Proposition 52K1768

Projet de loi instaurant une réglementation générale relative à l'interdiction de fumer dans les lieux fermés accessibles au public et à la protection des travailleurs contre la fumée du tabac.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Nathalie Muylle, Jef Van den Bergh

Submission date

Jan. 29, 2009

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

smoking tobacco public health

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

N-VA LDD VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.
• Georges Dallemagne (LE) abstained from voting.
• Catherine Fonck (LE) abstained from voting.
• Yvan Mayeur (PS | SP) voted to adopt.
• Patrick Moriau (PS | SP) voted to adopt.
• Luc Sevenhans (VB) abstained from voting.
• Jef Van den Bergh (CD&V) voted to adopt.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

Dec. 17, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. I think many of you will want to intervene. For further clarification, I refer to my written report.

Over the past few years, many steps have been made, bringing us closer to the general ban on smoking in public places. The bill in question constituted in this sense a new important step in this public health objective. The 2005 royal decrees are the last step to date and retained several exceptions, notably for drinks and smokers.

The assessment of this regulation, presented to the parliamentarians of both assemblies, showed its welcome and respect. However, a clarification was needed: shadow areas remained and the system appeared to be too complex. Moreover, the global evolution of a society towards less tobacco was a signal to get the political world to continue its efforts.

Dear colleagues, I will not teach you anything about the slightly different view of the two assemblies on this subject. The House of Representatives, wishing to continue a step-by-step procedure, had initially adopted a compromise regime between the total ban and the status quo, providing for a quick evaluation of the law. The Senate, for its part, believed it could decide that the assessment and this step-by-step method was not sufficient; the Senate therefore amended the draft, fixing a more binding rule and the rapid disappearance of the provided exceptions.

The House therefore had to rule again on a draft initially voted by its care and amended by the Senate. As part of the new general discussion, Ms. Lambert, together with other members of the majority, submitted three counter-amendments (37, 38 and 39) aiming to return to the text originally adopted by the House.

Through this, Ms Lambert emphasizes that the importance of the smoking ban in the horeca must no longer be demonstrated, but that the horeca sector must be convinced and not imposed obligations.

by Mr. Bultinck, on the other hand, expressed his difficulties in following the procedure and noticed contradictory signals between the government and MPs.

Ms. Gerkens regrets this return to the original text of the House, emphasizing that the draft as amended by the Senate constituted a major advance in public health.

by Mr. Dedecker recalls his support for popular cafes and his opposition to texts, whatever they are.

It also highlights the new investments that each advance of the law in this area requires for the horeca sector.

For Ms. Smeyers, the majority members refuse to take responsibilities and the counter-amendments submitted lead the Parliament to a lame compromise.

Ms. Van Broeckhoven recalls the sp.a’s support for the total smoking ban in the horeca establishments and in this sense allies to the will of the Minister of Health who wishes to generalize the smoking ban. The speaker also regrets how to proceed and return to the original text.

As for Ms. Van der Straeten, she agrees with Ms. Gerkens and wishes the adoption of the text as amended by the Senate.

Ms. Muylle stresses the impossibility of finding a majority in the House to adopt such a general ban on smoking. After reminding Ms. Van Broeckhoven that the sp.a’s position on the prohibition of smoking did not always appear very coherent, Ms. Muylle underlines that it is therefore logical to return to the original compromise of the Chamber and recalls that the aim pursued remains the total prohibition. The speaker also announces the filing of a bill conciliating the obligation to ⁇ a total smoking ban and for which the urgency will be requested. This proposal will stipulate that this total ban will come into force no earlier than 1 January 2012 and no later than 1 July 2014 by royal decree. The proposal also envisages follow-up measures to facilitate transition and coordination with the sector.

Ms. Avontroodt joins Ms. Muylle’s remarks and recalls the importance of the concept of courtesy to be applied to all stakeholders and that will allow to ⁇ the total ban on smoking through dialogue and coordination, without adverse consequences for the sector.

After recalling the role of the Regions in prevention in the control of tobacco, Ms Avontroodt points out that the text initially adopted by the House is a first important measure leading step by step to a total smoking ban.

Ms Fonck, on the other hand, indicates that she cannot register with the majority agreement established on this subject and stresses that her personal position does not commit her party at all.

for Mr. Flahaux, the MR position remains a clear line of progressive steps towards the general ban on smoking. The speaker also recalls that the economic crisis requires even more than usual not to launch new measures without the coordination and contribution of the target sector. by Mr. Flahaux also regrets that in terms of prevention, the French Community has not been more voluntary in recent years.

Asked about this, the minister recalls that her position remains the general ban on smoking and that the debate is and remains a parliamentary initiative. For the minister, the pragmatic compromise found by the House remains an undeniable advance in this matter.

While the Minister understands the frustrations of the associations in the face of this compromise, she would nevertheless like to recall the important advances made in this area and the fact that the next step is indeed a general ban.

According to Ms. Gerkens, the arguments put forward by the majority are not convincing. The concerned person is even wondering if everything is actually implemented to reduce the number of smokers. The speaker, while highlighting the ambiguity in which the announced proposal moves and the uncertain release date (between 2012 and 2014), also reminds that an alternative majority is still possible.

Similarly, Ms. Smeyers questions the bill announced by Ms. Muylle and its content.

by Mr. Dedecker, for his part, recalls that 70 to 80 percent of customers of small cafes smoke and denounce the extremism of some who risk killing the horeca sector.

by Mr. Bultinck, while raising the contorsions to which the majority parties engage, recalls that his party has always defended the same point of view based on a principle of freedom.

Ms Vautmans recalls, for her part, that the compromise found in the House consists of an adapted solution that, in consultation with the sector, sets a firm date of general ban between 2012 and 2014. In short, for the speaker, this is a realistic and concerted solution taking into account the public health imperative.

Ms Van der Straeten rejects the arguments presented and stands with Ms Fonck and those who, in the opposition, regret the solution adopted.

As for the president, Ms. Snoy and d’Oppuers, she confesses a certain bitterness and expresses the feeling that the turnover of major discos seems to be more important than a few lives saved.

The whole counter-amended draft was thus adopted at the Public Health Commission on 8 December last with 11 votes against 3 and 3 abstentions.

This is the conclusion of my report, but it ⁇ does not close the discussion!

Taking advantage of the fact that I have the word, I would like to thank, once again, the services. We are in the moment of wishes. The prime minister is absent, but I am addressing the other members of the government. We all know that general policy notes, program law, budgets must be voted before Christmas. We need to know that services are pressed from all sides so that reports, translations, printing and all other works are presented on time and are "at the top". For the respect of the members but also and above all of the staff of the House, could the government think in 2010 to return the projects and notes much earlier? This is my wish for this new year!

I will be happy to attend my turn in the order of the speakers. However, I would like to ask whether it is possible to discuss the two proposals together for the smooth progress of the work and to facilitate the meeting. Can that? (with the approval)

Do they have anything to do with each other? (The Romanian)

Mr. Van de Velde, you can also ask that in a normal way.

Could you also submit your report on point 4 of our agenda? You have made a complete report. Therefore, a general discussion can be conducted.

This proposal complements the bill discussed earlier. It aims to introduce a general ban on smoking as early as 1 January 2012 and as late as 1 July 2014. The royal decree fixing the date of entry into force of the general smoking ban also provides for accompanying measures. Since the overall debate on the Tobacco Law has already taken place in the committee, I will not re-start a report that resembles very strongly the other. I will therefore limit myself to my current report.

Based on our Rules of Procedure, there is actually no general discussion dedicated to a bill sent back to the House by the Senate, in the plenary session. As a basis for the discussion we take the text adopted by the committee.

Nevertheless, in accordance with what we have just decided, we will hold a general discussion, in which I would like to give the word first to Mrs. Snoy.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, this bill, this bill and the bill proposal that was attached and added, the whole represented a beautiful evolution without these last sub-subsaltes that made it somewhat backward. I would like to address with you the public health dimension, my colleague Mrs. Gerkens supplementing me with the economic aspects.

Remember, however, the frightening figures cited by the Vlaamse Liga against Kanker: tobacco kills, as it is indicated on each package and as you all know, but it is responsible for 38% of all cancers and 95% of lung cancers, few of which recover. The risk of heart attack is 25 to 30 percent higher among smokers. This accounts for approximately 20,000 premature deaths per year in Belgium due to tobacco. To compare with another cause of death, road accidents cause 1,000 fatalities per year. We are doing a lot to reduce this number, and fortunately. Tobacco accounts for 20,000 premature deaths per year, including 10% of non-smokers with either lung cancer or other diseases attributable to passive exposure to tobacco.

Why is it forbidden to smoke in the horeca? Is it really interesting? The specialists of the cause tell us a lot about young people and myself in commission, I often insist on the situation of our young people who attend bars, cafes, discos; it is normal at their age to go to have fun. This is where they learn to smoke. Often, in order to be well seen, to meet a certain standard, to a form of identification, young people learn to smoke at the bar. If smoking in bars is prohibited, it can really reduce the number of young people who will start smoking.

I insist on my message about young people because the time we have given ourselves to implement this smoking ban is terribly long for young people who are still going to spend their adolescence in smoked places. The message we deliver today (“Smoking and eating: no; smoking and drinking: yes) is contradictory. Eliminating tobacco in restaurants and cafes where food is served is a favorable development, but the message addressed to youth remains confusing.

This means that with alcohol, you can smoke. However, it is known that excessive alcohol consumption as well as smoking can cause an accumulation of disease risks.

I come to the discrimination suffered by the workers of the horeca. These have 3.2 times more lung cancers, which could pose great difficulties to this law on the legal level. A appeal to the State Council has already taken place in relation to the uncertainty of the current law regarding smoking prohibitions in places with a certain turnover. The current law is very unclear. A legal appeal has also taken place and the court has given the right to the workers and the bosses of the cafes. The legal action that will be introduced or that has already been introduced by the Flemish Cancer League is effectively at risk of damaging the legislation we are going to vote on. This is problematic!

The bottom line is that we seem to be very afraid to make a political act a little courageous. However, the public satisfaction with this type of measure is obvious. According to all polls at European level, two-thirds of Europeans are quite in favour of a total ban on smoking in the horeca.

Many EU countries have already adopted a total smoking ban: Ireland in 2004, Italy in 2005, Norway in 2004 and France in 2008. I did some research in these countries. In France, according to an official study launched by the Ministry of Health, 95 percent of non-smokers and 85 percent of smokers are satisfied with the ban. According to the French Observatory for Drugs and Drug Addiction, cigarette consumption has declined by 2.75% in one year. According to the French Office for the Prevention of Smoking, for the month of January 2008, the first month of application of the law, there is a 15% decrease in hospitalizations for heart attacks among people under the age of 65, that is, people who should not really be affected by this type of disease. The health impact is therefore obvious and immediate in terms of reducing public health costs and reducing all kinds of suffering that people would like to avoid.

What is the impact on the horeca sector? Let us be honest! The Institut des brasseries et cafés in France ⁇ a 6% decline in attendance.

At the same time, analysis in Belgium shows that, since smoking in restaurants was banned, there is 5% additional attendance.

For Italy, the total ban dates from 1 January 2005. In a year, tobacco consumption would have decreased by 5.8%. Then, 90 percent of Italians vote against a return to the previous situation. In addition, a 11% decrease in hospitalizations for myocardial infarction was observed.

In Ireland, where the total ban has been in force since March 2004, cigarette sales fell by 17.6% between March and November 2004. Moreover, 98% of Irish people are satisfied. There is also a decrease of approximately 15% in heart attacks.

With all these convincing arguments, one asks why, at home, one must still be so hesitant and find suitable solutions, "good" compromised, while obviously, the situation in neighboring countries demonstrates the interest of the measure. It seems that Belgium is condemned to be the last of the European peloton.

The 27 health ministers have actually adopted a European Union recommendation that all countries adopt this ban by 2012. This was the first basic proposal. Then, the Senate had taken this step forward. However, two years is a long time and there is a way to negotiate widely with the sector.

The Vlaamse Liga against Kanker figures at 11,700 the number of young people who could be removed from tobacco thanks to this ban.

Four and a half years, Mrs. Minister, is 54 months! It is really too long!

Certainly, I am bitter, as Mrs. Burgeon said. I would like to express my bitterness over this desire to postpone. I may still be an idealist, but I hope, in spite of everything, that the date of 1 January 2012 can be respected.

We will abstain from these two projects, because if there is progress, the last subwoofer has shocked us heavily. I hope that, from the beginning of 2010, the consultation will take place, even though the sector has already been heard, but I wish above all that arrangements are taken to encourage economic operators to implement a ban measure well before 2012.

We must try to make progress in this area and then be definitively ready by 1 January 2012. By then, maybe there will be a new government that will understand the issues better!

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, I would like to remind you first that our group in the respective episodes throughout the anti-tobacco debate has always warned of the legal aspect of the case, namely the famous discrimination that exists between restaurants and the so-called taverns and drinking facilities that actually serve food.

We have been partly right in this, including in the 2005 regulation. A number of legal rulings have given us a surplus of right. In that sense, we were also pleased that one of our colleagues, Mr. Coveliers, was in a number of cases adviser to the restaurants concerned.

