Proposition 51K2311

Proposition de loi complétant l'article 4 de la loi du 3 janvier 1933 relative à la fabrication, au commerce et au port des armes, et au commerce des munitions.

General information ¶

Authors

MR Daniel Bacquelaine
Open Vld Stef Goris
PS | SP Thierry Giet
Vooruit Dirk Van der Maelen

Submission date

Feb. 23, 2006

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

conventional weapon arms limitation arms trade

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 ¶

March 30, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the committee discussed this bill at its meeting on 22 March last year. The bill refers to the bill supplementing the law of 3 January 1933 on the manufacture, trade in and carrying of weapons and on the trade in ammunition, as regards the prohibition of submunition, adopted by the House on 16 February 2006, which prohibits cluster ammunition and submunition harmful to persons, in particular to civilians and children.

This bill received almost unilateral principled support. Nevertheless, the submission of the present bill was considered necessary in order to further clarify the first text. It was not the intention of the authors of the first text to prohibit light and smoke-proliferating ammunition and anti-tank ammunition, but primarily to specifically protect the civilian population. This bill will remove the concerns raised for the port of Antwerp, where there were fears of a ban on transit, as well as for the Wallish company that does not produce high-tech submunition specifically targeted at personnel. The essential objectives of the first act are not affected. The current bill is a mere clarification and allows an even stronger plea for a general ban.

During the general hearing, Mr Thierry Giet stated that the present bill supplements Article 4 of the Act of 3 January 1933 and at the same time also specifies the provisions adopted by the Chamber on 16 February 2006. Contrary to the assertion in some media, the second text is not contradictory to the first and it is even less an outline of the first. On the contrary, the second text removes the risk that the definition of submunition would be applied to weapons that do not have antipersonal effects.

Fundamental in the bill is the second thought line of the proposed article 2, as it sets a number of more stringent conditions to not be considered as a weapon with submunition or submunition. The current legislative proposal addresses a challenge for the weapons sector, which therefore bears an important responsibility to ⁇ its objective and to ensure that products meet the established criteria.

Mr. Robert Denis pointed out that the provisions of the bill still raise some concern for him. He pointed out that the second line of consideration of Article 2 contains a contradiction which means that this provision will not have full effect. As the text is now stated, it does not allow the use of weapons with submunition, intended to drill through tanks or armored vehicles. The speaker therefore proposed that the text of the bill be further refined.

Mr Sevenhans referred to the amendments proposed by him, as well as by other political groups, in the discussion of the bill supplementing the law of 3 January on the manufacture, trade in and carrying of weapons and on the trade in ammunition, as regards the prohibition of submunition, which were rejected. The contents of these amendments are now included in the new bill, in fact a repair bill.

Also, according to Mr. Luc Sevenhans, the difficulty lies in the second thought line of Article 2 which deals with multiple ammunition systems. According to the speaker, there are modern anti-tank systems with a single submunition that will fall under the prohibition despite the fact that they fully meet the requirements.

Mr Van der Maelen clarifies that the bill aims to remove the concerns of some members by clearly defining in the law what is and what is not within its scope of application. In the discussion of the draft law, the distinctive ability of the weapon was therefore already mentioned as a criterion. Weapons used in a conflict shall not, or as little as possible, affect civilian casualties. In this regard, there was consensus in the committee to consider light and smoke ammunition as not falling within the scope. However, some members considered that it would be better to clearly include this in a legislative text. For the speaker, this did not pose a problem and resulted in the provision included under the first line of thought of Article 2.

There are four cumulative conditions that must be met in order to be considered inert ammunition. First, it should be ammunition intended solely to drill through and destroy armored vehicles. Second, the combat zones should not be covered without distinction. Third, they must be able to explode only at the moment of impact. Fourth, they must in any case not be able to explode solely by contact with or the presence or proximity of a person.

