Proposition 51K2799

Projet de loi réglant l'installation et l'utilisation de caméras de surveillance.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

May 31, 2006

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

security services protection of privacy public safety criminal law video surveillance

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR FN VB

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 1, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The Prime Minister seems to be interested in something else.

Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, it seems that you are not interested in the subject! It is not me who says it, but Mr. The President !

Mr. Speaker, I find it strange that, while I am in the Chamber, they have already called my cabinet three times to tell me to come.

They miss you.

I was sitting behind.

We are not used to seeing it in the back of the parliament. That’s why you didn’t look.

I was in good company.

You were good there.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the project that is presented to you responds to a social and constitutional necessity.

The theme of surveillance cameras has made a lot of ink flow and has led to many discussions. Some argue that the right to privacy prevails, while others believe that the security of individuals prevails over their freedom.

A democratic society cannot be without the rights and freedoms that individuals can oppose to the holders of public power. A democratic society must make individual freedom the foundation of its functioning. This freedom involves the freedom of choice, the freedom to refuse certain ideas or proposals, and also the freedom to go and come wherever one wishes, without the movements of individuals being subject to tracking, filing or surveillance by public authorities that could use it against them. However, it cannot be denied that the right to security exists.

During the debates in the Interior Committee, some people who were heard argued that the right to security does not exist. This statement is completely false. Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights explicitly recognises the right to security. Furthermore, this right is linked to other provisions recognizing other rights, in particular the right to privacy and the right to freedom. Indeed, the rights to freedom and privacy, recognized by international treaties, are not absolute. In the European Convention on Human Rights, both Article 4, which recognises the right to freedom, and Article 8, which recognises the right to privacy, provide that the rights that they recognize may be limited or even excluded under certain strict conditions, among which the concern to ensure the safety of persons. Therefore, the right to security exists.

We are facing a balance of two essential rights for a democratic society, namely the right to privacy and the right to security. This debate was first held in the Senate. Hearing was carried out diligently; the Privacy Protection Committee issued an opinion and a text was voted.

It should be noted the urgency of voting a text. In fact, at present, the subject of surveillance cameras is the subject of a legislative framework established by the law of 19 December 1992 on the protection of personal data. However, this law has gaps that undermine the protection of the privacy of citizens. This law did not provide sufficient guarantees to ensure that public authorities that install surveillance cameras or private persons using such devices respect the privacy of the persons filmed.

Legislation is therefore necessary to ensure that the citizens of that country do not intrude the right to privacy by public authorities.

However, a balance of interests should be achieved between the protection of privacy and the safety of individuals.

It is undeniable that the safety of individuals is increased by the presence of video surveillance cameras. These enable the detection of disruptors, but also to prevent imminent damage in the event, for example, of the start of an accident. They also have the advantage of subsequently returning to facts that took place in a public place by identifying a suspect or a potential witness.

The law that is proposed to vote fulfils the functions of both security but also respect for privacy. Indeed, it allows the use of surveillance cameras by both public and private actors, which constitutes a step towards the concern of ensuring the safety of individuals.

However, this authorization is subject to limitations. Individuals must be warned of the presence of video surveillance devices. Viewed images must be destroyed after a maximum period of one month and access to images will be limited. It will therefore be forbidden to collect images that violate the privacy of persons or aim to provide information relating to ideological, religious convictions or political belonging.

The Commission for the Protection of Privacy will be informed of the installation of video surveillance cameras in any place in the public or private space.

Finally, with regard to the public space, i.e. a place which, by its nature, must be subject to the freedom to go and come without restriction, the decision to place a video surveillance camera must be taken by the municipal council, i.e. the organ enjoying the legitimacy offered by universal suffrage.

