Proposition 51K2928

Projet de loi relatif à la sécurité civile.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Feb. 16, 2007

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

civil defence first aid

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR

Party dissidents ¶

• Ingrid Meeus (Open Vld) voted to adopt.
• Ingrid Meeus (Open Vld) voted to adopt.

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 ¶

April 12, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs are Mr Maene, Mrs Galant, Mr Peeters and Mrs Schryvers. How do they divide the work?

Mr. Speaker, I think the people who have been waiting here for twelve hours to hear this deserve applause.

Everything happens to those who have time to wait.

Mr. Lano, this is an open house. It is slowly becoming light and so we will continue to work.

However, I need to know who will report.

Mr. President, Mrs. Galant should be there.

Does Ms. Schryvers take the word? (No to)

Does Mr. Peeters have the word? (Not to)

Mr Maene, you have the word for your report.

Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the decency would like us not to spoil the debate we are going to start. In fact, this bill concretizes a part of the government agreement that provided for a reform of civil security through a replacement or an adaptation of the law of 31 December 1963 on civil protection.

In order to answer this question, which has been recurring since many parliamentary sessions, it was decided to involve all actors from the outset in the development of the new regulation. Instead of imposing a new legislation, the Minister wanted to elaborate it in consultation with the federations, the cities and municipalities, as well as all the relevant actors. To do this, a commission was formed: the Support Commission for the Reform of Civil Security, called "Commission Paulus" in the name of its president, the governor of the province of Antwerp. This committee began its work in September 2004 and submitted its final report in January 2006. During this period, parliamentarians were kept informed of the committee’s work, and the text of the final report and the attached documents were transmitted to Parliament on the same date.

First of all, let us recall that the three basic principles of this reform are: the right to the quickest and most appropriate assistance for the citizen; the right for each citizen to the same basic protection for an equivalent contribution; the promotion of the increase of scale. In order to implement these fundamental principles, it was planned to create a three-level fire services structure: an executive level providing the basic tasks of fire services, consisting of a network of fire stations with the necessary personnel and equipment, in accordance with the minimum standards that will be imposed; an organizational level, i.e. the emergency zone, composed of several municipalities and with legal personality; a regulatory level, i.e. the federal authority.

Following the preparatory work from February to September 2006, the political decision-making process could begin within the government, through direct contacts with the associations of cities and municipalities, solely responsible in the field of fire services, under the current law. Contact with trade unions has also been established.

This bill replaces the Civil Protection Act of 31 December 1963. It consists of sixteen titles, the second and third of which form the basis of the new law. Title II containing the general provisions of the project formalizes the lines of force. The operational services of civil security are responsible for the assistance and protection of persons and their property. The general competence of the Minister of Internal Affairs is once again confirmed, while the specific competence of the Minister of Public Health in the field of urgent medical assistance is accentuated.

Civil security is organized into two administrative levels: the federal government, which is responsible for standards, and the emergency zones, which are responsible for the organization of services and which – as I have already pointed out – have legal personality. In addition, it is divided into three operational levels: the government, which has civil protection, the Federal Knowledge Centre and an inspection service; the rescue area, which creates posts and performs risk analysis; and the purely operational rescue posts, which belong to the area.

Article 7 in project involves a significant change compared to the current situation. Indeed, from now on, the service that can get the fastest on the site will intervene without taking into account geographical, municipal, zonal or provincial boundaries.

This was one of the most important recommendations of the Paulus committee and, in addition, of a bill that I had the honor of submitting with a few colleagues.

Title III, on the other hand, is entirely devoted to rescue areas. It brings together the largest number of articles in the bill and includes the chapters covering in particular the general organization: financing of the area, budgetary, financial and accounting management, staff, authority, management, equipment and equipment, specific tutelage, etc.

Here are a few important aspects of the reform.

Formation of areas. Article 13 provides that the King determines, by decree deliberated in the Council of Ministers, the territorial delimitation of the zones. For this purpose, it shall obtain the opinion of a national advisory committee constituted by the provincial governor, which shall take into account the opinions of the provincial advisory committees constituted by all the mayors and chaired by the governor.

organization of the area. The project provides for the creation of a council and a college. The council consists of one representative per municipality, in principle the mayor, who has all the competences except those specifically assigned to the college, such as the administration of buildings and property, the management of income and the arrangement of expenditure, the supervision of accounting or the supervision of staff.

The financing of the area is provided from four sources: a municipal grant which may possibly include a provincial intervention, a federal grant, a remuneration for the performance of the tasks whose recovery the King authorizes, and various sources.

A very important principle is that the municipalities can determine by mutual agreement the amount of their allocation. A royal decree, however, will determine how municipal allocations must be settled in the absence of agreement. This royal decree must take into account, for each municipality, different criteria, such as residential and active population, area, cadastral income or the risks present on the territory.

During consultations with the representatives of the cities and municipalities, they have always stated that they are ready to maintain their current relations in civil security but that they do not want to bear any additional costs incurred by the reform. Furthermore, they were of the opinion that the future distribution of civil security costs between the federal authority and the municipalities should be equivalent, which was accepted by the government and contained in the text.

As regards staff, the commission opted for a uniform status, approved by the King, both for professional firefighters and for volunteer firefighters, the latter being ⁇ ined in the fire services.

of the statute. Article 102 provides that the King determines, by decree deliberated in the Council of Ministers, the administrative and monetary status of the staff. However, it will be observed that the status of firefighters, with or without reform, must be settled. Without reform, it should have been done by the cities and municipalities. Within the framework of current legislation, the Paulus committee stated that a separate and urgent uniform status should be provided.

On behalf of the government, the Minister would like to remind that this draft is a framework law whose main lines are realized by execution orders that will no longer be realized in the course of this legislature. This new law reforming civil security was implemented in collaboration with all field actors or with all representative organizations. Many hearings have been conducted, including within your interior committee.

This project will therefore create the necessary framework for the development of modern civil security, thanks to which the many volunteer and professional firefighters, to whom the government and Parliament also pay tribute for their daily commitment, will be able to accomplish even better than today their important mission in the service of the safety of all our fellow citizens.

I would like to thank mr. Maene for his report.

You are registered for the general discussion. Do you ask the word?

Mr. President, Mr. Claes and Mrs. Schryvers will speak first.

I wish you a good morning.

I also welcome the firefighters. They have been here for so long and have also followed the committee meetings. We must admire the courage with which they have been following this meeting for so long.

However, I must say that a number of colleagues and myself do not really find it appropriate this hour to debate such an important bill. We would rather have done it at a normal hour in the afternoon. That could be for us on a Wednesday afternoon, or this afternoon, or next week Wednesday or Thursday afternoon. We would have handled this correctly. We have no problem with that.

Since it is morning, we will deal with it at a morning pace. We would have preferred to see it differently. We need to have more respect for the firefighters and this bill deserves a better treatment than it is currently possible.

Mr. Minister, the fire departments have a very long history where the local anchorage has always played a ⁇ important role. The connection with the own community is still today a determining factor among the many volunteers working in this sector. It is especially from this legitimate concern and the fear of losing this commitment that we want to look at this reform.

We know that the fire reform has been on the agenda for a long time. This has been anticipated for more than ten years. However, she was never understood in such a drastic way. It should be said that in the present design one completely breaks with the spirit of the local anchoring of the fire departments. The implementation of this project will only lead to the purely volunteer corps being made as virtually impossible. However, we want to break a lance precisely for these corpses.

First, I would like to give you a few figures. Of the one hundred and sixty-five Flemish Corpses, about half – eighty to be exact – are cataloged as C-Corpses. A C-Corps is a body that observes the service for its own municipality and which normally consists almost entirely of volunteers.

In Wallonia, there are nineteen out of eighty-five. This is a small proportion, but therefore not less important.

If we count the Z-corpses there – these are also small corpses that take on the protection of neighboring municipalities – then we have to count 67 corpses for Flanders and 54 corpses for Wallonia. In total, the C- and Z-corpses come out at 220 out of 250 corpses. That means that in fact, about 90% of the corps almost exclusively or largely rely on volunteers and that only 30 real vocational corps only work with professionals.

The motivation of the volunteers can be found in a specific connection with their community, their village, their municipality and the respect they receive from their fellow citizens, their fellow residents. In some regions of our country, the recruitment of volunteers today does not always run out of a loose roof. However, this is not due to a sign of less engagement, but rather a result of social changes. People nowadays also live much less in the place where they work. In the past, there was a local brewer and his employees who knew how to handle water and beer, and they knew how to handle the fire spray. At the same time, they provided the fire service in their municipality. There is also a shift from employment to other economic sectors. It is not always so easy to be temporarily removed from the workplace or to be removed from the workplace for those interventions. At the moment, this is no longer so obvious. For a long time we thought that the reform would primarily provide a solution to these aspects. It is therefore regrettable to note that the negotiations on the amendment of the Statute have so far been unsuccessful. On the contrary, for those trouble points there is really no solution to offer.

During the whole of that reform, criticism has also often been heard about the volunteer. It was primarily about training and then especially in terms of quality. In addition, the question was also asked whether the volunteer is prepared for the specific dangers that are encountered everywhere on land. In addition, there was a demand for the availability of the volunteer for the interventions. Can the volunteer be sent to the intervention at the time it is necessary, especially in the case of urgent interventions? In terms of availability, it will be important to reach clear agreements with the employer who employs the volunteers. The proposal provides an initiative for this in Article 100. In any case, we advocate for a good dialogue with employers in order to come to workable solutions. For example, any financial or tax relief for employers who hire volunteer firefighters may be considered. Can we not think, for example, of what seems to me to be a good idea, a kind of blus leave, a kind of political leave that the volunteer firefighter can take and for which the employer would also receive a certain compensation, as this is also regulated with political leave? This could ⁇ be an incentive for employers to allow their employees to engage as volunteer firefighters.

We have, of course, also the problem of the quality of the continuing education, and of course also of the service. As mentioned earlier, it will be important, especially in the context of the negotiations on the statute, to pay due attention to this too. This applies not only to volunteers, but also to professional firefighters.

However, sufficient attention should be paid to the accessibility of the training programmes. We also talked about this in the committee. The former interior minister played with the idea of centralizing the training programs in one training centre for the whole country, probably in Florival. It is clear, we have heard it from the firefighters, that this would be the death stack for the volunteers.

The draft refers to the Federal Training Centre for Emergency Services. If this means specialized training, then we can agree with it. We would like to urge the Minister, now that this is registered in the law, to further expand this center as a specialized support service. There are already enough plans in the closet. We also asked in the committee how it is now with that federal training center. Does this already work? We did not really get a clear answer to this. We are wondering if this training center is currently working. We actually think that this works on paper, but in reality it has not really come from the ground yet. There is still work to be done there too.

Therefore, it will also be important to maintain the quality of the training courses in the existing training centers and to constantly update the needs that will arise in the future. First of all, it is of course important that there is a good basic education, which is equal for everyone, both for the volunteer and for the professional. Both should be able to receive a good basic education. In the continuing training, the firefighter will then be able to specialize, preferably according to the needs of the corps. We believe that improvements can be made in this area. For us, this is an important point in the reform, to which this draft does not yet provide sufficient response. On the contrary, this reform is not really necessary to ⁇ that objective and does not contribute substantially to achieving the objective of good, qualitative training and the establishment of minimum standards for existing corps.

