Proposition 51K1428

Projet de loi modifiant les lois coordonnées du 16 mars 1968 relative à la police de la circulation routière.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Oct. 29, 2004

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

fine traffic control road safety traffic regulations road traffic

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

CD&V Ecolo LE N-VA FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• François Bellot (MR) abstained from voting.
• Valérie De Bue (MR) abstained from voting.
• Philippe Monfils (MR) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

June 30, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, with my report as a reporter, I wish only to remind you of the main lines of the discussion. For the more detailed version, I would like to refer to the written report.

The committee discussed the draft law amending the law of 7 February 2003 concerning various provisions on road safety, as well as the attached bills at various meetings, namely on 23 February, 9 March, 20 April, 25 May, 15 and 20 June as well as today, President, 30 June.

On 23 February 2005, the Government held its opening meeting. The object of the original draft law concerned initially only the smoother collection of fines. In the event of refusal of payment, it would allow the public prosecutor to obtain enforceable title from the police judge, without having to effectively prosecute before the same police judge, as the classical procedure requires. The committee unanimously decided to hear a number of persons about the collection methods of the fines. The hearings were held on 9 March 2005. The general content consisted in whether such a procedure of payment decision was necessary. Most experts thought no. After the hearing, several members submitted comments.

On 25 May, colleagues, Mr. Dylan Casaer, Mr. Guido De Padt, Mr. François Bellot and Mr. Jef Van den Bergh, as well as Mrs. Annick Saudoyer and I myself submitted amendment n. 6 in, which was unanimously adopted by the committee as a basic text. This amendment arose from a preliminary draft adopted by the government on Friday 13 April. The Minister of Mobility stressed that after the hearings the government and the members of the committee had decided that there was no need for a new procedure such as the payment order. On the other hand, the effort to further streamline the law of 7 February 2003, the so-called Traffic Law, remains a priority in the light of the various judgments of the Arbitration Court. Several points are central to the amendment. First, there is the categorisation of the violations on four levels based on the risk of accidents. Second, it is necessary to provide for a procedure concerning the withdrawal of the driver’s license and the renewal of that withdrawal. Third, there is a need for a regulation on the guardianship of the additional traffic rules. Fourth, there is the depenalization of temporary parking. Finally, a number of various amendments were made. The opinion of the State Council was explained and discussed at one of the last meetings. On the amendment no. 6, which served as a basic document, several sub-amendments were submitted by the various committee members.

Discussing all of these here, colleagues, would lead us too far. Important to note is the fact that a number of amendments by Mr Van den Bergh and Deseyn and Mr Monfils were rejected because it is the intention of the Minister to conduct a substantial debate on certain topics at a later date. I then think of the flight crime, the citizenship and the aggravating circumstance.

Important to mention here, colleagues, is the entry into force of the law. As regards the draft article 32, in particular the entry into force provision, two sub-amendments were submitted: a first by Mr. Van den Bergh and Deseyn, which stipulates that the law would enter into force on a date determined by the King, and a second by Mr. Casaer, which added that the King would decide on entry into force by article.

As for the final vote, some amendments were accepted and some rejected. You will find this in detail in the report. The whole was approved with 9 votes for, 1 vote against and 6 abstentions. Their

This is a summary overview of the work. I would very much like to thank the services for their help with the good and comprehensive report. I think it is useful that I give a verbal report of the work of this afternoon. The plenary session decided to send the bill back to the committee. There are 4 amendments and 1 sub-amendment.

The first amendment concerns a Government amendment supplementing Article 29, which states that when an infringement is classified in a category through a KB, this KB will be submitted to Parliament for approval, which means that we, colleagues, will have a double control over the classification of the fines in categories. This is in accordance with the comments of the Court of Arbitration and the Council of State. This amendment was approved with 8 votes for and 8 abstentions.

A second amendment, colleagues, was an amendment by colleague De Padt, supplemented by numerous fellow applicants. The amendment concerned the extension of the withdrawal of the driving license. In this regard, Mr Monfils had submitted a sub-amendment. Mr Monfils’ sub-amendment was rejected by 3 votes for, 5 abstentions and 8 votes against. The amendment of colleague De Padt was accepted with 11 votes for and 2 abstentions.

We then had a procedural vote in the committee on whether it was necessary to continue the discussion today or whether we would return to the committee next week. There were 10 votes against and 5 votes for the amendment of the colleagues of the CD&V and the Vlaams Belang. As a result, we decided to continue the work today.

A third amendment discussed today concerned an amendment by colleagues Van den Bergh and Deseyn. This is a technical amendment. and 71. This was approved with 17 votes in favour.

There was a fourth amendment. 72 of colleagues Van den Bergh and Deseyn. This amendment was approved by 17 votes in favour.

The vote overall was positive. The resolution was adopted with 8 votes for and 8 abstentions.

Ms Vautmans, you are now speaking on behalf of your group.

Colleagues, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, today is a good day for the VLD. The 2003 Traffic Act was born under a poor star. Although a very ambitious and legitimate goal was set, in particular to drastically reduce the number of road deaths, it has been shown that the legislation showed several gaps. This was painfully evident by the various judgments made by the Arbitration Court over the course of 2004.

Therefore, a repair of the traffic law was necessary. In part, this is why the government has submitted a bill that would only regulate a partial aspect, namely the order to pay. A special procedure should allow for a smoother collection of the fines. Colleagues, I do not blame you that the VLD has been very skeptical about this procedure from the beginning. The hearings organized by the committee on this subject have only strengthened and confirmed that feeling. There was absolutely no need to create a new and separate system of fine collection. That would contribute little to the current practice, since the lion’s share of the road traffic offences identified is already fulfilled, either by immediate collection or by amicable settlement. Only a very small part will have to be settled by the police court.

It is not the invoicing system itself that should be changed. The VLD has problems with the current payment system that can be called quite archaic. In the event of a breach, we must still work with the archaic penitentiary seals. The VLD, myself and colleague De Padt have therefore submitted a resolution to work with more modern means of payment. We are pleased that the government has announced that it will indeed engage in this issue. Hopefully, citizens will soon be able to pay a fine simply by means of an electronic transfer or a bank card. I think this is a very important decision. Therefore, I hope, Mr. Minister, that the modern method of payment of the fine will enter into force simultaneously with the new traffic law. This is a major battle point of the VLD. Their

Finally, today we will approve a complete revision of the Traffic Law. The positive elements in this are, in our opinion, numerous. A first advantage is that the traffic law clearly provides the framework within which the classification of traffic offences should take place. The traffic law is not getting stricter, but more logical. The classification is based on a very important criterion for us: what is the risk of an accident when one commits an infringement? In the end, that is a very liberal principle, for we assume the freedom of the individual, until one damages the freedom of another person. This principle is reflected in this traffic law. We want to impose stricter penalties when committing traffic offences that directly, indirectly or inevitably endanger other persons.

The first and lowest category is those of indirect danger, especially when one indirectly endangers the safety of persons, for example when one simply parks his vehicle incorrectly. The second category is those of indirect danger, for example when one puts the safety of people in the right row at risk by dangerously misparking his vehicle or when one drives through the orange light or does not respect the rules of priority. The third category is that of the inevitable danger, more specifically the circumstances that inevitably endanger the safety of persons, for example, driving through the red light, driving at night without lights or ignoring a pick-up ban.

The last and most difficult category is the disturbing behavior. I think of reversing on the highway, the street traces that we currently often encounter in the media, or, also important, because in Limburg we have to bury three young people, ignoring the dropped strikes at a railway. This is now in the heaviest category.

A second positive evolution for the VLD is that the super fines disappear. Everyone knows the statement of colleague senator Dedecker: "Bounces should sanction and not ruin." The VLD has resisted the superboxes from the beginning, especially because it was an anti-social measure. For our party, therefore, a further increase in fines was entirely evil and totally unacceptable. Therefore, we are also very pleased today that the vast majority of traffic offences will cost the citizens less. The so-called super fines are reduced to more acceptable proportions. Also on this point we see that the traffic law is not becoming stricter, but more logical.

The reduction of the fines has two reasons.

First, 20 offences are placed in a lower category. A whole series of violations that we think have been treated excessively severely have been reduced to acceptable proportions. For example, not closing the car formerly belonged to the first category, that of the serious violations, and was fined with 150 euros. This is now reduced to an acceptable fine of 50 euros. Driving by the orange light was previously punished as driving by the red light, but now it comes in a lower category.

In addition, the fines are generally reduced. The first category, the slightest violations, remains at 50 euros. The second category, that of the indirect danger, will be fined with a rate of 100 euros, which is currently 150 euros. We will reduce the rate by 50 euros. The third category will be reduced from 175 to 150 euros.

In summary, I think it’s a good thing: some violations are shifting from category to category and the penalties of the different categories are dropping. A common parking infringement shifts a category, so the final fine will fall from 150 euros to 50 euros, a difference of as much as 100 euros. Driving through the orange light also drops a category, thereby reducing the fine from 175 euros to 150 euros.

Only a few violations rise in category, but it remains exceptional. The most famous is GSM and behind the wheel. In the future, it will cost 100 euros instead of 50 euros. This is a fine that every citizen can avoid very conveniently. An ear does not cost much nowadays. We therefore ask everyone to leave the gsm behind the wheel, because that is indeed a danger on the road.

A third, positive measure in this design is the classification of the speed breaches. From now on, progressive rates will be fined instead of a higher and fixed rate. The faster you drive, the more you will pay. Police and parquet will be much better able to take into account the effectively driven speed. Those who drive too fast will in the future be fined per kilometer per hour they drive too fast, making the system more realistic, fair and more acceptable. That is what we have to do.

The penalty rates will also be reduced by the system. Again, I think an example can give the most clarity. Anyone who is allowed to drive somewhere 90 kilometers per hour in Belgium today, but pushes his foot too hard on the gas pedal and drives 101 kilometers per hour, risks a fine of 150 euros. This can be seen as a significant fraction of the budget. In the future system, this will be reduced to 55 euros. This is also the logic of the system. Those who really drive too fast will have to pay a very high fine, which is logical.

Colleagues, although we are very positive on these three points, I would still like to make a few critical concerns. Colleagues, I must honestly confess that when I gave my speech yesterday, I had five critical concerns. During the committee meeting this afternoon, two of these issues were resolved.

A first critical observation concerned the fact that the State Council and the Arbitration Court shared some contradictions about the classification of those fines: it did not go far enough, versus it went too far. With the approval of the Government amendment today, we have provided a clear solution that provides certainty to this critical observation.

My second critical observation concerned the extension of the withdrawal of the driving license. Therefore, I am very pleased that the amendment of the chief speaker colleague De Padt was approved today. In this regard, too, we are now moving toward a realistic system that will work in the future.

Mr. Minister, then there are three critical notes left, which the VLD wants to make, which has not yet been offered a solution, but for which I hope we will find a solution in the future.

The first issue for us concerns, however, Articles 419bis and 420bis. During the discussion, those provisions, introduced in 2003 by the Traffic Act, were first deleted and then reintroduced as a second paragraph, namely directly in Articles 419 and 420 of the Criminal Code. We wonder if this is the best solution. Their

Why should road accidents be treated separately and more strictly than other unintentional deaths or unintentional strikes and injuries? Negligence can also be conceived in the context of a work accident or an environmental disaster. Why should imprudence in traffic be punished differently and more severely in criminal law?

It would have been better to increase the maximum fines and the minimum penalties in Articles 419 and 420 of the Criminal Code, so that all cases of imprudence on the same ham would be shaved. In this way, the judge had a sufficient margin between the minimum and maximum penalty to conduct a coherent policy.

Mr. Minister, you promised us in the committee that you would discuss this issue with your fellow Minister of Justice. The VLD – Mr. Monfils, I think the MR will be very happy to hear this – expects that this issue will be addressed in the Justice Committee. This is where we need to change the Criminal Code. We should not do that in the Committee on Infrastructure, but in the Committee on Justice. Therefore, I expect you to make an appointment with the Minister of Justice in order to start this as soon as possible.

The next point of criticism is the following. We wonder where you stay with the establishment of an Accident Institute. You know that colleague De Padt and I have submitted a proposal for a resolution on the collection of data on accidents. We believe that it is essential that one properly analyzes how accidents occur and what the causes are, in order to conduct a good policy.

We ask you to think about this and make it a priority. We really think that this is an essential data.

Finally, Mr. Minister, I come to – call it my stick, my drive – the legislation on the flight crimes. In the committee it has already been said that on this and also on the citizenship, an amendment by the Lords Deseyn and Van den Bergh, a debate would be held. The VLD strongly urges a thorough debate on punishing the flight crime.

Colleagues from CD&V, I must say that I was a little surprised when I just again saw your amendment to reduce the punishment for the flight crime. We voted against this in the committee and I will do it again later. I hope that you will clarify this later, because my interpretation of your amendment is that the punishment of a person who declares himself within 3 hours of committing a flight crime will be reduced. We consider the flight crime to be the most rejectable thing that exists in traffic. If one drives a human or even an animal, one must have the decency to stop to provide help. Those first seconds of care can make the difference between life and death. And when it’s not, it’s nice that there’s someone holding your hand when you’re dying. I think flight crime is the most disproportionate.