That confirmed for us that the 2005 legislation – I will explain why the risk continues – was very carelessly formulated. We must also not forget in the whole debate that in the past many establishments and catering ⁇ had already incurred costs in order to conform to the legislation of 2005 and that the new arrangement still presents the risk that all those costs have been in vain.

The situation today is quite absurd. On the one hand, a bill, which came from the Senate as a bill, is restored to its old state as it first left the House, and on the other hand, let us now pass a new bill, a majority bill, to revise the legislation.

Mrs. Minister, we continue, that is immediately also my first concrete question, that the two bills that will later be approved by the majority do not solve the legal problem, the whole aspect of the discrimination between the catering affairs.

It would be good if you answer this question later, but I wonder, as a member of parliament, what does it mean to approve a new law if the legal disputes based on the legislation of 2005, even now with new regulation, will later put us again to the same problem because even now we do not solve the problem of the discrimination between the respective hospitality cases.

To that end, a first concrete question, to which I would like to get an answer from you or the majority.

We have also always stated clearly and honestly that we have fundamentally different opinions in the dossier. We have always said that our group was not in favour of a general smoking ban. We continue to find that in a small folk cafe, the famous brown cafes, a cigarette should be allowed to be smoked.

That doesn’t matter that we acknowledge, I think that there is consensus across all party boundaries, that smoking is unhealthy.

The question is whether Parliament should prohibit everything that is unhealthy. Each of us will confirm that eating a lot of fat, sugars, and all sorts of sweeteners, and even driving a car is quite dangerous.

The perspective that we as a party explicitly choose is that of freedom. Should we prohibit everything? At this point, we say very clearly from the Flemish Interest that we are not willing to prohibit everything, and that we must be careful that we do not fall into some kind of health fundamentalism.

It remains a difficult weighing, and we have made that weighing in all honesty. We say very clearly that some things, even though they pose health risks, such as smoking a cigarette in a small brown cafe, should remain possible.

I don’t want to say such incredible things here. In fact, eating too much sugar is one thing, but this is not how the person will harm the health of his neighbor. Smoking a cigarette is sending smoke around you, and I especially think of the horeca workers who are constantly and unintentionally subjected to the smoke of the cigarette. This comparison is absolutely unacceptable.

Mr. Fonck, in this debate we have fundamentally different opinions. You also have a private problem and you have honestly acknowledged that in the committee. As a member of the majority, you have made it very clear that you will not support the majority compromise because, as far as you are concerned, it does not go far enough. I fear that you, as a member of the majority, are in a bad position to say to a simple member of the opposition that there are illogical things in his presentation and his discourse is scandalous. After all, you have already announced that you, as a majority member, dislike the compromise reached by the majority and that you will not support it. Who is in a bad park?

Mr. Bultinck, although we are both in the opposition, I would like to say the following. I would like to point out that the smoking ban is not a smoking ban for individuals. As an individual, one can smoke as much as one wants, one can only not do it in public places. It can be outside. At the moment, there is no smoking ban outside. That can still come. (The Romanian)

That is after 2014. In America it is already so far, in California for example.

If you let me speak, Mr. Bultinck can respond. In California, smokers are not allowed to smoke outside at a distance of as many meters from a building. Our smoking ban clearly states that it is a smoking ban in public places. This is not so much about the individual, it is really about passive smoking.

Second, Mr. Bultinck, there are no longer so many brown cafes. (The protest)

It has been found among young people that a large percentage of young people pro does not smoke in a cafe. The same applies to a brown coffee.

You need to distinguish the two aspects. We are rightly opposed to this smoking law. Per ⁇ we are not quite on the same line: we are against the way the law is introduced and against the way it is incomplete. However, talking about the individual right and about brown cafes is a bit outdated.

Mr. Speaker, whether it is the majority or the opposition, whether the project is coherent or inconsistent, it seems obvious to me that a person who eats too much sugar does not harm his neighbor and that a person who smokes is harmful to his neighbor. It is a fact!

Everyone knows that passive smoking is not pleasant. Arguments are raised to prove that other matters are also disturbing. Someone who is heavy on the drink and who begins to sew against other people can also be very disturbing. (The Tumult)

Colleagues, is there anyone who feels addressed? Mrs Smeyers is? You had asked for the word, apart from Mrs. Detiège’s comment, I assume.

Mr. Speaker, I had already asked for the floor for Mrs. Detiège’s comment.

I would like to ask Mrs. Van Broeckhoven if she really knows what she has approved. I hear her here advocating for a general smoking ban, but she has the chance to vote for a general smoking ban in the committee.

Mrs. Smeyers, I do not see you, you are somewhere behind Mr. Landuyt. I will later in my intervention extend to the answers.

Can I suggest that Mr. Bultinck continues his intervention? Can I remove all those who have already come in between from my list?

Mr. Speaker, I try to answer Mrs. Van Broeckhoven.

Mrs. Van Broeckhoven, from time to time a professor has to come among the people. I suggest you leave the university from time to time. I can guarantee you that there are still plenty of small brown cafes in my province, West Flanders. If you were enough among the people—which would be good for a socialist—you would know that.

The second element of replication. The essential thing in catering matters is, of course, that for us, in the legal sense of the word, these are not really public places. These are private spaces opened by the entrepreneur concerned to drink a glass or smoke a cigarette.

The third element of my reply, if you allow me, Mr. Speaker, is that I am very satisfied that several members of the SP-A-Fraktion have already intervened in this debate in the plenary session, because in the past months it has also been ⁇ ridiculous in the committee. Mrs. Van Broeckhoven came up with a number of elements, just like colleague Detiège and colleague Geerts. I must honestly tell you that as a simple Flemish Interesting, I still do not know what the position of the sp.a. faction really is, because I have heard at least three or four different points of view.

Mr Bultinck, you made two comments. One comment concerned my person, the other the sp.a. On the last comment I will answer you in more detail later.

As for your first comment, Mr. Bultinck, the following. I came from the time of the brown cafes, but you may not have noticed it yet. I do not have to tell you about my private life, but I would like to invite you to Antwerp.

Mr. Bultinck, I see that you are all of your milk.

I can guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, that I am not fast from my milk. Given the animo in this assembly, I think I will accept the invitation of colleague Van Broeckhoven with great pleasure. I hope there are also colleagues who, on occasion, would like to visit with me in West Flanders brown bars.

I return to the essence of the story. We have very clearly chosen the principled viewpoint that there must be another element of freedom possible in the whole debate on smoking. Within the framework of some kind of health fundamentalism, one should not threaten to ban everything.

The second essential element is the economic reality. I hear everyone in the last few days very much like to talk about all sorts of crisis phenomena, and then I confess very honestly, and each of you will undoubtedly endorse that the hospitality sector is also at this time in a very deep crisis. Therefore, I say very clearly from my group that we find it irresponsible to again impose new obligations on the hospitality sector, especially if I read the relevant bills carefully. In the explanation thereof it is stated — and that will be the second concrete question of our group to you, Mrs. Minister — that there are a number of accompanying measures for the hospitality industry, but in the available part of the bills I read nothing about it.

Since I do not receive an answer to my question in the committee, I ask you tonight again very clearly from the speaker which accompanying measures for the hospitality industry are provided. Will this lead to a further VAT reduction? I think of the 6% measure on drinks. Will this go towards making the final work of simplifying the entire dossier of student work? Together with your colleague Milquet, you know that this file has been blocked for a very long time and that the Flemish catering sector would like to see some progress in this file. I would like to know from you how it really is. Anyone who has been in this Parliament for some time knows that there is an essential difference between the beautiful prose, the beautiful explanations written in all kinds of bills and ultimately the concrete, hard legislative material, which is the legislative available piece of a bill. I would now like to know when those accompanying measures will be implemented, in the knowledge that the entire dossier will eventually be moved to 2012 or 2014 at the latest.

The next element that I would like to introduce in the debate, and this will not surprise you, is the social argument. We have continued to say that a café, a bar and a dance in Flanders are much more than just an economic given and that these drinking opportunities do indeed have a social function. Also from the same social concern we find that all kinds of associations must be able to meet and during those meetings there must already be a drink and a cigarette to be raised. In this sense, of course, we are not happy with the bills as they are present.

There is a third concrete question, Mrs. Minister, which I would like to ask you. In the meantime, we are quite advanced in time. If I look at the calendar, I see that we are on December 17. It is the ultimate intention that the legislation shall enter into force on 1 January 2010. Today, however, I would like to get a very concrete answer to the question of how many auditors of your own FOD Public Health are ready to control the new regulation strictly or not. How strictly will it be controlled? How many auditors will be deployed from 1 January? Or will one demonstrate a certain generosity and be gentle, given the fact that it is indeed irresponsible to approve from Parliament on 17 December a legislation that must enter into force on 1 January of next year?

For all of these reasons, colleagues, we find what predisposes a dragon of a compromise and a bad compromise. The entire solution, which will eventually be final only at the earliest in 2012 or at the latest in 2014, will be transferred to the next legislature, to the next government. It is clear to me, however: this is indeed the new style of Leterme as prime minister. He conducted an election campaign with “good governance” and ultimately the good governance of this government can be traced to the Parliament in the very last moment to swallow very many serious and less serious bills while nothing has been done in the last two years.

Even this hospitality agreement, this compromise as it is presented here, proves that one can only decide not to decide. Well, I tell you very honestly: as far as we are concerned, this is not good governance, but the reverse of it! That is why the Flemish Interest Group will vote against this bad compromise with full conviction.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, the debate so far has already shown that the entire discussion about the smoking ban in the hospitality industry at certain times rather warms the moods. This has been demonstrated several times in the public health committee in recent months. This has also been shown in the Senate debate. In any case, this debate has already taken a rough course.

Let us go back to the beginning. The bill to bring about a general smoking ban was originally submitted by Sarah Smeyers, Nathalie Muylle and myself. It arose mainly from two concerns.

Our first concern was, of course, public health. There have already been some data provided on this subject by colleague Snoy. I will give you some speaking numbers. Employees in the hospitality sector are up to 5 times more likely to die from the effects of smoking than other employees. Since the general smoking ban was introduced in the United Kingdom, there have been 10% fewer heart attacks. This is the direct consequence of the smoking ban in the hospitality industry.

These are speaking figures. I think everyone agrees that people can make choices for themselves, but we must not forget that smokers also make non-smokers smoke more and make them bear the consequences of smoking.

Our second concern that led to the bill was the existing legislation. I think everyone agrees on this, and even the courts have confirmed that that existing legislation was very vague and created some discrimination. This discrimination must be eliminated urgently.

The current rule, which allows smokers to smoke with less than 30% of their turnover coming from food, is difficult to control, and makes a distinction between the different dining facilities. Per ⁇ even more important is the discrimination between the youth visitor to a café and the visitor to a youth home. It is actually intolerable.

The difference with the voluntary engagement in youth homes, but also in sports cantines and other association houses, to call them so, is a discrimination that we should no longer allow to exist. In that regard, the simplest and most obvious solution was a general smoking ban, and as soon as possible. That was our goal, the goal of CD&V.

We are therefore disappointed that our original idea, the original bill, has not achieved it. In a democracy, we need a majority. So it was a matter of finding a majority for a proposal that would go as far as possible.

With the compromise reached before the summer, we at least made clear that food and smoking are no longer intertwined, and that from 1 January 2010. Mr. Bultinck, it may be today or 17 December, but that legislation was already adopted before the summer, so I think both the services and the affairs involved have been aware of what awaits them from 1 January 2010. It is not from tomorrow that this should be communicated.

I will continue to continue the hobble path a little further. The amended bill went to the Senate. In the Senate, however, a majority was found among the members of the committee to come to a general smoking ban, although from 1 January 2012. This was, of course, a bit of a surprise for us, because there was no majority in the House, but in the committee in the Senate so and then also in the plenary session of the Senate.

The text was then returned to the room. What had to be determined in the room? Again, there was no clear majority in favour of a complete smoking ban, on the one hand for dining establishments from 1 January 2010 and on the other, generally from 1 January 2012. Therefore, a compromise must be sought again.

Our goal, which has been the starting point of every negotiation, is to reach a general smoking ban. We have always emphasized this during the negotiations. When it turned out that there was no majority in the House to support the proposal from the Senate, we threatened to fall back on the proposal submitted before the summer. After that, negotiations were initiated within the majority parties, however, to advocate a general smoking ban.

I would like to ask a question to the speaker.

I think I have heard that he said that for the amended Senate proposal, which included the date of 1 January 2012 to remove the exceptions from the Smoking Act, there was no majority in the House.

Mr. Van den Bergh, I think it is correct to say that there was no majority within the majority. That was the problem!

Mrs Van Broeckhoven, it is nice to hear that of sp.a, who voted in the Senate in the committee and abstained in the plenary session.

Mr. Van den Bergh, of course, you are responding too early. I was not yet ready.

You will explain it later.

I will explain it to you later. Of course, you react too early. It is the majority, who did not agree with the date of 1 January 2012. It is the majority, who requested a week’s delay and who informed our members of the committee, through the press. This is how it went and no other.

Therefore, you must not say that there was a problem in the Room. That was with the majority. It is the majority, not the House, that has drawn up a compromise and submitted it to the committee, no other. This is the compromise that we are discussing today. Sp.a has, frankly, nothing to do with this. As far as I know, we are not in the federal majority.