We would like to emphasize once again the importance of local governments in this whole, Mr. Tant. At the beginning of the discussion of this draft, several parties expressed the fear that the reform would crash on the resistance of the mayors, and, in my opinion, completely wrongly. It is a cliché that we have also heard about the police reform, but after which it must be said that the whole police reform came first and foremost through the employment of the many local directors who, in spite of the not always correct work of the former Minister of Internal Affairs at the start of the police reform, have nevertheless made this a working whole.

This means that it is constantly the level of local governance that is faced with the daily operation and implementation of such reforms. Colleagues, it is therefore normal for them to express concerns, often rightly, with regard to the whole of this reform.

There have also been a number of signals, for example from the VVSG, but also from mayors, about this reform. Fortunately, some of their comments have been taken into account in the reform. Fortunately, we have not gone further with the first preliminary draft we have ever seen from you, Mr. Minister, and yet there have been a lot of adjustments made following the comments of mayors and of the VVSG.

CD&V stands strong, you know, in these local governments. We are often the first to receive these signals. With regard to this reform, the concerns of many governments are ⁇ high.

Mr. Minister, I will not hide you that we ourselves, as a party, as CD&V, have organized a study day for the fire departments. We had a preliminary design from you. We have received a lot of comments on this. Fortunately, we later noticed that you have also made a lot of adjustments. It was about issues that led to discussion there, on our study day. We must say that this has also been solved for a large part.

It should be said that there are very few complaints about the performance of the current fire services. We do not want to say that everything is okay, but there are not so many complaints.

From the coverage analysis carried out in the preparation of this design, the so-called risk analysis, which only assumed a maximum expression time, colleague Goris, it is also clear that it still coincides with the so-called blind spots in Flanders. I don't know if you know blind spots in Flanders. This should be a sufficient signal that local authorities pay a lot of attention to safeguarding the safety of the inhabitants of their municipalities.

So far, they have done this almost entirely with their own resources. We must not forget that as much as 90% of the costs today are borne by the local authorities. We find the accusations that for the mayors it would only be about their prerogatives not at all right. I also think that the era when firefighters were used by mayors as a relief service, in a way of speaking, is over. That is really past.

Also in the new drawing, which is proposed by the draft, the mayor of course remains responsible for the safety in his municipality. However, he will always have to invoke the goodwill of the zone commander. In a firefighting landscape with larger zones, the smaller municipalities will always have to join a large city, a city centre, or a larger zone. It is obvious that the mayor of that municipality will do very little for the direction. In practice, the small municipality will, of course, be allowed to pay through the grant, with more than likely a less service for the inhabitants of the municipality.

Sometimes it will be painful that a mayor who has a fire department in his municipality depends on a larger zone, according to the bill, can no longer turn to the fire department of his own municipality and for a certain question will have to first turn to the zonal commander of the larger zone to then via a notification from that larger zone only see the question he has asked solved.

It will be painful at some times. I think that we should monitor the contact between the mayor and the person in charge in the fire department, so that there is also a normal contact possible and there is not always, for every small case, the sun commander has to be taken care of.

That is not to say that the mayor and the zone commander should not have good contacts or that the zone commander should not know what is all requested by the mayor. This is not the subject of the discussion. The zone commander has full right to this information, full access. But we should also not make it too difficult, not build too many outlets.

With the criticism that municipal budgets would only have turned into allocation budgets, we must also take into account. The municipalities must already spend a lot of money on the police in the police zone, now the fire department and the OCMW, without actually having much responsibility for it.

The concern about the role of the mayors in the zone was apparently expressed by almost all parties. We have heard this in the committee. The design was initially based on a college composed from the board. There is a zone council with all mayors and then there is a college with three, five or seven members. This was stated in the proposal submitted for discussion. As a result of a number of amendments, there is now a new decision. With Article 55 amended by the majority, the College is actually composed proportionally. However, this will lead to endless discussions, because nowhere is defined what “proportional” means. We do not know. Will “proportional” mean that the zone council and the solar college can be manned by the same persons? That is the big question. Will the mayor be able to be represented in the council? This was an explicit question from most of the members of the committee. We hope that this is possible, but we would have preferred to see more clarity in the law.

Furthermore, the principle of the fastest, adequate aid is also important. I think everyone can stand behind it and that all parties agreed on this.

Only a very important tool is still lacking for the rapid and correct application of that principle, in particular the uniform call systems. The entrance of the calls, the acceptance, the call-taking of the calls, and then the dispatching of them, is very important. We know that in many areas of our country this is not happening fast enough or adequately right now. It is in this area that a lot of time is wasted.

Fortunately, there is already a notification room installed in Eastern Flanders. It is only in operation. In fact, it should be one of the objectives – it was also one of the objectives of the government agreement – to implement it everywhere as soon as possible. We therefore believe that the government should move much faster towards the establishment of central notification chambers in all provinces of our country.

The Minister has already contributed to our vision on this issue in the committee meeting. With words alone, however, we will not get there. It will be the next government that will have to do that.

However, we note that the deployment of fire departments in the north and south of the country is different. Flanders has almost twice the number of fire departments compared to Wallonia. The situation in Brussels is, of course, different, because the Brussels fire department is regionally organized. The risk analysis based on the coverage according to the output times therefore shows a lot more black spots in the south of the country. These black spots are areas where no current fire department can be on site within the currently predetermined time.

Of course, the risk analysis in question did not take into account the risks in terms of population density, storage of dangerous products and the implantation of, for example, Sevesob companies.

The existence of black spots does not necessarily mean that the services in Wallonia would be worse. I do not want to say that either. I do not want to engage in this discussion either. After all, it is clear that the risks in Flanders and Wallonia are not the same. They are different.

Flanders are much more densely populated and the Flemish population is much more spread across the territory. In Wallonia, due to the rural nature of some regions, the need for rescue and assistance to persons and the protection of their property may be slightly less present. This may also be an explanation for the increased number of black spots in the south of our country.

Another conclusion that we can draw from the figures from the various analyses in preparation for the reform is the composition of the corpses. Flanders has a predominant number of municipal corps. As many as 80 of the 165 corps is a C-corps, which mainly revolves around volunteers. In Wallonia, only 19 of the 85 corps are municipalized.

This is also seen in the total cost per region. If we include operating costs and depreciation, Flanders spending is 45% higher than the spending in Wallonia. That is signing.

The tendency for more vocational bodies has therefore manifested itself during the conversations that took place during the work of the work group of Paul. In Wallonia, for example, the professional association of firefighters is a much greater advocate of a professionalization of the workforce in the firefighters.

Clearly, a different vision was developed on the organization of firefighters in the north and south. We respect the above-mentioned, different views and can understand that, given the differences that occur in terms of risks and needs, a different form of organization would come in the Waals as in the Flemish Region.

This is one of the primary reasons for the regionalization of the fire department.

The above-mentioned vision is further reinforced by the following resolution. Firefighters are still municipal services. Let us not forget that, my colleagues. They are still municipal services. We are in a different situation than the police. It was also forgotten to include civil protection in the present reform. We are really talking about municipal services. At the moment, the fire department is entirely municipal, except in Brussels, where the fire department is, of course, regional.

In fact, the Act of 31 December 1963 and the implementing orders explicitly assume an important transfer of powers and responsibilities to the local authorities. The link with the municipality is also reflected in the authority entrusted to the mayors, including within the framework of the new municipality law, to ensure the safety in their municipality.

The need for regionalization also follows from the transfer of the competence on local governments to the Regions by means of the Special Act of 13 July 2001. Indeed, the regions are competent for a significant part of the composition, organization, competence and functioning of the provincial and municipal institutions.

However, the same articles of the aforementioned Special Act on the Reform of the Institutions also contain a number of exceptions, which therefore remain a competence of the federal government. The organization of firefighters is just one of the mentioned exceptions.

The strong anchoring of the fire departments with the local administration level, with the municipalities, justifies, in our opinion, that the powers around the organization, both of the material resources of the fire department and of the personnel, are also transferred to the regions. This would also have its advantages, including in all discussions around the Staff Statute. The current firefighters belong to the municipal staff. In the past, however, there have been many conflicts of jurisdiction. We must not underestimate this. A transfer of firefighting services to the regions could put an end to those constantly emerging obstacles. As examples can be mentioned are the problem of the holiday fee and the granting of the leave before retirement which now actually can be arranged separately by municipality. In fact, under the current regime, consultations must always be held between the states and the federal government before a particular measure can be applied. This is a time-consuming procedure that nobody benefits.

However, we must also not forget, Mr. Minister, that by placing this authority on this staff in the Regions, a more harmonised arrangement can also be made with the other municipal staff. For example, it would be possible to facilitate mobility between the fire service staff and the municipal service staff. The distinction that now arises between, on the one hand, the local police staff that currently exists that has a federal statute containing various other provisions and, on the other hand, the general staff now does not cause a lot of tension. If again the firefighters will receive a different status at the federal level with different conditions, this will also create additional pressure on the municipal staff status.

The Countries are also responsible for a significant part of the environment and water policy. Combating pollution and the release of dangerous substances is one of the core tasks of the fire department. Not only the establishment of a standard but also the proaction, prevention, preparation, implementation and evaluation in relation to the environment and water policy would thus belong to the same level of competence. In order to be able to form a coherent policy in all these areas, the relocation of the fire department to the regions is, in our opinion, the best solution. We have therefore, together with CD&V, submitted a proposal for a special law to enable this transfer of powers.

I also think that we should pay attention when it comes to the establishment of aid zones. Mr. Minister, I ask that the rescue zones be made to the size of the people. Too large areas would lead to unmanagement. They are too far from local governments. These zones should be built from the bottom and not the reverse. We now have examples of the governors who are actually doing inquiries. They say it is non-binding, but it still gives indications of how those zones will look. We think it is really important that this is built from the bottom. Local governments should be involved as much as possible in the creation of the zones. This should be done in full freedom, without pre-established minimum criteria for the size of the zones, limitation by provincial boundaries or interference by the governors. The delimitation of the zones should take into account police zones as much as possible – as you have already said – so that police zones and fire protection zones can evolve into safety zones in the future.

Colleagues, I would like to conclude with the notification that we, as CD&V and with our colleague from CDH, Josy Arens, had submitted twenty amendments. To our pleasure we have found that the majority had submitted almost the same amendments or amendments in the same sentence, except one. We had only submitted an amendment, together with colleague Arens, namely the amendment on the anomaly that the mayors would still receive attendance fees for the meeting of the zone council. We were really surprised that there was no majority amendment on this subject. We were pleased to confirm in the vote that you followed our amendment.

I offer you the following list of speakers taking into account the alternation of languages to which I prefer and also the alternation majority-opposition: Mrs. Belhouari, mevrouw Caslo, Mr. Belhouari. Michel, as long as he is there, mevrouw Schryvers, Mr. Arens, by Mr Peeters, Mr. Nollet, by Mr. Tant and then the two rapporteurs, Mr. Maene and Mrs. Galant. Madame Belhouari, your presentation will be very short: Do you want to talk about your bank?

Mr. Speaker, I will indeed be very brief: concerning the draft resolution, I wanted to remind you that ten years ago, women engaged in the Belgian army were the exception.

