Proposition 51K0613

Projet de loi portant intégration verticale du ministère public.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Dec. 24, 2003

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

public prosecutor's department judicial power

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

March 4, 2004 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

As part of the debate launched during the previous legislature on the vertical integration of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Minister of Justice had asked the Public Prosecutor’s Office to adopt a unanimous position on the reform introduced by the Law of 22 December 1998 on the vertical integration of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Federal Prosecutor’s Office and the Council of the King’s Prosecutors. In fact, it should be noted that the law of 22 December 1998 presented itself essentially as a framework law laying down certain fundamental principles concerning the structure of the public prosecution and that its implementation required additional legislation.

A first phase had been achieved by the Act of 21 June 2001, which established the Federal Prosecutor’s Office on the basis of the principles laid down by the Act of 1998, while making substantial changes to the provisions of that law which concerned the federal prosecutor. The second phase was intended to give way to the vertical integration of the public prosecutor. Following a request from the Minister of Justice, the College of Prosecutors General and the Council of Prosecutors of the King established a working group to examine the problems raised by the implementation of the provisions concerning the “verticalization” of the public prosecutor’s office, and to formulate proposals for reforms directly transposable to the legislative level.

At the end of its first two meetings held on 24 February 2003 and 25 February 2003, the Working Group drafted a note which was subsequently approved by the College of Prosecutors General and the Council of Prosecutors of the King. The principles contained in this note were detailed during the subsequent meeting, which was attended by a representative of the Conference of Work Auditors of the Kingdom.

The present draft therefore takes back the conclusions of the working group that reflect the common — and unique — point of view of the public prosecutor.

The guidelines for the proposed amendments are as follows. by

First, limiting the integrated processing of individual files to complex cases identified by mutual agreement by the Attorney General and the Attorney General. Except in these cases, both the magistrates of the Prosecutor of the King’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutor.

Then, redefinition of the duties of the Prosecutors General in relation to the Prosecutors of the King’s Prosecutor’s Prosecutors and the Labor Auditors. The notions of “direction” and “supervision” are replaced by the notion of “authority” which best corresponds to a managerial-type relationship model. The exercise of this authority shall be subject to prior consultation and the ways by which that authority exercises in matters relating to public action shall be specified.

Finally, a redesign of the delegation mechanism within the public prosecutor’s office and the establishment – this is new – of a Council of Labour Auditors to replace the current conference.

To be even better informed and verify the mental state of the actors of the reform, the commission, chaired by Mr. Borginon, conducted the hearing of the Chairman of the Working Group and several Chiefs of Corps. During this hearing, Attorney General Pierre Morlet explained the reasons why, according to the working group, the provisions of the 1998 law have never been put into force. He identified three causes or three reasons. The first is the impractical nature of a number of measures within the comprehensive treatment of criminal cases by the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the King’s Prosecutor. The second is the technical problem posed by the necessity provided by the law itself to develop additional legislation to enable the application of many provisions. Finally, the third is the lack of a lasting consensus within the public prosecutor’s office on how to adapt the new provisions to the concrete realities.

In January 1999, the Minister of Justice and the College of Prosecutors-General formed a first subgroup to study vertical integration. This subgroup submitted a report in February 2000. It remained, for the most part, faithful to the reform of 1998, but nevertheless advocated a few substantial changes.

First, if the idea that the prosecutors general should somehow be extracted from the hierarchical structure remained relevant, they were assigned a number of tasks allowing them to act by order. Secondly, the too radical effects of the comprehensive treatment of criminal cases were mitigated by a number of exceptions to this rule. Thirdly, the labor audits were ultimately ⁇ ined in their original form.

These solutions were largely reflected in the proposal 1559 submitted by Mr. Coveliers during the last parliamentary term, but she did not pass the course of work in the Justice Committee, insofar as the members of the committee at the time considered indispensable that common proposals be formulated by the different components of the public prosecution. In accordance with this wish, the College of Prosecutors General and the Council of Prosecutors of the King were commissioned to establish a new working group, with the task of examining the problems raised by the implementation of the provisions relating to the verticalization of the public prosecution and to formulate proposals directly applicable and transposable to the legislative level.

It is in this perspective that, on 6 June 2003, the Working Group submitted a report containing its final conclusions under the formal aspect of a bill. The Chairman of the Working Group ⁇ pointed out that the conclusions of the Working Group reflect the unanimous opinion of its members. They have also been approved by the College of Prosecutors General, the Council of Prosecutors of the King and the Conference of Labour Auditors.

The working group still exists, insofar as its task is not limited to the preparation of a preliminary bill. It therefore continues to assess the human and material resources that the proposed reform will involve in the short or medium term. While the group’s proposals, which are largely reflected in the bill, are significantly less ambitious than the provisions of the 1998 law, they will involve, in particular, with regard to the new missions of the General Prosecutors, the mobilization and the displacement of a number of human resources.

The committee conducted a second hearing in order to take note of the position of the prosecutors who are not heads of bodies, i.e. field actors. It is evident from the interventions of these magistrates that the draft law involving vertical integration of public prosecutors is a good project, which consists of current practices of court prosecutors and general prosecutors.

