Proposition 51K3089

Proposition de résolution visant à améliorer le fonctionnement de l'Agence fédérale de contrôle nucléaire.

General information ¶

Author

CD&V Simonne Creyf

Submission date

April 23, 2007

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

nuclear energy environmental protection resolution of parliament nuclear safety public institution radioactive waste

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR FN VB

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

April 26, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

On 15 February 2006, the Committee on Internal Affairs, General Affairs and Public Service unanimously decided to commission a working group to prepare a proposal for a resolution with a view to improving the functioning of the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control. This assignment is the result of a number of incidents that have been signaled and on which questions and interpellations were held in Parliament.

For the composition of the working group, I refer to the written report. The working group has met 22 times. I can assure you that these were long working meetings. The working group held a working meeting nine times. Thirteen sessions were dedicated to hearings. For the names of those we have heard, I also refer to the written report.

The hearings took place with closed doors. From those hearings, a global synthesis report was produced, concentrating on a number of relevant topics. The synthesis report can be found in the annex to the report. I can tell you that the hearings were ⁇ critical and that we really got a good picture of what happened in the period preceding the operation of the FANC through the hearings. The hearings made us discover the problems and the various political groups subsequently formulated their own recommendations.

On the basis of the hearings and on the basis of the recommendations of the various political groups, the Working Group proceeded to formulate its recommendations. The Committee on Internal Affairs, General Affairs and Public Service then discussed the report at its meeting of 18 April 2007, as well as the work of the Working Group on Nuclear Safety, making the proposal for a post-approval resolution now finally a proposal for a resolution of the Chamber.

I would like to point out the structure of the report. The report includes the discussions of the draft resolution in the Committee on Internal Affairs. From page 17, the annexes begin. In Chapter 1, you will find the entire history of the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control. Chapter 2 sets out the Agency’s statute, management and tasks, which is a description of the current situation. Chapter 3 covers the funding of the Agency. Chapter 4 brings the summary of the hearings, which I highly recommend to read to all those who are committed to nuclear safety. Chapter 5 is the recommendations we have all formulated together. Chapter 6 is the recommendations formulated by the various political parties, which differ on a number of points after each other, but that can of course not be otherwise.

Regarding the recommendations formulated by the Working Group on Nuclear Safety and adopted by the Committee on Internal Affairs with 10 votes in favour and 1 abstinence, I would still like to set out a few of the aforementioned guidelines. I will not exhaustive into it. For all other chapters, I refer to the report. I would only like to highlight a few points from the report that I think are important for the future of the Agency.

The statute of the FANC is a point of discussion. However, the Chamber notes that the difficulties faced by the Agency are not due to the status of a public utility institution of category C. The House therefore considers it not necessary to amend today the Statute of the FANC. However, it is important that there should be guarantees for better control of the functioning of the Agency by the custodians and by the Parliament.

With regard to the external control of the FANC, there is, on the one hand, the external control by the Parliament and, on the other hand, the control by external actors.

As regards parliamentary control, the working group recommends that the committee responsible for the House of Representatives systematically schedule the discussion of the annual report, which the Agency must prepare in accordance with Article 26 of the Act of 15 April 1994. The discussion of the annual report should take place in the presence of the guardian minister and representatives of the Agency. The systematic discussion of the annual report does not, of course, prejudice any possible additional initiatives that the House of Representatives would take or could take in the future.

With regard to the control by external actors, the Chamber advocates that both the FANC and the recognised institutions and the relationship between them be subjected to a periodic, external inspection based on European and international standards.

With regard to the Board of Directors versus the Board of Directors, the Chamber considers it essential that the composition of the Board of Directors is characterized by the quality and independence of its members. The Board of Directors should consist of members who have scientific expertise, as was the case in the past, but now also of members who are chosen on the basis of their management experience.

The Chamber also considers it essential that the Director-General of the FANC is selected after a selection from among the laureates who have achieved the best results, regardless of their language role.

The Chamber also wants a better relationship between the management and the board of directors. Those who look at the report of the hearing will be able to find that there were problems with it in the past. The quality of that relationship implies that the responsibility of everyone is clearly defined and that those who are charged with that responsibility are also willing to assume that responsibility.

Without prejudice to the custody exercised by the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Chamber recommends the appointment of a second Government Commissioner, in order also to ensure control of the financial and budgetary aspects of the functioning of the FANC.

The Chamber wishes that the Board of Directors operates in compliance with the corporate governance rules. This should also be the case with regard to the relations between the Board and the Management Committee.

In that regard, we must point out that the rules of corporate governance have been codified and that it is therefore appropriate to apply those rules to the FANC, of course in those cases where they are applicable, but also to the extent that they are compatible with the legal provisions to which the FANC is subject.

The Chamber also considers it essential to clearly define the respective roles of the Board of Directors and the Management Committee, as well as to create the space for a transparent cooperation between the two institutions. To that end, it is appropriate to develop a methodology for structured consultation between the members of the Board of Directors, the Executive Board and the Government Commissioners.

As regards the relationship with the recognised institutions, the following. I think, Mr. Speaker, and colleagues, that this is one of the most important issues that the FANC will face in the future.

The Chamber considers that work should be done on a filialisation of the recognised institutions, in the form of a public law company under the control of the Agency, following the example of the relationship between NIRAS and Belgoprocess. That subsidiary, whose capital will be provided by the Agency, will be charged with carrying out the statutory checks entrusted today to the recognised institutions. Obviously, while remarking the relationship between the recognised bodies and the FANC for the future, the Agency must become fully operational and the operational problems must be from the past of the job. Meanwhile, the FANC should strengthen its control over the accredited institutions.

