Proposition 51K1467

Projet de loi modifiant la législation relative à la protection de la jeunesse et à la prise en charge des mineurs ayant commis un fait qualifié infraction.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Nov. 29, 2004

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

youth detention centre juvenile delinquency child protection infancy juvenile court

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

July 14, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I will subsequently make a statement on behalf of my party.

Mrs Claes, you would like to keep your speech after the report. If your report is concise and your associated reason too, that is a blessing for the Chamber.

I will do my best, Mr. President.

Mrs. Minister, colleagues, as the President just insisted, the reform of youth law is currently on the agenda.

It includes a draft law and five bills. The texts have been the subject of extensive discussions in the committee and have taken up numerous meetings. For the discussions in detail, I refer to the written report.

In the oral explanation, I will try to give a good summary of the main arguments. I would like to take the opportunity to express a word of gratitude for the services that have done a great job in issuing a very comprehensive report.

First of all, I would like to give a brief explanation on the content of the bill and the five legislative proposals presented. Next, I will give a brief summary of the main arguments of the various speakers in the committee and the Minister’s responses to them.

Let me start with the bill. The proposal concerns the reform of the Youth Protection Act of 1965. The philosophy of the design consists of taking into account the following points. First, the evolution of society and the criminal acts that young people can commit. Second, society’s responses to criminal acts committed by minors must be educational, preventive, prompt and effective in any dangerous situation. Thirdly, a measure taken must have a protective, educational and coercive character.

The objectives of the draft are dual: on the one hand, providing a legal basis for a number of practices that have been successfully developed in the field over the years in the field of recovery-oriented measures such as mediation and hergo, and on the other hand, implementing a number of reforms related to the taking of a minor who has committed an offence defined as a crime.

The strength lines of the design are very diverse. I try to put them together. First, a legal basis for the new powers of the Prosecutors of the King. Second, the extension of the range of measures available to the juvenile judge with an objectivization of the court’s decision. Third, providing greater legal certainty in case of placement in an open or closed educational department. Fourth, setting access conditions to objectivise situations that may lead to placement in a Community institution in order to apply them only in serious situations. Fifth, as far as the parents are concerned, the draft gives them additional rights but at the same time the parents are accountable. Sixth – an important point of discussion in the committee – is the procedure for the outreach. The design aims to limit the number of outgoing reliefs. If it becomes necessary, a number of changes will be made, in the sense that young people have the right to know within a reasonable time which court will judge them. The duration of the procedure of the outstanding grant shall be shortened.

The legal guarantees in the field of extradition are also extended. In particular, special chambers are installed within the correctional courts and the courts of appeal. They are composed of three judges, at least one of whom must have special knowledge in juvenile law. Finally, as regards the out-of-hand detention, the detention of an out-of-hand youth will from now on take place in a specially closed federal center for minors, with educational guidance, thus indeed separate from adults. That was the explanation of the present draft law.

I now come to the bill proposed by Mr Van Parys and Mr Bourgeois, which was explained in the committee by Mr Van Parys. The proposal relates to a reform of the youth law, but is based on the youth sanction model. The proposal aims, first, to remedy certain shortcomings with regard to the placement of the minor; second, to require the court to indicate the reasons for the placement, as well as the conditions for the return to the family; third, not to separate the brothers and sisters during the placement.

In what points does Mr Van Parys’ bill differ from the bill? Initially, it deviates from the idea of youth protection. The juvenile courts are competent in the bill to impose sanctions on minors who have committed criminal offences, while in the bill that competence belongs to the special chambers of the correctional court or the court of appeal. Another difference relates to the limitation of the possibilities of expression in the case of minors who have reached the majority.

Next, I come to Mr. Wathelet’s bill, which he himself explained in the committee. The objectives of that bill are twofold: on the one hand, obliging the judges to clarify their decisions, both on the merits and on the provisional measures, and, on the other hand, raising the maintenance of the bond between the brothers and sisters in the case of a placement as a principle.

Mrs Gerkens’ first bill, 99/1, aims to improve the law of 1965 and uses three principles for this purpose: the explicit inclusion of the guidelines of international law in the law of 1965, the imposition of the obligation for the juvenile judge to further justify its decision, and the limitation of the appeal to the deprivation of liberty.

Then there is another bill from Mrs. Gerkens and Mr. Thierry Giet, which was explained in the committee by Mrs. Gerkens.

That bill introduces a number of changes in the youth law, which can be summarized as follows. First, alternative proposals to replace the protection claim are anchored. Second, the bill gives the King’s Prosecutor the power to refrain from bringing young people to court. Third, an amendment is made to the mediation procedure. Fourth, the obligation to provide a thorough substantive justification is introduced. In addition, the juvenile judge is obliged to have an assessment report on the minor drawn up before it imposes a provisional measure. The bill also sets as a principle that the minor whose liberty is deprived must be separated from the adult detainees. It also derogates from the absolute prohibition of communicating to the civil party all elements of the file relating to the personality and environment of the minor. Finally, the bill provides for a change in the withdrawal procedure and its consequences.

The latest bill, by Mr. Bacquelaine, Mr. Malmendier and Mr. Courtois, provides for a comprehensive revision of the approach to crimes committed by minors. It is based on three principles: first, the responsibility of minors; second, the compensation for the damage suffered by the victim; and third, the specificity of the scheme and the fight against juvenile crime. To this end, the explanation of the draft law and the various bills.

Prior to the opening of the general discussion, hearings were also held at two separate meetings of the Justice Committee. For the content of those hearings, I am so free to refer to the written report.

The general discussion included several committee meetings. For the detailed presentation of all the various arguments — which were very extensive — I also refer to the written report. The main arguments can be summarized by speaker as follows.

On behalf of CD&V, Mr Van Parys delivered the speech. He has three fundamental problems with the present bill, and that were also the reasons why the CD&V group could not approve the bill. First, it was the fact that the juvenile judge could not impose sanctions. Mr Van Parys was more in favour of a youth sanction law in which the youth judge can impose both measures and sanctions. The second point of criticism concerned the surrender to the correctional court, where Mr Van Parys argued that, in his opinion, this would lead to impunity. According to him, the correctional court cannot know the case thoroughly enough, because it does not know the background and the personality of the young people. Furthermore, the outdoorship, according to him, leads to inequality between communities. Finally, he believes that the extortion is contrary to the International Convention on the Rights of the Child. The third fundamental problem for him was the inequality of treatment between, on the one hand, the young man who is temporarily placed in a closed section of a community institution and, on the other hand, the young man who is placed in Everberg.

President: Jean-Marc Delizée, First Vice-President President: Jean-Marc Delizée, Prime Minister and Vice-President. On behalf of Vlaams Belang, Mr. Laeremans gave a statement. He disagreed with the design and also had a number of points of criticism.

He initially argued that the bill does not advance the fight against crime. The placement in Everberg is, according to him, in jeopardy, because the conditions for this are tightened. He argued that it is made more difficult to enclose young offenders in a classical youth institution, because first a number of measures must be exhausted. In addition, a circumstantial justification must be drawn up. Then he also stood silent at the outdoors. He also had a number of points of criticism. Finally, he argued that, in his opinion, nothing substantial had occurred in the dialogue with the Communities.

Speaking to CDH, Mr Viseur spoke. He argued initially that the 1965 Law on the Protection of Youth was a very good law. He even argued that this law was ahead of its time in dealing with minor offenders.

On the present draft law, he said that it has as a merit that a number of available measures are extended to the judge, who must judge in the substance.

In addition, he also tackled a number of problems and questions he asked. First, he talked about the responsibility of parents and the possibility of giving them a training. Then he stood quietly at Everberg. The current situation with the federal institution Everberg is very special. He argued that the role of Everberg must first be related to the seriousness of the underlying facts. In that sense, it would be good to provide clarity on the responsibilities of the Communities but also of the federal government.

Finally, he had questions about the connection magistrate. He fears that the connection magistrate will deprive the youth judges of their responsibility.

Subsequently, he also had a number of points of criticism about the outreach. He said that it should be applied unabated only and only in exceptional cases.

On behalf of the VLD, Mr Marinower spoke. He emphasized that a balance must be achieved between a number of interests, which sometimes seem conflicting: on the one hand, giving the minors opportunities to develop, but on the other hand, giving the victim the right to recovery, in the broad sense of the word, and also giving the society the right to respond to the social disturbance, without compromising the legal guarantees of the minors.

Mr Marinower subsequently stated that several aspects of the design could be welcomed as positive. At the same time, he spoke, first of all, of the fairly thorough reform, without too much rumbling in the margin. Secondly, he spoke about the diversification of the various measures that can be imposed; the fact that more legal guarantees are incorporated and that some practices are converted into laws, referring to the right of recovery, the recovery mediation and the recovery-oriented group consultation, Hergo.

Finally, Mr. Marinower also had some critical notes that I can summarize as follows. First, as regards parental leave, he had questions about the competence in the matter. Second, regarding the outdoors, he had questions about its efficiency. Third, he had questions regarding the fact that house arrest was not included in the measure as described in the draft. But in that regard, I can already say that Mr Marinower submitted an amendment on this subject during the article-by-article discussion, an amendment that was accepted.

Speaking on behalf of Mr Alain Courtois. He first discussed the general layout of the problem of youth protection and then emphasized that in the last 40 years a lot has changed. He subsequently also emphasized that he is satisfied with the design, because the possibility is created to play in a number of problems.

As regards the expression, Mr Courtois emphasized that this is a measure which, in his opinion, must indeed remain exceptional and which should be aimed at reminding the younger person that he has committed serious acts.

Finally, he also tackled the problem of the 12-year-olds. On behalf of Ecolo, Mrs Muriel Gerkens delivered the speech. She stated that she welcomes the fact that the reform of the youth law takes place within the framework of the current Act of 1965 on the protection of youth. She emphasized the importance of resocialization. She also emphasized the importance of the fact that the judge must cover his decision with reasons.

Subsequently, it also assessed as positive: first, the extension of the package of measures and, second, the fact that the Prosecutor’s Office can take measures for the purposes of mediation and on the Hergo.

She also had a number of objections. First, it had objections to the fact that measures of general interest could be taken in advance of the judgment. Secondly, she had objections to parenting. Third, it had objections at the beginning of the proceedings between, on the one hand, the youth placed by means of measure in a closed section of a community institution and, on the other hand, the youth placed in Everberg.

Then there were two other points of criticism: the outgiveness and the lack of money.

On behalf of the PS, Mr. Maene spoke. He expressed his appreciation for the Youth Protection Act of 1965, which he believed had inspired many countries and truly served as the basis for a wide range of measures. He then stated that it is good to reform on the basis of that law.

Furthermore, Mr Maene also highlighted a number of positive elements of the bill, such as the developments in the field of the King’s Prosecutor, the new measures available to the Youth Court or the introduction of greater legal certainty regarding placement in an open or closed branch of a community institution. Regarding the extraction, Mr. Maene also stated very explicitly that, in this regard, the law of 1965 must be considered as a whole and must recognise that the results of that law are excellent.

Furthermore, on behalf of the SP-A-Fraktion, I took the word myself. Initially, I emphasized the need to reform the Youth Protection Act of 1965 because it is outdated. In the second instance, I emphasized the principle that crime is unacceptable in all circumstances. However, it is important that society responds appropriately to young people, with an emphasis on re-education, recovery and responsibility. Subsequently, I also commented on some of the positive aspects of the draft law, such as the extension of the package of measures for the youth court, alternative measures, recovery measures and so on.

I also submitted a number of questions to the Minister, in particular on the special obligation of motivation in the case of combination of measures, pronounced by the juvenile judge, on the expiry of the criminal action in the case of recovery measures, and also on the assistance of the lawyer in the case of recovery mediation and hergo. Then I was silent about the difference between Everberg and the community institutions, and of course also about the outreach. I asked a number of questions about the introduction of more legal guarantees in the case of outright granting.

On behalf of spirit, Mrs Annelies Storms took the floor. He emphasized the importance of prevention. In the event that such prevention fails, it should be sought to find a balance between, on the one hand, the well-being and development of young people and, on the other hand, to strengthen the sense of responsibility of those young people. In that regard, it stated that the draft law ⁇ contains a number of positive aspects. I have already listed some of them, such as the extension of the measures of the juvenile court or providing a legal basis for the restoration-oriented treatment.

She also formulated a number of critical concerns concerning the granting of expression, which consisted mainly in the fact that, in her opinion, this measure should remain exceptional. She also referred to the rights of children and the comments of Professor Put. Finally, it also highlighted its concern over the fact that the draft provides a wide range of discretion for the rights with regard to the nature and duration of the measures, with a very high combinability of those measures.

The last speaker in the general discussion, Mr Servais Verherstraeten, who spoke on behalf of CD&V, began his speech with three major points of criticism of the bill. He argued that the design was not strict enough. Second, it would provide insufficient legal guarantees and, third, it would not adequately take into account the competences of the Communities.

In the second instance, Mr Servais Verherstraeten remained silent on the judgment of the Arbitration Court which led to the Everberg Act, asking questions about the interpretation of that judgment.

Finally, he had a number of questions concerning the granting, but also concerning the consultation with the Communities.

The Minister’s responses were very extensive. I will try to put them together for you.

The Minister recalled that the draft was drawn up after approximately thirty people on the ground were consulted and that it was subsequently discussed extensively in the context of the official consultation with the Communities and the Regions and was subsequently adapted to both the opinion of the State Council and that of the High Council for Justice.

Regarding the various questions to restart the consultation with the Communities, the Minister stated that precisely for the sake of respecting the competence of the Parliament, it has not yet initiated talks concerning the entry into force of the law. In that regard, it pointed out that the Consultation Committee of 2 February 2005 decided that it was up to the Federal Parliament to give its opinion on the draft and that after its approval in the committee, the competent interministerial conference would resume its work.

In summary, the Minister answered a number of punctual questions.

First, as regards the philosophy of protection and sanctioning, the Minister stressed that the situation of minors is central and that it is appropriate for many reasons to choose the youth court that determines whether a pedagogical approach can be successful or whether it is more appropriate to refer to the criminal court.

Regarding the outgoing grant, the Minister stated very clearly that the purpose of the bill is to limit the number of cases of outgoing grant. The draft legislation introduces important changes in this regard, including on the duration of the procedure in order to bring more legal certainty for young people. The Minister said that several adjustments were made to bring the bill in line with international legal norms.

For the center-Everberg, the minister once again stressed that the bill aims to limit the number of places.

As for the argument of parental allowance, the Minister stressed that, when this is realized, it will benefit the young people concerned. However, it acknowledged that very little has yet to be specified as the implementation of this sanction in respect of the parents must be discussed at the competent Ministerial Conference.

As regards the provisional measures concerning the difference in provisional placement between Everberg and the Community institutions, the Minister formulated a proposal to establish more legal guarantees for minors who are temporarily placed in a Community institution. Criticising that the jurisdiction of the juvenile judge in the preliminary and final phase would conflict with the principle of the independence and impartiality of the judge, the Minister referred to the European Court of Human Rights, more specifically to the judgment in the case James Bulger, which explicitly provided that a juvenile judge in the same case could act as both investigative judge, interim judge and judge of facts.

On the criticism of ⁇ ining the performance of general benefit in the preliminary phase of the procedure, the minister said that she did not want to touch the current practice which is considered by many actors as a necessary, because quick intervention.

Furthermore, a cumulative of measures and legal guarantees offered to young people. The Minister said that she could agree to impose a special motivation obligation on the juvenile court if they imposed or combined several measures with a condition.

Regarding the appointment of the connection magistrates, the minister said that it is ⁇ not intended to deprive the juvenile judge of responsibility, but rather to assist him so that he can efficiently allocate his time, so that the young delinquent can be sentenced faster.

The last point of criticism concerns the financing of the reform. The minister acknowledged that the reform will cost a lot. In that regard, however, it emphasized that these costs are not essentially linked to the concrete draft, but that any reform of the youth law would cost money.

As far as the general discussion is concerned. It was followed by an extensive article-by-article discussion with numerous amendments. As regards this discussion, I would allow myself to refer to the written report, especially since many arguments in the article-by-article discussion were cited in the general discussion.

Finally, this bill was approved with ten votes in favour, three votes against and one abstinence resulting in the annulment of the added bills.

To this end, my explanation concerning the report on the reform of youth protection.

Mrs Claes, I thank you for your report. You now have the word on behalf of the SP-A-Fraction.

I am speaking on behalf of the SP.

Mrs. Minister, colleagues, I think I am entering an open door when I say that the present bill is an important draft. It is important because it implements a number of major changes in the current Youth Protection Act but also because it really is a necessary reform.

The current Youth Protection Act dates from 1965 and is thus 40 years old. During those 40 years, our society has undergone a lot of changes and developments. Today’s parents are no longer the parents of 40 years ago. I think the same goes for minors. The relationship between parents and minors is no longer the same. The family composition has also undergone a very significant change in the last 40 years. Today, as an example, we know many more single-parent families, but also many more newly formed families. That all makes, colleagues, that the Youth Protection Act of 1965 is no longer adapted to the current situation, nor is it prepared against certain forms of severe crime committed by minors. This means that it is in my opinion good that today effective work is being done on the reform of that Youth Protection Act of 1965 and this within the framework of the Government Agreement of 2003.