With the bill proposed by Mr. De Padt and myself asking, we demand that perpetrators of flight crimes are obliged to receive perpetrator therapy before they can get their driving license again. We find it inappropriate behavior, which should be banned from traffic. Mr. Minister, I therefore hope that we can very soon begin the debate on flight crime in the Infrastructure Committee.

I decide . I think the balance of what we vote on today is all positive. We are very happy. It is a good, logical classification in categories with lower penalties, progressive penalties for speed breaches. We think it is a good thing. We are convinced that citizens are fully satisfied with this bill.

Mr. Minister, one more point. I forgot to say it in my oral report. You have later stated in the committee that you expect the law to enter into force only at the end of February 2006, for a number of reasons. Of course, the text must be published first. Directives should come from the parks. The computer science needs to be adapted, you told us. You also promised us that simultaneously a new system of payment of fines will come into effect. Mr. Minister, I think it is essential that we do not push forward a date today, but that we do so only when we have certainty. There is nothing so confusing for the citizen as having to constantly learn that the date of an entry into force is shifting. Citizens have the right to legal certainty. Therefore, I ask you to publish the date of entry into force when you are sure that you will also obtain that date. The VLD calls for urgent re-establishment here. We want to get rid of super fines. We want to get to this new and good system as soon as possible. So let the law come into force as soon as possible and clearly inform the citizens when this will happen.

With the presentation of Mrs Vautmans for the VLD group, the general discussion was initiated.

There are seven other speakers registered: Ms. Saudoyer and Mr. Van den Bergh, Lavaux, Monfils, Casaer, Van den Eynde and Bellot.

Of these seven speakers, there are three maiden speech. Mr. Minister, your bill inspires the new members, which we will listen to with special attention.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, first and foremost, I would like to thank Rapporteur Hilde Vautmans for her report, both on the committee’s work of the previous weeks and on the following, because she delivered a good oral report. Their

Let me begin my speech with a quote. It reads as follows: “Never before have we met with such mixed feelings about a legislative initiative related to road safety, as is the case now. Mixed feelings: On the one hand, we would not rather than enthusiastically give our fiat to a workpiece with a clearly founded vision, a workpiece that shows a great coherence, a workpiece of which one can say that the real earth will bring to the dive. Because the situation regarding road safety in our country requires, and in principle, bills on issues such as road safety, which directly concern human lives, should be unanimously approved.” I will continue with my quote: "But on the other hand, the bill does not give a reason for this. What lies ahead here is a missed opportunity: a design that hangs with heels and eyes and that is full of legal blunders and mistakes in various places. There are also good elements. It would be unfortunate if that was not the case, but in its overallity the bill is a sad failure.” Their

This, dear colleagues, was essentially the fundamental CD&V criticism in the draft law-Durant on road safety somewhere on a blue Monday night in December of the year 2002. Today, the prophetic nature of these words is quickly revealed. Today, the proposed bill is intended to draw a curved situation created by the purple-green majority.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, at the discussion of the draft-Durant I myself was not here in Parliament yet. I have been able to follow them in a different capacity here only a few tens of meters away. It is not a beautiful history and I understand that the current majority parties prefer not to be remembered anymore. Because you eventually approved that dragon of Durant, although we sometimes get the impression that you want to create the image of the opposite as loudly as possible. We may not expect much history from the other parties, so I will begin with it, as promised in the committee. Their

The law-Durant is still full of errors and technical legal shortcomings. This has been clearly demonstrated by the reactions of the Arbitration Court and also by the fact that some documents of the law were postponed. The traffic law is only two years old, even only one year in force, and the Arbitration Court has already issued four negative judgments on it. One about the additional regulations in which a transgression of competence was committed. One, and that is the fundamental thing that we will return to later on, is Article 29 concerning: the categorization of traffic fines. Then there was another judgment on the withdrawal of the driving license. Finally, a judgment on the payment order. It is about that last provision that the original bill we discuss here today actually went: to offer a solution to it. In the meantime, a lot of water has flowed into the sea. Their

Immediately upon the entry into force of the law, it was already determined that there would be enormous problems with the order to pay. Therefore, this scheme was temporarily suspended pending the adjustment. With the draft law, it was intended to change this into a payment order. Meanwhile, this is also removed.

A second consideration of the law-Durant, and even more important than its legal value, is that the super fines were a misleading of jewelry. It is good to stand still for a moment. It is good to keep hold of the political background against which these fines have arisen. What was the background? An offer between red and green. No more or no less. It was the time of Durant in the federal government and Stevaert — there he is again — in the Flemish government. Green and Red were involved in a biker-harsh battle to own the traffic theme. Stevaert had already invented the free public transport. In addition, he had a donkey that almost every week produced new money to build many more bike paths. On the other hand, on the federal level, there was a green, stumbling Minister Durant who also wanted to realize himself on this topic. This is the background against which the super fines have emerged. The State-General of Traffic Safety has never been a requesting party for this.

In the meantime, the VLD had to swallow. The way in which during the discussion of the law-Durant in the committee a cow trade was organized between at that time not a party chairman but a member of the Infrastructure Committee, Bart Somers and green-red was ⁇ not heart-lifting.

The gsm violation was found at the same meeting by former sp.akamer member Daan Schalck at least as dangerous as a 0.5 promile alcohol violation. Half an hour later, he acknowledged or had to acknowledge that the GSM violation would be a common violation. This happened after an agreement was forged between the green minister and VLD-er Somers in the corridor and outside the committee’s meeting room. Daan Schalck had to swallow and give in.

The way in which the violation of the belt wear obligation was acted was even worse. At one point, Somers suggested considering only a driver’s belt breach as a serious breach. Imagine yourself! Then again only a belt violation of the adult sitting and not of the children. On the front seat, but not on the back seat. In short, it was a shabby intention. All in order to limit the loss of vision as much as possible.

What was the conclusion of that cow trade? Durant received her super fines on the condition that the VLD got her shame. The gsm infringement and the belt infringement should be considered as ordinary infringements. So it happened.

In a sense, this spectacle goes a little further today. While Minister Landuyt is much more willing and much more logical than what he now has to do, to see the breach of the belt as a serious breach, he must defend the opposite because of the liberals. Bart Somers — again he — should apparently not be put too much in the wind. Or is it the voice of Verhofstadt that resonates?

Back to the law-durant. The government of Verhofstadt I was afraid of its own creation. The law appeared in the State Gazette in early 2003, but the federal elections came to it in June 2003. Therefore, the implementation of the law was simply delayed for a year. The super fines should not be a topic for the federal elections. Isabelle Durant, who had prepared a number of KBs, was no longer allowed to implement her own law. Her successor, Bert Anciaux, inherited the file and was allowed to experience what it means to implement such a traffic law, ⁇ with the liberal coalition partners looking over his shoulders.

These super fines were not merely the use of a political chess game. It was also a political miscalculation. There was and there is no social support for these super fines. The protest in Flanders was ⁇ large, within and outside politics, also because of our group. I could find here countless CD&Vinterventions, notes, press releases, opinions and interviews on radio, television and in newspapers, but whatever was said, it was all opposition speech according to you.

Today, colleagues, in the present proposal, it is admitted that purple greens were galopped at that time. Super fines are not needed. The overseas — look, for example, to the Netherlands — has long taught us that a high cost combined with much lower fines is ⁇ effective in bringing about a necessary change in driving behavior. Instead of serving road safety, the super fines threaten to turn against road safety. Politics cannot be carried out without a minimum of social support. A combination of high fines and a high risk of collapse will get insufficient support from the population. Then we are talking about money bribes. Then the risk is real that the population turns not only against the high fines, but also against an increase in the risk of the package. This would be bad for the entire road safety policy.

Fortunately, the purple-green misleading of the super fines is now finally corrected.

Even the royal decision on the categorization of the serious offences was in some ways a misleading. The most interesting thing was that this KB, which regulates the categorization of the serious violations, was immediately amended several days after it came into force during the megaminister council of Raversijde. And how ? I almost have to laugh when I think of it, but actually it was intriest.

During that well-conscious weekend in Raversijde Minister Anciaux came on Knack-TV telling how ⁇ dangerous parking on a bike path, a zebra path or a pedestrian path was. At the same time, Anciaux was struck in the back by the great leader Verhofstadt on the other television channels. The prime minister spoke about pest fines and announced that a number of categories of fines would be reduced. This has not even been done yet.

An Anciaux had to suffer a second humiliation when the same Verhofstadt several months later, on the occasion of a petition action by Touring, stated that the KB should be changed again. All this without Minister Anciaux himself being aware of it. It is not difficult that Anciaux now states that it is more fun to work with a reliable prime minister.

In short, it was a sad show of purple green and then of purple.

With all that clutter, another almost medieval method of payment of the immediate invoices came into use. In a government with for the first time a State Secretary for Informatisation and another for Administrative Simplification, the fines still had to be paid with medieval penalty seals. In an era of e-government, it was not even feasible to open a new account number for the immediate fines or to deposit these fines on the same account number as the friendly settlements.

That is just hallucinating.

What was behind? That is very simple: Minister of Finance Reynders, as PRL chief, did not see the traffic law. He was also unwilling to participate in a more modern system.

As a blow to the firepile, when the traffic law was introduced, it turned out that the police services did not even have booklets to write out the immediate innings. Speaking of surrealism, is clearly expressed here.

The Traffic Act-Durant or Durant-Anciaux, if you want, was, in our opinion, also a missed opportunity in the fight against the recidive.

In 1990, Jean-Luc Dehaene signed the driving license with points in the Traffic Act as an element in the fight against the recidivists. After all, those who accumulated the traffic offenses could no longer get rid of them with a fine. He would also be awarded penalty points on his driving license. This could lead to a compulsory road safety course at its own expense and, in repeated cases, even to a prolonged — up to six months — withdrawal of the driver’s license. Unfortunately, the driving license with points was never executed.

A second chance to come to an effective fight against recidivism was the administrative handling of the process protocol, as proposed by CD&V in the discussions at the time, along with the establishment of a central database for all traffic processes-verbal. That database could have provided the necessary information to make the fight against recidivism a focus. Unfortunately, the purple-green government did not find it necessary.

Also in the present draft no further work is made of combating the recidive. Even the simplest, legal remedies, such as the extension of the recurrence period from one year to three years, did not like the minister. However, I will come back to that later.

I could also return here to the creation of the Traffic Penalty Fund. However, I have understood that we can expect a bill on this subject soon. Therefore, I can better come to the present proposal.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. This was done by the Federal Traffic Safety Commission. Many organizations and agencies involved in traffic. I would also like to congratulate you on this. This approach was the right approach. The involvement of the wider civil society ensures that a proposal can now be presented, which can be regarded as socially behaved. In fact, it is even incomprehensible that purple-green did not consult the concerned at the time with the law-Durant.

We are slightly less satisfied with the way the proposal was dealt with in Parliament and in the Infrastructure Committee. At the first discussion, which was limited to a presentation of the proposal by the Minister, he showed himself from his most loving side. He answered all our questions. All reports from the Federal Road Safety Commission and the Enforcement Working Group of that committee were made available, leading us to conclude that hearings were superfluous. All stakeholders had already had sufficient involvement. Looking backwards, it may have been a mistake. Especially, it was a mistake not to hear the people who are legally involved in the handling of traffic offences about the proposal.

In addition, the Minister also promised to provide us with an opinion from the College of Prosecutors General before discussing the proposal. The opinions of the regions would also be made available. Finally, an urgent advice would be requested from the State Council, so that it would also be on the table at the beginning of the discussion in the committee. What happened on the 15th of June at the first meeting? Fortunately, we had received the reports of the Federal Commission for Traffic Safety in a timely manner, as well as the opinions of the Regions, though in the form of a report of the interministerial conference, but there was not yet a opinion of the College of Prosecutors-General, nor a opinion of the Council of State.

That was seen afterwards, I think, a sign on the wall. The substantive considerations — one might even call them social considerations — were all available in a timely manner. But the more legal assessment of the work piece left to wait. I will also come back to that later.

The consequence of the absence of those opinions was that the article-by-article discussion was initiated but that the discussion of a whole number of articles was postponed until a next committee meeting. As a result, together with the discussion of a whole bunch of amendments, including from our hand, it became a very chaotic discussion. Despite this chaotic discussion, a coherent report has emerged — which is the merit of the services and of the rapporteur — but it does not really reflect how the discussion went.

The work of the Federal Commission for Traffic Safety and the underlying Enforcement Group has led to a substantially balanced proposal. Accidentally or not, it has also led to a proposal with fines in the line of the amounts that former colleague Jos Ansoms had already proposed in this regard more than two years ago. It seems as if our colleague had to resign from Parliament in order – afterwards – to get right.

We stood and stand positive to the work piece. We have also formalized this position with our signature under the proposal. Why Why ? We are ⁇ pleased that there has been a more logical classification of traffic offences and an adjustment of the amounts of fines. Let’s say: after the red-green offerings of several years ago, the common sense eventually triumphs.