Indeed, they indicated that the Prosecutor’s Office and the General Prosecutor’s Office already have numerous contacts and have already set up concertation structures. Therefore, the interest of the project lies in the expansion and generalization of these initiatives. They, however, indicated that the integrated handling of complex files could pose problems in small districts.

At the end of these hearings, several members of the commission expressed their great satisfaction to see the public prosecution unanimous, finally one and indivisible on the proposals made by the working group chaired by Attorney General Morlet.

Several members also highlighted and, for some of them regretted, the lack of ambition of the project in that a large number of elements of that project are already being applied on the ground. They therefore asked the magistrate whether broader reform proposals would not be needed to meet the challenges posed by the standing magistracy.

In general, the judges heard replied that we are moving towards a profound reform of the public prosecutor’s office and the judicial organization. This reform will take time. According to the judges heard, the working group report and the bill are more ambitious than they seem but will undoubtedly have to be extended by other reforms.

In addition, there have been discussions on the following aspects: reflection on the tasks to be fulfilled by the public prosecutor, the development of a system for measuring the workload, in order to best distribute the available resources, etc.

As part of the general discussion, the Minister of Justice indicated that the PR (Procurors of the King) made proposals to her to remove some unnecessary missions and that she intends to agree with the headquarters. She announced that she will submit a comprehensive project that will remove missions but will also define missions that no longer need to be fulfilled by the judiciary.

The Minister also acknowledged that the bill had no other ambition than to give a legal framework to the current practice and the developments that have been observed in recent years with regard to the collaboration between the first-instance prosecutors and the general prosecutors.

Several discussion points were raised. 1 of 1. The “Octopus” agreement. Despite the unambitious nature of the project, Mr. Van Parys noted that the bill under consideration is not at all consistent with what had been agreed under the "Octopus" agreements. The Procurator of the King was to exercise public action, to be the central figure. The prosecutors had to be entrusted with new tasks, receive the support of the first-instance prosecutors and be on the lookout for total quality. This logic was largely taken into account by the proposal of law of Mr. Coveliers and Consorts. On the other hand, the bill under consideration is based on a completely different principle, namely that the King’s Prosecutor and the Attorney General have the same powers. They are based on coordination structures and are based solely on trust.

2 of 2. The concept of file is complex. As the integrated handling of individual cases is limited to complex cases, identified by mutual agreement by the Attorney General and the King’s Attorney, several members of the committee questioned on the criteria for determining whether a case can be considered as complex.

To these questions, the judges answered that in this matter, flexibility must be shown. Indeed, the notion of "complex file" will always be the subject of a factual evaluation. The complexity of a file may result from the volume, technical nature or even the delicate character of the latter.

by MM. Van Parys and Wathelet have marked their skepticism about such a definition of the notion of "complex file". In fact, according to them, the bill under consideration limits vertical integration to complex files. by Mr. Morlet defined the complex case as a case that both the King’s Attorney and the Attorney General agree that it requires an integrated approach. If no agreement is reached, the building will collapse like a castle of cards and the current system will surface again. The final decision will therefore always belong to the Attorney General.

3 of 3. The definition of the concept of authority.

Several members questioned the practical consequences of replacing the notion of “authority” with that of “surveillance and direction” and, more specifically, with regard to certain modes of action and information currently available to the Attorney General with regard to the prosecutors of instance and the labor auditors.

In response to these questions, the Minister referred to page 8 of the exhibition of reasons where the following clarifications are made: "H ⁇ , the substitution of the notion of "authority" to that of "surveillance and direction" must not be seen as having a different scope than that of encouraging a management more concerned with the consultation between the Attorney General, on the one hand, the first-instance prosecutors and the labor auditors, on the other, consultation of which several articles in project provide examples - in particular Articles 138, paragraph 2 and 4, 143bis, § 3, paragraph 6, 146ter and 326 of the Judicial Code in project. In fact, this bill is in no way intended to question the modes of action and information currently available to the Attorney General with regard to the prosecutors of the King's Prosecutor and the labor auditors, which are in particular provided for by articles 27, 136bis and 274 of the Code of Criminal Instruction.

4 of 4. financial and human resources.

Following the intervention of several magistrates, including the Attorney General Schins, emphasizing the need to allocate resources to enable the concrete implementation of the bill, Mr. Schins Van Parys asked the Minister of Justice about the means it intends to devote to the implementation of the said project.

In response, the minister said that she submitted the bill to the Financial Inspectorate, which gave a positive opinion, for the simple reason that this reform does not require additional resources. Many measures are already implemented in practice. The minister also insisted that she is preparing a project aimed at removing a number of superfluous tasks from the public prosecutor, which will allow for savings. Finally, at the same time, the minister insisted that the bill should be examined quickly, which will allow to assess the impact of these new measures on the workload in the prosecutors and the general prosecutors.

All well-thought and after the hearings, it must be considered that this project does not bring any revolutionary change but testifies to the evolution of the mentality of the members of the prosecutors. This is not a revolution, but an evolution.