The starting point of our group on this subject. I have already said this in the committee, but I would like to repeat it here today because it is actually our starting point of all our reasoning. Our principle is that crime is under no circumstances acceptable, for adults or for minors. However, it is a fact that minors cannot be treated as adults. They cannot be tried as adults. At this point, I think, lies the real challenge: the safety of society must be reconciled as best as possible with educational objectives for young people.

It may sometimes sound easy to say that when committing criminal acts one must only move to a deprivation of liberty, a imprisonment. However, it is not so simple, of course. In my opinion, one should always be very careful to keep in mind that, when one begins to deprive someone of his freedom, that person subsequently returns to society. It must therefore be the intention that that person returns as a better person into that society. This applies to adults, but this applies ⁇ to minors.

These minors are the adults of the future. In addition, the personality of those minors is not yet fully developed. There, therefore, there is actually an excess of reasons to intervene, so that they begin to clearly understand that they have committed something, what they have committed, and that they also begin to understand that, so that when they return to society they will not reappear. Their

I can actually express it simply. It is not to punish to punish, but to punish to learn. Punishment for learning is for me a sensible punishment that ensures that the minor does not repeat. In order to ⁇ this, I believe that the emphasis must be placed on both re-education and guidance as well as on the repair of the injury to the victim. Their

Mrs. Minister, when I look at the general philosophy of the present bill, I can find myself in it, starting from my basic principle. When I look at the bill I see that the emphasis is placed on educating, preventive, quick and efficient response to criminal acts committed by a younger. Then the real emphasis is placed on the re-education of those younger and on the prevention of recurrence. Attention is also paid to the responsibility of the younger. The charging of the victim’s rights also has a clear importance in the draft law. Finally, parents are given rights, but at the same time they are held accountable. Their

Mrs. Minister, that means that, in my opinion, a very difficult balance was sought, but a balance that is realized in the current draft. Their

So I can find myself in the general philosophy of the design. When I look specifically at a number of measures that are implemented in the design, I must also assess them positively. I will give an example. There is the fact that the package of measures available to the youth judge is being expanded. This is an example of a positive improvement. Their

If there was one point of criticism from the youth judges, it was that they had too few measures to respond truly adapted to the delinquent behavior of the younger. Specifically, improvements are made with a hierarchy of measures, with the emphasis on recovery-oriented measures. Furthermore, I look forward to the fact that the alternative measures, which were positively evaluated by the sector, will finally be given a legal basis, and that the recovery measures are given a great deal of attention. When you listen to the sector, you can see that the recovery-oriented measures enable minors to see the extent and consequences of the acts they have committed, which will have a positive impact on future behaviors. Social relations are also restored by these recovery-oriented measures. In addition, the victim recognizes his sense of justice.

I will go on the following points, Mrs. Minister, because I have already discussed them in detail during the discussion in the committee. I find it very positive that the younger can assume his responsibility by presenting himself to the juvenile judge a project, that the parents are involved and that the powers of the juvenile judge with regard to the mentally ill minor and of the King’s Prosecutor have been expanded. These are very positive improvements.

Nevertheless, I must admit, Mrs. Minister, that we at the first reading of the bill had a number of concerns and questions regarding the text. Therefore, we have called for a number of improvements. Today I can say that we are pleased with a number of amendments, which I believe have brought positive improvements. Allow me to stand still on that point too.

It is, in the first instance, the introduction of a special obligation of motivation for the juvenile judge when he imposes different measures. In fact, the bill provides for the possibility of imposing different measures on a minor, provided that a number of conditions are met. In order to build the certainty that a youth judge would not accidentally impose a number of measures, I think it has been good that we have entered a special obligation of motivation.

I have two positive comments related to the difference between Everberg and the community institutions. Thus, the prohibition on free movement is equalized. There has been a huge difference to this day. This difference will be eliminated by limiting the prohibition of free movement for Community institutions to three calendar days in the future.

The second problem we had in the difference between Everberg and the community institutions concerned the period of provisional placement in a closed department in a community institution on the one hand and that provisional placement in Everberg on the other. I must admit, Mrs. Minister, that we are initially eager to be able to reach an equalization at that point as well. However, we realized there that for many reasons that equalization was not possible. Why Why ? Their

First of all, I think because of the different character. The placement in Everberg is based on and motivated by considerations of public safety, while the provisional placement in a community institution is inspired by a conservation measure that is not exclusively focused on safety but rather educational aspects. Their

Moreover, and ⁇ even more importantly, Everberg is clearly an exceptional institution for us. Therefore, a provisional placement in Everberg for us should be kept as limited as possible. That is, of course, already a reason not to go to an equalization with a placement in a Community institution where the procedure is higher. On the other hand, as regards the Community institution, there is, of course, the principle that the placement in a Community institution must be based on the fact that it is a provisional placement. If one would like to equate that to Everberg, yes, then that would mean that one should increase the term and exactly that would be contrary to the principle of keeping as limited as possible in time. Their

That, Mrs. Minister, made us realize that we could impossiblely draw the provisional placement of Everberg and the community institutions equal. Therefore, in the second instance, we have called for more legal guarantees for a temporary placement in a Community institution, with regard to the evaluation. Their

We are pleased that the majority of the Members supported this amendment, so that the evaluation of a placement in a Community institution in the future will be possible in the first three months, at the express request of the minor, the third and sixth months automatically and after the sixth month automatically.

We can also be very positive about the improvements that have been made in the form of amendments to the recovery mediation and the hergo. Thanks to the amendments, the chances of success will be increased. This is due, first, to the fact that recovery mediation can be initiated if the minor does not acknowledge his guilt. We have come to a different formulation on this point. That is good, because an explicit recognition of guilt would really be a threshold for many minors to initiate a mediation process.

A second positive amendment is the fact that a victim, in order to reach an agreement, does not have to have an agreement on the full guilt. It is sufficient to have an agreement on a part of the debt. Even an agreement with one of the perpetrators is sufficient. This will also contribute to the fact that the hergo and the recovery mediator will have more chances of success.

Finally, you know that we have been very nervous about the expiration of the sepegarancy in the case of parquet level mediation. It is good that we have withdrawn from it. Likewise, victims will be much easier to be persuaded to initiate mediation or even to reach an agreement.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will come to the last point, which is ⁇ the most important point for our group. You already guess. This, of course, concerns the outreach.

We have made it very clear from the beginning that our group is not in favour of the exhibition as it exists today, because we believe that it provided insufficient legal guarantees for the minor. Furthermore, in the case of conviction after extradition, the minor today goes to adults, which for us absolutely could not.

This is why, during the discussions, we have been eager to build more legal guarantees. Today we also give a positive assessment. A number of amendments could ⁇ a majority.

I am therefore, of course, speaking in the first instance about the fact that in the case of expropriation, thanks to the bill, special chambers are installed in the correctional courts as well as in the courts of appeal. The special chambers must consist of three judges, of whom at least one must have a specific knowledge of the youth law, which he can acquire through the continued training for magistrates.

Furthermore, there are also positive changes, which specifically respond to the criticism of the opposition that the surrender would lead to impunity. We were also able to make positive improvements on that point by incorporating the guarantee that, when a young person is given out of hand, the file will be transferred from the youth court to the correctional court. Thus, the judge gets knowledge of the minor’s past and knows the prehistory, allowing him to come to a more appropriate punishment.

A second positive amendment will ensure that, in the event of an extradition, a “fast court” will be established and preferably the new article 216quater of the Code of Criminal Procedure will apply, which requires the public prosecutor to complete the claim within two months of the extradition, so that a legal guarantee will be determined. This, of course, will contribute to the younger being tried faster and the period of temporary placement that is now taken into account on the imposed sanction will be much shorter.

Mrs. Minister, we are satisfied with the amendments on expression that have been taken into account, but there remains a negative note for me: the amendment on expression submitted by the sp.a-spirit group, which aimed to impose another additional condition on expression, did not obtain a majority. Remember, that amendment was aimed at allowing the outreach only as soon as a measure was imposed by the youth judge. In my opinion, this amendment was fully in line with the philosophy of the draft law, because according to that philosophy, the granting of consent is only possible when it is truly established that the personality of the minor, as well as his family, social and cultural environment, is of such nature that no positive development can be expected any more with regard to a protection measure. Precisely in order to evaluate the effect of that measure on a younger person, it seemed appropriate for us to impose a measure first. However, we regretted the fact that the amendment did not obtain a majority, Mrs. Minister. This was also immediately the reason why the sp.a-spirit group abstained in the vote on the article relating to the outreach. Ladies and gentlemen, I come to my decision. Despite the fact that at the initial reading of the draft law we had a lot of concerns with the present text, we can today, thanks to all kinds of amendments, in which a lot of improvements were made to the text, but also in which a lot of additional legal guarantees were built for minors, stand behind the current text of the draft law and we will approve it later at the vote.

After the rapporteur, eight speakers have been registered for the debate, in this case Mr Van Parys, M. Wathelet, M Maene, Mr. Laeremans, Mr. Marinower, M. Courtois, Mrs. Storms and Mrs. Gerkens.

I give the floor to the first speaker of the list, Mr Van Parys.

First and foremost, I would like to congratulate Ms Claes on the first part of her speech on this subject, namely the report. She did this in a ⁇ good way. She also placed the different points of view side by side in a clearer way.

I also agree to express my gratitude to the services, who have indeed delivered excellent work in very difficult circumstances, which, by the way, can be found in the parliamentary documents that are available.

As part of the Parliament’s mandate to deliver accurate texts, clear texts, predictable texts and readable texts, I would like to give you a reading of Article 37(2)(d) of this bill. "When the court orders one of the measures referred to in paragraphs 2, 2bis and 2ter, it shall justify its decision on the basis of the criteria referred to in paragraph 1 and the specific circumstances. If the court orders one of the measures referred to in paragraph 2 paragraph 1, sixth to eleventh a combination of several of the measures referred to in paragraph 2 or a combination of one or more of these measures with one or more of the conditions referred to in paragraph 2bis, or orders a placement measure in a closed educational department of a public community youth protection institution, it shall specifically justify its choice, taking into account the priority referred to in paragraph 2 paragraph 3.”

I believe that in this way the principle of legality is met, where our mission consists in delivering accurate legislation, clear legislation, transparent legislation, predictable legislation and legible legislation.

I would like to read it again, Mr. President, but I think you immediately understood it? If not, I want to overcome it again.

Colleagues, these are the texts delivered within the framework of the bill and with which our magistrates will have to work. They are also the texts on the basis of which young people will know how they will be punished if they have broken the law at some point.

But that is only formal criticism. In particular, I would like to talk about the content, colleagues, Mrs. Vice-Prime Minister.

The crucial question is: why is a reform of the youth law needed? What is our mission? What is the challenge we face and why does the existing Youth Protection Act not meet? Anyone who is concerned with this matter knows that it is a compelling question, an emergency call to all politicians, to address youth crime in an adequate way. Those engaged in politics in large cities or rural areas face youth crime and find that there is no adequate response to this societal problem.

An adequate response should contain two elements. First, the approach must be specific, as it concerns young people. Second, the approach must be correlated, given that we are faced with a group of hard-learned young people, with a group of persistent young people who commit crime and to whom — allegedly — is not correlated and adequately responded, and that the naive responses on youth protection today are inadequate, inefficient and no longer acceptable. If one wants to preserve the credibility of politics, it is not enough to watch it powerlessly.

There is, therefore, a—justly—question to act socially-safe against this form of juvenile crime. That is the challenge. The question is whether this bill meets the questions that so strongly live in the public opinion, in the workplace and in all those who are professionally engaged in this matter. Does this bill organize a cordial and adequate approach to youth crime?

The great disappointment of this bill is that this question is not met. The bill fails to meet the challenge faced by all members of this assembly, in particular an adequate response to youth crime. This bill fails because it does not provide the possibility to impose sanctions and penalties against hard-learned young people and persistent young criminals. Unfortunately, this is the evaluation of the draft law.

To what extent does the bill not meet the need to act punitively against and impose sanctions on certain young offenders? First, the bill does not allow the juvenile judge to impose penalties and sanctions. It is kept with the starting point of the 1965 Law on the Protection of Youth, in particular the Youth Court can only issue measures of retention, conservation and education. The starting point of the 1965 Youth Protection Act is ⁇ ined, namely the protection of young people and the irresponsibility. It is still assumed that young people cannot be held accountable for their actions because of their age. This is completely outdated and is demonstrated by the facts today. Irresponsibility is the starting point of the response to criminal behavior in the bill of the Minister of Justice. Therefore, the juvenile judge may not impose penalties or sanctions. The juvenile judge may only take guidance and educational and educational measures.

We will solve the problem by giving out the young persistent criminals. This means that...

Among the measures taken by the youth judge, some resemble real sanctions. Punishment is part of education. We had a discussion on this in the committee. Explanations have been given. In addition, we have received practitioners. They know better than anyone that locking a young person in a closed institution is obviously a punishment. by

Also, when you say that the youth judge takes action and does not punish, I do not understand!

Mr. Minister, I would like to respond to this.

In the bill, you say that, with regard to those for whom all these measures no longer help, including the measures of placement, at that moment the social response is best done through the submission to the correctional court. That is where I want to come.

The juvenile judge does not have the authority to impose those sanctions, to impose that punishment. You say, with respect to those whom the Youth Court says that all these measures no longer have any effect, that you will give the young people out of hands to the correctional court, to an adult court, which will then be able to impose effective penalties. That is the reasoning in the bill.

In itself, this is apparently a good solution to the problem. Were it not—that is the big problem of that bill—that the submission of young people to the adult court, to the correctional court, does not lead to that adequate punishment or to that adequate sanction. The figures show that. The study of the VUB, which has a study dedicated to the practice of extortion, has shown that of the young people who are handed out to the correctional court, ⁇ 16.5% receive an effective prison sentence.

It is therefore an illusion, Mrs. Claes, to say here that this punishment will be organized in this way by letting the adult court judge those young people. The reality of things, the figures of which are in the document I have with me, is that 16.5% of those young people get an effective prison sentence.

First, what about those and those who have done preventive detention before and for whom the sentence covers the period of preventive detention? What comparisons do you make with adults? When you cite a study, you should not take a single chapter that interests you, but you should explain the study as a whole.

Then, for dismissal, you know very well that in the project, so that there can be effective sanctions, we made a monumental change, namely the possibility for dismissal youths who are sentenced to an effective prison sentence to pay their sentence in a specific closed federal center. It is known that the magistrates have fears that these young people who experience prison for the first time will be plunged into a difficult criminal environment that poses problems for them, including their future. So we decided to create a federal closed center that could accommodate them, and only them, primary criminals.

We have also proposed to extend the measures up to 23 years, in order to avoid displacement.

All this is important. It cannot simply be said that there is no punishment. It is not true. Sanctions are also at the heart of the project.

When it comes to discharge, we arrange it so that it has effects in line with our expectations.

Mr. Speaker, I will try to convince the Minister of her wrong.

The correctional court is arrested after the extradition and the figures of the VUB are very clear: only in 16.5% of cases an effective prison sentence is pronounced. You will point out that I forget the 28% of cases in which a penalty with delay is issued and the 26% of cases in which probation delay is granted and the probation conditions are imposed. You will point out that a conditional punishment or a punishment with probation conditions is also a punishment.This is indeed a punishment, but a punishment which, however, is completely ineffective with regard to the target group for which we stand here. Which young people are being given out of hands? Those of whom the juvenile judge has said that with them there is no way to sew land, even though everything was tried. This target group would now be given a conditional punishment. A conditional punishment against, for example, those who were imprisoned for three months in an institution and can not be impressed at all by a penalty with a deferral or a probationary deferral.

Regarding the so-called effectiveness of the conditional penalties in relation to young people who have been handed out, I would like to read an extract from the follow-up report of the VUB. This report states very explicitly, I quote: “As for the postponed sentences, some respondents note that they have no impact at all. Therefore, according to the respondents, they work a certain sense of impunity in the hand."

The submission to the correctional court, indeed, leads to impunity. That is the reality of things, Mrs. Minister. That is the fundamental criticism I would like to express on behalf of the CD&V group regarding the present bill.

It is necessary to leave the ability to the judge to have the right answer in the face of this young man. At the moment, the magistrate informs us of his inability to impose an adequate sanction. In this context, we consider that the correctional magistrate should apply the same justice as for adults. You argue the opposite, that sanctions have no impact but that one should not be dismissed! Your reasoning is at least surprising!

The establishment of impunity after the extradition is not a conclusion I made. It is a finding from a study that (Protest of Minister Onkelinx)

Per ⁇ the Minister would like to speak first.