The reduction of fines is also a victory for road safety. I said it before: it is an illusion to think that a high costume can be permanently combined with high fines. The society does not pick up such a thing and speaks of money whistleblowing. If there is no social support, politics must follow willingly. This is shown here today. Today, after consultation with the civil society, you come to that insight. That is a merit. Better late than never.

In the context of the fines, we find a gradual increase in the amount of the fine depending on the increase in speed also a good thing. This, on the other hand, is not as revolutionary as it seems: such a gradual increase— ⁇ not per kilometre, but by 5 kilometres per hour—existed already before Mrs. Durant was mentioned in politics, though only for the friendly arrangements. It was therefore incomprehensible that Ms. Durant had removed that system. Here too, common sense has triumphed with a new system to address speed breaches.

A second positive point is that the order to pay and the order to pay are classified vertically unused. That uncertainty helped an accelerated and improved handling of the PVs nothing forward, on the contrary. The way magistrates, judges, judges, and other stakeholders have labeled this idea during the hearings was simply disheartening for those who have ever designed and submitted it. In fact, it is incredible that this has ever just passed the government table. Honestly is honest, it is also the merit of the minister himself that he has suggested to organize hearings on this subject. He seemed to have already felt wetness. It would not surprise us, therefore, that that hearing was a galanty way for him to put this rigid and useless system into the garbage cart.

Mr. Minister, we believe that the present text also has important shadow sides. In terms of content, we are positive about the text, but that does not mean that we should not have an eye for some shortcomings. Allow me to remain silent for a moment because this is important. A first negative point is the fact that the design is a missed opportunity regarding the fight against the repetition or the recidive. An effective approach to recidivists makes an important contribution to road safety because the relatively small group of real broken-makers can be found among these recidivists. In our road safety policy, addressing this should be an absolute priority. I am not saying this alone. Several speakers said this during the hearing. For the approach, the government must have a tailored tool: an inventory, a database of traffic offences per road user. Whether they are punished with a fine, an immediate collection or any other punishment does not matter. Police and justice should have a complete overview and this is unfortunately not initiated in the draft. This is again a missed opportunity.

Worse, even a few minimal improvements in the fight against recidivism did not like the minister. Here we had the opportunity to bring the periods for repeat, which now still vary depending on the infringement, all together, namely at three years. Thus, it becomes clear to everyone that those who commit an offence within three years after the first, guaranteedly can expect a heavier penalty. The Minister has canceled this. He says that he will have an investigation on this issue and will come up with a proposal.

Mr. Minister, you have launched 7 tracks related to road safety. The priority, the approach to recidive, is not here. We fear that this will send the solution to this problem to the Greek calendar and therefore we have submitted our amendments on this subject again. Mr. Minister, if you want to undertake a hard commitment in the course of the evening, with a concrete timing and a deadline, we are prepared to withdraw these amendments and cooperate constructively on a good proposal in this regard.

Furthermore, in between, as regards the recidive, colleague Vautmans just pointed out in connection with the flight crime, colleague Casaer had stated in the media that the approach of recidive in flight crime must be adjusted immediately and quickly so that it could still be addressed efficiently. During the discussion, however, we did not hear him about this. I assume that this will also be included in the investigation of Minister Landuyt. However, we have missed an opportunity to address this quickly.

In addition to the missing of a recidive approach, there is another negative point. We still regret that the opportunity was not taken advantage of to legally anchor traffic maintenance at the federal level by the establishment of a specialized federal traffic police. The operations of this traffic police would then be directed by the Minister of Mobility and Transport. In this way, there is a guarantee that on motorways it is also effectively ⁇ ined and above all continues to be ⁇ ined. That is why we re-introduce this amendment to establish a specialized federal traffic police. The keeper may already win.

A third shadow side is and still remains the opinion of the Council of State regarding Article 29 of the Traffic Act. This is the core of the proposal that is presented here for discussion and vote today. Mr. Minister, we believe that the comments of the Council of State were fundamental and we should absolutely not take it lightly. I assume that our committee has done a little in your direction. I would like to give you a brief overview of the discussion in the committee. Mr. Minister, you promised in the introduction to the present text in the committee that you would request an urgent advice from the State Council and that this would be available at the beginning of the discussion. As I mentioned earlier, this was not the case. That was also logical. You made this introduction on 25 May in the committee. Only on 13 June was the State Council requested by you to issue urgent advice. Of course, the five-day period at the disposal of the Council for this purpose was largely insufficient to have the opinion at the start of the discussion on 15 June. The opinion was finally on the table of our committee on 20 June — and then only in French, which did not even constitute an official document. But until then. Mr. Minister, why did you actually wait two weeks before you obtained the advice, asked to the State Council? Was it because of neglect or forgetting? Who will say it?

The [...]

The opinion of the Regents was already pronounced on Wednesday.

You need to turn on your microphone.

It is the usual method, but rather fast. As soon as there is a participation of the Regions in the Interministerial Conference, it shall be forwarded to the Council of State.

The State Council made a comment.

It is not a matter of whether the State Council makes a comment. It is about the following. Once we have demonstrated respect for the West Government, we can forward it to the Council of State. This point can be discarded after this explanation.

( ... ...

You need to turn on your microphone.

Of course, very correctly.

( ... ...

Mr Van den Bergh had the word. I want to give him back the word.

Ladies and gentlemen, let your colleague speak again.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, that was not all. Those who were there can testify. Their

At the committee meeting of 15 June, you stated that there were no problems to be expected in the opinion, which was yet to come. That could reassure you informally, you claimed. One conclusion: either you have bad informants, or you wanted to put the commission on the wrong leg. Later, at least, it turned out that the opposite was true.

The criticism of the Council of State touches the heart of the present legislation. The Court of Arbitration has previously stated that the various categories of infringements, although in general terms, but nevertheless, would be given a defining description. The four categories had to be defined. Now, the State Council concludes in its opinion that the definition of the categories of infringements contained in the present draft is not sufficiently decisive. This makes our group very concerned.

I repeat: I agree with the present text in terms of content. A law, however, must not only be substantially valid, it must also be legally concluding. That is the least people can expect from us, especially in the field of road safety, where there is a great need for a stable, coherent and clear legislation.

Finally, there was an amendment from the government. We quickly held a committee meeting on this subject, in room 2, next door. That government amendment was eventually approved, with eight votes for and eight abstentions.

This amendment should address the objections of the State Council. I think the outcome of the vote already makes clear that there is some reason for doubt among the committee members. I have already said that we have trouble with this hold-de-bolder having to happen. The amended law will have to enter into force on 1 February 2006. You told it later. In order to give all interested parties sufficient preparation time, the law must be approved for the summer holiday. I feel uncomfortable with this time pressure. Is it not much more important to come up with a well-discussed proposal, which is widely carried out and legally concluded, than to have to work quickly?

The opinion of the State Council did and makes us doubt. Is it reasonable to actually approve the present proposal, which we have signed with note bene ourselves? We still fear not.

Dear colleagues, even after the committee thereafter, I remain with the fear that we have proceeded too quickly and unconsciously with the examination of this proposal. The Minister states that the amendment to Article 29 is legally waterproof. Our impression is mainly that he wants to avoid an assessment by the State Council. We want to be sure. I do not feel, after consultation with a number of other people, that certainty is there now. We will therefore abstain from voting on this proposal.

Finally, I have a question to you, Mr. Minister. It is about working with the medieval penalty seals. In the course of the discussions, you announced that there would no longer be working with penalty seals, but rather with a transfer form. We want to believe it, very much. We say: finally finally. However, we have not yet seen any concrete initiative, therefore this short additional question to find out if there is already a proposal to amend the KB in question and when it will come into force.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, this draft is meant to correct a number of mistakes made by Minister Durant and the entire purple-green government of Verhofstadt I, nothing more. The question remains whether the errors in the present text have been effectively corrected. There is still much work to be done, as the Minister himself indicated in his seven paths for improving road safety. Despite our abstinence today and our critical concerns, we believe that we have tried constructively to update and improve the text where we thought it was useful. Mr. Minister, we will continue to cooperate in the coming months in the same constructive but critical way by evaluating all the drafts and proposals of others and by submitting our own proposals, with only one goal in mind, which hopefully everyone pursues, in particular the reduction of the number of road traffic casualties. and applause.

Congratulations for your maidenspeech, mijnheer Van den Bergh. We welcome Mr. Lavaux for the same exercise, namely his first speech in our plenary assembly.

The Verhofstadt II Government, in its Government Declaration of July 2003, committed to greater road safety by setting as its objective to reduce the number of road victims by at least 33% by 2006 and by 50% by 2010. Your goal, in terms of road safety, is, be sure, all our commitment; by the horizon of 2010, we must, at least, double the number of accidents.

At the Council of Ministers in March 2004 in Ostende, you pledged to conduct by September 2005 a comprehensive evaluation of the February 2003 Law on Road Safety. Indeed, this law containing various provisions on road safety, which was adopted in the precipitation during the previous legislature, poses many legal and technical problems, which has led the Arbitration Court to sanction many of its provisions.

You have imposed on us, today, the same precipitation. Nevertheless, the assessment process of the Road Traffic Police Act conducted by the Federal Commission for Road Safety has been remarkable. We take advantage of this forum to thank all civil society organisations that have carried out this assessment process and congratulate them for the relevance of their recommendations. We regret, however, that these recommendations have not been followed more and better in the context of the reform that we are currently dealing with.

Before examining one by one the points of the reform, I would like to make a few observations regarding the work carried out in the committee. Initially, the commission was consulted with a text unilaterally drafted by the Minister of Mobility which concerned only the payment order, and therefore did not address all the problems posed by the application of the 2003 law. The committee conducted hearings that logically focused on the road safety reform as a whole. It was only on May 25 that the committee was submitted to a broader text, bringing about reform of all problematic aspects of the law inspired by the conclusions of the Federal Commission for Road Safety.

This text was introduced through an amendment submitted by several colleagues but, in reality, it comes from an early draft of the Minister.

Given the introduction of this text by parliamentary means, the State Council opinion was not available as soon as the text was deposited.

It was only at the last working session of the committee, on 20 June, when many articles of the amendment had already been voted, that the opinion of the State Council was transmitted to us on the banks.

I would like to clarify that no one, not even the minister, had the opportunity to read this opinion and that therefore the text was voted without really taking into account the observations of the State Council. In the meantime, Mr. The Minister read the observations of the State Council and it is today at 16.30 a.m. that a proposal for legislative bricolage is reached.

I find this situation very paradoxical. While the object of this law is to replace the illegal provisions of the 2003 law, this time again, the House does not give itself the means and time to do good work. We could not actually get acquainted with the amendments that were submitted this afternoon. We could not ask for opinions. This demonstrates a real disregard for parliamentary work.

I now come to the analysis of the various points of the reform and first to the categorization of offences.

The adopted provision is inspired by the work of the Federal Commission which completed the assessment of the February 2003 law.

According to the provisions of Article 7 of the draft law, the King is delegated the power to divide the offences into four degrees according to the creation of the risk they present.

The too broad character of the delegation of power has been stigmatized by the Council of State. It follows from the opinion that the defined criteria would be too imprecise to effectively frame and limit the power conferred on the King to classify infringements of regulations taken in implementation of the Law on Road Safety, into different categories.

In the first time, in the committee, Mr. Minister, you with conviction departed from this opinion by ⁇ ining the provision of Article 7 in draft. You justified yourself by arguing that the State Council would have defined the mandatory legal basis for offences in a broader way than the Arbitration Court. This afternoon, you present us something else and, with the same conviction, you ask us to believe it as a miracle solution. I don’t know what time we’re going to vote today, but maybe you’re going to suggest something else in the meantime.

We naturally support the principle of this categorization according to the degree of dangerousness of the offences. Be assured that we will be very careful to ensure that the arrangements taken in your royal decree are widely discussed by taking all the time necessary in commission.

Mr. Minister, you told us that the fines would be revised generally down. However, when reading the new amounts, we find that the reduction of fines is not so important as we sometimes want to make it appear. There are still "super fines" for some of our fellow citizens who do not have actual contributive capabilities.

There are fines that are sometimes disproportionate to the budget of a low-income family. We deeply regret that in case of immediate perception or transaction by the prosecutor’s office, it was not planned to take into account the social situation of the offender.

Fines for excess speed become a category of full-fledged infringements and they will be subject to a progression per kilometer/hour of exceeding. We will, of course, be in favor of this measure.

For the sake of transparency, we have proposed by amendment to remove the additional tithes for rolling fines as well as the indication of additional tithes.

In fact, from a pedagogical point of view, it is important that each offender knows what fine he is at risk of being imposed. This proposal was in line with the recommendations of the Criminal Policy Working Group-Evaluation of the Law of 7 February 2003 and the proposals of the experts heard before the committee. Additional tithes have already been removed in other areas.

Although my proposal had the favors of many of my colleagues, all tendencies confused, which I thank, it could not be voted, the minister having called for such a derogation from the system of additionals to be submitted rather to the Chamber Justice Committee.