Financing, collection of wages and recruitment of reserves are covered by paragraph 13 of the resolution. The House is of the opinion that the current funding rules need to be improved. The financing system based solely on the deposit of remuneration associated with specific performance prevents the recruitment of the formed reserves.

Therefore, the Working Group calls for a diversification of the financial resources made available to the Agency. The majority of the members support the introduction of a mixed system of remuneration and special charges. These charges, also from producers, users and holders of radioactive substances, will be used to finance contracts that are not related to services for which remuneration is collected.

The Working Group also calls for the Agency to collect remuneration due to the Agency in a correct and effective manner. To this end, the Chamber asks the Agency to quickly equip itself with a comprehensive database that enables the inventory of all payable service providers and to conclude the appropriate agreements with the RIZIV and the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain.

The Chamber stresses that the Board of Directors must promptly decide on the expenditure of the more than substantial current reserves and, where appropriate, of the special charges during the preparation of the next strategic plan.

The Chamber considers that these amounts should be used as a priority for continuous training, long-term research and specific tasks such as the improvement of the Telerad system and physical protection. These reserves should also enable the Agency to attract highly qualified personnel.

As regards accounting and quality control, the Chamber advocates the immediate introduction of analytical accounting and an enterprise resource planning that would be specifically adapted to the nature and activities of the Agency.

The Chamber considers that the Agency should work on a system of integral quality assurance as soon as possible. In addition, the Agency should make every effort to obtain the necessary quality labels.

The Chamber points out that the establishment of the aforementioned systems should be accompanied by the establishment of an integrated database containing all relevant information concerning the permits, the inspections, the nature of the permits, the control results, the report of the recognised bodies and also the reports if they are positive, so that a full follow-up and a fully automated follow-up of the operators would be possible, which is not currently the case.

In order to improve the service, the Chamber proposes that the Agency’s Management Committee, in consultation with the staff, establish service level agreements including, inter alia, deadlines for granting licenses, deadlines for responding in writing to requests for advice, deadlines for handling complaints and investigating incidents and the level of availability of Telerad.

Regarding regulations and permits, the following. The Chamber calls on the Custodian Minister to provide or strengthen the existing instruments that could improve the interactions between the administration and the Agency with regard to the compliance with regulatory proposals, which in the past has clearly awaited itself. The Chamber also calls for clarification, simplification and unification of the authorisation procedures, in particular with regard to the establishment of class 3. The Chamber is also favorable to a reform of the classification of the establishments, which should better take into account the risks and the control needs. For this purpose, it may also be necessary to add some activities of Class 2 to Class 1.

The internal organization of the FANC: Although this is important, I refer to the report.

Regarding personnel policy, I can summarize my comments in one sentence. It is urgently necessary for the management of the Agency to work on a modern personnel policy with all possible implications associated with it. I also refer to the report.

In terms of communication and dialogue, it has also been clearly wrong in the past. I can also summarize my comments here in a recommendation, namely Recommendation 34 which states that it is absolutely necessary for the Agency to draw up an internal and external communication plan that guarantees the necessary transparency.

I come to the international role. It is important here that the international role of the Agency is developed and followed up in a structured manner and that the respective responsibilities of the supervisory authority, on the one hand, and of the Agency itself, on the other, are clarified and followed up.

There is also a specific assignment regarding the follow-up of radiation and physical protection. This is important for the population because there are a number of issues that people can face on a daily basis. I will name a few. I will mention only the most important ones.

The Telerads system is the system that measures the radiation of any foreign incidents on the Belgian territory. The Chamber underlines that the execution and follow-up of the audit carried out by Siemens must be given absolute priority. This may require the recruitment of personnel.

Active dosimetrics shall provide the necessary medical guidance of workers exposed to ionizing radiation. There is also a need for transparency in the procedure to be followed in case of incidents or accidents involving material emitting ionizing radiation.

An action plan, with a compelling timetable, should be developed for the radioactive lightning conductors.

For the other recommendations, I refer to the report. I would like to repeat the very last recommendation. We would like the House to request that the necessary legislative initiatives for the implementation of these recommendations be taken immediately and that Parliament be regularly informed of the progress of this matter.

This was the report, Mr. Speaker. If you agree, I would like to give a personal opinion later.

I will put you last on the speaker list, if you agree, Mrs. Creyf. I would like to thank you for your comprehensive report and the effort you have made at the head of this important subcommittee.

Currently on the speaker list are Mr. Chabot and De Coene, Mrs. Gerkens, Mr. Cortois, Mr. Henry and Mrs. Creyf.

After this discussion, I will close the afternoon session. After a brief suspension, we will begin with Project No. 1603.

Is it possible to discuss the draft No. 1603 before the suspension?

Do you want us to treat the 505 before the suspension? I will see where I am. Let us begin with what we are discussing! This is not a problem, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister; we still need a Minister afterwards.

Mr President Mr. Flahaut is expected to return.

He has not yet seen who is right.

Mr. Chabot, I apologize for having you wait for the general discussion.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, the Internal Affairs Committee has established a working group in charge of presenting recommendations aimed at ensuring the functioning of the Federal Nuclear Control Agency and thus optimizing nuclear safety in our country. The contract is fully respected.

I thank Mrs. Creyf for her excellent report on the work of this working group and especially for her presentation of the 44 recommendations adopted by a large majority of the Interior Committee.