I can once again only congratulate the team spirit that is developing within the various components of the public prosecutor’s office. I must confess that I was impressed and somewhat surprised by the attitude of the magistrates we heard and who joined together unanimously, as one body, to the bill that is submitted to us.

However, I am convinced that the project we are about to vote for is only the first step in a deeper reform of the public prosecutor’s office. The Minister has admitted that the text under consideration only gives a legal framework to current practices, to the developments observed in recent years with regard to the collaboration between the prosecutors of instance and the prosecutors general.

Some magistrates we have heard are aware that we are inevitably moving, in a more or less near future, towards a complete reform of the public prosecution and the judicial organization.

The text on our tables is ultimately only a consensus text formalizing current practices. It is difficult to be opposed to this text, given the consensus that has emerged within the Public Prosecutor’s Office.

From the guidelines for the reforms envisaged in the octopartite agreements, very little remains. I am aware that a structural reform of the public prosecution can only be successful if it meets the support of the relevant actors, but it is certain that this project will need to be extended by other reforms. However, we must recognize that the law of 1998 and the various initiatives taken following the adoption of this law have had the merit of promoting an evolution of mentalities. These magistrates have become aware of the need to change the essentially hierarchical character of the relations that the General Prosecutors ⁇ ined with the Prosecutors of Instance, and we are very pleased with this.

We hope that the legal consecration of current practices aimed at encouraging the dynamic of collaboration will be sufficient to translate into concrete the new relationships that must be established between the General Prosecutors and the Prosecutors of Instance.

I would like to thank you for your “delicate” attention!

First of all, I would like to congratulate the reporter, Mr Courtois, on his excellent report. I had the delicacy to listen to it very carefully. I am pleased that his absence from Parliament has been of very short duration, so that his qualities and talents can continue to show out especially here and in the Committee on Justice, also because he is a committed and interested member of that committee, who knows the matter we are talking about now very well.

The bill we are discussing now has the wrong title. The title is “The Vertical Integration of the Public Prosecutor’s Office”. The flag does not cover the cargo. The bill should have actually been called: “The virtual integration of the prosecutor’s office.”

The [...]

This mistake appears to have been made in the title. It should be: "The virtual integration of the prosecutor's office".

That is well tried, Mr. Van Parys.

Mr. Speaker, I will explain it to you so that you can understand. At the end of my presentation, you may be able to make that change.

This is virtual integration, because there is little left of the original goal in the 1998 Octopus Agreement of that vertical integration in the bill. The idea underlying that bill has grown from the conclusions of the parliamentary investigation committees and from the Octopus Agreement resulting from it. It is a bit of a pity that the attention that the Justice received then is no longer present at all at this time. I leave the Parliament’s “delicate interest,” as the reporter put it, for a while out of consideration.

Why is there so little left of the vertical integration of the prosecutor’s office?

In the bill, which is now presented, nothing remains of the fact that only the prosecutors of the King and the public prosecutors of the first instance have the authority to exercise the staff claim. The draft law has been withdrawn. Now it is again the prosecutors-general and the prosecutors of the King who continue to exercise that power and have equal powers. In fact, there is very little remaining of this integration.

Also of the integration of the labor audit boards and of the parquets of the first stage, we find nothing more in the bill that we discuss in the afternoon. Mr. Giet, also from the Ecofinsections, the sections where the economic and financial crimes should be dealt with, we find nothing back. There is nothing left of your excellent proposal.

What is left of this vertical integration? The only thing that remains is that the comprehensive handling of the files at the level of first instance by the parquets of the Prosecutors of the King, still remains for what is called the complex files. Then one has given a very spiritual interpretation to the concept of "complex dossier". When we talk about a complex file, we would think of a complex file, a file that is not simple. But no, it is said that vertical integration applies to complex files and it is meant to be complex as soon as the Attorneys-General and the Attorneys of the King are of the opinion that a file is complex. This is the new definition of a complex file. This is what remains of vertical integration. Therefore the consideration that it should actually be the virtual integration.

What does the draft law contain? It only formalizes what currently exists of consultation between the parquet general and the parquets of first grade. It indeed reinforces the idea of consultation, and the relationship between the parquet general and the parquet of first grade is less a hierarchical relationship than a relationship of cooperation. I believe this is a favorable evolution which, by the way, is a fact in reality at this moment. I believe we can find ourselves in it.

We find in this bill back the idea of expert networks, the networks where specialized people sit together to deal efficiently with specialized files. I believe that this is also a good initiative that we can support from the CD&V group. This also applies to the idea of reference magistrates, the magistrates to whom one can refer in connection with certain subjects.

What we find in part in the bill are the new duties of the prosecutors-general. Unfortunately, these are ⁇ weakened. The new tasks of the parquet general are the coherent development and coordination of the criminal justice policy. In fact, this is not entirely new because they also exercise this power today. Furthermore, it is about monitoring the quality, the proper organization and operation of the first-facing parquet. This is also described as a new task, but also this is a task that is actually already included in the facts by the parquet general. Finally, it is about the support of the first-building parquet. These are the so-called new assignments. Here too, we weaken the original design, or actually the proposal of our then colleague Coveliers, so that there is really little left.