We hope that such a measure can be adopted in the future, as it is capable of enabling the convicted person to better understand the importance of the penalty to which he is exposed in the event that he breaches the law on road safety.

Following the commission hearings, the government considered that it was not necessary to provide for a new procedure such as the payment order. We welcome this wise decision.

On the other hand, the text does not abolish the provisions relating to the payment order which, however, were canceled by the Council of State.

With regard to the withdrawal of the driver’s license, the law of 7 February 2003 had introduced a possibility of extending the withdrawal for a period of one month, which could be renewed once for the same duration. This provision was declared unlawful by the Court of Arbitration, as disproportionate because it does not provide for the intervention of a judge, nor a possibility of appeal. Today’s amendments aim to remedy this.

The general prosecutors’ opinion is ⁇ severe against this provision: “This text does not have the legal and conceptual quality required to be applied. The text contains a number of inaccuracies and legal and technical errors (confusion between the record of constatation and appearance, mode of introduction by unilateral record inexistent in our law, double mode of introduction for the same case".

The prosecutors were very critical of this possibility of extending the withdrawal which, in their view, was not necessary.

The State Council also made observations on this text: "The drafting of the text must be revised on a point concerning the citation to appear by notification."

We will add that there is no possibility of appeal against such an order to extend the withdrawal, which we find contrary to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.

For all these reasons, we oppose this provision.

Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, we can only succeed in reducing road insecurity if we manage to change mentalities, to educate drivers to respect others and to share space.

This bill is damaged by its lack of support for alternative penalties of pedagogical character or for works of general interest as full-fledged alternative penalties in case of violation of the Road Code. For example, the introduction of an obligation, for every driver, new or experienced, who would have caused death in a road accident or who would have seriously injured, to follow a new learning on road safety and to be aware of the consequences of their actions.

The picture I have just portrayed to you, dear colleagues, is at least critical and will remain so as long as the issue of road safety does not fit into a policy that makes road users even more responsible.

The CDH is in favor of the fight against road violence, which must remain a political priority and mobilize all levels of power.

In many aspects, however, the text adopted in the committee does not convince us. Many approximations in this text do not contribute to legal certainty in the field of road safety. However, it seems to us that the stability and legality of the rule of law are the indispensable corollaries of an effective repressive policy.

This bill is guilty of its lack of support for alternative penalties and the adaptation of penalties to the social situation of the offender in case of immediate perception or transaction by the prosecutor’s office.

Here is, ladies and gentlemen, the content of the criticisms of the CDH group of the Chamber. You will easily understand that we will not be able to vote for this government project, given the legal uncertainty surrounding many provisions.

However, we will abstain in so far as we support any policy to combat road violence and that this text unquestionably presents some improvements compared to the chaotic situation generated by the law of 7 February 2003, even though this text is still far from providing all the desired legal guarantees.

Thank you very much, Mr. Lavaux, my congratulations for your maiden speech! (The applause)

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I would like to first express my satisfaction to see that an agreement has been reached on the need to remove certain aspects of the Road Code. In fact, in recent decades, many articles of law have fallen into obsolescence, projects and proposals of law have been added and overlaid over time, to the point of making the Road Code sometimes unreadable for public road users.

Changing the coordinated laws of 1968 is therefore a good initiative in the sense that it upgrades legislation in its relationship to the realities of the road — density of the car park, traffic, technological progress, sociological evolution, etc. — but also because this bill places the user of the public road at the heart of the common concern to establish a true road safety.

I would like to highlight what, in this bill, in my view represents real progress for the safety of our fellow citizens on the road. First of all, I am pleased that this bill once again designates the safety of people as the absolute priority. In our country, too many families are brutally upset due to inappropriate behavior at the wheel. Traffic accidents are too often still presented as individual dramas, ⁇ in the press, while they involve collective responsibility. This is why work on mentalities and behaviors must be at the heart of any policy aimed at reducing road mortality.

Establishing a new distribution of offences according to the criteria of putting persons at risk is a logical and reasonable way of bringing into question the behavior of road users, regardless of their mode of movement. As such, the new grading of fines seems to me more appropriate, in any case conducive to an evolution of citizens’ reflexes. For example, the use of gsm at the wheel will pass into the higher fine category, as well as ignoring a level pass, an offence that goes from the simple fine to direct appearance in court.

As for fines, the fact that the amounts have been revised down seems to me to be a proof of the government’s clairvoyance. Indeed, I doubt that the immediate payment of a large sum will have a real impact on a citizen’s wallet later or on his personal questioning. On the contrary, a large amount, disproportionate to the severity of the offence and the danger to others, cannot be seriously taken into account by an offender who has financial difficulties. In the worst case, he will refuse to pay the fine by no longer having any consideration for the intrinsic gravity of his fault; in the best case, he will pay it at the price of sacrifices in other spending areas, essential to the household. I therefore emphasize the effort made for the study and revision of the amounts of fines.

There are many other positive contributions in the text proposed today. Without mentioning all of them, I would still like to point out what is being amended to punish excess speed. The judge may modify the amount of the fines according to the number of km/h of exceeding. On his PV, the offender will be able to read the speed at which he was driving and the tolerance margin that has been granted to him. As one of the judges in the hearing noted, exorbitant fines have no effect on road safety; only an adequacy between the severity of the infringement and the amount of the penalty is likely to have an impact on behavior.

This is also the reason why there may be withdrawal of the license for excess speed of more than 40 km/h — 30 km/h in agglomerations and fragile areas — but it is up to the judge to decide whether or not the withdrawal of the right to drive depends on the circumstances.

I also note that greater consideration is given to the safety of persons with disabilities and the special arrangements to which they are entitled. The fact of designating as a second-degree offence the abuse of parking on a blue square is not only a security measure towards them but also an invitation to the whole population to demonstrate more civism.

This decision makes one stone two strikes. It allows to update the Road Code and to take into account the greatest consideration given in recent years to persons with reduced mobility. In fact, it is logical that the evolution of society is also marked at the level of the Road Code. Thus, the SPF Mobility puts itself in the range of other public services that have multiplied policy actions in favor of persons with disabilities such as, for example, efforts made across the country to make places accessible to all, to improve access to employment and working conditions. There are still many improvements to be made in the mobility of persons with disabilities. Strengthening the respect for parking spaces is an important step. We dare hope that it will be respected. With regard to the fractional depreciation of the right to drive, this penalty was already applicable to those who had their license for less than five years, that is, young drivers. I am pleased that this measure can be extended to all. The default is purged on weekends and holidays but, during the week, the offender benefits from a derogation that allows him to exercise his profession. A punishment must of course be purged but I believe that it should not endanger the employment of a person. I specifically target drivers whose vehicle is a working tool: drivers, delivery workers, ambulance workers, etc. The deprivation of the right to drive can have far more serious consequences than a simple fine. The judge knows this and must even be able to determine the terms of the punishment. Here again, it is desirable to well evaluate the adequacy between the gravity of the fault committed and the punishment whose purpose is not to weaken a social balance that is already known to be precarious. It is essential that this facility granted to the judge allows to punish abuses while preserving employment.

The practical aspect, on the other hand, remains too uncertain with regard to what is currently being done under the current legislation, due to the lack of ad hoc procedures and documents that would enable effective enforcement. For example, if the offender has handed over his driver’s license to the transplant, must he come and deposit it every Friday evening and search it every Monday morning for several months, or even several years? Why could he not obtain a document indicating the derogation? Since the current device is not used, it is worth making its use more flexible.

Mr. Minister, I thought I understood that you intend to take care of it soon, by taking a royal decree that would organize the obtaining of this driving license. This will address the practical aspects that are currently lacking.

Finally, I would like to emphasize that the debate that concludes today has helped to advance a number of proposals. I think in particular of the resolution proposal imposing the reflective safety vest, recently co-signed by the whole majority. I look forward to seeing that we can go further together in simple and effective measures to improve everyone’s safety on public roads. However, efforts still need to be made to promote alternative modes of transport. The pedestrian is a weak user that should be protected by making it more easily detectable by all drivers of motor vehicles.

The two wheels have a separate place – too separate, in my opinion – on the public road. We are in the reign of four wheels and motorcycles, scooters and cyclists are weakened by the Road Code which does not sufficiently take into account their particularities. I think, for example, instead of a motorcycle on the road, the fact that cyclomotors are not registered, etc.

Fostering “soft” modes would reduce parking problems, improve traffic fluidity, save energy and reduce pollution. And as the number of accidents involving two-wheelers is constantly decreasing, this would contribute to achieving the goal of reducing road accidents by 50% by 2010. It would also be useful to strengthen driving training, especially for young people, by emphasizing defensive exercises. Auto-schools have an important role to play, but they should not be the only ones educating young people to the Road Code. Some associations do an exemplary job and actions within the framework of general education can very effectively contribute to giving drivers of tomorrow a sense of responsibility on public roads.

This civic sense is the foundation of a road safety policy that places the person at the center of his concerns.

I propose legislative amendments that do not require public funds or very little but that require a common political will to contribute to the safety on our roads.

Mr. President, Mr. Minister, I will be brief.

( ... )

It is very good. Sometimes surrealism makes you laugh.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, the history of this text is indeed surreal and worthy of the country of Magritte. by

Let me first make a small summary of the facts. This will allow you to see where we come from and where we are. by

Two years after the Durant law that had been cut into pieces by the Arbitration Court (...)

The [...]

This is a question that has been raised throughout the discussions in committees.

Why, on the basis of the criticism that was formulated at the time, did you not submit or have submitted a clear text, a text legally unattainable, respecting the rights of citizens, among whom are – I am not sure you are aware of – motorists? However, you have a “course” of the clearest warnings.

The bill, which aborted following your own decision of 29 October 2004, already contained two negative opinions on immediate payment and the classification of offences.

In the meantime, between the 2003 law and your law, there was – I remind you – the judgment of the Arbitration Court of 22 September 2004 which annulled the provisions of the Act on the withdrawal of the permit without judgment, the judgment of 3 November 2004 concerning problems of the division of competence between the Regions, the judgment of 6 November 2004 annulling the payment procedure and finally – last but not least – the preliminary question submitted to the Arbitration Court concerning the modalities for the designation of serious offences. This is important because you have been repeatedly reminded of this in the commission. We have spoken many times in the committee to tell you that your text presented serious legal imperfections.

A little later, you had the opinion of the State Council, the opinion of the prosecutors-general who condemned the only three important points of your bill. I mean speaking of the seizure of the driver’s license without judgment for 195 days, the inadequate classification of offences and the refusal to apply, in case of infringement, the most favourable law.

These are the three most important points of your project and, virtually on all of these three points, the criticisms have been extremely tough. That would have led me to tell you, if there had not been the meeting this afternoon, that in your project, everything that is good is not original and everything that is original is not good. But we have seen some progress on which we will return.

Only, you have in no way taken into account legal objections by not responding to them. Unfortunately, Mr. Minister, you are a bit accustomed to the fact; however, you do not have such a right! You stated about the controversial reliability of radars: "Road safety is more important than legal and theoretical certainty"; in addition, you reiterated by "regretting that someone who drank too much was not sent to prison." It is possible, but that is the law. I do not believe that a minister is in charge of criticizing a prosecutor or a magistrate who applies the law.

By doing so, you will tell me that you are in excellent company. In fact, Mr. Sarkozy does the same thing as you do by saying that the judge who had made a decision to release I don’t know who should be punished. Beyond jokes or comparisons, it is surprising that such contempt for legal rules comes from the mouth of a minister; on the contrary, the rule of law must be favored and even developed. How can the citizen respect the rules of life in society if the guardian of these rules does not care about them?

Beyond the controversy and at the bottom of the problem, this phrase reflects your willingness to consider the driver as a guilty of principle and to refuse him the guarantees that in case of infringement, it is given to any other citizen. I will give three examples.

The first is the article in your bill regarding seizure of the driver’s license without judgment. Your predecessor first and you then, you have handled the art of crescendo in a magnificent way, but a sinister crescendo. Let’s recall the situation to see where we came from and where we were until today at 16:00.

The initial regulation provided that the permit seized by the public prosecutor must be returned after fifteen days, except for the extension of fifteen days, renewable once after the interested party has been heard. After that, the license was returned, even though the judgment had not intervened. The 2003 law, this cursed law of which we are still talking, doubled the deadlines: suspension of permits without judgment for 90 days. The Court of Arbitration has annulled this provision precisely because it does not provide for the intervention of a judge either with regard to the initial decision which, when it may have a duration of a minimum of one month, no longer corresponds to the need to take immediate measures of a limited duration in the interest of traffic safety, nor with regard to the decision which may be taken twice to extend the period for the same duration.

The new system you planned organizes the intervention of a judge, but not at the bottom of the case. In your original text, until today at 4 p.m., the judge contented himself, at the request of the public prosecutor and after hearing the interested party, to authorize or not the extension of three months maximum, waiting to debate on the substance. The three months can be renewed, which means 195 days without judgment.

