Proposition 51K1430

Proposition de résolution relative à l'interdiction de toute nouvelle implantation de delphinariums sur le territoire belge et au suivi médical et scientifique du delphinarium de Bruges.

General information ¶

Authors

PS | SP Thierry Giet, Yvan Mayeur
Vooruit Magda De Meyer

Submission date

Nov. 10, 2004

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

protection of animals resolution of parliament

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 23, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, this proposal for a resolution is, together with others, part of an ethical reflection on animal welfare. Numerous studies on marine mammals have already demonstrated that dolphins have a behavior that can be called socially very complex because they live in a group, that their relatives are very strong and that they communicate abundantly.

These animals are undoubtedly very intelligent and cognitively capable of self-awareness or boredom, for example. In the natural environment, their instincts and their complex social structure can develop. In captivity, however, we are far from recovering these natural conditions. I think everyone will understand it easily. A dolphinarium is always a place where a few animals pay for the species. Therefore, the possible multiplication of this type of business in Belgium is not desirable.

So I considered, along with my colleagues De Meyer and Mayeur, that it was necessary to try to find a just middle between the defenders of the animal cause on the one hand, the economic environment on the other, and finally, the scientific world, by ensuring a rigorous medical follow-up of dolphins by specialized and independent veterinarians. It was also appropriate to develop the scientific and pedagogical work that already has proven results.

Those were therefore and only, since there is no question here of the closure of the Boudewijnpark in Bruges, the objectives of this resolution.

This is inspired by the visit of the Public Health Commission to the delphinarium in Bruges. It appeared at that time that some amusement parks wanted to create new attractions with dolphins but without offering the same guarantees as in Bruges. That is why it seemed necessary for us to ask for a ban on the installation of new delphinariums on Belgian territory.

It is therefore important that the activities of this dolphinarium are surrounded by as many guarantees as possible. Thus, following the remarks of Minister Demotte, we amended the text of the resolution by entrusting the task of reviewing the standards currently provided for the holding of dolphins to a committee comprising the members of the zoo committee, representatives of animal protection and experts in the holding of dolphins.

The objective is therefore simply, I repeat, to strengthen existing measures for better protection of these animals. Therefore, I invite all those who are sensitive to the problems of animal cause to support this proposal for a resolution.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, this is somewhat disturbing the regular work that must always be made clear through resolutions that Parliament is interested in certain issues. However, once those resolutions are adopted, there is usually no more cattle to crawl. This is called virtual reality. The people who deliver the ideas get a false image and to them is turned a kind of wheel in front of their eyes that the case has been resolved.

Colleagues, the resolutitis in the Public Health Committee is actually not healthy anymore. In the previous plenary session we had 2 resolutions, now 1 — although all well-meaning texts that we can usually support — but it has more away from a kind of labor therapy, a new kind of occupation. I often compare it to large congresses where great statements are made, but the difference between the devotion of the faith professed in that high Mass and what is later executed there is also enormous.

It is a form of labor therapy, which, in our opinion, does some damage to the serious parliamentary work. Per ⁇ it is a deliberate strategy to keep the appearance high. After all, purple has just stopped last year. The number of draft laws submitted and approved has never been lower in the last decade. In the past 10 years, there have never been fewer draft laws submitted by a government than last year. The government is stepping into the empty air, is steeringless, and then this text still!

It all started last year on the Flemish holiday day, July 11, 2004, with the action of Gaia in Bruges and the subsequent media heisa, which also ensured that the entire committee for Public Health finally went to see in Bruges, and took account of the living conditions of the dolphins there. Here, however, can be referred to the enthusiastic atmosphere in which that visit took place. That means that the living conditions and medical care in Bruges are more than correct. The dolphins are surrounded by the staff with the best care. Their quality food is prepared under strict hygienic conditions. The dolphins live in conditions that are better than those of three-quarters of our world population. There is a dolphin for dolphins!

