Proposition 51K1701

Projet de loi relatif à la procédure par voie électronique.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

April 11, 2005

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

civil procedure electronic document electronic signature judicial power criminal procedure

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

June 8, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Vice Prime Minister, colleagues, I will be very brief, because I understand that the Nation is more interested in what is happening at Roland Garros at this moment than in our hemisphere. I can, by the way, give some understanding of this, but our parliamentary mandate forces us to take a stand on the proposed bills.

The position of our group on the draft law on electronic proceedings was well formulated during the discussions in the committee. One of the members of the committee described the present law as “une loi virtuelle et évolutive”. I really mean when I look at the bill, that it is a virtual law, which will be subject to a lot of evolution. It is also ⁇ remarkable that the entry into force of the law is scheduled for January 1, 2009, to tell you in which virtual reality we are conducting our discussion. Their

Therefore, I will not go into the bill as such so deeply. Everything is ultimately largely dependent on the completion by the King and the assignments given to the management and supervision committee on the computer system Phenix. Therefore, we will still have the opportunity to follow the file.

However, I would like to briefly point out in the middle that the draft law concerning the electronic process execution of course stands or falls with the operationality of the Phenix computer system itself. Interesting information can be found in the excellent report of colleague Valérie Déom. In the report, it referred to the state of progress of the Phenix project. I highly recommend the document to my colleagues, as it presses us with the nose on the facts and very clearly and accurately — I thank the minister for the information she provided on the question of the CD&V group — sets out what has led to the mismanagement of the Judiciary over the years concerning the IT project Phenix. I give only a few accents from the inventory, the state of affairs, the state of progress.

It is unacceptable to call mismanagement the management of this file. It is managed simultaneously by the administration, represented by the Chairman of the Management Committee of SPF Justice and by the Head of Cabinet, and by the Magistrates, in the person of the Chairman of the Court of Cassation, Mr. Verougstraete is a tripartite management. These people work hard by continuously checking the proper functioning, dysfunctions, renegotiating with Unisys, obtaining damages and interests when private firms have committed mistakes. This work will allow Phenix to be on the rails in 2006.

Some say there were delays, I admit. When you find problems on a pilot site, it is normal to require the managers to provide solutions. This takes time. On the other hand, it is scandalous that some have fun in this tribune pretending that management is bad — having fun in this way, Mr. Van Parys will have his article in the press. It is a scandal!

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to extend my reasoning and at the same time to respond to the strange intervention of the Minister of Justice. It is a strange reason because one should read very accurately the report of Mrs. Déom describing the state of affairs concerning the computer project Phenix. Their

The Minister of Justice states the following. The years of mismanagement by the Judiciary, regarding the IT project Phenix, have led to the fact that the original objectives of the informatization of the Judiciary have not been achieved or achieved in any way. Their

I would like to refer for a moment to the press releases of our Minister of Justice, following the so-called Super-Ministry Council on Security and Justice, of 30 and 31 March 2004. You announced, rather triumphantly, to the Nation, Mrs. Minister, that by the end of this legislature the complete computerization of the court would be a fact. Their

I would like to refer to the 2003 policy note. According to that note, the expiration dates would be much closer and we should already have the application of that information technology project. Their

Mrs. Minister of Justice, I invite you to take note of the relevant progress report which expressly provides, on page 76 of Mrs. Déom’s report, that these expiration dates are in no way achieved. After all, this report is very explicitly stated, I quote: "The latest development of the information system Phenix for Justice is scheduled for July 2008, with the final acceptance provided for half 2009". Their

So, Mrs. Minister of Justice, I would like to tell you that one might call it scandalous, but that it is exactly scandalous that the Minister of Justice on 31 March has the courage to come here in this Parliament to claim that by the end of the legislature, which I know is the beginning of 2007, the computerization of the court would be a fact and one must now state, in the report communicated by your services, that we will have a final delivery, not in the beginning of 2007, but in the middle of 2009. Mrs. Minister of Justice, I refer to page 76 of the report of Mrs. Valérie Déom, which, by the way, takes over the document transmitted by your services to the Chamber. Their

So I just want to say that this mismanagement for years because of Justice has led to the findings we are making now. I have no problem with the current committee. I tell you that between 2001 and 2004 this project was dealt with in a scandalous way, Mrs. Minister of Justice, and that we bear the consequences of it today. Their

I would like to go into the report, which was sent by your services and which informs us very accurately. The report says that the tests carried out on 29 April 2005 at the Turnhout Police Court showed that the system does not function at all and therefore needs to be completely re-examined. This resulted in the obligation to renegotiate the entire file, the agreement that existed between Justice and Unisys, in full and in full. That means, in fact, that the original agreement, which dates back to 2001, was apparently so bad and so failed that on the basis of the tender and agreement it was not possible to force the private partner to comply with the expiration days.

