphasises that her group will support the resolution, as it is necessary to continue to discuss the end of life on the basis of empirical data. However, the provision that each Region must have a research team is too extensive. Therefore, together with Ms. Detiège, Ms. Jiroflée submits an amendment.

Mr Bultinck does not, in principle, object to the investigation, but in turn reminds that during the euthanasia debate there was no room for a broad social debate. This discussion is late and outdated.

Ms. Avontroodt wants to refute some criticisms. It claims that the resolution does not prejudice the therapeutic freedom of the doctor. She says there is no hidden agenda. It is also not intended to resume the euthanasia debate following the resolution. Minister Demotte does not declare to be against the resolution. Practical data is needed and in the context of therapeutic risks, the Minister has also ordered a study on the medical practice. However, the Minister points out that standards should not be issued for all medical care operations, otherwise therapeutic freedom threatens to be restricted. The procedure of a research team per region also does not find it efficient. He believes that a legislative action would show that the current legislative framework is too restrictive.

Two amendments are submitted by Mr. Mayeur, as the chief speaker, so that the determination of a research team per Region, whose delegates were listed, is eased to the demand for a similar study in each Region, in cooperation with university and scientific institutions and healthcare providers. The amendments were adopted unanimously, as was the amended proposal.

Furthermore, Mr Mayeur points out that the resolution does not add any new elements. In addition to the Federal Control and Evaluation Commission, there is the Knowledge Centre for Healthcare. According to him, a new study would be unnecessary.

Mrs Doyen-Fonck, in turn, regrets that politics interferes with life-end decisions. The requested investigation, on the other hand, is indispensable, but it should have been carried out long before the euthanasia law was enacted.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, this was the summary of the discussion in the committee. Now, on behalf of the CD&V group, I would like to say a few more things on this important issue.

We support the initiative of the resolution. We have also said this to the chief executive, colleague Avontroodt. We support them especially because the discussion of the issues underlying this resolution is very important. That is obvious. Medical guidance of dying people, nothing is more essential in life. All questions that doctors and healthcare providers have about this must, of course, also be socially and juridically reviewed through our Parliament. That is obvious.

The content of the resolution is of subordinate interest to us. The technique of the resolution also does not give us so much confidence. We have said that too. Usually — the colleagues know that, especially those who have already been in service for a long time — resolutions are put on a lot and they remain, unfortunately, without further effect. There is a lot of parliamentary work behind. We have organized hearings and the applicants have drawn up texts. Unfortunately, resolutions are usually put on a lot. I also call for more follow-up to resolutions. It may also be partly the responsibility of the majority petitioners, Mrs Avontroodt et co, to ensure that the resolution, which may be held unanimously by the Parliament, is at least also taken on the agenda by the government, in such a way that what is requested in it is actually accomplished. It would, of course, help us a whole step forward. The hearing also showed from Professor Distelmans, one of the eminences in this field in our country and also chairman of the evaluation committee, that he hoped that a continuation of the work could be given.

We actually have a double feeling. On the one hand, there is a sense of interest and enthusiasm because of the importance of this subject—medical decisions about the end of life—and because of the many questions facing doctors. On the other hand, we feel frustrated and deeply disappointed because we failed to expand the euthanasia debate at the time and put everything in the right context. In fact, two years ago, when we discussed euthanasia extensively here in the Chamber for months to nights, we should have been able to discuss the so-called medical decisions around the end of life. I will show you later why.

One feels it clear and clear: the euthanasia debate — which, unfortunately, we had to confirm also in the committee — is considered as completed past time and one does not wish to discuss it in any case. However, colleague Tony Van Parys, who was also present in the committees for Justice and Public Health, will be able to point out that, when the law was adopted two years ago, the proponents of the law at the end of the debate expressly stated that the vote could not close the debate on termination of life and that the law should be the subject of a thorough evaluation, given its importance.

In that regard, we as CD&V remain absolutely asking party for an evaluation. Colleagues, we go even a step further and we persist in our position that is clear and ready. For us, the law needs to be adjusted. This is, by the way, also what colleague Van Parys has expressly said several times, just like our party chairman.

Colleagues, it was always all our fear that once the euthanasia debate was closed, it would be taboo to talk about it.

However, the social impact of such ethical questions can never be concluded. It requires a kind of permanent succession and social discussion. Such fundamental questions of life can never be settled by law alone. It is not everything or nothing. It is not that when we have made a law and everything is arranged, we are freed from it. Nothing is less true.

The attitude in the committee of our colleagues from PS and MR proves that for them the legalization of euthanasia was rather — I cannot say otherwise — an ideological symbolic file. That’s why it was a huge missed opportunity and it became an anti-debat at the time. We have never been able to have a good debate. Nothing could be changed in the bill. Nothing was really in question yet. In other words, it was a false debate.