Since then, thanks to the political will of our Defense Ministers, we can now see a feminisation of the military staff, which consists of 9% female military personnel. This is not yet enough, but it is a progress that deserves to be emphasized. This example inspired us to ask the government to engage in a feminization policy of fire and emergency medical assistance (SIAMU) staff. The Minister of the Interior listened to us and personally committed to acting in this regard, for example by raising awareness in the municipalities.

Dear colleagues, I hope that you will join in this goal of encouraging the diversity of talent within SIAMU.

After the Gellingen disaster, the government announced the reform of civil security. The need to modernise outdated legislation was finally taken seriously.

Meanwhile, we are three years ahead. Only now is the bill on the table. As an explanation for the long wait, Minister Dewael hid himself behind the fact that consultation with all stakeholders would lead to a large social support for the upcoming reform. After all, one could not make the same mistake as with the police reform, which has already undergone countless changes. That was a noble goal. However, the current design does not meet the expectations of the firefighters. The demonstration here in Brussels a few weeks ago confirms the dissatisfaction.

I would like to make it clear that we, like the majority of the organisations concerned, can agree on principles such as the rapid and adequate provision of aid, the need for scaling, and so on.

Where is the shoe? There is still a fragmentation of powers. There is no uniformity in this matter. Flanders, for example, is responsible for prevention. Emergency medical assistance remains within the competence of Public Health, while 80 percent of the assistance is provided by the fire department, which falls under Internal Affairs. The Brussels fire department has a special status. In addition, Flanders and Wallonia have various views on the firefighting reform. As colleague Claes has said, it would have been better to transfer the competence regarding civil security to the provinces. In fact, fragmentation of powers cannot lead to an efficient policy in this area.

Regarding the zones, how the zones will be formed, it remains a big question to this day. Operationally speaking, boundaries are removed and they are only of organizational importance. We must dare to ask questions about bilingualism at the language border. Somewhere in the report there is a summary phrase referring to respect for language legislation, but we know how respectfully it is treated in this country. I think, for example, of the dramatic situations in Brussels hospitals. Communication, especially in emergency situations, is of utmost importance. I think there is not much or too little attention to this.

Another important point is the financing of this reform. The federal government would bear the additional costs of the reform. To know the financial impact of the reform, the minister made a zero measurement. In other words, how much are the total costs now and how much will the additional costs be in the future? In November 2005, Wallonia turned out to be a bad pupil. While the Flemish municipalities bravely entered their accounts, about 60 Wallish municipalities remained in default, which led to the necessary delays. Delay or not, which and how much funds the federal government will cough up, is still an unknown factor.

In the Commission-Paulus, the proposal was made to take a percentage of the insurance premiums into account. I contacted the insurance industry. It fell from the air. In fact, the texts indicate that the Minister will now start a discussion. Like so many problems, this was also pushed on the long track.

What is certain is that, like with the police reform, Flanders have invested well in civil security. This is shown, among other things, from the risk analysis already conducted where Flanders, unlike Wallonia, scores well in terms of coverage level.

On a written question I asked in December 2005, the Minister replied: “In general, it is indeed true that Wallonia is struggling with a shortage of casernes, while the situation in Flanders in Brussels is generally satisfactory.”

So translated, this means in fact that Flanders will be punished because it has a good and solid network, because it has done the necessary efforts in the past, and the additional costs needed to make Wallonia bear, will be borne federal. This is, according to good habit, a new inflated money flow to the South.

Currently, municipalities cover about 90% of the firefighting costs. This will have to evolve to a fifty-fifty ratio with the federal government. Given the poor financial situation of many municipalities, given the catastrophe following the police reform and given the many financial uncertainties in this file, it is understandable that the VVSG, as well as the municipalities, with a frightened heart await what awaits them.

The last, but in my opinion ⁇ the most important point, is the expectation of both the professional and the volunteer corps of a uniform and clear statute. The firefighters were looking forward to the outcome but remained in the cold. There is hardly any mention of the statute.

During the hearing, several speakers were also asked how the statute is now. It cannot be that the remuneration for the same work in Brussels is more than double that in Antwerp. It cannot be that every operational force is not entitled to the same premiums and the same Saturday and weekend fees. It is not possible that the salary for a beginner professional firefighter is about 1,100 euros for a profession that involves so many risks. Professionals and volunteers are responsible for the general safety of the population. They work with dangerous products and explosions are not unthinkable. This risk category must be properly paid.

Only in this way can we attract young and new forces. Firefighters are currently struggling with an outdated corps. This brings us to the retirement age. It is known that it does not butter well between sp.a and VLD. A good example of this is a letter from late 2005 by Minister Dewael to the Minister of Pensions, Mr. Tobback.

Minister Dewael asked, given the physically burdensome nature of this profession and referring to our neighboring countries where departure arrangements are possible at fifty or fifty-fifty years, to also develop an early departure arrangement for our professional firefighters. In summary, Mr. Tobback responded: “Given this Government’s efforts to increase the activity rate of the population and especially of the older working population, I consider that it is not appropriate at this time to implement a general reduction of the retirement age for firefighters. The minimum retirement age is in principle sixty years. Until 31 December 2006 – we are now in 2007 – the municipalities still have the possibility to establish a pre-retirement leave for these employees, at the earliest from the age of fifty-six.”

This was also not further covered. I challenge the ministers and colleagues in this hemisphere to carry, with full equipment, full firefighting clothes and a compressed air device, an additional load of 25 kg and to walk through the Parliament, and preferably a few more steps up and down. That is nothing compared to emergencies, high floors, difficult passable places, fire seas and so on. They would be squeezed quickly otherwise. The indifference in this regard is actually scandalous.

In addition, I would like to pay attention to the situation of the volunteers. From the beginning, we hear that consultations with employers would be conducted to obtain clarity about their position, their callability, availability, and so on. Particular attention should also be paid to the educational leave. This is high on the wish list. After all, as a firefighter, both professional and volunteer, one must undergo a lot of training. However, the volunteers must include holidays in order to take the necessary training. Do these people who voluntarily rush to help at any time of the day have no right to vacation or free time to spend with the family? Such training is very necessary. During the hearings, we learned that the majority of deaths in our country fall during interventions and that, in particular, more resources are needed to be able to undertake practical training to reduce this number.

I have listed a number of important shortcomings here, but I would like to emphasize that the Flemish Interest can agree with the basic principles, such as the prompt and adequate assistance of this framework law. What we find here is not new. All this was already proposed during an interim report two years ago in a joint committee of the Chamber and Senate. After that, they continued to step on the spot. Financing is still in the dark. The zoning, though one of the core points, remains unclear. We also have our concerns about the fragmentation of powers. Of course, Minister Dewael wants to get out of his so-called realization just before the elections. However, the Flemish Belang regrets that hot hangers such as the long-awaited statute are being pushed on the long track. For how long, no one knows.

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.

Today, the Reform Movement is ⁇ pleased to give its voices to the draft framework law that defines its strength lines. We conclude with a patient and serene reflection. This reform has been a long preparation. The safety of citizens and the lives of firefighters and volunteers deserved this attention to which parliamentary work was also entitled. We talked about reform at the end of the legislature. It was even said that Parliament would ruin its work. I think, on the contrary, that the Interior Committee has demonstrated the opposite. More than 40 amendments were adopted. As a result, one in five articles has been rewritten. These adjustments, as well as the amended text, were later widely supported by political formations. We can talk about consensus. He is happy in a matter as important as this.

The firefighter profession is a difficult profession. Its reorganization cannot suffer sterile political confrontations. Each shall agree that the physical requirements or the psychological constraints that weigh on the members of this public service shall be mentioned.

This was already true when the mission of firefighters was reduced to the fight against fires. But this mission is now only one among many other tasks to which more than 17,000 men and women engage daily.

Therefore, when we analyze the numbers, we are impressed by the extent of the work. For example, for the capital, in a single year, fire services intervene more than 10,000 times. Reported to the day, these figures report 28 exits per day of which more than 6 for fire. It is obvious that this workload can only be fully assumed within the framework of a service organisation that does not suffer from any disabilities. The task is heavy. It can only be completed in an optimal working environment.

If one hears the claims of firefighters organizations, one must however recognize, today, that the reality of the field differs heavily from these theoretical considerations.

The problem of the status of volunteer firefighters comes immediately to mind. But there is, on the other hand, a multitude of difficulties that cannot be underestimated longer.

The funding laws are over 40 years old. The practical training, of which Jacqueline Galant will speak soon, is largely lacunar. The geographical distribution of services shall not be based on any serious risk analysis. Finally, and ⁇ most importantly, the choice of the "all to the autonomy" municipal force a disparity quite harmful in terms of status, but also in terms of the distribution of material.

Since 2005, – and I want to welcome here the work of the Minister of the Interior – the government has devoted itself to the problem. That year, the budget jumped by 15%, by 50% for the entire legislature.

Simultaneously, the Paulus Commission was set up and various occasional changes were made, in particular with regard to the ceiling of the exemption for volunteer firefighters.

Today, it is an additional step and – I hope – a decisive one that will be passed. The project under review reflects the entire arrangement. Based on the reflection conducted by the Paulus commission, we move from municipalities to rescue areas in an perspective of rationalizing the means.

The Reform Movement supports this principle-based perspective that diminishes the political decision-making process while ensuring a better homogeneity of decision-making.

I would also like to remind you that in our eyes, security, the first regional mission, is a federal competence and must remain so for greater coherence of action. As such, it does not seem appropriate for us that the rescue zones may take the form of an intercommunal whose supervision would be exercised by the Regions. This option was clearly evacuated during the committee work.

Beyond the pursuit of rationalization, the MR fully adheres to the two major principles that emanate from the Paulus report and permeate the text for review. Every citizen is entitled to the same basic protection for an identical contribution. On the other hand, the citizen has the right to appropriate assistance as quickly as possible. Operational efficiency is guaranteed in particular by Article 7 in project. From now on, the borders of provinces, rescue areas and municipalities will no longer constitute an obstacle to the intervention of rescue posts. Thus ended the remaining aberration that the nearest barracks could not intervene beyond the border of the neighboring province. This was a manifest breach of a certain conception of municipal autonomy.

Furthermore, we believe that the statute of professional firefighters should be harmonised and that a separate statute should be established for volunteer firefighters.

In terms of financing, we measure, however, that a reform of this scale will require a large budget. We prioritize the track of mixed financing involving a significant effort of the federal while resorting to the solidarity between local authorities modulated by the degree of risk. The issue of alternative financing shall be addressed as specified in Article 65. In addition, we had translated all of these concerns before the Ghislenghien drama into a resolution proposal attached to the project and fully realised by the project.

We have continued the discussion in committees and signed or co-signed more than forty amendments. They express two major concerns: ensuring Parliament’s role in implementing the reform and improving the financing mechanism. Mr. Speaker, you will be pleased, we have obtained on the financing plan and on the geographical definition of the areas that Parliament can keep the hand, even after the vote that will take place this morning. Indeed, in these two decisive matters, the initial project provided for a delegation to the King which seemed critical to us on the level of the democratic debate. Royal funding arrangements will therefore need to be confirmed by Parliament and a parliamentary delegation will be consulted for the boundaries of the areas.