For the good progress of the work, I want to reassure Mrs. Minister, but I will give her the word to answer the eight speakers. You will have the opportunity to speak. Do not be afraid!

Mr. Speaker, to the colleagues who came to encourage

As you hear it! What matters is the quality of the debate. A little bit of the debate!

Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly respond to Mr. Van Parys’s argument that today’s outreach would only lead to impunity for the minor, for which he refers to the study of the VUB.

Mr. Van Parys, I would like to have ears to this. Believe me freely, I think it is indeed also important that in the case of extortion there is also a correct and good punishment.

However, when you want to mention that study of the VUB, I think you should quote them in full. If you draw the numbers, you also need to draw the nuances. We discussed this very extensively in the committee. One nuance that you should apply is that today in the case of outgiving a minor has often been temporarily placed six months or longer.

That provisional placement — you know this very well — is eligible for the sanction that is imposed. In fact, there is the impression that this sanction would be quite limited. However, if one takes into account the fact that the provisional placement is quite extensive and when that is added, that sanction is often quite extensive.

Secondly, you are right when you say that in the case of extradition today the judge in the correctional court has no knowledge of the minor’s past. This is corrected by the current draft law, since the amendment has been approved which will ensure in the future that the file will be moved with it from the youth court to the correctional court, so that that judge has knowledge of the past of that minor and will actually be able to impose the appropriate sanction. Therefore, there is an improvement in the current design.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a statement. Mrs Claes, I find that your own party colleagues in the Flemish Parliament say the opposite and that they in choir with the other Flemish parliamentarians say that the outreach is not the right instrument and that the real specialists on juvenile crime are the juvenile judges themselves and that they should be given the means and the instruments to effectively impose sanctions. That’s what your own party colleagues in the Flemish Parliament say, and you do or they don’t exist, Mrs. Claes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak for a moment following my reasoning.

Mrs. Claes, I would like to quote a little from the study. The numbers speak book parts.

The [...]

I will return to this later.

I did not interrupt you either. Would you give me a chance to finish my reasoning? I will address the argument you have just used in connection with the transfer of the integral file.

The study of the VUB shows that for more than half of the outreach sentences a postponed sentence is pronounced. The effective prison sentences, on the other hand, make up only 16.5% of the total and, in addition, are usually of relatively short duration. This is stated in the study on the analysis of the outdoors. Clearer it cannot be.

In the second study - the successor to the study that was supposed to prove the great right of the Minister of Justice - some respondents believe that the postponed penalties have no impact at all and therefore a certain sense of impunity works in hand. Let us take the studies that were done on this matter seriously and let us draw conclusions from them. Mrs. Claes, you should definitely read the second part of the study to know what you are currently doing with this bill. You organize the impunity of persistent youth crime, of the hard-learned youth.

I will explain for a moment why the correctional courts and, in part, also the investigative judges, when they decide on the provisional detention, do not pass to an adequate and cordial punishment. There are two important reasons for this. There is a much too long time between the moment of the facts and the moment when the file is handled by the correctional court.

Mrs Claes, you have just said in this speech that you are addressing this by applying the so-called speed law to it. You are mistaken. It is, of course, very well intended that you want to introduce the high speed law for this purpose. However, the problem of time-flow is not the problem of the duration of the treatment of the procedure. The problem of the flow of time is the problem of the duration of the expertises that are necessary before one gives out. It is the problem of psychological and social research that is necessary before the juvenile judge can proceed to outreach. A six-month period is not an exception at all.

Why do these expertises and that social and psychological research draw so long? The reason for this is the fact that the experts are not paid, are underpaid and thus either are not available or cannot deliver their expert reports within a reasonable time.

The result is that if there is a long time between the facts and the trial, the correctional court is obviously inclined to no longer impose harsh and repeated sanctions after so much time. Their

There is a second problem. The second problem is that young people who have committed facts after 16 years and appear before the correctional court appear as "first offender". They do not appear as a recidivist. The correctional court deals only with the single fact that a person commits at the time he has reached the age of 16. Now you will answer me that you have solved this problem with the amendment that transfers the entire file from the youth court to the correctional court. This is indeed a step in the right direction. However, the transmission of the integral file only means that the correctional court gets a better understanding of the personality, the environment and the context, but it does not, of course, mean at all that that correctional court may take into account another fact in its judgment than the only fact for which he or she has been appealed. Their

I will give you an example. A 17-year-old man commits a shop robbery. He comes before the correctional court. The correctional court will obviously not impose an effective prison sentence on that minor. A shop robbery at seventeen years will never, and reasonably evidently, give rise to an effective prison sentence. But the same young man who committed a shop robbery at seventeen is also the one who committed an armed robbery when he was fourteen. That is where the problem arises. Their

The correctional court judges only on the fragment in the criminal life cycle of young people from sixteen years of age, without having to take into account the criminal past of before. It is therefore that that correctional court has exactly the tendency and actually can only judge the single fact and, of course, does not impose a kordate sanction. Their

We advocate a different system, colleagues, in which the juvenile judge makes a judgment on the entire criminal life of the minor. (Mr. Van Parys is interrupted in his speech) Mr. President, I am repeatedly interrupted in my speech. Let the others take the word first. It is only the intention to interrupt this discussion. I would like to respond to Mr Courtois as soon as I have completed my reasoning.

If Mr. Courtois no longer asks for the word, you can continue, Mr. Van Parys. I give the floor to those who ask for it.

I listen to Mr Courtois, President.

by Mr. Courtois no longer wants to intervene. So you keep your word, Mr. Van Parys.

The correctional court can only judge on the fact that is submitted, the fact that is situated after the age of 16 years. The correctional court decides on a very limited fragment of the criminal life course of the minor. In this way, it is very easy to come to release, conditional punishment, suspension or probation suspension. That is logical and normal. The correctional court must also be respected. He can only judge this fact.

We advocate a system in which the juvenile judge judges over the entire lifetime of the minor, establishes what the circumstances have been which have led the younger into the crime, establishes whether or not there is a stable environment in the family, the circle of friends or the neighborhood, establishes that all this has not helped and that that gives rise to serious criminal offences for 16 years, establishes that that thereafter also gave rise to criminal offences. This whole lifetime gives the youth judge the opportunity to provide an appropriate response to youth crime with knowledge of the case. That appropriate response, of course, will initially be a reaction of education and guidance, but it could also be a reaction of imposing sanctions and punishments at the moment when one determines that everything has not helped.

In the present draft law, the juvenile judge will be reinvented as if it were. In fact, the minor is intended to be handed over to the correctional court and the correctional court will be composed of specialized magistrates. What do they do? The youth court will be reinvented. This is really an aberration. Why not choose the obvious and logical solution? This is the specialized, that is, the youth judge. It can take measures and educational initiatives and, if necessary, impose and punish sanctions. That is the logic itself, as it was, by the way, in the bill of Minister Verwilghen. That bill was written by Attorney General Maes, who is the specialist in the matter and who has proposed exactly that.

The great disappointment, Mr. Borginon and Mr. Marinower, in this file and in the hearing in the committee was the moment when the VLD group said that we should no longer insist on the bill-Maes-Verwilghen, because it had turned the page and engaged in the government agreement. That is where the problem arose. Following the government agreement of Pope II, it was accepted that the model of youth protection remained. One has abandoned the position that was so often defended in the previous legislature, following the elections, namely that there should be a youth sanction law. They have not even dared to have a debate on this.

This leads to a situation of impunity. The juvenile judge may not punish and the correctional court who is not able to do so. In this way, we continue to sit with the social problem of youth crime, with the problem that there is no opportunity to respond adequately to the hard-learning youth.

If, then, there is such an opposition which is primarily found in a different culture and a different reaction of the two Communities to the phenomenon, why should we not seek another structural solution to the problem?

To the extent that the French-speaking community and the Minister of Justice truly believe that these young people remain irresponsible, that only protective measures are in place and that they should not be punished or sanctioned, that is not a problem for me. That is how it is organized within the French-speaking community. I agree with the position of the Minister of Justice. I disagree with it, but if one sees it this way, if this is the understanding of the French-speaking Community, well, that one organizes it there and that one then faces the problems that one has created. Not left for me. Their

What troubles me, however, is that we are not allowed to organize the consensus that exists in Flanders, in the public opinion, in the workplace, in the youth magistrates, in the social assistants, in all who are engaged in this matter, the consensus that there must be a responsibility for these young people, that one must be able to punish them and impose sanctions, in its own specific way. That is the fundamental problem in this dossier. That problem arose because the Flemish majority parties have made this possible, which, in my opinion, is incomprehensible and unforgivable. (Applause of Applause)

What could be the problem, Mr. Borginon, Mrs. Claes, to indeed regionalize this matter? In this way, we solve problems as we need to solve them, as people ask us to solve them, as the workplace asks us to solve them. Then everyone can do it in their own way, according to their insights but in a way that we retain our credibility as politicians in relation to this problem and will be able to demonstrate in the light of the next elections that we are able to adequately respond to the persistent youth crime. This is not wanted either. If there is one subject in which this regionalization is imposed, it is this one. There has been a lot of talk about homogeneous competence packages. We are here permanently in the clutter between the federal powers and the powers of the Communities. and permanent. However, it is not possible to reconcile this. Here regionalization is therefore an obvious solution, in addition, a solution to the difference in perceptions that exists in the different Communities. The Minister of Justice is one of the few who still did not want to accept or understand this. Their

The result, my colleagues, is, of course, especially grave, because we have here a bill in which one Community imposes a solution on the other Community, a solution that the other Community does not want and does not want. We held hearings during the discussions of the committee. In those hearings, the message was clear as a red thread: give us the tools to respond properly and appropriately. We do not give them those tools. That is unimaginable. Their

Mrs. Minister, a comparison is urgent with the hearings following the provisional detention law. Also there it had been said that this draft law did not provide a problem for the problem raised. What does the majority of the Justice Committee or the majority of this Chamber do? This bill is approved and the whole working field says it does not provide a solution to the problem, but on the contrary. One repeats in this attitude, against the will of the field of work, against the will of all those who are engaged in it. Especially, colleagues and especially colleagues of the Flemish majority parties, you don’t give any prospect of a kordate and own approach to youth crime.

All of you, as responsible politicians, are involved and involved day by day. It’s not because you don’t see it. It is because you have attached yourself to a government agreement that makes it impossible for you to do what is expected of you. This will be especially politically burdened.

Mr. Van Parys, maybe a while aside, I assume that you also come back in this file to advocate for a regionalization of Justice. I have not been sitting in Parliament for a long time, but I have already listened to you a lot and read a lot of you. I assume that you often hold that plea. You are very consistent in this. It is strange, however, that in a certain period you were not so consistent in that area, and that was the period when you were yourself Minister of Justice. At that time, you did not speak of a regionalization of justice. That leads me to a possible conclusion, namely that there must be a condition fulfilled in order that something can change in our country regarding Justice and that is that Mr. Van Parys becomes Minister of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask that the report acknowledges that, at the moment that Mrs. Claes says that Mr. Van Parys must become Minister of Justice, Mr. Van Parys applauded the Minister of Justice.

Everything you say is recorded and will be found in the full rendered account.

That is an excellent official response.

I have another argument for you, Mrs. Minister. (The Romanian)

Colleague De Crem, good friend Pieter, don’t worry, later the minister will do a lot more if I use my last argument. Let them get out of the ball again. I give you, Mrs. Minister, the last, ultimate argument that you will be ⁇ pleased.

Colleagues, I have explained to you that the workplace — the youth judges, the youth judges, the civil society assistants, the public opinion — requires us to enable a timely action against youth crime. We assert that there is no interference with this.

The question is why they do not intervene. Why do we not respond to this obvious call of all those who are working on it? Why is it possible for the VLD and the sp.a to swallow all electoral promises related to the youth sanction law? How to hell is this possible? How is it possible that the draft law-Maes, written by someone who has been following the matter for years with knowledge of matters, is not placed from a right-hand perspective, simply by its side? Maes says that giving out means leaving young people to their fate, preparing them for the recurrence. That’s not what Van Parys says; that’s what Attorney General Maes, the former adviser to Justice Minister Verwilghen, has said. The question is why they do this now. There is no objective explanation for doing so.

Well, ladies and gentlemen colleagues, the statement is clear: the statement is community. In the report of the VUB, which the minister says the report gives her the great right, it is very explicitly stated what is the actual motive for this draft law. The report says the following: "The grant is necessary because of the lack of resources that is primarily and primarily compelling and is evident in the French-speaking Community." That is the reason, the ratio legis, colleagues of the Flemish majority parties, of this bill. It is not about the interests of the children, it is not about the interests of the youth! The issue is that the French-speaking Community does not make the efforts it should do. The argument of the outreach, the criterion is precisely the lack of supply, especially in the French-speaking Community. That is the real reason for this bill. (Applause) Colleagues of sp.a and VLD, the fact that you are complicit in doing so is actually unforgivable, because you do not respond to the social phenomenon, or at least do not make it possible, but you do so on the basis of an argument that is very explicitly described in the document of the VUB.

I will quote another number. The figures from the VUB show that 16% of the handed out young people are Dutch-speaking, and 84% of the handed out young people are French-speaking. (Applause) Mrs. Minister and colleagues of sp.a and VLD, this bill only serves to relieve the French-speaking Community. This is the real reason for the reform of youth law. The fact that VLD and sp.a participate in this is truly unforgivable.

CD&V will make this clear in every corner of the streets of the cities and municipalities. We have the moral, political responsibility to tackle youth crime harshly and accurately.

You have made this impossible, you have imposed your will. The Flemish majority parties have made this possible.

Do you want to react?

I find it very unfortunate that every time Mr. Van Parys expresses himself, it is to attack a Community or call for the regionalization of Justice. by

We are witnessing two extremely contradictory discourses from CD&V through Mr. by Van Parys. He says that for young people we need to have stronger sanctions and respond differently to youth crime; that we really need a response from society, which I also wish. Then he said, “No discourse.” What happens then?

The answers given outside the dismissal are the ones that exist at present, in particular the imprisonment in closed-regime institutions. Without disengagement, we continue on this path. The disqualification allows for a stronger, harder response with the possibility of being locked in a prison facility.

Since the start, Mr. Van Parys is unable to overcome this contradiction. We must make a choice. We cannot say at the same time that we want a stricter regime and reject the disapprovals. This is an impossible speech.

The minister is so stubborn with her position that she can no longer even understand what the alternative we have proposed is.

We have submitted a fully elaborated bill, Mrs. Minister of Justice, which provides that the juvenile judge may impose measures, sanctions and penalties, and that, in respect of persistent criminal youth, it may allow imprisonment in a juvenile prison, based on the view on the entire criminal life cycle of the young criminal. If that is not a proper alternative, and if you do not accept it from me — and you probably will not do it — then take it from those who are working with it in Flanders: the youth magistrates, Mr. Maes, and all those others. and now! and today!

For those who know the sector and the response of youth courts to juvenile crime, they know that in the face of a young man who commits serious acts, in the face of a multirecidivist, in the face of those who pose a real security problem, there is obviously the measure of imprisonment in a closed institution. This means that one does not go out: there is no freedom to go and come; therefore it is a confinement. Furthermore, we provide for the possibility, through dismissal, of an even more severe penalty, that is, a real penitentiary establishment. I say it and I repeat it: there is a contradiction that the CD&V cannot overcome.

I have already mentioned the words of Mr. Van Parys in commission. His proposal means that banalization is banalized. Now, disqualification must be — we have repeated it ten, fifteen, twenty times — a measure entirely exceptional because one goes to the court of adults. This is an important idea for the young. The proposal of Mr. Van Parys leaves the entire case to the youth judge. It is a choice, but it is a kind of complete banalization of the form of disqualification that was wanted by the legislator and which probably today allows a better awareness of the young man: he realizes that he goes before the court of adults.

Mr. President, colleagues, I would like to interrupt for a moment, because Mr. Van Parys wrongly affects Mr. Maes’s proposal. He imagines it as if the text of Mr. Maes is a hyperrepressive text that indeed, in some areas, offers a much sharper response to the sanctioning aspect than the text that now prevails. However, it is useful for the debate to mention what is actually stated on that subject in Mr. Maes’ text.

He says, on the one hand — I will ⁇ not deny that it is a meaningful track — that for minors between the ages of twelve and sixteen years a number of sanctions can be imposed, with a maximum of four years, linked, among other things, to the age category.

Then it is less. For the older category, the penalty is limited to the age of twenty-five years. Subsequently, any sanction resulting from a crime committed as a minor shall, in any case, expire.

This is a defensive track. However, I would not like it to be presented now as if the Maes draft on the punishment of the most severe forms of crime committed by young people would be more stringent than the text that is present.

Mr. Van Parys presents it in the public opinion. That disturbs me.

Mr. Courtois, in response to what Mr. Courtois has stated in the first place, I just want to answer Mr. Courtois that he must review his own legislative proposals from the current legislature.