Mrs. Van Broeckhoven, can I ask you a question? Why did your colleague Raemaekers, who sits next to you, abstain last Monday in the vote on Mrs Smeyers’ amendment, which says that one is for a general smoking ban on 1 January 2012?

Mrs. Molly, I will explain this in more detail later.

I think you will have to explain a lot.

Mrs. Molly, I have already explained this to you.

I have the impression that you should explain it again to the people in your party.

Mrs. Muylle, no, it will be clear to you later.

To avoid unnecessarily prolonging the session, I will explain it later.

I have a small practical question. Can you make an official announcement of the start time of the college of Professor Van Broeckhoven?

If you insist, she may also be able to invite you that evening in that brown café. Mr. Goutry, do you see that?

Can I now ask that the various speakers who have been registered still reserve something for their actual reason?

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that Mrs. Van Broeckhoven knows how to build the tension according to her reason. That is nice. In any case, we look forward to it.

Mrs Van Broeckhoven, for clarification, as regards your comment on the proposal that came back from the Senate, if we count the majority in the Senate that approved the proposal and we look here in the House to the same parties, then we had no majority here mathematically. So we had to negotiate and seek a majority for a proposal that went as far as possible in our direction.

Therefore, negotiations have been made. In addition, the second proposal, which is presented today, came out of the bus. For the first time, the House will vote on a proposal that legally establishes and emphasizes a general smoking ban, by 1 July 2014. The exceptions for cafes and casinos, which are included in the first draft law, expire at that time at the latest. Therefore, a general smoking ban has finally been established by law and we are satisfied with that.

Of course, it is still a long time. CD&V is very difficult. The existing discrimination against both workers and operators will therefore have to last for a while. There is at least the prospect that they will be removed from the way. Furthermore, not insignificant, the King, by a decision adopted after consultation in the Council of Ministers, after consultation with the sector as early as January 1, 2012, the sacred date, which you always cite, can transition to a general smoking ban.

The accompanying measures will be discussed with the sector and may include fiscal measures, Mr. Bultinck. These can be measures in the field of labour law and we really think of student work and seasonal work, where there are a number of steps to be taken. They may also have to do with the licensing policy, although then of course we must negotiate with our regional partners.

Colleague Van den Bergh, I have been very clear. This is with this bill, with that dragon of a compromise, the fundamental problem: one can write in an explanation such beautiful prose as one wants, but the only thing that counts for a member of parliament is the available part of a bill. I read nothing about the accompanying measures for the hospitality industry. You can’t blame me for asking me, as a simple member of the opposition, what that will be.

I take note that you will solve the question of student work. What stops the majority and your CD&V faction? One of the competent ministers is here. Your other colleague, whom you know very well, Mrs. Milquet, is definitely the lady who has been holding back the student work dossier for years in a majority of which you are part. Then come to tell me that you will take accompanying measures, allow me to be a little critical.

I am not satisfied with a well-written explanation, which I said in the committee on Monday. I want to see something more. As a member of Parliament, I am no longer able to stick with beautiful prose. I want to see a available part, which is clear. If you have already introduced the smoking prohibition in a available section, whether from 2012 or 2014, then you could at least have emphasized the fair play against the hospitality sector to write similar articles, which were more clear. I read nothing in the available section on those accompanying measures. Then I say: that’s bad work, that’s a bad compromise, it’s up to you to do better. Per ⁇ we will need to amend the text later.

Mr. Bultinck, of course, I will not prohibit you from being critical, but I think the whole text has its value for us. You will also notice that in the coming years if this is actually being worked on.

I go around. CD&V regrets the path that the entire bill has taken, but overall we can be satisfied with the final result. The guarantee of a general smoking ban is established in the legislation. And what’s more, CD&V will work hard in the coming years to make the smoking ban, along with the accompanying measures for the cafes, come into effect as soon as possible, and that means on 1 January 2012.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker! The subject is too important for that.

As part of the review of the bill on the prohibition of smoking in the Horeca, which is submitted to us today, the Reform Movement reaffirms – I think it is important and I weigh my words – its determination in the fight against smoking.

Tobacco is – it has been said recently in particular by Ms. Snoy – the leading cause of death and illness. Passive smoking is an additional source of mortality, morbidity and disability. In this context, the ban on smoking in horeca establishments gives a strong, very strong signal in terms of public health.

That is why the MPs of the Reform Movement will confirm by their vote the text that they had already adopted in the House last July and which devotes, it must be said, an extremely significant advance in that it removes what has been called the "grey zone" that tolerates smoking in establishments where the turnover for catering does not exceed 30%. I recall that in the committee, even the Ecolo group had acted that it was a progress, according to them insufficient, but real.

From January 1st, smoking will be prohibited in all restaurants.

It was suggested that this legislative advance could be prepared. We talked about auditions and we said that a balance sheet would be made. Unfortunately, as a result of interference that I will not mention, the preparation will be at least short, too short. But in the committee, Mrs. Minister promised us that before moving to repression, there would be, in advance, a period of information that I would call educational.

However, this is an important change. In fact, more than 10,000 establishments in the horeca sector are affected by this provision. It is therefore necessary to provide for accompanying measures. I would also like to point out that a proposal made in commission by my colleague Jacques Otlet aims to set up a first measure of accompanying coffee makers who offer the small restaurant.

Indeed, at present, in the absence of an urgent modification of the Royal Decree of 1984 establishing the conditions for the exercise of the professional activity of the restaurant, these coffee makers will have no other choice on 1 January next than to rely solely on the activity of drink flow. In fact, the aforementioned royal decree does not offer them the opportunity to extend their current catering activity because there are a number of specific measures for access to the catering profession.

My colleague Jacques Otlet wished, in relation to Minister Laruelle, that on the occasion of the implementation of this law, it is offered the possibility for these coffee makers presenting the small restaurant to choose in knowledge of cause, either the flow orientation of drinks with tobacco, or the restaurant with the key a possibility of extending the activities authorized by the Royal Decree of 1984.

Minister Laruelle has already been sensitized to this situation and has been open to such a proposal in consultation with the sector. I think, Madam Minister of Health, that with your colleague Mrs. Laruelle, you could bring this change. I think this will be a good accompanying measure.

Let us not forget an important, not negligible accompanying measure that will be activated on 1 January next year and that will allow to accompany the sector: the reduction of VAT to 12%. More could have been desired, but the government planned a second step based on a balance sheet.

In the case of cafes, operators will have the choice to create a smoking area or not. Everyone will have the freedom, whether it is an operator or a customer, to choose their coffee "Admissible Smokers" or "Non-Admissible Smokers". Furthermore, there should be other accompanying measures that could benefit non-smoking cafes taxally.

This situation will continue at least until 2012, and at the latest until 1 July 2014. Until then, this is vital and important in our country, it will be necessary to arrange a concertation. We are the permanent land of consultation. Why would we have a permanent consultation with trade unions and employer organisations and not a consultation with the horeca sector to plan and accompany the necessary evolution towards a total ban?

I find you very convincing with your accompanying measures. You are demonstrating to us that these measures are already possible, at hand. Explain why it takes 4.5 years when you are talking about measures that will be implemented!

You have very good ideas to accompany the small cafés. Why 4.5 years? Tell us where this bizarre 54-month figure comes from! It will be for the end of the next legislature as you have 2 years in front of you normally to implement a whole series of very smart things that will actually make the measure pass without hassle. I do not understand!

Madame Snoy, I think you are very pessimistic. The new bill, which is under vote today, provides for a range from 1 January 2012 to July 2014. You start directly from the idea that it will be in July 2014.

In any case, I found that it would not be for January 1, 2012; so it means that it will be for later! What is your prognosis? February 2012 ?

In the tobacco sector, as in many others, it is necessary to accompany not only the sector but also the population.

You have recently discussed the problem of tobacco for young people. You are a thousand times right. The problem is that you are wrong at the time. Smoking in youth doesn’t start at nightclubs but much earlier, unfortunately, around the age of 13, at the exit of schools. I think that tobacco prevention, since this is what brings us together, will not be done only by banning tobacco in the horeca.

I did not say that! You do not answer my question.

Mr. Flahaux, I do not want to argue long with you, even though I do not share a whole series of points of view. I would like to emphasize that concordant and solid studies show that there is a clear and direct link between the total ban on tobacco in Horeca and the decrease in smoking among young people. This is a proven fact. This is an important fact that you have unfortunately not taken into account in your reasoning.

Absolutely, I ⁇ ’t ask you to be right. This afternoon, I looked at the situation in different countries. I can tell you that for now is on the table of the National Assembly – which is the reference for some of us – ...

Mr. Flahaux, there is no doubt about the fact that I just mentioned. These are scientific medical data. There is a clear link between the total ban on tobacco in Horeca and the decrease in smoking among young people.

This is not a matter of discussion, it is a reality that we find in all medical journals.

I invite you to take note of the bill that has just been submitted by French Communist deputies and which goes against what you are saying to me.

Fortunately, there are no more communists here in parliament!

Mr Flahaux, we have a great responsibility as women and men politicians: we must not make us believe that smoking does not harm health.

I never said that!

The inconsistency of your words is dangerous. Compared to tobacco, the inconsistency would be to say that it is not because you smoke in cafes that young people will start smoking or to say that we will ban it and that a week later, we will allow it.

This is intellectual dishonesty.

No, not at all!

I said the opposite!

This is the factual translation of what has been happening in this House for months. With such words, how do you want the dominant message within our society to be that we should smoke less and less and expose fewer and fewer people to smoke?

If our speech is not consistent continuously, if it does not include progress – which was also provided by the law with the mention of the year 2012 before the passage to the Senate –, if we do not send a clear message to the cigarette smokers, we let us believe that smoking is inevitable and that it is impossible to have fun without doing so. Therefore, we support this need to use tobacco. This is what I find dangerous in your words, under the pretext of reasonable behavior.

Madame Gerkens, I didn’t say that!

That is what I understand!

I said that it was necessary to work alongside the evolution of society. I said that to solve the problem of youth smoking, the ban in the horeca will not be the solution...

You should say “It will not only be ...

I did not interrupt you.

Very well!

The problem must be addressed earlier. Currently, I observe attitudes that are not as unambiguous as this in different European countries. Last year, the Constitutional Court of Karlsruhe made a ruling that goes in the opposite direction and ensures that in a series of Land, including Berlin, a step back has been made.

The wealth and interest of our approach consists in making constant and irreversible steps, even if we do not progress fast enough to your taste. This seems to me important. In legislation, there is nothing worse than going back because it creates disturbances!

That’s what you just did!

We do not retreat, the House has always taken the same attitude.

In light of the small conflict with the Senate, I add that the MR has always had the same attitude and that he abstained in the Senate.

Mr. Dallemagne, to be consistent, as a doctor, you must recognize that the position of the cdH is not much more consistent than that of the MR.

Colleagues, whoever wants to interrupt colleague Flahaux, please ask me this. I suggest that everyone listen to Mr. Flahaux with great attention.

Mr. Speaker, if you wish, I will continue my speech.

I was at the consultation. By 2012, we must engage, firmly and with great enthusiasm, in a consultation with the sector to plan and accompany the necessary evolution towards a total ban, Mrs Gerkens.

We wanted the arrangements for this transition to be coordinated with the coffee sector, including through various incentives allowing beverage flow operators to implement the total smoking ban as soon as possible. Some may not realize this, but the horeca sector is ⁇ affected by the crisis. This is evidenced by the figures. In 2008, 1, 562 companies in the horeca sector had to submit the balance sheet. I think this is a talking number. The situation is worsening further, with the number of bankruptcies in the first five months of this year being 22% higher than in 2008. Too many establishments have trouble keeping their head out of the water. In this context, one can understand the fear of drink flow managers associated with a drastic loss of their clientele. In fact, a large majority of coffee customers are also smokers. I am not happy; I see! That is why the MR puts a lot on the concertation that must take place and that will take place with the sector.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, I would like to invite the Minister of Health and the various Communities of the country to specifically strengthen the prevention policy towards young people in the field of smoking. As I said in the committee, it must be noted that, in the last five years, the French Community has ⁇ been of a weakness guilty in the face of this insolvency. We hope that finally, in the next five years, the new Minister of Health of the French Community will act more actively because prevention is the best policy.

In conclusion, the MR group will support this text, believing that this is an irreversible step – there will be no step backwards – towards a total ban on smoking. It remains obvious that the goal to be achieved is to have a tobacco-free horeca, in a public health goal not only for consumers but also towards workers in the sector. It is fundamental!

I couldn’t stay unresponsive to Mr. President’s last remarks. by Flahaux. Mr. Flahaux, you deny the daily work of workers in all educational sectors, including teachers, health care actors and prevention actors, who do a remarkable job in the French Community. To deny this work is really a shame and it surprises me.

Should we remember that today, among adolescents in the French-speaking area of our country, we are witnessing a slow but certain decrease in the number of smokers? I will not recall here all the policies that have been carried out; it is neither the place nor the time. Nevertheless, I could not refrain from responding to your sub-understandings.

I meant that I did not deny anything at all and that I just specified that this work was insufficient and that its results are not really apparent. We have spent too little money on your policy. Per ⁇ you have failed to convince your colleagues to raise sufficient resources. It is another thing. In any case, I look at the results, that’s what matters.