For funding, we wanted to see the expressly targeted provinces among the sources of funding for the areas. Even better, it will now be inscribed in the law that a provincial contribution may come in deduction of that imposed on the communes of the area. Two other amendments should be highlighted. The first stipulates that the designation of the district college will be done by proportional and not by majority, as originally planned. The second plans to remove the presence tokens for area advisors.

Today, the civil security reform is on the rails. For the Reform Movement, its base is healthy but we are aware that there is still a lot to be done. The first question will probably be the geographical definition of the areas. Ideological blocks in this area must be overcome. In some parts of the Walloon territory, consensus requires only action. For example, we will have only one area for the Wallon province of Brabant – at least that’s what I want. The logic of rationalization implies it: it is for me the only logic that must be followed in this matter where efficiency is what matters for citizens.

Once the area is defined, it is obviously the issue of the risks present in its territory that will become a priority. The distribution and nature of the human and technical resources resulting from this, in order to ensure equal protection of citizens, and an intervention time of less than twelve minutes must be at the heart of concerns. This is a goal we must aim towards, and it will be up to the area council to make sure that the entire territory is fully covered to ⁇ this goal.

Then comes the issue of funding, which will be addressed by my colleague Jacqueline Galant soon. Here too, all mandators will have to face their responsibilities without any false ideological or partisan escape. This is not an offence against municipal autonomy. In my opinion, communes are much better regarded in the new system than in the old. Jacqueline Galant will say it: before, it was the reign of the arbitrary; the mechanism was so unreadable that, in their pre-quadrat, some could reject their responsibilities and choose not to invest in the communal fire body. It is therefore clear that we are returning to this pan of municipal autonomy, so that those who had decided not to invest will have to do so, even if the share of all municipalities in the area will not increase overall as long as the federal does not finance the area as much as the local authorities.

We advocate for the work of geographical definition, risk analysis and financing to take place very quickly. The same applies to the homogenization of the statutes. The draft framework law leaves room for consultation for a better adaptation to the realities of the field. Under no circumstances should this cover be diverted from its purpose in order to be buried in endless confinements. We cannot forget, after this vote, that firefighters want – rightly – a radical change in their working conditions and want to obtain modern equipment and training from which their lives depend on daily basis.

The Reform Movement will be on the side of those who will really want to give life to this reform. We wish to be joined in this determination for the benefit of fire professionals and volunteers, as well as the safety of the entire population.

I thank you for your attention.

Thank you Mr Michel. It is five hours...

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, with the present draft, we want to put the reform of the fire services on track. We have already heard it from various sides: what lies ahead here is no more or no less than just a framework law, and that is what it remains.

CD&V has been demanding party for modernization of civil security for years. On the one hand, we must admit that we are pleased with this initiative but on the other hand, Mr. Minister, we still have a lot of doubts. Indeed, there is still so much to be regulated in implementing decisions, without currently having any insight into how it is planned to do so. There are still a lot of really delicate points that are being moved to a later date.

The reform that is ahead is, in our opinion, also unhappy in terms of timing because the end of the legislature is coming and it will be the next Minister of Home Affairs who, bound by agreements under this draft, will have to further outline the reform. I heard in the committee that this framework law was described as – I think it even came from majority funds – a beautiful, empty box. It is empty for all of us, beautiful we will still have to see.

I would like to remind you of a few points that make it difficult for us. Today there are some special problems with regard to personnel: the aging of the corps, the different statutes, the competence disputes with the regions or the need for good training. To what extent are the negotiations on this or not? Nothing is done with regard to civil protection services. We would really like to incorporate this into the overall concept of civil security. A coordinated approach to fire prevention is needed. More and more well-trained people who carry out checks should be deployed within future zones. The fact that prevention is also a shared competence with the Regions and Communities naturally complicates this. The principle of the fastest adequate assistance requires the operation of the uniform call system. Finally, there are the many implementation decisions in which a lot of heavy nodes still need to be deformed or cut through. I mean, for example, the size of the zones, the occupation of the posts or the equipment standards. In total, we believe that about fifty implementing decisions are of primary importance for the entry into force of this law.

Then there remains the big problem of financing and cost. This is, in our opinion, the hot hanging iron of this reform.

You know, Mr. Minister, that all cities and municipalities are on their guard because they absolutely do not want to experience a second police reform. Currently, the municipalities pay about 90% of the total cost for fire services, while the federal government pays 10% of the total cost. We have all heard your promise, Mr. Minister, that one will evolve to a 50%-50% regime. You also say that the global cost for municipalities will not increase.

In practice, this means that the total cost for the municipalities will not increase. Therefore, the municipalities that now invest a lot in fire protection will not pay more, but the municipalities that invest less will see their costs increase. Furthermore, the higher cost of the often professional firefighters in the cities will thus be redistributed across the smaller municipalities in the zone that now often work with volunteers, and therefore cheaper, but without getting a better service.

The proposal also provides for alternative financing. The government agreement states that this could be done, for example, through fire insurance. During the discussion in the committee, however, we must have heard that with the insurance sector this has not yet been discussed at all. It would therefore have been very interesting to hear the opinion of the sector during the hearings. But no, of course, our proposal about this was wiped off the table. If part of the cost price is to be collected through the insurance sector, it means – as we fear – inevitably an indirect tax increase for each of the families.

Mr. Minister, you promised to move to a 50%-50% scheme in the future. You stated that in the press, you stated that in the committee and you will say that here later, ⁇ . You say: look at the budget, look at what increases I have been able to pull out of the fire in the past years and this year again – in a way of speaking – for the firefighters. The budget, for example, for the investment appropriations for the purchase of firefighting equipment for the agglomerations, municipalities and intercommunals, provided for 2006 and 2007 in EUR 20,962,000 and EUR 21 million, respectively.

What is shown now? A beautiful appearance! Nothing but promises! What exactly has come into our hands this week? A letter to the governors, in which Interior Affairs states: “For economic and budgetary reasons, the government has decided to limit some investment credits to 75%.” In other words, you screen with the figures in the budget to say: look, I am carrying out increases, I am going to that 50%-50% scheme. But when the point comes to the pile, those cents are not spent for which they are registered.

I have a few questions on this, Mr. Minister. So how do you actually think to fulfill that promise regarding the financial contribution to reach a 50%-50% scheme? Why did the decision suddenly come to a 75% ceiling, so why did you not communicate this in the committee?

Who will be charged for the additional costs? We all know that the investments are planned and the orders may have been placed. Who will have to make these payments? Will the municipalities have to increase this? Mr. Minister, we find this really unheard of. At the time that this reform is being discussed here, this came to the table. Before that, you might still have had the advantage of having doubts about your promises, but with this you have ⁇ lost confidence.

The draft also stipulates in Article 71 that decisions in the framework of financing must be ratified by law within six months of their entry into force. In the absence of ratification within this period, these decisions shall remain in effect.

Mr. Minister, you know our comments on this. You know that this is extremely difficult for us. I know that you say that you give Parliament absolute decision-making power, that you give Parliament the last word. Well, what you give the Parliament is nothing more than a knife on the throat!

Within the framework of the police reform, the implementing decisions aimed at the financing of the zones, in particular the interzonal distribution key between the various municipalities of the zone in determining their share in the municipal allocation, have given rise to a number of procedures before the State Council. You are now looking for a way to avoid them. The proposed provision of Article 71 must enable this. In fact, it must deny the municipalities any possibility to initiate a procedure before the State Council. When your financing decisions are ratified by Parliament, municipal proceedings lose their legal basis and only proceedings before the Arbitration Court are possible.

Parliament has nothing more to contribute. It cannot lead to any discussion. It can only knock. If Parliament had a number of critical questions at that time and would like to make updates, then the six-month period will expire and there will be no more funding. That is the knife you put this Parliament on the throat. We cannot live with it. We will therefore, as in the committee, again submit the amendment to remove this article.

Mr. Minister, if you are taking this Parliament so-called seriously, please clarify the financing. So why should you issue KBs and say that Parliament must approve them within six months? We do not participate in such hostage actions. As stated above, we submit this amendment again to remove Article 71. If you want to take responsibilities with KB, then take them with KB and give the zones and municipalities also the remedies associated with it.

Finally, I have a question about the funding of the municipalities to the zone. You know that it is stipulated that when municipalities import certain goods into the zone, they can make a certain reduction on their dotation.

I have pointed out in the committee that, since only the deficit is distributed among the municipalities and certain municipalities therefore will receive a certain reduction, or the other municipalities will have to pay more, or that zone immediately, in very short term; liquidity problems will be experienced. You then stated that you would examine whether this article could indeed have implications in this area. I ask you what your findings are about this.

Mr. Arens, I give you the word.

It is too late now. The President had warned me that the interventions concerning the rescue services would take place around 20:00.

I did not specify the day.

It is 5:10 in the morning.

This shows that we worked longer.

The [...]

I hope that we will vote around 8:00 and not around 8:00.

Mr. Speaker, for such an important topic, I wish we could discuss it at normal hours during the day. I do not understand how this project could be included in item 19 of the agenda. I say it frankly.

I will explain this to you soon because mr. The Minister asked me the same question.

We have grouped the projects by minister, by department rather than bringing one, then bringing the other, recalling the first, etc. So, you have the advantage of being here cool and have the dawn of April 13th. Mr Arens, we are on Friday the 13th.

Mr. Speaker, this shows once again that the work of this House is organized according to the needs of the ministers ...

No, they did not know it themselves.

... and what happens in the Parliament itself does not actually matter.

This was decided 14 days ago.

Mr. Speaker, it has apparently already come so far that you do it without request.

Unfortunately, 14 days ago, when the agenda was approved, I was not there. That is very exceptional, so you should not throw a stone at Me. Mr. Jean-Marc Delizée presided over that meeting, with a lot of brio, by the way.

Mr. Arens, at the dawn of Friday the 13th, I give you the floor.

Mr. President, you claim guilty. It is not the Minister who is guilty, but the President.

I am constantly guilty. Fault confessed, fault forgiven.

Confessed mistake is half forgiven.

Only half of it? Each one half.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, our group was pleased to see a text finally come to Parliament on the reform of civil security but we had to shake up very quickly. Indeed, when I first read the text of the draft law on civil security, I admit that I was extremely disappointed by its lack of accuracy.

Indeed, contrary to all the problems regarding which the professional circles and municipal authorities demanded urgent measures by the government, this since the beginning of this legislature, few concrete solutions are proposed in the text. At the request for single status, risk premium, age to specific pension, practical training of the professional firefighters, only one solution is proposed: an enforcement decree to be charged by the future government. The same applies to several important aspects briefly addressed in the text: financing, minimum conditions of aid and adequate resources, civil security specific tasks, the composition and functioning of the provincial advisory committee responsible for determining the territories of future rescue zones, etc.

In addition, according to our accounting, the text provides for 47 enforcement orders. We were therefore surprised to hear that the Minister signed 48 of them when presenting the draft.

Voting on this text is indeed an important and indispensable step, but I am certain that the most significant part of the reform will take place when the various implementing orders are published. Professional circles and municipal authorities will have to remain attentive to the content of these arrests, which will likely have strong repercussions. As a result, the firefighters present in this room will still often have to follow the government’s work to closely monitor the various implementation texts.