The group worked on the subject for several months, conducted numerous hearings, long discussions on the report and resulted in 44 recommendations on 13 points of improvement of nuclear safety in Belgium. We are fully satisfied with the quality and seriousness of the task undertaken in full transparency and without taboo. I would like to congratulate the Chairman of the Working Group for the quality of his work and the good mood he was able to inspire throughout our meetings.

Mr. Deputy Prime Minister – I would say: Mr. Next Minister of the Interior – as soon as the draft resolution will be voted, I hope with a very large majority, it will be recommendations of representatives of the Nation, and not a simple text that can be forgotten tomorrow during negotiations or the adoption of this or that royal decree.

What is important to remember from all this work and our recommendations? First of all, positive observations. Despite the operational difficulties experienced in the past by the Agency, nuclear security has never been challenged in Belgium. We must welcome the seriousness of the work of all the staff assigned to this mission. We learned from auditions that Belgium is a reference country in the fields of safety, security and radio-protection, but also that the culture of nuclear safety requires constant improvement of devices; hence our 44 recommendations.

There was unanimous conclusion that the current status, a type C parastatal, i.e. independent of political authorities, as well as all current missions of the Agency, should be ⁇ ined. The will of all political groups is to strengthen the independence, quality of work and transparency of the Public Nuclear Safety Agency, in accordance with international recommendations.

It is important to remember this in order to avoid feeding fantasies that generate unjustified and often uncontrolled fears.

The most important point is of course the recommendations.

Ms. Creyf presented to us the recommendations adopted, first by the Working Group and then by the Committee on the Interior. I will not detail them any more. However, I would like to highlight some elements that we consider important.

1 of 1. Beyond the recommendations on improving the internal functioning of the Agency and its decision-making bodies, it is important for us to continue to insist on improvements for the environment and health of our fellow citizens, including by becoming more actively engaged in the dosimetry of workers and continuing to improve radiation protection, including the operation of Telerad.

2 of 2. Transparency in the nuclear sector is a prerequisite both for the realization of the rights of citizens to a healthy environment, but also a condition for the proper functioning of the authorities responsible for nuclear safety.

3 of 3. It is a matter of clarifying the modes of functioning and procedures in order to ensure good communication between all authorities, i.e. the Parliament, which must be a pivotal element, the Minister of Custody, the Agency, of course, and, within it, its various bodies.

4 of 4. We would also like to emphasize the importance of the work of the Scientific Council of the Agency, which should become the hub of excellence of the expertise of nuclear control in Belgium.

5 of 5. We unanimously decided – this is the central element of the case – that we should come out of the long transitional period regarding the physical control of nuclear installations. I am talking about approved organizations. It is about pursuing a double objective: on the one hand, to strengthen the independence of the control of nuclear installations; on the other hand, to maintain, in Belgium, a quality expertise.

I welcome the recommendation to establish, in compliance with European regulations, a public body, a subsidiary of the Nuclear Control Agency, responsible for carrying out the physical inspection of nuclear installations.

This is a remarkable progress. The option adopted by the Internal Affairs Committee, unanimously by the democratic groups, goes in the direction of what exists in other countries. This is the only possible and desirable solution.

This recommendation closes the debate on the future of control of nuclear installations in our country.

Now it remains to prepare things, which should take as little time as possible.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, we have taken an important step: the reflection and elaboration of an action plan concretized by recommendations.

From now on, the important thing is the implementation of these, that is, the concrete implementation of the reforms in order to further improve nuclear security in our country.

I am confident. I see a real willingness of the agency’s leaders and staff to move forward serene and secure, in the direction wished by our Parliament.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize our latest recommendation: “The House wants the legislative initiatives necessary to implement these recommendations to be taken immediately.”

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, dear colleagues, first of all, I would like to thank Mrs. Creyf, our rapporteur both in the working group and in the committee, for two things. First of all, I would like to thank you for your work as a rapporteur. Furthermore, you have delivered a ⁇ good report on the content of our resolution and the nature of our work. I also want to thank you for something else. We have succeeded, first in our working group and then in the committee for internal affairs and hopefully later in the voting, to form a front around a common task. We did not have the classic game of opposition and minority here, on the contrary, after a long debate and after a very nuanced discussion on the different principles, we have managed to close the ranks around a text. I am ⁇ pleased with this. I understood in the committee that CD&V supports the text. I hope this will be the case in the plenary session. That is good because what we approve here today is not the end point, even though it seems that after fourteen months of work of this working group that will be completed during the last session of the House. This is not an end point, it is a starting point.

I am a little surprised that the Minister of Defence is not here. I know that his cabinet representative is there. She sits in the tribune. I would really like to ask that this resolution be taken into account. Mr. Chabot has expressed it in a ⁇ central way: what we approve here, with a ⁇ broad majority, is not a vodje paper. If there will be royal decrees tomorrow and in the coming days, it must be royal decrees that take account of that text. Any disrespect for the Parliament and for that text is especially misplaced, Mrs. the representative of the Minister who exercises the guardianship.

Fourteen months ago we received a mandate from the Conference of Presidents to come to the plenary with a resolution. There has been something to do around because a resolution must be a text that is not shameless but especially relevant. Within the framework of nuclear control, we have every interest in sharpening a number of issues, in order to be ⁇ relevant and, above all, to get out of the nuclear confusion we know today. Why did we start fourteen months ago? We had previously, with a number of colleagues in Parliament, established terrible things.