Therefore, it does not really make sense to spend a lot of words on this bill. What remains is so obvious that one cannot resist it. The CD&V group will therefore approve this draft. However, it is a pity that we have not taken advantage of the opportunity, of the momentum that existed in 1998, of the will beyond the boundaries of majority and opposition, to drive through fundamental reforms and that this is actually the only thing that remains. It is in this context and in those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, colleagues, that I would like to make an appeal from this speaker to work without delay on the fundamental reform of the prosecutor’s office.

We had started this in 1998 with the eight Octopus Partners. It was an interesting and good exercise. However, the exercise was stopped during the subsequent legislature. This was especially unfortunate because we were then driven by the mass movement in society, the White March, which compelled us as a political class to take new initiatives, to carry out reforms so that Justice responded to the circumstances we were facing at the time. These circumstances still exist in part.

It has been since 1998 that we have been discussing the prosecutor’s office. I would like to use this moment to invite, on behalf of the CD&V Group, the members of the Justice Committee and all members of this Parliament to resume the discussion on the reform of the public prosecutor. I would like to point out a few points that I feel are important.

Initially, the central task of the Prosecutor’s Office must be redefined, the so-called mission statement. What is the task of the Prosecutor’s Office at this moment, at the beginning of the 21st century? How can the Prosecutor’s Office fulfill the mandate to prosecute serious crimes, on the one hand, and advocate for the alternative treatment of criminal cases through friendly settlement and criminal mediation, on the other? How can we fill it today? What are the cases that should be eligible for prosecution today? Which files should be eligible for mediation and amicable settlement or for reconciliation? How can we strengthen the mandate of the prosecutor’s office to bring people, victims and perpetrators closer together beyond the traditional procedure?

These are exercises that we have not made and that we should do now. We should all do this together with all those who have committed to the good course of affairs in Justice and the good administration of justice and this following the trial in Aarlen and faced with what happened. You will agree with me, colleagues, Mrs. Vice-Prime Minister, that at the moment the Public Prosecutor’s Office is mainly dealing with the files that the Public Prosecutor’s Office deals with. This is the main task of the Prosecutor’s Office at the moment. The Prosecutor’s Office is filled with files that are seized. Mr Courtois will not contradict me. In 1998, we conducted an investigation through the agency ABC in Bruges and Names, and it turned out that 70% of the files were confiscated. This means that most of the things that the prosecutor’s office is dealing with are files that are deposited. We need to find solutions for that because what is less meaningful than investing in things that have no effect. From the logic of things, this is almost obvious.

In that context, I would like to bring an element in the middle that I present to you in a spirit of seeking solutions to the problem of the prosecutor, including in the relationship between the prosecutor’s office and the police.

Shouldn’t we actually strive to relieve the prosecutor’s office of improper assignments and thus – what I would like to call – to organize the lighter criminal cases at the level of the police? In this case, the police can then, for a lot of process verbal itself, follow up and make a decision in connection with the prosecution. Of course, this is not possible for the heavy files. For the lighter criminal offences, this should be possible. Then, by the way, a number of members of the prosecutor’s office could be much closer to the police, so that a significant portion of the process-verbal, which is now not followed, will be handled at the police level. I refer to the experiment of autonomous police handling that runs in a number of districts, for example at the Court of Appeal in Gent.

That would also mean that for the lighter, but very disturbing criminal offences – including street crime – we could bring the prosecutor’s office much closer to the local authorities. At the moment, we already have the five-point negotiation. In many cases, this seems to me to be almost a formal consultation. In that five-angle consultation, in that consultation with the local authorities, we could give the prosecutor’s office and the police services a new assignment and responsibility, allowing the actual prosecutor’s office to deal with the major criminal offences.

I therefore think of relieving the public prosecutor’s burden of the inappropriate tasks, the administrative tasks. This has been discussed during the discussion of the draft law. The same survey conducted in 1998 found that the prosecutor’s magistrates spend 20% of their time in what is called administrative carvets. The ABC project — the research in Bruges and Names — found that they spend 20% of their time in administrative tasks. I am not talking about the other tasks. They spend 20% of their time in administrative tasks. That can of course not.

We have a few examples. The Deputy Prime Minister had promised that we would get the list from the Council of the King’s Prosecutors. It has compiled a list of improper administrative tasks. We did not get them. I hope we will still be able to get them. I will give you a few examples. Attorney General Schins spoke about documentation management. The parquet general currently has the task of managing the documentation. It is, of course, nonsense that one must be a member of the General Prosecutor’s Office to engage in documentation management.

There are recommendations in civil matters. We all agree that the added value of the public prosecution in civil matters is ⁇ limited. The same applies to contracts under international treaties. We could actually go on.