Unfortunately, the legislator has never had the intention to look at the deeper term of all the problems that may arise on a medical level in terminally ill people. The euthanasia law regulates only a limited number of problems surrounding the termination of life.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, from the studies of professors Deliens and Van der Heyden, it appears that 40% of all deaths in Flanders — by way of speech — are medical supervised. Therefore, support from doctors or emergency workers is needed to ensure that these people can die in dignity. In 1988, however, euthanasia occurred only in 1.1% of those cases and in 2001 and 2002, only in 0.3% of those cases.

In other words, for almost half of all people who are dying, something needs to happen on the medical level, to provide comfort, to reduce the pain, or to provide medical support, while—the numbers prove it—the people very exceptionally actively ask to be able to die. Unfortunately, for months we have held the big debate about those 0.3% of people who make an active request to die, but there was little or never spoken about those 40% of people who need medical guidance around the end of life. In fact, the debate should have been about this.

That was also our question at the time. We have never rejected the debate. We have always said that euthanasia is ⁇ worth a debate because we could imagine that there are emergencies where one cannot do other than allow, even upon request, euthanasia. We have always pledged to broaden the debate and put it in the context of the many ethical questions that doctors have to account for when they guide patients to die.

That should have been the real motivation of the debate. We would then undoubtedly — as now with the resolution — have even come to a unanimously adopted law. It could have been done in a different way, not from a legalist point of view, not as a legalization, but, as in our proposal, inserted into the criminal law as an emergency, as a basis for savings. In this way, we would ⁇ have been able to put forward a good proposal in Parliament and the Parliament would have been able to speak unanimously — as it may be appropriate in ethical debates — on this issue. That was a great missed opportunity. We could not miss this opportunity to emphasize this even more.

An extrapolation of figures shows that on average — it is, of course, an average, but it still stays what we mean — 1 doctor out of 125 is faced with the question of euthanasia at least once in his career. If one divides the number — the 0.3% — by the number of active doctors in our country, then one doctor out of 125 who once in his career has had a patient who actively, persistently and according to the procedure asks to end his life. We discussed this for months. Weekly, daily, a doctor receives patients on the floor who are dying and who need medical assistance. We have not discussed this.

In other words, in the law of that time, one has chosen the path of ideological tenacity. The law was actually meant against therapeutic persistence. However, one has himself caught up in an ideological tenacity. Little or no attention has been given to the real problems faced daily by doctors and emergency workers in the field of death accompaniment. It is therefore not surprising that the driving force behind this resolution is a doctor, especially Dr. Avontroodt.

Doctors have a problem with this and ask questions about it. Dr. Avontroodt knows too well what it means to have to provide medical assistance to dying people. She herself has said that she will not let it go and will submit a resolution that should teach us more than just what was discussed here in connection with the euthanasia law. After all, the majority of doctors in our country have never supported the famous euthanasia law, and Mrs. Avontroodt did not. I can understand her too well. The doctors, colleague Avontroodt incluis, have consistently called for a broad debate and clarity regarding all medical decisions relating to the end of life.

Doctors want to answer the real and common ethical questions from their practice. They don’t just want an answer regarding the exceptions. This is the essence of which we are talking about today. There is, on the one hand, the unwavering attitude of those who have only wanted a symbolic file through a bill that was to be taken or left. On the other hand, there are colleagues who have thought deeper about it, such as colleague Avontroodt. They have conscience problems and ⁇ that is why they are the ones who abstained in the majority of votes. They are the ones who find it worth reopening the debate. It is worth it because the palliative alternative sends a much more positive message than the glorification of the right of self-determination in the euthanasia law.

Finally, a practical and technical consideration concerning this resolution. We must be careful of a storm flood of statistical data. In the long run, we are always dealing with it and we do not get well. The Federal Control and Evaluation Commission registers the ⁇ euthanasia cases, the Federal Knowledge Centre carries out all sorts of studies. The Minister himself indicated that the requested study on medical practice may contain interesting material on the treatment of euthanasia. We also have the National Institute for Statistics and the Scientific Institute for Public Health. Why do we need to spend a lot of money, time and staff somewhere when a well-organized survey of doctors and healthcare providers who are part of palliative teams can make their aspirations clear? This was also shown in the hearing with Professor Distelmans. These people know a lot and are in practice every day. They know what they are talking about when they talk about those things. During the hearing, we also noted that we should have asked doctors, Professor Distelmans and others what doctors exactly want and what they expect from Parliament and from the legislature. After all, it is hard to note that in Parliament an euthanasia law was passed where doctors were not behind. Surveys were conducted through the Medical Journal and other surveys. The majority of doctors were against the law, which, however, is intended as an instrument for doctors. Doctors have been imposed an instrument that they would at that moment rather lose than be rich and for which they were not the requesting party. Therefore, we must again ask the doctors what they expect from the Parliament and its legislative work in this regard.