Mr Goris considers that the bill is very well understood and ⁇ addresses the various concerns expressed, in accordance with the spirit of the bill already adopted. Regarding the systems with multiple ammunition, he wants to formulate a clarification. Ammunition is either single or multiple. In the first case, there is no cluster application; in the second case, it is a cluster application of ammunition.

In connection with the use of inert ammunition against tanks, Mr Goris specifies that inert refers to the fact that this type of ammunition does not explode merely by contact with or the presence or proximity of a person because this bullet consists only of a piece of metal containing a non-explosive substance. Inert ammunition does not fall under the prohibition and is therefore permitted. In anti-tank ammunition, one distinguishes between inert ammunition and hollow load ammunition. The inert ammunition cannot explode because it does not contain explosive load. The hollow load does, it explodes when impacted on the armor wall. Mr. Goris emphasizes that both species remain permitted and do not fall under the prohibition.

The spirit of the ban on cluster ammunition is primarily aimed at eliminating small bombs released from the container or the mother bomb so that persons would no longer be the victims. The specification on this subject contained in the bill is, according to Mr Goris, coherent and complete. It refers to anti-tank ammunition which cannot explode by a person touching it and which therefore does not fall within the scope of the law.

This corresponds to the spirit of the first draft law. Their

Mr Joseph Arens, in principle, agrees with the provision contained in Article 2, but nevertheless points to a difficulty in that the provision relates to multiple ammunition systems which are intended solely to drill through and destroy armored vehicles, and which can be used solely for those purposes without being able to cover combat zones without discrimination. According to the speaker, this is not in accordance with the explanation in Article 2, which gives a broader interpretation. Finally, Mr Monfils points out that this proposal is a purely political legislation by recognizing that the previously adopted bill caused problems for employment at the Forges de Zeebruges and in the port of Antwerp. During the discussion of the draft law, the submitted amendments proved unacceptable, as most deputies did not wish to amend the text transmitted by the Senate, which would otherwise have to be re-transmitted to the Senate. Therefore, it was decided to initiate a second amendment of the law of 3 January 1933 immediately after the adoption of the first bill. However, the objections to which the current bill addresses were already clearly noted and expressed during the first discussion. Their

Finally, it must be acknowledged that this legislative proposal is influencing the interests of the port of Antwerp and of the Forges de Zeebruges. That is why he supports the bill. However, he warns of the problems already mentioned in relation to the interpretation of the second line of thought of Article 2. Their

The entire bill was eventually adopted with 12 votes and 2 abstentions.

The list of speakers is as follows: MM. Denis, Monfils, by Mr. Goris, Mr. Bacquelaine, by Van der Maelen, Mr. Mathot ...

( ... ...

Mr. Van der Maelen, I was already worried that I did not see you ask the word. It was probably tactical.

I will be brief as usual.

When we voted the law prohibiting submunition ammunition, we agreed to draw up a second law that would be subject to the vote of the House and that would nevertheless allow the manufacture, storage, and use of antichar submunition ammunition. The combination of the two laws could have resulted in the desired outcome, i.e. the prohibition of anti-personnel weapons, which indistinguishably saturate the area and strike anyone and anything during and after the conflict, but the maintenance of terminal guided weapons "anti-tank".

The vote held in the House a few weeks ago was therefore to be corrected by a law allowing the production of intelligent submunition weapons targeting only armored equipment. Unfortunately, the law that is proposed to us today is not satisfactory in so far as it does not put manufacturers of such weapons in a sufficient situation of legal certainty.

At the meeting of the committee, I drew the committee’s attention to the criminal danger faced by manufacturers in the face of this legislation and I proposed an amendment that would ensure the legal certainty of manufacturers of smart “anti-tank” submunition, but this amendment was unfortunately not approved.

I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, that this law will eventually prevent the relocation of the Belgian company that manufactures such ammunition. Since this law, however, constitutes an improvement compared to the simple prohibition law that we voted a few weeks ago, I will vote in favour of it.