The discussion of this text in the committee was very interesting and fruitful, especially thanks to the positive climate created by the minister himself and by some colleagues. I am ⁇ concerned with colleague Jean-Claude Maene. It is very pleasant to work in an atmosphere such as the one we have known in the Interior Committee – I say it very openly – regarding this project.

The various amendments submitted by our group, most of which were co-signed by the CD&V, obtained a happy follow-up. Most were also proposed by the majority and an agreement was reached between the members of the majority and those of the minority, which, Mr. Michel, is quite interesting. I think you agree on this point. We could even talk about the PSC and eventually the PLP.

Amendments were proposed by the Union of Cities and Municipalities.

The CDH also insisted on guarantees regarding the representation of the so-called “protected” communes within the area council. It is, indeed, important that small municipalities have their voice in a matter as sensitive as the safety of their inhabitants.

In this regard, I trust the minister who made statements following the amendment submitted by the majority and, in particular – I believe – by Mr. Maene and Michel. I refer here to the contents of the report on this part. I hope, Mr. Minister, that the participation of these so-called protected communes will be real tomorrow at the level of decisions of the colleges of the areas.

As regards the financial neutrality of the reform for local authorities, certain safeguards have been put in place, including the possibility for Parliament to vote through a confirmation law, the relevant implementing orders.

Our group remains very skeptical of this guarantee because this type of law ultimately does not allow Parliament to modify the content of the text to be confirmed, in this case as regards how to calculate the financing of rescue areas by local and federal authorities.

The Parliament will have the choice to vote for or against the proposed method of calculation, but will not benefit from the possibility of improving it since these are confirmation laws.

Our group is surprised – and I must acknowledge that I have not been sufficiently attentive when examining this component in committee – of the removal, through majority amendments, of the coordination office. Mr. Minister, I would like to have some explanations regarding the removal of this instance which, in our opinion, was set up to ensure good coordination between the mayors and the governors, the commanders of the zone and the representatives of civil protection. This office had the mission to organize the optimization of available resources and supranational resources.

Our Group submitted an amendment in which we proposed to include in the text the guarantee that the future financial and administrative status of firefighters should take into account the specific risks inherent in the main tasks of operational personnel. This amendment received the support of the Minister and the majority, which we welcome.

Nevertheless, we expect to remain attentive to the upcoming developments in the status of firefighters. To be satisfactory, this status will need to be unique, it will need to fix an age of access to the specific pension, consider tax exemption for volunteer firefighters and provide for a risk premium.

Finally, this status must be established before the end of 2007 because the firefighters have been waiting too long.

In this regard, the Paulus Commission had indicated, in its recommendations of January 2006, that the legal position of staff should be addressed separately and urgently. The occupation of firefighter must be included in the list of risky occupations.

To conclude, this framework law, this law of special powers – you may say, Mr. Minister, but here it is really special powers – is insufficiently precise to allow a knowledgeable assessment of the cause of the future reform and its consequences.

It is for this reason that I would like to signal today to the future or future member of the executive responsible for this matter that we will demonstrate not only vigilance but also the requirement that finally, our firefighters can be properly recognized by our society.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the advantage of discussing the reform of the fire department at this time is that we are now experiencing what firefighters and female firefighters in this country must do very often, in particular: at night and storm, often unnoticed and in silence, fulfilling their duty and observing an important task. They do it often. We do that now too. We are discussing an important reform here and we will hopefully approve it later.

The Flemish Socialists will support this reform from the heart, because we think it is a historical opportunity and also a step in the right direction.

It is a step in the right direction because it builds on what was initiated by the 1999 Act on Aid Zones. In a previous political life, I then pledged to actually move towards a scale-enhancing, to the establishment of emergency zones that will now form the basis of the new firefighting structure.

In 1999 we were still unable to grant legal personality to the aid zones, to the fire protection zones. The times were different then. Because of a number of problems that were not resolved at the time, one remained stuck in the stage of, let us say, the encouraged voluntary cooperation in those fire protection zones.

The first major reason was a budgetary reason. At that time, the financial situation of the federal government was more difficult than it is today. Today we are in the opportunity not only to reform civil security, but also to refinance. That financial lubrication will also be important, I think, to make the firefighting reform succeed.

The second difference between now and then is that it was still difficult to overcome the threshold fear, the conservationism of the sector, and to persuade the local authorities, but sometimes also professionals from the sector itself, to give up a piece of local autonomy and move into a larger structure. In recent years that has fortunately changed and we can come to the reform that is now ahead.

Mr. Minister, I think this is indeed an important reform, which will not help all the problems in the world and those disasters like in Gellingen, or their impact, will not be able to avoid. However, the reform will remove a number of other important obstacles that are still experienced on the ground on a daily basis.

A first problem solved is the very unequal funding and the very unequal coverage by the fire department, depending on the cities and municipalities in which the people live. It is not normal that for the same firefighting funding people in a city or municipality pay a very unequal amount.

Even less normal is that there are very large blind spots in our country, that there is an unequal coverage of fire protection in our society. The reform can provide an answer to this. It is also not normal that in the current structure of the fire department, the higher governments, such as governors, the federal government, people who feel responsible for civil protection in this country, fail to remove those blind spots. We do not have a mechanism that is active above local autonomy and that can be used more in the public interest to remove blind spots. As a result, it happens in our country every day, both in the south and in the north, that in case of an accident, the fire department is late due to the non-implantation, the non-existence of fire protection zones or posts within an acceptable distance.

The autonomous, local structure, as we knew them so far in the fire landscape, has failed to work away the pain points. With the current reform, this will be possible.

Mr. Minister, we are very pleased with this.

I also stressed in the committee that we expect that the implementing decisions will take into account three important aspects.

The first is that the fire reform will already succeed if it is carried out and implemented on the ground by the local authorities, in particular the mayors, and by the firefighters themselves. In this context, it is essential that you give them the resources to realize the commitment on the ground. The funds are located in three areas.

In implementing decisions, we must strictly ensure that the administrative and administrative structure established in the fire protection zones is a operable, efficient and efficient structure. You or your successor will have to ensure in the implementing decisions that we move to fire protection zones that have the same administrative flexibility and the same decision-making power as the police zones at the moment, a few years after the start of the police reform.

Colleagues have already pointed out that in the implementing decisions you will have to specify very clearly how the firefighting college and the board will be composed, how the principle of proportionality will be fulfilled and above all how we can avoid blocking each other from sending the structure, so that we can reach an efficient and operable structure.

Second, you will also have to provide financial resources to make the firefighting reform succeed. In the committee, several amendments were discussed and accepted that give municipal governments a greater assurance that the federal government will fulfill its commitment to increased funding and refinancing of the sector. In the upcoming legislature, our group will ensure that the aforementioned also happens. It is crucial for the credibility of the reform.

Thirdly, the reform will have to be a reform on a human scale, including in the implementing decisions. It must be a reform within which the firefighters can continue their passion. Being a firefighter is more than a job. It is a passion and commitment within an organization on a human scale. We assume that the above can and will remain for the professionals and for the volunteers, in areas that are large enough to offer added value but small enough to allow the firefighters to feel at home and to exercise their commitment with pleasure.

Mr. Minister, in the committee I stated that the present reform is not the end point but a beginning. It is a beginning for your successor, starting from a beautiful, empty box that leaves you, but which now needs to be filled with important implementation decisions. We expect that this will happen in the upcoming legislature, based on the principle that the firefighting world deserves the current reform, that the citizens deserve the upcoming reform, and that we see a better future than now for civil security in our country.

That is why we will support the reform today.

In view of the late time...

The Morning

No, not too late. If we count the sum of the works, we can say that it is late but actually morning today.

Given the already complete interventions of my colleagues who preceded me here at the tribune and not to draw even more on the courage of those who follow the work here and who have followed us throughout the debates on the reform of emergency services since the dramatic accident of Ghislenghien, my intervention will not be long.

I will review it around three points and return for the surplus to the work that took place in the committee.

First, Mr. Minister, I am delighted that the text is finally at the end of its path. I don’t hide from you that at some point, I thought we ⁇ ’t be able to do that. I hope everything goes well in the Senate. When we listened to the regular reports of the Paulus committee, you promised us a text that has since only been postponed from deadline to deadline. We are finally there.

Secondly, we share the basic principles of the reform.

First of all, Charles Michel explained it just recently, decoupling allows to get out of the pre-square of communes to improve efficiency. We endorse the goal of twelve minutes as the reference base for all citizens who live in a rural or urban area.

I repeat, we share these principles that are found in the framework law. Nevertheless, I am already addressing the third and last point of my synthesis, the most important one is coming. We have already talked about implementing decisions and the role that Parliament will play in terms of confirming those implementing decisions. For my part, I would like to draw your attention on the issue of financing.

We know the principle that underlies the reform with the progressive re-balancing of the intervention of the federal in relation to that of the local authorities but we do not know the amounts that will be able to be engaged. We had a discussion on this issue in the committee. Mr. Minister, you explained yourself by indicating that this is the responsibility of future governments and relevant ministers. For my part, I believe that you should have announced here the necessary means, the overall amount that would have to be reached to make this reform useful on the ground.

There is a shortage of 1,000 firefighters in Wallonia. The calculation was made now almost two years ago. Since then, it has unfortunately not been denied by the involvement of the necessary firefighters. The equipment is used in many barracks. The same standards date back more than 30 years ago. Only when federal supplementary funding arrives will the reform be truly concrete, perceptible. Before that, this text will remain an interesting framework law that we will support but, without this addition of additional means, it will not be sufficient to be truly effective.

Per ⁇ today, in the plenary session, you will indicate the necessary amounts. I hope it. I am not sure, but I think it is important to conclude this intervention by insisting on the need for federal refinancing beyond the adoption of this framework text.

Please allow me to comment in advance.

Colleagues, I think I am the interpreter of many, ⁇ also of the President himself, if I say that I am not proud of the course of the debates, today and yesterday, of this meeting. I am not so much because of the content or even the length of the interventions. In addition, I must point out that in the course of the successive debates there have been people speaking here who usually do not speak. When we are not so happy with the progress of things in the course of yesterday and today, the cause must be sought primarily in the organization of the debates.

They are a consequence – I say it in all clarity – of, on the one hand, the predetermined election date and, on the other hand, the late submission of the texts and the abuse of the high urgency. Those factors have made it necessary to concentrate everything on Thursday, because Wednesday had to and would be spent on committee meetings to quickly address much too late submitted texts. This is the cause of the dissatisfaction that lives with very many colleagues, Mr. President.

I know, you have, I must say, tried to remedy it yourself. You have occasionally exhorted members of the government, but you have never really – and I regret that – imposed respect for this House. You have written letters, which may have been distributed as copies to the members, to demonstrate the seriousness of your exhortation. More than that has never happened, and I regret that. This afternoon I wanted to make another attempt on behalf of my group to come to a more orderly organization of these debates and to set the priorities where they should be placed. You have gone through this in a callous way, Mr. President.

I had asked whether, at the time you asked for the approval of the agenda for the addition of some points to the agenda, it could not: either, to anticipate the debate on civil security – given the presence also of the people involved who have been here at that time for a long time – or, to challenge that debate to ensure that it could take place in more orderly circumstances. That issue – everyone has a mouth full about safety – is important after all. It would be a first attempt to testify of truly good intentions if one had organized that debate in better conditions to begin with.

