Proposition 51K2027

Projet de loi relatif à l'établissement et au financement de plans d'action en matière de sécurité routière.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Oct. 13, 2005

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

road safety road traffic

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V FN VB

Abstained from voting

LE N-VA

Party dissidents ¶

• Hendrik Bogaert (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Carl Devlies (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Luc Goutry (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Herman Van Rompuy (CD&V) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

Nov. 10, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The law of 7 February 2003 provided for the creation of a road safety fund that allows police areas to receive financial support for actions undertaken in the field of road safety, within the framework of an agreement between the area and the federal authority.

This bill provides for the inclusion of the federal police among the beneficiaries of the fund. It also provides for an amount for alternative measures or penalties aimed at improving road safety, as well as the possibility, for police areas and the federal police, to proceed to joint purchases of equipment.

This project was discussed in the Infrastructure Committee on 26 October last year; it was accompanied by a bill of the CD&V group for a regional distribution of the road fines fund as well as a proposal for a series of criteria for the distribution of amounts between the areas.

At the group level, the PS highlighted the role of federal police and justice actors and that it was legitimate that as road safety officials they could also benefit from the fund. The sp.a, on the other hand, emphasized the quality of the criteria for the distribution between zones. For the CDH, municipalities will now have fewer resources. Finally, the MR highlighted the opinion of the State Council which observes a large delegation to the King.

The VLD has submitted an amendment that specifies the criterion relating to the number of traffic victims, based on the number of accidents. This amendment was approved by the Commission. A number of other amendments have been submitted by the opposition (CD&V and Vlaams Belang) regarding a regional allocation of the road safety fund as well as a number of criteria changes. All these amendments were rejected.

Finally, the bill was approved in committee by 10 votes for, 2 against and 3 abstentions.

Mrs. De Bue, I think you would like to speak as a member of your group as well.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the MR group, I would like to clarify that by offering the possibility to the police zones to benefit from a portion of the proceeds of the fines resulting from road traffic offences, the law of 7 February 2003 on road traffic has aroused vocations. If local police officers benefit from these fines, “Why not us?” — said the federal police officers. And, if federal and local police officers take advantage of it, "why exclude alternative punishment programs?" — the officials of the Department of Justice quipped.

The answer to these questions is now before us. The bill, subject to our approval, opens the fund to all those services that contribute to enhancing road safety.

The MR Group can only be pleased to see that financial resources are being released for the implementation of alternative sanctions programs. We believe that alternative penalties are a form of punishment that is ⁇ suitable for road offenders whose behavior on the road is likely to improve more effectively than due to the payment of a fine or even a temporary suspension of the right to drive.

Compared to the 2003 law, the project also contains significant progress, including the possibility of joint procurement aimed at increasing road safety. It was not unnecessary to recall that these funds are aimed at reducing the number of victims on our roads.

The lesson was drawn from certain errors, related to the implementation of the 2003 law, which allowed some police areas to invest in office furniture, computers or even in a new function vehicle for corps heads, investments for which it is difficult, or even impossible to determine in what they contribute to the strengthening of road safety. We believe that this arrangement, put in place by the new law, will prevent the repetition of these abuses.

As soon as the law is promulgated, one can actually talk about a fund even if the alternative financing mechanism contained in the 2003 law had already been designated as such by the press. It is therefore this bill that incorporates this mechanism into the law on the budgetary fund, which helps to bring it closer to budgetary orthodoxy.

The draft law is clearly a framework law. The main guidelines will be recorded, but the essential elements, minimum and maximum of the fund, key distribution between each beneficiary, are entrusted to the executive.

In this delicate exercise of arbitration, the government will have to ensure that balances are ⁇ ined, namely the fair distribution of resources between different beneficiary services.

Complaints have already been heard from some police districts who fear that new financing prospects will disappear. But to this we respond that the leaders of these areas must admit that they are not the only actors in the restoration of road safety on our roads. Let us not forget to remind that this fund is intended to disappear in the long run. Indeed, since it aims to improve road safety, its interest will decrease as traffic accidents decrease. by

If, despite the fund’s resources, statistics on road insecurity would reveal an aggravation of the situation, it would be concluded that these means are ineffective and other solutions should be proposed.

Convinced that the new fund will effectively contribute to a reduction in the number of road accident victims, members of the MR group will vote in favour of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the principle of the road safety fund, so far called the fine fund, was and remains good for us today as an idea. We have therefore supported the principle in itself from the beginning. The police contribution to road safety must in large part be made at the local level and under the political responsibility of the local authorities. That these local governments should be able to get the necessary resources for this is clear. That this is not evident in the context of the expensive police reform is equally evident. Therefore, I fully agree that, as part of the police efforts of the traffic safety zones, resources should be allocated to these zones.