This law constitutes, in my eyes, an equilibrium between various imperatives which must impose themselves on a democratic society. It also allows the guardian to ensure that the public and private bodies cannot interfere in the private life of individuals, and also guarantees to the society that the measures are taken in order to guarantee its security. (Applause of Applause)

I have registered Mr Cortois, Mr Maene, Mrs De Permentier and Mr Bex as speakers. Mrs Schryvers will also speak and not Mr Claes, apparently. Mrs Schryvers, I will be the first to give you the word. Ladies first and the opposition first. Then Mr. Maene, then Mr. Bex and Mr. Cortois, in the order they want, and then, lastly, Mrs. De Permentier, who was the rapporteur.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, today is the long-awaited camera law here to be discussed. Rightly, we are discussing a bill that regulates the use and placement of surveillance cameras. This is clearly necessary. This is widely recognized.

CD&V was, some time ago, the first political party to submit a proposal on this subject. Mr. Minister, because of this need, we were satisfied that you shared our opinion and handed the initiative over to Parliament.

We were also pleased that the draft was discussed in the committee a few weeks ago. However, our disappointment was great when it turned out that "to discuss" was once again an euphemism and that the agenda "to vote" was better applied.

We really need a law, but we need a good law, a sound law. That’s where the shoe runs. Without prejudice to the Senate’s initiative, the present draft, in our opinion, contains a lot of uncertainties. Various provisions are subject to broad interpretation. This can ⁇ not be the intention in the relevant context.

In various articles, our questions showed that the minister shares our view, only we appear to read the articles consciously or unconsciously differently. We have the firm impression that the majority read the texts with the glasses of the time pressure on the nose. What we have seen in the committee is nothing more than to take or leave. There is no room for discussion; there is no possibility for adjustment or improvement.

The result is, in our opinion, an imperfect text. It is very sad, very sad, we think so. And we are not alone in our criticism. The Privacy Commission and the Human Rights League also point out a number of shortcomings in the text. This imperfect legislation can, in our opinion, lead to a lot of disputes and legal proceedings.

Mr. Minister, colleagues, I will not repeat here all our commonly constructive comments and amendments. In terms of the subject, however, I would like to zoom into two basic trouble points.

First, there is the procedure for approving the placement of cameras in undecided places. The draft says: “The decision to place is made after the municipal council of the municipalities concerned and the chief of the corps of the police zone concerned have given a positive opinion.”

This provision leaves a lot of room for interpretation. What if one of the two gives a negative advice? What if a advice is missing and not given? Wouldn’t it be better if an explicit permission is given to the placement of the camera? My sense of language increases whenever I face binding negative opinions. Call it refusal for me. Both agencies have a veto right. Mr. Minister, you say that in a well-functioning zone there will be consultation on this. It is also so. Should we not, however, formulate the legislation in such a way that there is a clear regulation in the case of disputes? Hence our proposal. It follows that after having carried out a safety and efficiency analysis, the chief of the police area in question gives an opinion to the municipal council, which in turn gives an approval for the placement of the camera. Mr. Minister, you say that you interpret the text of Article 5 in this way. This, however, is not entirely stated in the above-mentioned texts on which we will vote today. Therefore, CD&V will submit an amendment on this subject again.

The advantage of such approval by the municipal council is that it can be of a temporary nature. Over time, a situation can change, making it no longer appropriate to provide camera surveillance in a particular place. A new safety and efficiency analysis on site could prove this. In that sense, CD&V then proposes to limit the granted approval in time to 3 years, for example. Subsequently, a new authorisation must be obtained in the same manner as with the initial approval.

The second point remains the discussion on the retention period of the images. The design rightly provides for a maximum storage time of the images of one month by providing that the images are not stored for more than one month. This is in response to the comments that the Privacy Commission has already made in several of its opinions on this subject. According to the formulation, it is perfectly possible to keep the images less than a month. There is no minimum storage time. In short, it is best possible that images have already been destroyed at the moment that police services want to retrieve them in the context of the establishment of a crime.

Mr. Tint is not here, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister.

In these circumstances, we all have a little butter on our heads, right?

The purpose of the images is to establish infringements or maintain order. Camera surveillance provides an additional tool in the fight against various crimes such as shop theft. Our focus is primarily on the victims. Therefore, according to the minister in his response, the system’s insider will never destroy camera images if these could provide evidence of a crime. Mr. Minister, according to CD&V, you assume that cameras only record things that provide a benefit to the locator. However, cameras also record other things. Crimes can also be assumed by the person who stores and stores the images himself.