All this has led to a new agreement dating back to September 2005, a so-called additive act, in which Justice was obliged to accept a new time calendar. That time calendar led to the commitment that the entire system will not be operational until mid-2009. This proves that the original contract was so fragile that it could not be obtained from Unisys that the terms initially agreed were enforceable.

Justice was forced to accept the new calendar. The new deadline is half 2009. Unisys, the partner with which one went into the sea, was obliged to draw up a recovery plan at its own expense. The report of the services, by the way, reads that the recovery plan was hardly acceptable. The recovery plan, which at the evaluation received 64 points out of 100, while the minimum was 60 out of 100, actually consisted in having to fully restart the entire project from the analysis.

I would also like to involve the Chairman of the Chamber in the following question. Why was the original 2001 agreement not so conclusive that the private partner could be compelled to comply with the agreements? However, this had been the right ratio: after an official tender, Justice concludes a contract containing expiration dates; the private partner is contractually obliged to comply with the expiration dates. At the end of this legislature, the information system could have been available under these conditions. Nothing is less true. Therefore, the question arises why a renegotiation was needed. How is it possible that in 2001 no final agreement was concluded imposing a strict follow-up and possibly a sanction, where appropriate through fine clauses?

Colleagues, the consequence of this manner of work, of the very kaduke original contract, of the faulty succession and of the fact that one in this file has actually been inappropriately managed, is that one must now continue with the old system.

I will give two examples from Mrs. Deom’s report, from the follow-up report.

First, the maintenance contracts relating to the old system should be renewed. I looked at the budget for justice. This means that the old maintenance contract, or the maintenance contract relating to the old computer equipment, must be renewed for four years. This costs the budget of the Judiciary an amount of 2.5 million euros. That is a ⁇ important amount, which in fact could never be borne by the Belgian State, in this case the Federal Public Service Justice or the Department of Justice.

Secondly, the report that we can read at the report shows that new and second-hand devices have had to be purchased in the old system. As far as management is concerned, this was of course unacceptable. The follow-up report provides an example. For the peace courts alone, this has brought with it a cost of 101.517 euros, of which Unisys has had to account for 50,000.

What is the conclusion of the report describing the succession of the information system?

First, 12 million euros were spent and so far there is no result on the ground. This is read in the report. The Phenix information system was approved in principle in 2000 and submitted in December 2001. On 1 June 2006, five and a half years later, the 12 million euros spent had no result. The entire system has been delayed between two and three years.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address you for a moment, in connection with the findings you can read in the annex to Mrs. Deom’s report. I asked you at that time, given the size of the entire investment and the fact that it was obliged to renegotiate the original contract, with all the adverse financial consequences of it for the government, to intervene to allow the Court of Auditors to conduct an investigation in this regard. In fact, the Court of Auditors had stated in the initial question that it did not have the people and the resources to conduct the investigation, but through the intervention of the chairman of the Chamber it could be enabled to do so. Mr. Speaker, given the importance of this file on the informatization of the Judiciary and the delay caused by which we have already established that there are again excesses with regard to the new expiration days with penalty clauses that become operational, I would like to ask you, on behalf of my group, whether you can request the Court of Auditors to conduct a thorough examination of the method of spending the public funds in this file. I very explicitly ask you to take a position on this very quickly. After all, there are a lot of resources that we expect and can assume that they will be used properly.

Mrs. Minister, colleagues, so far my brief presentation in the discussion of the bill on the electronic process in the hope that you, Mr. Speaker, would like to intervene at the request of my group.

Despite all the respect I owe to Mr. Van Parys, I have the feeling that he thinks of himself as a prosecutor but, unfortunately, a prosecutor who radotes. by

In Ganto, I think that radoter translates to “neuten”.

That is a dangerous word! You must be careful!

by Mr. Van Parys always repeats the same thing, without creativity, hoping that one day it will be taken seriously ...

Not yet, but sometimes, it announces it!

In courtesy, they say “lullen”.

I do not know if this is a parliamentary verb! Otherwise, I need to remove it regularly!