By the way, I would like to ask the courageous on the tribune – ⁇ a little disgracefully – not without telling what they have seen. Maybe – I don’t have one – they can give a good explanation why first about the dogs and cats – I’m sorry – had to be spoken, then about the status of people who really need to ⁇ safety on the ground. Only now will we talk about it. You have to try to explain this to people.

Colleagues, I tell you, we did not organize the debates properly, which I regret.

Mr. Minister, I have to add that I have listened carefully to the statements of the colleagues. Everything must serve to get some beautiful, empty boxes – not me, but Mr. Peeters invented the word – approved.

This is not the only point of this kind that has been discussed here. I also refer to the draft law on compensation for damage resulting from health care, which was of an analogous nature. With the intended bill, a rough construction is also established. However, no one knows how it will be able to live with it and how the thing will work.

Mr. Speaker, you allow the Parliament to use it to allow the government to do windowdressing and put up a number of vendel-sweats, hoping to have demonstrated that the current government is still active.

Colleagues, this is the only intention: soon it had to be demonstrated that the current government is fulfilling its commitments. (The protest)

Colleagues, allow me to speak; you will not distract me.

Mr. Cortois, the present draft includes a number of “interesting” perspectives on this point. It is the long-awaited reform, of which we also hoped it would finally come. Colleagues, the question is only whether the expectations presented in the texts will also be fulfilled and hardened. Mr. Minister, Mr. Cortois, I have a few questions in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, I dare to say in advance that the text that lies before us is the result of a number of contradictory tendencies.

First, the successive, two governments-Verhofstadt committed to address the civil security reform. Mr. Duquesne had to deal with them. I questioned and questioned him about it several times. However, nothing came from home. At eleven o’clock – there is no other expression – the current government meant only to put another text on the table, to prove that it also upholds its promises, which it made at the beginning of the legislature.

Late may not necessarily be too late. The question is what will be done in practice. This, in fact, shows the first tendency, namely that the government, at the end of the legislature, must prove its effectiveness and demonstrate that it has done something, or, rather, that it has wanted to do something to do what it promised four years or, rather, eight years ago.

Mr. Nollet, he left the room, is right. The only difference is that it was in your government statement. When a government statement is approved by Parliament, it can be considered a commitment to be made. We have always done that. One wants to prove his power, but not too early, for then one must also prove that he has the necessary resources. This is the contradiction that is at the basis of the text presented here. Not only are the resources missing, but every estimate is also missing. Mr. Minister, I will bring this to everyone’s attention by means of very precise data. I can only conclude that the late timing of the texts is also a consequence of the fact that you have in the meantime accumulated too much of the resources available to you, and that in no case a text should be approved in which the resources should also be provided. You do not have them. On the contrary, you do not even have an estimate in this regard.

Mr. Peeters, you say that we will finally do something about the blind spots. Those are the parts of the territory that are not sufficiently covered. This has been promised for years. The government has done nothing about it. The draft does not change anything so far. It may offer a perspective. However, when I see the scarcity of the resources, I really worry about the timing of the implementation of all these beautiful promises, and then I wonder when one will have the means to make hard what is given to these people.

Mr. Minister, the state of financial budgetary scarcity in the federal government means that either the execution will have to wait for some time because the resources are not there – I will give very precise indications for that – or the account will be presented to the municipalities within a short time. What else is the explanation for that unique article which states that if the zones do not have sufficient resources the municipalities must pay? That is my concern. It could indeed still be that one tries to move forward, but that this will once again happen at the expense of the municipalities. Colleagues, for those who want to read this, I refer to Article 72 of the text, which you may approve later.

I was in the committee. I had the opportunity to ask a few questions. Very few questions were answered in the report. So I can’t help but re-establish them. What should be understood under Article 70, which provides for special financing of the administrative district of Brussels?

Mr. Minister, I would like to know what the intention is behind this. I have hopelessly sought an explanation for this in the report. I did not find him. You will understand that this makes me suspicious.

In a note note, Mr. Minister, I want to express one concern. I hope you have ears for it. If not implemented quickly, this will lead to a short-term halt in municipal investments. You do not need to have imagination for this. How many municipalities that have so far continuously invested in their firefighters and know that they will soon have to surrender equipment, buildings and land to a zone, will be so sick to invest their own resources in it, as long as there is no real clarity and implementation? You know the answer: almost no more. The investments will quickly go deeper, despite the fact that you anticipate people that it will lead to a more efficient service.

Colleagues, cynically speaking, the government is therefore interested in implementing it as slowly as possible. I want to say this to the people in the tribune, so that they will know. I am afraid that it might ever be like that.

I will give you an illustration, because it is worth it. Mr. Minister, just today I have received an email containing the confirmation of what Katrien Schryvers has just said. It is good that you know that. Rather than reserve money for the implementation of the reform, it is now undermining all the appropriations that are registered in the budget, let alone providing additional resources.

Mr. Minister, colleagues, I read for you from a mail that reached me, assuming a number of fire brigade commanders, officers of three Y Corps. They let us know, I quote literally: “One item concerned the purchase of subsidized firefighting materials. To our great astonishment we were informed that, without this apparently being made known, the government has plafoned the investment credits for 2006 to 75%.”This is thus pure farm fraud: one lets a loan be approved in the budget, actually thus also in this house, but behind the back of everyone one tells that one can use only 75% of it.

However, there is more. I quote further: “This means that part of the equipment for which the purchase was envisaged in 2006 will now have to be done on the 2007 credit. Even greater was our surprise when it turned out that a significant part of the appropriations for 2007 was already fixed by the minister. Normally, the recording takes place in consensus with and after an agreement within the different fire departments and according to a certain savings formula.” I quote further, colleagues: “Now it turns out that two car pumps for an amount of 493.501 euros have already been fixed: one for the fire department of Tongeren and one for possibly another municipality in Limburg.”

Which other municipality is unclear.

You may try to joke, but the truth is that instead of providing additional resources that should materially enable the implementation, the minister first serves himself. That is the situation.

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief for the rest, because I have had the time in the committee ...

Exactly yes. For liberals, this is a golden rule.

As for municipal autonomy, I can be brief: it ceases to exist in these. One will say: the mayor is in the police council, maybe even in the college?

Sorry, sorry, I was a little distracted. Colleagues, a certain dispersion is common in great minds, isn’t it? You must accept it from me.

There are obviously exceptions to this rule!

well well .

If I say that municipal autonomy ceases to exist, I mean that the municipal council no longer has any authority to make decisions in that matter, except for the approval of the budget, which can be imposed on the municipal council, because it is perfectly conceivable that some of those mayors will in fact sit in the opposition.

Mr. Minister, it is written in the stars: that will give rise to political coalition formation, to agreements and thus to majorities in the large zones set up by you. Some mayors will be in the opposition. Understand, they can be questioned. Imagine yourself in! Councillors can ask questions, but only informative questions. More is not given to them. There is no municipal autonomy. I have already been able to tell you that the municipal autonomy in the zones as they exist today is respected. In some of these areas, municipalities work well together. They are all in charge of their efforts, that is clear. They are drowned in the mastodont zones that are now being prepared.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, regardless of the late or early hour, I want to make a legal thought exercise and follow you well, if you want. The text provides that if this is implemented in practice, the property relating to the fire department and of which a municipality is owned – including, that I repeat, also land and buildings – must be handed over to the zone.

The [...]

That is beautiful, only our Constitution states, Mr. Cortois, that expropriation is only possible against fair and prior compensation. Here the fee will be made in disks of first 10%, after amendment 20%. You should try to explain it to me.

That sounds like a small problem, but for the people it’s about, it’s big. For my corps – I can say it here in all clarity; it will be the case for many corpses – have people, firefighters and volunteers, themselves saved, undertaken actions, organized balls, to get seed in the container, with which they themselves bought equipment.

They must now give them to the zone for free and for nothing. I don’t know if you realize the impact this has on the motivation of the volunteers in question.

Another last note, colleagues have already done this for me, but I try to summarize it in one figure. Of the 250 firefighters that this country is rich, there are 220 that almost exclusively rely on volunteers. Have you ever wondered where the motivation will still be when people, though in a front post because that is what it is, must come to do their service when they know that everything over their head and even over the head of their own local commander in those zones will be decided? The firefighters in the Volunteer Corps that are now going through this, spit out this reform. Do you know? I have heard them. I spoke with it.

Mr. Anthuenis, let Mr. Tant speak first.

I am therefore deeply concerned that the main support point for our firefighting organization, namely the Volunteer Corps, will gradually disappear. This will only be realized afterwards. I can’t help but use again the image that I also used in the committee. It will go with the volunteers to the fire department, as my predecessor Mr. Verroken said, like a cow with its tail. She knew what he was serving for when she lost him. Then, of course, it was too late. It will be no different with the volunteers.

Mr. Tant, when the firefighters spit out this reform, I wonder why your group has abstained in the committee and why Mr. Claes and Mrs. Schryvers were somewhat more nuanced in their presentation.

The explanation for this is very simple. I did not want to repeat what they have already said. We are also a party calling for reform. However, the question is whether this proposal is feasible, especially in the short term, and what the consequences will be. The fact that we are the requesting party for a reform does not mean that we agree with any reform, or at least not with every aspect of it.

Mr. Speaker, I swear that I have blocked a number of elements in my text, but several speeches that were delivered gave me the impression that the speakers and myself were not in the same committee meeting. Therefore, I would like to intervene on these points.

You have the word, my colleague. There is no problem.

This morning we are discussing one of the major projects of this end of legislature. Mr. Tant, you will stay with us a little longer, I hope? As a member of the committee, you had already decided to leave.

I am not leaving.

I am very happy, thank you very much! This text may come very late or very early, some will say. In my opinion, it arrives on time or, rather, it arrives at maturity, both this project was expected with hope, but also with fear, because the word "reform" too often retains a negative connotation, especially on the financial level - and this, especially for the communes.

This text was expected, first and foremost, by the men of the field, the firemen who demand a better organization of services, enhanced means, a training better adapted to the risks that are constantly advancing.

Quality civil security is also, and above all, a fundamental right of the citizen. For this is indeed the main challenge of our debate: beyond the legitimate aspirations of the firemen, what will bring to the citizens the project that we will vote, I hope, this morning? In this text, regardless of the position occupied, regardless of the particular interests that can be defended, the sum of the positive aspects far exceeds that of the possible disadvantages. Thro ⁇ the debate we have been conducting for now three years, fears have been expressed, mainly by municipalists who saw in this reform an offence to the municipal autonomy. I can say without roaring that I am one of those who, at the beginning, feared this loss of autonomy. However, when the communal boundaries are too narrow to guarantee optimal security, it is necessary to be able to engage in supra-communal collaborations, which promote a better management of both human and material resources which, in the end, must result in the improvement of the quality of security.

The Brussels example can also reassure those who fear this loss of autonomy, since in the Brussels-Capital Region the services have long been operating in the form of a zone. And I invite you to discuss with the Brussels mayors: none of them speaks of a loss of municipal autonomy. Should it also be recalled that, in the current system, the mayor of a protected municipality has as many responsibilities and competences as a mayor of a municipality center of zone, in which a service is established? Can we talk about less autonomy for these municipalities? I am very pleased with Mr. Arens to assert that this is not true.