This week we discussed the handling of traffic violations. Why is it effectively not possible to have most traffic offences handled administratively, i.e. not by the prosecutors, not even by the police, but, for example, by the recipient of the penalties or by a collection agency? I refer to the bill proposed by Mr. Ansoms. As a result, the parkets of this traffic material can be relieved to a significant extent. If one does not agree with the proposal of the collection agency or of the recipient of the criminal fines, one must, of course, be able to appeal to the police court. The rights of defence are guaranteed. All those wrong tasks must be removed from the prosecutors, so that the public prosecutor can engage in its actual task.

A fourth element is the reform of the prosecutor’s office to the present day, the working methods and the working processes. We are pleased to note that statistical data is gradually becoming available. It was symbolic when the Attorney General of Antwerp said that the year zero had entered Justice. In fact, it was correctly said. Now we have the base line. We finally have a comparison point.

For example, today there are still no data on the evolution of the level of clarification of crimes. I remember the first policy note of the former Minister of Justice, which stated that within four years the clearing rate of crimes would be reduced by 25%. Today, with the best will of the world, we do not know how the degree of clarification has evolved. The numbers simply do not exist. How can a public prosecutor or a public prosecutor conduct such a policy? In this regard, however, a step forward has been made.

As regards the measurement of the workload, it is so important to obtain a commitment from the Public Prosecutor’s Office stating that the government is willing to invest and make resources available, in order to make additional magistrates available, provided that it also results. There must be a result commitment. The working method and work processes should also be urgently implemented within the public prosecutor’s office, such as in private companies, where they are obvious data for policy and management.

Regarding the internal organization of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, it is obvious that in a modern organization of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the chiefs of the Corps can be accountable, can actually take the lead, can impose sanctions against those who do not function properly and also have the ability to push, arouse animo and encourage those who are willing to work in team, thoroughly, well and efficiently. This, of course, also implies financial autonomy for the various parquets and ⁇ for the chiefs of the corps, so that they do not — as is still the case today — have to go to the administration for what I would like to call pencil and paper.

Mr Leterme asks for the word.

and no.

It is not a rule to ask the word. Mr Van Parys has the word.

In the same sense of internal organisation fits the re-examination of the role of the parliamentary secretariat. Among the chief secretary and his employees is a huge potential of people. However, they still have a task that dates back to the time when there was no computer science. We can add new content to their assignment. They can become employees of the parket instead of subordinates.

In this context, I would also like to highlight the role that the Criminal Justice Policy Service could play. I deeply regret that this service, which has enormous potential, is currently undervalued. The service runs too little, even though that is not the fault of the service itself. There is too little appeal. The service is too little encouraged and responded. There are very beautiful and interesting people working.

Mr. Speaker, in the context of the reorganization of the Prosecutor’s Office, I would also like to put forward the proposal of Mr. Vandeurzen concerning the involvement of the community and coastal governments in the formulation of the investigation and prosecution policy.

This can be called the prefiguration of the defederalization of justice, colleague Leterme. You know that this idea has inspired and motivated me for a long time. This could be initiated within the framework of the reform of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Mr Vandeurzen has written very interesting texts on this subject. At the time of the reorganization, people and resources will also need to be discussed. To the extent that we make this new drawing of the prosecutor’s office, we will also have to talk about the people and resources.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, colleagues, I would like to conclude with a proposal.

In the last few days, we are once again faced with political responsibility for the facts that are the subject of the process that is currently taking place in Aarlen. Many who are present here at the time have worked with great enthusiasm on the basis of a number of reforms. It is especially regrettable that this atmosphere and this alertness for justice were no longer present for four to five years Were it not worth – that is certain – to take the commitment across the boundaries of majority and opposition to prepare from the Chamber Committee for Justice a project for the reorganization of the prosecutor’s office? It would be good if Parliament took the initiative in cooperation – I hope – with the services of the Minister of Justice, the relevant magistrates, the relevant staff and the experts interested in it. Wouldn’t it be good for the committee to take out a day or a weekend within a few weeks to draw out a model of a reformed prosecutor’s office? A lot of work has already been done in various areas.

You all know the document "A Public Prosecution for the 21st Century" of the KU-Leuve. This document outlines a model of a step plan that could lead to a 21st century prosecutor’s office. The work exists. The inspection of various parks has taken place. The Supreme Council of Justice examined the Brussels Prosecutor’s Office. Several parquets were examined on various echelons by a number of offices.

Mr. Chairman of the Committee on Justice, I suggest that you take a moment to look together for a model that should lead to a project of a new public prosecutor for the 21st century by the end of this legislature. In the short term, we must be able to succeed in forming a steering group consisting of members of Parliament and interested parties, hopefully also from employees of the Minister of Justice and of the prosecutors, the prosecutors-general, which effectively develops a step-by-step plan so that by the end of this legislature the drawing of a renewed and modern prosecutor’s office is ready. This must be perfectly possible. I invite you to think about this.

On behalf of the CD&V group, I will submit a proposal on this subject to the Chairman of the Committee on Justice and ask him to schedule this proposal at a time when our committee does not have to discuss other matters.