This system is therefore organized, not in the interest of public security, it has been said and repeated, but rather to remedy the administrative slowdown and that found in the restitution of permits. It is obvious that this request would have been systematically followed by the public prosecutor and the judge in the case of excess speed. Why do you want the judge to reject the request of the prosecutor who considers that, in the interests of public safety, it is necessary to suspend the driver’s license, even though the judge cannot examine in the substance if the conditions of the offence are such that there can be, for example, mitigating circumstances? Morality: you were adding it to the Durant law, I wondered if I would not end up regretting it — not the law but Mrs Durant!

While the Arbitration Court had broken the possibility of seizing the license without judgment for 90 days, you were talking about 195 days. The Attorney General of Mons, it was said in the commission, in particular my colleague and friend Mr. Bellot, recalls that, I quote, "the current term of fifteen days of withdrawal is largely sufficient given that it is a security measure and not a pre-judgment sentence and the three-month period in case of extension or renewal is disproportionate." This is quite surprising at a time when efforts are made to reduce the duration of preventive detention, to return to their homes those who are sentenced to less than six months of prison, or to return to their homes those who are sentenced to three years and who have already completed one year. In short, no longer anyone enters prisons for preventive purposes, they are empty because there is no room, and soon, it is an image, we will put the car offenders there! However, at this level, there is a reflection to be carried out. You could have done stronger and, as in the seventeenth century, issued stamp letters that allowed to send in prison without judgment the persons designated, without control or contestation.

Finally, probably aware of the fact that this text would be cancelled by the Court of Arbitration, you just presented this afternoon, in the confusion of a committee that met in twenty minutes, an amendment that changes the system again, which makes it more and more opaque. How do you work seriously? I’m used to work in this sector, I’m a lawyer and I sometimes remember the law courses I took at the university. How do you want, in a quarter of an hour and without codes — for when it comes to citizens’ rights, you need to have legal documents: a Public Law Code, a Criminal Instruction Code, a Criminal Law Code — to check the feasibility of your amendment which refers three times to provisions of the Criminal Instruction Code, without we having materially the time to verify what all this corresponds to? Again, I have the feeling that it is bricolage. I imagine that the Senate, he, will have the time and will do a serious analysis of your new proposal which gives me little guarantees. Again, it is still two times three months. I know that the court is still intervening but, again, without dealing with the substance.

In addition, there is no appeal. There is an opposition, but this, unlike the Code of Criminal Instruction, does not suspend at all the execution of the judgment, while it results, of course, in constituting that the conviction is null and not avenue. As a coincidence, we referred to the Code of Criminal Instruction, but not the entire article of the Code of Criminal Instruction. There are still problems for the driver.

Another mismatch that has not been corrected: the refusal to apply, in case of infringement, the most favourable law. Article 2, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code sets out a very clear principle: "If the punishment established at the time of judgment differs from the one carried out at the time of the offence, the least severe punishment shall be applied." It is clear! But you do the opposite again. In fact, Article 31 § 2 of your bill prescribes that, for offences committed before the day of entry into force of this law, the provisions of the Act of 1968 revised by the Durant Act remain applicable as they were on the day of the offence.

Thus, the former law obliged the judge, in case of conviction for a serious offence, to impose a minimum deadline of 8 days, even in case of suspension, suspension, probation. The new law — one of the few advances I welcome — has removed this obligation. Therefore, if a serious offence was committed before the entry into force of the law, which we are discussing for the moment, that is, in February 2006, the judge will not be able to declare the faculty that has been given to him by the new law, but will have to impose an eight-day deadline. It is absurd, isn’t it? For in general, when two successive legislations aim at the same offence, the most favourable law is applied to the scammer, the perverse, the thief, but not to the car driver.

This measure is once again condemned by the prosecutors. Not only is it contrary to Article 2 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code, but the State Council adds that it is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights as well as to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I don’t know if the Minister knows what the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are. After all, these are legal texts. It is obviously not cured, in so far as it is necessary to "stricken" the car driver!

The last part of the harmful trilogy is about offences and sanctions. I will not take all the figures: a breach of the 2nd degree: 10 to 250 euros; 3rd degree: 30 to 500 euros; 4th degree: 40 to 500; for excess speed: 10 to 500 euros and a fine per kilometer.

We welcome the understanding you showed to the drivers. In fact, you lowered the minimum, but not the maximum! A multiplication by the legal corrections, if we find ourselves in court, always gives us a ceiling of penalties for the 3rd and 4th categories of 2,500 euros, that is, 100,000 old francs and for the others, of 1,250 euros, that is, 50,000 old francs.

We are replied, in commission, that the judge never applies the maxima, that there is no risk. That is a stupid question! Why should such maxims be imposed in the law, if we are told that the judge never applies this provision? Couldn't a reasonable criminal code be drafted that sets fines at a level that can be reached without, however, setting scary levels for the public? To calm the latter, it is said that these possibilities will never be used.

The excess speed is calculated per kilometre. However, is a driver driving at 132 km/h more dangerous than a driver driving at 131 km/h? It always takes a step, but kilometers per kilometers is absurd. A speed range of 10 or 20 km/h seems more appropriate to me.

Will we harmonize upwards or downwards? Is it considered that driving at 131.3 km/h returns to 131 km/h and that 131,5 km/h is rounded to 132 km/h? This will give rise to many controversies about the reliability of the radars. Several articles have also challenged the reliability of the radars. They are not accurate at 1km/h near and ⁇ not at 0.3km/h near either. However, an additional 1 km/h represents an additional fine of 5 to 10 euros in certain circumstances – the equivalent of several sandwiches followed by a good beer, without alcohol, of course!

Despite our warnings, you refused, at the time, to take into account the comments of the State Council on the insufficient classification of offences. I am not back on what the Court of Arbitration has said to you, but you have challenged the State Council’s attitude in this matter. This is unacceptable! The Court of Arbitration tells you that it could be admitted that the first phase of the reform was the subject of the criticised delegation. Yes, but we are no longer in the case of the first phase. The State Council has noted this. The first phase began in 2003 and, based on the new classification, the State Council recommended you to be more precise in the classification of offences. It is not enough to establish categories: direct danger, indirect danger, circumstantial danger. We must go further.

The deadline has exceeded, Mr. Minister. We told you in the committee, but we only had the right to your silence. You have decided to keep your text and not take into account the amendments.

Suddenly, today at 4 p.m., you understand that your texts will fly to the Arbitration Court and the system has been changed. From now on, the royal decree fixing the offences will remain applicable if it is confirmed within the year by a law. It is almost a law of special powers that confirms the arrests that have been made. Problems may arise if, at the time of voting on this law, amendments are adopted, for example a change in the categories of infringements. Once again, the driver will face two different standards with the risk that the least favourable law will be applied to him, not to mention the questions of retroactivity or not of the law if it is not approved.

A small legal analysis would have been appropriate but, at 16:00 in the commission, this was the last of the concerns.

There would also be much to say about the distribution of offences in these categories. Again, questions could not be asked or were not answered.

Why is the passage of a "stop" sign in the second category and the passage of a red light in the third, and not both in the fourth category, while the refusal of priority is responsible, according to the Belgian Institute of Road Safety, for 30% of accidents with bodily injury, injured or dead? Why are these offences placed in lower categories? I am the first to say that one who crosses a red light without justification is a public danger; these are disasters that inevitably happen. I repeat my question. Why is the passage of a "stop" panel not in the fourth category? It can be passed happily. by

Dear colleagues, do you know what the level of infringement consists of passing a "stop" sign? It is exactly the same as parking on a sidewalk. Two things one: either we exaggerate for parking in the outlet - which I believe - or we are not at all severe for the passage of the "stop" panel. In any case, juxtapose the two and provide an equal fine for both ... For those who care about road safety, there are limits not to be exceeded! Maybe Mr. Landuyt always runs with a driver. I who don’t have one and who runs about 50,000 kilometers a year, I know what the passage of a “stop” sign represents compared to parking on an outlet to go to get a bread and a piece of cheese or meat! This is total inconsistency.

Mr. President, Mr. Minister, I said that I would not be too long. Many things have been said in the committee and the excellent report of Mrs Vautmans, which I am grateful for, clearly indicated. by

This is my judgment on three essential points, namely the offences, including their categories and financial amounts, the modalities of withdrawal of the permit without judgment and the derogation from the general principle of the application of the most favourable law.

My concern is obviously not only about these three elements. Mr. Minister, in particular, you announced special provisions in case of recurrence and prescription. I expect the worst and I think I will not be disappointed. From the moment when one decides to take a special law on recurrence and prescription, it is ⁇ not to advantage the car driver over any other offender! I am very afraid that the situation will get worse, but we will see later!

You will answer me that you must stop the hecatombe and that you are never too severe for drivers. The sanctions must also be proportionate to the severity of the faults committed; this is what many motorists contest. When 100% of drivers significantly exceed the speed permitted somewhere, it is that there is, in that place, an error in the imposed limitation. 100% of drivers are not blood crudes! I don’t see how road safety will be improved by imposing disproportionate fines in case of parking prohibition, for example, fines that are carefully guarded to sometimes claim from offenders who attack people and property.

You also refer to statistics. Since you have changed the criteria, comparison is impossible. Until now, I had data from the Belgian Institute for Road Safety and compared the decreases and the increases; generally speaking, I was pleased to see that the number of dead and injured was decreasing from year to year. Now that the criteria have been changed, any comparison becomes impossible. We have partial statistics; we are told that local police did not report. Nevertheless, if you look at your figures, you find that the number of accidents in Flanders decreases less than in Wallonia while it is known that the repression is much more fierce in Flanders.

You have already found a parade by highlighting the difficulty in terms of space! It is necessary to find an argument, otherwise it would be considered that repression alone is not capable of reducing the number of accidents and their consequences.

Moreover, Mr. Minister, I repeat it once again from the top of this tribune, it is enough to examine the accidents of the weekend. We continue to draw the attention of successive ministers on this issue. You can put a police officer behind every turn, a radar in every corner, you will not prevent, by this alone fact, the madness of Friday and Saturday nights. During these evenings, some people disregard the basic rules of road traffic, often with cars that they do not drive on weekdays and that are not even their property with dramatic consequences, as has been known recently. I just remind you of a number of dramas that occurred with, driving very powerful cars of fifteen-year-olds.

Just open the newspapers; the statistics also show it: the number of dramas that can only be understood by the madness of Friday and Saturday nights is impressive. It is at this level that the problem must be solved; it is there that we must try to convince these drivers not to go crazy during the weekend. What we ultimately demand is a repression of ⁇ dangerous acts and manoeuvres, and not an embuscade at the end of a deserted straight line avenue on Sunday at 8 a.m., where the road manager has fixed ridiculously low speed signs and where, of course, the police rush to climb 95% of drivers. This way of doing is not about road safety, it is pure “shooting-cash”.

What we also demand is better driving training, precisely in difficult conditions. This seems to me essential. It is not enough to know how to park in a small, narrow parking lot — this is learned — but to know how to adopt not only a defensive behavior but also a preventive behavior capable of seeing and conceiving what is happening. I think there is still a lot of effort to be done in terms of training.

In addition, we want – I have been asking for a very long time – a much greater attention to the safety organs (tickets, amortisers, brakes), as well as to the phenomena of increasing importance in accidents such as drowning at the wheel – some studies report 30% of accidents due to drowning at the wheel; you drive at 120 km/h with its “cruise control” and you do not see what is happening in front of you – or the borrowing of the car on Friday and Saturday night that leads to catastrophes.

We also request the determination of each accident risk category before providing the differentiated and adequate response.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, this policy is obviously much more difficult than sending full carts of pre-condemned persons to the court. However, it may be these measures there that would be able to significantly improve road safety. That is why, Mr. Minister, you will not be surprised by the fact that I will not be able to vote in favour of your project. But since I am the faithful and respectful support of the government majority, I will abstain from this project.

I give you the word for your “maiden speech”.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, for being with us late in the evening. I will try to be as short as colleague Monfils, maybe even shorter. I would like to discuss four points.

First, as regards the law as it exists to date, it can only be stated that it was not perfect on a legal and technical level, otherwise the Court of Arbitration would not have criticized it in four judgments. The core of the law was the promotion of road safety and road viability, which is and remains extremely important today, tomorrow, the coming months and years.

President: Olivier Chastel, second vice president. Olivier Chastel, Second Vice-President The shock effect of the law and the fines has not missed its outcome. Some colleagues point out that a high package chance rather than high fines is the right approach. It is not an or-of-story. Who will be embarrassed to drive too fast if the risk is high but the fine is only 5 euros. Conversely, high fines without a serious package opportunity are also not the solution.

The surplus revenues of the Traffic Penalty Fund and the traffic barometers have sufficiently demonstrated that the driver has indeed changed his traffic behavior and has taken into account the new legislation in his daily traffic behavior. One can see on the roads that people respect the rules much better than a few years ago.