As for me, I wanted to say to my colleague Jean-Jacques Flahaux that he had been ⁇ kind to the policy of the French Community, speaking of the last five years. I remember another minister, ten years ago, in charge of Prevention in the French Community who, apart from a few outbursts in favor of illicit drugs, had marked its passage by a total laxism in the matter.

For a very long period, the French Community has shown a total laxism in the prevention of smoking. I want this as proof that today, while discussing the prohibition of smoking in the horeca sector, which I welcome, in many schools of the French Community and other networks in the French Community, it is still tolerated that students smoke at certain moments. It is obviously scandalous that we have not yet succeeded in eradicating this bullying in school. Instead of very beautiful statements, instead of playing the spotless and thuriferaires, some should examine from time to time what they have accomplished themselves.

by Mr. Flahaux was right to highlight the fact that in the French Community, there is a very clear insufficiency of the prevention action in the field of smoking for too long years.

Colleagues, I propose for now to give the floor to Mrs Gerkens, after which we will put an end to this debate, which may be better conducted in the French Community Parliament.

Mrs. Smeyers, I now give the word to Mrs. Gerkens and then you will have the last word. We can better transfer the debate to the Parliament of the French Community.

Mr. Speaker, in the fight against tobacco and smoking, we must all acknowledge that we have for too long allowed cigarette manufacturers to invade the market. Today, they are allowed to invade the markets of third-world countries because they know that we are going to opt for an ever-increasing ban. It is easier to attack countries without legislation, countries where smuggling can be used to make people smoke. In our society, we have been too lax for too long.

We have a complex country with shared competencies. Everyone, at their level of power, is faced with the question of what to do and how to do it.

For me, when you want to send a message, whether it is successful or not, the main thing is to be consistent. From the moment when it is known that tobacco causes diseases and costs social security, that it causes deaths of smokers and non-smokers, the only consistent discourse is to demand that all measures be taken to restrict places where smoking is done in order to try to reduce tobacco consumption.

When you refer to the past, especially the matters managed by the French Community and its financial means, I would like to remind you of the federal episode that carries a responsibility in the means granted to the Communities to enable them to implement their policies. I can’t tell you if it was in 2002 or 2003, but I remember the creation of a tobacco fund. In return, Mr. Reynders raised the price of tobacco but he did not raise excise taxes, thereby increasing the profits of cigarette smokers. Since then, no one has dared to do so.

This fund was to be managed through a cooperation agreement to provide the means for the Communities to carry out their policies. However, for five years, it was considered that it could no longer be managed through a cooperation agreement but only through the federal. In conclusion, the Communities did not receive the necessary resources. Responsibility is collective.

I would tell you that I am ready ‑ and I do - to take a share of responsibility in the fact that we are so little advanced in Belgium in the fight against tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco.

Now that the matter is mature, now that other European countries are moving forward, now that the European Union is moving forward and giving a deadline (2012), this is another reason to get into the same wagon and work together to, through the federal, support and strengthen actions at the Community level.

In addition, I don’t know which project ‑ because we don’t find ourselves there anymore – there is the possibility of concluding again a cooperation agreement with the Communities to manage the fund.

Your speech goes against this beautiful coherence that would allow us to fight more effectively.

Mr. Speaker, thank you to Mrs. Smeyers for having been patient for a few moments.

Mr. Bacquelaine, as you sit in the federal, you cannot know the matter and the policies carried out in the French Community. So I imagine that you could not know that, when I was minister, we introduced a smoking ban in schools.

You cannot know either, Mr. Bacquelaine, that the budget for prevention and health in the French Community increased during the legislature by 80%. This had never been the case. This was obviously not the evolution of the overall budget in the Community.

I am the first to acknowledge that this remains insufficient, because, in terms of prevention, we should be able to do much more. At the same time, it was a huge advance.

That being said, Mr. Speaker, we will not discuss the French Community here, but, on the contrary, it is worth pleading for everyone to shoot in the same direction. This should be public health!

Mr. Speaker, colleagues of the CD&V, you may be grateful to Mrs. De Maght for requesting the merger of points 3 and 4 of the agenda. Its aim may have been efficiency, but it saves you from the open schizophrenia that exists between the bills under points 3 and 4 of the agenda. Furthermore, I find it courageous that Mr. Van den Bergh outlined the historical background of the bill and set out the proposals under the agenda items 1, 2, 3 and 4. This saves me a page.

Implementing a limited smoking ban, as the majority wants to do today, is not serious. I quote not only my words, Mrs. Muylle and Mr. Van den Bergh, but the words of an eminent party fellow of you, Mrs. Wivina Demeester. Her choice for a smoking ban is rational, with public health as the only criterion. I expected that from a public health committee. You could learn a lot from Mrs. Demeester in this area.

The alleged and unproven negative effects on the hospitality industry are clearly opposed to the undisputed and enormous health benefits of a total smoking ban for this majority. There are many more arguments for a general smoking ban than against. The colleagues of Open Vld and CD&V are either hard teachers, or are not concerned about the health of cafe visitors and catering staff. Therefore, for the last time — the path of suffering is almost over — I put together all the rational arguments that advocate a general ban on smoking.

First of all, tobacco kills. In Belgium, smoking is responsible for 38% of all cancer cases; 95% of all lung cancers are caused by tobacco. Lung cancer is also the most deadly cancer. Those who get lung cancer, unfortunately, die from it in most cases. Smoking also increases the risk of myocardial infarction by 25 to 30%. In total, cigarette smoking causes 20 000 deaths annually in our country. Moreover, 2,200 non-smokers die annually from the effects of forced passive smoking.

The second is effective prevention. I hear that there is some discussion about this within the French community. Young people learn to smoke in a cafe. A total smoking ban in the hospitality industry could save an estimated 12,000 young people from tobacco addiction in Belgium. The proposal to limit the smoking ban to the dining cafes, which will now happen, ignores this reality. Young people mainly go to beer cafes.

It gives a wrong signal. It gives the message that smoking is okay but that smoking and eating do not go together, which for me is too limited.

I think the government has already invested enough in tobacco prevention. The reimbursement of consultations to quit smoking, an idea of Ms. Onkelinx, is already a fact. The effective measure, the last step, however, refuses to take the government. I think Ms. Fonck is right. I may only speak for Flanders, but with us there is incredible investment in tobacco prevention. Unfortunately, the competence is not yet fully with us and we must wait until the Belgian level takes the final step, but that does not happen.

The third argument is the principle of equality. Everyone is equal before the law. Currently, catering workers are the only workers who still do not have the right to a smoke-free workplace. Servers are continuously exposed during their working hours to a concentration of fine dust that is almost twenty times higher than the maximum annual average of the EU directive. In Belgium, waiters are also 3.2 times more likely to die from lung cancer than the male working population in their age group. Even the smaller family ⁇ without catering staff are forced by competition to smoke to the detriment of their own health. Non-smoking customers today must choose to smoke with them or stay outside. The Court of Appeal of Antwerp has also ruled that the prohibition of smoking in a tavern violates the principle of equality of the Constitution. That was the sentence of “the clipping cliper”. Nothing suggests that a smoking ban that remains limited to dining cafes — as you will approve it later — solves this legal problem. The principle of equality will be violated.

A fourth argument, consistent lasts the longest. The federal government — I look right in front of me — has invested €380 million in the National Cancer Plan. Without the implementation of a general smoking ban, it is actually mowing with the crane open. 38% of cancer cases are caused by tobacco. You invest massively in the Cancer Plan but you do not choose the easy solution. On 30 November 2009, twenty-seven EU health ministers endorsed the European Commission’s recommendation. They called on all Member States to make public spaces smoke-free by 2012.

Ms. Onkelinx has signed it. Mr. Mayeur has the reputation of whispering with the minister if the minister should actually listen. Ms. Onkelinx, you confirmed that recommendation.

I understand therefore not how u two days later in commission one total other story can ophangen, door te vertellen dat u met een uitstel van het totaalverbod op roken in cafes can live. You must do it, mevrouw Onkelinx.

On 31 March 2009, following the one-year existence of your cancer plan, you declare in the House that drafting a smoking ban is the task of Parliament. You have also stated this here several times in response to questions in the plenary session. Nine months later, the Parliament, though in the Senate and with an alternate majority, is working on a smoking ban. However, the aforementioned prohibition suddenly poses a problem in the Chamber.

On 18 November 2009, the Senate approved, as already mentioned, a general smoking ban from 2012. However, two weeks later, on the instructions of Di Rupo and Ms. Vautmans, the majority group leaders reach an agreement withdrawing the proposal.

My fifth argument is that I think cafes do not have to suffer under a smoking ban. The sales of restaurants in Belgium increased by 5% in 2007, after the introduction of the smoking ban in restaurants. The number of non-smokers in Belgium is three times higher than the number of smokers. A total smoking ban thus gives the hospitality industry the opportunity and the opportunity to address a much larger market.

The hospitality company is, by the way, a demanding party for security. A general smoking ban will come sooner or later. For the cafes, it is better to create clarity now, not to let them invest unnecessarily in suction plants and ⁇ not to promise or predict that there will be a smoking ban in 2014.

Mr. Van den Bergh, you spoke later of a legal basis or a legal guarantee, but you know as well as me that this is not true.

The public is also ready for a smoking ban. Two-thirds of Europeans already want smoke-free coffee. In Ireland, Norway and Italy, after the introduction of the smoking ban, more than 90 % of the population still supports the smoke-free legislation. In Belgium, a survey shows that 85% are in favour of a smoking ban in restaurants. Where the prohibition is introduced, people remain in favour. The level of support for a general smoking ban has never been as high as it is today.

However, apparently the majority parties have no ear to those purely rational arguments. Apparently there are still thick clouds of smoke around the heads of Mr. Di Rupo and Mrs. Vautmans, who do not want, can or dare to face the aforementioned reality. These smoke clouds are apparently also swinging towards CD&V.

After approximately one-and-a-half years of discussion, the public was ready for a general smoking ban. I think we didn’t have to make that unnecessary stop, but we should have taken that last step. Now we will be the worst student in the class.

Every change in the law requires a change in mentality. Now that the willingness to adjust is there, ask for half work. From January 2010, i.e. in 14 days, the dining cafes will first be smoke-free. We should not think much about this, because that is also a staple of all good legislation. Ms Onkelinx has already said in the committee that the cafes do not have to take it so closely, because the first three to six months will not be so tightly controlled. The Minister has confirmed this once again. This is again top legislation.

In 2014, we can then, hopefully, all of us adjust again, because then also the beer cafes will be smoke-free. Ladies and gentlemen of the majority, that’s a cowardly attitude and it was, in my opinion, easy and also much more credible to cut the node through at once. Mr. Van den Bergh, you claim that the introduction of the general smoking ban in beer cafes by 2014 is legally anchored, but you can explain to me later where I can read it. You also know that there is still at least a federal election in between, so that another majority may have a different view and so we may have to repeat the story again from the beginning. Therefore, I would like to have the answer from you later on the question where the guarantee on a general smoking ban is registered.

I also wish the Flemish League against Cancer, whose representatives were also always present in the committee, much success when it wants to take legal steps.

I almost thought I had not understood you well. So I will be so shy to repeat my question. Have I just heard you ask the Minister to hold strict controls in the catering sector from 1 January to enforce the new legislation? At such a moment my cloth breaks. Definitely a Flemish party calls for very strict controls by the Belgian policy level, so as to harass the hospitality sector even more than it is now! I would expect something different from the NV-A. I can hardly believe that what you said is true. I would like to hear the confirmation.

I have always been in favour of a general smoking ban. You know that. At the time I chose the date of January 1, 2010, we were away from it for a while and gave the catering business enough time to adjust.

What I now deeply regret is that we, removed 14 days from 1 January 2010, must vote on this. Eating coffee owners have only 14 days to adjust.

Moreover, I regret that it is also announced that the law will be only half a law, because it will not be implemented. What would have been much better? That is what I say now and I dare to say it openly: if we were to throw and tame, we should have introduced the ban on July 1, 2010. That gives at least time to prepare. By the way, the summer period is a much easier period to introduce such a transition.

Mrs Smeyers, I want to ask you a question. I have heard all your arguments. They are not new. You have cited a lot of things. I have told you many times that it is not a matter of being right, but of getting right.

I ask you the question, Mrs. Smeyers. Do you want a general smoking ban in 2012, originally in 2010, without you having a majority? That means you remain on the banks and call for a general smoking ban, but you do not have a majority to do so. Either you agree to the introduction of the rule from 1 January 2010 that smoking is prohibited in restaurants and in 10 000 of the 15 000 cafes.

I would like to know what is the best arrangement for you. You are taking arguments here, which you know there is no majority in Parliament. You do nothing, while our party, which continually attacks you, ensures that discrimination is eliminated first, that restaurants are smoke-free and that 10 000 of the 15 000 cafes are smoke-free, that and a legal anchoring of a smoking ban in 2012-2014. I leave you the choice, Mrs. Smeyers.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question, but it is for Mr. Bultinck. I let Mrs. Smeyers first answer Mrs. Muylle’s question.

Mrs. Muylle, I have also said in the committee that it is an intermediate step. Every step in between is good, but I think it is unnecessary. It would have been much better to take the last, ultimate step. You say that there is no majority for it, but you are also plotted for the rest of the majority. In the Senate, the ban may be approved by an alternate majority, but this was feared. The government could be in danger.