We can even spend a weekend for that. Thus, we can take an initiative from the Parliament today, as it did in 1998, with a view to a well-developed project led by the actors and by the Parliament, so that it has a broad basis. That new project would then be a new prosecutor’s office of the twenty-first century.

The CD&V group invites you to do so. We will concrete this in a document and ask you to review it thoroughly so that you can explain in the coming weeks to what extent you can find yourself in it.

Mr. Reporter, I thank you very much for showing the delicacy to listen for a moment.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Vice Prime Minister, Mr. Van Parys, in the discussion we had in the committee, you explained that we have a common culture of construction within the Justice Committee.

I therefore appreciate your statement made on behalf of the CD&V group, that you will approve the project. It has become concrete at the level of committee votes: you have indeed approved this project, going in contrast to your statements in the context of the discussion.

I do not regret this, given that these discussions have brought great interest to the debate, and I thank you for this. This has allowed us to obtain some answers that establish, in my opinion, that this project must absolutely be voted.

For this, I will take back the statement of the prosecutor of the King of Louvre, which specifies that "the exercise carried out by the Morlet Working Group was in no way intended to weaken in some way the reform of 1998". And to say that the mountain gave birth to a mouse would be contrary to the truth. Indeed, the proposed amendment — thus the project we are going to vote today — takes back the reflection carried out in 1998 and proposes to translate the key ideas into realistic terms.

The King’s Prosecutor continues: “The reform under consideration will allow to develop between the various elements of the public prosecutor’s office a new culture of consultation. It is also literally provided in the bill that each Attorney General shall regularly consult with the Attorney General of the King of his jurisdiction.

It seems to me that the result of the Morlet Working Group on the "verticalization" of the public prosecutor has helped to unleash a project. Two meetings resulted in an agreement that received the approval of the College of Prosecutors General and the Council of Prosecutors of the King. The unanimous agreement translated in this project leads to the replacement of the former bureaucratic hierarchical model by a model focused on synergy, complementarity and permanent concertation.

So we are dealing in the current state of things with a truly new culture of the parquet.

It also seems to me that this constitutes an institutionalization of a working method that already exists, which was highlighted by the prosecutor of the King of Merchandise, who specifies that "the reform will finally allow to abstract from the vain conflicts between prosecutors of instance and general prosecutors. And if concertation is already largely a reality, it must nevertheless be inscribed in the law.”

On the other hand, it should be noted despite all that we have the maintenance of the specialization of the various organs of the public prosecution, since the sections Youth are ⁇ ined, as well as the sections Ecofin, and the maintenance of a link of authority. But this link of authority no longer emerged in any way from the hierarchical link that existed before: it is now a hierarchical link without authoritarianism.

It therefore seems to me, as a conclusion, that this project will allow, on the one hand, to put an end to various conflicts that existed at a certain time between the prosecutors of instance and the general prosecutors; it will allow, on the other hand, the entry into the law of a widely widespread practice and finally the maintenance of the audits, which enjoy a specificity, and this, contrary to the law of 1998, which could consider their disappearance since they were included within the framework of the prosecutors.

With regard to certain questions that have arisen or are arising, in particular with regard to the redefinition of the duties of the King’s prosecutors – or in any case of the prosecutors – raised by some members heard by the committee, I have naturally heard the appeal made to Parliament by Mr. Cohen. Van Parys, in order to begin the reflection on the tasks of the prosecutor’s office, or even on the reorganization of the prosecutors’ offices, called by Mr. Parys. Courtois in his report. The Minister has already responded to this element since she specified that a concertation should be set up and then a project submitted.

Another question raised — relayed again by Mr. Van Parys — concerned the increase of resources. by Mr. Schins, the Attorney General of Gand, had raised this problem. He had specified that the entry into force of the law must coincide with an allocation of funds allowing it to be concretely implemented. In this regard, I recall — this is what the Minister has stated before the committee — on the one hand, that the Financial Inspection issued an opinion stating that this project would not involve any additional expenses and that, on the other hand, at the present time, a review of the evaluation of the workload is underway. When this review is completed — after a period of approximately 18 months — it will be seen what would be the potential impact on the framework and what would be the human and material resources that would eventually be allocated to the parks.

This draft, which has the approval of all the judicial authorities – prosecutors general, prosecutors of the King’s prosecutors, as well as audits – must be voted. I think the CD&V is going to vote. Therefore, we may hope for unanimity on this subject, which I would be ⁇ pleased with.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, I have not prepared a long, elaborate speech. I will also not repeat some of the things that have been said here, including by colleague Van Parys regarding a number of problems that still exist at the level of the prosecutor’s office.

I really want to focus on the question of whether what is on the board – vertical integration – is the correct name or the correct title of the law, and whether it does not really have to be “virtual”. Let me start, Mr. Van Parys, by stating that “virtual” does not necessarily have a negative connotation. I think anyone who lives a little in modern times also gives the concept of “virtual” a certain connotation of “informed”. If that is the reality, we can only rejoice.