Colleagues, why is the competence of the Federal Audit and Evaluation Committee not extended? To date, this committee has a kind of supervisory authority in which all ⁇ euthanasia cases are assessed with respect to the procedures prescribed by law, including whether a second doctor has been consulted, sufficient time has passed, and there is a written question from the patient. In short, the commission must examine whether the notifications of euthanasia cases have expired in accordance with the law.

In my opinion, the committee could do more with its know-how and provide Parliament with information on the issues we need to address.

It is not the task of Parliament to arrange everything very punctually. Doctors do not ask that. Doctors do not ask us to develop laws that include all possible foreseeable and unforeseen conditions that can occur such as medical complications in dying people. Doctors do not ask that. Doctors ask the legislator to provide a legal framework within which they can do their work so that they have certainty that they are not in breach of their conscience, nor of the law.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I have explained the CD&V views that we want to convey as the outcome of the euthanasia debate following this important resolution. My group will support this draft resolution. We are not against further expansion of this issue. However, the way he was dealt with in the first phase, we find a missed opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I would like to thank the Minister for not only showing a great willingness to listen, but also in the committee for the commitment to effectively work on the implementation of this resolution. We will put him in it...

Women can do two things at the same time. Men are ⁇ ly not... They have two brain halves.

We all have two brain halves.

It is scientifically proven that only women can do two things at the same time.

Just two things?

Two substantive matters,

"Hospital mortality rates cause controversy." It refers to ongoing studies by the University of Leuven and other hospitals on mortality rates in hospitals. This debate is held very openly in the northern countries. There, the mortality rates of the hospitals are published online, allowing comparisons. In our country today, this is unthinkable and it would not be correct. We do not have comparable data that allows us to come to the correct conclusions. Mr. Minister, I hope that our resolution will give an initial impetus to this. I look forward to the results of the analysis of Professor Vleugels of the University of Leuven. That is one example.

Secondly, there is the yet shocking statement of a professor emeritus last week in the press. He wants to close the money crane for people over 85. Of course, this is a controversial ruling. Our health care is not worthy. It strikes, not only against the oath of Hippocrates, but also against our system of solidarity and the right of every patient to the best care, regardless of age.

Our group will ⁇ not follow the path of medical utilitarism. I assume that this is not your goal either. We do not do that, just to prevent such discharges and to assert that this path does not rely on anything. After all, the ruling made was based on the fact that only 2% of the male 85-year-olds and 3% of the female 85-year-olds would be 100 years old. This was then linked to the conclusion that then only a flat-rate refund amount should be established for people over the age of 85. I repeat, this is not the way we want to go.

Mr. Goutry has indeed pointed out the figure of 37% medical operations that precede the end of life. The other percentages include people who die suddenly or who die without medical action.

Should there be a new law? My colleagues, I don’t think. Today, our first question is not to create a new regulation for these acts. On the contrary, the Patient Rights Act does not only include the right to information and the right to consent. It is just about evaluating its application. If it is true that 40% of these patients have a medical operation, then my question — and not only my question, as it also came clearly out in the approach of Professor Distelmans — is how and how the participation and consent and the right to refuse and the right to represent the patient is effectively applied.

Mrs. Avontroodt, can I interrupt you to give the word briefly to Mr. Goutry?

Colleague, for all clarity, I have since said with just as many words that we are not the requesting party for regulation regarding all medical decisions at the end of life. I said that this was also unacceptable. I have said that there should be a framework that is sufficiently justified not only ethically, but also legally.

There must be a kind of deontology, for which social support is also found through Parliament. Where legal matters need to be settled, it can be. However, a general framework must also be created, giving physicians the tools they need to make a choice and make an ethically-founded decision without falling into the grey zone. After all, once the argument to make the euthanasia law was that too much was traded in the grey zone. This is also the case for many other medical decisions around the end of life. The administration of sedatives, for example, in which the doctor knows that the death process is accelerating, is a medical act with an extensive effect, which puts certain doctors before a difficult question. Our plea was that we should actually have settled those matters in one big debate and with one big regulation.

Mr. Goutry, I disagree on this. I do not think that this should be arranged, not even in a framework. I do not think.

I think we should wait for this investigation first. I am, of course, a requesting party for a study of the various DNR codes — the do-not-resuscitate codes — which are used and which are drawn up on a voluntary basis in hospitals, making them, of course, unprepared. In certain periods of rest, such codes are drawn up multidisciplinary. These codes provide an internal framework for the providers, both the doctors and the other care providers. Therefore, a study must first be done to give a precise houvast.