Mr. Van der Maelen, if everyone speaks so briefly, we will have addressed the point quickly.

Mr Van der Maelen, you have the word.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, with great pleasure, I will later, together with my group and the majority of the House, approve the bill.

The bill is in fact a quasi-copy of an earlier initiative taken by the House and by Belgium, namely with regard to landmines.

We used a slightly different legislative technique. While we provide for a ban on anti-personnel mines for landmines and for the rest of what falls under them, we have now chosen a different technique. We now prohibit all cluster bombs, but provide for certain exceptions.

In both cases, however, it is clear that philosophy is a total ban. I have already said in the committee that I personally would like to go further. There is no political majority in our House. I would like to ban all cluster bombs and all weapons, even the last bullet. However, there is no majority for this. So we have chosen to record that in principle all cluster bombs are prohibited, with the exception of light, smoke, interference and anti-tank bombs.

It is a general rule of interpretation that, when a principle is first outlined and thereafter exceptions to the principle are provided, the exceptions are interpreted strictly. We can point out that the second line of thought, to which the rapporteur has just referred and which we have talked about in the committee for a long time, clearly establishes a very strictly defined exception.

The exception is made for cluster ammunition, as we call it commonly, or submunition — call it as you like — which is only intended to drill through and destroy armored vehicles. The second condition to which the wreck must meet is that the cluster bombs, without any distinction, may not fully cover the battle zone, more specifically by controlling their trajectory and their target. The third condition is that they are allowed to explode only at the moment of the impact. Finally, if the goal is missed, they should not explode by the mere contact with, the presence or proximity of a person.

Here we are dealing with a very clear law, which is very strictly defined and on the basis of the rules of interpretation of legislation must be interpreted strictly, because it is the exception to a general principle. I think the Chamber thus makes it clear that it intends to take the lead of a movement, first in Belgium, then in Europe and later also worldwide, which should lead to the elimination of the use of weapons, in this case submunition or cluster bombs, which can cause civilian casualties.

At the committee meeting and subsequently in certain press reports, it was ⁇ that no progress has been made since the ban. I want to contradict that. I have here a text for me that was presented at the opening session of an international meeting by Norway. I will read this in English. The chairman, who opened the conference, said: "We have noted with interest the move by the Belgian parliament to unilaterally put a ban on cluster ammunition. We congratulate Belgium on taking a strong position in the case of these types of weapons."

Subsequently, several countries, who were present at that conference, said that, once they had heard that Belgium had taken that step, the chances of coming to this type of arrangement in their country would increase. I would also like to conclude with this. We had an agreement: once the law is passed, we would in a move in the Belgian Staatsblad publish the first and second laws, so that on that day we can proudly say that Belgium is the first country to take a step towards a global ban on cluster bombs.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Vice Prime Minister, dear colleagues, we may have the impression of hearing the same thing several times, but as repetition creates the notion, it is never bad. On 16 February last year, in effect, we adopted the bill supplementing the law of 3 January 1933 relating to the manufacture, trade, carrying of weapons and the trade of ammunition with regard to the prohibition of submunitions.

In the committee as well as in the plenary session, all parties agreed to a ban on submunitions that do not distinguish between civilians and military and that remain in place after the conflict, constituting a danger for the population that has nothing to do with the conflict. These weapons are ⁇ harmful to the civilian population of the affected countries. In the committee as well as in the plenary session, everyone agreed on the indispensable respect for international humanitarian law and for the protection of civilian populations in armed conflicts. However, during the debates, several problems arose, in particular with regard to the definition of the term "sub-munition" proposed by the project which appeared to be too general.

Some parliamentarians and representatives of the armed forces have expressed their fears that smoke or illuminating ammunition is covered by the definition, while they are signaling materials. Others were concerned, with the idea that the definition also covers "anti-tank" mines that are not intended to reach human targets but material targets. In order to find a solution that ensures the applicability of the bill while taking into account the various issues raised, we have drawn up this proposal. This bill, which we are called to vote today, constitutes the solution proposed by the PS group with our majority partners.