In summary, we can say that the nuclear control and the institution that must observe the nuclear control in this country was a deadly sick man, and that this had to be remedied. What did we then learn, including following a judgment of a recognised institution? Remember this well, colleagues. Three years ago, the recognised body that deals with nuclear control at the major sites said that there was an erosion of the safety culture in Belgium.

We were, of course, surprised by this. We asked in the committee for further explanation to the guardianship minister. That explanation did not come, because it had to do with business economic interests. As a result, Parliament could not be informed of the text.

We then invited the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control itself to the committee for two hearings, after we had asked a number of parliamentary questions, after which we left with even more questions than we had received answers. It was a hallucinating show. There came a society that felt exalted above everything and everyone and that almost made us ridiculous when we asked, among other things, about the major nuclear revision programs of the sites in Doel and Tihange, about the functioning or not of the agency and the measurement network Telerad, a detection network with 212 points in our country, which was said to be not or very insufficiently functioning.

This was not true until a number of whistleblowers rose up. This is the case in a bad corporate culture. People are put at the door and sometimes have an account to settle. Those whistleblowers gave us text and explanation on matters that absolutely did not work properly. Among those whistleblowers were also a number of former employees who held the honor to themselves and left the agency because they could no longer see it and who have a very strong reputation, because they are today very active at high levels in the nuclear sector. There were also some members of the board of directors of the federal agency itself. They could not even see it. According to them, it could no longer be that there was no control over the agency or the sector itself.

As Ms. Creyf said, then we started a working group. I am glad that it is now supported by everyone. However, I would like to remind myself that this did not happen without a blow or a blow. We really had to get rid of it, but the working group has come. We then took the time to hear a ⁇ large number of people, to separate the grain from the grain. After all, you know without a doubt that some whistleblowers don’t really have an objective agenda. In particular, we have tried to bring in a very large number of opinions from the sector. If I am not mistaken, Mrs. Creyf, we have heard more than twenty people. We have shown this very objectively. We did this also with closed doors, because we did not have the status of an investigative committee, only of a working group. In this way, we could give people the freedom to go completely and tell us exactly where the shoe is knocking.

Ms. Creyf well described the dysfunction of the Agency in her report. I do not want to repeat that.

We must now stop at the next. We want to turn a poorly functioning Agency into a well-functioning Agency. We want to make a crack-chemical control of the nuclear sector a well-controlled control. To ⁇ this, we have written 44 recommendations, one of which is more important than the other. I admit that, but some are of particular importance. I would like to refer to points 12 and 13, the financing and the relationship with the recognised institutions.

There is a KB, a transitional KB, that should regulate the relationship between the Agency and the recognised institutions for the coming time. However, we believe that the texts of that KB should also state that the recommendations of the Parliament are being implemented. Our party will be ⁇ vigilant in this regard. It will not be “eventually” or “maybe”. It will be so and not otherwise. I hope that the representative of the Minister will communicate that to her boss. We didn’t work for fourteen months to hang the clown out here. We work here because things need to be put in order.

We found that the directors did not talk to each other. There has been a study of Korn/Ferry. The reading of it is hallucinating. I will quote one sentence: "FANC has no added value in the field of nuclear control." Based on the study of Korn/Ferry, a number of people have had to leave the company and a number of major rearrangements have taken place.

I want to break another lance for something else. A number of people have had the evil courage to make the dysfunction public and they have been punished for it. They have lost their jobs. In the most brutal way, these people have been put on the door, even though they were doing their best, both with nuclear control and with the Agency. I think – that’s a personal opinion – that these people should get their chance again. I am afraid that a lot of expertise has been lost by expelling those people from one day to the other. Those people were engaged in accounting or with Telerad. Give them a chance with the new management and investigate whether any useful expertise can be re-incorporated into the Agency.

I hope we will implement in the coming years, through numerous initiatives. I think we should aim to follow this with Parliament with particular caution. We have also written about this in our recommendations; Parliament should organize itself appropriately to monitor and monitor this process of progress.

Finally, a new dossier on the nuclear issue has become relevant, in particular the dossier on the invoice for the dismantling of nuclear power plants. The next parliament will also have a terrible gap. I call on the members of the next legislature to put their teeth in there too.

I have already M. Chabot en collega De Coene in de algemene bespreking gehad. Mrs Gerkens is?

Mr. Speaker, we are indeed experiencing an important moment, but this is only one step in the process of parliamentary control regarding nuclear security and security in Belgium, in particular through the control of the functioning of the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control.

If we are to vote today on a proposal for a resolution, this is due to the fact that in 2004 it appeared that the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control allowed unhealthy relations between approved bodies and nuclear power plant managers.

Hearing of the Agency was requested within the Interior Committee, but it turned out to be simply catastrophic: the officials of the Agency at the time gave us unsatisfactory answers, were unable to enter the details and, above all, considered that it was not necessary to provide us with the information we were asking. They were all convinced of the difficulty and poor quality of the answers given, as the commission agreed to the establishment of a working group with the task of making recommendations for the better functioning of the Agency.

Furthermore, when the government had to again designate agency officials, there was first a contract for them to be evaluated. This assessment by Korn/Ferry highlighted the incompetence of agency officials, at least in terms of management and good governance. It was therefore not an interpretation of anti-nuclear parliamentarians, but rather a generalized finding, including from external views.

What have we learned from these hearings and the discussions that resulted in the filing of this resolution? There are a number of things that I would like to highlight here, although I will obviously not go back to all the points of this resolution. Among the criteria taken into account for the composition of the Board of Directors or for the composition of the Agency’s first teams, the argument “apparteneness to a political party that is part of a government majority” was sometimes more important than the skills of individuals themselves. This is not sufficiently emphasized in our resolution.