MEPs have also been able to find that the facilities are very well developed and adapted to the needs of the animals.

Now comes my second point. No dolphins are pulled away from the natural environment, contrary to what the public would sometimes want to believe. Dolphins are well kept inside the walls. They are exchanged with other parks, but there is a code of honour in the dolphinarium in Bruges.

In recent years, nine dolphins have been born. This shows that they feel good in their sunset. Only animals from approved breeding programmes are adjusted.

They are all domesticated animals. Mrs. De Meyer, I would almost say socialized animals. These are animals that have a genetic reservoir sufficiently large to reproduce in captivity without incubation and without consanguine crossings. This ensures future generations of healthy dolphins. Most of the dolphins in the Brugs Dolfinarium were born in captivity and spent their lives that way. It would even be wrong to release these animals in the free nature. They ⁇ would not survive.

My third and final finding is that zoos and dolphinariums have a scientific and pedagogical role. For example, in the Dolfinarium, which acts as a scientific research center, there are a number of projects, including with autistic children with the aim of improving their communication skills or there is collaboration with services for palliative oncology. Projects are implemented in collaboration with universities and specialized centers. There are also a number of pedagogical projects, such as exhibitions that are visited annually by thousands of schoolchildren.

As regards the dispositive of the resolution, I would like to note that the proposal presenters find the opening of new dolphinariums problematic. That is in the first point. However, they do not extend their reasoning to the end and do not wonder whether this should also include a ban on zoos.

Furthermore, we see absolutely no need to ban new settlements of dolphinariums, of course, provided that strict authorisation criteria are met in terms of animal welfare and that the dolphins housed there are not wild delphins. The Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Animals and Plants (CITES) has already established this requirement as a necessary criterion.

We may also wonder what we can do with a moratorium if the Brugs Dolfinarium must close, for example, due to force majeure. Will we thus throw away the existing educational and pedagogical surplus? We will again encourage the tourist sea trips, for which often gross money is demanded, which are a rather elite event and whose uncontrolled human contact is the cause of the animals in their natural biotope neglecting their young, resulting in an abnormal mortality rate and a disturbed natural balance. That is, in my opinion, the real enemy of the dolphins is and not the dolbilly child's eyes, not the ordinary people - young and old, poor and rich - who want to experience these beautiful attractions.

The second paragraph of the resolution calls for the establishment of a new committee. We personally find that a disapproval of the work of the internationally renowned team of veterinarians. They are experienced and charged with the necessary follow-up of the dolphins. They take care of the health and welfare of the animals day after day. We are convinced that the specialist veterinarians in Bruges, in cooperation with the universities, have sufficient medical knowledge to ensure guidance and follow-up so that no additional conditions need to be imposed, which would mean an additional workload.

Therefore, the establishment of a committee, as proposed in the second paragraph, is useless for us, since the dolphins are already optimally monitored and the installations are already under the supervision of the zoo committee.

No one can wait for this resolution. Nevertheless, the committee has been working on this for a long time. A first version of four recommendations was eventually reduced in the committee to two recommendations, because in the meantime one had thought and examined a number of things, after the facts of course. For years, it has been banned from importing dolphins captured in the wild. Take the fourth recommendation! and so on.

We were also surprised at the hurry with which the authors of that resolution submitted amendments which resulted in three of the four original points of the resolution being void. We were also amazed at the improvisation with which that document was drawn up and created for Parliament.

I would therefore like to give the following paternal advice for the future: if there are still resolutions to be drawn up, think before you start!

The fact that these amendments do not add much to the existing regulations demonstrates in abundance that it does not make much sense to adopt the text under discussion, also testifies to the destructive commentary of the coalition partner of the applicants, who eventually recovered gas, which then resulted in an abstinence in the committee.

The tenure of almost all committee members was one of a déjàvu feeling. The committee deals with a proposal for a resolution with no added value, while far more serious problems persist in animal welfare, food safety, controls, reuse of hormones, infiltration of dangerous diseases, zoonotic hazards. I think these are all much more important issues that would be much better followed.

