Proposition 51K2858

Projet de loi modifiant les lois coordonnées du 16 mars 1968 relatives à la police de la circulation routière et la loi du 22 février 1965 permettant aux communes d'établir des redevances de stationnement applicables aux véhicules à moteur.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Jan. 23, 2007

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

highway code road safety traffic regulations road traffic

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA 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 ¶

Feb. 8, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

by Ms. De Bue, rapporteur, refers to his written report.

Mr. Landuyt, have a little patience, two minutes more. I’m almost done, it’s about your Traffic, about your design. You are the right minister on traffic.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, we have discussed in the committee on the point that a de facto reduction of the fine could arise as a result of this draft. In the event of inciting street raids, the violation would be reduced from a four-degree to a first-degree violation. You then assumed the commitment that this would ultimately, in the results, not be the case. We need to look at that once the royal decree that includes this will be ready.

Mr. Minister, I would like you to briefly repeat your commitment in this plenary session, because we are somewhat concerned about this.

I have already answered that question in the committee.

( ... )

I have the question answered in the committee. The [...]

It would be good if a colleague is collegial with another colleague, and the minister does not engage.

What do you say?

Ms. D’Hondt says that one should be collegial with another colleague and that one should not engage the minister, whatever that may mean.

Mr. Speaker, I expressly ask you to reaffirm this here. I expect a response from the Minister. That seems logical to me.

I confirm what I said in the committee. I have already said that I refer to what I said in the committee. The same question, the same answer.

It is better to cancel the plenary session immediately.

I do not know the content of the debate. I heard the question and the answer.

No one is listening anymore!

Mr. Speaker, without wanting to play the man, but the dedain with which parliamentarians are treated here is unacceptable. If someone expressly addresses you to ask a question, Mr. Minister, then the least you can do is listen to it, and if it can also answer.

Respect must be mutual. If one asks a question in the committee to which an answer has been given, and one repeats it here, then it is a correct to refer to the answer in the committee. This is also mutual respect.

The [...]

You’re making an unnecessary show. Mutual respect is also listening when answered. Asking me to repeat what I have already said in the committee is also not a fair way of acting.

If you had answered now, it would have already been resolved.

Mr. Minister, our system of discussion in this House is that there is a first discussion in the committee and a second in the plenary session, which is equivalent to the first. You can only judge whether the answer is the same if you at least listen to the question.

Mr. Speaker, I repeat, I find the way this Minister is dealing with Parliament unheard of. This is not the first time. Do you remember the intervention of our group chairman at the Conference of Presidents, where you thought that Minister Landuyt should be sent a letter in connection with his unmanipulated performance in the committee?

Mr. Minister, I only think that it is quite correct that you even lack the reflex to listen for a moment.

Mr Van den Bergh had something to say about the content. Mr. Van den Berg, I think you want to come back to a point. Then I will give you the word and we will see what the Minister answers. I see that Mrs D’Hondt also wants to intervene for a moment. First is Mr. Van den Bergh.

Mr. Speaker, for all clarity – and now the Minister is obviously listening attentively – I did not ask the Minister to give the same answer as in the committee. Mr. Minister, I have only explicitly requested, before the report of this plenary session, to re-formulate your commitment that there will be no reduction in punishment for those extremely serious offences, which at first glance we thought was the case and which we were somewhat concerned about. Hence just the explicit question that repeat again.

Can Mrs. D’Hondt say something about the same subject? On the procedure or on the basis, Mrs. D’Hondt?

On the Procedure, Mr President.

I think it is still the custom to make majority negotiations. I would be very grateful if the majority debate could be held outside of this hemisphere so that the ministers present here can also listen to the opposition. That would be a good thing.

I must tell you that I did not notice it, but maybe I was scattered.

This is the case every week. This is the case every week!

There are few people here, but if one is here, it is too much to give at least the impression that one is listening!

This cannot be said of Mr. Tante. He is a lot here, and he gives the impression of listening.

Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat that I expressly say the same thing as I said in the committee, on the same explicit questions.

I am also interested in the response given by the Minister. I am not in that committee. I have a right to answer, Mr. Landuyt.

On which question?

The question that was asked by the colleague.

And what did he ask for?

And what did you answer?

Same as in the committee.

This is ridiculous!

I will try to correct things.

The [...]

We have a working system that is as follows.

The [...]

Mrs. D’Hondt

The [...]

Mrs. D’Hondt of course.

We work with committee meetings. Report on committee meetings is issued during the plenary session. There is no debate between the same members, who have already been ⁇ in the committee. Here the confidence is given about a report coming from the committee, by colleagues who could not be there. Otherwise, we would have to be present in all committees and we would no longer have to hold plenary meetings or committees.

It happens more than once, in my belief sometimes too much, that the debate is overthrown. That is not the purpose of the plenary session. If a member asks the minister whether he wants to declare that a certain penalty will not be reduced, he answers with yes or no. This is the end.

To illustrate that I have listened and know what it is about, I will explain it a little. It is about the whole problem. In the legislation we state that we make from inciting to committing a traffic offence a general infringement. Now there exists a special offence, in particular the incitement to excessive speed, which is punished very severely and which is explicitly classified in the royal decree into the fourth category. The concern of colleague Van den Bergh in the committee, which he has now repeated here, was whether the introduction of that general rule into the law means that something changes to the punishment of that fourth category offence as defined in the royal decree. My answer was no. So it was the same as last time.

I learned something. That is good. Personally I am satisfied.