Proposition 52K1201

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses (II).

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅰ

Submission date

May 29, 2008

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

civil procedure prisoner child protection patent mentally disabled person judicial power victim criminal procedure carrying out of sentence

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo LDD 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 ¶

July 3, 2008 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to the written report, but I would like to intervene in the general discussion.

I will be very brief on this bill.

My intervention concerns two measures in the field of justice.

The first is the postponement of a series of important laws, not for not applying those laws that are good but because the technical and material conditions are not met to put them into practice. It would have been unreasonable to enforce these laws passed in the previous legislature without putting the necessary human and material conditions.

The second is about parish assistants. The bill provides for the increase of parish assistants by 40 units, without a definitive solution as to their framework.

As a person, I regret that this bill does not provide a definitive solution. The State Council rightly drew our attention to the fact that it was necessary to give them a framework and to end the extinctive framework that currently exists for this function. The minister said it would be for next year’s budget.

These were the comments I wanted to make regarding these two important provisions.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, these types of laws we face today have different names. Officially, there is a beautiful “law draft containing various provisions”. There are also less beautiful names used: the rubbish baking law.

If we look at what is all happening in the courtroom Justice then it is not about various provisions or a rubbish box law. This is actually a good example of a deferral law, the large deferral law. What is it actually about? In fact, we could already hear this in the report. The word postponement is often used. Almost everything that has been adopted in recent years on important legislation is being postponed.

The provisions of the Judicial Code for the purposes of electronic proceedings are moved to 2009. The legislation on youth protection is postponed until 2011. Legislation relating to the external legal status concerning detainees sentenced to a sentence of less than three years is postponed until 2012. The legislation on criminal enforcement courts is moved to 2012. Legislation on the internment of persons with a mental disorder is postponed until 2012. The legislation on the provision of the criminal enforcement courts is moved to 2012. The provisions on judicial staff are also postponed. More legislation is postponed until 2011 or 2012. and unlikely.

In the end, many of those laws are postponed in this legislature, and not by a few months or a few years, but they are postponed to the next legislature. This government asks this Parliament to stop implementing laws, which have been passed in the previous legislature, during this legislature and to move them immediately to the next legislature.

What does the majority say when we discuss this in the committee? “Yes, you have to read it well. It is a maximum deadline. If the Minister of Justice knows that a measure can be implemented in 2010, I am convinced, colleagues, that he will not write that it will be 2011 or 2012.

The fact that there will be 2011-2012 actually means that the minimum will be 2011-2012 and that we can fear that it will be much later. What are the reasons for the postponement? One of the reasons cited is that it is necessary to wait for the implementation of the construction and renovation programme set out in the master plan. Therefore, everything related to detention and execution of penalties should be postponed until 1 September 2012.

However, the construction and renovation program is completely unrealistic. What are all planned? We have thoroughly discussed this in the committee. There are two institutions for interned persons. There has been some advancement in it. Land has already been found. That is already something. We also have a place for one youth institution, in Achêne. The prison in Dendermonde is a file that has been drawing for years and then there are three other prisons in the three regions, which will be built through PPS structures, which still need to be drawn out. Of those last three prisons, each in a Region, we know nothing. We do not even know the location. No land has yet been purchased and yet the Minister says that his master plan will be implemented by 1 September 2012 and that then all provisions that are now postponed can have effect. Well, I do not believe that.

I do not believe that this can be achieved by 2012. I think no one in this room believes that the entire master plan will be implemented by 2012. Thus, the delay of three or four years will not be limited to those three or four years. If this reason is held and if one really wants to wait for the realization of the master plan, then one will be allowed to wait until 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 or 2017.

The construction of the Bruges prison took more than ten years. What guarantee is there that this master plan will be able to be implemented within four years? It is unacceptable, since ultimately a significant part of the adopted legislation is postponed and a reference to the Greek calendar is made. This includes the rights of detainees. I refer to the Law on the Criminal Enforcement Courts. A measure for short sentences, less than three years, will now be postponed by four years. That is, a detainee who is sentenced to three years in prison today will never be able to enjoy the application of that law.

He will have been out of prison for a long time, even if he remains in prison for the full duration of his term.

That is the policy of the current government. This is exactly what the proposed deferral law is about.

What will the government decide? Before the Criminal Enforcement Court, the government claims to have to wait for an evaluation. It must wait for an evaluation of the first phase, in which the penalty enforcement courts for long-term sentences were already in work. How long should the evaluation be waited? Apparently, we have to wait four years. It takes four years for the government to make an evaluation of a law that has not yet been in force. That is, the evaluation takes four times longer than the period to be evaluated.

If the government is going to evaluate all important files with such a deadline, I wish her very much success.

What does the government say? It takes some time to equip the courts. That was another reason. The government needs some time to equip. I know there are some problems with paying invoices. It can happen that some suppliers are not happy to deliver quickly. However, if additional computers, chairs, seats, folders, paper or printers are needed, it does not take four years to equip the courts with the necessary material. Nor does it need to take four years before the necessary personnel are recruited to enable the criminal enforcement courts to function.

The aforementioned reasons are indeed drugs, which are cited in the committee to justify why all the aforementioned important laws should be postponed for four years.

The real reason will be another reason. I suspect it is mainly for financial reasons. The current government has insufficient budgets to implement important legislation intended during the current legislature. Be honest to admit that too. Then say that there are no budgets, but don’t come up with drogreads, such as having to evaluate and equip first.