The adoption of such a text would also make it seem that there are problems with the Dolfinarium in Bruges, whereas in practice this is ⁇ not the case. Everyone who has been to Bruges has seen that there are no problems. This is an unnecessary proposal of resolution.

We will therefore vote against.

Mr. Tant, you can do a lot with the subword "dol": it can be a dolphin, please too.

Mr. President, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, I understand that Mr. Verhaegen has held on to make a advertising spot for the Bruges Dolfinarium. That is, of course, his good right out of respect for his own colleague Goutry, out of respect for his former chairman Dehaene. I can get very well in it. Of course, I cannot give him the right.

I think that this resolution is an important resolution because it reflects a will that we have entered into the government agreement, namely to pay more attention to the welfare of animals in our country.

Today we are talking about the dolphinaries in Belgium. Dolphins are fantastic animals, very intelligent, close to humans, close to us. They can do a lot of things, sometimes more than us. In some areas, they are even smarter than us.

They can hunt, swim, dive, jump and deal with other dolphins. They have a huge social life. They can swim kilometers in different patterns. The biotope of dolphins is still the food for a whole crowd of scientists, who day after day dive into the intelligent and fascinating life of the dolphin. In the wild, dolphins move 50 to 100 kilometers a day, in large groups. They dive to 200 meters depth. Thus, they are a fascinating study object for scientists of all kinds.

It is quite obvious that a very different situation occurs when dolphins are put in captivity. They can no longer survive on large surfaces. They cannot, as they are, swim around in large groups. They can no longer dive deep. They have no distraction anymore, except for the bald basin and a few performances a day, which they are obliged to deliver to a joeling audience. I am convinced that the staff and operators of the Bruges Dolphinarium have the very best deal with the animals there and also do their utmost to make something of it, within the limits set by the exploitation. This is exactly where the shoe goes. This is the whole social controversy. Are the dolphins happy or not? Can we in our current society maintain the housing of these large marine mammals in such conditions?

The debate takes place not only in Belgium, but throughout Europe and around the world. I visited a dolphinarium in America. There is exactly the same discussion. All over the world, efforts are being made to optimize the living conditions in the existing dolphinaries. This is what the present resolution aims at.

The discussion in the committee occasionally broke out in a number of municipal places. For example, the birth of dolphins in the dolphinarium was pushed forward as an argument to demonstrate that the dolphins should feel ⁇ happy there. I think that the human species can also reproduce very well in ⁇ harsh conditions. That is not an argument.

Of the nine dolphins currently living in Bruges, at least three were caught in the wild. Since the opening of the dolphinarium, 14 dolphins have died. This is not negligible. It is ⁇ not always due to a lack of proper care from trainers and trainers, but it is a fact. We must take this into account. It is also good to know that the water in which the dolphins swim is not seawater, but chlorinated water. We could see this during the visit. It is also clear that the dolphins need to get antibiotics to fight all sorts of diseases and infections. In the basin where they currently reside, there is no imitation of their natural habitat. It is a very shallow basin. Elsewhere in Europe and the world, such dolphins are kept in a lagoon.

It would already be an improvement for the dolphinarium in our country, that there is an attempt to transfer the dolphins of Bruges to a lagoon. In the long run, we will evolve anyway. I hear from the operators of the dolphinarium in Bruges that it is planned to create a lagoon for sea lions — that is, new animals. Well, if it is possible for sea lions, it must definitely be possible for the dolphins that are there now. That would in any case be a special improvement to their current situation, where they are in a bald basin without direct daylight.

That is, in fact, colleagues, Mrs. Minister, the core of the resolution as we approved it in the committee. It was intended to put an end to the social debate, to the social controversy between the exploiters of the dolphinarium who said that there was nothing wrong with them, that their dolphins are treated magnificently, that they do their utmost and that everything as it were is the best in the most beautiful of the worlds and the animal organizations according to which it cannot be what happened to the dolphins there. Their

We have taken a clear position with this resolution, in the sense that we believe that no new dolphinaries should be added in Belgium in 2005. I think this is an important statement and that is also something that the Minister has taken to heart. No new dolphinaries will be added. Therefore, only Brugge remains.