Mrs Smeyers, can I give the word to your group leader, Mr Jambon?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a look at what Mr. Bultinck just said. I heard him say something very strange, which opens up new perspectives. Mr. Bultinck said that a Flemish national party should never ask for control by a federal government. He is against federal auditors.

Mr. Bultinck, should the control of unemployment be stopped because it happens at the federal level? Should the control of the asylum policy stop because it happens at the federal level? Should the control of migration stop because it is done at the federal level? I ask you the question. We can probably reach some agreements on this, but I think there will still be a lot of unrest in this country that you are accusing together with us.

Mr Jambon, you will get a very clear answer. I have the impression that you have not listened properly to me. I have made an attempt to obtain clarity because of colleague Smeyers. It calls for strict controls from 1 January on legislation that we actually agree that it is a bad legislation, which is adopted fourteen days before it comes into force.

So I ask, from healthy pragmatism, to be a little reasonable. We are of the opinion not to immediately make strict controls on the application of a legislation that we actually agree that it is a bad legislation. Furthermore, it is irresponsible to approve these fourteen days before the entry into force.

That says nothing, colleague Jambon, about my vision of strict controls on Belgian standards. It says nothing about the control of unemployment and the like. Moreover, I think that in this regard we are partly allies and have the same question.

I want to challenge you to do something at the Flemish level, where you are in the majority. While you now take a clear position on the smoking debate, at the Flemish level, the smoking prevention is still a shameless beast. Any consistency in this area would be in place with you in this file.

Mr. President, I will give Mr. Bultinck a very brief answer. Mr. Bultinck, you should read in the report yourself what you just said.

Mr. Bultinck, you are shooting at the wrong person. It is indeed a dragon of legislation. But that is why they say that we should not comply with them... I think there would be a lot of anarchy in this country. Until then my answer.

The [...]

Mr. Bultinck, I suggest that we first listen to Mr. Smeyers. If you want to ask another question at the end, you will be given the word.

I was preparing to congratulate the Flemish League against Cancer. He has already announced that he will take legal steps. She is right, because the smoking ban creates a new discrimination between eating cafes on the one hand, and beer cafes on the other. Discrimination is just shifting. The distinction is based on interests of a purely economic nature. Apparently, according to the Committee on Public Health, or according to the majority there, the euro primates on your and my health, on the health of those thousands of young people who learn to smoke at a café and who will continue to do so for at least four years.

In the next four years, thousands of people will get sick from the effects of smoking and passive over-smoking in cafes. Colleagues of the majority, this is a responsibility of each of you. The solution that is subsequently put to the vote is a mess — in which I give Mr. Bultinck the right — with a total lack of vision for the future, a total lack of action and that shows the lack of will to make a real work of our public health. One of the most logical decisions in the context of tobacco prevention cannot be made. The majority simply does not dare.

Therefore, colleagues, I ask for the last time to approve at least the text of the Senate unchanged. The exception for beer cafes can, in my opinion, still be considered as a transitional measure. Coffee growers should — I just said that, Mr. Bultinck — have some time to adjust, but a postponement to 2014 is, in my opinion, in no way justifiable. Mrs. Gerkens has said this too.

A general smoking ban, without exceptions, should come, and preferably as soon as possible. It will also come. It really should have been there for a long time.

First of all, I would like to thank the authors of the original bill. Van den Bergh, Ms. Muylle and Smeyers, who put on the table an important, difficult topic. I would like to sincerely thank them, because it was necessary to make progress in this area and, although I am obviously not satisfied with the solution found, some steps have nevertheless been taken thanks to these authors and the initiative of parliamentarians.

Some have argued that the Senate would have worked badly. They accused him in some way of not having dialogue with the House, of not having concerted with the sector. These are very curious criticisms of a sovereign assembly, which has the function of having its own view of the laws and which, of course, has concerted with the sector! It has been consulted for months and years. You may not know it, but we are the European country where this debate is the oldest (five years) while in France, for example, it was closed in less than a year.

Obviously, the Senate consulted with the sector and the decision made was the right one. The Senate made a decision following the toll caused by the doctors - your colleagues, Mr. Bacquelaine -, tolled in the associations of patients because of the law passed in the House, tolled also because the arguments invoked did not hold the way.

I will not return to these arguments. I would simply add that the Senate had worked correctly, because it considered it to be an ethical issue. Everyone speaks according to their conscience. He had accepted that groups could work according to their conscience, which the House could not tolerate.

Let us be honest! Unnecessary to recall the urgency of voting a clear, clear law of total prohibition in the field of public health This figure of 1,900 deaths is often cited, which is twice as many as road accidents. In fact, this is a minimum number, as a ban on tobacco in the horeca sector would result in a decrease in tobacco consumption among the population and an effect on the overall tobacco mortality.

More than 1,900 deaths can be prevented with a total tobacco ban.

This is the number recalled recently by the WHO. 600,000 deaths are related to passive smoking. Per ⁇ we don’t know that worldwide, smoking kills – I find that it makes some laugh – more than 5 million people, that is, more than tuberculosis, malaria and AIDS combined.

The [...]

Five million people, Mr. Dedecker! It is the WHO who says it, but I know that this organization is not part of your references. In its latest report, which was submitted in December 2009, there is a global smoking epidemic.

There is a pandemic of which we talk a lot, Mr. Dedecker. This is the one that has killed 10,000 people so far. A lot of energy, political attention and money has been invested in it. I mean the pandemic related to the influenza A/H1N1.

There is a pandemic that we don’t talk about. However, it caused 500 times more deaths in 2008 than the viral flu epidemic. And, according to the WHO, if nothing is done, it will cause 8 million deaths within 10 to 15 years, given the expansion of smoking.

As doctors, Catherine Fonck and myself cannot forget that behind these statistics – they say “one dead is a drama, a thousand dead is a statistic” – there are months or even years of suffering sickness, destroyed families, sorrow, pain and distress. This is what lies behind these statistics.

Furthermore, it is unnecessary to recall the absolute imperative of workers’ protection. I work primarily on international issues. There is one concept that is widely used today, that is the obligation to protect. This is a concept that, for example, has long been used by our Prime Minister when he was Minister of Foreign Affairs in his speech at the UN.

In my opinion, we have a responsibility to protect workers from the horeca. This responsibility is double since we know that these workers work in precarious conditions with equally precarious employment contracts.

I come to the economic argument. It was said that this was not the time, that there was the crisis. Smoking a small cigarette in the coffee is stressful.

Why not offer a bottle of vodka to each of the job seekers? Why not multiply the bordels? This argument does not hold the road at all. In fact, Mr. Flahaux, you know very well that this economic argument does not stand the way. All serious studies show that this argument does not hold the way. All studies demonstrate that there is, in terms of turnover, a "u" curve and that we return very quickly – France has just demonstrated it – in less than a quarter, to the previous turnover.

This turnover even increases in many cases. As some have recalled, in Belgium, the number of cafes is decreasing. In ten years, from 1995 to 2005, Belgium lost 7,300 cafes, two a day! Now, I can tell you that in all these cafes, we were smoking! The fact that there is possibly a problem in the turnover of cafes is therefore clearly related to another phenomenon than the problem of the tobacco ban. In reality, it is the very model of this smoked small bistro where one comes to grille his clops and drink a few beers that is disappearing. This model is decreasing. In all of these cafés, Mr. Dedecker is smoking. But they disappear every day, at a rate of two every day. They shut down because they smoke. Non-smokers no longer want to go to the last smoked public places. In all the countries of Europe – and Ireland is an excellent example – where tobacco has been completely banned, we have seen, from 2004, the curve of the turnover of Irish cafes, which has been declining for years, begin to rise. It is well known that this economic argument does not hold the way!

Mr. Speaker, it affects me that one speaker comes here to say that smoking may no longer be a problem because the model is changing, while at the same time another speaker comes here to say that ⁇ ining smoking in some institutions is a competition distortion. One must know what is said.

The demagogy that plays here today, on the one hand in terms of health, on the other hand in terms of economy, is completely exaggerated. There is no comparison. Apples are compared to pears.

Mr. Dallemagne, what you are doing today, the discourse you are speaking here today, does not stop. You approach the issue from one narrow point of view, namely from the fact that you want to quit smoking. In this way, you want to score with a portion of the population. Well, you can score with a portion of the population, but the rest just find you tell nonsense.

Mr. Van de Velde, my words may annoy you, but this is pure reality; I am based on serious studies. It hurts you, it is your right.

I persist in saying, as the Senate has said, that this economic argument simply does not hold the way.

What is left? It is an absolute public health emergency. What use does it have to have a Cancer Plan if one does not take such a measure, so obvious, so popular, so inexpensive, so strong?

We could have taken an intermediate accompanying measure for a few months but not for four and a half years! This does not hold the road.

Then there are small clientelistic calculations, electoral calculations. We are in politics, so this is not surprising. This is not the first time that a provision is not adopted or is stopped because everyone makes their little accounts in their corner. Only, in this case, human lives are at stake and, as a doctor, it shocks me.

I think we have no other option than to move firmly forward in this area. It is well known that a radical law, the total ban, will effectively reduce the mortality related to passive smoking as well as tobacco smoking among young people. We will send a clear signal in the opinion, a signal that will not be fragile on the legal level, because it is possible that this is not the last time we have to discuss this law with regard to the actions undertaken by one and the other.

In a parliamentary life, one does not often have the opportunity to prevent the death of several hundred people without costing a kopeck to the community. There is often no opportunity to take measures that allow, on the level of public health, on the level of human suffering, to ensure that this terrible global plague, which affects more and more poor countries, can be stopped as soon as possible in order to reduce the mortality associated with it.

Mr. Dallemagne, if I can understand your reasoning and share it in part, I will nevertheless ask you two questions.

It turns out that currently in Germany, in the rental sector, judgments are beginning to fall on the prohibition that owners obtain for their tenants to smoke. What do you think, if you want to be logical, since you keep us a speech imprinted with pathos?

Currently, there are bills in some European countries for the prohibition of smoking in private cars. What do you think of if you want to be logical and go back to the pathos? In this case, go to the end of your reasoning and say it immediately!

Personally, I am pleased that on the statements I have held and in the matter that concerns us, you finally have little things and little comments to formulate. For the rest, with regard to privacy today, there is no need to legislate.

That said, tobacco is a plague of a dimension that is underestimated. I work a lot on public health issues. I see the agent that is invested in global funds, to fight tuberculosis, malaria, etc. Next to this, there is the tobacco industry, because basically, behind the cigarette, it is economic, powerful, cynical lobbies that have told us for decades that cigarette does not kill. Today, this denialist discourse is unthinkable, although I hear it from time to time again. It would be good for stress, etc. No to No!

Since they can no longer assert such claims, they say it’s bad for the economy and tomorrow they’ll tell us it’s good for the ozone layer! This is the tobacco industry.

Yes, but you did not answer my questions!

Yes, I have a reply, Mr. Flahaux! Absolutely Absolute !

Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. Dallemagne spoke very wise words. He has said that it is very important to realize certain things from the majority and to ensure that thousands are prevented from being killed. Mr. Dallemagne, you can, of course, make sure that thousands are killed much faster, if you make sure, together with the majority, that the smoking ban is introduced much faster, namely already next year, rather than leaving that matter to the next government. Instead of making sure that a general smoking ban will not be introduced until 2014, you can make sure that a smoking ban may be introduced as early as next year.

What most disturbs me about the exception that the government creates is that it is in those beer cafes that young people are taught to smoke. I myself was a heavy smoker and I learned to smoke in a beer café, not in a restaurant. Make sure that smoking prohibition first applies in those beer cafes and maybe only afterwards in other occasions. If you really want to prevent thousands of deaths from smoking, take full responsibility and take care of a short-term smoking ban.

(...): What is that shit now?

Mr. Weyts, colleague Van den Bergh has already responded to this observation; I fully agree with his point of view.

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, because there have already been many meetings on this subject. As far as I know, this bill has already been discussed in the plenary session.

Since on this issue everyone has his own smoke hanging around his head, I will limit myself to two motivations, no more, Mr. Dallemagne. I will give two motivations for the position of myself and 90% of the people of my party. I also have doctors in my party and they are against it and I respect this.

I have no rational argument to defend smoking in itself. I do not smoke myself. I have never smoked in my life. I have always been an athlete in heart and kidneys. Meanwhile, it’s been 35 kilograms ago, but I’m still against smoking.

This is no longer the case in our society. Let us look at history. How long have humans smoked? A thousand years? 1500 years? Two thousand years? In this region came a great warlord, Julius Caesar. He wrote about the Gallians, whether they were flames or whales, I do not know that they were hardworking, dumbing drinking brothers. In the meantime, we have enacted all sorts of laws. It has never disappeared from society.

Mr. Dallemagne, you are Catholic. The first tobacco ban in Europe dates from 1580 and was issued by Pope Urbanus VI. This was the first tobacco ban. Five monks in Santiago had broken the ban, they had smoked in the sacristry, and they were buried alive. It really happened.

It was not only in our civilization that tobacco prohibitions came. In the 17th century, people in Turkey tried to ban smoking in the tea salons. Therefore, the Flemish proverb smoking like a Turk probably comes from.

What disturbs me in our society is that we are constantly engaged in condemning certain people’s ways of life, excluding people because they have a certain way of life. We do this with a lot of repression. We will make a judgment on this, and we will do so with tremendous repression.