An example is the camera that was set up to prevent shop theft but records an act of aggression by the owner against a customer. Therefore, in our opinion, it would also be useful to introduce a minimum retention period in the law. In the event of a complaint, the controller for the processing can therefore be held liable if he would already have destroyed the images because they would contain taxing material. We believe, as you know, that this minimum retention period should be recorded for any type of camera use, both in closed and unclosed spaces.

Ladies and gentlemen, these are just a few questions that I would like to address again. We will also submit amendments on this subject today. Furthermore, I can only hope that one remains always prepared for evaluation and revision and that the applicants will also have the parliamentary documents at hand in addition to the law. I can only hope that because it will be necessary given the many possibilities of interpretation.

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. More and more municipalities and ⁇ install video surveillance systems supposed to prevent acts of violence, incivilities, and above all help counter the feeling of insecurity. We currently have the impression of an anarchic, unregulated development of these cameras.

The provisions we are examining will clarify things and provide more legal guarantees, both for municipal authorities, private users, but also for citizens.

The bill has been the subject of remarkable work in the Senate: numerous hearings have been gathered and long debates in the committee of the Interior have led to a text that, like any human work, is perfectable, of course, but which has the merit of filling a legal gap - and it was time for it to be so.

At present, both public and private video surveillance systems are already governed by the provisions of the 1992 Privacy Protection Act. The Privacy Protection Commission has repeatedly had the opportunity to address this particular issue and has already been able to highlight the use of this monitoring and prevention technique.

However, from the unanimous opinion of the experts and the persons heard, a more precise law is necessary to avoid legal uncertainty.

In her excellent report, Ms. De Permentier explained extensively what the European Convention on Human Rights states. In advance, please excuse me for repeating what she said. Article 22 of the Constitution and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights enshrine this essential right to privacy. The Constitution adds that the law must guarantee the protection of this right, but the latter is not absolute. It follows thus from Article 22 of the Constitution and further from § 2 of Article 8 of the European Convention that the right to privacy is subject to limitations provided by law and necessary, in a democratic society, for the protection of certain values related to the preservation of order.

This is an obviously delicate matter in which it is necessary to seek a balance between two legitimate interests. First, privacy must be respected to prevent us from falling into a “Big Brother” society. Second, camera surveillance can play a preventive role and facilitate the detection of crime and incivilities.

It would therefore not be appropriate to render impossible the application of this means of surveillance, even if it is necessary to relativise the effects it may cause. Until proof of the contrary, in the serious acts of terrorism we were able to witness, this prevention tool did not work. Indeed, although it allowed to find the perpetrators, it did not prevent these offenses from being committed.

Our goal is to better frame the use of surveillance cameras. While the Privacy Protection Act provides a certain legal framework, it does not contain concrete standards regarding video surveillance.

In accordance with Article 17 of the Privacy Protection Act with regard to the processing of personal data, the user of a camera system for security purposes must make a declaration to the Privacy Protection Commission.

Practice shows that very little or too little use of cameras meets these different obligations, which requires system regulation.

The mechanism we are going to set up follows five major principles that we consider important.

1 of 1. The principle of legitimate purpose. The controller must respect the purpose he assigns to video surveillance, which must also comply with the law.

2 of 2. The principle of proportionality implies that there must always be a balance between respect for private life and the protection of public order. This means that the use of video surveillance must be adequate, relevant and not excessive.

3 of 3. The principle of transparency. The citizen must be informed that he is being viewed. He has the right to consultation and, if necessary, to correction of errors.

4 of 4. The principle of image quality. The controller must undertake that they are accurate, which implies an obligation to take all measures to prevent their falsification for evil purposes.

5 of 5. The principle of subsidiarity. The controller must establish that there is no other measure less intimate, which implies that video surveillance must always be thought of as part of the zonal security plan.

The law of 1992 grants important rights to citizens. I note in Article 13 in particular the possibility of filing a complaint with the Privacy Protection Commission, a collateral body of Parliament whose members are in the capacity of judicial police officers. Article 14 gives citizens the possibility to bring an action in cessation before the court of first instance.