I now come to the second element of the resolution. The dolphins now in Bruges can no longer be put in the wild because they are no longer equipped for this. After all, they are kept constantly on the surface for a very long time, and they are permanently artificially fed. It is therefore important to optimize the living conditions of the dolphins in Bruges. This is what this resolution aims at in its second point. We will create a new committee consisting of members of the zoo committee, of animal organisations and of experts in the field of marine mammals. Together we will try to optimize the living conditions of the dolphins in Bruges.

That is the purpose of this resolution and the Minister has explicitly stated that he wants to follow it. In this way we put an end to the social controversy surrounding the dolphinarium in Bruges. Together we will improve the living conditions of the dolphins there.

Is anyone else registered for this matter?

There are also parliamentary assemblies that do not receive outside light, if I can say so.

Can I consider the general discussion closed? Mr. Tommelein, how can I forget you? You get the word.

I listened attentively to the exciting debate. I have especially heard Mrs. De Meyer regularly talk about a social controversy.

Mrs. De Meyer, I have the impression that you live on a different planet than I do. After all, in the many places where I come, in the midst of the people, I have never heard a debate on the subject.

I have the impression that a number of lobbies and interest groups want to raise controversy in order to impose their own agenda on a large part of the population. Therefore, our group will not support the resolution.

Mr. Minister, you may want to answer the agenda item on the dolphinaria.

I will be very short.

I would like to respond to one of the various aspects discussed here, more specifically to the aspect of the new implants of dolphinaria.

De huidige wetgeving geeft ons al vele instrumenten om te kunnen checken of de initiativeven beantwoorden aan de wetgeving op de verdediging van het dierenwelzijn. It is the Royal Decree of 10 August 1998 on the approval of zoological parks that sets these criteria. These are minimum standards that are determined for each species. It is necessary to meet hygiene, sanitary, sufficiently rich environment and safety conditions that are clearly defined.

The standards for cetacates are determined by a decree of 3 May 1999, which still sets the provisions. Any new settlement must therefore, for a dolphinarium, be subject to this regulation, with the agreement of the zoo committee and, then, be approved by the minister having animal welfare in his competence. The current regulation is very precise and leaves a very small manoeuvre to the government that would want to prevent further delphinariums, especially without arbitrarily creating a monopoly situation for the current delphinarium of Bruges. I am of the opinion, as I said in the committee, that an assessment of existing standards and subsequent revision if necessary will improve the well-being of dolphins rather than arbitrarily prohibit any implantation of a dolphinarium. But I also say that parliamentarians always have the opportunity to introduce a bill in this sense, as far as it is necessary and indispensable.

For the rest, I think this resolution comes from many good intentions that I can only encourage, as Minister for Animal Welfare.

I see that Mr. Bultinck is asking for the word.

You could have done that before the Minister spoke, Mr. Bultinck.

I do this intentionally.

The Minister’s response confirms our group’s thesis that the draft resolution is indeed superfluous. We will definitely vote against.

After all, Mr. Minister, you confirm very clearly that there are very strict rules, including with regard to the recognition of any new dolphinariums. In fact, you confirm what some colleagues would like to say clearly to colleague De Meyer, namely that we must return to engage with the social essential, instead of keeping ourselves here in Parliament endless with this kind of facts diverse.

The discussion is close. The discussion is closed.

No amendments have been submitted or re-submitted. No amendments were submitted or re-submitted. There are parts A, B, C and D. Then there is a question to the government on two points. This is the second item amended by the committee. Their

The vote on the draft resolution will take place subsequently. The vote on the draft resolution will take place later. Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, welcome, I know that you were in the Senate and I had slightly adjusted the agenda with the approval of the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, our committee examined this bill at its meetings of 25 May and 5 June 2005.