Look at Document No. by 1552. I read the explanation, which is from your hand. “We call for a new model of social response to crimes committed by young people. We advocate a profound reform of the law. The protection model, which is based on the principle that the minor offender should be taken into protection, has been abolished. Now it is necessary to provide for a new form of social response to youth crime. A process of awareness and accountability must be initiated. The young person concerned must be punished.”

Mr Courtois, if you still stand behind your own texts, you have to "compass" the current text and you have to vote against it. (The applause)

Mr Borginon, chairman of our committee, I will not hurt you with the V plan. I will not hurt you with the program of VLD anno 1999. I will not hurt you with the electoral program year 2003 in the area of youth sanction law. I will not hurt you with that. You do not deserve it.

However, you must not translate Mr. Van Parys’s statement as if we were solely concerned with bitter repression. You translate it wrong. All we requested was a renewed model, a sanction model, a responsibility model, based on the...

Do we get your attention for a moment? It may be interesting for you to hear what is being told about the matter in the north of the country. After all, you are still Federal Minister of Justice.

Mr. Verherstraeten, there were field consultations, discussions with communities, and there were hearings. The North, Central and South of the country were heard.

Mr. Bacquelaine, you may also need to read your own bill.

We didn’t have the hard, repressive model, but we asked for a strict, but fair model. This is not strict, it is not even fair to the young. The draft-Maes, if I can call it so, was stricter and left possibilities to the youth judges that you today, if you will vote for, do not allow, despite the fact that you speak completely differently at the Flemish level. Don’t hide, don’t hide behind the outgiving, which limits you, which was repeatedly said by the members of the majority that it would hardly happen, and of which you have placed the threshold so high that it is hardly applicable. In the design-Maes, indeed, there was also an outdoors offering, but it allowed several possibilities.

It may be interesting for the debate, Mr. Speaker. I read the website of the VLD again today, but I do not want to confront you with electoral programs that you have long thrown into the rubbish. “The principle of the Youth Protection Act, which states that a young person cannot commit a crime, has been completely overlooked today. The protection model is now no longer mature against the heavily delinquent youth. One way to end the current illness is to introduce a genuine youth sanction law. “(Tumult) Colleagues, we read this today on the website of the colleagues of the VLD. If you vote against your own party program today, then you risk coming before your special committee and being punished! (Applause) I will conclude, Mr President. Later, Mr. Van Parys held a substantial speech. At one point you said, when he announced another new argument: "Cela me laisse égale." We have the right to differ in opinions. I respect that you think differently than we do, that is also your right. I respect that and will continue to respect it. If, however, the hearing shows that a whole community in this country, including youth magistrates, thinks differently and you say in the Committee for Justice that you will still talk with the Communities, but not more about the law that will be passed later, but merely about the implementation, against the ideas of a vast majority of a community in, then you risk and then you get trouble! We will not accept this! We are going to the Arbitration Court! (Applause of Applause)

I am not going to go back into the political show, I just want to be aware that this is not true!

First, there were very many hearings of people from the North, Central and South of the country. There were positive and negative reviews from all the speakers. There is absolutely no way to say that there was one block against another! That’s what the CD&V wants to believe, that’s not true!

Then I actually said that I was continuing the dialogue with the Communities. This dialogue has resumed since we have already held an interministerial conference and we are beginning to redefine. I also made it clear, already in the committee and to my colleagues, that we were discussing the implementation of this law and that if, on the occasion of this discussion, it turned out that changes should be made, I would not have false pudour! My community colleagues know this very well.

by Mr. Borginon will take the speech for personal reason, then we will hear Mr. Maene and Laeremans.

I am moved by the interest that Mr. Verherstraeten has in my political future and my well-being within the VLD. I can also reassure Mr. Verherstraeten. If he has thoroughly consulted the website of the VLD, he will also have found that the congress of the VLD has approved the government agreement with a very large majority — after one or two abstentions. I am very reassured.

If the CD&V makes a point of this now, I am curious whether that same CD&V faction will also make a point of returning to what we approve today in a future government formation — within two years or earlier. I would like to hear clear and clear statements from the CD&V on this, because that is the real lakmus test.

Dear colleagues, I would like to ask you to pay attention to the intervention of Mr. by Maene?

Thus, Mr. Van Parys has often cited Mr. Maas as an example. I would like to quote another example: Mr. Cornelissen, whose ideas, if I remember correctly, are not very far from CD&V and who largely spoke in favour of the bill submitted to our examination. I would like to emphasize that there may also be no single thinking in the north of the country.

With regard to the sanctional model developed by Mr. Van Parys, I’m always somewhat surprised by the contradiction. In fact, according to him, a judge must be able to examine the situation: the family level, the environment of the young man, his evolution, his character before taking a measure. Until proof of the contrary, this procedure has a protective character.

Also, when Mr. Verherstraeten says that all the measures taken do not resemble the sanction, it is true and Mr. Van Parys, throughout his speech, did exactly the opposite demonstration of the model he advocates.

I do not know how to differentiate between a work of collective interest and a reparative measure as set out in the text. These are two measures that look like sanctions. The first is entirely, because it is inscribed in a Criminal Code, and is addressed to adults. The second is taken within the framework of a law related to the protection of youth. And because the second would be framed by a social service, would it no longer constitute a penalty?

In this regard, I have, indeed, difficulties in understanding, just as I misunderstand that one does not consider a set of measures. There is a whole series in this bill: closed-medium or even open-regime investments that are not sanctions! I do not understand this interpretation of a situation that remains ⁇ difficult to live for a number of young people.

The final argument of Mr. Van Parys – additional aggression once again against the French Community – I want to remind him of one thing, which I told him in the commission: if there are more dismissals in the French Community, there are ten times more placement in psychiatric institutions in the north of the country than in the south. I am talking about young criminals.

However, I would like to return to what the Minister has just said about the so-called discussions with the workplace and with the Communities. There have indeed been hearings. I would recommend reading them, because they were very clear.

The Flemish working field and the Flemish magistrates have clearly come to the point through two representatives who both have cut off the bill to the ground and on the other hand the French-speaking magistrates, who have chanted it. That was the big difference in the hearings. Therefore, on the Flemish side, there was no magistrate in favour of what was proposed. That is my first point. Their

You should read the weekly newspaper Knack today. This is where the Flemish youth judges are talking again and they say the same thing. They pull the alarm bell because this bill absolutely does not meet and absolutely does not meet the needs of the Flemish side. That is my second point.

Regarding the Communities, the Flemish government has repeatedly called for serious consultation and for an adaptation of this bill to the many notes that the Flemish government has transmitted to the federal government. What has happened? There was no consultation. At one point, this minister has said that he wants consultations, but after the approval of the Federal Parliament. Then the consultation would take place, not on the content of the bill, but on the implementation of the bill. This was done by Onkelinx. Onkelinx has been able to do so, unfortunately with the support of the VLD and the sp.a, which support Vervotte in the Flemish Parliament and Onkelinx in the Federal Parliament. That is the tragedy of what is happening here.

The opposition is constantly referring to the Flemish position. I would like to point out that the sp.a-spirit group, through amendments, has made every effort to bring the two positions closer together. I repeat that we have made every effort to bring the views closer together and to reconcile with each other as far as possible. They had no ears.

Mr Van Parys, at the last moment, we submitted an amendment aimed at further reducing the amount of outreach. Your group voted against. CD&V is not consistent. All you do is criticize to avoid having to conduct a constructive debate.

I invite you to return after our discussions.

I give the floor to Mr. by Wathelet.

I would like to start by commenting on the form of the text to be voted on. We have been talking a lot about community issues. by Mr. Van Parys recently highlighted the difficulty of reading the text. He cited a paragraph in Dutch. I thought it might be because he quoted it in that language that I did not understand!

§ 2quinquies - When ordering one of the measures referred to in §§ 2, 2bis and 2ter, the court shall justify its decision in the light of the criteria referred to in § 1 er and the circumstances of the case. If he orders one of the measures referred to in § 2, paragraph 1, 6 to 11, a combination of several of the measures referred to in § 2, or a combination of one or more of these measures with one or more of the conditions referred to in § 2bis, or if he orders a measure of placement in a public community institution of protection of youth in a closed educational system, the court shall specifically justify this choice in the light of the priorities referred to in § 2, paragraph 3.

It is quite difficult to read, but most importantly to understand. by

I think that this argument of difficulty in reading the text, of constant reference to paragraphs 2, 2bis, quinquies, quater, etc., is relevant. We stressed the difficulty of reading the text in the committee. We also highlighted the fact that if this text was coordinated, there would be problems. As you can see today, this text is extremely difficult to read!

Remember, dear members of the Justice Committee, the difficulties we encountered in the framework of this new article 37 to find ourselves there in the paragraphs, in the various paragraphs, in the references made within these articles and these paragraphs! It was really difficult!

Let us go to the bottom. This law of 1965 was actually to be amended; there was unanimous agreement on this point. Young people are no longer the same as in 1965, the approach must be different, the society has changed. Therefore, an amendment should be made.

This amendment gives us a bill that does not change so much. In our opinion, there are advances, some negative points and some positive ones; I will recall a few. But is this text more directed to the protective or the sanctional? We talked a lot about it. No matter the words, what matters are the measures present in the text and the different possibilities at the disposal of the magistrate. There are more assessment factors at the level of the judge for the penalty. There is not necessarily this study and these psychological examinations for disappearance. These points allow us to think that the text tends toward the sanctional. On the other hand, all the measures available to the magistrate strengthen the protective side of the text. Should we then engage in these semantic debates? I do not think so.

What are the positive aspects of this text? The first is the number of measures available to the judge. There are a lot of them now. Many already existed, had already been created in a pretorian way, if I can say, especially by the Communities. There were, therefore, a number of measures already being implemented but which were not clearly reflected in the text. Now, we have listed in a almost exhaustive way the measures available to the magistrate. This is a good thing, it seems to me, because each minor has its history and that it is necessary to be able to impose the measure that best suits him according to the past, according to the crime he has committed, according to the personality of the young man. Obviously, this results in less legal certainty because the young person will not necessarily know what sauce he will be eaten, given that the range of measures that may be taken by the magistrate is very large.

I think this willingness to increase the number of measures is a good thing, especially since through the amendments, there has been a real progress. In the general discussion, we really insisted on the need to hierarchize the measures present in the text and, in this regard, I believe that we have got a good answer, given that first comes the restorative measures, second the project of the minor, third the measures that do not involve enclosure and fourth the measures with enclosure. In my opinion, the hierarchy of measures in this text has been well delimited and this amendment brings a certain added value because it clarifies the situation and increases the degree of legal certainty for the young and also for the judges who will have to impose the measures.

The second positive point is the objectivation of the court’s decisions. Even if he will have to find himself in the special motivation – the text that I have read to you just recently and which is unfortunately poorly written – there is at least that new motivation that is good and that gives the magistrate that grid of reading, which imposes him to well motivate, to well justify the measures he takes. She also asks him to position himself against the hierarchy imposed by the text.

The third aspect that we appreciate is this parental responsibility. Not all aspects are perfect in our opinion, but there is, indeed, this awareness that parents, people who are in charge of accommodation, people who have parental authority over these children must be involved in the procedure. All the documents must be transmitted to them, they must receive a copy, they must be called at hearings and must attend before the magistrates. I think this is really a good perspective. We need to take responsibility for those who have this parental authority, a notion that has been talked about a lot.

We talked a lot about parenting as well. This is indeed going in the right direction. There is this responsibility of the parents, this willingness to hold them accountable in this procedure. They obviously have an immense role to play with the young man they are talking about. The problem is that the project remains within its own competence and therefore only provides for the purely sanctional part, I will talk about it soon. by

The fourth positive element, in our view, is the training of judges. Not much has been discussed in the committee and we need to reiterate this point. Youth law is a specific right, the persons who appear before the youth courts are specific persons, they are young people by nature. We wanted to assign them a specific system, which means that the answer to be given to them must also be specific. It is good that judges have this specificity in their training. I think that it is also in this logic that the different orders of lawyers go in order to specialize the lawyers of minors because they have a completely different role to play during hearings, when they must assist a minor in the card of his legal course.

Fifth, I am going to talk about disappearance. We have already talked about it here. Everybody agrees to say that discarding is really not the panacea. Of course, this is not the ideal solution. It is unfortunate that, at some point, we have to arrive at a disassembly. Amendments had been submitted by Ms. Claes and Ms. Gerkens, and they seemed to have the same point of view in saying that there must already have been a response at the purely protective level before there is dismantling. I can understand that logic. It must be said that one cannot dismiss without having tried something before, without having tried to take a protective measure within the framework of the 2005 bill. I can quite understand this logic.

Furthermore, when the fact is ⁇ serious, when the situation of the minor seems ⁇ difficult, when the reports addressed are actually negative, one must be able to say that the only possible answer is disqualification. We regret it because it is obvious that it is not the best solution, but it is the only one that remains. I also believe that displacement is a stronger response given by society. Like the mr. Courtois referred to it recently, giving a more firm dimension to the response of society.

I am therefore tempted to say that this evil is necessary, in any case, in the current situation and that, even though on some points, I consider that this solution is not the right because it has shortcomings. The common-right judge — if I can express myself so — will be questioned only on the case he will have to deal with; he will not know the young man’s past. Nevertheless, the situation is the same when a 19-year-old adult comes before a judge of ordinary courts and already has a background at the youth court. We only “postpone” or anticipate the problem.

Regarding disqualification, I also regret that if the youth judge has disqualified once, it will automatically do so in the next case. Even when the case is classified without succession, even when the young is acquitted; if the disqualification has occurred, it will always take place in the future. You will tell me that this will only concern a few very specific cases. It is true. In order to ⁇ this, it would be necessary for a young person to appear twice before the same court in a relatively limited period of two or three years, it would be necessary that he commits twice the offences for which he can be prosecuted. This situation is rare but I believe that the signal given by this automation is not good. If one wanted to provide a firm and strong response through disqualification but this was not justified or is no longer justified — for example by an unsuccessful classification of the file — I believe that this young man must have a second chance, that he must be able to pass through the “protective” section. One cannot enter into this automaticity, since one wants to preserve this entirely exceptional character of disapproval, which I consider to be a necessary evil.

Let’s get to the negative aspects. I think they are about the place of the lawyer. We talked a lot about this in the committee. I will not return to the discussions we have had.

In these cases, the lawyer is especially important because he must assist the minor, because he is a minor! He must be even more concerned as he is faced with the judicial machine. It is true that we are in the “protective” part, that it is the judges of youth, that it is not quite the same type of hearings as in ordinary courts. However, this remains impressive, disgraceful for these minors. It is therefore especially important that they are assisted.

We discussed this in the context of mediation. We obviously had divergent opinions. I also refer to the discussions with Ms. Claes in committee on this subject. It is good that the minor is assisted by a lawyer. Why Why ? To make this minor speak, so that he can truly insert himself into a programme of restorative measures, so that he can actually establish contact with the victim, so that he can consent to this effort.

I am afraid that by not allowing this young man to be assisted by a lawyer, this opportunity is missed. We will not put him in this situation of confidence that allows him to carry out this step. I fear therefore that we will miss a chance to enter these mediations, these restorative measures, when it is really on them that we wanted to emphasize. This is a priority in the hierarchy of measures to be taken with regard to young people.

The second aspect on which I note some disappointment is the sending of various documents to lawyers. We had a good response with this new article 2bis, which provided for the sending of documents to the different lawyers. Unfortunately, we witnessed a retreat, a return back. If the document is also sent to the minor, it is not sent to the lawyer. I was answered that in any case, before ordinary courts, no documents are sent to lawyers, that lawyers do not receive the judgment. It is true, but it is already a very bad measure for the major, in my opinion. For minors, this takes an additional dimension: it is even more important since they are minors, that they need to be specifically assisted, that their situation is ⁇ precarious and that they need to be more cared for. The argument that is already valid for the major is even more valid for the minor.

The second major negative point is the measurements for the 1823 years. We talked a lot about this in the committee. The target is not achieved. Today, there was this expansion up to 20 years of which one could understand the reason. It is said that this was justified when the majority was raised to 18 years of age. The question was whether, in order to protect youth, these measures should be kept up to 21 years. We found this compromise for 20 years at the time. Today, one cannot leave this interaction between minors and adults and maintain this “transitional period” of five years, from 18 to 23 years. In my opinion, it is too long.

This is one of the three major nodes that still exist within this bill. The first is the dismissal, the second is the extension of measures up to 23 years and the third is the parental stage.

I have mentioned it and will talk about it again.

Regarding the extension of measures up to 23 years, you say that disrepair is a necessary evil and I think like you. Keep in mind that for young people between 16 and 18 years of age, who have committed ⁇ serious acts, there is a possibility of not being dismissed, but that the youth court decides on measures that may last longer than the 20 year term. This has a consistency.

If you keep the depreciation but want to limit it, then the extension to 23 years is one of the ways to limit it.