However, the history of the fund that had to deal with it is, in our view, simply a school example of how something should not or how one can help a good idea very simply to the lightning. At no time has any initiative from the federal government in this regard shown professionalism or long-term vision at any level. On the contrary, every mayor or every ship in this hemisphere will bear that improvisation has been on that level a scratch and impact.

This fund is from the beginning for us a dromedaris with ugly bulbs. For months, the government has been anticipating a draft, the so-called definitive arrangement. Announced for a long time. We had hoped that through this legislative initiative this ugly beast could be replaced by a race horse with which to win competitions. and in vain. The present draft lacks our vision and does not provide the zones and local authorities with any possibility to implement a long-term policy. I can tell you, on behalf of our group, Mr. Minister, that we do not consider approving this draft if it is not thoroughly amended. Mr Van den Bergh will later explain our amendments on this subject.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, let me first look back on what the system has brought to date. We have repeatedly asked questions and made comments from our group. I would like to come back to this for a while. Their

First, the transfers from the North to the South. With 17% of the revenue from the fines, Wallonia still draws almost 40% of the available funds. This is a lot more than a community-style stitch from CD&V. This distribution of traffic is also nonsense. In fact, the same Region has a share of only 23% in the total of accidents. That one ignores the fable that this low percentage should be attributed to a good policy. After all, everyone knows the great cultural difference between the two regions in terms of willingness to uphold. In addition, there are objective factors such as population density and traffic density that are much larger in the north of the country, and in addition a completely different spatial development, which causes much more insecurity in the north than in the south. Their

Secondly, the faulty implementation — I think to be very gentle — of the Fund. Last year, in the middle of the holiday period, around mid or late July 2004, suddenly unannounced Sinterklaas came across the zones. Suddenly, there appeared a mailing letter containing a gift check for all zones, due to the federal government. It was only determined that the substantial amounts for all zones had to be spent before the end of the year. They had a few months of time. This was then to be done within the framework of a traffic convention, to be approved by the security council in the zone and the police council. Holderdebolder required the zones to take a number of measures, in which I ask myself whether all spending has really been done deliberately, with a view to a future policy, and whether they have been done fully in accordance with the law on public procurement. Their

By the way, Mr. Minister, what happened to the amounts that could not be spent in time by the zones? Have they returned to the entire fund? Are they allocated to other areas? What happened to it? I would like to know. Their

But well, it came in the middle of the holiday, but you got the benefit of the doubt. Better next time, as they said in the areas. You may know the expression about a given horse. It was also common, from the zones. Since the beginning of this year, I have repeatedly asked questions about the guidelines for 2005, the guidelines for the future. They were dealing with it. I was constantly sent with a clock in the roof. And then, not to believe: again in the middle of the holiday period. In the zones one did not believe his own eyes: at the end of July, suddenly again appeared a circulation letter with amounts and guidelines and, much worse this time, referring to a law in drafting, here today for voting. Their

This law is voted for today. So, until today, the uncertainty about the amounts and the spending remains.

Furthermore, there are still too crazy restrictions on the use of the available resources, so that local zones have to make less urgent spending because they are not allowed to finance really urgent spending from the Fund.

First of all, there is the structural uncertainty about the income for the coming years, which makes a long-term vision for the zones completely impossible. Mr. Minister, I get the impression that the government is not doing a well-thoughtful local road safety policy. To our total astonishment, you admitted this even horseback in the discussion of the draft in the committee meeting. You find it not a problem at all, we all have to keep in mind that the fund is temporary and exhausting. What is that nonsense? Anyone who is a little familiar with traffic maintenance knows that the positive effects of such maintenance disappear if the efforts are not planned and not consistently ⁇ ined.

The fact that the minister ignores this and speaks of an exhausting system can, in our opinion, only contain two things. Either the Minister has no understanding of the problem, which is very bad for a Minister of Transport, or he knows the problem very well, but the latter means that the future of traffic maintenance will be a concern for him. The zones should only draw their plan, without federal funds. The financial is definitely in the first place. If the additional income of the penalty fund has not been there since 2002, no funds for the zones! It can be questioned whether the Minister is in his place.

Third, the absurd commitment to results. How can a result commitment be concluded if results are influenced by actors and factors that have nothing to do with the contracting parties? Indeed, the progress in road safety is also influenced by the improvement of infrastructure by the regions, by the provinces, by individual municipalities in a zone. They have absolutely nothing to do with it. It is only about the efforts of those zones.