As for development — this has nothing to do with the project, but it still has a link since it is the operationalization of the computerization of Justice — important work took place, not too long ago, in the Justice Committee. On this occasion, the latter heard all the officials of the Phenix pilot committee. They explained the 2001 contract, the difficulties encountered. They also re-explained the negotiation. Everything was done in a constructive dialogue with the Commission. by

Since then, no change has occurred. We only regret a little more than a month of delay.

At the same time, the committee was aware of the seriousness of the work carried out. In de pers has "mijnheer de procureur Van Parys" een uittreksel geciteerd aangaande het verslag dat ik aan de commission heb gegeven. I quote: "Last developments for Phenix in July 2008. Definitieve receive half 2009." However, he forgot to cite everything that will happen between today and 2009.

Since you have been directly questioned, I will give you a few examples. In this way, you can see that the funds invested were not for nothing. There are practical applications, fortunately! Here are a few: - police prosecutors and courts: start of pilot sites in September 2006 and start of roll-out in production in January 2007; - vredegerechten: start piloottesten in September 2006 in start roll-out in production in January 2007. - collective schuldenregeling: start pilot tests in August 2006 in start roll-out in production for new affairs in October 2006. We continue this way. For the judges of inquiry, this is planned for the first quarter of 2007, etc.

So now we have applications; we’re finally going to start the project. This is what disturbs Mr. by Van Parys. We will finally be able to work on several pilot sites and on a “rollout” that will become, in the long run, general. This disturbs Mr. Van Parys and he prefers to shed light on the month of delay we have rather than on the fact that our country will finally know a computerization that does not exist, Mr. President, nowhere else!

I am proud of this and, for my part, I would like to thank the members of the pilot committee and all those who work on this extraordinary computerization exercise.

Mr. Van Parys, you have the last word. Do you do.

I would definitely like to respond to what the Minister has said. Their

I will not be tempted to use the terminology used by the Minister of Justice. I am not used to this language, and I will never do it in this assembly. I deeply regret this because it is very important in this matter to stay with the content of the dossier.

The content of the file, Mrs. Minister, is precisely the progress report as it has been presented to us and from which indeed the shameful manner of work used by Justice in it from 2001 to 2004 is so clear. In relation to the hearing, which we received a year ago and about which the minister speaks, it has been established that since then one has indeed had to admit that those pilot projects were a debacle in Turnhout. They have been obliged to renegotiate the entire contract. If one says: negotiate, it means, Mr. Speaker, that the original contract of 2001 was not in conformity and that for years on the basis of that contract the succession that was to be assured was not assured. That is in that report!

To consider that with the terms used by the Minister of Justice is, of course, inappropriate in terms of language use here in Parliament, but it is especially inappropriate because it fully advocates against the file.

The file comes to the conclusion that one had to renegotiate, that one had to accept new expiration dates, that Unisys had to draw up a recovery plan, of which it is said that a commission of $10 million under Unisys was needed to cover its costs. Such amounts are discussed in this case, Mr. President.

Therefore, I find it unreasonable that the Minister of Justice deals with this file in this way while the expiration dates are very...

The [...]

If the Minister wants to interrupt me again, I would like to stop again, Mr. Speaker, but not if she does it in the terms in which she just did it.

Finish your reasoning, Mr Van Parys. He can answer whenever he wants.

I want an open debate on this matter. We were not able to do this in the committee due to various procedural incidents. But I want to keep it here. I will then return to the Court of Audit.

In fact, here are the new outdates. The Minister of Justice has quoted a few of them. But it was absolutely incomplete. Their

First, the report says: “The final acceptance of the Phenix computer science project is scheduled for half 2009.”

Anyone who knows anything about public procurement knows that the project is currently final. In the middle of 2009, compared to what? At the Superintendent Council of March 2004, it was said: the end of this legislature. That is the difference between words and actions. In the middle of 2009!

In fact, the document has made a plan that should lead to 2009. A number of parts aspects will indeed gradually become operational. Every time, the Minister of Justice expressly forgets to add the last element of the report. For the police parks and courts, the roll-out and production start in January 2007, the minister said. However, she forgot to say that the transition period is one year. This means that the system for police prosecutors and police courts will be operational in January 2008. This is the first small phase of the entire project.

The start date, roll-out and production for the peace courts is for January 2007, the minister said. She forgot to mention that the transition period is one year and four months. Then it is May 2008.