To these already existing guarantees, the provisions of the bill under discussion will be added tomorrow.

I will not reflect all of the provisions of the project here. I will return to the report.

For cameras installed in public spaces, i.e. by municipalities and police areas, the project provides for a positive opinion of the municipal council on the basis of a file presented by the treatment manager and the safety and efficiency study carried out by the area head. There will be a public, democratic debate in the municipal council. As the Minister confirmed, it is this municipal council that will have the last word.

Remember also that prevention and security measures will also have to appear in the zone security plan discussed in the council, which will allow to bring this device back in coherence with other police priorities and devices.

Images taken by surveillance cameras in public places must be taken under the authority of the police. Furthermore, the King shall be charged to specify the conditions to which persons who may be authorized to practice viewing must meet. This is a remarkable advance even though the precautions to be taken correspond to provisions already in force in some municipalities. But it is true that practice is often a source of good advice.

I would also like to draw attention to the clarification of the obligations that will be subject to private users of surveillance cameras in private places accessible or not to the public. This will avoid doing everything and above all anything. In addition, the general prohibition of infringing on privacy, political, trade union and other opinions is also a major point of the arrangement put in place.

The presented text seems to provide sufficient guarantees. That is why my group will vote on it without any objections.

First of all, I would like to thank the reporter, Ms. Corinne De Permentier, for her excellent report. The report also shows that during the discussion of the draft law coming from the Senate, the Chamber Committee of Home Affairs did not go on ice overnight. Mr. Minister, I would also like to emphasize that you actively and positively and with all your know-how participated in the discussion of the draft in the committee. We looked seriously at the design. We also did not limit ourselves to flying over. We have, among other things, held hearings with the representatives of the League for Human Rights, with a representative of the Privacy Commission and with two representatives of the police, namely a representative of the federal police and the police chief of Mouscron.

Colleagues, Mr. Minister, the VLD has learned from this that the League for Human Rights wanted to go for a reverse, legal approach and advocated for a general ban on the placement and use of surveillance cameras. The league wanted to allow a number of exceptions in a limited, well-defined number of cases. As a liberal, I have a great sympathy for this approach. On the other hand, I must also note that it does not take into account the political reality and what lives in society.

Colleagues, from the hearings I also learned that the representatives of the Privacy Commission and the two police officers had some critical concerns and suggestions regarding the text transmitted by the Senate. In fact, they could have lived with something in advance.

Colleagues, the VLD cannot fail to see that roughly over the past ten years the surveillance cameras have been shooting from the ground like mushrooms, with as various initiators both governments, companies and commercial affairs as well as individuals.

We are all watched by surveillance cameras dozens of times every day – starting when we enter or drive into the Parliament, Mr. Speaker. We also note that all companies, all commercial ⁇ find it actually a need to be able to take pictures of us.

Of course, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, there is a problem – I have also said it in the committee – with regard to what we still consider an essential right, a cornerstone of our democratic rule of law, in particular the right, the freedom to privacy. It is therefore clear that the VLD does not want to know of a kind of big brother company, who that big brother is, where governments, citizens, companies can record their employees or their customers, or where individuals can record all those who are interested in their actions and let them go.

The need for regulation is even greater because we have indeed had to establish that all that camera doo has seen an explosive growth in the last ten years. The law of 8 December 1992 on the protection of privacy was actually adopted at a time when this partially also technological evolution could not be predicted, resulting in the fact that the law on privacy does not provide an answer or an adequate response to the phenomenon of the surveillance camera. By the way, Mr. Minister, today I must confirm with you that a whole series of camera systems have been placed here and there without ever being desired or licensed anywhere.

The present draft law – I will not explain it all over again, because the reporter has done so – seeks a fair balance between, on the one hand, the concern for safeguarding and protecting the privacy of citizens and, on the other hand, the proper use of an important instrument as it is accepted by citizens in the fight against crime and harm, in particular the surveillance camera. It is in principle acceptable for the VLD to install surveillance cameras, however, and ⁇ with respect to the government, provided that those cameras are part of a democratically approved and controlled integrated security policy.