Our resolution provides that, to designate people, it is about evaluating their skills and choosing among the best. Nevertheless, it is also seen that in the composition of the board of directors, the concern of seeing political representatives sitting remains predominant.

Another worrying fact in the functioning of the Agency and in its relationship with the government for all these years: there was already a government commissioner who was supposed to make the link between the Agency and the Minister of Custody. We realize, having met with the speakers, that if this commissioner passed some information, his hearing and those of other directors highlighted the fact that there was a sort of moral and political obligation not to denounce the dysfunctions, as if it was necessary to prove that everything was well and as if this position of intermediary between control agents, of which results are expected and political relay, of which results are also expected, was incompatible with a neutral and critical attitude.

This is one of the aspects for which I think we will need to make arrangements and show constant vigilance.

It also appears quite obviously that the medium of persons competent in nuclear matters is quite small and relatively closed in Belgium. Finally, these persons work at the Agency, with approved bodies or in controlled places where nuclear equipment is located. Over time, these people sometimes pass from one place to another. It is therefore important, when it is necessary to verify the functioning of the missions of a body such as the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control, that persons who do not come from the nuclear environment but who are competent in the organization of work, in the management of teams of professionals, in the management of the work of parallel organs that exercise control on the ground are designated.

Our resolution actually takes this into account, saying that it is imperative to extend the composition of the board of directors to people who do not come from the nuclear environment.

All these hearings showed us that the Agency, since 2001, has not operated according to the normal and minimum rules of any organization, regardless of the importance of its tasks. In our resolution, one sentence could have been added: “We ask the government to ensure that the rules of good governance are respected within the Agency.” Everything else was to result from it, i.e. an appropriate composition of board of directors, bodies within the Agency whose roles and modalities of interaction between them were defined, a control of the work, regardless of the class and the dangerousness of the nuclear or radioactive material there.

It then requires a report of the places where this equipment is located, the safety and safety requirements, the establishment of control methods, methods of transmission of information so that it can react and repair if a malfunction is found.

All these elements seem to me basic but were not realised within the Agency. This is why we find in the resolution of normal requests – if I can express myself so – such as good governance, the transmission of information, transparency, analytical accounting, methods of control and verification of controllers, the establishment of scales with a requirement of related benefits, the determination of competencies at the level of control.

During the discussions, we were also questioned by – this element is to be taken back with much energy at the parliamentary entrance – the management and control of the Telerad system. This system was interesting because it aimed to distribute beacons across our territory and to be able to detect excess radioactivity and thus allow to react and protect the population. I will not go into all the details but it appears that, for a while, the Agency has not had the control of its tool.

Furthermore, the way in which data collection is carried out and the way in which it is responded is lacunar, as is the organisation of the Agency. Our proposal indicates that the measures of the last audit that had been carried out on this subject should be applied.

I would have also like to add a more precise provision requiring the Agency to master the tools and software used to manage the Telerad system, in order to assume its control responsibility.

Unfortunately, I have not been followed in the integration of this point.

Now on to the health of the workers. With regard to this aspect, the hearings also highlighted the general insufficiency of our tools and ways of assessing the exposure to radioactivity of workers, in the various facilities where this radioactive material is located; in fact, they passively record the doses of radioactivity. The resolution calls for attention to the development of more proactive methods and measures to protect workers.

Finally, I come to Parliamentary Control. For too long, we, parliamentarians, have observed from too far the functioning of the Agency in the exercise of its control tasks. It is important that our Parliament can evaluate and question regularly. The resolution calls for an annual report to be delivered orally in the presence of both the members of the committee and those of the Agency, so as to engage in interaction from that report.

On behalf of the ECOLO party, I had requested the establishment of a N Committee, as nuclear, like the P and R Committee, in order to create an instance that, under the supervision of Parliament, regularly examines the proper functioning of the Nuclear Agency. This allowed Parliament, the Agency and the Government to assume their responsibilities in this regard.

This request was also rejected by the working group, and I deeply regret it. I hear my colleagues in the majority hope that this resolution will be taken into account and will not be defamed by the arrests that are taking place. However, if the government – who knows that we have submitted this resolution – takes action contrary to what we demand, it thus considers that Parliament does not count and prevents Parliament from assuming its responsibilities. A Committee N would allow us, in such cases, to defend our demands in terms of nuclear safety much better and with greater force.

I think this work was interesting, but it is just a step. We will have to go back to work more accurately. I think of the organization and understanding of the Telerad system, which is intended to protect the population across the entire territory. I hope that we will be able to dedicate ourselves to it in the same way as the task that was accomplished in this working group. He wanted to come up with constructive proposals. The problem was large, since the Agency did not work. And it had to work!

Mrs Gerkens, I thank you very much. Per ⁇ this was your last speech in the plenary session of the House. I wish you good luck and good wind!

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I would like to join the words of thanks and congratulations addressed by our reporter, Mrs. Simonne Creyf. Mrs. Creyf, I had the opportunity to thank you yesterday because you have had to work, especially in the last few days, under great time pressure. Colleagues, there may be some things in the resolution that do not fully correspond to what we had agreed upon. However, these are details that I will not go into now. Mrs. Creyf, in any case, you have done an excellent job, as our President, Mr. De Coene, has already emphasized.

Colleagues, also on behalf of my VLD colleague Hilde Dierickx, I would like to make three general concerns.