I will not dispute that there were fines and there are those that are reasonably high. However, one should never forget that those who get a super penalty are often the road traffic victims and their surroundings, people who have been hit by an accident and suffer from it for months and years. It is always about someone’s father or mother or child or friend or colleague. I know a number of terrible accidents in my neighborhood. For those people, at the moment of the death of a loved one, the light in their lives has gone out. Years later, they still suffer from it and have trouble handling it.

My colleagues, in my opinion, have also been able to conclude that the current draft is not the result of political hacking. In the Committee on Traffic Safety, many meetings were devoted to the problem and numerous associations, from the Cyclists’ Federation to Touring — to choose the extremes — were involved in the work.

It cannot be excluded that the internal coherence and the logic of the new system of fines and of the underlying system which presents certain criteria are an improvement.

We can have respect for the Council of State’s criticism of Article 29 and for the criteria used to fix the fines, which it formulates from its legal Olymposberg. On the other hand, I also note that in his own opinion he himself does not make suggestions to go to solutions and that even in the texts proposed by the colleagues, there were actually no real adequate criteria that would indeed provide total certainty.

Can we predict what other courts and courts may decide about this in the future? No, it is apparently partly afraid to wait. We have attempted to make an amendment this afternoon to leave the legislature as such the final test. We hope that will be enough.

In addition to the positive points, there are also provisions in the new layout, which will be included in the royal decree, with which we are less satisfied. It may also. I think of the classification of some violations, such as wearing the belt. It has been said that the background is that it is about the driver’s own safety; if he does not wear the belt, he takes the risk. This is limited, but I think we should not forget to protect people from themselves sometimes. Also, remember that if a traffic accident occurs, society bears a part of the costs. People need to be taken care of and so on. That is the first point. Secondly, when it comes to minors or children in the rear seat, it is still important that the adults, the parents ⁇ , ensure that those passengers are adequately protected and that they fly as projectiles through the car and through the front window.

You know—this cannot be denied—that such a classification is also based on a certain political compromise. This is specific to politics. Sometimes it is a little give and sometimes a little take. Of those who can not agree with this, I wonder if it is suitable for politics in the way we should do politics in our country.

As for the treatment of the design, a number of colleagues have already delivered fierce criticism. That criticism may not be completely wrong, but we have been able to find during the hearing that colleague Van den Bergh of CD&V — respectable and constructive colleague, here at the time a little less, but during the discussions that went well — apparently had important prior knowledge of the opinion of the prosecutors general. Apparently even his amendments were somewhat inspired by some of these comments. In another country you might be surprised at this, but in our country you are already somewhat ordinary.

Mr. Casaer, I have actually received suggestions to modify the text legally. These corrections were also forwarded to the cabinet of your respectable minister.

That is right. I don’t blame you for that, I just assert that. No more than that. It is true that you submitted some of the amendments in advance. I also thanked you for this, because I thought it was a constructive way of working. I will come back to that later.

We were also surprised by the attitude and presentation of certain members of the MR group. Apparently there is a hair in the butter. We have noted in the Flemish press from time to time that the VLD occasionally has a hair in the butter. This has been made clear enough, we will not talk about it. However, I note that the attitude of the Chairman and Deputy Minister of the MR and the attitude adopted by the MR in the committee showed at least a number of nuances. We have taken note of this.

At the end of the committee discussions, we thought for a moment to call this le loi-Monfils because of his very well-founded and broad statements during the discussion in the committee, but that was obviously not what we wanted to do to him.

We have also heard, both here and during the discussion in the committee, that some think that the car driver is being criminalized, that it is the eternal bohemian, and that the weak road user would be put on a pedestal. I would like to deny this. In the proceedings before the police courts, we see daily that weak road users are also held accountable for their mistakes. I think we can also not be beyond the objective given that when a cyclist runs against a car there is a difference with a car that runs against a cyclist. Sometimes this can lead to a difference in treatment.

In the following, I cannot follow Mr. Monfils in his logic. He spoke about the fact that Articles 419bis and 420bis of the Criminal Code provided for penalties for motorists. He says this cannot be done. At the same time, however, he says that there is a hard core of road offenders against which we must act very strictly. Mr. Van den Eynde also spoke during the discussion about people in his neighborhood, Gent, who are throwing themselves into the traffic in a completely abnormal way.

The street racers are ⁇ the most extreme example of this. Then it surprises me somewhat that those same colleagues have difficulty with the fact that a security measure is proposed with respect to such road offenders to withdraw their driving licenses for a little longer than fifteen days. I can tell you that it is still difficult to handle when people in their neighborhood experience a road accident victim and fifteen days later would see the same driver driving back with the car. I believe that, with regard to the text that is now presented, the balance between the rights of defence, on the one hand, and the possibility to also take a defective security measure in that regard, on the other hand, is indeed achieved. Their

Furthermore, the fact that Articles 419bis and 420bis still exists is also important with regard to the provisional detention law. It should not be forgotten as such.

At first glance, there is a small misunderstanding. Articles 419 and 420 provide for a heightened penalty when accidental strikes and injuries are inflicted by means of a vehicle. This is about unintentional strikes and injuries. There are observations in the conclusion that there appears to be no real meaningful argument for why a higher penalty should be imposed when the strikes and injuries are inflicted by means of a vehicle or by other means. When you give someone a messing teak, I don’t really understand why this should be punished less severely than when you injure someone through a vehicle. I believe that there was almost an agreement about this in the committee, including the minister, that there should be a thorough debate in the future about the motivation to justify that difference in punishment. We also made some comments on this in the first place. Their

By the way, I also thought at first that the minister was right and could have persuaded us to do nothing about it, but I believe that the MR, by Mr. Monfils, had put enough arguments in this regard to question this in the future. The debate about punishment, including the recidive and the like, should be conducted thoroughly. How should this punishment be applied? I believe that this does not really have to do with traffic crime on the level of real criminals who are consciously guilty of that crime, but that this has to do with a different form of punishment. It is in that sense that it is sometimes said that one stigmatizes and criminalizes the driver a little more. It is in this context, I think, that we should conduct this debate in the future.

Mr. Speaker, the first half of the argument I wanted to keep was just developed by Mr. De Padt. I will not repeat this. I share his opinion on this matter, including that of Mr. Monfils. There is a second issue that I would like to add to this. There has been a sort of ideological vision which shows that the driver is systematically – I don’t know why – loaded with all the sins of Israel. You are right when you say that I have spoken in the Infrastructure Committee more than once about the terror sown in our cities by street traces. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the behavior of those so-called weak road users, the cyclists, in that same city is sometimes equally dangerous. Those people have once been taught that they are always right, that they are the weaker, gentle and tender road users, to the extent that their behavior is murderous, especially for themselves. This must be emphasized. President: Jean-Marc Delizée, Prime Minister and Vice-President. President: Jean-Marc Delizée, First Vice-President

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the colleagues for their interesting remarks, which makes the debate still a little burning. That is always good, Mr. Minister, I hope.

As for Mr. De Padt’s intervention, I think it is correct that we should conduct the debate in a broader framework. The Minister has also undertaken to do so together with his fellow Justice and the members of the Justice Committee. I had also understood that it was equally important to be able to apply the provisional detention law in a number of such cases and that the sanctions remained. Their

Regarding the remarks of Mr. Van den Eynde, I can say the following. I know, Mr. Van den Eynde, that you blame this us, socialists, somewhat, and then ⁇ in your own home garden. I have taken note of this. It is absolutely not true that we say that a cyclist or a pedestrian should not respect the rules. I do not know how that is in Gent but for example in Aalst there are very regulated, and ⁇ at the beginning of the school year, cyclists checked to see if their bicycle is regulatory in order. Initially, a warning may be given, but sometimes it is also verbalized. In that regard, I don’t think it’s intended to leave weak road users “d’office” out of shoot. I think there is an objective element, in particular that someone who drives a vehicle, especially if it is a truck or a bus, represents a different risk than someone who rides a bike or walks around on foot.

It also referred to the suddenly chaotic discussions in the committee. I do not think that this can be completely denied. I think there is an effort for all of us in this area. I am still relatively new to this Parliament, but I have ten years of experience as a lawyer behind me. Sometimes one may be somewhat surprised at the way legislative work is sometimes done.

This requires an effort from all of us. Some who accused the government for ease and ease repeatedly submitted amendments to the committee the same day. Colleague Van den Bergh, you have indeed delivered the main theme of your amendments in advance to the members of the majority – I don’t know if you delivered them to the other members of the Chamber – for which I thank you. This enabled everyone to get through them well. Today, however, I have to conclude that you have to correct something in the form of two small technical sub-amendments, but I understand that. Nothing human is strange to you. I admit that some of my amendments were subsequently corrected by sub-amendments.

Finally, what does the future offer? For sp.a, road safety and viability will continue to be absolute priorities in the coming years. We also find that the fact that the fines were slightly adjusted should not lead to a greater laxity in traffic. It should ⁇ not be understood as a signal that we are taking back part of what we then pushed forward as priorities.

We have heard from several angles: we advocate for peace in the traffic law. I have respect for that. However, this should not lead to resentment. Traffic, like society, is an evolving data and new phenomena will emerge in the coming years as well.

During the discussion of the law in the committee with colleagues and with the minister, we determined that there is still work on the store in various areas. It has already been cited by some colleagues. Important priorities remain, for example, the fight against recidivism, the establishment of a database to record violations in order thus to be able to effectively combat recidivism, the deadlines for limitation, better and faster statistics allowing us – this is then part of the work of the Minister of Economy – to quickly play on the ball and quickly evaluate and update the law if necessary, the fight against road crime, the fight against street races, accidents with trucks and so on.

The fight against flight crime remains a priority. You may have misunderstood that. It is not because we have said that it must be done quickly that it would not remain a priority. The Minister has committed to working on this and we will surely return to it, after having been able to enjoy a well-deserved rest this summer.

You know, however, — on this point I have the same opinion as Mrs. Vautmans — that the regret you are always talking about is really my thing — and in a way of speaking our thing — is not.

This weekend, a flight crime occurred in Nile. The perpetrator, after overturning a person, who also dies as a result, makes another terrace. An hour after the events, he is found drunk by the police services on that terrace. The man did not have the courage to report to the police within three hours after the accident. This person showed rejectional behavior. We must continue to fight that. There can be no regret or respite.

The work that we have delivered here, and that we hope to approve here tonight, is, of course, only part of the work. The police and the judiciary also have to do their job. Effective capture opportunities and effective prosecution are and remain important. The federal police also receive money from the Road Safety Fund. We can also expect to get something back for those cents.

Mr. Minister, it is also important that you, through a good information campaign, bring the law to the people and ensure that the people are well informed from — and preferably even before — the moment the law enters into force.

Mr. Speaker, I am going around.

Mr. Casaer, Mr. De Padt wishes to interrupt you.

Mr. Casaer, I would like to use or abuse your presence to ask the Minister through your channel how far it is with the Road Safety Fund.

Mr. Minister, municipalities or local police zones must draw up their road safety agreements before 1 September 2005 in order to be eligible for the road safety fund. At the moment, however, they have not yet received a single directive. There is not yet a royal decree to prescribe how we should draw up road safety agreements. They should all be approved by the zonal safety councils, in which the DirCos and prosecutors sit.

I fear that when we have to summon the people in the months of July and August, we risk that the road safety agreements will not be able to be approved by the zonal safety councils.

Is there a sanction for this?

When will the royal decree appear or is it in preparation?

When will we get the guidelines?

Mr. Casaer, I must apologize that, because you mentioned it for a moment, I am asking the minister for some explanation via a carambole.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot ignore it. It is in carambole with the Minister of Internal Affairs. Since I don’t have it completely in my own hands, it goes a little slower than anything else. I will check it for a moment.

Mr. Speaker, I will decide. Mr De Padt, I thank you for your interesting additional question, which you will undoubtedly ask the competent minister next week in the Committee on Home Affairs.

Colleagues, in short, on the basis of the discussions in the committee and the discussion held here today, we can conclude that our committee for Infrastructure, Transport and Public Enterprises will not be technically unemployed after today. I say this to those who hoped or feared. This will not be the case. There is still a lot of work on the shelf. Their

Every victim, every road traffic victim, is one too many. We all agree on this. At the macro level, they may be part of a statistic that is published, but at the micro level, they always remain human dramas of which we must be fully aware and in which context we must do everything we can to prevent them.

Mr. Casaer, congratulations on your maiden speech. (Applause of Applause)

Mr. Van den Eynde, it is not your maidensprach, but you have the word.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, with your permission, I would like to briefly address the ideological approach to some traffic problems. Their

Mr. Casaer has said that it is not the case that we systematically tighten the control of cars and motorists and leave cyclists or pedestrians untouched. He has a surplus of right. Nor is it so. However, it is true that in certain cities in Flanders — I don’t know if it is so in Wallonia — one has created a kind of mentality in which cyclists in fact demean superprotected people. This poses a great risk to themselves. I am always willing to guide colleagues around the streets of the city where I live in the evening. If they didn’t believe me, I could follow a tour of dangerous cycling routes whose eyes would open. Their

Mr. Minister, colleagues, having said this, I would like to begin with a parafrase on the Communist Manifesto.