I don’t know if you read the newspaper this week. In the Netherlands, there is also a general smoking ban. Brown bars still exist. I will take you once. I know that it is difficult for a parliamentarian or a loft socialist to descend to the level of the brown cafes. I am not referring to you, Mrs. Detiège. You do not have to act immediately.

In the Netherlands, it has now come to the conclusion that this law does not work. In Germany, the court of Saxony last week ruled that smoking can be allowed back in the cafes. It is even so bad that the universities in Saxony are currently required to provide a special smoke room.

I do not defend that. What I am afraid of today...

Mr. Dedecker, Mrs. Van Broeckhoven wishes to interrupt you for a moment.

Mr. Dedecker, I think I heard you well. You look at CD&V, N-VA, and your group, while you talk about “air socialists”. Who are you talking about?

About you . I have already said that afterwards.

But you look at those groups. Of whom are you actually talking?

I didn’t know I was looking.

We have no loft socialists.

If you feel concerned, I have no problem with that.

and no. I just asked myself. I thought, that’s the others.

I do not know what the intention of this intervention was.

Can I continue my speech? As with the smoking ban, it is more about intolerance than anything else.

Mr Dedecker has the word.

I will formulate my first argument. It is about imposing a way of life. As a liberal, maybe a little anarchist-liberal, I have a lot of trouble with that because, in principle, where will it stop?

Let me give you an absurd example. We are all currently in the intoxicating moment of CO2. Mrs. Van Broeckhoven, you just spoke about whether you will be allowed to smoke outside. Well, there is already a movement to ban that. It’s not just about America, but also about England. In England, it was calculated, after the closure of the pubs, that not only 2,400 pubs went bankrupt, but also that sales fell by 7%.

There is now a new movement for those who are outside. It has been calculated that people outside can enjoy a heating system that needs to burn on average 237 days a year and emits 282 000 tons of greenhouse gases. This is the equivalent of a jumbo flying around the Earth 171 times. Now a new movement is emerging to say to those people, who are asylum seekers standing on the sidewalk in front of their family café or pub, that they should no longer smoke outside. That is my argument!

Mr. Dallemagne, there is now a restaurant in America — you may be able to walk behind this country because obesity is the next disease of civilization — where one must stand on the scale before one is allowed to enter and get food. For me, it is about the responsibility of the individual, about the human being who can make his own choice. The first political party to introduce a smoking ban was the Nazi party in Germany in 1942. Karl Aster was the therapist of that party and he did this at the time. I will give you the book, written by Robert Proctor, titled The Nazi War on Cancer. You should read it; it will do you virtue.

I do not defend smoking. I’m talking about the person who can decide how he leads his life. It is also about being social. Mr. Di Rupo also went down to the café Germinal. He has seen that 70 to 80 percent of those people smoke a cigarette. He said there should be a transition period. For the loft socialists in Francorchamps, a law had to be modified.

This is a certain form of tolerance. For me, it’s about not leaving those 70 or 80 percent of people who drink their pint outside. That is why I defend these people. If today around 30% of a cigarette is smoked, you should also give those people the opportunity to do it in a pleasant way and that is easy to do.

For this reason, our view is and remains that the coffee boss should be able to decide whether or not to smoke in his cafe. As for the people on the workplace, they are free to go to work there or not. That is why I defend this. Smoking itself cannot be defended.

You are now making a half-law announcing that the total ban will come in 2013 or 2014. It is about imposing a way of life. It is about excluding people from this society. I do not exclude 30% of people in society. I do not exclude the social drinker or smoker. I don’t let my grandfather play billiards on the sidewalk. If I were a socialist, I would even be embarrassed about such a measure.

This is about it. Smoking may be a civilisation disease, but then obesity is a civilisation disease, then you release too much CO2 and you can also stay at home. That is the essence, Mrs. Minister. I hope that smoking will disappear in the long run, but in the meantime one should not exclude anyone from this society, but that is what you are doing. I will not say more about this. We vote against this law of Medes and Persians.

You do not have the courage to make a decision. If tobacco is dangerous, then prohibit it, but be consistent and do not impose excise duties. However, you are not so consistent. My party will vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Colleagues, I stand here now on this floor, like many before me and some who will speak after me, unfortunately probably, for the discussion of a bill and a bill, both having to do with a law that seeks to regulate the smoking prohibition in the closed public space.

I’m still not sure if I’m happy or not, that I’m here now, but I’m here. I wondered if I would work in the same way as my colleagues or not, and I decided not to do it. Before I begin the chronicle of a announced smoking ban, I first thought to clarify the position of my party, the sp.a, and of my group, in this Parliament. I have tried this in the committee. On 8 December, I tried to make this clear to Mrs. Muylle and I put all my energy into it.

The [...]

Mrs. Muylle, I will tell you. I promised it to you, as I promised it to Mr. Van den Bergh, Mrs. Smeyers and Mr. Bultinck. The other members already know it, but I will tell you.

If you are silent, I will tell you.

Sp.a is for good health care. We are not just for good healthcare; we are for healthcare for everyone, with maximum protection.

What does this mean in the light of the present legislative proposals given the potential dangers of active and passive smoking? We all know that there is a direct, scientifically proven link between passive and active smoking and the risk of cancer, mainly lung cancer, and cardiovascular disease, on the one hand. I will not give you the numbers. They are in the reports and you have received them by email. All figures listed by the Cancer League and the Association for Cardiology have been read here. I do not have to do that anymore. This is a proven fact. In addition, active and passive smoking are also harmful to the overall health of the human being and also have a significant effect on the aging of the human being. Therefore, it is better to stop it when you reach a certain age.

Ladies and gentlemen, especially those who have asked me several times, sp.a is for a total smoking ban and thus follows the recommendation of Europe. That is our position. Europe’s recommendation is that all Member States adapt their national legislation so that there is a smoking ban in public places by 1 January 2012. This is very clear.

Sp.a. is against the present draft law and against the present draft law intending to amend the draft law. We are opposed, for the very simple reason that the bill does not announce a total smoking ban, but is full of exceptions.

I am not yet ready. You are immediately pressured. I have another beautiful story. There are two major exceptions. The first exception concerns drinking facilities, for which we are not sure that we use the correct definition of “drinking facilities”. It is about the cafes and disco disco for young people. The second exception is the casinos. In other words, gambling, dancing and drinking you, then you can smoke. In all other cases, you should not smoke. Eating and smoking do not go together.

Mrs Van Broeckhoven, Mrs Muylle and Mrs Smeyers wish to interrupt your speech.

Mrs Van Broeckhoven, you are in favour of the European Recommendation, which is a general smoking ban from 1 January 2012. Why did the SP.A. group in the Senate by Mr. Crombez abstain from the proposal approved in the Senate, which was intended to impose a general smoking ban from 1 January 2012?

Mrs. Van Broeckhoven, I would like to repeat my question of the latter. I agree with the question of Mrs. Muelle. I just asked – you would answer me now – why you also abstained when voting on my amendment in the committee.

Mrs Van Broeckhoven, your group leader asks for the word.

Mr. Speaker, I will answer first.

This is immediately clear. Answer to you.

We all know our place in life. I know my place. I am pleased to give the floor to Mrs. Van Broeckhoven.

Mrs. Muylle, Mrs. Smeyers, I understand that you are confused, Mrs. Muylle. You were confronted...

With many points of view.

You were faced with a different standpoint from sp.a before the summer than after the summer.

Mrs. Muylle, Mrs. Smeyers, I admit that when we began the discussions on a general smoking ban, there was discussion in our party. This is a difficult case, isn’t it, Mrs. Muylle? and laughing)

It is late at night.

Mrs. Muylle, we are a small group compared to CD&V. Ultimately, CD&V made proposal number 3, the original proposal together with the NV-A, which between 2007 and 2008 became a proposal of CD&V. In this small group we have the habit of discussing if there is a problem, and we have discussed. We asked the question of how we deal with a general smoking ban, versus public health, versus the viability of the sector, versus the rights of the individual.

We are a warm group, and we have discussed during our group meeting, and we have come to a solution, Mrs. Muylle, without compromise, as you did. We have not had to make a discourse, because we have grown to a consensus in our group since the summer, and this consensus, Mrs. Muylle and Mrs. Smeyers, is that we are for a general smoking ban, because none of us can be against a general smoking ban, and we want to follow the guidelines of Europe. That is our position.

What happened in the Senate, Mrs. Muylle? In the Senate, contrary to the expectations of the Chamber, the work of the Committee on Public Health has been done, and articles 4, 5 and 11 have been amended, and as the end date 1 January 2012 has been fixed. That is what the Senate has done.

The end date of 1 January 2012 serves to eliminate the exceptions you have placed in that bill.

What have we done? Marleen Temmerman has approved the smoking ban as a doctor. There are doctors here. A doctor must comply with the medical code and is for a general smoking ban. We are not in favour of the present bill. We are not in favour of the exceptions that allow smoking in a cafe, a disco, and a casino until 2014. That is hallucinating!

Our group decided to abstain. We have not even voted against. We abstained because of poor legislation. That has happened, Mrs. Muylle, and since then I have defended that position in the committee twice.

Can Mrs. Molly interrupt you for a moment?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that I get the word.

Mrs Van Broeckhoven, you say you came to a position after the summer. This position consists in following the European Recommendation, which is a general smoking ban from 1 January 2012. Why did Ms. Raemaeker abstain on that point on Monday?

We abstained in the Senate because...

Monday in the room.

Okay, Mrs. Muylle, you have a point. That brings me to your bill, your compromise proposal.

This has nothing to do with my bill.

Yes, the proposal in which you want to change the bill on those articles that are an exception.

That is not true! Mrs Smeyers’ amendment was just like that European recommendation. Ms. Raemaekers abstained on this point on Monday.

I am pleased that Mrs. Muylle asks the question I should ask. You have indeed abstained from the part of CD&V, but the amendment I submitted Monday night was aimed at bringing about a general smoking ban. The SP has abstained. That was after the summer.

I will answer that question. Your compromise proposal meant to amend a law that is not yet in place. This has absolutely no sense. There is no need for a law or a bill for 2012.

I understand the confusion. I will submit the amendment again and then SP.A can approve it.

No, we will not approve that.

Mrs. Van Broeckhoven, I have just said in my intervention that I have heard five versions of different points of view from the sp.a. faction. You are now making an honest and pleasant attempt to finally formulate a sp.a. position. I make a last attempt to make sure we understand each other well. I literally quote from the report of Monday afternoon: “Mrs. Magda Raemaekers clarifies that sp.a is in favour of a general smoking ban by 2012, in accordance with the EU recommendations. If this bill is not adopted, Sp.a is in favour of a general smoking ban from 1 January 2010”. To be honest, I no longer know. Can you tell me now whether it is January 1, 2010 or January 1, 2012?

Mr Bultinck, you know that Ms Raemaekers made a mistake with the date and that she corrected it at the end of the report. I am pleased that you have listened with so much attention to the consensus position of our group, a warm group of a fair, warm party.

The chronicle of an announced smoking ban has begun long ago. I agree with this legislature. In 2008, with the approval of the Parliament, legislative initiatives were taken to regulate a general smoking ban. A number of meetings were held together with the Senate. During a first meeting, one listened to an analysis of the FOD Public Health, conducted in the year 2007. In this case, we have actually looked at the application of the existing legislation. During a second joint meeting, a number of hearings were held with actors from the sector. It cannot be said that no attention has been paid. A series of discussions were held in the Public Health Committee in June and July. I am pleased to read again the detailed report of those discussions and of the interventions of each group.

Mrs. Muylle, I noticed it, and I admire you for the fact that you have been in favour of a general smoking ban from the very beginning. You were convinced that with the new law, which you submitted together with Mr. Van den Bergh, everything would become clear. This was intended because the existing law was full of uncertainties about the prohibition criteria or the inspections to be carried out. In other words, it went wrong with the current legislation. One had created a grey zone there, which was now being repaired with another bill.

Without going into all the different versions, it was thus the bill of CD&V by Mrs. Muylle and Mr. Van den Berg. That bill now means only a smoking ban for the food cafes. Only the cafes, the brasseries, the cafetarias, or whatever you want to call them, could enjoy an exception rule. Only with a spending of no more than 30% on food, smoking was still possible. That is your law.

This bill contains two major exceptions, in Article 4 and in Article 5. These exceptions are about excluding a smoking ban in the beer cafes, as they are mentioned in the newspapers, but also in the discoes where the young people come and in the casinos. This is stated in the exceptions.

This is a repair law with a number of exceptions. In other words, this is an unclear law, as unclear as the law to replace it.

What were the discussions about? What is the definition of a drinking opportunity? When is food eating? Is it about prepared food or not? Is it about snacks? I am not going to repeat the whole discussion.

Mrs Van Broeckhoven, I would like to clarify your point of view. You have not yet taken a decision on the step taken from 1 January 2010. You are talking about January 1, 2012. Do you want to take the step towards the food cafes, which is already a fair extension with a legislation that makes the entire KB of 2005 under purple clearer, now, on 1 January 2010, or do you want to use the date of 1 January 2012, in accordance with the European recommendations?

Mr. Van den Bergh, you advance on my discourse, but I will answer.