The documents must be read correctly and thus conduct an honest and transparent debate. I have no problem in saying in this assembly that efforts have indeed been made since 2004 and 2005. It cannot be denied, Mrs. Minister, that between 2001 and 2004 the public money was taken into a loop, that the public money was poorly managed and managed. Mr. Speaker, this is the minimum minimum minimum that we in this assembly as a control body on the government can, can and should say.

If the Minister of Justice wants to give all kinds of qualifications to my action, she will do it. However, that will not stop me from my fundamental control task in this Parliament. Mr. Speaker, therefore, on behalf of the CD&V Group, I have asked you to give the Court of Auditors the mandate to investigate its future, in particular how public money has been spent in recent years. Were the contracts properly concluded? Were they well followed? To what extent have payments been made in accordance with the obligations set out in the various agreements?

Are you willing to make a demarche at the Court of Auditors? The Court of Auditors wants to investigate this, but asks for the necessary resources to do so. I have asked you to discuss this, Mr. President. After all, I think that this is a fundamental task of the Court of Auditors, in a case that deals with a lot of public money and taxpayer money. I would like to receive a response from you, Mr. Speaker.

I have noted it. I will look at what resources are available and what resources are requested. Let me investigate that.

Mr. Van Parys, I ask that all clarity be made on this matter. I am tired of listening to such insinuations, as you do!

I will ask the Chairperson of the Justice Committee whether it is possible to hold a committee session again where – despite the discussions on what each member is entitled to ask of course – the members of the steering committee, whether it be the Chairman of the Court of Cassation, Mr. Verhougstraete, Chairman of the Management Committee of the SPF, Mr. Bourlet or Mrs. Bovy. I will ask that they be heard again by all the members of the Justice Committee to make all the clarity. I do not want to have any suspicion about what is happening.

I see that can happen, of course.

I give the floor to the President of the Justice Committee.

The hearing was requested during the discussion. It was also promised that it would be organized, possibly in fourteen days, i.e. on 20 or 21 June.

I listened to the Minister. She called for total transparency in the case. In the light of her answer, I therefore take note of it and therefore assume that it fully agrees with the request of colleague Van Parys to have the Court of Auditors conduct a full study of the file in this regard. Sometimes it is also about corporate contracts that the Belgian State, the FOD Justice, has concluded with private companies. I hope then that we do not receive a message of the nature of "there are confidential data in, we cannot see them", which then week after week creates difficulties to eventually be able to see them.

You know that I have developed the “your eyes only” procedure, because sometimes there are confidence clauses in contracts. I have no objection to the fact that things are being checked. But I must also be careful: if there are contracts with confidentiality clauses, then they cannot be photocopied or “distributed” in an unhealthy or unacceptable way.

Regarding the Court of Auditors, the Chamber decides. The government can ask, the members can ask. The Court of Audit is our working arm, if I can say so, that is the most important thing.

Mr. Speaker, you have had a tradition of giving parliamentarians maximum access rights to documentation and contracts that were concluded. The Minister also calls for transparency. There is the request of colleague Van Parys. I therefore suggest that you respond affirmatively to his question and write a letter on behalf of the Chamber in your capacity as chairman to conduct the necessary investigations and to give the colleagues who wish to do so maximum and complete access to the entire dossier.

I look at it immediately, you can be calm. I also want to know what the Court of Auditors is asking for as new resources; that is a question I need to look at.

Mr. Tant, whom I see responding, knows well that for the Berlaymont dossier, which is a very different dossier, I have also made an effort and expect an answer. I am not in favor of minimizing the tasks of the Court of Auditors, as the Chamber knows.

That is what I assume. Nevertheless, I would like to make a comment. What I do not like to hear is that you think we should play the role of conscience of our House. When a member of Parliament receives information from the Court of Auditors, it is up to the member of Parliament to show a deontology in this regard. It is not the President’s responsibility to do this in his place.

That is not the problem. But the Court of Auditors may state that there is a confidence clause, which was signed by two partners, and then do not communicate data. That is the problem. If it is not communicated, I am facing a problem of accessibility and distribution difficulties. That is all. It is nothing more than that; it is a practical matter.

The problem remains that the Court of Auditors, which is our extension, judges in our place about confidentiality. I ask myself a lot of questions.

If that is contractually stipulated, I — and everyone, including you — have a problem.

Then, first of all, the member of parliament must take this into account, not the chairman of the Chamber and much less the Court of Auditors.

We have experienced something similar with the committees I and P. We made an agreement in this committee.

That is something different.