First, this is a little contrary to what the chairman of our committee said. Both during and at the end of the work, I did not have the idea of a nuclear sector in a catastrophic situation. I did not have that impression, most people in our committee did not have that impression either. There were undoubtedly a number of problems. However, I can agree with the sober conclusion that the confidence crisis, which undoubtedly prevailed in the FANC at the end of 2004, was ⁇ not caused by the risk or danger of a nuclear accident.

Mrs. Creyf, you said that what happened at the time at the FANC is not due to the statute. That is probably quite true, but it is clear that within the FANC we were dealing with classical contradictions between, on the one hand, the management and, on the other, the board of directors or groups of the board of directors. I am of the opinion that, probably on both sides, one has often chosen the way of the press and that has ⁇ not benefited the institution and the trust in the institution.

Finally, after the audit, I had to reckon that there were still shortcomings, including with regard to the Telerad measurement network, that a better and more open communication is possible, as well as a faster and better understanding of the data and a better supervision of the FANC. However, I can hardly agree with the picture that it would have been in a catastrophic state for just a few years, which threatened our security. Insofar as my introduction addresses the course of our work and the impression that Mrs Dierickx and I got at the end of it.

I come to the recommendations myself. Mrs Creyf, it is not your fault, but I regret the following in connection with the formulation of the draft resolution. We had in the working group drafted a text, which we had to bring to the committee in accordance with the rules of procedure. To be honest, I found the text very good. He not only expressed the position of the majority, but also expressed the position of the minority. As a parliamentary one can think about it what one wants and say that one must make choices, but who should make the policy could see in the report where there was a clear majority. However, it can never hurt if one also considers the minority.

In connection with Recommendation 1, we do not consider adherence to the parastatic C necessary. It is important that the FANC can function properly. Recommendations 6 to 11 address the management and the board of directors and we are all in favour of corporate governance, but it is obviously very difficult to apply that in a public company, to which other legal obligations and other practices were imposed.

What have we learned from the hearings? That is another message that I want to convey. We learned that during the period when the FANC was in a kind of confidence crisis, many people in the FANC, both in the executive committee and in the board of directors, were more concerned with their own position than with the functioning of the institution. This is a determination that we can make.

For us, the delicate point is Recommendation 12: the relations with the recognised institutions. There has been a lot to be done. Also in this recommendation our minority position was removed from the final text. We remain convinced that security is much better served by a strict separation between regulatory and control competent authorities. The proposed affiliation of the recognised institutions protects their activities so that they are protected from potential foreign competition. In fact, the VLD has admitted that filialisation is a hidden form to further secure the years-long monopoly position of the recognised institutions.

Therefore, we would like to make it clear again – although we will approve all of the recommendations – that we are very unhappy with the wording of Recommendation 12, concerning the relations between the recognised institutions and the FANC.

Colleagues, I, in my turn, decide to confirm that we have the impression that the Working Group has indeed done a good job and that the stakeholders and policy-makers, Parliament and governments, if they take this hand, will nevertheless get a fairly good and quite objective picture of the functioning of the FANC and its governing and managing organs.

Therefore, despite some doubts, we will approve the recommendations as a whole, as they are still fairly balanced. At the same time, however, we also extend a constructive but warning hand to the FANC and all those involved with policy and governance. We are still convinced that the FANC, ⁇ not in its current form, as a strong regulator is a guarantee for the protection of the population against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation. The government must pay full attention to this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to keep this. (The applause)

Friend Cortois, the applause says much more than what I could say.

Mr. Henry, I give you the floor to speak as part of the general discussion on the resolution aimed at improving the functioning of the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control.

I will not surprise you...

You never surprise me.

I may surprise or disappoint some members of this assembly. In fact, I will absolutely not talk about the functioning of the Federal Nuclear Control Agency.

I had warned you that I would like, on the occasion of the last meeting of the Chamber at which I am present, to take leave from you, Mr. Speaker, but also from my parliamentary colleagues.

I have been sitting in this assembly for almost a quarter of a century, which is already a record, beaten by the person who is behind me and who, in my opinion, still has chances of returning!

Today I want to turn the page. This is a completely personal choice. There is another life after politics. Nor did I want to take the risk of being “pushed out” by voters – this is a risk in political life – or by activists or political authorities. When this is the case, you risk suffering from a somewhat longer depression, having some bitterness and some resentment that is difficult to heal. But rest assured, this will not be my case.

Certain reforms that we have voted for in previous legislatures, such as those relating to parity – ladies, do not be shocked – or to the big circumscriptions, and also ⁇ a outrancer mediaization not of the political debate but of political personalities, have pushed me to make this decision.

Mr. Speaker, like you, I have always wanted to stay in this House because I believe that it is here that the political heart of the Nation beats, it is here that all political, philosophical and community opinions find and meet.

A brief assessment of the situation is positive. Over the course of 20 years, we have been able to reform and restructure this country in a completely peaceful way. It could be rectified economically and financially, sometimes in brutal ways. The years 1981 and 1983 covered the era of special powers. I think, Mr. President, I scanded your name at the time on the streets of Charleroi.

But we also managed to maintain and strengthen a quality social policy. During the last two legislatures, we have succeeded in conducting an ethical and progressive policy. I hope it will not be questioned. In this regard, Belgium is, in my opinion, at the forefront on the European level.

Mr. Speaker, I began my parliamentary activities by sitting within three assemblies: the Walloon Region, the French Community and the Chamber. Substitutes did not exist. It was a continuous and exciting rally. The nights were also usual in our work during the period of special powers.