I started with this argument. There is the argument of the decrease of the majority. In the current situation, it is 20 years. I think there were two reasons for this system. First, if a young person commits an offence between the ages of 16 and 18 and they do not want to disappear, the better: a youth protection measure can be applied to them. We must try to intensify it and allow the measure to persist after its majority. But the extension must remain proportionate and the current limit of 20 years seemed to me quite proportionate. I am afraid that by going up to 23 years, this idea of proportionate extension of the measure is abandoned. I understand the logic of disassembly and I would like to join you on this point but on the proportion, I think that with 23 years you go too far because you leave a five-year deadline that seems to me really too long. We will bring together people who have five years of difference. You told us that they ⁇ ’t meet with minors, it’s true, but between a 18-year-old and another 23-year-old, there might be a significant difference. Remember that in the project, we differentiate from two years into two years: 1214, 14-16, 16-18 for some measures. Here, we make a total package of people who have a five-year gap. We no longer retain that proportion that was known with the measure consisting of saying that in case of wrongdoing before the age of 18, you can extend the measures up to 20 years.

Another negative point, in my opinion: the negotiations with the Communities. On this point, Mr. Van Parys and I are divergent. With regard to the negotiations with the Communities, I recalled, there is absolutely a need for an agreement. This can only be achieved with intense cooperation. We need a common will and vision. You have cited the three important cases that can generate this difference in approach within the country and cause a problem: displacement, parental leave and 18-23 years of age.

We have already met on this subject at an interministerial conference. There has already been a meeting of the working group and it took place in an excellent atmosphere.

Better, we can only wish it. But be careful, this cooperation agreement must intervene and we must not allow budgetary considerations to hinder discussions. You know like me that the question of the 18-23 years can create a major budget problem. You know like me that as part of parental internship, you had to "stay in your skills". Your competence is punitive. One may be deprived of a real responsibility of the parents, of this incentive aspect that could be developed by the Communities. This crucial phase of encouraging parents to take care of their children, to participate in the measures, this is what must be concluded with the Communities. These agreements must enable this bill to ⁇ the objective it has set itself.

Finally, the best example is ⁇ that of the connection magistrates. This shows how important it is to obtain this cooperation between the Communities and the federal because they will have to make this link.

In order to make this connection, new functions must be created. The connection magistrates will have to make the union between the federal component (decision of the youth judge) and the Community component (placement, measures taken with respect to the young).

We would have preferred that this entry into force would be conditioned by the cooperation agreement so that there could not be pressure from one level of power on others in order to force them to ⁇ a result.

Mr. Minister, today you make an opening: you stated that we would have these discussions and that you were not fixed on the objectives of this text, that it could be modified at the request of the Communities.

I think this issue has been addressed in reverse: we should have first had this agreement before today’s vote in the House.

July 14, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

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, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. It must enable us to answer — this is a real societal issue — the problem of juvenile crime in 2005 and for the future.

This must be done in a framework that does not exclude, which should allow a number of young people who disconnect at a certain point, to be able to regain foot in our society.

In this regard, my group believes that we must be able to act without laxism.

Juvenile crime indeed deserves answers without angelism. There must be rigour in this matter. Nor should we be credible to the calls of those who convey catastrophic messages for often questionable purposes.

Yes, there is a problem of juvenile crime. No, there is no reason to suggest that the only answer is repression or punishment, Mr. Van Parys, or that the competent authorities are completely deprived of any means of effective fighting.

Yes, it is necessary to modernize the law on the protection of youth. Yes, it is necessary to provide an adequate response to the evolution of juvenile crime.

I would like to recall here an essential element that some sometimes pretend to ignore. The 1965 law, even after 40 years, although it has sometimes been criticized, has often been cited as a model throughout Europe, and even beyond the oceans. Indeed, Canada has long looked at this reference text in response to youth problems.

I also recall that this law allowed the communitarianization of competences, following the laws of institutional reforms of 1980 and 1988. Indeed, since then, the subject of youth protection has been communityized with the exception – and that is why we meet tonight – of measures taken against young people who have committed a fact qualified as an offence, which remain in the federal jurisdiction. The organisation of the framework of the measures is therefore within the competence of the Communities.

Through this implementation of different arrangements at the Community level, a number of new initiatives for youth guidance have emerged.

I think in particular of the first reparative measures services that were created in 1984 in the French Community. I wish that Mr. Monfils be present among us to remind him that he was the foundation of their creation.

We must also take note of the willingness of some to refederalize the whole matter. In any case, the press ⁇ that this was the will of Mr. by Wathelet. I see the strong divergence of approach between the CD&V and the cdH since some speak of regionalization of competence while the cdH speaks of re-federalizing it. There is no need to worry and be surprised by this particular evolution.

More fundamentally, the PS Group reaffirms its commitment to the protection system that integrates youth assistance, i.e. taking into account the youth as a whole, including family aspects and youth protection.

So I’m a little surprised—as I’ve already pointed out before—when I hear that some advocate for punitive models while ⁇ ining an approach that is highly protective. There is an ambiguity or, in any case, a lack of perception of the realities of the field in the discourses of each other.

The approach to juvenile crime that we advocate has largely proved and continues to do so, contrary to what supporters of a system based solely on reaction to the act claim. I think this group of supporters is getting smaller and smaller. I have heard Mr. Van Parys said that it was necessary to take into account the reality of the youth’s environment. I think that is encouraging. I am convinced that we are not so distant about the approach that should be taken with regard to juvenile crime.

In response to the answers given to Mr. Van Parys, I find it a shame that the CD&V is not represented while speaking in the tribune a man who, professionally, comes precisely from the youth sector and who therefore knows what he is talking about.

You will be able to read the full accounts, Mrs. Minister.

We still expect supporters of the repressive or sanctional system to demonstrate to us the relevance of this system.

As far as we know, the most repressive democratic countries on juvenile crime do not have very favorable statistics to present. I will take the example of the United States, we could talk about Russia too, these are ultra-repressive models. When we see the rate of juvenile crime, we would be afraid to apply such systems. On the other hand, the system we use and advocate continues to produce its effects. Mr. Van Parys, you said this very well in your speech since you can only justify a repressive model for young people who persist in crime. by

For others, is there a need for a sanctional model, whereas it is primedelinquency in general? In 90 to 95% of situations supported by both Communities, good results are achieved. You say that all this is bad and that something else needs to be done, repression. Excuse me, Mr. Van Parys, but you can’t convince me. I think your arguments are not relevant.

The responses that our society must provide to criminal acts committed by a minor must be educational, preventive, quick and effective, whatever the situation the young person encounters. The system we advocate is more interested in the personality of the young person in distress than in the act committed.

These two aspects are not necessarily antinomic and one or the other of these approaches may be preferred. This is one of the novelties of the text and, in any case, of what magistrates will be able to do in the future.

I will not review all the provisions of the project. We had an excellent introductory exhibition and a very good report from Mrs. Claes. She reminded us of the debates we had in the committee, especially the hearings, which were ⁇ enriching.

I will delay a few moments on the two fundamental principles that are the two red lines of the project.

First is the diversification of measures. At all stages of the procedure, we will in the future have a range of measures that can be applied to the minor who has committed a fact qualified as an offence. This new measurement panel enables a quick and targeted response to the youth’s behavior. We know how important speed is. I think everyone will be able to talk about it tonight. It is important that we give the magistrate the opportunity to respond quickly without having to postpone the examination of situations for several months. We can only insist that everything is done for a quick response to all situations. This is therefore a significant advance compared to the provisions currently in force, which will inevitably have repercussions on the number of discharges on which I will come back later. by

There is then another set of provisions aimed at promoting the objectivation of court decisions and the granting of legal guarantees. I will not repeat what others have said tonight. I think that the motivation of decisions is an important factor and more especially when it comes to placement in an open and closed public youth protection institution.

I would like to remind, once again, that these are real sanctions. It is necessary to take the time to visit a public youth protection institution and not just as part of parliamentary visits. You may have to go there at night and what you see is not a holiday colony! But the opposite! We hear about suffering! We hear crying! I like to tell you that it is not fun for young people to be locked from 10 o’clock in the evening to 7 o’clock in the morning between four walls. Also, when one comes to tell the tribune that we do not have a sanctional response, I have to say that in my view, it is nothing but a total lack of knowledge of the field.

Another important objective that I think should be highlighted is the concern for increasing the responsibility of all those affected by the act committed by the young person. Thus, the reform will allow the minor to be held accountable for the facts committed by presenting to the youth judge a written draft aimed at organizing measures. This is a novelty in the text, in the sense that the young man and his family must be able to present themselves a draft before the magistrate, even if the latter refuses these measures in favor of other decisions. This is the goal of accountability. All those who preceded me tonight at the tribune feel it really important to take responsibility for young people. The text also provides an answer.

In the same sense, the project aims to grant additional rights and duties to parents by empowering them more. From now on, the presence of parents, from the provisional stage, will be mandatory. I also think this is a positive evolution.

In addition to these measures granting additional rights to parents, some may be taken with respect to resigning parents who manifest a characteristic disinterest towards their children. Indeed, we can easily agree that, in some cases, these parents, by their lack of reaction, further deteriorate the situation of their children. You know, Madame the Minister, how excessively reluctant I have been with regard to this measure aimed at educating or educating parents. But through our various committee debates, you convinced me that this could prove to be a good measure in a number of situations.

It should be highlighted the possibilities of mediation which are widespread and the possibility of ordering reparative measures. These provisions confer on the intervention of the judge manifestly positive effects. The young person, in any case, once again takes responsibility for the act committed. The goal is to provoke awareness in his home, even so that later he can effectively compensate the victim. Again, the conductive thread is well drawn: responsibility of the young, awareness.

Furthermore, by legalizing certain pretorian practices, in particular reparative measures, the project brings all the desired legal certainty as well as the response that society is entitled to expect.

You know how much I was attached to this possibility. I think the answer will be the quickest if, from the beginning, the prosecutor, who has knowledge of the crime, can assess the young person’s ability to enter a mediation or other educational project through a first measure that is a repair measure of about thirty hours. This allows awareness in the young person and the whole work of the social services around him, in such a way that one can directly interrupt the measurement or consider others.

I would also like to highlight the measure providing for the establishment of a liaison magistrate, which responds to a real need in practice and will allow for better coordination between colleagues. One might wonder how some judges manage to have seats in public youth protection institutions while others do not constantly get for the sole answer that everything is complete. In fact, this answer depends on the good relations that this magistrates has with one or the other institution.

What will the connection judge do? He will be the interlocutor between the institutions and the other magistrates. This may allow for a better turn in the occupation of seats in closed IPPJ or in other institutions addressing offenders, whether public or private. This may also allow in the future to unify investment practices across all districts, as these practices are currently different. There is an interesting work and an innovative project to develop. This coordination will ensure that youth magistrates have a single path and will free them from the huge problem of finding the right service to take care of young people. They will thus have more time to deal with individual situations since, it must be recalled, they will be released from the problem that constitutes the fact of knowing what sequence will be given as they have just taken.

There remains one issue that I would like to address, that is the criticism that is formulated by some against the maintenance of the activity of general interest on a provisional basis, which was limited to 30 hours. Some did not ask that this could be done as part of provisional measures. I think this will be an opportunity to act quickly and to remove the label of “delinquent” that primedelinquents wear on the forehead who can very quickly pleasure themselves in this title and enter a system of group crime. If you quickly remove this label from them, since they have completed the measurement of 15 to 30 hours, you will progress much faster in the approach to individual situations.

We fully agree with Paul Martens, who said, during a conference dedicated to youth, that “the intrusion of law is not always beneficial where one sees condemning the practice of works of general interest in the course of proceedings, in the name of the presumption of innocence.

There is no question of denying that there is a thick legal problem. But it would be regrettable not to be able to solve it: how to explain, outside the legal world, that one of the principles that is at the heart of legal humanism is opposed to a practice that serves the same ideal without conciliation being found for them?”

Now, I will say a few words about disappearance.

We all agree: no one is in favour of displacement. No one is in favour of it, but it is fully justified as soon as a system is developed in which generosity prevails.

We start from a positive approach to the young, and at the moment when, indeed, a small minority — Mr. Van Parys, you called this the persistent young — fails the generous system that society organises, we must accept, ⁇ with a counterheart, that it is indispensable to maintain the possibility of dismissal. The aim pursued is not to create a slope toward disassembly. I think it is necessary to believe in all the device that is proposed before the dismantling, and I am convinced that this device will be effective. I am convinced that it will allow fewer and fewer dismissals, or even placement in the psychiatric environment.

Regarding the question of whether this is a first measure or not, we had an interesting debate. I think it would be necessary — as Ms. Claes mentioned it — that before any disapproval, there should first be another measure. However, too many situations fully justify not being able to take a first step, especially when several young people are involved. It is known that crime is increasingly becoming a group phenomenon and I think it is a simple principle of fairness. However, we agree on the substance of your approach: as far as possible, you must first try to use all the other measures provided in the device.

Another positive point is the project for the creation of a federal youth center intended to accommodate offenders sentenced to effective punishment after dismissal. Like others, we believe that young people cannot be detained with adults unless they have arrived as minors.

I believe that this effectively enables to fully meet the constraints and obligations set out in the International Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Before concluding, I would like to make three observations.

First, I would like to remind you that the real challenge that awaits us is to better reconcile the security interests that are important to us and the educational goals to which we are deeply attached. In this matter, we will never insist enough on the need to address the true causes of juvenile crime, on the obligation for a society to frame the youth, to develop educational and protective policies and to diversify the responses. It is through a comprehensive youth policy that we will succeed in reducing the number of juvenile offenders with social responses to all the problems. In fact, the vast majority of juvenile crime problems are found first and foremost in a number of environments. However, I do not want to point out these environments because they are also found in the wealthy classes but ⁇ that, in this case, it passes more easily "to the blue" and that it is less about group or repeated crime.

A security policy cannot indeed be a long-term remedy on its own, nor can criminal law be the only remedy for all evils. That is why, while we are in favor of the adaptation of the Law of 1965, we remain committed to safeguarding its original objective. I allow myself to recall once again that history has sufficiently demonstrated that criminal law does not provide a solution to all the evils of our society.

Secondly, it is important that the provisions we issue strictly comply with the provisions of the United Nations Convention of 20 November 1989 on the Rights of the Child. This is the case with the project we are currently considering. We can be quite reassured, it was a priority for all members of the committee.

Thirdly, I reaffirm our support for the protectionist model and insist on the need for these generous principles to be accompanied by sufficient budgetary resources but also that the Communities take their responsibilities in this regard, otherwise ⁇ we will miss out of the noble goal we have set for ourselves.

In my list I have as next speakers Mr Laeremans and then Mr Marinower.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, Mrs. Minister, this is then the big debate that everyone has had to wait for so long, the long-awaited adjustment of the law on youth protection. The debate about the inability of our court to cope with the many young recidivists and multi-recidivists, with the youth bands, with the beating of our cities, with the terror of young criminals who know themselves intact, who do not only make some swimming pools, but whole districts unlivable, and who drive away from the city all those who can afford to.

There have been long attempts to stop the problems away, but recent television reports and newspaper reports about those gangs, about young people unregulated with pistols on the streets, for example, have once again confirmed us right in this regard. Only some continue to deny the light of the sun to this day. In this context, I think of the reactionary socialist Freddy Willockx of Saint-Niklaas, for example, who defamed the riots in the Domain De Ster as summer cat evil, or the elderly Stalinist Philippe Moureaux, the pasha of Molenbeek, who with the day fanatically denies that there is any problem in his congregation. He must beware of provocative statements against the Islamic community, because they are PS voters, they are his voters. Consequently, there is absolutely no juvenile crime among Moroccan youths, at most some innocent bullying. Consequently, the streets and squares of Molenbeek are the safest in Brussels and the citizens of the capital can come as usual and comfortably flanned in the fresh shopping districts around the Gentsesteenweg.

We have made the comparison. In all our neighboring countries: in the Netherlands, in Germany, in France, in the United Kingdom, everywhere the approach to youth crime is much stricter than in our country and in the past years additional people have been deployed and additional resources have been allocated for the repressive approach to young criminals.

Only with us can it be different. Through the action of the Socialist Party and its acolytes, we continue to live on an island, independent of international developments. Only with us politicians continue to persuade themselves that there should be no reversal, that we are doing well. Only in us is the completely outdated model of protection left — we just heard it singing and praising by the Socialist Party — where young people under the age of eighteen are regarded as lambs who do not have to assume their own responsibility and who actually can not commit crimes at all and who in principle only need to be protected.

This is stated in the title of the bill. For one time, a title covers the load almost excellently. I would like to congratulate you, Mrs. Minister. You have been sincere in this: your draft law concerns “youth protection and the prosecution of minors who have committed an act defined as a crime.”

This is not about minors who have committed a crime. This cannot be done. Minors can, at least according to the ideological brokenness, according to the ideologically crumbled thinking of those who today swallow the plague in this country, do not commit a crime. They are incapable of doing so, they are innocent and irresponsible. Consequently, they cannot be sanctioned, not punished, at most charged. This is stated in the design. So that must be done: younger criminals are not punished, they are not sanctioned, but they are charged.