I think that it is ⁇ as important, Mr. Minister, that also for the ambulance sector — the general physicians, who, by the way, are the requesting party themselves — a reflection group or a kind of hostage is created in such situations.

I point out the difference, the disparaatness, the non-binding. I ⁇ do not mean this denigrating, because it is also not so. The DNR codes are being drafted, but in theory they must always be discussed. Whether this can be done in practice is another question, whether the representatives also participate in it in the correct way and, much more importantly, whether only the interests of the patient are always taken into consideration, are precisely the elements of the research that we ask. It was not my intention — I will ⁇ not return to it or extend it — to open the debate about euthanasia here. on the contrary. It is precisely my intention to support a possible new framework for decisions about medical interventions at the end of life, if necessary, based on data, as they are available in Europe in a number of countries, as they are available in Flanders — limited — on a sample of 1,500 patients and above all with the sole aim of the qualitative results, which Professor Distelmans also requested. He spoke about methods of use of medication, professional collaboration and framing, the communicative aspects of the end of life, the financial and social problemology and the spiritual and ethical approach.

Mr. Minister, I have full confidence that you will bring this to a good end. You said this with so many words in the committee. We didn’t go ice overnight. I would also like to express my gratitude to the colleagues of the other political groups, Mr. Bacquelaine incluis, for their positive contribution to this. My thanks for that.

I also thank you for your attention.

The discussion is closed. The discussion is closed. The text adopted by the committee serves as the basis for the discussion.

Mr. Speaker, the present bill, together with the Bill No. 29 of colleague Bacquelaine, the Bill No. 96 of colleague Viseur and the Bill No. 546 and 547 of colleague Bourgeois, was the subject of various discussions. It is stated, among other things, that our legislation is imperfect. Because of a true legal diarrhea — the increase in legislation — the uncertainty increases. That ambiguity cannot be addressed by current legislative techniques such as the State Council opinion, expert hearings and second reading.

The committee then decided to set up a working group under the leadership of colleague Giet. That working group has worked further on the basis of the bill of colleague Bacquelaine, which contained a repeat of a previously submitted bill from the previous legislature but with various amendments. Some amendments took into account the discussions in the previous legislature, other amendments continued. The Working Group then reached its conclusions and its draft text was submitted as an amendment by the rapporteur of the Working Group, in particular colleague Borginon.

The proposal of colleague Baquelaine, which is being discussed today, implies that a parliamentary committee consisting of 11 members of the House and 11 senators will be charged with the evaluation of the law. It will take note of petitions dealing with difficulties in applying laws older than three years. Various administrative authorities, public authorities responsible for law enforcement, natural persons, legal persons and members of the Chamber and Senate will be able to submit petitions. The committee will judge the admissibility, select the various petitions and give priority to laws that undermine the functioning of our legal system or create excessive administrative burden.

The Committee may call on experts and, after examining the petition, shall report to the Chamber, Senate and the competent minister. In addition, the Committee will be able to discuss the examinations and consequences of the decisions of the Arbitration Court and the annual reports of, among others, the Attorney General at the Court of Cassation and of the College of Attorneys General. In addition, it can develop legislative initiatives in addition to reports, and it prepares annual reports.

To this end, Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, in a nutshell the present proposals.

However, some concerns can be formulated.

Do you do.

Of course it is so that the principle that everyone is considered to know the law today is dead letter. Today, laws are more a source of legal uncertainty than vice versa. What can we do about this, colleagues? I think we will need to make clear and careful legislation here, rather than signal legislation and symbol legislation. Quality should prevail. Then I think we should dare to look in our own belly and dare to look at the causes.

A large part of our legislation does not come from parliamentary initiatives, but from government initiatives, where compromises have already been made that have sometimes given rise to ambiguous formulations subject to various interpretations. A member of parliament who is engaged in law assessment, a member of parliament who is engaged in technical adjustments and technical improvements, does not stand out in this media society. It is not sexy to be engaged in technical improvements to legislation. Let’s be honest, many legislative initiatives are being pursued too quickly by Parliament, too, for political reasons. I think of the legislation regarding the super fines, I think of the fast-Belg Act, I think of the Everberg Act. This leads to a lack of quality legislation.