Who says “reform” – as I pointed out at the beginning of my speech – inevitably causes a reminder of the policy reform and the difficulty of its financing. We must be able to be reassuring. The proposed text, as amended, offers a lot of guarantees. First, the allocation of each municipality will be fixed taking into account different criteria that I find important: residential and active population, area, cadastral income, taxable income and the risks present on the territory of the municipality. In other words, there will be no single cost per capita within the same area.

The municipal intervention to be calculated by incorporating objective criteria, the arrangement will allow to reach more just allocations. It is interesting to emphasize that the criterion of risks present on the territory of the municipality has been retained because – as is the case in environmental matters within the framework of the polluter pays principle – the person who creates risks must be able to participate in the costs that the community will incur to cover these risks. A battle, however: how to take into account risk mobility? Today, thousands of trucks march on our roads and the trains are huge lengths. How can these mobile risks be contributed financially to the costs of each municipality? A reflection on this will be necessary.

Another guarantee in the financing of rescue areas, in addition to the municipal allocation, is the participation of the federal state by half in the financing of rescue areas. It is known that at present, this distribution is 90 to 95% for municipalities and 5 to 10% for the state. It can therefore be estimated that, tomorrow, the funds invested in civil security will be increased by at least 80%. This is an important number that should be cited.

Mr President Mr. Couldn’t Maine be a little more precise? Tomorrow we will be Saturday.

Mr. Nollet, tomorrow, aftermorrow or Monday, if you prefer. It was an image!

We all agree that today is Friday the 13th.

Tomorrow may not come so early.

I will return to it later!

I don’t want to make illusions, but 80% increase is important and we can’t go by!

The text also states, in Article 67, that the rescue zones will be financed from various sources. It appeared, during the discussions we had in the committee, that, from various sources, it was obviously necessary to hear a participation of insurance companies or insurance groups whose profits are known. Everyone receives, in our message boxes, information about the profits covered by insurance companies. It is therefore logical for us that they can participate in the financing of the areas. For example, if a fire service invests 2,500 euros to buy a door opening, thus avoiding them from knocking to the hail to enter a building in fire, a savings of 1,000 to 1,500 euros is allowed to the insurance company. In this case, these insurance companies should participate in such a way that they themselves can avoid costs.

Mr Maene, I follow your reasoning entirely. Indeed, as our civil security services function better, this can lead to savings on equal premiums and can lead to savings on the part of the insurance company. However, it is quite clear that when one asks for a significant effort from that same insurance company – unless they have realised super profits – one knows who will pay for it. They will be the premium payers. In fact, this is a system of financing. This is the de-taxation of contributions. In fact, however, it comes down to the fact that the same people will pay. I think we agree on this. Only one must camouflage that there is a kind of damaged tax increase.

Mr. Maene, one last consideration. I have heard so many times over the last years of this team, including in the context of the entire oil problem and the energy problem in general, that one would get the money where it was. Look at what came out of it.

Indeed, every time we talk about the participation of insurance companies, we are told the same thing, namely that it will fall on the back of the customers.

It is clear.

I do not think it is an obligation. We could organize a text of law that would provide for not necessarily falling on the back of customers.

I find that it is always the same thing: to avoid having to take the risk of negotiating with insurance companies, we always say the same thing.

I ask myself the following question: if the state invests even more in fire services, who will benefit most financially? This is the insurance company. Therefore, I simply note that we have here a text that speaks from various sources. You should have stayed with us in committee, Mr. Tant; this would have allowed you to share the analysis of this text. The minister responded favorably by saying that, among the “diverse sources”, it was indeed necessary to include “the insurance companies”.

The third issue concerns the financing of municipalities. After the exhaustion of the various means I have just cited, Article 72 allows us to go to extract, for an additional intervention, from the pocket of the communes. It is necessary to read Article 72 in its entirety: we speak of going into the pocket of the communes only after the exhaustion of the various sources that are the municipal dotation, the federal dotation, the possible participation of the provinces and the various sources. This was clearly stated in the Commission.

The fourth guarantee is not the least: the royal decrees that will determine the manner of calculation of federal allocations, municipal allocations, as well as the intervention in the financing of the emergency services of Brussels-Capital will have to be confirmed – it is necessary to read this article to the end – by a law no later than within six months of their entry into force.

In your group, Mr. Tant, we have to say that this must be done six months later. and no. This must be done at the latest within six months. Therefore, if we have a smart minister, a government that is not too light, this one, before bringing its decree into force, will submit it to Parliament. Or it will make sure that it is consensual enough...

The [...]

Mr. Nollet, we can very well have smart ministers!

For me, this is how I would work. If I had a decision to submit to Parliament, I think it would be a good tone to submit it before its entry into force or, if necessary, to ensure that I have a sufficiently consensual text to avoid problems.

When you talk about consulting the Parliament, I suppose you mean that it is the majority that will be consulted. This is the rule of application with this government!

You said, Mr. Maene, we can have intelligent ministers ... tomorrow!

This is a tautology, Mr. Nollet.

We can hope that future ministers will not be stupid enough!

As regards the organization of the rescue zones, each rescue zone will be led by a zone council where each municipality will be represented by its mayor or, in the absence, by a squad designated by the latter. This means that all municipalities, including those that had nothing to say (the so-called protected municipalities) will be able to participate in the organization of the emergency services that will intervene on their municipality. I think this is an important advance.

It is unanimously that your committee of the Interior voted on an amendment proposed by the minority regarding the abolition of the granting of the presence token. If this amendment was adopted so quickly, it was obviously because we expected it to be deposited by a member of the opposition. We had a similar amendment, Mr. Claes.

It is still that this allowed us to share a number of things and – everyone recognized it – to have a good time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that this is actually a good joke. Another such joke and it is again light outside.

One thing is certain. There is indeed light outside.

I would like to emphasize that we agreed on many other points when considering this project, Mr. Claes.

Within the district council, each mayor has one vote, which is also important, except for budgetary matters for which one may refer to the financial weight of the municipality. As a result of this agreement, each mayor will be able to intervene. This is an undeniable progress.

The district council shall designate members of the college of the district. The text does not provide for limits, no restrictions: it has been amended in this sense. Therefore, it will be the area council that will determine the number of members. Nothing would prohibit that all the mayor of the area would be part of the college. There might be the first years of claims in this direction but over time, this should evolve.

The text provides that the areas may have different sizes. The text sufficiently refers to autonomy to allow communes to associate, to see in what context they wish to operate, being understood that the objectives of the text are to ⁇ a scale economy and to gather sufficient resources. Small top areas would not ⁇ the objectives of the law.

I had, together with other colleagues, submitted a bill aiming to establish as a rule that the competent department is the one that can arrive the fastest at the place of a disaster. This proposal has been incorporated into the text and it will enter into force ten days after the publication of the law in the Moniteur belge. Therefore, we will not have to wait too long: it is already a precious stone in the cassette, Mr. Nollet. This is for the afternoon!

For Brussels, we avoided any risk of changing the optimal operation. The text has been amended in this direction. The size of the areas is not defined in the text, the aim is to better use the existing resources and develop them through increased participation of the State in the financing of services. This combination of resources should enable better use of what already exists, to develop additional skills where it was impossible – in particular in small services – to send in training and acquire new skills; to constitute bodies of experts, which is cruelly lacking in services; to acquire state-of-the-art equipment, sometimes very useful for operations so rare that services hesitate to invest accordingly. We can imagine that tomorrow, the areas will be able to agree efforts in this direction. Always at the operational level, the services will be led by a zone commander who will be surrounded by officers, sub-officials and qualified personnel.

The newspaper yesterday ⁇ about a fire that occurred in the south of Namuro. The operations commander complained that he had to deal with this fire – in which a child died – with ⁇ young staff. For most of the staff on the ground, this was a first fire intervention.

There is no criticism to be made. They all worked well. Nevertheless, we see how important it would have been that this younger staff would be accompanied by older staff. The reform also provides a response to this. We are talking about staff mobility. Therefore, one can play between the services to try to have all the skills in all the services.

Training remains, of course, an essential element and an important demand of firefighters. From the hearings we conducted, it emerged that there was a willingness to maintain the current levels of training, especially at the level of provincial schools. The text responds to this request while leaving the possibility for the federal to organize technically more consistent training centers. After basic training or continuing training, they will allow the staff to face certain situations. It seems to me impossible to create this type of center at provincial level given their exorbitant cost. One or two federal centers would ⁇ this goal.

This training will continue to address both professionals and volunteers. Mr. Tant, the will is good to maintain – this has been repeated during our discussions – bodies with volunteers. We wanted a minimum of professional guidance. That was one of our demands. We have submitted a proposal for a resolution in this regard. The text responds to this request because there will not necessarily be long distances between the mayor and the fire department officers. Today, we are certain that there will be in the future – after tomorrow, Mr. Nollet – a professional guidance in each of the services.

The bill will have to be supplemented by a large series of royal arrests. Some of these resolutions will be subject to review by our Parliament – by the majority of Parliament, if you prefer, Mr. Tant. Some shadow areas remain, including the status of professional or volunteer firefighters.

A few weeks ago, firefighters were on the streets to protest and shout their claims in the matter. Obviously, the request for recognition of the firefighter function as a risky profession is at the heart of these claims and we find it legitimate. We know that discussions and negotiations are underway. We hope that they can result so that, along with the implementation of a reform concerning all structures and the organization of services, there can be an obvious evolution in the status of operational personnel.

Other important arrests will need to be taken. In this regard, we will welcome the creation of a number of advisory bodies, a sign of the willingness to build this reform in a permanent dialogue. This obligation of dialogue is one of the forces of the arrangement established. Whether at the level of the organization of the area, of the province, Mr. Arens, the governor remains competent in terms of provincial coordination; this is included in the report.

We didn’t want to create an additional “bidule”. Some district commissioners worked remarkably, as did qualified agents with the governor. We felt that those who were there were sufficient, and that is why this coordinating body was removed.

Unions of cities and municipalities have not been mistaken. After reading their latest press release, I will say that, for the first time, this is a favorable and unreserved statement. That is why I affirm that this text comes at the right time, thanks to your consultation work and the task we have accomplished in committee, all together – majority and opposition confused.

However, at the end of my speech, I will be a little closer to Mr. President. and Tant. All this will remain at the promise stage if, tomorrow, the financial means announced by the federal are not discharged. And I am afraid – joining in this Mr. In other words, the municipalities are not displaced. Therefore, it is important that the next government makes the implementation of this reform a priority. Otherwise, the civil security services as a whole will be endangered. That would of course be a pity. So we must go forward. To this end, we have tried to find a consensus as broad as possible. I have not heard any significant opposition in the statements expressed earlier.

Then there are still some concerns here and there, but essentially we can estimate that this reform is going in the right direction. In fact, it will project the civil security services in a modern mode of operation that allows us to respond to the security challenges of today and tomorrow. And to the question I asked at the beginning of my speech - namely: what is the interest of the citizen in this case? I think it’s about getting a better civil security.

I thank you, Mr Maene. Ms. Galant gave up her speech.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I will begin like the other speakers by saying that, given the morning hour, I will try to be short. Some have succeeded, others less. I would like to thank the journalists first and foremost. I think we have done an excellent job in the committee. This was well reflected in the report. I would like to refer again to the preparatory work carried out in this reform.