We are not in favour of that law that today, fourteen days before it should enter into force on January 1, 2010, suddenly confronts the dining cafes with a smoking ban. I also disagree with your opinion that they knew it for two years. There are no implementing decisions for this law. You put the food cafes in the cold as you put the beer cafes in the sun.

And the public health?

The [...]

Two years! Continue to continue!

The [...]

A general smoking ban is a general smoking ban!

The [...]

Ms. Muylle, you are honestly – apart from all the uncertainties of which you have created the lion’s share yourself through the sequence of proposals and designs – with your postponement to 2014 you are very poorly positioned to come here to give lessons about the importance of public health.

You are equally poorly positioned to point out differences in voting behavior between a group in the House and a group in the Senate. I think I can vaguely recall that your Senate group has submitted a number of texts, defended them with glory, and even approved them with an alternative majority against your own government coalition. Then you have seen yourself obliged in the Chamber to withdraw those texts themselves with amended bill and then withdraw them again with an added bill.

In short, again, stop in the first place giving lessons about consequence, for the first in all this history to make curves and circles around her own position and against her own party members, is CD&V.

Mr. Tobback, I just heard Mrs. Van Broeckhoven say: “Mrs. Muylle, I have to congratulate you, because your party is the only one that has continued to advocate for a general smoking ban since 2007.”

I understand that you regularly have something in your mouth. I do not understand what colleagues think they should look for behind it. Sometimes, however, one has said something before one realizes it.

Do not let yourself go astray and make your point.

Mrs. Muylle, I also want to congratulate you with the necessary sincerity. Mrs. Van Broeckhoven is right, you are a glowing defender of the ban. I only point out that, if I have to put your series of statements and proposals alongside what your party here in Parliament – and apparently not a warm group – thinks to have to approve, then that is all but coincident.

I would like to support my colleague Christine Van Broeckhoven. I also followed the debate for the summer. I am very pleased that Mr. Tobback here reminds parliamentarians that there was a huge amount of dispute in the majority, even in the House, and then the story of Dirk Claes in the Senate. As an opposition member, I could not even have an opinion. Mr. Bultinck can testify. We had it very easy, because there was a huge deal of dispute between the majority parties.

Mrs. Van Broeckhoven, can you conclude quietly?

Mr. Speaker, I can skip one part, namely the case with the Senate. That is good. I can then immediately extend to the dispute between the majority parties. This, of course, we noticed when the amended proposal of the Senate came back to the House. The first thing that happened was a question to a week postponement, because suddenly the majority did not agree. Open Vld stood on her back legs, because the Senate had set the date of 1 January 2012.

We then learned from the newspapers, even before we could discuss it in the committee, that the majority parties had decided that the discussion would be postponed for a week. Then they came back with a compromise.

And with what did they come back? They came back with the Senate Bill amended against the House Bill, again the Bill with all exceptions in it but without date. And then there is the literal spread of Mrs. Muylle speaking about the implementation between 2010 and 2014. It should be possible: two and a half years after the date proposed by the European Commission as a directive. That is what you have done. (Protesting against the banks)

In other words, we now have a law by 2010, a repair law with exceptions, two weeks before the law enters into force, without taking into account the operators of the dining cafes. Customers are protected from tobacco smoke, we know that. On the other hand, we now have a proposal to remove the exceptions by 2014. That’s two and a half years later than Europe, just imagine. All that is meant to support the exceptions: the beer cafes, the disco, the casinos and what I know more what is in them.

I will make it a little shorter. I just want to say that with the proposals now on the table, the bill entering into force in 2010 and the bill entering into force in 2014, we are actually doing worse than if we had followed the European Directive. Very simply, everyone, both the operators and customers of the catering ⁇ are worse off at this time.

In addition, by 2014 you will put the entire draft law over the legislature. That is, it is not with certainty in our hands or in that of the minister, who is behind a general smoking ban. Therefore, we do not know what will happen with that smoking ban. Worse can not be. This means that our majority parties simply admit that they cannot deal with the general smoking ban and have come to a consensus with the majority that they find 2014 a good date. Delay in this case is delayed.

Mr. Minister, you have repeatedly stated in the Public Health Committee that you, as Minister of Public Health, are for a general smoking ban in public places. You have repeated it every time. You really stand behind it. You are referring to your cancer plan with which you rightly invest huge amounts of money in cancer and cancer research to save human lives. By the way, you invest a large portion of your health budget in the cardiological centers where one can treat patients with myocardial infarction through expensive interventions that extend the lives of these patients. You are, of course, a member of the majority and you must also live with this compromise. However, it should be difficult for you to combine the postponement of the general smoking ban to 2014 with the investments you have made for 4.5 years in cardiology, cancer research and cancer treatments.

I read the reports again and it was worth it. Mrs. Minister, I have read that you wish that Belgium would not remain in the tail of the peloton, but that it would take the directive of Europe to heart and follow. I am not so home in the course, but I understood that. The legislative amendment proposal, which is now ahead, means that you move everything to 2014 and that you don’t even drive in the peloton. You do not drive backwards and it is even possible that you will not be driving over the final line in time.

Mr. President, you also said that we have taken a step forward. The majority is talking about a whole step forward. We can discuss this, but we do not agree with it anyway. You have a law here that will enter into force on 1 January 2010 and you are pleased with that small step forward. However, as a member of the majority, you will also have to agree to the postponement until 2014. This means that you take one step forward and two steps backwards, or in total one step backwards. With all your good intentions, you have also gone backwards.

The SP-A-Fraction is indeed a warm group. Small but fine.

The sp.a. group has submitted an amendment to the bill amending the law, which we wish to amend again to the date of 1 January 2010, so again according to the Directive of Europe.

I tell you now, the SP-A-Fraktion will abstain, both for the bill and for the bill amending the law.

Ms. De Maght has the word.

It is 12 u 01.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Minister, I will have to do my best to outperform the colleague, because I sometimes felt here that today it is still not clear what it is about, which target date one wants to reach through the proposals. The abstinence dates from before or after the summer, but it is not yet clear exactly what it is about.

For me, it is very clear what it is about.

The draft law on a smoke-free system for closed spaces accessible to the public and for the protection of workers and the draft law that must make adjustments in terms of dates, but not in terms of facilities, cannot take away our approval. Mr. Dedecker has already very clearly stipulated this.

I don’t think anyone in this hemisphere will claim that smoking is healthy. Everyone is convinced that it is unhealthy, I along with you. Nevertheless, the government’s urge to punch is very great and it is supposed to protect the population from the “smell of the speck”, as Mr. Dedecker so beautifully formulates it.

I have said it many times and I will continue to repeat it so that everyone understands what it is about: the fundamental economic freedom of the hospitality exploitant is compromised by the proposals presented here. The freedom of anyone who wants to smoke or does not want to smoke is also undermined.

Unfortunately, with the proposals on the table, there is no respect and no mutual understanding. However, there is an alternative, which I have already put forward. The alternative, for example, is that like in Spain – where health care is counting, but not more counting than the economy – the things that want to allow smoking to just display it. Thus the customers, both the smokers and the non-smokers, colleague Van den Bergh, know that very clearly before they enter. Non-smokers do not necessarily have to smoke passively. If they want to make that choice, it can be perfect if you allow the perpetrators to disclose their choice when one enters the case.

Today this possibility does not exist. You did not want to anticipate this, not even for the future.

It is also unclear what is expected of the hostel operators. What regulations will they have to respect, for example, when setting up a smoking room? I would like to point out once again that few beer cafes such as those described here have the spatial possibility to set up a smoking room. If there is already a possibility on the side of the street, there are a number of other things to consider not doing it, such as noise disturbances or clogging crashes due to the sink falling on the ground.

Today, operators are asked to apply a law that leaves so many questions unanswered that it is irresponsible that this legislation would apply from 1 January. As of today, 14 calendar days are counted.

In the treatment of these bills, at least said strange things have happened, not to say that the procedure that was followed is actually unseen.

The sketch has already been made here. There were legislative proposals from the House. Two years ago the cartel submitted a proposal. The cartel broke up and several proposals were made. Eventually, a proposal was approved. That proposal was amended by the Senate and came back. In fact, that proposal from the Senate – which has had the courage to formulate exactly when the law should come into force – is the same as what is presented here today. Only you put the responsibility to enforce the smoking ban on someone else, not the Parliament, and not on the members of Parliament.

I have some concerns in this regard.

The bill was dependent on the events at the time when it was to be discussed. I am referring to the June 2009 elections. At that time, it was not appropriate to discuss the introduction of the smoking ban from March 2009 onwards. Then we sat in the run-up to the elections and an honest communication about the party’s opinion might have cost voters.

Ultimately, the bill will be approved by the House. In this regard, it should be noted that, in fact, there is still no clarity about what is expected of the hospitality operators, except that from 1 January 2010 there will be a clear smoking ban, except for beer cafes, casinos and related entities. However, where food is eaten, it will no longer be allowed to smoke, unless a smoking room is provided. So much is clear. It is also the only thing that is clear.

Suddenly, after two years of majority discussions, a light emerges during the discussion of the proposal that came from the Senate. In response to the submission of an additional legislative proposal, the committee declares that the sector will be consulted. The sector will be consulted to “avoid unnecessary investments.”

That is just a real shame. After two years, there is suddenly the very brilliant invasion that it is necessary to talk to the sector, because apparently there is something wrong, not everyone agrees and not everyone is on the same line.

It borders the incredible. What happens is unthinkable. Nevertheless, an amendment is approved in the committee which, in fact, merely transfers the power to decide at what time the smoking ban will apply to another level. If, in particular, the smoking ban continues in 2012, the decision will either be taken by a royal decree by the Council of Ministers or, if the government is lucky and does not dare to make the decision itself, will be taken for them in 2014 by Europe.

According to the bill, the majority – this is also described in the very extensive memorandum of explanations, but in the legislative part of it, except for what I just mentioned, nothing can be found – through the smoking ban and the support of the VAT reduction of 12 % – the sector was, by the way, the requesting party to apply an even lower VAT rate – the hospitality sector, which is an important, economic sector, a maximum safeguard.

However, the proposal on the table shows that nothing is less true.

Mrs Van Broeckhoven is no longer present. She referred to a number of studies. Studies are statistics. Statistics are numbers. Figures are interpretable according to the user who wants to use or abuse them to defend and prove his position. I also based on research. Eighty percent of cafe visitors are smokers. Seventy-five percent of the total Belgian population are non-smokers.

There is no indication today – there has never been a questioning and it has ⁇ not been proven – that those 75 % non-smoking Belgians would go to cafés more because a smoking ban is being introduced, as we will impose here today. The two documents voted today, which in fact should lead to a short- and very long-term ban on smoking in the whole hospitality sector, suggest very much, but in fact do not establish anything and give no guarantees to the hospitality industry. All investments in that economically so fragile sector can be superfluous, insufficient or unnecessary, because nothing is clear, everything can, everything can, but it can also be that it is completely wrong.

Unbelievable but true, in the policy note of the minister we could read that the government plans controls from 2010. In the first three months from 1 January to 31 March, there will be 10 000 checks, to be carried out by the FOD Public Health, the FAVV. Over the past nine months, there are another 10,000 checks in the same catering business. The action would start in the city centers.

I have asked you several times about what will be checked. In fact, I have not received a concrete answer yet. How will it be controlled? I repeat it: the legislation as presented here today does not stipulate anywhere what is expected of the hospitality operators to guarantee that they can continue to function properly and make the necessary efforts to meet what you want.

Every party knows what it wants, but no one has the courage to put it on paper. What is happening here, in fact, testifies to cowardice, especially because the decision-making power is transferred to a Council of Ministers in a subsequent board, which will take a decision at KB. If he does not have the courage, it will at best have to be done by Europe, if it translates the ban into a directive.

I would dare to ask the majority parties to take on their responsibilities as Members of Parliament. Show the power of action and the intellectual honesty to speak out about this. In this case, I must confess that there have already been very many words but few actions, a lack of political courage, something you were so proud of, but very wrong.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Ministers, Dear colleagues, I will not have the capacity to theatralize my colleague of sp.a, who unfortunately is no longer present, but I will try to work in the spirit of concision. At this time, everyone will be satisfied.

You know my position. I continue and will continue to advocate both for the protection of non-smokers, in addition to the smokers of which much has been discussed today, in order to return to the spirit of these bills, but also to protect the workers of the horeca. For this purpose, only the general prohibition can be justified.

Public health issues must always be superior to economic issues, especially since everyone has developed their arguments on this matter but the arguments developed by some do not hold the way. More than a dozen European countries have already opted for a widespread ban on horeca. In this case, a new customer base was highlighted, namely non-smokers. Moreover, sales figures did not decrease, on the contrary.

There has also been a question of discrimination between the horeca sectors; we have already talked a lot about it in the committee. Another discrimination seems to me to be even more fundamental: that which targets workers. Indeed, today and tomorrow – not after tomorrow, I hope – some horeca workers will continue to be unintentionally exposed to smoke; unfortunately, they will suffer significant side effects.

We’ve already mentioned lung cancer, but we haven’t talked about breast cancer. Nevertheless, it is known that in horeca workers, we are witnessing an obvious explosion of breast cancers due to exposure to passive smoking. Add the cardiovascular and vascular diseases. For any other environmental toxic on the workplace, everything would have been implemented for a long time to eliminate it.