A ghost is wandering through this Parliament, a ghost is wandering through the Infrastructure Committee of the Parliament. This is the ghost of Isabelle Durant. For a few years, Isabelle Durant has worked here on the subject we are dealing with today. That word is not exaggerated. She regularly harassed the Infrastructure Committee. Colleagues who are part of it may contradict me if I would exaggerate in their eyes. When it comes to Zaventem, for example, I hear people from different parties, both French-speaking and Dutch-speaking, warning of a homewish to the pre-Durant era. The same goes for road safety. That lady was released untouched for several years on the traffic problem in this country. This is a false ending, let us confess.

I admit that now, afterwards, it is easy to put all the guilt on her shoulders. However, I would like to remind the colleagues of the majority, however, that Ms. Durant has held traffic policy hostage here for a few years, and that she has exercised a nefaste — that word is not too strong — influence on the traffic problem with us. This has only happened in the window of a purple government. The other majority political parties are therefore responsible. Now, Mr. Minister, you must glue the broken pots. I have to say, you are the second one who makes an attempt. After Mrs. Durant came Mr. Anciaux. It was almost equally disastrous.

I must admit that the Landuyt era in this regard means a breathtaking. It is true: we have a lot of criticism on the present draft. It is true that it was chaotic. It is also true that a lot of improvements could be made. But in any case, we must admit it: in relation to what existed before, it is an improvement. Mr. Minister, I would like to tell you that it could have been much worse.

Furthermore, I must add that those improvements to the system have arisen in chaos. That word has since fallen. I think that is not exaggerated. Their

The committee meetings were often very chaotic, not because of the chaotic behavior of the members but because the government systematically came up with new proposals. However, I grieve to admit that it was not easy to address this problem on the basis of what already existed.

Last weekend there were 16 fatal road accidents, mostly involving young people, motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians. According to statistics, 3 people die in traffic every day. That the media should pay attention to this is logical. This affects us all.

Today we are discussing an adaptation to the Road Safety Act. It is an important adjustment, but it will not solve everything. There is much more needed for this. The Traffic Safety Act is just a tool to come to a more traffic-safe society where fewer deaths and fewer injuries fall. I would like to admit that road safety also has to do with mentality, education, education. These issues cannot be regulated legally. That is why I said that we all have a responsibility in this area.

Based on the road safety barometer that you publish at regular times, Mr. Minister, we note that the number of dead and injured is decreasing. That is good news. However, you yourself acknowledge that this traffic barometer needs to be optimized. In addition, the initiative comes from your cabinet. Without accusing you of being consciously subjective, we can only establish that you are a party involved in this case and that we should be able to consult a more objective source. This brings us to the situation that we have the impression that road safety is going in the right direction but that this cannot be proven given the latest NIS figures dating from 2002. I hope it doesn’t go the way of the crime rates. At regular times it is announced that it is going in the right direction. This is also based on partial statistics. Global figures are missing. That is the Verhofstadt method, but it is no longer convincing.

Moreover, not only in terms of numbers, there is still uncertainty, also in terms of the cause of road accidents itself. In the past, little or no research has been done. I think it was the reporter, who later also referred to that. Mr. Minister, you stated in the past that in the BIVV one should give such an order or that it would be given. The question is, of course, whether the necessary resources are also spent on this. Therefore, the Flemish Interest supports the establishment of an institute for the study and research in the context of road accidents. Only then can we take decisive measures based on these results. That is, even if the figures drop, of great importance for road safety.

“The Forum will explore solutions and develop bills for various issues to contribute to greater structural coherence of federal, regional and/or community powers. In this context, the Forum will cover, among other things, road safety and the issuance of export licences for weapons.” This was then pushed forward together, Mr. Minister: road safety and export permits for weapons. What can we determine today? There was no need for a forum to regionalize the issuance of arms export licences. There was also no need for a forum to push the Francorchamps Act through. The wishes of the French speakers were fulfilled immediately after the start of the purple coalition in 2003. As we know, the opposite, of course, is never the case. I refer to Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde, as well as – and this is the matter here – to the problem of road safety. It is ⁇ quiet in this regard. I wonder why this should be such a problem now. All Flemish parties agree that road safety should be regionalized. In time and time, some ministers will also say that this or that should be regionalized. Ms. Van Brempt was barely away from the federal government or she called from Flanders that the traffic fine fund should be de-federalized. I will return to that later. The French speakers should also agree, because it is clear that the MR does not agree with the course of affairs in the government in the field of road safety. It is clear that the MR — and we have heard it very clearly afterwards through the true opposition speech of Mr. Monfils — has a very different view on this.

Not only in this area, we can see that something has happened in the past week.

It is clear that Wallonia has a different view of road safety, as, by the way, on so many themes. The fact that the PS allows this to pass has all to do with this party’s disinterest in this topic. Mr Monfils has ⁇ been able to defend dissident positions — I would almost say politically incorrect positions — in the Infrastructure Committee, even to the extent that my group has at some point supported one of his amendments, to the great indignation of Mr. Casaer, and that this amendment — he has later referred to it — was approved so that Mr. Casaer had absolutely to go to legalist cutting-edge technology to eliminate the negative effect, at least in his opinion, of this amendment approved by the committee.

Let me point out for a moment, colleagues, that this difference in view of road safety is reflected, among other things, in the fact that Flanders has more than 1,000 flushes and that they are added every day, while Wallonia currently has about 30 flushes. I think this is an example that book parts speak. When I then argue that road safety in this country, like so many other things, rests on the shoulders of the Flamingos, I think that this is clearly demonstrated by the story of those flamingos. So if we Flamings really want to be concerned about road safety, then that is worth a defederalization. I would say that this de-federalization of road safety is absolutely necessary. In this way, Flanders can develop their own road safety. Flanders have different needs and desires than Wallonia. She can then apply them herself without having to upset Mr. Monfils, for example. Everyone will take care of their own road safety, Mr. Monfils in Liège and we in Flanders. In this way everyone will be satisfied. If Mr. Monfils does not want to come to Oostende because there are too many flitspalls there, that is a pity. We want to take this as a risk. We will continue to come to the Ardennes.

But then you have to go through French Flanders. Then you have to go into the breakdown.

Moreover, the issue of de-federalization should not be just about road safety.

In terms of mobility, there are nothing but homogeneous competence packages. It is quite absurd that Flanders is not competent for traffic regulation and enforcement policy, but for Public Works and Infrastructure. It is unthinkable that Flanders are not competent for railways, but for buses. The time when it was said here in Parliament at a de-federalization that the trains would stop at the borders of Flanders, is fortunately definitively over. The Flemish Interest ⁇ contributed to this. We therefore continue to advocate for a complete transfer to Flanders of all powers related to Mobility. The registration of road accidents, the regulations relating to inland navigation, the freezing of speed and red light cameras, the permits for exceptional transportation, the regulations relating to the prohibition of pick-up for trucks, the safety standards for infrastructure and so on should be transferred immediately. Only in this way will the uncertainty and ambiguity be put to an end and an efficient and integrated mobility policy will be possible.

I talked about the traffic penalty fund. I thought that Mr De Padt subsequently also asked some technical questions about that fund. Only the placement of the blade columns makes the big difference between Flanders and Wallonia clear. That might be the reason why Wallonia does not want to split Mobility in general and road safety in particular. It is to do the cents, no more or no less.

As for the traffic fines fund, we see that Flanders accounts for 83% of the surplus income of 2003 and can eventually distribute 57% across 118 police zones. I would like to repeat this again. Flanders collect 83% of the traffic fine fund and can only distribute 57% of it. It is even more remarkable that for the same period Wallonia is only responsible for 5.35% of the surplus income and receives 37.39% of the resources. I repeat: Wallonia generates 5.35% surplus income and is spending for 37.39%. In Flanders, therefore, much more is invested in road safety. Then it is no more than normal that Flanders are also rewarded for those efforts.

That is why we believe that, although it is not explicitly part of today’s discussion, it must be addressed. What does it make sense to say that, at the cost of almost anything, road safety should be considered a top priority when Flanders do not get the resources needed to go far beyond the decline in the number of deaths and injuries that there is according to government figures.

In the committee you said, Mr. Minister, that this Traffic Penalty Fund or Traffic Safety Fund would be regulated by a separate law. In addition to the 196 local zones, there would be an additional 197 states, notably the federal. The existing criteria of the distribution key would be refined. Refined, a word that is used in government circles. I hope I’m wrong, but I fear that refinement of the distribution key will only fall within the distribution of that 57% and therefore it will remain limited to some prutsen in the margin. I hope to get more clarity on this soon, Mr. Minister: I hope that you will provide us with some more information about it even today. Their

At this point, the evaluation of the traffic law was actually limited to categorization and fines. However, the improvement of infrastructure is one of the four pillars of the General States on which road safety should be based, in addition to maintenance, training and safety of the vehicle. The police should also be adequately equipped and have the necessary resources to implement the new traffic law. There is still a lot of work in the store. There are still dozens of proposals ready for discussion in the committee. I can assure you, there is still something on the shelf! I really hope that this work can be done as soon as possible, because as you know, Mr. Minister: in the Infrastructure Committee, there is work and hard work when it comes to road safety. Their

The Flemish Belang has always advocated for a rational traffic policy. Therefore, we felt regrettable that sustainable interventions such as improving the road network and enforcing realistic speed limits had to deal with excessive measures such as super fines. In that sense, there is therefore a positive turn and more realistic fines are established, although it is the minimum fines that are reduced and therefore it is theoretically perfectly possible that the super fines are ⁇ ined. I regret, however, that the non-use of a seat belt was not prevented as a serious infringement and in this regard I share the opinion of Mr Casaer. Wearing it is a life-saving measure. The number of road deaths in Belgium would decrease by 10% if everyone always wore their belt. Furthermore, the person who does not wear a seat belt at the back, in a frontal collision, also means a serious danger for the driver and the passenger sitting next to the driver. This is an argument more for Mr. Casaer who has demonstrated that not wearing a belt not only affects the victim who does not, but can also affect third parties. Their

Thus, the argument that only the person concerned who does not wear a seat belt is in danger cannot be supported. This cannot be emphasized enough.

In terms of categorization, there is a real chance that category violations will continue to change in the future. This is not a good thing, neither for the road user nor for those who have to apply the law on the ground. Not only has the system of classification of traffic offences become much more complex, this is regrettable, it also looks like from now on the system will be adjusted annually.

The hearings following the original draft payment order also showed that the collection of fines could be further significantly improved by the introduction of modern payment methods, a greater differentiation of the fine amount in the case of immediate collection and amicable settlement and by the digital transfer of data from the police to the prosecutor’s office. There is also a lot of work to be done in the store. Furthermore, prompt handling of traffic offences has a beneficial effect on road safety.

Mr. Minister, I repeat what I said at the beginning: it is in any way an improvement, but in relation to Mrs. Durant’s fatal legistic work this was not so difficult. I agree that the improvement could have been done much better. From this conclusion, the Flemish Belang Group will abstain.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister told me that I have the last word, but it is the Assembly that will have it!

Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the successive rulings of the Arbitration Court were right of the Durant Act despite the numerous warnings we had addressed to the minister; today, we are three commissioners from the former Infrastructure Commission to have known the preparatory work of the Durant Act.

Mr. Minister, rest assured, there are extremely positive elements in the project that we are going to vote at this assembly soon.

First, there is the point concerning the consultation of the Federal Road Safety Commission in order to make the evaluation of the law "Road Safety". Then there is the lowering of the minimum thresholds for certain offences for all degrees; the amounts of offences as they had been fixed by the Durant Act had reached such levels that it had happened that recommendations reach the police areas to tell them that certain facts should no longer be punished.

Another improvement concerns recurrence; from now on, road offenders will not only have to pay fines but will also be prosecuted in case of recurrence; in this regard, the question of the census and the database arises since, today, the recurrence will be limited to sentences by the police court.

There is also classification in four categories. Finally, what should be emphasized – which few intervenants have done – is the progressiveness of the penalties for excess speed and this, depending on the speed practiced.

I would like to come now to the elements that drive me to abstain and I will indicate in more detail the reasons.

We all share the goal of enhancing road safety. We all face, near or far, road insecurity. As Mr. said. Casaer, we all know in our surroundings, or even in our family, people who have been hit by road accidents. The commendable goal that we all accept and wish to meet is to divide by two the number of victims in the year 2010. But we should not neglect other aspects of road safety, such as improving vehicles and improving infrastructure, in which much remains to be done.

What are the weaknesses of the bill?

1 of 1. Criteria of Classification. As soon as we addressed the review of the bill, we indicated that the Arbitration Court had raised the problem of classification criteria into four categories. It was in the last minute today, before the opening of the plenary session tonight, that we met in a committee. A text was then delivered to us, indicating that you would take a royal decree and that, in the year following the adoption of the latter, the present assembly should confirm the classification. We believe that the criteria are well established. However, it will still need to be verified by the State Council.