My last point concerns the disposal, which was previously decided by the government and now is decided by the criminal enforcement courts. It is an important measure, which stipulates that the Minister is no longer competent to decide on the dispatch. The criminal enforcement courts will now do so.

Mr. Minister, that the proposed measure is also delayed for so many years, is truly illogical. First, it is – it was also admitted – about very few people. Second, it is also illogical. Almost all of them are long-term sentenced, who must appear before the criminal enforcement courts today. These courts are already competent for long-term sentences.

At the end of the term, a detainee who has been sentenced, for example, to seven, eight or ten years of imprisonment and is completely exhausted will appear again before the Criminal Enforcement Court every year. After ten years, that same court will notify him that it is no longer competent to make his disposal. For the deployment he is referred back to the Minister, while the entire file has already been handled by the Criminal Enforcement Court.

This happens when the entire dossier has already been dealt with. This is not logical.

There is only one conclusion. The Justice section shows in what misfortune the criminal enforcement policy is in. It shows how uncomfortable the government is to enforce laws. It shows that there are no financial resources. In short, this is a beautiful illustration of very bad governance.

Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, it is inevitable, when speaking of this project, to speak also of a number of postponed provisions. Mr. Minister, things need to be clear: the MR is opposed to the principle of postponement. The consequence of a postponement is that a legislation does not come into force immediately. I think everyone, the majority as well as the opposition, agree on this.

So why can we, at certain times, as in the case of this project, sign our agreement on this request for postponement? For two reasons: one is a response to a demand from the State Council, the other is a commitment from the Minister.

I have heard you, Mr. Van Hecke. This is the theory of the opposition, almost the intent trial: "We know that this will be postponed into 2012, or even in 2013, and ⁇ even forever." That is what the opposition will say. Mr. Van Hecke, with a little common sense, I think we can trust the minister’s commitment. I look at the minister in the blank of the eyes: it was said in the committee that an evaluation would take place each year.

Mr. Crucke, you must not drive cynicism too far. You say that the MR is in principle against postponement. When you do the analysis and guess what the minister has answered in the committee, then the budget is one of his problems.

I do not understand that, on the one hand, you do not help the minister through your Minister of Finance and, on the other hand, here in the plenary the minister imposes the karwats and says that he should hurry.

The problem is that the budget is not properly allocated. He cannot ensure that the criminal enforcement courts can work because he does not have a budget. His problem is that he has to continue working with the system of collective release, because he has no budget.

Who has largely taken away his budget? Minister of Finance. Look at the budget of the building management. I do not find it sympathetic that the MR here comes to say that she is in principle against postponement. I hope you support the Minister of Justice much better than today.

Mr. Landuyt, I find it even less sympathetic not to understand that in every rule, there are exceptions! Not to understand it is to be absolute. He is the one who says he is right and who knows everything in advance. We have not yet voted for the budget of the year, which he already knows! I am not omniscient. When the Minister tells me that a meeting will be scheduled next year...

Mr. Landuyt, I want to talk to you, you know. We can do this quite often throughout the year!

There is a line to draw. First, you have made sure that the Minister of Justice is plundered. Look at his budget or that of the Director of the Buildings. They took money that was previously used for the expansion of the prisons. We need that to implement the policy and legislation.

A second step was to give the Minister of Justice the illusion that he could hire 600 additional cypriots. In fact – The Crem was too quick and too transparent – however, it was about a crossover operation between the defence budget and the justice budget.

There is nothing in this government that gives justice to conduct a better policy. I do not think it is correct to criticize this poor Minister of Justice from the majority. See him sitting there.

The Minister of Justice has the word for a personal fact.

Mr. Speaker, when someone calls me worthy of attendance, I feel addressed.

Of course, I will not overdo the debate on the budget. The budget for Justice will increase by 4.7 percent in 2008. The recruitment takes place, both from judicial assistants and from prison officials. Our penitentiary institutions are also being strengthened. It is absolutely not correct that the reason why a number of things should have a time-distributed effect would be a budgetary reason. The reasons are of many kinds. For some of these cases there must also be prison capacity. We must be able to realize them. In the meantime, it is a well-known story that there would be no budget for 2008, but that is absolutely not true, not even for the Regie der Gebäude. I did not intend to respond to such claims all the time.

The reason for delaying the implementation of the laws is not budgetary. Therefore, it has nothing to do with the budget that one continues with the system of collective release, in which one systematically releases people who have received a sentence of less than three years. That system has been so heavily contested in previous years and it should absolutely change, while now it is decided, although there is no budgetary problem, to continue implementing the system. The criticism of collective releases, which was previously made, is now ingested and continued. This is very serious, because it is precisely necessary to carry out a different penalty enforcement policy. Again, I thought it had a budgetary reason, but even that is not even the case. Therefore, there is no desire to conduct a better policy.

Mr Crucke, Mr Schoofs has asked for the word.

I would like to comment on what the Minister said. The budget for the next fiscal year has been increased.

However, the criticism of the Inspector of Finance relates to the multiannual plan on the prison system and it is precisely that multiannual plan, which is coming, constitutes the core of the minister’s policy. Well, it does nothing more than postpone. The policy is embedded in the multiannual plan because it takes several years to implement everything. The Finance Inspector has very serious concerns about this multiannual plan.

Therefore, we should not only take into account this fiscal year, but all the years, and precisely in that area the Inspector of Finance is devastating.

Mr. Landuyt, there is no worse deaf than the one who does not want to hear. This is your right, just as it is your right to raise a number of objections. You will do it soon, you will have a lot of time!