I naively believed that after transferring all the skills to the Regions and Communities, we would return to a much more normal working rhythm, a rhythm that you have ⁇ known: we worked on Tuesday, on Wednesday, and on Thursday at 5 p.m., the voting time sounded.

This was not the case, because now we work from Monday to Friday. Is our work more efficient? Our parliamentary activity is judged by the number of oral, written questions and bills we sign.

But let me emphasize, in my capacity as Chairman of the Defence Committee, that I have never witnessed such an intense repetition of questions concerning, for example, the Coxyde base or the military hospital.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you that you have very well defended our institution. This has not always been the case in the past, when a assembly chairman, who was to live in the province of Luxembourg, did not defend with the same ardor and competence the status of parliamentarians.

After so many years, I allow myself to say to this tribune that I do not have the impression that the status of the parliamentary has progressed, neither financially, nor fiscally, nor socially.

I think that today it is a big risk to start a parliamentary career, especially, my dear colleagues, that you are likely to be replaced very quickly by journalists, sports stars or other civil society figures. As if we, parliamentarians, were not representatives of civil society!

I have performed almost all of my duties except yours. I was Group Leader in the Walloon Region, Secretary, Chairman of the Investigative Committee, Vice-President and then First Vice-President of this Assembly, which – believe me! It is a real sinecure.

Mr. De Croo, I will confess that it was very difficult to replace you in the presidency during the few technical interruptions and your cervical problems. Indeed, you have led this Assembly with competence and you have always been an assiduous and present man among us.

In the end, my friends, I became a quetaker. I was told, “The Questure is the real power!” It is also the favourite institution of our secretary. You can ask him how much he carries the Questure in his heart. I had a beautiful office. Mr. Speaker, you have never visited it because to get there you have to take the gateway, go down to -2, cross through the entire parking – hoping that you have your badge on you to open the door –, take the elevator to -3, cross the tunnel and go up to the 5th floor. This is the third door to the right. By the way, when you ring for votes, it takes almost a quarter of an hour to arrive, if you hear the bell!

I recognize that we have achieved results. Thanks to your action, we have been able to buy Max Havelaar coffee and have chosen new uniforms for our staff. Nevertheless, I have to regret two failures that remain through my throat.

On the one hand, despite significant financial efforts, we could not improve the acoustic quality of this assembly. I still have the impression that twenty or twenty-five years ago, we heard better without the microphone so that we could talk to each other. On the other hand, I regret that the quality of the restaurant could not be improved. We had a buffet last night. Mr. Speaker, I understand you, and I also understand the President of the Questure, who never comes there, but I remain interlocuted! I pledged that at the end of the legislature, we could have a quality, attractive buffet, where one could accommodate in a friendly way. The result is that our desserts have been removed and cheese rations have decreased impressively!

Beyond the joke, I must say that the staff of this assembly is distinguished by its very high quality, but ⁇ we also suffer from heavy and divided structures. In any case, in some matters, we are bound to the Senate, which has shown less reflection than inertia and frilosity.

I would like to say goodbye to my Flemish friends and colleagues. I have always wanted to treat everyone right in the Chamber, even those whose ideas I have always fought the hardest.

I had a chance. I had two teachers in the normal school. They were two Limburgers, who always required me to speak Dutch or Flemish in the classroom and outside the school. In this way I became acquainted with Flemish history, with the Flemish movement and with Flemish literature: from Sister Hadewych – do you know that, Mr. President? – and Jacob Van Maerlant, about the great, Flemish writers such as Stijn Streuvels, Hendrik Conscience, Felix Timmermans and Guido Gezelle – You prayed on one mountain alone. And ... Jesus, I and find none. Where ‘k’ can climb high enough. – up to and with Jef Geeraerts – Gangreen I and II and the great modern writer, Hugo Claus.

So I always had a great understanding for the struggle that my Flemish colleagues and the Flemish people had to fight to be recognized as a people, as a culture and as a State in the Belgian State.

Colleagues, you don’t know that, but I started my political career in a small village near Charleroi, of which half of the population of Flanders came from. She came from Scherpenheuvel and came there to work in the mines. Others came from Kanegem. Do you know Kanegem? They came to the farms to work and came to buy the farms from us.

Mr. Henry, the father of Mr. Van Parys is from Kanegem.

The Archbishop is also from Kanegem.

Twenty years ago, the Mass was still ordained in Flemish. There was a Flemish theater circle. We had a ship, coming from Kanegem. His name is Basilius Van Petegem. His daughter was still an employee of Mr. Nothomb. Everything always went very well.

Where do I want to come?

First, those who make a caricature of Wallonia and the Wallons, which, in my opinion, is done too often, should not forget that many thousands of Flemish families have come to us to work, live and live.

Second, it is a duty, colleagues, to radiate its language and culture. However, this should never happen at the expense of other languages, of other cultures and of individual rights and freedoms.

I will conclude, Mr. President. Freedom was all that motivated my political and individual action. I know that is approved on the liberal banks. For my part, I have always rejected dogmas, reasonable truths, undisputed authorities, and I have always sought individual freedom: freedom of thought, freedom to undertake, freedom of conscience and individual choices in life. I think I have succeeded on an individual level, like many in this assembly.

However, my dear friends, can one be satisfied individually with such success when billions of men and women are in distress and deprived of liberty? Is not our greatest political and philosophical goal the liberation of man? For this, it is necessary to invest primarily in teaching, protected from any dogma, in culture. Our fellow citizens must have a proper remuneration, a proper pension, access to proper health care, and also have access to proper housing. Contrary to OECD experts and the risk of shocking some of you, I remain convinced that the state must play an important role in this regard and that a better distribution of wealth is needed.