We do not exaggerate. We invent nothing. This is the title and core of the current design. That is why the bill is so shocking and world strange. What is happening here represents the full 100% hack on the sense of justice of the normal people, of the man on the street, of the public opinion and of the victims.

However, it could have been different. There was the sanction model of Verwilghen, the preliminary design that was taken over, copied by Mr. Van Parys, a design that was still far too good compared to the neighboring countries but that could have at least brought about a reversal.

The Flemish Community was prepared for a constructive dialogue and has extended the hand to this minister. The hand was rejected by Onkelinx, hautain as it is. Although it is primarily the Communities that have to implement this law, the dialogue with those Communities has been blocked and Flanders is today offended with the willing cooperation, the willing collaboration of sp.a-spirit and VLD. A dictatorship is imposed on Flanders, which the Minister knows very well that it fundamentally contradicts the Flemish principles.

A minister with some sense of responsibility, with some sense of public interest would have done exactly the opposite. It had in advance provided for a final agreement with the Communities so that a unified message could be proclaimed to the population and to the criminals, a message of reassurance, a message of willingness to finally put things in order in the troubled areas, a message showing that there would finally be sufficient capacity for the so necessary long-term detention of dangerous juvenile criminals. This signal does not come today. On the contrary, today’s signal is one of general, total confusion. This irresponsible Minister of Justice rejects the unanimous supplication of the Flemish youth magistrates and the Flemish civil society. The warnings of the people with the most field experience are thrown into the garbage basket with the steel smile of the Deputy Prime Minister. In fact, with this law, we go a lot backwards rather than forward. With this law, things will only get worse.

First, youth judges remain unauthorized to impose real sanctions against young people. They are, incomprehensibly but truly, not given the necessary instruments to effectively punish as is the case everywhere else in the world. The youth judges feel misrepresented. They feel like third-party judges. Their emergency cry in Knack of yesterday is therefore quite understandable. Since recently, even municipal officials can impose fines on juvenile criminals under the Overlast Act. But the youth judge will also in the future not have the resources to act strongly. The only means by which he has to roast it is a set of fluffy gloves.

Second, it is becoming even more difficult for the youth judge than before to temporarily place young people. Everyone in the field had hoped that this could be easier, but it becomes even more difficult.

The criteria are becoming much stricter. In Everberg, for example, one can only be executed after committing a crime which for adults is five years in prison instead of one year, today. Five years instead of one year. In addition, the judges must first try all sorts of alternatives and respond appropriately. The youth judges are bound by hands and feet more than ever. Very rightly, the Flemish magistrates during the hearings therefore warned that they will no longer be taken au sérieux by the delinquents and will be more than ever the object of ridicule.

Third, there is no guarantee that there will be additional reception capacity for juvenile criminals. This is only the case for the cases of outreach. That limited group of young people will then again receive a much less stringent and a much milder detention regime than before. For the other youth offenders, this Minister has not encouraged any Community to create new capacity, despite today’s overwhelming shortages and despite the fact that that additional capacity is urgently needed since young people can now be imprisoned up to 23 years instead of up to 20 years.

In our country there are only two hundred closed shelters. In the Netherlands, there are ten times more. There are already more than two thousand closed shelters there and no one, no reasonable person, can claim that the Netherlands would be a repressive country.

I would quote from yesterday’s Knack about the fact — it was also stated by the Socialist Party — that we must be able to react quickly and adequately. I quote the youth magistrate: “But if there is no place anywhere, in no institution, what should I do with compulsory measures? Then I can only threaten with my finger and nothing happens at all. As a result, minors quickly realize that we can actually do nothing to them, while we should make them feel that this is the boundary."This is what the youth magistrates and people on the ground say. They do not say at all that this is the weapon to combat youth crime.

Fourth, there is no guarantee that juvenile criminals can be separated from society for a sufficient period of time to work seriously on re-education. Indeed, the decisions must always be made – and as it is literally stated in the law – “in accordance with the available capacity”, and thus much less in accordance with the danger or the recurrence. This is also another major distinction from ordinary criminal law where the judgment of the judge is in principle executed and the capacity is not considered. Here everything must be done according to the capacity. This will automatically lead to unequal treatment and therefore unfair conditions.

Fifth, the Everberg Act is not included in this law, but remains an exception law despite the express request to realize that inclusion in a unanimous resolution of the Flemish Parliament. Mrs. Claes, this resolution was therefore also supported by your party. As a result, Everberg threatens to disappear in the long run - it was already threatened - so that from 2008 there will be fifty places less than today. Understand who can understand.

Finally, in theory, the outdoors seem to be a useful tool for extremely heavy youth offenders. In principle, we have no objections. However, reality shows the opposite. In practice, this means is mainly used on the French-speaking side to compensate for the reception capacity that is still much smaller there than on the Flemish side.

In practice, young people who are handed out are usually treated less severely than other minors. It is therefore more than understandable that the youth judges themselves want to be competent for this category of criminals. This minister, however, suspects the youth judges, and consequently chooses to maintain a completely inefficient method, despite the express request of the Flemish Community, and therefore of the majority of this country, not to do so. Their

In short, this extremely bad law, which will only aggravate the many current problems, can absolutely not enjoy our support. The law is also approved by the Flemish Parliament. The law is written entirely on the scale of the Wallish laxity and irresponsibility. It was therefore no coincidence that the Flemish youth magistrates strongly rejected the texts during the hearings, while the Wallish magistrates – as I read in the report of the hearings – labeled this bill as “particularly positive”.

This law, therefore, from the very beginning, even before its entry into force, strikes the resistance of the largest community of this country and will therefore never be able to function properly. Additionally, this text is so complicated, unreadable and inaccessible that it will be properly applied by almost no one. This text is a complicated curve that is based on extremely long and complicated sentence constructions, such as the one recently read by Mr. Van Parys. The text is filled with such long and complicated considerations and extremely complex references that they are impossible yet to be understood by a layman, and that the professionals will get a pointhead of them.

The reform of the youth law should have led to a coherent, legible, clear and contemporary whole. Apparently this does not need to be for this Minister of Justice and its willing slippers. Today the Socialist Party experiences its ‘moment of glory’. This is the triumph of the all-power of the Socialist Party. The PS is so dominant in this country that for years, even in this file, it could block all necessary reforms and eventually come up with a dragon of a law for the pins: a reactionary dressed with which we collectively take ten steps back, rather than one step forward.

Minister Onkelinx has the great luck that within this purple majority no one is able to stop her. In the past, for example, a Coveliers could still save the honor of the VLD. Today there is no one in that party, colleague Borginon, who dares to renew. No matter how far you look, and no matter how long you look in the basements of the VLD factions, no matter how thoroughly you dig out the house with its many rooms in the Melsenstraat, there is no one. There is no single VLD'er to be able to serve Onkelinx's response.

The omnipotence of the Socialist Party strikes – dramatically enough – also in Flanders and on the Flemish government. I would like to admit — and I think I am not the only one in the group — that since I saw her in the Chamber, I have always had some sympathy for Mrs. Inge Vervotte. Maybe even before: when we were allowed to admire her on television during the Sabena crisis.

But I must, colleagues of CD&V, note that it also does not offer weather today. Vervotte has silenced in this file as loudly as possible in the last weeks and months, unlike at the end of last year. Vervotte played hiding. She cannot resist the venom of Patricia Ceysens and has been tortured in a painful way.

However, it could have been very different. I quote from the Flemish Government Agreement of July 2004, just a year ago: “In anticipation of a partial defederalization of powers in the field of justice and security, we are exploiting all the possibilities available to Flanders to pursue a rigorous security and enforcement policy. In any case, we want a Flemish youth sanction law to be able to act more targeted and with greater legal certainty for young people against young people who have committed a serious crime." All Flemish majority parties agreed to this last year, including the VLD. Today, point by point, VLD, sp.a and Spirit in the federal parliament look in the opposite direction, and they are gesturing of curvature. As in the case of Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde, therefore, here today the word breaking is committed. Did the Flemish government learn from the humiliations regarding B-H-V? The Flemish government would not allow itself to do so anymore. Now she would finally begin to united and strongly defend her interests. It was said on May 18 by Yves Leterme. On 18 May, Yves Leterme gave a long list of clear commitments, of which no more would be deviated. This was the core of the new Flemish policy after B-H-V. We would no longer deviate from those points. These were clear promises that would be ⁇ ined.

Regarding the youth law, point 17 of that long list, Yves Leterme said: “Finally, Flanders wish to be closely involved in the adjustments to the draft law on youth sanctions and the resulting cooperation agreements. The intended consultation with the federal government and the other governments of the country will be initiated in the short term by the competent ministers of the Flemish government and will be followed and coordinated by the Prime Minister-President." That was his expensive oath less than two months ago. The draft law would therefore be drastically amended, in consultation with the Flemish government. The Flemish Prime Minister would initiate and coordinate this consultation. We have seen nothing, zero, nothing.

We, as the only party in the committee, asked to suspend the discussions so that Onkelinx and Vervotte would have a few weeks to sit together for those necessary and desirable adjustments to the bill. The same purple parties, sp.a-Spirit and VLD, which so strongly supported Yves Leterme on 18 May in the Flemish Parliament, voted with full conviction against our proposal to take a break and give a chance to consult with the Communities. So the chicken crawled for the second time.

At the same time, it was not difficult at the Flemish level to protest against so much speech breaking at the federal level. Our proposal in the Flemish Parliament to invoke a conflict of interest was rejected by all Flemish parties, including – painfully enough – CD&V and N-VA. Today, CD&V rightly says that it goes to the Arbitration Court. But in the Flemish Parliament, their parliamentarians could support the conflict of interests of the Flemish Interest and they did not want to do so, because they had full confidence that the draft would still be amended here.

The only thing that can happen now is consultation on the implementation of the dictat-Onkelinx.

On its strength lines nothing will be changed. This quality we can indeed promise Onkelinx: it will not fold. She is not of the kind that she will plunge. This is a quality that we admire. On the strength lines of the design nothing will change anymore, so much is clear.

The Flemish government, which has to pay a significant amount for the financing of the by and by bad draft law, can only talk about the timing and the manner in which the law should be implemented. Vervotte degrades himself with this, dear colleagues of CD&V, to the Cinderella of stepmother Onkelinx. The time of equal federalism, of the ministers who respect each other’s powers, that time is definitively over: Onkelinx is the boss, also in Flanders. Assepoester Vervotte has made himself invisible in recent weeks, in the hope that the humiliation would not be too high.

I would like to conclude with a positive note. We will not be heard to say that everything on the bill is wrong. If it is good, we also say it, because otherwise we would again get the mark of pessimists and acidified. The good thing about your bill is that it is so bad, so unreadable, and so inactive, that it cannot stand. Thanks to your inability to consult, thanks to the arrogance of your great equals, we live with the perspective that it will one day change. After you, Mrs. Minister, there will be other times. You and your party do not rule forever. As long as we live in a democracy — we hope to continue to live in it — and as long as freedom of expression is not completely abolished, there remains the hope and even the certainty of a reversal. It is like with the fast-Belg-law that everyone knows will disappear one day: this scandalous law on youth protection gives us again ammunition. It reinforces as no other our arguments to divide the youth law, what I say, to divide the whole department of Justice, and to make this stupid state, to make this ridiculous creature of the opera revolution of 1830 finally apparent.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, I live in Molenbeek and I am proud to be Molenbeekoise. I do not accept the statements that have been held in respect of certain streets of my municipality. This is stigmatizing some neighborhoods and this keeps us away from the debate. It is stigmatizing some neighborhoods, it is stigmatizing some young people. Here, the question concerns the youth of the whole kingdom. When Mr. Laeremans concludes hoping that we will continue to live in a democracy, I think with people like him, it will be very difficult!

I want to react. I would like to recommend you the reading of a series from The Nieuwsblad from a few months ago, from the month of March 2005, written by an undercover journalist of Moroccan origin. She wrote about fundamentalism in Molenbeek and the great risks and great dangers associated with youth crime, with those who manipulate the youth there and press for their fundamentalist chariot. I recommend that you read it, because it is only enlightening. It is a shame that this has been silenced in the French-speaking press. You need to know what is happening in Molenbeek.

There is no point in doing strut bird policy. What has once again been expressed in this regard was not in The Nieuwsblad but in De Morgen, namely that people from Molenbeek and from Schaarbeek in Afghanistan committed suicide bombings. This has only appeared in Dutch-language newspapers.

It is time for the French-speaking press to pay attention to what is happening in Brussels!

Mr. President, Mrs. De

Minister, colleagues, after many presentations, a number of issues have already been discussed extensively. This is the fate of those who will be discussed later in the debate.

This is about a reform. It is the merit of this government that it is finally working on a reform of the existing youth law that is urgently needed. The current Youth Protection Act dates from 1965. Since then, the world has not stopped. Society has experienced various positive and negative developments. We have been talking about the reform of youth law for years. Academics have been calling for an adaptation since the 1970s, 1980s, on both sides of the language boundary. Both the strengthening of the legal status of minors and a changing view of tackling juvenile crime appear to be the starting point. Specifically, several attempts have been made to modify the existing legal arsenal. One of the first speakers today has already pointed out that the Commission-Cornelis came up with a final report 9 years ago. Anno 2005, exactly 40 years after the previous law, is the draft law.

During the discussion in the committee, I already referred to the study of Professor Put of the KU Leuven. It states that it is necessary to stop discussing the meaning or nonsense of the one or the other model. It creates an image that Flanders is repressive and Wallonia is accused of laxity. Professor Put writes that the Flemish Community wants to act in a way that would be constructive, adapted and contextual. The French Community wishes to act in the interest of the well-being and development opportunities of young people. Professor Put also explained his report at the fairly numerous hearings where everyone had the opportunity to ask their questions. Professor Put says that such simplistic reasoning does not hit a meter and does not contribute anything to the already loaded discussion. He continues to say that, when figures show that in only 1 out of 4 cases of outreach are Dutch-speaking dossiers and that that outreach is considered to be the most repressive part, it is difficult to maintain that Flanders would be so much more repressive. Furthermore, according to Professor Put, it turns out that after a false start it has been mainly the French-speaking wing of Everberg that knows a higher degree of occupation and it is the so-called repressive Flanders that over the years has been looking for alternatives for placement and so on.

Since the Children’s Protection Act of 1912, the ideal model has been constantly sought, continues Professor Put. He concludes by saying that with these words he wants to demonstrate that a model discussion seems quite meaningless and that those who carry this discussion high in the lead will quickly struggle in certain dogmas, positions and truths that later prove to be half truths.

Instead of conducting an outdated model discourse, it seems more useful to focus on the pursuit of a modern youth justice system, in which the well-being and development opportunities of minors should not be fooled, but should be promoted, while at the same time pointing out to young people their responsibilities, respecting their rights as a child, recognizing the victim and having the right to recovery in the broadest sense of the word.

Last but not least, social distortion must be adequately addressed. It has been — which has also been shown on the occasion of the fairly long, extensive, interesting, sometimes bitter discussions in the committee, all though conducted, I think, in an atmosphere to come to a possible solution — that such an exercise is not an easy task at all, and that finding a solution requires more than dancing on a loose string. The achievement of an equilibrium of which there was little can not be achieved by choosing unilaterally for a particular model. Everyone in this hemisphere, including those who criticize this bill — we also have points of criticism and I will come back to them later — should always keep this in mind.

The positive points. A positive point is for us, of course, that there is finally a reform. There has been a long time of reform. I cannot comment on what happened in the previous legislature. I know it. There were proposals that have never, as far as I know, reached the House for discussion. The discussion was previously held within the framework of a coalition that existed at the time and which then ruled that it should not be presented. Their

Mr Van Parys is not present. Or even though. Please apologize, Mr. Van Parys, but I only now notice that you are sitting next to Mr. Verherstraeten. I almost sack through the ground of shame that I had not seen you. Now, however, I suddenly realize that it was not you, but Mr. Verherstraeten, who quoted a passage that he found on the website that he consulted today.

Yes, but for Mr. Verherstraeten I assume that when someone from our group or someone in this hemisphere... Their

I don’t know if it’s on your website or stands. and no.

The [...]

If it stands on, Mr. Verherstraeten, it only shows its honesty. There is no doubt that it was included in the electoral program. When you look at the discussion in the committee, you will notice that I said the same in the committee. We have not gone away from that. We have already said this at the time. We have said that it was in the program of the VLD at the last elections. That’s what it is, it’s a program. If I can finish my reasoning for a moment, after a government discussion on participation in the government, a government agreement has been reached in which it was no longer included. You know that equally well. This was also approved by a congress. Colleague Borginon has referred to this. That is the reality; the reality of a coalition and the compromises made in government formation.