As for the budget, we will probably talk about it again next year too and we will be able to see if the Cassandre were right or if they were the ones who trusted the minister who requested the postponement.

This logic of postponement, we are ready to follow it for two reasons: the State Council requires it and there is promise of debate. That is the main thing! And that is even very correct. I prefer a minister who tells me from the top of the tribune that he cannot apply this measure directly this time and who asks me to accept the elaboration of a postponement, rather than a minister who says nothing, who expects to be criticized for his inaction. Not everything is done in one day. If all roads lead to Rome, some are longer to go. So we can trust him when he asks us for this postponement. In addition, we condition our agreement to a promise of evaluation.

With regard to the accelerated procedure, the MR considers that the amendment that occurs is timely. In fact, it will put an end to a procedure that, in reality, no longer found any meaning in practice. It was no longer applied because the public prosecutor, the prosecutors, knowing that the minutes could be considered null and void in the absence of the intervention of a judgment within two months, preferred not to take the risk of launching the accelerated procedure. Can the prosecutor’s office be blamed for this kind of position, when ultimately the prosecutor’s office is blamed for a decision taken following a measure that is not within its competence? Is there anything worse than working to eventually see his work considered null and unavoidable?

The [...]

Also, I think, Mr. Nollet, that the provision taken ensures that this record is no longer considered null – that is the difficulty – and that this reasonable two-month period must be retained as part of an accelerated procedure. But these two months constitute either a cut-off effect and, in this case, the whole procedure must be restarted, or it is a deadline that must be tried to respect. But you know like me how this happens: a judge can recall a witness, just as he can postpone his hearing for a week. For these reasons, will it no longer be an accelerated procedure? We do not think so!

We believe that this provision has a very practical meaning and sees justice from a realistic point of view. In our opinion, it will – the future will tell us – be used more often than it is today.

The Minister can confirm that today, it is rather the berezina in this matter.

Mr. Crucke, you say that the Prosecutor’s Office has no limit on the deadline. The procedure of fast-track law contains a certain balance. The balance is that one comes to court quickly and that one will have to defend themselves faster. If this is not the case, the procedure fails and becomes the classic procedure.

Now it is said that one does not apply speed law, so that it would go quickly. If one is sure that it can be slow, one will apply speed law. That is now the version of the Prosecutor’s Office, whose spokesman has become the Minister of Justice.

It is said that there is no limit on the deadline. That is not entirely correct. The guardians of the correct work of the judges are also the prosecutors. If the judges do not deliver their verdicts within two months, it is the task of the prosecutor to act against them.

Mr. Landuyt, what we say is that the balance is respected and that making a fixation on these two months is to prevent that balance from existing since the procedures are not applicable. At the moment, the “snelrecht” does not exist. We do not have the means to respect it. Indeed, given the time limit provided, the difficulty of having to comply with it in writing discourages those who could actually use this “snelrecht” from doing so because they consider that they take a significant risk at the level of the procedure.

Today it is about making known to all those who want to use the "snelrecht" that this is possible for them while preserving balance and a reasonable time. Practice will tell us if this was a good solution. For our part, we are confident and we would like to congratulate the Minister for allowing its implementation as soon as possible.

In addition, we had a fairly provided debate in commission on the “famous” parish assistants. It is clear that it is not the MR who will play the arbitrator between one and the other and who will take a position to privilege one or the other philosophy or religious confession. The problem is not here. This is a very practical measure that has no consequences from a budgetary point of view. Indeed, unfortunately or fortunately – everyone thinks what he wants – the number of ministers of worship is in greater decrease than that of parish assistants. Budgetary balance is ⁇ ined.

We were pleased to hear the Minister confirming that a working group would be set up in 2009 to coordinate the whole matter. It is as useful as interesting. We will be able to resume this debate in 2009. This report is expected. It must enable the establishment of a number of balances that are currently sometimes lacking in legislation.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, normally – it was just alluded to – much of this criticism has indeed been heard in the budget discussions. The first budget of the government-Leterme I, however, was filled with so much virtuality that serious opposition work was impossible at that time, and even now. Particularly with regard to Justice, today, with the various provisions being discussed, is the time to sharpen our criticism.

Today is the time for the opposition, even more than in the budget talks, to make the bill, and to present the bill, as members of the opposition, to the majority.

Why, will you ask? The determination is very simple, colleagues, the policy of this minister is to postpone the implementation, or ⁇ the completion, of the implementation of the legislative work of his predecessor – horresco referens – until the moment that his successor will have already appeared, ⁇ in 2012.

I do not know if it has ever happened. I suspect it has never been seen. It’s like a football coach, colleagues, who immediately puts all the players on the bench when he enters office, says that from now on several years will be hard-trained and promises that his successor will play champion. A critical supporter, however, does not get caught by it, Mr. Minister; he sees that the coach does not dare the challenge and that he does not want to play in competition – at most friendly matches – and that he is not sure of his piece.

I’m going to take a look at all your long-running projects.

First and foremost, there is the electronic process. This is postponed until January 1, 2011. We could have lived with it, but that should have been the only delay. Anyway, one and a half years of rest for what the minister himself calls the fulfillment of technical frame conditions is still quite long. If one does not believe us, one can always consult the Council of State, which says in its opinion that it is disturbing that between the date on which this text was adopted – usually shortly followed by the publication in the Belgian Staatsblad and its entry into force – there is “an excessive period of time”.