Therefore, I think – some speakers have already pointed out – that it is good that in Article 5 of the draft law it is expressly stated that the installation and use of surveillance cameras in unclosed places on public roads must be the subject of an opinion of the municipal council. In other words, without positive advice from the municipal council, no camera placement is possible on the public road.

Mr. Minister, this is not your draft because it is a parliamentary initiative. Some have pointed out the duality hidden in Article 5. In particular, in addition to the positive opinion of the municipal council, there is also a positive opinion required from the chief of the corps. In fact, the latter acts more like a safety specialist. He examines whether the proposed placement and use of the cameras frame the general local security plan and whether it complies with the principles of the privacy law. With regard to the double opinion, I and many others still have the impression that a opinion of a democratically elected body, in particular the municipal council, is no more valuable than that of a mandate holder, which is a police chief. In my opinion, this remains one of the pain points in the present whole.

Colleagues, the bill is generally in line with what the VLD, with its concern for safeguarding our privacy, considers an acceptable arrangement. We take into account the finding that there seems to be a social consensus on the fact that security cameras are a useful tool in the fight against crime and harassment.

We also find it good that it is clearly stated that this is indeed about the use of surveillance cameras and that similar techniques – I mean unmanned cameras for traffic control, safety at football matches and the special detection techniques – are the subject of another legislative regulation.

Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, I come to my decision. One of the colleagues has already said it: your decision more than two years ago, to entrust the whole issue of surveillance cameras to the Senate, has been a wise decision. This time, the Senate has done well with its reflection task and has invested time and energy. Senator Noreilde and his colleagues gave us a good proposal.

Is it a perfect text? The answer is – how can it be different? and no. A number of amendments, including those submitted by the CD&V Group, may involve improvements or clarifications. We have a choice, my colleagues. Anyone who overlooks the parliamentary agenda knows that there is no longer time to send this bill – everyone is essentially agreed on its general content – again and again between the Chamber and the Senate. Everyone also says that given the wild growth of surveillance cameras, it is high time for Parliament to come up with legislation.

So the question is, Mrs. Schryvers, whether we will throw away the long-awaited child with the bath water. Or do we now complete the work that has been started in this legislature? The decision was made quickly in the committee. I note that ten members voted in favour and two members abstained.

We have made constructive proposals to improve this bill. However, we note that, under time pressure, we cannot accept these proposals because the fear is that the draft must be returned to the Senate again. We want to commit ourselves to get it resolved with our colleagues in the Senate and then discuss it here. This was not the subject of the discussion.

We want a good draft law about which, especially later, no more discussions and controversies will arise. We fear, by not incorporating some of our recommendations now, that there will be an opportunity for discussion and extensive discussions in the jurisprudence later.

Mr. Claes, I can partially understand your concern. However, those who want to examine the parliamentary course of affairs in recent years – history is often an interesting reader – will have to find that such operations very rarely succeed. The goodwill is always present but the work in Parliament is so unpredictable that the risk is great that the work done, first of all in the Senate – why would we not be able to admit it from the House – and also in our committee, would be lost. We would thus throw away the child with the bath water. You will agree that this is not bad at all. I would also like to admit that it is not perfect.

Mr. Claes, I don’t have to explain to you that in politics you have to make choices and take responsibility. If one cannot attain the ideal – I agree with you on that – should one then stick to that ideal, hoping that what one considers an ideal may someday be realized? We believe that this bill is a step in the right direction, towards the necessary balance between the concern for safeguarding privacy and the rightful concern of citizens for a safe society, which is also important.

Mr. Cortois, before you decide, I let Mr. Claes intervene for a moment.

There is a lot of work in the Senate. That is right. However, what is missing, for example, is an opinion of the State Council on the proposals amended in the Senate. We had an opinion on the original proposal but we did not receive an opinion on the amended proposal. We also asked if there could be no emergency advice from the State Council. That would have been important.

Let it be clear, CD&V is for legislation on that camera surveillance. There is no doubt about this. We have also submitted legislative proposals for this. We are only afraid that we will soon face repair legislation again. That can be regretted.