There are no miracle solutions, President, colleagues. Paars-I wanted 25% less bureaucratic regulation. That was the ambition. One must be ambitious, but a healthy ambition must be supported by realistic principles. This was not the case, and therefore these empty promises cannot be fulfilled. Paars-II has taken lessons from this and now limits itself to 12 concrete initiatives of administrative simplification, one of which is the law evaluation. Are there alternatives, colleagues, related to law assessment and better regulation? I think we should be careful with regard to the initiative that is presented here today and that will be approved. Here we give the initiative to a parliamentary committee and the question is whether the Parliament is the appropriate body to do so. Do we have the time and expertise to do this material work? Is there not the risk that our political composition will make the law assessment also a bit of political colour? For example, is a majority like today willing to evaluate the rapid Belgian law, which everyone, including colleagues from the majority, agrees that this law works poorly, that this law leads to nefaste consequences? Will the committee, if it is set up later, be prepared to select this law to apply an evaluation test to it?

We ask questions about this. If a majority would approve a law at the beginning of the legislature, is it willing to review that law three years later at the end of the legislature, or is it at least to be transferred to the next legislature? The question is, of course, whether there are alternatives. An alternative could be the Senate, the Reflection Chamber. An alternative could be a committee, independent alongside Parliament. The French example where the evaluation also takes place in Parliament, as in this bill by Mr. Bacquelaine, teaches us that this has actually brought little soil. In other countries where law assessments are carried out outside the Parliament, better results are achieved.

Let us be honest, colleagues, the proposal where anyone can file petitions is transparent. That is positive, but the influx of petitions could sometimes come back as a boomerang in our faces if we should later select through a committee that is politically composed anyway.

In addition, we are confronted with the problem that this evaluation takes place afterwards. However, if a subsequent evaluation is to be performed efficiently, a preliminary evaluation is also necessary, which must be carried out by the government. When we make laws, we must first examine the cost and the objectives of those laws and then evaluate them.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, this proposal is very intentional. This proposal is a very good attempt. It will also get the majority and I wish Mr. Bacquelaine congratulations for that. In our view, this proposal still has too many weaknesses to ⁇ a real breakthrough. This is also the reason why we have not signed this proposal and why we will abstain when voting on this proposal.

In the general discussion, Mr. Bacquelaine, Mrs. De Clercq and Mr. Borginon and Bourgeois signed up.

Since I have already amended the agenda, I urge you to be concise in your speeches.

Mr. Speaker, for my part, I am ⁇ pleased to see today, in plenary session, a matter that is ⁇ important to me. Certainly, the discussions were long and supplied and the project matured thought, I think. by Mr. Verherstraeten concluded his speech by indicating that the project wasn’t perfect, it’s true, but, as I don’t believe in perfection, it doesn’t bother me excessively. A Nobel Prize winner once said, “If you want to prevent a project from succeeding, demand that it be perfect.”

The Commission for the Revision of the Constitution has put on the baptismal fonts a new tool, a new institution that should prove very useful for our parliament, especially to restore the dialogue between the parliament and the citizens, because it is necessary to measure the contribution of the text that is submitted to us. It is often said that our laws are poorly written, that some are difficult to apply, others are incomprehensible. It is also often said – and rightly, it seems to me – that citizens are disoriented in the face of this influx of texts (45,000 texts in our arsenal) that, sometimes, they no longer understand. This is a problem for which they now have very few interlocutors. Finally, it is said that our system is complicated and that it tends to deepen the gap between the political world and civil society. So many common places will some say.

We have everything to lose by minimizing the clues that denounce real deficiencies in our relationship to the citizen. That is why I found it appropriate to propose, from January 2002, the establishment of a joint body with the House and the Senate, responsible for evaluating our laws, in particular on the basis of requests from individuals, therefore from every citizen, companies or administrations of the country. This proposal provides a response to the various concerns I have just mentioned. The evaluation of our normative production is naturally at the heart of the debate but the proposal also unquestionably contains accents of direct democracy. I will come back.

Finally, the new committee should contribute to valuing the work of institutions which, in my opinion, are not sufficiently benefited. It should also streamline the dialogue between these institutions and others that coexist in a way too fragmented in our federal structure.

I will return to each of these points without repeating the details of the proposal that were ⁇ by Mr. by Verherstraeten.

With regard to the assessment, one can question the need for an assessment body and say that asking this question means, in the end, acknowledging the qualitative limits of our normative system. I will not summarize the problem in these terms. The imperfection of the law or of certain laws is, in my opinion, not really the node of the problem.

However, it is true that our texts are complicated and too many. We can speak of legal inflation. In my opinion, this is what further discourages citizens and structures such as small and medium-sized enterprises or local governments. It is therefore necessary to simplify the laws and, beyond the texts taken in isolation, to simplify the intersection of texts and legislations, to remove duplicates, to repeal old outdated texts and to coordinate the whole sector by sector.