Indeed, the actual circumstances or even the views that prevailed when a text was adopted may change between these two times to such an extent that its modification may prove necessary even before its entry into force, which may ultimately lead to the elaboration of texts that never enter into force.’ This is stated by the State Council.

Then we should know, colleagues, that this is the shortest delay of all: the electronic processing together with the delay in connection with the outreach in the law on the protection of youth. As for the electronic process management: Phoenix has been discharged, Cheops is indeed in the steers. This is the Egyptian calendar, but then we come to the Greek calendar, I can say.

Then there is the postponement concerning the criminal enforcement courts, postponement number 2. For those sentenced to short sentences, Mr. Minister, those sentenced to a sentence of less than three years, a postponement applies as regards the criminal enforcement courts until 1 September 2012. During the budget talks, I pointed out the problem of turn-door criminals. These are by definition short penalties. In fact, you are now institutionalizing the given, while you should fight it. Turndoors criminals will be able to commit more and more crimes and be punished less and less, as long as they remain punished for less than three years. It was my colleague Laeremans, honourable, who argued that the only positive effect of the law on external legal status for detainees was the means of control available to the criminal enforcement courts.

What is the outcome on the ground, colleagues? What do we see? Judges already impose sentences of 3 years and 1 day, 37 months or 3 years and 1 month to get above the threshold so that the supervision by the penalty enforcement court would not remain dead letter. You can then screene with the electronic surveillance, which is in fact a favourable measure, in order to capture short penalties in it, Mr. Minister, but that will not go: we all know that this is also problematic at this moment.

Another delay and you did not have to write it into the law various provisions, but I would like to come back here today, because it must be mentioned as the so-called parrot of the so-called judicial policy of this so-called government: the prison system. In fact, this is the most punitive delay of all, colleagues. It is not registered in the law various provisions, I said it already, but in fact the minister, according to his own words, provides for a significant increase in reception capacity only by 2012. Therefore, there is no improvement of prison capacity in the short term. Here too applies postponement, postponement, postponement, through a master plan that is a multi-year plan, which in fact is a long postponement plan.

Nothing comes into the house of the program of CD&V, to create fifteen hundred cells in two years.

Nothing comes into the house of the principle that there can be more detainees in one cell in the prisons where there is basic comfort. On the contrary, the principle remains: one man, one cell.

Nothing has come into the house of the bajesboats, which would be too expensive and about which Europe would have made comments. The Netherlands offered them, but Belgium refused to accept them. Prison space in the Netherlands was wanted to rent, out of pure poverty, but the Netherlands was then again against. It is not appropriate that one actually exports its own prisoners, ⁇ not when there is a prison shortage. Additional capacity is provided in certain prison areas, but that is just a cloth for bleeding.

I would like to make a preliminary decision, Mr. Minister. With regard to the law internal legal status detainees, you only act in its spirit, which states that the prisoner must have a certain – very broad – comfort, and also in your vision, as in that of your predecessor, the emphasis is not on a correct execution of punishment, but rather on a penalty reduction and penalty mitigation. The 626 additional staff members, including only 79 prison officers, which you will deploy, will not be used to increase cell capacity. The new staff members will therefore not be employed in new prisons, nor should they be able to accommodate more detainees, or provide more security in institutions where more detainees can be placed in one cell. No, this is not all about.

I have already said in my response to your response following some comments from colleagues, that according to the Financial Inspection, your multi-year plan is on loose screws. From a budgetary point of view, we can therefore judge that the picture has not been properly filled for a long time.

The result of the delay is impunity widespread. After the former Minister of Justice, Ms. Onkelinx, your answer, Mr. Minister, is to postpone Ms. Onkelinx’s measures, which might have taken a bit of action if they were finally started implementing them, because at the end of the previous legislature she may have somewhat seen the light after all that happened – escapes and the like – but you simply react with postponement. Onkelinx and Vandeurzen: the Ginger Rogers and the Fred Astaire of impunity. They swallow the dance of impunity in the rain of criminal acts that unpunishedly falls in pipe stones on the heads of the honourable citizens, if I can afford some prose.

To illustrate, two things.

In fact, the long-term sentences are not covered by various provisions containing this law. Nevertheless, I would like to extend it for a moment, to examine your entire criminal policy. Of the long sentences, we can only be sure that the superheavy criminals will spend two-thirds of their sentence. Thus, it affects only those who have committed a crime and those who have exposed terrorist activities, who have murdered children and the like. They will be punished with two-thirds of a penalty. There are doubts about all the other punishments.

Finally, on the collection of criminal fines. This is another pain point. It is the end of the tail of the chain of enforcement policy. There is also a shortage of something. This was discussed at the committee meeting this week.

Mr. Verherstraeten, it is from pure poverty that you proposed to introduce the withdrawal of the driving license as a general, autonomous penalty measure. That is ⁇ the only measure that the government could take during the current legislature, namely the withdrawal of the driving license as a punishment for everyone, whatever he or she would have committed.

For a crime such as non-payment of alimony, the driver's license may be revoked. This is an idea from the United Kingdom. I have repeatedly questioned the Minister on this subject and submitted him the suggestion. Withdrawal of the passport is a similar idea.

However, withdrawal of the driver’s license as a mere standing sanction could sometimes be laughed, especially when, for example, in Molenbeek or Anderlecht, young people are threatened that their driver’s license will be withdrawn if they beat another couple of officers.