Mr. Speaker, we can of course continue to replicate, but I think, Mr. Claes and Mrs. Schryvers, that we actually share the same concern. All parties agree that there should be legislation. She is there now. It is undoubtedly susceptible to improvements and hopefully we can work together in the next legislature to ensure those improvements.

Mme De Permentier a déjà pris la parole as rapporteur. She does not wish to intervene in the debate. The last speaker is thus colleague Stijn Bex, after which I close this speaker list for the general discussion.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, I would like to explain in a brief discussion why we have submitted a bill on camera surveillance. Next, I will reiterate a number of points on which we made critical remarks during the discussions. Finally, I will repeat the position taken by the Minister on this matter and the clear answer he gave to our questions.

Why is there a need to create a legal framework for camera surveillance? I think there are two good reasons for this. The colleagues have already mentioned it.

First, there is the wild growth we know about placing cameras. It seems that if we do not stop that evolution, we will soon find ourselves in a situation like that in the United Kingdom, in London, for example, where one cannot take a step without being filmed. This is not immediately the society we have in mind from spirit.

Second, there is the problem that the current legal framework is inadequate. This was very clearly addressed, for example, when the court of Dendermonde was to decide on 25 October last year on a case in which the owner of several houses in a street in Sint-Niklaas, was acquitted of infringement of the privacy legislation, an infringement which the neighbors committed when they complained that a camera network depicted the entire street and that this was controlled from the home room of that individual. The judge then actually said that this was not in conflict with the existing legislation on the protection of privacy.

I think it is important to put an end to this with this bill and ensure that if you do camera surveillance for private affairs, this can only be done on that private situation, in your own home, but not in the public space.

We have submitted ourselves a bill with which we wanted to counter the wild growth of surveillance cameras. Collega Cortois has already referred to the question of the French-speaking Commission on Human Rights, where it was suggested that a decision be made in advance by the Commission on the protection of privacy to see whether or not a camera can be installed. Well, we have not been deaf to the comments in that regard of the privacy committee itself, that this would still impose a significant workload on it, and that in today’s society this cannot be expected from the privacy committee.

Regarding the placement of cameras in the public domain, we believe that the competence in the area of the municipal council is well defined in this legislation.

We want to avoid getting into a society where people are constantly filmed. The right to privacy is just as important to us as the right to security. Sometimes it is presented as if these two rights were in conflict with each other and that one must choose security or privacy.

However, this does not necessarily have to be contradictory. It is essential that we guarantee security without excessively violating privacy. This is the balance that we are trying to ⁇ with this project.

We acknowledge that camera surveillance can contribute to enhancing security in certain cases. At the same time, however, we want to warn those who would think that cameras are a miracle remedy to guarantee safety. This is not the case. Among other things, colleague Maene has given a number of examples that make it clear that even if you film an entire city, you can never prevent criminal acts from happening there.

Several studies have already shown that the deterrent effect of cameras is quite limited, except in well-defined places such as parking garages. In this regard, however, it is noted that crime threatens to move to places that are not secured by camera surveillance.

There is a repressive aspect. The ability to catch the perpetrators actually increases when you have camera images of them. However, the cost of camera surveillance in the public domain is very high and is still the equivalent of the deployment of a few police officers. Therefore, at the local level, one must always consider whether one uses police personnel or uses camera surveillance.

We are convinced that the bill requires the municipalities to make an informed decision regarding the placement of cameras. In the past — and this is partly a response to the criticism of the CD&V colleagues that some provisions are too broad and subject to interpretation — everything related to camera surveillance fell under the privacy legislation.

The Privacy Law is primarily a law with general principles, which must then be interpreted and applied to concrete situations. The problem was that it was unclear how to apply those general principles of privacy law – finality, effectiveness, proportionality and subsidiarity – to camera surveillance.