Such will be the primary tasks of the Monitoring Committee but this normative production must also be assumed; it is expected from the legislator that it fits as closely as possible to the expectations of a complex society. It logically follows inflation and a complexization of responses. In a number of subjects, laws—not to be deceived—will remain complicated. One cannot vulgarize them excessively under the penalty of removing from them the subtleties that are maturely reflected. In this hypothesis, it will then be necessary to dialogue with the recipients of the texts; they are entitled to pedagogy. The bill is also aimed at stimulating the use of the multitude of competent federal services to assume this task.

However, it is not possible to predict everything from the parliament. The experience of the field, the practical application of laws teach us every day that some texts sometimes miss their target. For one reason or another, they do not meet the goals assigned to them. These lessons must be exploited. There are tools to do this. But it is time for an instance to be charged with centralizing information, studying the shortcomings, the shortcomings denounced by those in the front line: citizens, ⁇ , administrations. The analysis will conclude with a targeted report allowing for a quick and effective legislative response.

The second strong axis of the proposal is the advances in terms of direct democracy. I just mentioned it. My group has always been interested in reflection in this area. We are regularly confronted with certain oppositions; it must be believed that some fear sometimes a form of emancipation of public opinion. In any case, I am not pleased today to see the vast majority of democratic parties trust the citizen and agree to collect his opinion even outside of any electoral period. It is a pre-taste of what is possible to do in this vast dossier too long overlooked for the wrong reasons.

In practice, the law effectively gives a new right to the citizen. From now on, he will be able to address us directly through requests for which a standard form will be developed as soon as the committee is set up. This advance is not thin, even though we sometimes have the impression that this is the minimum in relation to those of whom we here only relay the word. Small ⁇ and small administrations are among the structures most exposed to the difficulties related to inflation and the increasing complexity of normative production.

It is useful that the frustration resulting from this exposure is used to improve existing texts.

Another of our proposals also aims to impose the publication of laws in a coordinated and no longer partial form, as is the case today. This will also greatly simplify the management of those who, on the ground, cannot afford to assign a full-time person to follow day-to-day the will of the legislator.

The third asset of the Parliamentary Monitoring Committee is its ability to value – and I think this is important in comparison with some criticisms – the work of institutions that is ultimately still poorly exploited at present. I also believe that it will perfectly fit into the federal model by allowing the various elements that structure it today to communicate with each other.

It is therefore not properly speaking a new institution that will come to weigh a already complicated institutional system. No, the committee must use the existing structures, logistics and services of the House and the Senate. Parliamentarians themselves will take on a new mission. They will be assisted by experts according to the needs of the cause. Therefore, it is not a heavy and expensive superstructure. The Parliament will also take over, in some way, its after-sales service. He makes the law; it is His responsibility to answer it.

I am therefore quite opposed to the argument developed by the rapporteur recently, when he considers that the Monitoring Committee should be located outside the Parliament. I think it would be a little easier for parliamentarians to rely on others, especially experts, to modify the gaps or inconsistencies of the laws that they themselves would have produced. It is up to the parliament to make the laws, but it is up to the parliament to assume them.

The committee will also lay a new bridge between the House and the Senate. It will also be noted that the law designates Senators of Communities as legal members of the new institution.

It also creates a link between the Court of Arbitration and the Parliament. Finally, we will follow, institutionally speaking, the jurisprudence of this jurisdiction that censors a homeland of our work.

Equally important, the committee will feed on the annual contributions of the Federal Ombudsman’s College, the various law enforcement agencies – the Court of Auditors or the Committee P – or the new annual reports of the Court of Cassation. I think it will be very useful for us to listen to these important actors of our state. The State Council, on the other hand, will retain its essential role. He intervenes already a priori; from now on there will be a further analysis a posteriori that will complete his intervention.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, you will understand that today we are preparing to set up an important body that should contribute to putting Parliament back at the center of public debate. We will dialogue there with the citizen, with the companies, with the administrative and judicial structures that contribute to the proper running of our legal order. The challenge deserves to be taken. I would even say that it must imperatively be so if one wants the citizen to fully reinvest the political life. Today is a first step. This is not a revolution, but I think it is going in the right direction. I would like, therefore, that all democratic political formations support this initiative.

I would like to conclude without thanking the members of the Committee on the Revision of the Constitution and in particular the working group chaired by our colleague Thierry Giet, which was created in the constructive spirit that has animated the work since the beginning of this legislature.

This is also in the right thread of the government’s agreement. by Mr. Secretary of State Van Quickenborne supported this proposal. His considerations and those of the working group members have led to a balanced text that, I hope, will give rise to an effective institution.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will be brief. The VLD group supports the proposal and was actively involved by us, in accordance with the old proposals still submitted by colleague Hendrik Daems regarding the law evaluation. I think we have done a good job in the committee and that we have greatly simplified the text. We have also incorporated the dimension of the community senators into the functioning of the committee and in the task description we have been able to come to a more precise formulation following the hearing we have had with the State Secretary for Administrative Simplification.