I have finished my reasoning, Mr. Verherstraeten. I don’t know if it has ever been on your website, but the statements or voting of your group on a bill, earlier this week, is next to the statements of your own party chairman a few weeks ago, ... Whether a kind of game could be played. Their

It was in the program, it was no longer in the government agreement. That is the point. We said it then and we say it today and we repeat it today.

Mr. Speaker, I will of course not deny that Mr. Marinower has very correctly stated that the government agreement is different from their electoral program. It was also objectively detectable. Only, what I accidentally did today is tracking the current website of today — and I assume that it will be changed tomorrow — to know the current position of the VLD on this matter. If you change the course, I do not blame you for that. Every party and every politician has the right to change their views. By the way, in the light of a debate and in the light of democracy, this can happen in relation to all sorts of topics, including this. It would have, of course, been more honest if one had changed the website today, if that is contrary to what you are going to approve today.

What we regret is that the democratic struggle — I’m talking about content, not about persons — has not been engaged. Again, I respect, as regards the red thread, that across the two Communities is thought differently. I have respect for what is thought about this in the French-speaking section. But I had hoped, ⁇ from the VLD, that they had at least engaged in that debate and that struggle to land elsewhere. Then you will indeed be confronted with what you still confess on your website, while later you will approve the diametrically opposite.

Mr. Verherstraeten, I admire the coincidence that hides within you, where you purely by chance surf the site of the VLD, on a sunny Thursday morning, to find that there. It is in place, I am truly convinced of this. You know, by the way, that discussion did not begin now, but when the Minister explained that draft in a very early stage. At one of the discussions in the Justice Committee, we have already said that this is our position. You or Mr. Van Parys talked to us about this at the time. Long before this debate was conducted, with hearings, we made clear the position of the VLD, after the conclusion of the government agreement. You may not be surprised that we have held this statement.

You confront us with what is on our website. I can only regret with you that there has been no correction or at least an update, which would take into account the position which was very clearly and clearly interpreted by the VLD group in the Committee on Justice, from the first moment that the discussion was initiated. Nothing else was ever said, either by Mrs. Taelman, or by Mr. Borginon, or by myself. I think you will agree with this. That you regret that the debate on this subject has not been conducted, is your full right. But you know and have known for a long time what our group’s position is about this.

Mr. Marinower, I respect that you are faithful to a government agreement. This is also the logic of our Belgian policy, especially with coalition governments. You are loyal to the government agreement.

I would also like to ask you and your colleagues from the VLD — including your colleagues in the Flemish Parliament — to be faithful to another government agreement that they have concluded on this subject.

You will remember. In the committee, I asked the minister what she would do with the consultation, if the text would be approved, because she would still need the Communities. The minister was then very strict and very limited. She said that she was only going to talk about the application of the law and no longer about the law as such.

Today, the Minister opened a small hole of that door. She said that she was going to talk only about the application of the law, but that if, following that discussion, it turns out that there are difficulties and if one can reach an agreement of adaptation, she is willing to do so.

You have a loyalty to the federal government agreement. I wish to respect them. Can I politely ask you and your party colleagues to exercise the same loyalty to the Flemish government agreement and to put the Flemish VLD ministers in the Flemish government also on that line with regard to the federal government agreement, to at least make the text a little more adjustment, so that you do not have to update your website so much?

Mr. Verherstraeten, on the latter I can say the following. I don’t know how big the scourge that Mrs. Minister left in her statement today is. I think you will admit that the last comment of your reason may be about a very large chest, ⁇ a little larger than the minister meant.

In the course of the discussions in the committee - I will return to this later on specific points - ...

The [...]

Mr. Van Parys, disarming can also be a quality. And honesty is certain.

You will also have found – the minister knows that too – that in the discussion about some part aspects of the law that has disappeared in the committee, we also had some critical comments. The Minister, who may not be fully convinced at first on a number of points, was apparently willing to do something. I will return to this later, if you allow me to continue with my presentation.

I had come to the positive points when you asked the interruption. I was going to say that one must always keep in mind that compromises must be made. This is also important for the further handling of the file. It cannot be emphasized enough. It is about negotiation and compromise.

The measures we experience as positive are as follows.

First, there is a diversification of the possible measures that can be imposed. That choice is already quite limited. With this planned diversification, the youth court can and will impose measures that will prove to be more tailor-made to the young people concerned. This is not just about the youth judge himself. The parket magistrate will also have a number of possibilities. One example is house arrest. I will come back to that later.

Second, there are more legal guarantees. In this context, it can be thought of the objectivation of the judge’s decision, who, among other things, through a list, is proposed a number of criteria within which he must frame his decision, which must also be clearly motivated.

Existing practices must be translated into legislation or translated into legislation. There is also the legal implementation of a number of existing practices, with the primary focus on initiatives regarding the right of recovery and more specifically around recovery mediation and group consultation. These are practices that have demonstrated for several years that they are quite effective and yet do not have to cost much to society, which naturally increases their added value.

These changes will in principle bring little or nothing to current practice. They are already being applied. The major benefit of the reform is that the existing practices are given a legal status, which should contribute to the legal certainty for all stakeholders in the field.

Specifically, this is the case of house arrest. I will stop for a moment and refer to what we have already said in the committee about the system or project that is perceived as a successful project in a city like Antwerp, which is very often faced with youth crime.

It is a court decision that the parents must oversee, with the help of the police services. The young people concerned can still go to school but are confined at home between six o’clock in the evening and seven o’clock in the morning. It is an initiative that is currently following in cities such as Ronse and Mechelen. Very recently, when I accidentally was abroad and watched a broadcaster that carried news from around the world, I saw that it is a measure that is also used in some Canadian cities.

If the person concerned does not comply with the house arrest, the police appear to give a warning at the first breach. In the case of a second infringement, an official statement is made for the infringement. At the third time the younger is brought again before the juvenile judge, who can then impose a new and stricter measure. The benefits of house arrest have been clearly outlined.

First, it is an alternative to placement in the sometimes crowded settings. Housekeeping is also considered a punishment by the young man. No one likes to beat his friends with a measure that makes him or her out of the evening. While young people often still cheer about persecution or placement in an institution, this is not the case here.

Second, parents are also responsible for overseeing the follow-up of the house arrest. They are also confronted by the police at regular times.

Third, the main advantage is that the younger remains in his own living environment. Also in this way it can be worked on the relationship with the parents, which in an institution can be much more difficult and will be more difficult.

Finally, not insignificant is the limited cost of the measure. Institutions and social services are discharged in this area. Housekeeping costs little or nothing. The social services, which are already struggling with insufficient staff, can therefore shift their attention to other points.

This is why VLD has taken the initiative to give this specific, alternative punishment a specific, legal framework. In our opinion, it could not have been the intention to put the successful project of house arrest under the proposed article 37, §2bis, i, of the Youth Protection Act. The latter was, after all, for us a container concept, which was too vague and would dishonor the house arrest.

Importantly, in the media, the magistrates have expressed a ⁇ positive opinion on this specific measure, as it turns out to be a deterrent against juvenile crime. We were ⁇ pleased when this house arrest was supported by all political groups and the amendment, as the only one at the discussion in the committee, was able to take away the unanimous approval. It was the only unanimity in the entire draft.

The next measure that we wanted to draw attention to and on which we have submitted another important amendment is parental day. There was an impasse around this topic. This measure is at the intersection of the agreed arrangements of competence between the Communities and the federal government. We have discussed this, and I will not return to it for too long. We have taken the initiative to address through that amendment the various criticisms that the Council of State and the Flemish government brought on it. The adopted text stipulates that the imposition of a parental fee can only be if it effectively benefits the delinquent minor.

I will not continue to reflect on the initiative taken around mediation, but I will continue to reflect on some of the points of criticism that we have regarding this draft. First, Mr. Courtois knows this, I will not stay on it for a long time, we had problems with the previous title introduced by amendment. We have explained this very thoroughly in the committee. I refer to the work report. Their

I forgot to thank you and congratulate you for your excellent report, Mrs. Claes, for which I apologize. In the fire of the fight that preceded my speech, I have forgotten that. This is corrected here. Their

The VLD has stated from the beginning that the principles expressed in the general principles were correct, but the question was whether they should be included in the dispositive itself. It is true that the technique has already been applied, including in the proposal for the Basic Law on the prison system and the legal status of detainees. However, there is a big difference here. Under the so-called Dupont Act, there was virtually no existing legislation. In the case of youth law, this legislation has been in place for years.

As regards the provisional measure as an investigative measure — I am pleased to see that you are present, Mr. Maene, so I can turn right to you, because you talked about it in your speech — we have indeed raised a point of criticism. We have said, and we follow in it, the opinions and comments of, among other things, Professor Put, who said that in the context of the investigation, measures of 15 and/or 30 hours — the number of hours does not make any difference — indeed stand in tune with the presumption of innocence. We said it then and we kept it. This amendment was not approved, but we will abstain from the vote held on it. I wanted to come back to this for a moment. That was a point of criticism: a temporary placement within the framework of an investigative measure or a measure of that nature, in which the guidance would be carried out by a staff member of the place where the service of general interest is to be carried out and not by the consultant or employee of the specific guidance services.

A lot has already been said about the outdoors. I can be very short on this. Commission President Borginon then spoke about this in an interpellation following the comments of other colleagues.

I have a few considerations, also referring to what Professor Put said about it.

We are skeptical of the outreach. There is no doubt about that. Nevertheless, a number of critical comments on that system have been included in the present draft, in the first place that minors deprived of their liberty should be separated from adults. The design meets this requirement.

Secondly, a maximum duration of the deprivation of liberty measures should be established for minors and a lifetime detention cannot be imposed. Also here, the design largely meets international standards. Third, international standards state that minors should not be tried as adults, nor by an adult court, regardless of the circumstances and the seriousness of the facts.

The amended text stipulates that it is possible to submit to an adult court, but that adult court will then be formed by a specialized chamber in which at least one of the judges has received specific training in the field of juvenile law. The criticism of the extortion is that it would not lead to an effective punishment. The statement deserves nuance and clarification. I refer, among other things, to what Mr. Maene said as a specialist on this subject. It can only be repeated and reminded that he is probably the only specialist in the field itself, who has also exercised the functions and gave his own testimony also in the discussion in the committee, which was ⁇ useful in the context of the discussion. This statement deserves nuance and clarification. He talked about young people who are imprisoned in one of those institutions at night or at night. I think that is also drawing.

The amendment was accepted in order to shorten the period between the decision to grant the grant and the appearance before the land judge as short as possible. It could partly provide a solution to the outlined problem. It should be noted that the minor has often already suffered a deprivation of liberty punishment between the decision to confiscate and the actual appearance. Sometimes that period is too long to be called, and it will not be surprising that the land judge will take this into account, in the same way that any land judge does with any prior deprivation of liberty punishment imposed or endured.

Sometimes the problems of youth law — and not just of youth law — are on a completely different level. The members of the Committee on Justice and those who are professionally engaged in the field of Justice know that there is a very serious problem in the field of expert reports, both in terms of how they are organized, as well as in terms of their remuneration and the late submission of the reports, which are strictly necessary to complete the further treatment.

There is also criticism that penalties with delay or too light penalties could be imposed. Fons Borginon then rightly pointed out that also in the draft-Maes delay was still possible and not excluded. In addition, in the design-Maes, it was also possible to resort to the probation.

In conclusion, colleagues, we can say that the VLD is already satisfied that work has finally been done on a reform of the youth law. Over the course of 40 years, things have evolved, there have been all sorts of studies, and therefore an adjustment has taken place. Everyone agreed on that.

In these, it is especially important that a pragmatic vision is abandoned and, as I said later, that the model war is abandoned, that one can finally leave the loopholes in which one had shrouded himself in recent years. Their

The balance is, we think, with several positive elements that can be recognized in the text, also called positive. It was not a complete good-new show. On some points, if we had always been able to handle the pen alone, we might have acted differently. The political system is such, and colleague Verherstraeten has referred to it, that compromises should be made in important political and social areas. Those who dare to argue otherwise are not realistic in these. Their

Not only the design is important here. More important – the Minister has also referred to it in his response or in his subsequent presentation – is the cooperation with the Communities in the implementation of the youth law. Mrs. Minister, I was once in a debate on a French-language channel, shortly after you first explained this draft. There too, I have already told you that much, if not all, will depend on the resources made available. Approving this draft today and later determining that the funds are not available will simply be disastrous for this draft that is now ahead and for the problem of youth law. Their

It has often been shown that the criticism of the existing youth law has not always to do with the philosophy of the bill, but more with the fact that the very necessary resources were lacking to conduct a sound youth law policy. After the approval of this draft, colleagues, Mrs. Minister, the cooperation in providing the necessary resources is therefore the first work that will have to be done in these. Each level of competence will have to take responsibility. I thank you.

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, 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. 40 years is a long time, a long time. 40 years of social and economic change. Forty years of institutional changes, forty years where people on the ground who attended the problem of juvenile crime demanded legislative adaptation. Forty years later, we are finally there!

We are on the way to a legislative change in one of probably the most sensitive and difficult judicial issues. I was quite surprised at the moment to see how a debate — which should be a serene debate for the people of the field — has deviated for purely community reasons on topics that are clearly outdated from the challenge of this new legislation, to what we are trying to do, to the balance that we are trying to find in commission between a protective model and a sanctional model.

Mr. Minister, on the occasion of this new legislation, the government adopted a correct attitude by telling the citizen that juvenile crime should be punished but also that it should be understood and that therefore, despite the social and economic evolution, some overflow can sometimes be understood but that excessive overflow must be punished. It has been several years since the debate on a profound reform of the 1965 law has been started. I have read several reform prospects that unfortunately could not be the subject of consensus within the successive federal governments. I also know that many of our colleagues agree on the need for a profound reform of the so-called purely protective model. The purely protective model has survived.

Today, it must be considered that the social reaction to juvenile crime must be clearer, more transparent and more honest towards the young and, through it, towards society. The minor who commits a fact qualified as an offence must be subject to a specific regime, a response different from that given to the facts of major offences.

It is certain that its minority state calls for a particular and specific response.

But, at the same time, the answer cannot be limited to the protection of the minor. This minor must also do, and this is the essence of the question, a kind of personal work of awareness. He must understand why his responsibility in the criminal act.

If he never understands it, I think the minor should be punished. The judge must take into account the minor’s personality, the minor’s case, more or less serious facts but, at the same time, he must remind the minor of the importance of the rule and its surpassing in society.

In conclusion, the supporters of a comprehensive redesign of the matter advocate for a reform around the principles of accountability, repair and above all repair of damage suffered by the victim, while saying that there is a specificity of juvenile crime.

Others advocate for a more punctual reform of the 1965 law, believing that the protective model as it exists today is still relevant. They advocate the idea that minor offenders posing real problems are only a small minority among the population of juvenile offenders.

The protection system that integrates youth assistance and youth protection would be suitable for more than 90% of the situations encountered. Therefore, some say, a global questioning of the philosophy of the 1965 law is not justified.

In fact, the text that is presented to us today and which has been amended in the committee is a compromise between these different trends. As such, it will not be able to fully satisfy the supporters of one or the other model. However, I think this is a balanced text between the educational approach and the sanctional approach.

As I have emphasized several times in the committee, this bill contains important advances that allow to address the problems of youth actors; it is happy because, often in the committee, some philosophers do not listen and look at the problems of field actors.

I don’t just have to go see those who are in specialized institutions. I also think of the youth magistrates who are known to spend their time on the phone every day at five and a half to find out where they are going to put the young man. “I still have a young man to house,” they say.

In short, I think that a balance between educational and punitive is met and that one can make sure today that the place of the young man is first and above all in his family of origin or within the framework of the social relations he has tissed. If this is not possible, we can place it in an open establishment, if we can not do it, we place it in a closed establishment and as the last resource – I will return to it – we have the procedure of discharge. I admit that we could have imagined another system but I recall, even to mr. Van Parys, that the dismissal procedure today includes that a magistrate treats at the correctional level the situation of a young man who has committed an act possibly at 14, 15 or 16 years old. Of course, it is only at the moment of the actual dismissal that the magistrate will have to deal only with the last fact. It is well known. But, in this procedure — and I insist — it was well indicated that the young man’s file, the prosecutor’s file...

The [...]

I know, Mr. Van Parys, that you wish to bring all these matters back to the Communities or to the judge of youth. I repeat, the objective of disqualification — read the original texts — was, already in 1965, the treatment of exceptional cases. A youth magistrate was dismissed because he himself said, “I can no longer do anything with this young man, bring him before the court of the great.” At that time, the magistrate awaits the young man in front of the court of the great and says to him, "Now you are in front of the court of the great." All this notion of exemplarity is completely erased in your desire to bring everything back to the judge of youth, but I will return to it soon.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, for the MR group, we needed to find in this new law a number of elements that we considered essential. The first is to take into account the evolution of juvenile crime. You don’t have to be a great cleric to understand that, unfortunately, crime has evolved over the last forty years. The situation has changed, crime has organized into bands, it is more aggressive. To all this, a response had to be given.