We wonder what the next, draconian CD&V sanction could be. Per ⁇ it is the withdrawal of the insurance certificate of a vehicle. I do not know, but I am afraid that the measure will be welcomed especially in Anderlecht and Molenbeek.

In any case, we must conclude that the current Minister of Justice points out a disturbing lack of action. He takes his refuge to postponement.

“Gouverner, c’est prévoir,” says the proverb. In this case, however, it is: “Gouverner, c’est reporter.”

Colleagues, the above is poor governance and a lack of respect for what the voter has committed to the current coalition, especially to CD&V - N-VA.

An additional, cynical conclusion, which I don’t want to remind you, could be that the national security plan, which has now been put into the rocks, runs from 2008 to 2011. You, Mr. Minister, postpone most of the measures in the plan until after 2011. Thus, until 2011, it should actually be called the National Security Plan. After all, even under the current minister, the judiciary and judges will impose penalties that they ask if they have a sense and will ever be effectively executed. The legislative power, especially the parliamentarians here, are there for speck and beans. Any verbal question can be countered by the current minister by the answer: “We are working on it. The image of the minister who must be accountable is in fact a test image for the coming years.

The government seeks to suspense the opposition, on the one hand, by the fact that the dates of deferment would be extreme expiration dates. The question is what we are with it. Can we believe that? Who still believes that? On the other hand, there is the promise of intermediate reports, which will be submitted to the Justice Committee in a PowerPoint presentation.

Excuse me, colleagues, but the Committee for Justice is thus given the character of what in the Netherlands is called a “klootjesdrogerie” or seminar. We can listen to what the Minister presents to the interim reports. Ultimately, however, he must be counted on his policy in 2011. It postpones most measures until 2012. Therefore, it cannot be calculated in this way, neither by the voters nor by the opposition.

Therefore, we do not ask the Minister for any prior apologies. We ask him, on the contrary, to give up his nefaste policy of deferral and therefore also to work at least on a number of short-term measures, ⁇ in the field of the execution of penalties. The Flemish author Walter Van den Broeck would say, “Schat, you can’t roll faster, because they play a tango.”

I would like to mention another postponement, Mr. Minister, in particular the internships, precisely because in that matter the community aspect plays an even greater role. We took this into account when the law was voted on and also during the budget discussions. The expertise in Flanders in the field is not taken into account.

Mr. Minister, you could use at least this period of postponement that you self-argue, to adapt that law somewhat to the policy of Flanders, where one has the expertise and one has managed with very limited resources to set up a network that often allocates the interned to the right place. You, Mr. Minister, are only delaying, also in this matter.

Your postponement didn’t have to be so boring. The law shall enter into force on the first day of the 54th month following its entry into force. We do not even know how long that postponement will last, but the postponement did not have to be so boring, Mr. Minister. You could also have been concerned with “the time of the next solar eclipse” or “the next passage of the Halley comet.”

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I would like to conclude with an ordinary, verbal question to the Minister of Justice.

It is almost July 11th. The Flemish holiday is celebrating. Three years ago, in 2005, you advocated in an interview in the newspaper that we both love, the Belang of Limburg, for a Flemish Minister of Justice. This is very important because the federal elections have been held. Now you can say that you are not in the Flemish, but in the federal government and that in that sense, unfortunately, you cannot take care of a Flemish Minister of Justice. Of course, les excuses sont faites pour s’en servir, but then the question is what signals you have already given – in the relatively short time period that you are a minister – to instigate that Flemish Minister of Justice would finally come. Negotiations are underway. I wonder when thanks to CD&V - N-VA we will receive concrete signals that make a Flemish Ministry of Justice meaningful. You know that you can contribute a stone to that, Mr. Minister. Each week in the committee you will have the opportunity to answer questions. For when is it? Will it be postponed until July 15th, or will it be postponed until 2012?

I have registered two other speakers in the general discussion, Mrs De Schamphelaere and, last but not least, Mr Landuyt.

I have a practical question about the work. If there is another committee meeting to take place, I must be shorter to gain time. If there is no committee meeting after the plenary session, we can discuss more à l’aise. I wish I knew how the situation is now.

The chairman of the committee can best answer.

Mr. Landuyt, you always have all the time.

I can assure you that she is good at times. I would have liked to have an answer to my question. She’s so fine-tuned in her answers that I never know what she’s answered.

I know that the last train to Bruges departs at 22:00. We will hold a committee meeting tomorrow morning.

I will later chronometer your speech.

Mr. Minister of Justice, we have known you in other gremies for a long time. We have there learned to appreciate a special aspect of your talent, namely your organizational talent, your pragmatic insight and your work at the bottom.

This is useful, because good governance, of course, does not have to do only with proper debate in Parliament and bringing forward the best ideas. Good governance is not just about making and approving good laws. Good governance is primarily about execution.

Are you now saying that the current minister is not good at debating and making laws, but possibly good at implementing the laws? Is that what you are saying now?

This applies to all of us. We all make the laws together. There is a legislative power, that is us, and there is an executive power. The Minister is a part of it. The laws approved here must also be operational when they come into force, and have an impact on the workplace.

Political power must be combined with social power. For example, it is important to turn around the entire chain of criminal enforcement policy. No tooth wheel should be broken. Therefore, it is necessary to estimate in advance what is needed for this: what personnel should be recruited for this purpose, what facilities should be expanded, what training should be offered and what maintenance should be built.