This bill, complementary to the first legislative text, clarifies the definition of the term "sub-munition" by mentioning the categories of weapons that will not fall under the ban. This proposal is far from damaging the first legislative text, as could be said in the press. It is not in contradiction with the bill; it does not empty it from its substance, quite the opposite. This proposal not only respects its essential objective but also, by clarifying the scope of its application, it also strengthens the means to implement it.

As a reminder, the ammunition that will not fall under the ban will be, on the one hand, the smoke ammunition, the lighting ammunition or even the equipment designed to create electrical or electronic countermeasures, which are all signaling materials, and, on the other hand, the so-called "anti-tank" ammunition precisely defined by the bill according to four criteria that my colleague sp.a spoke to you.

As you can see, these provisions are precise and contain strict requirements. Their objective is to tolerate only assistive weapons or weapons of neutralization of military rolling equipment, which allow for discrimination between civilians and military personnel, and which do not have a delayed effect over time.

While following the philosophy of the first legislative text, this bill thus responds to the fears expressed throughout the debates, whether by parliamentarians, the military, but also by the industry and the arms sector. Reassured, the latter, however, finds himself facing a real challenge, important to emphasize: that of producing a sub-munition weapon of a new generation, capable of distinguishing between the military objective — in this case a tank — and the civilian population. The challenge is large, because the bomb, by controlling its trajectory and destination, as specified in the bill, will have to avoid collateral damage, while the very vocation of this weapon is the saturation of a combat zone.

Through this bill, the first legislative text is strengthened. He sees himself even more reinforced that, alone, the latter would probably not have been sufficiently solid to impose itself in international debates where, as my colleague specified, all the texts produced in Belgium are studied at the loop.

In a way, the principle of prohibition of fragmentation bombs and sub-munition gives more weight to this law on the international stage. The NGO sector, which has repeatedly welcomed the adoption of the first legislative text, has not criticized the filing of this supplementary bill.

For the various reasons I have just mentioned, the PS Group therefore supports this proposal and asks all colleagues to also support it.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the purpose of the text of the first law that we adopted responded to our wish for a ban on submunitions. When we discussed this project, I had nevertheless pointed out the fact that the works sinned by a lack of coordination with the various actors concerned by such a provision. At the time, therefore, we came to this compromise that provided for a supplementary law defining the notion of "sub-munition" and a postponement of the entry into force of the first law until this supplementary law was adopted.

We therefore find ourselves in a linked procedure that can be annoying in some aspects but which seems to have certain advantages.

It seems that other countries are taking a step towards the definition and prohibition of submunition weapons, including Norway, which is also a producer of weapons and submunition. The debate on the European and international stage can ⁇ evolve in the direction we want. This was one of the fears expressed by many colleagues, the fear that Belgium would not adopt a law and provisions that isolate it on the arms trade scene. This positive advance reassures us about the direction this law takes.

I believe that we could have gone further in the definition of certain terms and be more precise, more voluntary, especially with regard to the remote guidance of each submunition and the requirement for the effectiveness of strike and explosion of these submunitions.

Belgium, through the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Defense, will have to be proud and bold about the text adopted. It will have to charge persistent persons to defend this position at international meetings, such as that of June, for example in Geneva, where it will have to pronounce and conclude agreements within the framework of conventional weapons discussions.

I will ask our Minister of Foreign Affairs to see if he agrees to grant human, financial and technical resources to support the progress of this law.

At the same time, we see that a process is taking place, at the same time we regret that the terms were not accurate enough to really eliminate what is not a submunition, and therefore being more accurate on remote guidance. Therefore, our group will abstain from this proposal.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, dear colleagues, we share the useful and necessary fight against anti-personal weapons. Let us be very clear on this point! This country has been a pioneer against anti-personnel mines. Thanks to the action of Belgium, the Ottawa Convention could ⁇ become a reality.