That reform was inscribed in the government agreement with a paragraph. We can now put them into a legal text. What I did not want, and I want to make it clear to the House again, is that we would impose a reform from above without sitting around a table with the firefighters federations on the one hand and with cities and municipalities on the other to reach the greatest possible consensus. All those who have criticized the fact that this reform is late, I have to repeat that answer again.

I have asked the provincial governor of Antwerp to sit around the table with the various actors and try to reach maximum consensus. That requires time. In the other case, I would have come up with a bill after a year and then the Chamber would have interpelled me and asked if I had an agreement with the cities and municipalities, what the firefighters federations think about it, and so on. The merit of the provincial governor and his committee is that one has reached consensus around a number of essential principles. My colleague underestimated that. I do not want to repeat the polemics from the committee, but he underestimates that. However, these are essential principles that are translated into a framework law which, of course, needs to be implemented even further and translated with the necessary implementing decisions. This is the case in a parliamentary democracy.

It can be asked whether this should be approved or not yet? When the draft text is ready, should we put it on the table of the next government negotiations, or can the Parliament decide to make the firefighting reform irreversible? The importance of the vote that will be held later, I think, consists in the fact that the fire department reform will be irreversible and, in other words, that a political commitment is taken to the next legislature to put the necessary financial resources on the table for this. No, that is not easy. This is difficult and we have done the same in other reforms.

Mr. Speaker, in the committee I referred to the Act of 1998 on the Integrated Police. Subsequently, this law was translated into implementing decisions. Until today, this law is still being revised on certain points. In other words, this is a police reform which I had understood in 1998 that it was said to be a process that would take at least 10 years before the results would be fully visible on the ground. I tell you that the same goes for this firefighting reform. Of course, sometimes one must take the step. This step is taken today, this morning.

Only then will the reform be irreversible. So we amend a law that actually dates back to 1963. We have been talking about it for so long. I’m not saying that we’ve been talking about it since 1963, but in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, people have repeatedly wondered whether there was still an ideal structure for the organization of civil security. The answer to that is no. We need a scale increase. There are new risks. There are new challenges. In other words, we need an adapted structure.

Is that structure so worn out now? We work with zones. We work with zones to enable this scale enlargement. These zones will be democratically supported through colleges and councils. The answer is, of course, yes, the mayors retain their autonomy and control. With all the criticisms that you can still have on the police councils, even the most critical mayor today acknowledges that the police in the local area are functioning better than before. Well, I make a silly prediction, which will be no different with civil security.

As to the questions raised on how those councils and colleges will function, I will not override the discussion in the committee. Mrs Schryvers, I think we have done our utmost efforts to listen to each other. Look at the number of submitted amendments, many of which have been inspired by the Association of Cities and Municipalities. We took over some of them. You have submitted a few. Eventually, in a number of cases, we have come to a symbiosis and have been able to make the synthesis. You said yourself that in the end there are not many themes left over which we have not found each other. Even during the entire discussion on proportionality and on the weighting of votes in the Board – I re-read the report – you have repeatedly rejoiced that we have effectively grown together. So I thought there was a certain gradation in the interventions. Collega Tante was also in the committee and he was ⁇ sharp. However, I have reached maximum consensus with your group and even with CDH. That was the question. I think that police reform – if I can refer to it again – can only function if it is carried out by a broadest possible democratic support.

Regarding future financing, Mr. Nollet also asked me this question in the committee. How will you guarantee that? How will you be able to make that commitment hard to reach the full equalization of the investment efforts of the municipalities over a period of ten years – about which it will be discussed? There is a huge disproportion, 90% for the municipalities and 10% for the federal government, and one must come to a 50-50 ratio. That will require continued effort, a multi-year effort that will take over more than one legislature. Mr. Maene also asked what we should do for this. Approving the law, and ensuring that whatever the composition of the next government this file is in any case on the government table and that the necessary budgetary efforts are effectively provided for this in the course of the following years. Is that impossible? No, that is not impossible.

There has been criticism of the fact that the government applies the anchor principle. The Minister of Budget also clearly communicated this in Parliament last year. Not only the Minister of Internal Affairs but all ministers are subject to a limitation of investment appropriations of 75% so that some commitments from 2006 are indeed financed and paid in 2007. Is this only for domestic affairs? No, that is for the entire government, from the budgetary concern that we must realize not only a balance but for this year even a surplus. However, take a look at the other spending and budgetary appropriations for civil security. Unless we don’t want to understand each other at half seven in the morning, you will have to agree with me that in the margin I have on Home Affairs and the possibility of an increase of 4.1% I have once again put an emphasis on civil security every year.

For the purchase of materials and for the training you will see that some of those posts have even doubled – I say doubled – since the beginning of this legislature. So if we can sustain that effort, over the years, we will be able to realize that goal to reach that 50/50 ratio between the federal government on the one hand and the cities and municipalities on the other.

CD&V calls for a regionalization of civil security. This position can be defended. That should be put on the table after the election. Today, however, I prefer to make an adjustment, to make a fundamental reform to that law of 1963.

After all, I think, that is an additional argument, that if we should give the fire department an adjusted status, we will have to negotiate federally. It cannot today. Today, the federal government has no legal basis for negotiating with the representative organizations.

I say even more. If the text is not approved, the cities and municipalities will have to do it themselves. Then they will have to do it themselves. After all, one will not escape the questions that are asked there and that live with the trade unions. In other words, if we want to come to a uniform status, if we want to come to a uniform training, if the efforts for training and training must be more evenly distributed across the various provinces, then this can only be done if we now create a legistic basis. Otherwise, I repeat, the cities and municipalities, which are competent under the Act of 1963, are the only point of contact.

Finally, I will come to a few points, detailed questions.

The responsibilities and responsibilities of the mayor of course remain unshorted. I have already answered the question about the undermining of municipal autonomy.

I am concerned about the dispatching. I recently went to Gent, to Eastern Flanders. We really need to do this at an accelerated pace. Collega Tant, East Flanders, your province is a good example to indicate that we will come to that goal not only for police but also for non-police assistance with Astrid and with the CICs. There is some delay. I admit that. Henegouwen, however, is, for example, a province where one is already advanced and where one may also be able to finish before the summer. So we are going to go to a system, which also knows its equal no overseas, where with one and the same communication system we will be able to ensure all emergency services.

There was a question from Ms. Caslo about the urgent medical assistance. There has been an effective split. In consultation with my colleague for Public Health, I have come to the conclusion that the urgent medical assistance is best within its competence.

Mrs. Schryvers, there are still a lot of implementation decisions needed. I have also said that from the beginning. It is a framework law.

There was an amendment made by the committee, a proposal by Mr. Michel. That suggested that it would be better to submit the financing decision to Parliament for ratification rather than implement it through a KB.

I find it a bit the world on its head that it is going to be said right now that I consider the Parliament as a kind of approval machine that can only say yes or no.

The original text provided nothing. It is precisely an amendment by Mr. Michel, with a majority in the committee, that has led to the procedure that a financing decision will have to be effectively ratified by Parliament within a period of six months. For me not left; it was a correction, an amendment by the Parliament. I understand that Ms. Schryvers is submitting an amendment to remove that article. The Parliament will judge this in all its wisdom. However, I think that, according to democratic legitimacy, Mr Michel’s amendment is an improvement, because it is about financing and because then, although a posteriori, the Parliament can have a say about it.

Mr. Speaker, on the transfer of the goods to the zone and the like, you will forgive me that I refer to the report. All these questions have been answered in the committee.

I think we have reached a point of no return. We have a very good legislative basis to make the civil security reform fully operational, indeed in the next legislature. I would like to thank all the actors who participated in the preparation. I am also grateful to the committee because I believe that in a good democratic spirit we have succeeded in improving the texts.

I hope – in the committee there was no opposing vote, but there were some abstentions – that we could give a signal today, a strong signal at the end of this legislature, that we will give this reform unshorted form in the next legislature.

Mr. Claes, you have the last word with a final, short replica.

Mr. Minister, what we lack in your policy is the two-track policy that you announced at the start of the reform and the start of the working group-Paulus. Then you stated that you will work on a new structure. Well, it is now, whether or not we have left comments aside. However, a number of issues that need to be addressed urgently have not been addressed.

For example, there are a lot of personnel problems, including with the volunteers, related to, among other things, the statute. I will not list all the problems here.

There are also many problems with fire prevention. For example, we have a risk analysis. We know where there are too few firefighters. You could already have invested in it and the zones or fire departments could help with the upgrading of fire departments. Nor did that happen.

We know that there are problems with Astrid as well. Firefighters do not have coverage when they have to work within certain buildings.

You have addressed the problem of the notification rooms. We are working on it, but we do not think it is fast enough.

So we miss above all the intended two-track policy, which the firefighters, both professionals and volunteers, really wait for. This is unfortunate for the whole reform.

Mr. Claes, I explained the two-track policy year after year during the budget discussion. I said that we would work on a fundamental reform, but that would take time. However, you can see in the budget figures that we are making progress year after year. I referred to the credits for training and to the credits in general, also for the purchase of materials.

However, other things also happened. For example, colleague Reynders significantly improved the tax status for the volunteer. Following the Ghislengien disaster, a number of measures were also taken to pay compensation to the family members of the victims. Such matters were really addressed.

I am not saying that everything was addressed. In terms of prevention, there is indeed the problem of a difficult division of powers, where the federal level is competent for a number of general standards and the regions are competent for specific standards. I refer in this regard to crèches and hotels, for which the Regions are competent.

We will need to address these issues together in the next legislature. The solution will therefore have to come from the federal government, but the regions will have to be involved in the implementation of the reform.

Mr. Claes, we have, ⁇ not to everyone’s satisfaction, really given shape to the two-track policy – on the one hand, with the fundamental reform we land at the end of the legislature, and, on the other hand, with a number of important steps taken over the past four years – in the course of the last four years.

Mrs. Schryvers, you can give a short replica. Then we close the discussion.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the words of the Minister, I would like to acknowledge that we have conducted a very good debate in the committee. It was ⁇ one of the few times in recent years that we have been able to really substantially discuss a very important topic. Again and again, arguments were heard and amendments were sought, even on the spot and across majority and opposition. It is absolutely so. In a number of matters, there have also been adjustments, which, in our opinion, go in the right direction.

Overall, we find that there is too little clarity on some elements. That is why we abstained.

You are now arguing that the present framework law is necessary, precisely to give further fulfillment to the various elements, such as the financing, the classification of the zones, prevention and status. In itself you are right. In this context, however, we wish to have more insight into the direction you want to go with it, before we wish to approve the design.

The general discussion was extensive.

Ladies and gentlemen, in a moment we will go to the discussion of the articles.

That said, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that we will then continue our work. Only the draft on the revision of the Constitution will not be considered. We will also not carry out the vote, which will be resumed, with your consent, next week.

The [...]

I have to vote on this, Mr. Tante. That is on my agenda.

Next week, there is almost nothing on the agenda.

If the second item does not come, there is no longer a chance to deal with it in the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, on what is still on the agenda, will the Chamber unanimously agree to postpone it to next Thursday?

Let me first do what I am doing.

Imagine that later. And do not forget it!

And then there is another point that is discussed.