At the first meeting, Mr. Patrick Dewael, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior, went through the objectives of the bill. It follows from this review that this project aims first and foremost to simplify the security investigation called the security "screening" which is imposed on anyone wishing to work in the private security sector, under the law of 10 April 1990 regulating private and private security.

One of the elements of this security “screening” is the search for possible criminal convictions. For this purpose, the applicant must produce a certificate of good life and morals. This means that he must take leave to obtain this certificate from the local administration and transmit it to the Internal SPF through his future employer. Article 2 in draft provides for granting the agents of the Internal SPF, responsible for these "screenings", direct access to the central criminal record.

The proposed procedure has a double advantage for the government. On the one hand, it represents a significant administrative simplification and, on the other hand, it also facilitates the control of compliance with security conditions, since competent officials will effectively be able to quickly have the most up-to-date information.

In addition to this procedure adjustment, the bill also contains some technical adjustments. Thus, the proposed Article 3 deals with the technical reformulation of the notion of public transport company. SNCB said its SecuRail safety service is no longer dependent on the public transport company SNCB but on the façade structure SNCB-Holding SA. Juridically, this holding company does not meet the current definition of public transport company. That is why it is advisable to reformulate this definition somewhat.

The proposed article 4 aims to revise the regulation of sanctions, in particular with regard to the scale of the tariffs of fines. Article 19, § 1, paragraph 2, of the law of 10 April 1990, mandating the King to rate the amounts of administrative fines and amicable arrangements, was inspired by Article 29 of the laws relating to the road traffic police, coordinated by the Royal Decree of 16 March 1968. However, on February 2, 2005, the Arbitration Court ruled that Article 29 was contrary to the Constitution. To anticipate a possible similar sentence by the Court, it is proposed to use this law amendment to remove the delegation to the King and to insert the scale of the rates of fines in the law itself.

Regarding the revision of the remuneration regulation provided for in Article 5 of the draft, it is recalled that a number of procedures still rely on the exchange of recommended letters. The same applies to the procedure for collecting annual remuneration. In the opinion of the government, by providing for the possibility of electronic interaction between the administration and the administration, the exchange of information is made easier and the service to citizens is optimized.

In addition, the bill provides for a system of delay interest in the case of late payment of the due annual remuneration. In this way, the heavy procedure for imposing an administrative fine can be reserved for extreme cases of default.

As part of the general discussion, members Schryvers, Claes, Maene and Arens intervened mainly with regard to the issue of the arrangement of the procedure for the screening of security officers and its good capacity to replace the system of the certificate of good life and morals. I refer to my written report for the details of these interventions.

Following the responses of the Minister, which confirmed the guarantees offered by the projected device, the exchange of views was extended as part of the discussion of the articles. by Mr. Maene then filed an amendment providing that staff members of the guarding sector remain required to produce, within fifteen days of their commitment, a certificate of good life and morals issued by the mayor. by Mr. Maene considers that the proposed procedure would not allow detection of deontological breaches if they were not followed by an effective conviction.

The committee then gave itself a week of reflection. At the second meeting, Mr. Patrick Dewael reaffirmed that the bill was primarily aimed at reducing the administrative burden for candidate guard and security officers. By allowing authorised agents of the Internal SPF to consult directly the central criminal record, the control of the criminal convictions of the person concerned is improved. The issuance of a legitimation card by the Internal SPF means that the holder satisfies all the legal conditions and therefore also those relating to the security investigation. The control of criminal convictions is only one aspect of the security investigation, since authorised agents also check in the context of this investigation, both with the judicial authorities and with the police services, whether the person concerned is known for other facts that have not yet led to a criminal conviction and therefore sufficiently effective. If the staff member who already has a legitimation card commits certain acts, the police services must inform the Internal SPF, after which a new security investigation will be initiated. The amendment therefore has no added value and could further eliminate administrative simplification.