It is clear, of course, that the draft that is presented today does not entail once and for all a giantly large reform of the prosecutor’s office. I think that if we want to be objective and correct, it is better to speak of an act of trust in the standing magistracy, than of a real, historical reform. Indeed, the text on which we vote today is essentially the reflection of what today is the consensus within the standing magistrature on the degree of cooperation between parks and parks-general. Let us not overthink it, let us be glad that such consensus has indeed been reached. In the end, they are the ones who have to work with it every day.

It is true that the discussion on vertical integration is a debate that is already a resultant of the various research committees from the past. I think it is also appropriate to go back to the reason why one went to advocate such integration. I think we were faced with parkets that thought hierarchically, where there was a problem of non-communication amongst each other, where you had a lot of double work, mutual distrust between parkets and parket general and a not always adequate distribution of tasks. Since these findings, a lot has changed for the better. I recall the introduction of the Federal Prosecutor’s Office, which is an important progress. I would also like to mention the prosecutor’s lawyers and the support we have provided to the prosecutor’s office, which has led to a profound improvement of the situation on the ground, at least in a number of prosecutors. I remember that when I was a young lawyer-internshiper in Antwerp and among the colleagues-interns were thought about who would be interested in becoming a substitute at the Public Prosecutor’s Office, this was a deterrent thought: to go there to work in what was described as a crab basket, as a place where one could absolutely not get respect and respect for his work. I think that, thanks in part to the efforts made from politics and also to the merits of those who have to give the concrete shape, there has been a lot of change for the better and that there are a lot of skilled people who today are found willing to engage in this important public task.

I think there has been a profound change in mentality since the various conclusions of the investigative committees, in part due to the confrontation with the sometimes harsh reality. I think there is a mental change growing in the field and as the future progresses, that will only continue. I also think that we should not underestimate the efforts in the field of informatization. We saw in the Justice Committee a few weeks ago for the first time — year 0 has already been mentioned — not so much the criminal statistics but the prosecution statistics of the various prosecutors can be seen side by side. Thus we begin to have an instrument that, as it evolves over time, allows us as politicians, and ⁇ also the leadership of the prosecutor’s office, to develop a vision and to get a real insight into what is actually happening in the field of persecution. I think this is a very important tool to move forward in that evolution.

I think we also have a lot to expect from the further informatization of the parket as such. Yesterday we held a hearing on this. I have understood that there will still be a number of Scots among the parks in the field of computerization but that in any case a number of mechanisms will be built structurally to make that tool available to all those who carry responsibilities within the prosecutor’s office, so that they know what others are doing, and to better organize the work.

There is the initiative that Mrs. Minister took a few months or even a few weeks ago to start the workload measurement at the parkets and the parket-general and to look from the outside, with a certain manager approach to the problem, to look at what work is delivered and what processes are going on, what the distribution of tasks is. This will also be a very important tool for coming to a thorough reform of the public prosecutor’s office at a later time.

It is of course clear that with that draft the discussion on the final structure of the prosecutor’s office has not ended. It is also clear, as Attorney General Schins noted during the hearings, that at some point an analysis is needed, that a further step is needed for better cooperation and for the optimization of the functioning of the prosecutor’s office. Personally, I think that the important engine of this will be exactly those three management tools that are being developed. The statistics of the prosecution policy, the computerization of the parquet and the workload measurement, which three elements together will indeed allow us not in a randomly composed meeting or with the wet finger to draw out a structure, but to point out precisely very concrete points of pain in the organizational structure. I think that in this way, when the results of these three elements are available, we will be able to try to draw out a structure that goes beyond what today predicts.

I also recall from the debates in our committee — it has already been alluded to it, but I would like to make it a little bit later — that in any case, apart from those three important management elements, it is also important to draw up a list of tasks of which one can question whether they should be performed by magistrates or the prosecutor’s office. We would like to see from you, Mrs. Minister — you have also announced this in the committee — as soon as possible the proposals you wish to make in this regard.

Per ⁇ it is not absurd to do that parallel with the discussion of the changes we need to make to some laws in order to give shape to the computerization of the parks. It would be very strange, however, that we would undertake a whole series of legislative work in the course of April or May to adapt some laws to the need for computerization and that afterwards it would appear that we would have to overdo that work because of the deletion of some tasks from the list that you are preparing. So I think it would be useful to implement those changes anyway.

A last important point that I would like to point out for a moment is that we may also have to give up some ideas-fixions that we have pushed forward for ourselves. In the debate on vertical integration, we have always lived with the idea that, if in the first instance a case is examined by a magistrate, it is all too strange that the books are closed and in the Court of Appeal a new magistrate who must educate and bring forward the dossier from a to z. In principle, this remains a problematic situation. However, we cannot ignore the conclusion that a number of magistrates, who are confronted with that viewpoint that is common in politics, react to it. Especially in more rural districts it is a problem that the magistrates for one case have to move quite far to the place of the court of appeal. We should not underestimate the time that they waste with it, and it is almost opposite to the time that someone would need to study a file. I think that in this regard we should not have an idea-fix and that we should be willing to listen to the arguments brought out of practice.