2 of 2. The discrimination between Belgian and foreign drivers, especially for the fourth category. Indeed, for the latter, the Belgian driver will be officially returned to the police court while the foreigner will be asked to pay the fine immediately, which, in some respects, could appear as a discrimination. I know that a European provision has been adopted and should be transposed. Unfortunately, since not all countries will adopt the European Constitution, we must expect that governments, who would like to move forward in this area, will encounter certain difficulties.

3 of 3. One aspect of this bill seems to me ⁇ delicate. I think of the automatic referral to the police courts for the fourth degree. As I told you, in the area of Brussels alone, this would represent between 1,000 and 1,100 referrals before the police courts, each week. I wonder how your colleague of Justice will be able to cope, with the staff she has for Brussels and in other major cities, with the citations and hearings of persons who have committed such offences.

4 of 4. Uncertainty in the notion of recurrence. Is this a recurrence in the same category? Is this a recurrence in two different categories? In the case of excess speed, for example, in a second and a fourth degree, will the recidive be applied since it will refer to the conviction by the judge of the police court? In this regard, you promised us a decree of precision regarding recurrence. We will therefore be attentive to the examination of the content of this decree when we have knowledge of it.

5 of 5. The retroactivity of the Criminal Law. Article 2 of the Criminal Code prohibits retroactivity. It also provides for the application of the most advantageous penalty for the driver. Why not remove Article 31?

It will not be removed here anyway, but the Arbitration Court will probably take care of it.

We also discussed the famous withdrawal of the driver’s license for fifteen days, which can be extended by twice ninety days. This has been resolved by amending Article 55.

One of the concerns that is not met today is related to the hierarchy of norms and social acceptance. I pointed out to you in the commission, how will the citizen interpret the sentence in matters of rolling, for example, for an excess of speed of 20km/h on the highway at the rate of 175 euros, while for an exchange of strikes with condemnation, the guilty is condemned to a fine of 125 euros? Even as a parliamentary, I have the worst difficulties in explaining it to ordinary citizens on the street. Personally, I am not one of the parliamentarians who need to return to the markets, I am one of the parliamentarians who, every week, for 20 years, have been on the market. I hear the complaints regarding the various provisions. Either you correctly inform the population about this hierarchy of social norms, or you manage to convince your colleague in the Ministry of Justice that all fines and penalties must be revised upwards to adapt to the rules we are about to adopt soon.

I regret, Mr. Minister, that it was not possible to adapt and examine the entire text relating to alternative penalties in the field of rolling, despite the positive conclusions of the organizations that followed the experiments conducted at the parks of Gand and Marche-enFamenne.

What matters is the number of checks, their quality — which depends on the police — but also the adequacy of the penalty in relation to the fault committed.

Mr. Minister, the text does not come from me, but the principles that guided my action, both during the elaboration of the Durant Act and on the occasion of the elaboration of this law, are these: "We insist that the errors of the past that led to the vote of the law of 7 February 2003 containing various provisions in the field of road safety and its entry into force are no longer reproduced and that one can, eventually, have a legislation in the field of road traffic, stable, coherent, legible and reasonable, which can guarantee legal security and a credibility of the action of each of the stakeholders in the process, whether legislative, executive, judicial or police with the citizen." We recall, in this regard, the many successes and decisions of the Court of Arbitration which have undermined the development of criminal law and the credential of all its policy.

Mr. Minister, do not think that the parliamentary work done in committee is to say that the law is bad. Our goal has always been the path of improvement to avoid having to return, in six months or a year, on articles of law that would have been broken by the Arbitration Court, while after the legislative work, the whole process of implementation of this law will be started, imposing changes both in the prosecutors, in the police courts and in the police areas, with a not negligible investment in terms of software and implementation of procedures.

Just recently, my colleague De Padt asked the question about road safety conventions. To a parliamentary question I addressed to the Minister of the Interior, he replied that we would have a provisional circular for the end of June, that the scope of this road safety convention would be extended, that the funds could not, however, be used to improve infrastructure but to pay for personnel or equipment.

Mr. Minister, I really think that we need a stable and safe law, but I have doubts about some elements always included in this law.

I can reassure you from now on, the MR group will mostly support the project. The imperfection of the so-called Durant law had led me to abstain. The imperfections that we could have removed — and there was not much left — in the present project drive me to abstain. I do not challenge the improvements made to the old law; I simply regret that others could not be accepted because they went in the direction of improving this road safety law that we all advocate, because it is a long-term, sustainable goal that affects daily at least 6 million of our citizens.

I do not consider drivers as potential criminals, but as a potential danger. If there is a tiny minority of people who have abusive and excessive behaviors, repression must be able to control these behaviors, including by using the path of recurrence. On the other hand, I always see the driver as someone responsible, but who must be sufficiently controlled and adequately controlled. by

That was the meaning of my speech in the committee. This will also be the meaning of my vote tonight, when we will be brought to vote on this bill.

First and foremost, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her coordinating work in this and, in particular, also the commissioners for having a thorough and prompt discussion at times.

In the words of Mr. I will return to this briefly at the end of my speech.

As regards the law itself, I think that by introducing an amendment to the draft law on payment order, we confirm that the previous law has provided the necessary shock effect and that it is not even necessary to provide special procedures for this in the context of an increased package opportunity. Today, we actually also confirm that the existing procedures work effectively.

The law is actually an improvement in three areas as was designated by the Arbitration Court. On the one hand, there is the correct removal of the custody of the federal government over the additional traffic regulations. I emphasize that here we are removing only the competence of the federal government, not the competence in general and therefore not the competence which belongs to the regions. On the other hand, we provide for a procedure for the withdrawal of the driver’s license that responds to the observations of the Arbitration Court on the rights of defence that must take effect as soon as the withdrawal is longer than 15 days. The core of the renewal is Article 29 and the ranking of the various traffic offences. The work of the Federal Traffic Commission will therefore be fully taken over by the committee and hopefully later also by the plenary session.

What we have added today is the additional assurance that Parliament will have the last word in this. It was not possible to address the doubts expressed by the State Council as to the fact that the mandate given to the government is sufficiently specific. We provide that the Government may divide traffic violations into those that directly lead to an accident and those that indirectly lead to an accident. This distinction cannot be more specifically described unless either the entire regulation is incorporated into the law, or an adjustment is made of the fundamental logic of the law as made by the Federal Traffic Commission.

I repeat it. It is about commission files of all possible organizations engaged in road safety on the one hand and on the other with all possible actors responsible for the enforcement, police and prosecutor's office in it. What we add today is that after the government has fulfilled this mandate, Parliament will eventually be able to give its final blessing. The law on road safety is indeed not stricter than the previous version, but it is in any case more logical than the previous version. Now it is up to us to maintain this logic in the implementation. Their

The attorneys-general are already preparing to issue a new directive so that the police can also do the necessary things. It is effective that we link the abolition of the penalty seals to the implementation of this law. To answer very precisely the question of how far it is with the royal decision on the abolition of fine seals, I can say that it may be dealt with by the government next week. Their

I come to the logic of the Criminal Code in general and, more specifically, to the observations made by several members concerning Articles 419bis and 420bis, in particular the second part of Articles 419 and 420 of the Criminal Code. It is indeed the case that we look at it somewhat better in the context of what is traffic crime, so that we can also look at what can be agreed with the prosecutors-general on flight crimes, on street paths - or street paths - and also what may need to be repaired from any lack of logic in the Criminal Code as a whole. I will try to submit a full note to the committee to see what this means for the Criminal Code in general. However, I need consultation with the Minister of Justice and with the Committee on Justice. On the other hand, for flight crimes and street crimes, there are already ongoing agreements with the prosecutors-general to see if we can adapt a specific policy to them. Their

I come to the study body on accidents. It is so that there is a complete planning ready within the Belgian Institute for Traffic Safety and that there effectively depends on a financial picture on which consultation is underway between Inland Affairs, Justice and Transport to see to what extent we can effectively start with a kind of study center on traffic accidents already from 2006.

As for the recidives, I did not have to change the law. That is a point of implementation, a point of being able to manage the necessary data. If we want to apply recidives in the traffic offence, we must ensure that the police immediately have the data to be able to assess whether someone falls into recurrence or not. Recidives at the court is easy, by way of speech, because there are already prior convictions or information on prior convictions. Effectively applying recidives in traffic maintenance, however, means that we need to have more specific data very quickly. Therefore, it is not appropriate to set a date. I can only say that we are doing everything we can to get that data file set up.

The Traffic Safety Fund has been dealt with in a separate draft law on which the Region Governments would like to formulate an additional opinion. This indeed means that it will take some time to have the full legal framework, but that should not prevent us from already communicating the necessary instructions to the relevant police zones of which we know that there is an additional zone, in particular the Federal Traffic Police, by informal letter, once the opinion of the Western Governments is in place.

This brings me to the questions about the specialization of the police. I do not think it is good to reorganize the police structures differently. However, it is good, thanks to the previous law and thanks to the Penalty Fund, which is now the Traffic Safety Fund, that all police services carry out a conscious policy on road safety. You remercie all the colleagues, including M. Monfils pour le débat que nous avons eu and pour le vote d'abstention auquel certains d'entre vous procéderont. It is always better than the voter against.

I am deeply touched by the interest that Minister Landuyt brings to me. I didn’t know that a small parliamentary who intervened a few times in a committee attracted the Minister’s attention to his ideas so much! by

That said, Mr. Minister, you said that we need to re-examine the elements lacking logic, especially in terms of sanctions hierarchy. But, we tried to start in commission and it was you who put things in the prescribed law. When we managed to vote an amendment to remove the additional penalties, in the case of a car accident committed by default of precaution, in addition to meeting the comments of the prosecutors general, you did not agree and you have, by an absolutely magnificent system, which left me pantois, raised each to a level totally unbearable. Sanctions are no longer proportionate.

This morning again, I was reflecting on receiving a journal sent by a political friend about white marriages. I found that, according to the government’s preliminary draft, a forced marriage would cost 500 euros. If I understand right, it is just as serious to drive at 165km/h – if the judge is angry, he condemns you to the maximum – as it is to flanked in the air the life of a young girl until the end of her days. This is the point I would like to see re-examined on the whole hierarchy of penalties.

However, I will not extend further on the subject. This evening you are happy: habemus legem. That was obviously what was needed. We have a law. We will see in the coming months how it will be implemented. I hope, in the interests of the driver and of legal certainty, that the Arbitration Court, despite the errors that still appear in your text, will not cancel the text, because it will need to start the study again. We will then find ourselves in a situation of considerable legal uncertainty, detrimental to both citizens and road safety and even to me. I do not want to discuss this issue for the third time.

Mr. Minister, I have another small question. You argue that there is no legislative work in the field of recidive. We had submitted a number of proposals to bring the periods of recidive all to three years, because there is now some distinction depending on the breach. Do you have any other plans with the deadlines for the various violations?

I would like to emphasize that what we do here is only the core of the operation: introducing the logic into the traffic law in the strict sense. I had warned me not to make a few individual changes too soon and not too quickly to change the content of 419bis. Let’s look at the entire criminal law. The same applies to recurrences and deadlines. I have advised to look carefully at recurring, severe conditions and limitation periods. It is a commitment to see if the logic can be improved.

Mr. Minister, I have a small question and comment. The technique of approving a royal decree within the year by a law, is quite exceptional. It doesn’t happen every day that we get that opportunity. In the context of the upgrading of the Parliament and also of the importance that we all must attach to traffic policy and road safety policy, should we no longer or can go to a system where important royal decrees relating to traffic policy and road safety policy are subject to approval by Parliament on a kind of voluntary basis by the government? I think it’s quite unusual, but when we say that we should carry that policy very high, a parliamentary support that supports road safety policy and traffic policy would be a great way.

Hence my question to the government. Is it not possible to examine whether, so to speak, no parliamentary approval could be considered for major traffic-KBs?

I think that in that comment is eating and drinking. We live in a country where judges are increasingly responsible for policy. The only counterweight to the policy of the judiciary is effectively the legislative power, which, as a representative of the people, is fortunately still somewhat above it.

Remember, when it comes to traffic legislation, we start from the situation where everything was determined by royal decree.

Based on an article, all violations were described in a KB.

What has now emerged as jurisprudence is in part the questioning or limiting of what has always been so, about which there was no discussion, and allows that one could introduce traffic rules as smoothly as traffic. In determining the categories, we have chosen to have the Parliament finally confirm it. I don’t know if this is the easiest way of working. It is the way to stop a certain reasoning in the jurisdictions.

The first step was the criticism of the Arbitration Court that in general terms should be specified which traffic offences should be punished more severely than others. Once this was achieved in just as specific terms as in certain criminal law definitions, such as "direct and indirect" which is as specific as "intentional and unintentional" the Council of State expressed its doubts whether this is sufficiently specific as requested by the Court of Arbitration. This doubt can only be stopped by making a choice: either the legislator does everything or—what we have chosen now to keep it still somewhat practical—the legislator subsequently bows over to check whether work has been done within the mandate.

I do not know if it is the right move of a parliament to have to refer itself to the body that has to deal with specific traffic rules. I know that we live in a country where the judges force us to bring almost everything to Parliament, including air routes.