In addition, very random factors, such as a single serious accident involving multiple casualties, can significantly affect the amounts allocated to the zone.

These were fundamental questions and criticisms that we have repeatedly expressed over the past few months. Not simply, but on the indications of local directors, of mayors, of schepenen, of police commissioners, of zones, of police councillors and of the Association of Flemish Cities and Municipalities.

As already stated, we hoped that the long-announced bill would resolve all these problems. Unfortunately, unfortunately in vain. The present design hardly offers, I express myself gently, a response. It holds on to the same disputed problem points: no distribution by Region, no long-term certainty, still the same result commitment. These deficiencies were hardly identified in the design. The transfers remain. The crazy conditions for the use of the funds remain. The unacceptable result commitment remains. The only positive thing that we can note throughout this draft is that the administrative follow-up is somewhat eased and that the police zones can also make purchases together which can lower the cost price.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, it should be of our heart. The impression that we have gained when studying the draft is that the government mainly intended to open the Fund also to applicants other than the local zones, in particular the federal police, the FOD Mobility and the police courts. You will now be able to allow them to enjoy the Fund. You will not hear any criticism from us about the fact that these agencies also need to receive resources. On the contrary, in our amendments in the committee, we have wanted to register other bodies as candidates such as the Belgian Institute for Traffic Safety and the Regions which themselves install unmanned cameras, but not at the expense of the zones, Mr. Minister. For this purpose, we wanted to expand the Fund with the resources necessary for this, instead of deducting this from the amounts of the zones. You do not, Mr. Minister, you want first the guaranteed income for the federal government. That extension of funds for the Fund is therefore missing out in the bill. This is ⁇ cruel, because you are committing a wordbreaking against the municipalities. The promises made a few years ago are now being reversed.

Whether traffic safety is served on a local level is another story. As previously stated, enforcement will continue to take place in the future. For this, anyway, resources will have to remain available. However, some stability and loyalty to the given word is necessary.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Schryvers, I hear your striking criticism of the draft, but I also took the time to read your proposal. However, I must note that there are a number of things in it that also somewhat surprise me. You say in your explanatory memo that one of the main differences between your proposal and the draft law is that you ask for commitment commitments and resource commitments from the zones, but not result commitments.

With regard to the fight against road safety, however, it is absolutely no wrong thing to ask for results commitments from the zones. This is a point.

The second point is the distribution mechanism. You offer 30% for your own area. This means that a zone that finds that the budget is not correct by the end of the year can begin to slow down processes-verbal to reach sufficient resources. You also suggest that 70% of the resources be determined on the basis of criteria determined by the King. In itself I have no problem with this and I thank CD&V for her trust in the King. With regard to this point, I seriously wonder whether your own proposal meets your expectations.

Mr. President, Mr. Casaer, I suspect that you have not read our proposal correctly or do not want to read it.

That 30% refers to the total revenue that CD&V wishes to allocate to the zones on the basis of certain criteria and not at all 30% of the process-verbal that is written in its own zone! Absolutely not ! It is about the totality.

Second, in terms of performance and results. For you, only the results relating to the number of fatalities count. That is the only criterion that has been taken into account so far. I mentioned improvisation. The improvisation was driven to the top in the committee when the minister suddenly found that the number of victims could sometimes pose a problematic criterion. Imagine a serious accident involving five fatalities. That would have a huge impact. Therefore, it could be better to account for the number of accidents with fatalities. This is how it went.

We are talking about performance, i.e. the number of hours spent on traffic maintenance and prevention. That is what we want to take into account, but not, as you and the minister want, only the number of victims.

We believe that local police zones should have a long-term perspective on the financing of the policy. This long-term perspective, which was already barely present in the existing system, is completely removed in this design.

Mr. Minister, the zones, in our opinion, needed the anchoring in the law of a certain, fixed percentage of the penalty income. The areas are requesting parties for this. We believe that this should amount to 30% of the total with a minimum minimum amount of 65 million euros. Instead, they get a system that, in the words of the minister in the committee, “will slowly fade out in time” because, according to him, we are evolving to the best of all possible worlds. If there are no more fines, there will be no more cents for the zones and then there will be no more controls, because then there will be no more violations. There will be funds for the federal government — first uncle and then uncle children. The zones will still be allowed to maintain, but they will no longer receive resources for this.