All these enforcement measures often require much more energy than just voting on the laws. We believe that only in this way can we build good governance. Execution is hard work, requires a correct assessment of reality. It is quite right of this Minister of Justice that a law can only enter into force if its operation is ensured. This is a logical principle. On this path, with this motto, we must build a policy that will also have an effective social effect in the long run. Only in this way can we build legal certainty and trust in our rule of law.

I would like to talk briefly about the recognised worship services. We know a regime, a Constitution in which religious freedom is accompanied by a regime of support for recognized worship services. We have decided on important points in the committee, a first step towards a recognition of Buddhism.

It has been asked what the criteria are in our state order to be recognized as a life view or religion. These criteria are constructed from a kind of constitutional custom. It is important that there is first sufficient representation, that a social interest can be pushed forward, that the religion or the view of life has been established in our country for a while and has sufficient followers, and that no activity is developed against the social order.

We support the first support given to Buddhism, but for recognition, of course, a whole number of criteria must be further tested.

Then there was also a debate about the important decision of the State Council following the ...

Mrs. De Schamphelere, Mr. Van de Velde wants to interrupt you.

I would like to hear you talk about the worship services. You think it’s fantastic that we’re giving more money now. I would like to ask your group something. If the Constitution states that there is freedom of religion, it also means that no religion is also a freedom. By the way we currently finance religions, there is no freedom, but everyone contributes to the religious experience of a few.

I think that in the long run the debate should be able to be carried out in order to slowly bring the idea of the Kirchensteuer in Germany here too. I think that true Catholics and true believers in the social development that we are now experiencing, in which we are flooded by Islam, would be much more beneficial with an active, a realistic and a desirable policy, than if we let it water in this way and let it be further determined by the government.

I would like to ask that this be considered in a next discussion, ⁇ in your group, and that we look to a true freedom of religion and not, as now, to an imposed one.

That is another debate.

Ms. De Schamphelere has the word.

This is a very fundamental debate, but that attempt has already been made some eight years ago, around the year 2000. There were a lot of objections, also for the sake of privacy. One had to make himself known and be known as a believer of a particular religion, for example, in the tax services. In fact, citizens do not like that. Everything is in evolution. Also in a human life, different life views or views can be in evolution. Therefore, the forced choice you are then facing at that time has not proved to be a feasible card. We were in the opposition at the time.

Then the parish assistants and the yet fundamental observation of the State Council concerning the exhaustive character of the number of parish assistants. There are now 310 recognized. We provide 40 more in this law containing various provisions. However, this continues to have an exhausting character and that is not really practical for parish life in our country. We know that many tasks, pastoral and social, are assumed by these people. However, this is a very difficult task to organize. More fundamentally, however, the State Council assumed that it was not up to the subsidizing government to determine who was allowed to occupy certain positions. Actually, we are doing so now, specifically with regard to the Catholic Church. We say that ordinary laymen cannot take office, positions that are still vacant at the moment within our legal framework for the Catholic Church. We therefore prevent a normal evolution at the foundation of the various parishes.

I think we should also look at whether this would absolutely not mean budgetary extra costs. Virtually, 80% of the budget for worship is currently covered by the Catholic Church, but only 48% of the framework is filled. Therefore, the question of allowing lay people to include functions does not necessarily mean additional budgetary costs. On the contrary, it may be a stabilization of a certain decline of which we know the causes.

We hope that by the budget for 2009 the exhaustive nature of this framework for parish assistants can be removed, that the title of parish assistant is included in the nomenclature for the Catholic worship and that they can thus build their own framework with a certain stability.

We ask the Minister whether the working group in this regard can already be set up or at least has already been set up.

Since there is no more committee tonight, I can take the time here to briefly express my vision.

I do not want to repeat this, Mr. Minister of Justice. I will be short. I would like to emphasize the position I place in the context of judicial policy. I am slowly becoming a little suspicious and sad. When reading the SOS justice plan at the time, as far as I am concerned with the social justice plan at the time, there was some hope that there would be a new impetus on justice policy in Belgium. You have apparently already adapted very well to the legal world and made the legal term “delay” your own. I am very concerned about this, because we should be able to take a political distance from this atmosphere.

In any case, there is a certain form of logic in your policy so far. It is effectively the logic of delay with an enormously high risk. In these you now link everything to your master plan, which is a very uncertain given. In fact, the term “plan” may be a bit exaggerated. Let’s keep it with “master” and at least with the crucial term 2012. You now put everything towards 2012, but my concern and ⁇ the concern of most people is: what about 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011?

So I think you are being bitten a little. I remain here, colleague Crucke, I think that Minister Vandeurzen is a little bit beaten by his colleague Reynders, whom I know a little bit from the past. As Ms. De Schamphelaere knows the orderly character of the Minister of Justice, I think I also know the Minister of Finance a little bit.

Mr. Speaker, I knew the skills of colleague Landuyt, but I did not know that he was a visionary. A little like Mrs. Sun, he knows in advance what will happen!

I will explain.

You say we are deceived. In particular, you are targeting me. It is incredible. We hear the same things. I tell you to trust someone who promises us an assessment in a year. You already say that we are deceived. This is Mrs. Sun in the square!

I acknowledge that it’s somewhat due to the age and everything I’ve experienced; especially everything I’ve experienced with a colleague like Didier Reynders. I will explain.