We are therefore in favor of combating submunition that would have an anti-personal effect and that would affect civilian populations. This is also the reason why we voted, about a month ago, the law that this bill today wants to correct in one of its aspects.

I find it useful to encourage, in a general way, weapons technology and research. In fact, I consider that there will always be a need for weapons in this world and I do not participate in a certain utopia that would tend to believe in a perfect world.

In terms of pacification, Belgium and other international structures obviously have a role to play on military grounds. Weapons are probably needed. We must therefore promote weapons research to make sure that our weapons, the weapons that are produced, are more targeted, more selective weapons that affect weapons and weapons rather than civilian populations.

What can be better than a weapon that destroys another weapon? It seems to me to be a goal to pursue. The submunition that destroys armoured weapons seems to me to be a useful work, given that the armoured weapons are going to hit civilian populations. I think this reminder is necessary. Armoured vehicles generally kill more civilians than military personnel.

Consequently, by developing submunition that focuses on armoured vehicles and destroys armoured vehicles, civilian populations are saved. We must work in this direction and promote scientific research to produce weapons that save civilian populations and focus on military targets. This is somewhat what we are doing today.

At the same time, we reconcile the humanitarian objective, which aims to permanently ban anti-personnel weapons, and the socio-economic and scientific research issues that we consider important, given that our country and in particular my region, the Liege region, are at the forefront of this.

Of course, we could do better. This was also stated in an amendment that Mr. Monfils and I had deposited and that consisted in making sure to encourage the research and manufacture of submunitions that self-destruct. In our opinion, this was preferable, since we were there engaged in a path that would create, through simple competition, a kind of general agreement on the need to manufacture self-destructive ammunition and submunition, and this in all countries. Per ⁇ we have missed the opportunity to promote this path of research. I regret it.

Today we have a bill to stimulate research into sub-munition intended to destroy armor. This is an important and interesting step, which corrects a law that, without it, would ignore all this possibility of advanced research and technology in the field of arms. by

It depends on the interpretation of each. I warn those who, in advance, interpret this law in a way that is unfavorable to the arms industries. In fact, I believe that it is urgent and necessary to return to the spirit of this bill that safeguards the possibility for the Belgian industry to manufacture weapons that do not affect civilian populations and focus on armored weapons. It is in this spirit that my group will vote on this proposal.

I will now give the floor successively to Mr. Goris and Monfils. Then I will suspend the session for a moment for technical reasons related to the report of the work.

In the “Vatican” history, there is an episode to not forget. Like the mr. Hasquin is absent, I can say: in the Vatican, we speak of a “cardinals’ bladder,” Mr. Tant.

Mr. President, this is not the case!

and yes!

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, from the Vatican back to the cluster ammunition.

With some admiration, but also with mixed feelings, I listened to the logic of colleague Bacquelaine. Even being a “tanker” and having to hear from him with what pleasure he wants to destroy those tanks gave me a bit of a strange feeling, but it was still a nice logic to hear asking why we ⁇ ’t encourage the technology to be further developed to destroy other weapons. Congratulations on that logic.

Next, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Meeus, on her report. I think it is very important to emphasize this here. This is not a courtesy communication, although in some cases it is. In this case, the content of the report, as well as the elements that emerged in this debate, are of great importance. The word “interpretation” has already been used a few times, and therefore exactly what is on paper, what was spoken here and what is included in the report of the committee’s work is of great importance. If, in a subsequent period, certain authorities, the executive power or the judiciary, are to make decisions while the matters are not clear, reference shall be made to the parliamentary work that preceded the adoption of both drafts. Therefore, I am pleased that the report of our colleague, Mrs. Meeus, is so comprehensive, detailed and comprehensive. I would like to refer to that.