That is why I think that this type of philosophical and political discourse, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, is carried out by left-wing parties and therefore by the Socialist Party. As I leave this tribune, beyond the friendship that I have been able to establish with members of this Assembly, to whom I wish much success on the individual level, on the level of their careers, on the level of their feelings and even on the political level, I will therefore wish first and above all a great success and good luck to my friends of the socialist group. (The applause)

There are times when the President forgets the Rules. John Paul, thank you! For those who love the French language, Mr. Giet, I would say that this was an inappropriate speech but it came from the heart and it pleases. So I will be forgiven for forgetting the Rules for a few minutes. It is not the parliamentary who speaks to the parliamentary, but the friend who thanks the other friend.

Mrs Creyf, you are the next speaker.

Mrs. Creyf, can I ask you to start your argument? I do not need to force you to do so, you know the subject too well. But the same emotion as just then will strike us when you leave the speech room. You have the word.

Mr. Speaker, I find myself in roughly the same situation as colleague Jean-Pol Henry, but with your approval, I will first have the Federal Agency for Nuclear Safety.

You will never change, Mrs. Creyf.

Maybe at the end...

You will not change anymore. And Jean-Paul Henry too.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker of the Commission, Mr. De Coene, colleagues from the Nuclear Control Working Group, I think that we have done a good job and that we have worked hard. I think we can be happy that a good resolution proposal will eventually come forward.

I also thank the people of the administration and the services. If you see the amount of paper, you will realize that there is seriously some work provided by the services.

Regarding the argument of CD&V, in the form of our personal political recommendations, I naturally refer to our resolution attached to the report. But I would like to point out three points explicitly.

The first is political responsibility. Several interventions in Parliament in recent years have shown that something is wrong with the FANC. That alone had to be a sign on the wall for the guardianship minister to act much faster and much more adequately. It was undoubtedly the merit of the working group that we were given more insight into the shortcomings. In any case, I think, this is accompanied by an important, even political responsibility.

It is our conviction that in the past there has been insufficient attention from the successive competent ministers for nuclear security and for the expansion of the FANC. The dysfunctions at the FANC were known to the Chairman and the members of the Board of Directors, including the Government Commissioner. However, the government commissioner has never used his veto.

The competent ministers were also undoubtedly aware of the dysfunctions at the FANC, and yet the competent ministers never took any action. We also dare to talk about politization and about political support to the members of the existing executive committee. The appointment of persons who did not have the appropriate profile to carry out the task entrusted to them is a political responsibility, and not only the responsibility of the officials who have been put aside after an audit.

We regret that in addition to the audit of Korn/Ferry, the competent minister has not commissioned the International Atomic Energy Agency for an audit or peer review of the FANC. The Korn/Ferry report examined four persons, not the functioning of the agency. An audit by the International Atomic Energy Agency could have produced meaningful recommendations for the functioning of the FANC, and not so much for the functioning of certain persons, who were eventually placed there by politics.

There is also no consistent implementation of the legislation. The new organic law required succession and an active action of the government. However, the consequences of the new legislative framework were not taken. The regulations were not issued in time and it took far too long before the necessary royal decrees were made.

The second point I would like to highlight is the relationship between the FANC and the recognised institutions. The original philosophy of the law assumed that there would be a total reduction of the tasks of the recognised institutions. In no way can we support that. The reasons for this have been discussed extensively during the hearings and the discussions of the Working Group during the preparation of the recommendations. A complete disconnection from the recognised institutions is also not a good thing. Our proposal to establish a subsidiary under public law was accepted by the working group, which ⁇ satisfied us.

A third point is the organization of nuclear control with a specific department for the regulation of nuclear safety of class 1 – the nuclear installations – along with another department for the organization of radiation protection in industrial and medical applications. These are two categories of institutions, which in the future must be accommodated with a very specific regulation. Class 1 are the nuclear power plants, which are of course especially important. Class 3 is also not to be underestimated, as people can be exposed to radiation almost daily, for example when they go to the hospital or to the dentist.

We also found very important the connection to databases, which is now completely missing. Proper nuclear control should be able to have the necessary databases, gathering all reports of the controls, so that an auditor who visits an institution has immediate access to the regulations, past controls and the assignments that await him.

I think, Mr. Speaker, colleagues, that I have once again highlighted the three points that are ⁇ important to us. I now hope that Parliament will work to follow up on the resolution. Unfortunately, I will no longer experience it myself. I will have to rely on my good colleagues from the group.

I hope that I will not abuse the speech when I also want to say a last thank you to Parliament. This is my last speech in Parliament, after 18 years of parliamentary mandate. I have decided that I will no longer be a candidate for the June 10 election.

I leave this Parliament with pride and gratitude. As colleague Jean-Pol Henry just said, I also find it an honor to be part of this beating heart of politics.

In my thanks, I would also like to include all Parliament’s services, ranging from the interpreters who have always been working with us so long and intensely, the services of the report, the Parliament’s bodes and all the people who stay more in the background, which we don’t always see – there are probably faces that I haven’t even seen before -. They all provide the Parliament’s logistical support that we all have been able to enjoy in our parliamentary work.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I thank you all and I wish everyone the best for the future. (Applause of Applause)

Mrs. Creyf, you held your final presentation as you are: with content, style, knowledge and charm. However, I did not know that underneath all this there is a huge beautiful wave of emotion. You are well.