I hope I am mistaken. Anyway, I will give you a few signals. Everything starts with the budget. I will not fall into repetition: 4.9% increase, until one looks closely and finds that 70% of it has to do with staff and that especially the number of 600 additional penitentiary officers is mentioned. Unfortunately, colleague De Crem was unable to stop and he has started too quickly and not very wisely about 500 soldiers who should not guard the country, but ⁇ could guard the criminals. That was a bit of the strategy. One sees there a bit of a sort of budget shift and reassures two new ministers. I see it explained by the colleague of Finance at the government table. They were both winning, until reality came to light.

Then there is the second step. While one says that the budget for Justice is increasing, one is changing something in its own budget. Look at the budget of the building management. You notice two movements. The first move is to adjust the multiannual plan for a while and to halve the amount of investments in prisons. In addition, there is the second movement, which relates to the master plan and in particular the circulating note of the Inspection of Finance of the Regie der Gebäude. In that note it is literally stated that one can decide everything as one wants, but that one has a problem, because the Regie der Gebäude must also take into account the priorities of other governments – there are also other government buildings – and that it is not certain that everything that was predicted will succeed.

In short, in any case, we record a shift in budgets from what the normal budget stipulates to the so-called PPS system, a very uncertain system. One cancels a project on prisons and one talks about three new projects, but one does not know where they will come, only that they will be there at least in 2012.

This is Drift Sand. That is very uncertain. The year 2012 in the master plan is a very uncertain number.

In this draft law containing various provisions there is indeed a lot. There are a lot of regulations in the field of justice. In fact, the logic of shifting is passed through. It is said that there are insufficient resources to make the criminal enforcement courts do what they should do. This is especially painful if one remembers the harsh criticism of the former Minister of Justice. On the CD&V banks there were not enough words to accuse the lax prison policy, to accuse that the sentences of less than three years were not executed and there were systematic releases. That could have stopped the implementation of the laws that we are now postponing. It was intended that the criminal enforcement courts would make individual decisions in these cases. So it was done with the system of collective rules on release. Everything that has been criticized at the time will be continued undegenerated.

Colleague Landuyt, I would like to quote you, among other things, a work of someone you know very well, colleague Erdman. During the hearing he talked, among other things, about the topics that are now being postponed. This has also been pointed out in the reports and opinions received in the previous legislature following the committee discussions. We did not, of course, criticize the principles, but it was impossible to realize. You would arrange it, but that were all empty promises, which at those deadlines were entirely unrealisable. This is not only predicted by us in those discussions, in tempore non suspecto, but also by very many people on the ground. This was simply ignored, because they wanted to do window dressing.

Mr. Verherstraeten, you should read the SOS Plan Justice. It would all be arranged in one or two years. We would even have a government commissioner who would deal with this 100%. Now we have a Deputy Prime Minister who tries to divide other things and who, of course, also engages in Justice. All those nice words about how much better you would do it... There would be an end to the situation regarding the release. Nothing is stopped, on the contrary. They put it on the long track.

Mr. Speaker, the intervention of Mr. Verherstraeten surprised me a little. I remember that precisely in the case of the execution of sentences for short sentences he intervened heavily to accuse the former minister that there was too little people provided for the execution courts and that the law could therefore mean nothing in practice.

I have never heard colleague Verherstraeten say that the law should not enter into force from 2009 for the short sentences, and ⁇ not that everything should be postponed until 2012. It is this minister and this government who suddenly say that they can do nothing and that everything should be postponed until 2012. This is very irrational, because it is only about 700 prisoners.

I would like to ask – because you were not in the committee during the discussion of this, colleague Verherstraeten, and as a group leader I also do not blame you for that – whether you normally think that the only positive of that law – namely that short sentences also come before a penalty enforcement court and are not automatically released – is postponed until 2012. I would have liked to hear that from you.

Ladies and gentlemen, you must not cite me wrongly. I invite you to take a look at the reports of those discussions. At that time, we also submitted a bill on criminal enforcement courts. I invite you to read that too.

We have in illo tempore and even from the opposition suggested to start with merely the punishments for more than three years. If you do something, I think you should do it well. If one does something, one must have the necessary resources to do so, so that one can also implement that law. That is what we said at the time.

I remember the following from the committee, from which we received the report, which you and I have eagerly used for our interventions. One point was clear in that regard, in particular, that at the present time and in the short term, in the light of the resources provided and the personnel to be recruited, it is not sustainable and not enrichable.

Of course, this should be done within the deadlines and of course it should be as short as possible. However, I think that the deadlines set by the current Minister of Justice are realistic and fulfillable deadlines.

At least they are realistic because they are sufficiently spacious. If it didn’t succeed now, within that long period, then it would be very bad. However, what is ⁇ disturbing is that it is said that there are no resources after budgetary discussions and priorities have been set. Your group’s priority for Justice has completely disappeared. That is the painful. The Minister has well explained in the committee that he refuses to implement in the absence of resources and that there must be serious resources to be able to implement. This is said by the same minister who approved the budget, who approved the budgets and who approved other priorities.

There are also elements that have nothing to do with budgetary resources and are not implemented. It blocks the fact that interned people could be interned in a much more balanced and much more equitable way. That is not a task for the execution of the penalty, which belongs to the rights and duties of the ordinary investigation courts who make the referral. This element is also postponed here because it is easier to postpone everything.

For the most severely punished, there is a government disposal system. These are the most serious cases. These people also do not pass through the criminal enforcement courts. The Minister and his administration continue to decide on the most severe cases in our country. What the Criminal Enforcement Court cannot do in the absence of resources, that one minister can do, especially systematically release people, with the effect of a spiral of increasing penalties. It is more than a public secret given by the courts for more than three years if a judge wants to give a year or a few months because one knows less is not executed. I know this was accused by your group. However, you are now simply doing the same thing in this matter as you have once accused.