Collega Van der Maelen has very correctly started by saying that we have received a draft from the Senate where the road was reversed. In fact, it was not aimed at the prohibition of antipersonnel cluster munitions or, more specifically, as we should actually call them, the antipersonnel fragmentation bombs, which are a cluster bomb, a cluster application. In the spirit of goodwill, the Senate was instructed to prohibit all cluster ammunition, with all the consequences thereof. Their

As a result, we were also forced in the Chamber to follow the opposite path. With respect for the work of our colleagues in the High Assembly, we have done our best to formulate a number of exceptions, which of course is more difficult. That it is more difficult is not a reason to go away from it. We have made that attempt, and I feel that attempt has succeeded.

We have very precisely — I will not repeat what colleagues have already said here — the conditions outlined in this proposal and we have also very precisely stated that applications of light, smoke, interference and anti-tank fall outside. Indeed, the crash point that it was actually talking about was precisely that anti-tank ammunition. That is what it is about now. Their

Is anti-tank ammunition allowed or not? Well, anti-tank ammunition is allowed insofar as it meets the conditions laid down by the law. Exactly, this also means the following. There are currently two applications in anti-tank ammunition, as the rapporteur cited. Their

A first application is the inert anti-tank ammunition, also called the arrow ammunition, which is penetrated by armor by its kinetic energy, but which, of course, does not explode. It is in fact a piece of metal, in the form of a heavy bullet, which through its own kinetic force perforates the armor. Of course, this is without any danger.

There is a second, more common application: the HEAT ammunition. Heat stands for high explosive anti-tank ammunition. That is what it is actually about. That HEAT ammunition is today the most used ammunition to fight tanks. It is used from a different tank but also in cluster applications that can be thrown off by aircraft.

Indeed, a Belgian company, a Waals company, is a pioneer in developing smart HEAT anti-tank ammunition that causes that specific ammunition to spread in a given zone, which prevents collateral damage. The company is apparently leading in that and is now worried about what is going to happen.

That HEAT ammunition can be compared to, in the debate about anti-personnel mines, an anti-tank mine. It also has the same intention and it explodes only as soon as it touches the armor wall. It also needs the same force to explode. In other words, the comparison with an anti-tank mine is there.

Then I would like to refer to the position that Belgium took years ago. We took the lead then — as colleague Bacquelaine pointed out in the anti-personnel mine debate — and I am very pleased that we also take the lead today in the debate to help anti-personnel cluster bombs from the world, because that was the point. That was also the initial intention of the proposals in the Senate.

So, let’s work very hard for it and also internationally for it. Let us also create all conditions to give this debate opportunities in the international forum. The more precise we are — and this law has contributed to it — the more success we will likely be achieving in the debate to definitively help anti-personal fragmentation bombs out of this world.

The last speaker in this general debate is Mr. Monfils, Chairman of the Commission in question. I give you the word.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, I will vote in favour of this bill because it marks a progression from the ban on the manufacture of submunition decided a few weeks ago by the House. But, I can nevertheless refrain from considering that, on the double plane of the parliamentary debate and the substance of this proposal, things pose problems.

On the level of parliamentary debate, first of all, the parliamentary initiative to ban, you know, comes from the Senate which, in this case, has very little justified its qualification of the Chamber of Reflection. In fact, the Senate parliamentarians strictly did not see the problem and sent the text as it was to the House, without worrying about the economic and social consequences that such a ban would bring not only to the South, but also, I insist, to the North of the country. The House I believe, having taken the file, has done an objective work and I congratulate myself as chairman of the committee. On the one hand, we heard experts from organizations who wanted the pure and simple prohibition and who justified it, on the other hand, we heard representatives of the employers.

But after debate, it turned out impossible that an amendment could be voted, not because the committee was hostile to any amendment, but because a majority did not want a parliamentary shuttle and a return to the Senate. This is precisely the reason why the amendments were not voted, which, however, I think, were very good — Mr. Bacquelaine, by the way, recalled it - and that limited submunitions on two points: no more submunitions, on the one hand, neutralization on the other. This could lead to consensus. This was not possible, for reasons I will almost say promises of voting on this text by the sp.a and by the PS on day J and time H. But finally, in the meantime, it was agreed that a bill would be submitted which could not be called reparatory, but complementary, and that the publication of the first would be stopped while waiting for the vote of the second. So now we come to this proposal.