I think this tribune should allow us to try to answer a more fundamental question, the question of whether we should see the establishment of that Parliamentary Committee for Wets Evaluation as a kind of parliamentary mea culpa because we would make bad legislation. I think, colleagues, this is not the case. One should not have the idea that legislation can always be perfect. Legislation is nothing but the stalled legal form of the outcome of a social decision-making process. Perfect legislation does not exist, and if it exists, it does not continue to exist over time, precisely because the society of which it is the emanation is also evolving. I would like to give two examples from old legislation to illustrate that.

Article 1382 of the Civil Code, which forms the basis of our entire liability scheme, is ultimately only a 10-word bill, but in all the bills I have seen passing in this hemisphere, I have never seen a text asking to urgently revise it because it would be a bad law. Nevertheless, I have had to take a whole course on this subject twice in my own life, with two different professors, including my colleague, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Justice, who teaches a 500-page Course on Unlawful Acts to explain what is in that one article. Is this bad legislation? I do not think. I think it is an old legislation that has evolved.

I would like to give a second example: Article 544 of the Civil Code, the article that forms the basis of our property laws. Well, at the end of the 19th century it was given a very different ideological meaning than what is understood today. Not so long ago, this simple article was used to build a whole theory on the balance between good neighbors, and a whole form of new responsibility without error was based on it. In other words, our predecessors in the various parliamentary assemblies also made legislation that had to be later interpreted. I don’t think it can be said that this was a bad legislation.

Contrary to the society in which our Civil Code came into being, we now live in an even more complex society, with a social reality that is much more internationally underpinned, with all kinds of institutions that all produce regulation of a different level, with a process of defederalization in which each federated entity also – and rightly – issues a number of norms. Our society has experienced a socio-economic development that requires legislation in many areas that were not considered necessary in the 19th century, such as the labour law, the whole social security law, the legislation relating to the environment. Moreover, the society experienced a technological development that required to regulate entirely new areas in order to save a number of things. I think of standards related to privacy, cybercrime, media, electronic signature.

In short, we live in a society that is much more complex than the society in which our parliamentary model came into being. Therefore, it is logical that — without having to beat the legislator mea culpa — our legislation can cause more difficulties in terms of interpretation, possible gaps, possible contradictions and developments in society that cause time to absorb the text of the legislation.

The parliamentary committee Wetsevaluation should, in my opinion, be regarded as a parliamentary part of a global response to this problem as a whole and cannot be separated from other parts of the answer. There is a need for a priori review of legislation which was initially made with the review of the administrative burden that legislation could create. There is also a need for a change of mentality within the parliamentary assemblies and in the media, where one should pay more attention to delivering good and qualitative legislative work. There is also a need to conduct the subsidiarity test at the European level.

The parliamentary committee Wetsevaluation is not the ultimate means of coming to good legislation. It is only one of the components to come to a better, more conducted and technically more complete legislation.

Humility is glorifying. It also affects the legislator. The need to look in your own heart is realized with this proposal. It is up to us to make it operational and to make the Parliamentary Committee an efficient mechanism.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, we recently adopted in the Committee on the Revision of the Constitution a text aiming at establishing within the Federal Legislative Chambers a Parliamentary Committee in charge of the legislative monitoring. This commission was therefore based on a document established by a working group set up for this purpose and chaired by our colleague Thierry Giet. This newly established committee composed of deputies and senators will receive requests from any member of the assemblies, any natural or legal person, any service or any public authority, who are faced with the application or interpretation of an existing standard.

The establishment of this committee aims to alleviate the difficulties of interpretation of the laws in force when they lack accuracy or suffer from various gaps. The increasing complexity of certain existing standards and – it must be acknowledged – the difficulties of applying some of them, among them, in our positive law is a problem to which the creation of that committee also wishes to provide an answer.

My political group is pleased to have participated in this fruitful debate that led to this law and hopes heavily that it will allow greater visibility of the legislative work for the citizen who, I repeat, will be able to file the parliamentary committee. Furthermore, I feel positive that the two Legislative Chambers can work together within this future committee, which should further improve communication between them. However, I draw attention to the fact that this committee does not replace other already existing bodies and does not have to prejudice the powers conferred on them. Let us highlight the excellent work done by the legislative service of the House.

It must be avoided that this committee becomes a petition committee and that it is overwhelmed with requests of purely political order, which would be of a nature to undermine the mission assigned to it. The committee will only adopt recommendations and will therefore not replace the respective assemblies.