That is why I am disappointed with the current Minister of Justice. After the white bread months, bitter times will come. The determination, the prophecy I have made that you have allowed yourself to get stuck from your master plan, may be fulfilled. I will do everything I can to prevent it from being true. The fact that I emphasize this here is because you would know it is happening. You can’t blame me for letting you fall into the trap.

There is another point of modernization that seduces me, namely the fact that one wants to deal with computer science in the courts in a much more practical way. I fully support your new approach, Mr. Minister. I do not understand, however, why you do not allow conversations with the court, except by fax, also by email. For this, you no longer need a Phoenix system, nor a complicated legislation. You only need one word to realize that.

In any case, I fear that, in addition to the point of the parish assistants, which is arranged, there is still something arranged. High speed law has reached the level of the judicial system. It has become slow right. I fear that we are here at the beginning of a non-justice policy. I say this with resentment.

Does anyone ask for the word?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a brief response.

When the execution of punishment is a priority – and that is it for me and for the government – and one really wants to work on it, then one naturally has two choices. Or one thinks that laws can come into force without having the necessary facilities and capacity available on the ground, with all the people who have to execute them. Then we will quickly collide with our heads against the wall and create impossible situations on the ground. When I appeared at Justice, it was assumed that on 1 January there would be a youth detention center in Florennes and that in Marchienne a prison for 300 prisoners could be built. There were a lot of hypotheses. Of course I had to choose. Or I closed my eyes and left the terrain without support so that everyone goes into the greatest chaos. Or we could all try to make credible punishment a priority and then do everything in the right order. The correct order is that we first lay the rails and then let the train run. There are 600 people charged. Yes, there will be recruiting judicial assistants this year. In the meantime, I have decided to submit the tender for 1,000 new single tyres. Indeed, with a multi-year plan for the construction of prisons, we are trying to see how we can make some things operational as soon as possible.

I have offered in the committee – I will do so – to inform the Parliament very accurately about how, step by step, we will put an end to a number of situations that are indeed unacceptable in a step-by-step plan. This will be the case for the question when we will put the disclosures within the scope of the criminal enforcement courts. The same will happen for the question of the internships. Furthermore, I can say to Mr. Landuyt that I take his suggestions in this regard, formulated in the committee, very seriously.

Therefore, we will also examine – we are already working on this – when we can make the matters under that law operational – also the matters that do not relate to the proceedings before the criminal enforcement courts as such – in the right way, at the right time and with good information to all interested parties, well embedded in the framework conditions of communication and support that are needed to do so.

You can expect that we will work with such schemes. We will examine how, before the sentences of less than three years, we will gradually bring that law into force; how we will expand the number of people under electronic surveillance; how we will try to bring the law into effect for the interned in a quality manner, which also implies capacity, both externally, intramural and ambulant. My choice has been that choice: to look at how we can realize a trend break with high credibility, so with the use of resources, systematically, step by step.

If I have listened carefully to the people on the ground, I think that is the most appropriate path. It is also the most obvious path. It is the path that will lead us to a good, credible justice.

It is never nice if the application of a law should be postponed. However, anyone who looks at them serenely knows that we can’t help but try to implement those laws gradually. That is the only way to finally bring credibility into the penalty enforcement policy. So I think we can say with a safe conscience that this must happen. 2011-2012 is not the expiration date when everything should come into effect. It is the final date, the date on which the last acts of that legislation must be implemented. Over the years, we will already implement the law systematically.

This also applies to the informatization of the judiciary. In this regard, too, I should not make the story of the past. Everyone knows very well that in this regard it is a matter of proper implementation, starting at the base, step by step stable systems. The project, as it was set up with the Feniks project, has shown that such an approach does not lead to a successful implementation of computerization in our judiciary.

We chose a different approach. I must honestly admit that I hear only good echoes about the project on the ground. We will therefore try to realize the ambitious goal of an integrated, informed justice, which we must ⁇ . We will do everything we can to accomplish this in a planned way. That is also the reason why in the present law a number of phases for the project were incorporated.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minster, if I have understood it correctly, the legislation on the rights of potential interned persons could be put into effect first and then the aspect of the provision of the criminal enforcement courts. Is that about the timing?

Again, as I said in the committee, we will step by step introduce the proposed legislation. That is to say, a step plan is being developed that sets out what can, what is required and what margin conditions are needed. Parts of the law clearly demand greater capacity within the criminal enforcement courts themselves. There are stages in which we have to move to the single-seat penalty enforcement judge. We will look carefully – we are also working on that – how something can happen.

I have already said in the committee – which I assume is not a novelty for you today – that it is obvious that the system of assignments is probably the first one that can fall within the scope of application, at the moment we are convinced that the framework conditions for that are also met. After all, this also requires people who can follow the measures, checks that can happen and good arrangements on the transfer of files from one to the other.

I can assure you that the evaluation of the one-year functioning of the criminal enforcement courts, which, by the way, was made in the Chamber during a symposium, clearly showed that for some of the aforementioned matters, it is absolutely urgent first to establish consultation structures, which must be implemented on the ground.

In fact, the project is being implemented in phases. Per ⁇ the TBS system will be the first one that we will bring under the scope of the criminal enforcement courts.

Can I consider the debate closed? (with the approval)