by Mr. Joseph Arens of the CDH emphasizes the optional nature of this complementary investigation. This characteristic does not apply in any way to the survey imposed on aspiring teachers and the categories of related persons. Therefore, sufficient safeguards should be provided for employees of undertakings in the maintenance sector. by Mr. Arens also wishes to be assured that, as part of the security investigation, both the files of the federal police and those of the local police are consulted.

by Mr. Patrick Dewael, Deputy Prime Minister and Interior Minister, warns of the risk of confusion between the minimum requirement to be observed for certain convictions and the security conditions as such.

The draft law under consideration concerns exclusively the minimum requirement. Furthermore, as part of the security investigation that follows, the Internal SPF always requests additional information from the different competent authorities on its own. Finally, the minister notes that there is only one centralized file left, which can be consulted both by the federal police and by the local police.

After hearing the answers given by Minister Dewael, guaranteeing the recourse to comprehensive information, ⁇ from the local level, Mr. Dewael Maene withdrew his amendment.

by Mr. Dirk Claes and Ms. Katrien Schryvers, both of CD&V, submit an amendment aimed at supplementing Article 7 of the aforementioned Act of 10 April 1990 by a paragraph 5. This provision provides that appeals against a decision of the Internal SPF will no longer be handled by the State Council, but by the appeal body established by the amendment of the law of 11 December 1998 on classification and security authorisations. Ms Katrien Schryvers refers to the written justification of the amendment. by Mr. Patrick Dewael believes that the current procedure before the State Council offers sufficient guarantees.

by Mr. Dirk Claes and Ms. Katrien Schryvers submit another amendment aimed at supplementing Article 7 of the aforementioned Act of 10 April 1990 by a paragraph 4. This provision provides that the result of the survey on safety conditions is also brought to the knowledge of the applicant concerned. The Deputy Prime Minister considers that a detailed description of the procedure followed should be provided here.

If the security investigation has not revealed any negative elements and if the person concerned also meets the other legal conditions, an identification card shall be issued to him as proof that he meets all legal conditions.

On the other hand, if the investigation shows negative elements that may justify the refusal of access to the sector of the person concerned, the latter shall be informed personally and in writing of the facts under his responsibility. In addition, he is invited to consult his file, to appeal to a counsel of his choice and to make known his means of defence in writing. It is only after this procedure that a final decision is made. If it is still negative, the person concerned shall be informed in writing of the reasons that led to that decision. The only information transmitted to the company is that the applicant does not meet the safety requirements. The concrete facts that led to this decision are obviously not communicated. This procedure will be resumed in a royal decree that will be taken in execution of the law. As a consequence, Ms Katrien Schryvers withdraws her amendment.

The only remaining amendment of Mr. Claes and Mrs Schryvers was rejected by 7 votes against 2 and one abstinence. The article is then adopted unanimously, as well as the following and the project as a whole.

This concludes my report, Mr. Speaker.

It is easier. If everyone agrees, do it immediately.

Mr. Speaker, the MR group will support this bill which is aimed at simplifying administrative procedures for municipal authorities. As a committee, we were concerned, together with other members, about the guarantees offered by the new procedure. The minimum requirement for verifying the state of the convictions must not be confused with the set of security conditions for which nothing changes.

The draft law under consideration concerns exclusively the minimum condition which will be better fulfilled as direct access to the criminal record is now provided, the SPF Internal retaining, in addition, the right to request by office, in the context of the security investigation that follows, additional information from the different competent authorities and eventually from the mayor.

I will speak on behalf of Mr. President. by Maene.

The bill that is submitted to us relates to the simplification of the Private Security Act of 1990 and aims more specifically to allow access to the criminal record for members of the staff of the Private Security Directorate in charge of verifying the security conditions to which persons working in the private security sector are subject.

The rapporteur, Ms. Galant, detailed the contents of this legislative amendment. I will not come back.