The PS group therefore joins the legislative initiative taken by other colleagues, hoping that the newly created committee can offer citizens greater transparency of legislative work as well as the application of standards, concerned with the will of the legislator by associating the different recipients to a permanent evaluation of them.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, since I entered the Federal House, I have been paying attention to the quality of legislation and the evaluation of laws. I have also submitted legislative proposals for this. I think we actually pay too little attention to the quality of our work, its evaluation and for new techniques that we should apply to our various processes.

In one of my bills I have made a historical overview. It is ⁇ interesting to read once again how long we have been engaged in this kind of activity in this country. Since the last century, there have been proposals and committees of all kinds. We can see that history repeats itself from time to time. A number of themes are coming back. After World War II, I was ⁇ not the first to submit proposals for better legislation and better law assessment.

I think we need to strictly distinguish a number of things. This is quite mixed with administrative simplification. I think that administrative simplification has little or nothing to do with what we are dealing with here, with the quality of the legislation and the evaluation of the law. This is essentially a matter of the administration and the government, which must ensure that the administrative rules are as simple, clear, clear and concise as possible.

The second point is the improvement of the legislative work. I think we still have a long way to go. I agree with what colleague Borginon said. The perfect law will probably never see the light of life. This, of course, does not prevent us from striving to ⁇ the highest possible quality of legislation. I think we should move towards what exists in the European Commission or in Canada, a service of legislative officials who write the law on behalf of the various departments, who ensure good legislation on the legal level and on the language level. Too often it is seen that the Council of State must here make comments and observations on the legislature and the language of the legislation. This is not a task of the State Council. The State Council has other tasks. He is here to check the legality. So I think that both in Parliament, where we should still have better and more expert assistance – the services are already performing fantasticly but we could be much better surrounded – and in regards to the government itself, we can still ⁇ a lot of improvement. The second phase is, of course, the State Council, which monitors the legality.

I think we can improve much in the parliamentary procedure itself. When I entered here, I hoped that it would be done slowly. That should lead to the quality of what we produce improving the quality of our products.

Take, for example, the ex ante evaluation. Parliament is not actually involved in the ex-ante procedure. All types of press groups receive the preliminary draft laws, but the Parliament itself does not receive those preliminary drafts.

I think of the very stereotypical course of parliamentary preparation, repeatedly following the same strings, while in other countries there is an enormous variation in the way laws are made.

I think of support in the field of research. Fortunately, there have been a lot of improvements there; I would like to confirm that and thank the services for that. We receive very solid files at regular times, including legal comparative files from the library. This allows parliamentarians to reflect on the research of expert services in the legislative work.

The stereotype form of reporting must also change. However, these are all other things.

I come to the actual point, the subject of this debate, in particular the evaluation. I have participated in the subcommittee to the extent possible in the discussion of the proposalBacquelaine. I also tried to make my own contribution. In any case, something positive is happening, namely that thanks to the Bacquelaine proposal, which was improved and refined as a result of the cooperation of the various parties, the law assessment is finally started. This is ⁇ positive.

I am convinced that there could be a better formula. You know I’m in favor of a different way of working. I have my doubts about the system that opts for parliamentarians from the House and the Senate, even though community senators have been added. However, the Parliament itself will be inadequate in this task. Every day we find it sometimes very difficult to bring together parliamentary committees, let alone that this will be done for this law assessment. Their

The formula in which designs are evaluated only after three years may also call questions. In any case, I hope that the committee will be sufficiently supported, that sufficient resources will be released and that sufficient experts will be involved, otherwise it will become a poor company that will produce little or no results.

It is positive that there is an official follow-up of the decisions of the Arbitration Court. This is a huge void here in this house. The arbitration court destroys. We often do nothing with it, rather than something with it. It depends a little on the personal initiative of the parliamentarians. It is now going to happen officially. This is a good thing. The annual reporting by the Prosecutor General and by the College of Prosecutors General is also a good thing.

I would like to warn that one should not blindly look at easy successes, that one should not assume that one has contributed to the evaluation of law by abolishing old, unused laws. After all, this will contribute little or nothing to what we seek, namely that the citizen, the legal system, has a more effective, more manageable and clearer legal arsenal that gives less cause for controversy.

Who has anything to do with the abolition of a law of 1830 or 1832 that is no longer applied? That can only save some paper, but I don’t see a real contribution to law assessment in it.

Finally, there are many positive elements in the proposal presented here, but in my opinion it does not correspond to what the ideal should be. I still advocate a different formula, where we rely on a legislative council and where the Parliament itself also uses much more modern methods in the process of legislation and the law evaluation. I will therefore abstain in the vote on the proposal-Bacquelaine.