What to think? First of all, I will go on to exclude the smog and lighting equipment. This is really the smoke screen thrown at this proposal. This was already admitted by everyone, during the debate of the first proposal to the ban. I remember that even Mr. Van der Maelen, who has always been very objective even if he had the toughest position, said: “Of course, we don’t deal with fumigens and illuminants.” This has been said several times and repeated by the whole. We put it here. So this does not change anything at all. In cinematographic language, it is simply a remake of a scene that was previously played in the Defence Commission.

The novelty appears in the following paragraph of the proposal. Like the mr. Denis, I have doubts, because the text appears, on some points, too precise and, on others, too broad. Without wanting to make an analysis of it, let us note that, when the proposal says, "submunitions are not the devices intended to break through or destroy armoured devices and which are only used for this purpose," what happens if a submunition is used to destroy other material than an armoured device? What does the phrase "without the possibility of indistinguishably saturating the combat zones" mean? What about collateral damage?

When I was a kid, I went a lot to the cinema to see the projection of westerns or war films. You will never make me believe that a tank walks alone. In every film, a tank is surrounded by soldiers. If a sub-munition makes a tank explode, the risks are high that the military will feel anything other than cramps at the foot or some blue in the soul or elsewhere. It is obvious.

Therefore, seriously, we risk — this is the warning issued by Mr. Bacquelaine — that an organization, totally opposed to deviating from the general prohibition, goes into legal courts by invoking the fact that the text must be interpreted strictly. In fact, it is an exception to the prohibition and, in law, the prohibition must be interpreted in a restrictive way, as the Minister recalled. by Van der Maelen.

I am therefore afraid that, in the coming months, not the current contract at the Forges de Zeebruges but a new contract will be overturned and that, of course, an appeal will be brought to the court. From expert expertise, the consequence could be a considerable delay in the procurement procedure and even, why not, the abandonment or rupture of these.

This is not the first time that some countries are somewhat tired of the ban measures we are taking in the field of industries. This is no longer happening at the federal level, but at the wallon level. Meanwhile, whether it be France, Great Britain or Germany, when one of these countries sees a horde of parliamentarians rushing, either to the Region or to the federal, to block or prohibit the execution of a contract, this is what begins to give us a disgusting reputation, not to us parliamentarians but to companies.

In conclusion, I have a mixed feeling. We saved the essentials immediately, but the text does not give any guarantee and it is less general than the amendments we submitted in a parliamentary committee.

The arms industry and, in particular, the Walloon arms industry do not cease to suffer in their jobs the consequences of political decisions presented as humanitarian but which, in fact, do not cause any beneficial consequences in this sector. Indeed, everyone continues and will continue to manufacture ammunition and submunition; no one follows us. Yes, we applaud, like Norway; in the meantime, it continues. France welcomes, but it continues to use them.

Everyone continues, which reminds me of the situation we knew during the law on universal jurisdiction: everyone congratulated the position of Belgium and all countries hastened to send their war criminals to us to be charged, prosecuted and punished by other jurisdictions than those of the countries where they had "officially" served.

We know what happened later!

Norway is not a good example. Indeed, its arms industry spends its time shaking because it is not part of the European Union and striving to enter the European Defence Agency, which — I think — is not made to consider or promote the manufacture of sweets or chocolate flashes! We are all congratulated! We are very happy that we are losing markets that will be recovered by others!

In conclusion, I hope that the ban on the manufacture of submunitions will be the last of the proposals of this type that we will have to discuss and that the bill we are discussing today will ⁇ its objective, namely, alongside the humanitarian, to worry also about the economic and social problems experienced by workers, especially Wallons, in the arms sector.