The Socialist group, of course, subscribes to the objective of administrative simplification sought by the draft text. The new provisions will not only provide benefits for citizens, but also accelerate administrative procedures. During committee discussions, we learned that as part of the enforcement of the 1990 law, more than 4,000 certificates of good life and morals were issued, which is the same number of applications for qualification cards. The private security sector has undergone significant growth for some time, in particular as a result of the expansion of its area of intervention. Recently, as part of the Senate Assessment of the Law of 1990, a day of study was organized on the subject. As one journalist remarked very wisely, the invitation to the invitation summed up the situation in itself: “Security policy does not escape the widespread tendency to privatization; where public power is withdrawn, the private sector tends to fill the vacuum created.”

In Europe, private security employs more than one million people with an annual turnover of €19 billion. In Belgium and according to figures from 1999, there is one private security agent for three police officers. That is, if we must be ⁇ attentive and vigilant regarding better control of this sector and also the actual effectiveness of the controls provided for in the law of 1990, including the control by the administrative authority and by the police services of the conditions of exercise of the profession of private security officer.

I recall that previously, we allowed some of them to use gloves and tear bombs, therefore weapons.

During the discussions in the committee, the Socialist Group was ⁇ attentive to the fact that the administrative simplification intended by the draft text does not induce or allow a loosening of controls. When issuing the certificate of good life and morals, the mayor and local police may issue comments on the applicant’s morality, which then allows for a more in-depth investigation of the situation.

Our interventions enabled the Minister of the Interior to review the control and authorisation procedures provided for by the law of 1990. We have had some reassurance and above all the assurance of the seriousness of these controls both now and tomorrow with the administrative simplification. Under this condition, we can vote on the bill.

A royal decree would also be in preparation in order to further modalize these controls and make them more effective. We look forward to this and will be ⁇ attentive to this. It is about respecting our fundamental freedoms and our rule of law.

Mrs Schryvers, we will listen to you with great attention, as we always do. You have the word in the general discussion.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, CD&V, of course, also supports any initiative for administrative simplification, including the simplification of administrative procedures. Today, they are often very opaque and very troubled. In addition, our government must of course evolve and use modern technologies to guarantee better services to citizens and ⁇ . It is obvious that we must also take into account the protection of privacy and the legal certainty of the parties concerned. Given the opinion of the Privacy Commission, we can therefore find ourselves in the present draft.

However, the Privacy Committee goes further in its opinion. The committee strongly calls for better coordination between the draft and the amendment made several months ago to the Act of 11 December 1998 on classification and safety authorisations. The discussion of that draft at that time, just a few months ago, pointed out the time pressure under which the draft had to be dealt with by Parliament. However, the Minister of Justice wanted treatment. We believe that it would have been better at the time if one had taken a little more time to deal with and prepare that design. In this way, a similar arrangement could have been established for the surveillance companies.

Let us just give an example. The application for airport identification badges is subject to the Act of 11 December 1998, while the identification cards for surveillance companies will be subject to the present draft. It seemed more appropriate for us to create a common arrangement for the entire security sector. I think this is a missed opportunity. During the discussion in the committee, our amendment to streamline the appeal procedure in case of disputes with the aforementioned Act of 11 December 1998 was rejected.

As regards the application of the law to safety authorisations, a separate appeal body was established, which is to decide on the appeals brought against decisions on safety authorisations. In case of dispute with private security undertakings, this should be done before the Council of State. This is unfortunate because we know the deadlines. We have heard today in the news reports that the minister wants to do something about the long-term when it comes to asylum applications, but in other procedures, something and something is also pulling in. We ask the Minister to pay sufficient attention to this in the future.

We will vote in favour of the draft. The proposed amendments are a simplification, primarily concerning the consultation of the criminal register. They are ⁇ an improvement, but we would have preferred that one had gone even further.

Does anyone ask the word in the general discussion?

Mr. Minister, do you want the word?

The [...]

He thanked the room.

and impudent .