For this, the law created a whole framework that requires the advice of the head of the local police zone. He must very clearly justify the existence of a security risk that can be effectively tackled with camera surveillance, in a way that, in addition, could not be more efficient than by merely using police personnel.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bex, the coming legislation is in itself an improvement. I think everyone agrees on this, but that the legislation does not provide for an evaluation for the camera surveillance systems we find a real gap. We advocate for an evaluation that would be mandatory after two, three or five years, which would once again carefully check whether all the objectives with the placement of the camera are really achieved. Otherwise, some camera systems in our country in the future may be useless and overlook their purpose.

Colleague Claes, you know very well that during the discussions I myself also said that it is useful to evaluate the placement of cameras at regular times. I think that the Minister in the first instance has already made a very important clarification on Article 5, namely that no cameras can be installed without the prior advice of the chief of the corps. The municipal council must first be able to take note of this and then give a positive opinion. If that positive advice does not come, it is also not possible to move on to the placement of cameras.

With a very concrete example, I will try to clarify why I think that the law, although I do not believe it to be perfect, still provides a sufficient guarantee. You know the situation in Leuven as well as I do. You live in a municipality. You know that we have cameras in the Grote Markt and in an adjacent street. Sometimes it has been said that we should extend that camera surveillance to a number of other streets. It speaks for itself – as long as I am in the municipal council of Leuven – that, before expanding that system, one will have to come up with a report explaining why the operation at the place where all the cameras were, is so positively evaluated. I will use my powers as a member of the municipal council. I assume that the countless good CD&V municipal councillors will also use that power to ask those questions and demand that that evaluation come on the table, before they judge about any possible expansion or, in any other case, any possible renewal of the system.

I think the law gives a number of tools to members of the municipal council. It might have been a little more, but those tools are there. A strong municipal council, with powerful municipal councillors and a mayor who allows for some criticism, for example from the opposition, ⁇ has sufficient resources to effectively request that evaluation.

I would like to know from Mr. Bex if he really read Article 5. The Minister has given an interpretation, but the article does not say at all that the opinion of the chief of the corps should be submitted to the municipal council. It only says: “after the municipal council of the municipality concerned and the chief of the corps of the police zone concerned have given a positive opinion.”

I know that the Minister is of the opinion that in a well-functioning zone the two are linked together. We dare to hope that too. For us, however, the legislative work must also be done in case there would be any disputes. There is no guarantee for this at the moment.

In addition, in connection with the evaluation, you just said that a well-functioning municipal council will only decide to extend, after an evaluation has been done. You are right about expansion. After all, you cannot talk about renewal, because within the framework of the present draft an authorisation is granted for an indefinite period.

Mrs Schryvers, I may surprise you, but I actually read Article 5 thoroughly. I even read your amendments to the article thoroughly.

What do you claim? You claim that the law does not include that there must first be an opinion of the chief of the corps before the municipal council can decide.

If that is the case, I would like to invite every municipal councillor who is faced with the conscious situation, with the parliamentary documents in hand, in which both the minister and all the political groups have claimed that the opinion of the chief of the corps must be first, before the municipal council can speak, to request that the opinion should be given first. If this is not the case, they should only appeal the decision to the competent authorities. That is quite clear.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address very briefly another element that the Minister provided for clarification and with which I am very satisfied, in particular the classification in different places and the associated strict or less strict regime for placing a camera in those places.

I am very pleased that the Minister stated very clearly that the category of undecided places, for which the strictest regulation applies, must be interpreted very broadly. It refers to any public place that is not defined by an enclosure and is freely accessible to the public. Furthermore, the category of publicly accessible, closed spaces should also be interpreted very broadly. For example, even for the entrance hall of an apartment building in which a camera would be placed, certain obligations apply, which do not apply to the lock category, namely to the locked places not accessible to the public. For the aforementioned places, the Minister clarified, in my opinion, correctly, that in this regard it is really only and only the private home. Only private housing falls under the above category.

Mr. Minister, I am therefore pleased with the clarification you gave in the draft.

Finally, although this may not be the usual, I would like to throw a flower to my VLD colleague in the Senate. The name of Stefaan Noreilde was not mentioned here yet. I thought Willy Cortois would do that. However, he has a very great merit in the present legislative initiative.

I named him.

For one time, I didn’t listen well.