We wanted to respond to the feeling of impunity too widely shared by some, sometimes even by field people or police officers. When the latter intercept a young man on the public road, no remarks are made to him, no punishment is imposed on him. We wanted to change this situation.

It was also important for us to respond to the sense of responsibility of the minor offender but also of his parents. If there has been a social evolution in forty years, it is also a certain abandonment of parental authority. This unresponsibility of parents must be addressed.

We also wanted a place to be granted to the victim, in particular by reimbursing the damage caused – this goes in the current sense of any legislation – not only in the early phase of judicial proceedings but also at the time of judicial proceedings and ⁇ even after.

It is also necessary to give legal guarantees to the minor offender, knowing that this minor will become an adult, teaching him not only the rule but also his rights. It must be protected in this regard.

We believe that this delinquent minor, grown-up, should be framed by an educational project and we feel, in the MR group, that this bill meets our first concerns. With regard to parental accountability, for example, the obligation to inform parents as soon as the minor has committed an offence is taken over by law enforcement and, at the next stage of the procedure, it is a way to remind parents of their responsibility. If the persons exercising parental authority over minors manifest a characteristic disinterest with regard to the criminality of the latter, the court may order them to complete a parental stage, provided that this stage is beneficial for the minor delinquent himself. An accompaniment may also be carried out by the Communities in a perspective of assistance.

In short, we are convinced that this amended draft addresses the first concern of parental responsibility.

Here again, the youth court will have to take into account the seriousness of the facts and not anything! The seriousness of the facts, the circumstances under which the facts took place, the damage and consequences for the victims as well as for public safety. I would like to remind you that the court and the prosecutor may propose a number of measures to make the minor feel responsible.

Let’s mention a few: educational benefits of general interest – referred to in relation to the age and abilities of the minor offender –, the possibility of ambulatory treatment or placement in a therapeutic institution in matters of alcoholism, drug addiction or any other dependence; the possibility of residential placement in a pediatric psychiatric service; the possibility for the court to assemble the measures of placing a six-month suspension provided that the young person undertakes to perform an educational and general interest service; the performance of a paid job if the young person has reached the age of 16; the assignment to residence or more precisely the prohibition of exit; the prohibition of attending certain persons or certain places determined related to the offence; the prohibition of performing one or more determined activities such as carrying out several measures concerning the circumstances, the possibility of participating in a project, restoration of a young person, etc.

In short, I think that enough measures can be taken by the court or the prosecutors to encourage the young person to have a sense of his responsibilities but also to not directly confront him with a closed institution, or even a dismissal procedure. The last element we wanted to emphasize is the response to the feeling of impunity. In the committee, we had some differences in views on placement in a closed educational system. I am pleased that the possibility of placing in a closed environment young people who have committed ⁇ serious acts and which shock the social conscience has been ⁇ ined: violent blasphemy attacks, association of perpetrators, threats against persons, beating and injuries aggravated with premeditation, band degradations – unfortunately this phenomenon has become banal –, rebellion with weapons and violence, offence punished by a prison sentence of 3 years or more. In this matter, in response to the sense of impunity, it was good to recall the closed education regime for all these offences.

The maintenance of the dismissal procedure — I must recall — was at least the subject of discussion in committee.

The procedure for dismissal is a clear signal from the magistrate, and first of all the magistrate of the youth. It should not be believed that the youth magistrates send a lot of proceedings to the court called "for adults" because there is first a awareness of their part of the need to send a strong signal in relation to this young man.

This procedure is also an exceptional measure. If one believes that the procedure of discharge is used systematically, one is mistaken and if one believes that this procedure must be systematic, one is also mistaken. It does not have to be systematic because, I remind you once again, a number of signals will have been issued to the young person before they succeed in this procedure. This is where one will not understand the reason for certain actions. The youth magistrates themselves repeat and write it every day: the dismissal procedure is purely exceptional and does not concern the youth courts at all.

In the context of the dismissal, it was provided by law that the complete file with the description of the young person's personality is transmitted to the new correctional chamber composed of three judges, one of whom at least has undergone a special training organized by the CSJ. Mrs. Minister, I hope that you will find the appropriate and sufficient interlocutors to be able to address this particularity of the law because getting additional training to magistrates will be a complicated point.

In short, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I do not think we should go further in the analysis of this text. For us, it responds to the necessary balance between the two elements of reflection regarding the plague that has become juvenile crime. It was time to act and reach that balance. It was time to stop saying that legislation was, at some point, exclusively protective legislation. Today we can come to a system where protective and sanctional are mixed. The Communities will also have their role to play; they will have to ensure that certain elements of this bill are operational. And I end up rejoicing to see that the federal judiciary is still left to take care of settling a matter such as juvenile crime. For all these reasons and given the balance of this amended text, the MR group will vote on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, I will try to brief my presentation on this last day of the parliamentary year. We have already discussed this bill extensively in the committee.

First and foremost, I would like to emphasize that we attach great importance to the prevention of youth crime. In fact, too often we see that measures to reduce youth crime are taken only after young people have committed their first criminal offences. We believe that prevention of juvenile crime should play a much more important and much larger role.

However, society should not be blind when this prevention fails and it still goes wrong with young people. Therefore, an adequate response must be given, which should lead to a balance between the rights and duties of the minor. In the leadership of the minor, a balance should be sought between, on the one hand, the optimum guarantee of the development and development opportunities and, on the other hand, the development of the sense of responsibility of the younger.

At the same time, that response should also address the victim’s right to recovery and end social disruption. The question is whether the present bill provides such a response. During the general discussion of the draft law in the committee, I have already pointed out its positive elements, and I will summarize them briefly.

I think, for example, of expanding the possible measures with an educational aspect and with reintegration into society as the objective, such as the possibility for the youth judge to place a young person in a psychiatric service. I also think of the step system in which preference is given to the preservation of the young in the home environment and placement is considered as a last resort, providing a legal basis for the restoration-oriented treatment, the possibility for the young to propose a project himself, the more extensive obligation of motivation with the review criteria, the determination by the court of the maximum duration of a placement in community institutions and the systematic information of the parents. These are all positive points in the bill that deserve our support.

Our group is also very pleased that the government and the minister have not remained deaf to the critical remarks made by the speakers during the hearings and from the various political groups. I had made some comments and questions to the Minister during the general discussion in the committee, primarily from the perspective of children’s rights and the demand for greater legal security for young people. I would like to come back on three points. First of all, as regards the granting, we reaffirm that the appeal to it must be truly exceptional for us. The extension of the measures and the possibility to extend these measures to 23 years should become real instruments in the hands of the youth judge to give out as little as possible.

Whether this is possible, indeed, depends largely on the Communities. The inter-ministerial consultation as agreed between the Government of the Community and the Federal Government will have to be smooth here. We expect a constructive attitude from all governments.

The outreach has been heavily disputed from various angles. Our group has also never been a strong supporter of the outgoing commitment. During the discussions, however, amendments were made through amendments that give us a milder vote. I am referring, among other things, to the entitlement of the youth educated by a special chamber of the correctional court, composed of three judges who must have at least a specific knowledge of youth law. I also refer to the addition of the comprehensive dossier of the minor to the criminal record and the possibility of applying the new article 216quater of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which will allow the young person who has been arrested to be tried faster. Mr Claes has already discussed this in detail.

Together with her, I regret that our amendment that a young person can only be given out of hand if he has already been the subject of a measure for committing a crime, could not count on any support, even from our partners in the Flemish government.

Second, we are also pleased that amendments were made to the draft law in response to the observation that in some areas the principle of legality was threatened to be compromised. I refer to the special obligation of motivation imposed on the court, which requires it to provide a special justification for the combination of measures and the combination of measures with additional conditions. A number of changes were also made to guarantee the presumption of innocence of the younger. Thus, the sepot guarantee expires in mediation, which avoids pressure on the younger to participate in mediation.

Third, I had doubts about the differences between the provisional placement in a closed community institution and the provisional placement in the federal center in Everberg. We cannot be blind to the difference in goal between a placement in Everberg that is more inspired by the protection of public safety and a placement in a closed community institution where pedagogical considerations still prevail. Despite these different approaches, we found it necessary that the minor placed in a closed community institution be granted more legal guarantees. We welcome that in such a case, in addition to a three- and six-month review, the minor can now also request a monthly review of the measures.

The difference in terms of a possible contact ban has also been removed here. The maximum duration of a ban on free movement is now set at three calendar days, both in the case of a provisional placement in Everberg and in the case of a placement in a closed institution.

In conclusion, I can say that the present bill contains enough positive elements for us to adapt the law of 1965 to the new social reality. It seeks to ⁇ a balance between the well-being and development of a younger person on the one hand and the strengthening of the sense of responsibility of the younger person on the other. Today’s young people are tomorrow’s adults and deserve a second chance. However, they must be very aware of the scope of their actions and their impact on the victims and society as a whole.

Taking into account the mostly positive elements of this bill, we will gladly approve it.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, this bill amending the 1965 Law on Minors Delinquents contains many positive elements, which were also present in the bills that the Ecolo group had submitted, one of which was also co-signed by Mr. Ecolo. by Giet. And among these provisions, many are those that are found in the bill under consideration today.

The first positive element is obviously that we remain within the protection field of the 1965 Act. I always have a lot of difficulty in understanding those who say that in the protection field, we only do education, only protection since, since always, this protection model also contains sanctions, also contains accountability. And what characterizes it is rather to take into account the personality, the experience, the social and family environment of the young man, as well as the response given to the facts committed.

The objectives are clear: to accompany the young, to promote their social reintegration and to develop new positive life projects. Another interesting element is the diversification of the measures made available to judges and the hierarchy of these measures, so that the use of placement occurs only when it is justified by the gravity, both of the facts and recurrences of the young person.

The motivation of the judge is another interesting and important element. I see two interests. On the one hand, the motivation of the judge confronts him with the obligation, on the basis of criteria, references, to justify his measures and therefore prevents him from resorting to an excessive or unjustified measure. On the other hand, this motivation allows the young person, in my opinion, to understand the reason why the judge chooses this or that measure and, when a measure is not proportionate to the seriousness of the fact, to know why. These can be social or family problems. If different measures are taken, the youth will not then perceive them as a succession of unjust and unfair measures.

Mediation and social consultation accessible at all levels of the procedure are ⁇ interesting measures. They allow the young to become aware of the acts he has committed, and this, in a relationship dynamic with the services that will accompany him but also with the victim, with the different actors of civil society, the youth’s environment and that of the victim. It is ⁇ ined — and this is important because otherwise it would not make sense — that this approach must be voluntary and that the services that will assist the young in mediation or social consultation will come from the Communities and specialize in this matter.

I think these are the positive aspects of the project.

Unfortunately, some important elements have, in my opinion, a rather secure resonance; they ⁇ serve to reassure us but I fear that they have effects contrary to those sought.

The first point that surprises me is the addition of guiding principles to the law. I am surprised not so much by the addition of the guiding principles, but by their formulation. It is worth noting that some were against the introduction of such principles but I share the idea that it is interesting to have guiding principles serving as reference. In the proposed text, these principles remind not only the rights of young people but also, and continually, the fact that young people are faced with rules, standards and possible sanctions. These principles do not recall what is fundamental in the 1965 Protection Act. I would have preferred to write down the guiding principles I had proposed rather than those that were adopted.

In addition, I reacted in a committee — and I maintain this position — on the measures of general interest at the time of the provisional order. I continue to consider that the application of this measure at this stage, that is, before the fact is judged, infringes the youth’s rights of defence. I can understand the interest that may exist in using a technique involving action through a service of general interest, ⁇ for young people with whom verbalization may be more difficult. Nevertheless, I think it would have been interesting to imagine another measure. Mediation and consultation may also be carried out on the basis of more concrete elements facilitating the involvement of the young. by

However, the measure referred to herein is a measure that could be proposed or ordered after the judgment. For example, the young man will perform 15 or 30 hours and then, after the judgment, the judge may order him 100 or 150. This measure will make sense, but how will the young man understand that he has already performed benefits and that one layer is returned after the judgment? I remain confused about the usefulness of this measure at this stage of the procedure. Compared to the family, it is true that the project allows the parent to be more involved in the procedure: he is invited, he is informed of the measure, even if there is classification without succession. There is, therefore, a way to hold the parent accountable.

Then comes the parental stage. As such, I can fully support this measure. The Communities have already put in place actions towards parents to rework with them their way of assuming their parenting and the difficult times they live with young people.

To develop this measure, to give it a status of training, support and school, I agree. What I cannot support is the fact of sanctioning the parent if he is considered to manifestly disinterest the child and refuses to comply with the judge’s order to attend a parental stage.

The sanctions are a one-week prison sentence or a fine. I misconceive the use of a prison penalty against parents; indeed, one takes away the parent and adds difficulties to the young man. So it will be the penalty; it will hinder the most people who have little resources. The person who has sufficient resources and who laughs at his children will continue to laugh at them and will pay by saying to himself that he is quiet now.

What would have been interesting would have been to work with the Communities and see how the federal could help them to establish parental stages, so as to establish real means, to make sure that the Communities can actually step by step intervene with the parents. Indeed, the parent will change his attitude towards his child when he is gradually approached through the action thus carried out.

Voorzitter: Herman De Croo, voorzitter President: Herman De Croo, President

This has been discussed a lot in the committee. I believe that everyone agrees that one cannot resign in certain situations where parents do not regard themselves as the first educators of their children, where there is a manifest disinterest characterized by the young. There are situations where sometimes the criminality of the young is a call to help against this disinterest of the parents. Everyone agrees that one cannot resign, that one needs a strong signal from society reminding that the first educators of children are their parents. That is why it was inserted within the framework of the Law of 1965. As part of the discussion of the amendments, it was said that this tax on parental leave could only be conceived if it was of interest to young people. It is also a response to the youth’s crime.

For the rest, I have made it clear at the level of the Communities — I think they have received it well — that I hoped that these internships could be organized by the Communities with federal means, since this is a federal response. I believe, like you, that Communities are better suited to bring interesting content to parenting and to bring parents back to being what they should be: real educators for their children.

We have a different reading about the sanction, the place and the role of the sanction. The measure should be evaluated. From the information I have about what is happening in France where this system was installed, it appears that in fact, fines are given to parents who are manifestly disinterested in their children. Instead, the accompaniment of parents is not done and this only makes things worse with parents. Maybe it will happen differently at us and maybe our Community Social Workers will be sufficiently fit to accompany the young.

I would like to talk for a moment about the disappearance. Displacement is a measure that must actually be taken from the moment when we want to maintain the protective model and when we realize that, with regard to some young people, these measures are no longer suitable. I regret that it has not been removed the possibility for the judge not to have to do an investigation and psychosocial study of the young in every situation and every time. Because this is a serious measure that must be taken, with significant consequences for the young. I think it would have been important to maintain this obligation. by

As for the place where these young people will be locked, we will build a “prison” for young people.

This corresponds, in my opinion, to the obligation we have not to allow minors to be in contact with adults in an adult prison.

At the same time, I call for vigilance, evaluation and monitoring of what may happen in this institution that will not have an educational dimension for these young people. Indeed, in states where such institutions exist, it is realized that it often becomes places of violence because they are long-term accommodations unlike the closed center of Everberg, for example, and that they are often places from which it is even more difficult for the young to reinsert.

As regards the extension up to 23 years, I obviously have the same comments as others on the fact that it will cost and involve occupation of seats within the Community. As a committee, you told us that one could imagine that in the federal structure, one or more wings are built and reserved for these young people under 23 years of age. On this point, I return to the same remarks that I made about the youth prison. It is necessary to prevent these places from becoming places of long-term internment where violence between persons risks to develop. They are expected to receive educational support.

As regards the prohibition of exit and home arrest, as much as I appreciate all measures that allow home retention, as I am afraid of this measure which is home arrest or the prohibition of exit. Indeed, parents, who have difficulties with their child, will be asked to enforce this ban on the young person. It is ⁇ responsibility for them as well as to the extent that is taken but I think it may be ⁇ difficult for parents who will face it.

This reminds me of the measures that our parents, sometimes somewhat retrograde, took by depriving us of the way out. It is well known that this does not resolve anything, it leads to isolation and to ruminating in a conflict situation.

In conclusion, we are delighted that this bill comes on the agenda and I am delighted that it takes on much of the content and guidelines that Ecolo defends. However, the additions that we consider negative, and in particular this obsession with punishment and the lack of flexibility in organizing, will force us to abstain from this project. It was avoided to resort to the sanctional law for young people, this is ⁇ important but it seemed to me that there was a way to adapt this protective law in an even more open and dynamic way in a sense of accompaniment and social reintegration.

I learned from my excellent colleague, Mr. This is a question you have already answered many times in the course of the discussion. You can take the floor if you wish. I heard Mr. Van Parys was relatively excited at some point. by

I also heard Mr Van Parys say that it was a good debate.

It was a quiet debate, Mr. Speaker, for me at all. The minister was irritated from time to time, but for the rest it was a quiet debate.