I would like to address myself here directly to all my colleagues in this hemisphere from the purple majority who also have an executive mandate of mayor or ships. I must say that I am deeply disappointed by the attitude of my colleagues in the Chamber Committee on Traffic and Infrastructure. They did not make any critical considerations to the bill. Or yet, one — the one I just mentioned, namely not the number of victims but the number of accidents involving victims should be taken as the basis. The Minister agreed to take this as a basis.

Mr. Schryvers, I do not know if you have heard my intervention in the committee correctly.

It was a critical note, indeed.

Maybe let me speak for a moment. Apart from the fact that I submitted an amendment, which in fact occurred in my investigation because of the finding that the number of accidents might be a better parameter to influence the distribution, I also said in the committee against the minister that we must take care that the Traffic Safety Fund is not exhausted by advance deductions by other ministries. I have said this with so many words. We have not criticized this bill without criticism.

I would like to point out that it is a good thing that the federal government rewards the police zones for what they do. This was not the case five or six years ago and much less than 10 years ago. There was always a call to reward the efforts of the police zones. This is now finally happening. That there may be questions about the applied parameters is possible. I am also a mayor. However, we are satisfied with the fact that with these funds we can make a good road safety policy outline through the police zones. I have little or no comments on this subject, not even from my police corps. I would like to make this clear.

I wanted to clarify this here. One can have observations on any law, on any proposal or draft. The most important thing, however, is that results are achieved. This is the case for us for a large part.

Colleague De Padt, do you have a term policy in your area? Do you have a multi-annual plan in your area? What certainty do you have about this? How do you deal with this? If you hire people within this Traffic Safety Fund, how will you pay them when within a few years – as the minister says – this Fund for the municipalities, for the zones no longer has money?

I say that it must be primarily the intention that this Fund would disappear in the long run. As soon as no more traffic offences are found, the Fund will also disappear. I also know that there will be a period of enforcement policy, of road safety policy.

I would like to point out that we as local municipal authorities must also take our responsibilities there. If we don’t have to take them anymore and can leave everything to the federal government, then we’re doing well!

Our concern is that a long-term vision can be drawn out. Here no one can say that there is some certainty with this Fund in that regard, quite the opposite. You also now say that it will fade out and that this will be the ideal picture. You know as well as I do, and you say it yourself, that permanent controls and enforcement measures will be needed. We want to provide the resources for these areas. (Applause) Col. De Padt, except for that one critical note from you, on the basis of which an amendment was proposed stating that not the number of victims but the number of accidents involving victims would be taken into account, I have heard nothing from the majority. However, these colleagues were well informed. They know the problems. But no, everything is cake and egg. This is regrettable, not only for the municipal administration level as such, but also for the long-term road safety policy of the local zones.

We make a final call to all the colleagues of the majority to approve the amendments that we will submit again later – colleague Van den Bergh will do so. They express the desires of the municipalities.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, we consider this bill a missed opportunity. It leaves the transfers from the North to the South untouched. It holds on to an unsustainable result commitment and above all, instead of providing the zones with long-term legal certainty, the opposite is done. The gate will be opened for a removal of the Fund. The question remains whether road safety will benefit. We doubt it.

In this form, we will vote against this draft. Only when our amendments to this design are approved, this ugly dromedaris can still become a racing horse, and in addition, another one with a long life.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the draft law on the road fines fund has attracted our very special attention to the CDH. You know how much road safety affects each of our fellow citizens. You know how much, individually, familyally or collectively in each of our villages, we can be hit by the road dramas that strike so many young people. On Monday morning, I would be afraid to open my newspaper.

The fine fund was created to give police areas and therefore field actors the means to be able to organize road safety actions to combat the plague of road accidents. A system of agreement has been established between the federal authority and the police areas in order to register the aid to be provided in a structured approach and according to specific objectives.

We do not question the basic approach or the objectives pursued. We even highlight the progress made in easing the conditions and modalities for granting grants.

Your bill is a problem for us. The manna of road fines, ⁇ interesting at the moment, since it goes from 42 to 63 million euros, has attracted cravings. While until now it was fully returned to our country’s 196 police zones – and they needed it – you choose to disperse it in a spray that will affect the administrative monitoring, the control services of the SPF Finance, Mobility and Transport, as well as the execution of administrative penalties.

This dispersion of the means, like other dispersions – in the end you wonder if you are not the minister of dispersion – is not good. It is not, because it unilaterally denounces the agreement of 11 June 2002 between the federal and the cities and municipalities. This denouncement of the agreement endangers the balance of all agreements reached on the policy reform. This is a step further, I think, illuminating the will of the federal authority and the federal police to take over the local police and its autonomy.