I have emphasized Mr Stefaan Noreilde as the initiator of this bill, contrary to what you have just said, colleague Bex.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cortois, I apologize for my inattention.

We will support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments.

I must first emphasize the following. It has already been said. This is a parliamentary initiative. At some point I thought that Parliament should play the ball. It is a fundamental matter. Everything that has to do with privacy protection is quite fundamental. It honors the Parliament that after many sessions and many hearings and consultations of advisory bodies, after so much participation, it has reached a decision at a certain moment.

There, therefore, I would like to praise the parliamentary initiative, with that restriction, Mr Schryvers, that it is not because of time pressure that we say that adjusting the text and sending it to the Senate would take too much time. If it were really necessary, I would not oppose it. The amendments you have proposed were, of course, submitted with the best intentions, but they did not provide a fundamental added value to the existing text.

It is essentially about two discussion points. The first discussion point, which has been discussed for a long time, was what the Corps Chief is doing and what the City Council is doing. In the text it is stated, it is assumed, that both should speak about it and that both should seek each other until they have found each other. That is where it comes down.

Of course, in political translation, this was also the question of Mr. Maene, the advice of the chief of the corps is something that should come first. He must test it according to a number of basic principles: efficiency, proportionality, and so on. It is, of course, the municipal council that makes the political decision.

That is important. One first gives a advice and sees if the police, the chief of the corps, really thinks that this is a necessary thing in the local security policy. Does the police need this or not to ⁇ the objectives of a local security plan? On the other hand, one goes to the municipal council to create a very broad support and a political decision can and should be expected.

This is how Article 5 should be read and interpreted. I have been addressed on this subject several times. The report is a very delicate report. Mr De Permentier, I would like to congratulate you on the report. The report provides full clarity in this regard.

Second, the discussion on the maximum retention period set at 1 month, unless the images can contribute to the resolution of a crime. We have been through the whole discussion whether a month was too short or too long, Mrs. Schryvers. The Senate agreed that a very short retention period presents the risk that the images have already been de facto destroyed at the moment when it is realized that they may contribute to the resolution of a crime. Therefore, according to the analogy of a number of other European states, such as Sweden, one has opted for a maximum storage period of 1 month.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the proposed legislative arrangement may not be perfect, but is, in any case, an important step forward. We have found that cameras in recent years have been shot out of the ground as fungi outside any regulatory framework. Mr Bex rightly pointed out that the privacy legislation is not the right legal framework to cover the whole of this problem. I repeat that this legislative initiative is a first step. Based on the expert discussion in both committees, it is, in my opinion, an appropriate and operable tool for our directors to be able to conduct a better security policy in the interests of our fellow citizens.

I am pleased that this parliamentary initiative can become law today.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I have another question about the preservation of the images. Based on the above text, someone can destroy the images after a week. What happens if afterwards it turns out that the images would still be needed to be able to check a crime?

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Claes, as I have often argued in the committee, I advocate that not only a maximum, but also a minimum retention period be established.

I repeat my argument, which is based on the arguments of the applicant of the proposal. According to the Senate, a minimum retention period from a practical point of view is not achievable because this implies the obligation to continuously film and keep all images. Afterwards it becomes clear whether certain images could contribute to the resolution of a crime. This would result in a mass of video cassettes. Even for digital images, such a retention requirement would cause problems. The higher the image quality, the more space the images take up on the hard drive of the PC. One must have a heavy PC to be able to film continuously for a few weeks and save all those images. The person in charge will have to print out all the images, which would result in a huge administrative burden. Also important is the risk that this will greatly increase the number of privacy violations.

So one should always make a balance or do some sort of check: the right to security is one thing, the right to privacy is something else. I think the design chooses for a good balance.

Mr. Minister, I agree with your argument regarding the amount of images to be retained. But we now have different types of camera surveillance systems, where one will keep the images for a day, another for a week and another for a month. For the sake of the resolution of crimes, I think it would have been better if there were the same rules for everyone, so that we always know when those images can be used or not.

I think the room is sufficiently informed. I thank the speakers, the reporters and the minister, as well as those who gave a replica.