Then I think that vertical integration inevitably also brings us to the debate on the mobility of the judiciary within the jurisdictions, so that we are not only faced with the question whether or not the same magistrate may bring a concrete case before the Court of Appeal, but that we must also focus on whether we use the available capacity to shape the prosecution policy sufficiently efficiently and have the means to push people to where there is a shortage at a given moment, and where there is a less nuanced problem — a surplus will not be there today — sometimes able to drive people away. The Minister has outlined a number of pistes in the committee before, without a real final choice already being made. I think that element in the debate about the evolution of vertical integration in the future can be an important element.

In summary, in the first instance, the VLD group supports that bill because we see it as an act of trust in the standing magistrates. We are convinced that the developed management tools, together with the further evolution of the minds in the parquet and the parquet-general itself, will at some point lead us to an even further, more thorough reform of the prosecutor's office, but then based on concrete facts as they are presented and not only on a number of theoretically developed visions.

I would like to answer the question that Mr Van Parys asked me. I think it is really useful to advise us, also in the Committee on Justice, about the future of the prosecutor’s office. I do not think the debate should be closed today.

We, as Members of Parliament, should not pretend that the results of that workload and the successive prosecution statistics and the computerization of the prosecutors do not allow for thorough additional information. I am very interested in the proposals you will formulate on this subject. I will read them carefully, but I think that the future of the process of integration of the prosecutor’s office depends in the first place on the change of mentality and the operation of the instruments that bring objectivity into the debate.

Mr Laeremans, you are the last speaker in this general discussion.

It is the duty of the opposition to oppose. It is the duty of an opposition party to oppose. We do not wish to renounce this mandate and duty, but we will approve this draft today. Unlike others, we are happy.

This draft shows that the opposition, and in particular the Flemish Bloc, is doing very meaningful work in this Parliament. In fact, the vertical integration, as originally planned, was denounced and accused by the Flemish Bloc for years. We have our resistance. We have done our duty, with a successful outcome.

The texts that were proposed during the last legislature, and were the result of the Octopus Agreements, did indeed not comply at all, worse, they put the entire functioning of the prosecutor’s office on its head. The responsibility for the criminal proceedings was completely centralized with the prosecutors of the King. The prosecutors-general, on the other hand, who were at the top of the hierarchy, were suddenly degraded to assistants, subordinate to the prosecutors. That would be a ⁇ dangerous and completely inoperable situation and would cause permanent conflicts and an unceasing power struggle between the magistrates within the prosecutor’s office. Furthermore, the frequent shifts for the substitutes would cause enormous loss of time and make any normal operation of the parquet impossible.

Fortunately, it has not come so far. The common sense has prevailed and the magistrates have finally jointly realized that only a limited change of legislation, a limited vertical integration and therefore no virtual integration, as colleague Van Parys said, could bring sunshine. The draft presented today is the implementation of this agreement and will ensure that the functioning of the Prosecutor’s Office will be much smoother.

So today we can only regret that it took so long before this result was achieved. Some have remained stuck and stuck in their large Octopus-like for too long. A lot of precious time has been wasted and all that time the successive ministers of justice have had the opportunity to leave the prosecutor’s office left. The Public Prosecutor’s Office is still the stepchild of Justice and refuses to provide the necessary injection of people and resources to restore this nerve center of the rule of law and the pillar of law enforcement to function properly.

We continue to find that the magistrates still have to do too much administrative work, still have to work too much craftsmanship and receive too little support. The Public Prosecutor’s Office should have much more experts at its disposal and each prosecutor’s magistrate should be assisted by an administrative force, so that — to give just one example — finally work can be done of a systematic notification of the victims in the case of suspension, which today is almost not the case.

The information for the parquet judges must also be urgently put to the point. In this information age, Mrs. Minister, prosecutors come to us complaining that they only have access to the criminal register of suspects. The registers of the previous ones, the seponement registers of other arrondissements — though a very important source of information — can still not be normally made available.

In terms of communication with the police services, we are still years behind other countries. Eight years ago, in 1996 — some who were present here at the time — we were able to find out that the police services in New York conducted direct video conferences with the parquet magistrates and immediately received their instructions. Here communication still goes in the archaic way of years ago, with files stacked on each other and thus, by accident or unwillingness, can remain untouched for weeks or even months, either at the parks or at the police services. This prevents Justice from playing short on the ball and from carrying out a genuine lik-on-piece policy. This archaic way of working contributes to the fact that today so massively, so frequently, is spoofed, and that only an extremely marginal number of crimes comes before the criminal judge.

Colleagues, the systematic neglect, the stepmotherly treatment of the parks have, in any case, been a very conscious policy of the previous governments. We regret that this government does not use this reform to bring about a reversal. The policy note of Minister Onkelinx does not provide for a serious revaluation of the parquet. In fact, this is not surprising either. With a PS minister at the wheel, and ⁇ with a laxism hole like Laurette Onkelinx, it is excluded that there would be a stricter criminal policy and that the number of criminal cases would seriously increase. This is one of the many reasons why we want to put an end to this purple government as soon as possible and give this subordinate Minister of Justice her C4.