This project is not good, because it is a missed opportunity to put the package and the entire package on road safety investment this year. Not good either, because we do not have any guarantee in the time of the resources allocated to the areas. A minimum amount to be distributed between the zones should have been fixed and a minimum amount per zone as well. You manage without prospects, without future. We cannot, at the level of our police areas and at the level of our municipalities, manage this way.

This bill deprives the areas and municipalities of resources. This project is not good because it does not bring an extra iota to road safety. Sometimes we even ask ourselves what is the link between the dispersion of means and the will. We are also critical because the distribution criteria you set are not good. Is it really necessary to take into account the decrease in the number of victims in an area in order to grant subsidies?

I live in a small police area, a police area where, one year, we had the immense chance of having "zero" victim: no one died in a road accident in our municipality. Imagine that the following year, a bus passes by us by chance — no matter where it comes from and where it goes — that it has an accident and that, as a result, we switch from 0 to 20, 30, 40 victims at once. Does this criterion really need to be followed? Shouldn’t it rather be taken as a criterion the number of hours provided (speed controls, alcohol controls, road safety prevention), i.e. the willingness of the area to work on road safety.

Mr. Minister, we ask you nothing more today than to return to the basic principle: the will for groundwork on road safety, supported by federal means. We ask you nothing but to guarantee in time a sum to be distributed between the areas and a minimum amount per area. Finally, it is only a matter of compliance with the agreements of 11 June 2002, or an elementary claim: the honor of a government and the men who make up it to honor its commitments. That is all we ask for today.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the criticism of the Flemish Interest regarding the Road Safety Fund that was formerly the Traffic Penalty Fund is crystallized in the two amendments that we have submitted in the committee and which we now submit again to this plenary session. I will immediately defend them, Mr. President.

First, we can not help but conclude that Flanders receives 83% of the fines and only 56,5% of the revenue. By the end of this year in Flanders 110 new blitzstones will be installed at 44 intersection points. The total is approximately 1,200. In 2003, the Vlaming paid 24.7 euros in traffic fines, a Waal barely 16 euros. That is not immediately because that Flaming would behave much more cautiously in traffic, but because the chance of getting under the language limit is significantly lower. Because Flanders flatter more than Wallonia, Wallonia gets more money from Flanders.

However, it was announced in May that the cash flow from Flanders to Wallonia through the Road Safety Fund would be corrected along with the reforms. Last year, for example, the police zone of Antwerp received less than the police zone of Durbuy. Now, thankfully, Mr. Minister, this is no longer the case, but still the reality is far from the idea that the disparities in the distribution of the road safety fund would have been eliminated. Flanders receive 56.5% of the fund, 38% goes to Wallonia and 5.5% goes to Brussels. The distribution key has thus remained the same compared to last year, with the result of the Community shredding, mainly in the light of the fines collected.

That is why our group has submitted an amendment to remove the existing Community gap in the distribution of the Road Safety Fund. The surplus proceeds from the traffic fines are distributed through the security fund in a first phase across the regions according to their share in the total proceeds from the traffic fines and then only across the different police zones.

Mr. Speaker, secondly, the Minister has used the beginning of the recession to allow and passant the federal government agencies Mobility and Transport, Justice, Finance and Home Affairs also to take advantage of the coins from the Fund. I regret this because the Road Safety Fund should remain a fund that supports the police zones. We must not forget that that cash flow to the local level was a measure to compensate for the fact that the federal government has reversed a package of costs of police reform at the local level and will still be reversed to the local governments, but also for the loss of the income from traffic fines that were previously distributed across the municipal police corps.

That the federal police are also considered a zone, I have no problem with that. However, the fact that the various federal government agencies are already considered police zones is actually absurd. If additional resources are needed there, the respective ministers should strike a little harder on the table during the budget talks. If road safety is a priority, a top priority, then it should not be a problem. Their

For the Flemish Interest, mobility in general and road safety in particular must be regionalized: not only traffic law, not only traffic enforcement, but also traffic regulation and everything that has to do with road safety. A beginning of that de-federalization or regionalization could be made on the notorious forum that started in October of last year, or I must say a false start, because it has never met again after one or two meetings. Time begins to shorten. If the government wants to come to the House with draft laws, then it does not need to be troubled too long. If road safety is a real top priority for this government, a real concern, then it should be taken into account the fact that Flanders deal with it differently, that there is a different culture in mobility in general and road safety in particular. A de-federalization is therefore an absolute necessity and that in anticipation of an independent Flanders. I thank you.