Let’s make – and I dare to do it today – a parallelism with the whole asbestos dossier. At one point, everyone stood up and said that all asbestos should be eliminated at the level of the workplace. I will allow myself this comparison with a product that can be much more easily removed from the workplace but also avoided in relation to the public health issue of both workers and non-smokers.

Mr. Speaker, we are often concerned about the level of microparticles that can be found in congestion because the issue is important at the level of public health. Even at the Law Street level, when there is a lot of congestion, the rate of microparticles is ⁇ high. But did you know that the rate of microparticles in a cafe where people smoke and where the doors are obviously closed is more than ten times higher than that of the street in full traffic jams. The comparison is sufficient for itself and the bets are therefore no longer to be demonstrated.

I do not know what we will say to non-smoking workers who in one, two, five or ten years will develop cancer or any other pathology associated with passive smoking. In any case, we will not be able to tell them that we did not know.

The opportunity is clearly a missed opportunity. This is especially a missed opportunity because the Senate had widely opened the door so that we could have a strong, firm position, which, of course, requires courage to advance towards a widespread ban in the horeca from 2012. I am sorry, the CDH as well. Like the CD&V, I must obviously see – we have seen it in the committee – that there is no longer a majority in favor of a widespread ban from 2012. In the absence of this majority, we will vote – because better this than nothing – to have a deadline because, without deadline, it is obviously even worse! The CDH will nevertheless continue to advocate for the entry into force as soon as possible, as early as 2012, and for not granting an additional deadline.

On the other hand, I will not vote in favour of the rejection of the text amended by the Senate because, like many of you who spoke tonight at the tribune, I have taken the Hippocratic oath.

I confess to you that voting for the postponement of the law as amended by the Senate would mean, for me, to renounce this oath which I gave now a few very long years ago. I have seen too many patients suffer and I refuse to support the rejection of an amended text.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, in this case, I do not know whether it is electoralism that has won or the lobby of cigarette smokers, but I know who has lost: they are those who, tomorrow, because of passive smoking, will develop diseases where it could have been avoided.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, if I had to summarize my feelings after all the work that has been done on this subject, I would say that I am angry, angry.

Why am I angry at the way we worked to ⁇ the result we know?

Consider the objective pursued relating to the protection of workers, and in particular workers in the horeca sector. We began by examining the proposal submitted by Mrs. Muylle and Mrs. Smeyers. On this occasion, we met with representatives of the Horeca, some of whom expressed their fears to us. We met with representatives of the middle classes as well as representatives of workers in that sector. Then we suspended our work because we were approaching regional elections; we felt that it was too difficult for some to bring this file on the eve of the said elections and that, under these conditions, we would result in a text that would not be sufficiently solid. So we suspended our work to resume it later so that we could have a meaningful text.

What do we see? That this period of interruption has not been used to realize, better meet concerns and find ways to reach a solution. Our goal of protecting horeca workers, as well as other workers, is not met, given the text that is finally proposed to us.

Ecolo and Green! They have always been in favor of progressive advancement. During the discussions, we did not demand the prohibition of smoking in all public places, including the places of the horeca, by 1 January 2010. Indeed, we considered that it was necessary to inform, help to set up the necessary devices and that from the moment we knew our goals, we could agree to move forward step by step. We have proposed the date of 2012. This was good because, at the EU level, the recommendation had set the deadline to 2012; therefore, the consistency was total at all levels.

So I can only be angry given that the change of this deadline and this progressive way of evolving is extended to July 2014. This means that the dynamics, the pressure that could have been put, the consideration of the cost of investments compared to an evolution aiming at the ban on smoking in the horeca sector are compromised, because the deadlines are extended and because, in doing so, we do not remain consistent with the objectives pursued.

Provocatively, I said in the committee that from the moment when the harm of tobacco is known, where it is considered that some workers will continue to be exposed to tobacco, it is necessary to be consistent until the end. It must be said that these workers, when they are exposed to tobacco as part of their work and the legislator leaves them subject to this exposure, at the limit, they must be integrated into the mechanisms of occupational illness and support.

Remember the workers exposed to asbestos and the difficulty we encountered with the asbestos lobbyists to recognize that this product was dangerous, that it caused occupational illness and that victims and passive asbestos victims had to be compensated! Today, some of these asbestos-related patients see their files rejected because they smoked and that, by doing so, they promoted the development of cancer. Therefore, it is not considered that their disease is due to asbestos! There is incoherence and disrespect of the people.

I am not a doctor but, as a citizen, I say that it is unbearable to leave people exposed to tobacco smoke and therefore to certain risks of serious diseases. This feeling is reinforced in my capacity as a member of Parliament because we have the capacity to be able to protect these people faster than expected.

I am angry because we know that tobacco kills but we also know that the current protective devices and the funds provided are not sufficient.

With regard to the social dimension, Mr. Dedecker said it did not support devices that cause exclusion. We must be honest, it is true that there are people in our neighborhoods who have as their only place of exit small cafes where everyone smokes. Didn't there be a way to take this reality into account and to say that by completely banning in 2012, we were also committed to make arrangements to meet these people, we were committed to consider the best way to bring solutions so that they do not find themselves without a place of exit?

It’s a bit like allowing tobacco in a cafe is enough to fulfill the obligation that is ours to avoid the isolation of a number of people. Again, we missed an opportunity because, on the fateful date, the same question will return because nothing will have been done to take this problem into account.

As for the economic dimension, Ecolo-Groen! He always said in committee that the horeca sector was doing well, or even better, with the smoking ban. But we have also always said that it is obvious that there are small cafes with a dozen smokers who will not have the ability to change customers, who will not have the ability to continue their business and who are therefore at risk of being in trouble. In comparison to this, we always suggested paths, even though they may not be the best. The fact of granting a deadline until July 2014 and saying in one sentence that we will take compensatory measures, so-called in the name of consultation with the sector, is also something that annoys me!

Specific proposals are on the table. At least a few of them could be included in the new law. Or then not come up with this new law in an emergency that makes us adopt a phrase that does not mean strictly anything and that does not allow concertation with the sector.

We had proposed to encourage, either through premiums or on the fiscal level, those who opted in advance to transform their establishment into a non-smoking establishment. We had also proposed to imagine how to help one whose business is in danger due to the end of his career, due to a non-renewable clientele, by allowing him a replacement income or by offering him an accompaniment for the end of his activity. All this was refused.

The horeca sector also offers trails. For example, the Brussels horeca suggests using special beers and organizing a tour dedicated to these beers around small establishments that are known to have a new clientele. This would allow for the transitional phase. But all this is put aside, since we have not heard them about this and we absolutely want to vote urgently today a text that says only that we will take action. Remember, I am angry here too.

Finally, a last aspect of analysis, regarding the lobby of cigarette smokers. These proposals are not aimed at reducing tobacco consumption but to protect workers, to protect non-smokers by banning smoking in public places. However, behind all this, there is a lobby that has long wanted to make believing that tobacco was harmless and that now tries to gain a new clientele. The provisions you are going to adopt today that allow smoking until 2014 are a boost for the cigarette lobby that will be able to invest in certain places so that many people, especially young people, start smoking, which will create a captive customer base – we know the difficulties to quit smoking.

The best weapon for the tobacco lobby is to start smoking. Be sure, they will devote all their energy to it, as they do in the music festivals and the major stadiums in which they invest.

This belief, relayed by the tobacco lobbies and relayed here by some, relayed also by Mr. Di Rupo when he changed his mind, is to push to smoke, because smoking relieves in moments of stress, that to laugh, have fun and drink a drink, it is good to smoke his cigarette. No, it is quite possible to drink a drink and have fun without smoking. It is our duty to say it. Just as it is perfectly possible to have fun without cannabis, if there is only this phrase that can please you!

Finally, I will finish my speech by paying tribute to a person; it is a link outside the tobacco file. In fact, just recently, I made contact with the asbestos lobby, like other speakers, and we recently respected a minute of silence for former parliamentarians who died.

Today, we have buried an old gentleman named Michel Vernier. He fought for us today to have an asbestos fund. He fought, he counted every day the asbestos-related deaths at Coverit; he fought every day, in parliament, with us, so that we could protect them. The fact that he is dead today really makes me think that we must absolutely avoid this kind of intellectual dishonesty; which Mr. Mr. Mr. was accusing me at the time. and Bacquelaine.

Intellectual dishonesty lies primarily in not making the right decisions at the right time; but today is the right time to protect people and to prevent them from dying unjustly and excessively, because of tobacco. Individual freedom is not only limited to the harm we do to others by smoking, but also to solidarity. From the moment we all here want to be compensated, helped and treated through the money we put into health care and social security, we also have a responsibility to ensure that the cost of social security is not wasted by encouraging people to take risks for their health while they can avoid them, including discouraging them and protecting them from tobacco.

I am the last speaker, but I assure you, I will not be very long.

As mentioned in my colleague Colette Burgeon’s report, the debate on the bill that concerns us tonight has been at least passionate, whether in the parliamentary traves, in the media or in the public. We saw it again tonight in the plenary session. This question has shaken, shaken and inspired many analyses and many comments. This seems to me quite normal.

The objective pursued, namely the progressive introduction of a total smoking ban in public places and more ⁇ in the horeca sector, is a major public health objective, an objective which, in my opinion, cannot be questioned.

On the other hand, I confess to questioning myself about some comments or analyses that have been made in recent weeks on this case because what has nourished the anger of some is the fact of progressivity. By reading the interviews of some of our colleagues or listening to some analysts, we wanted to give the impression that Parliament was about to take a step back in the fight against smoking. I’m not talking here about associations or honest people who have been fighting the harmful effects of smoking for years. They showed a disappointment there because things didn’t go as fast as they wanted, and that, I fully understand.

These associations and these people know how much our country has progressed in this area in recent years. I would like to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, that this is thanks to the will first of Minister Demotte and then of Minister Onkelinx.

It is on the initiative of the PS that the fight against tobacco has been substantially strengthened since 2004, with concrete advances. Launch in early 2004 of a federal anti-smoking plan with, even more concrete, a ban on the sale of tobacco to children under the age of 16, a new health warning policy, namely the obligation to mention the Tabac-Stop number on all tobacco products, the obligation to attach a photo or color illustration that we all know and a warning on all cigarette packages, the extension of the prohibition of smoking extended to certain public places, the improvement of accessibility to methods of withdrawal, the creation of a anti-tobacco fund to support anti-smoking actions and so on.

I stop here. All these measures, which are intended to combat smoking affairs, were taken at the initiative of the PS.

Dear colleagues, the texts that will be submitted to our vote right now represent a fairly consistent, even major, advance. As of January 1, 2010, smoking will be banned wherever food is offered. Customers will be able to eat without being disturbed by smoke. The timing is now known. A deadline has been set. Small coffee makers and their customers will therefore have time to prepare. I hope that this prohibition will come into effect soon. Thanks to the text that will be voted – I hope – we will have the opportunity to intervene, as early as 2012, to take action. So things are clear about the timing and the goal to be achieved.

For our part, we did not want, unlike some of our colleagues, to deny the economic aspect. We did not want a text that does not care about the realities of a sector whose chronic difficulties are aggravated by the crisis we are going through.

Wrongly or wrongly, the abyss sector shouted “help.” We had to take this into account and move forward in a thoughtful, realistic and concrete way. It was necessary that the text we were going to propose could have everyone’s agreement because a ban that would not be accepted by all would not be well respected.

I hope, therefore, Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, that once the big media flight is over, we will all come together to vote in favour of a two-stage text, ⁇ , but which constitute major steps towards our public health goal.

I will not mention my position; half of the speakers referred to it. Everyone knows that I was a supporter of a text as radical as possible against smoking. Every year there are 50,000 new cases of cancer in our country. Every day, people die from cancer and one of the major causes is tobacco.

I would like to tell Mr. Dedecker says it’s good to attend coffee shops. It is also necessary to meet men and women from this country. It is also interesting to see what is happening in hospitals.

For the rest, the 2012 and 2014 deadlines caused a lot of interest. Most of the groups in this parliament voted in favour of a general ban in 2012 if possible and for some, if not possible, in 2014. Not much has been said about what will happen on January 1, 2010. Contrary to what Van Broeckhoven said, this is not without importance, since the measure will concern some 10,000 establishments, which will have to, within a few days, either continue to offer a small catering and, therefore, introduce a total smoking ban within them, or change the direction and remove the small catering from the offer to the customer.

A few days and it will not be easy! This is why the Department of Public Health has developed a communication strategy for these small ⁇ . A website has been created, with an email address for contact. A call center will be in place from January 4, 2010. Information mail will be sent, in the hours following the vote, both to the horeca sector and the sports sector, a whole series of sports entries being concerned by this new legislation.

We worked on information sessions for department controllers. For at least the first quarter of 2010, the inspectors of the Department of Public Health will roam the country. Supported quite quickly by the AFSCA controllers, they will first have a mission of informers. They will go to the meeting to explain, inform and convince.

In the information sessions, we asked them to say very clearly that the 2010 stage is just a step, that the vast majority of parliament has declared itself voluntary and that a text with a deadline will even be voted for a short-term general ban. It is important to remind them about the investments they may want to consent to. These inspectors will then travel the country to meet the establishments. They will advise, discuss and inform. Then they will write a letter recalling everything that needs to be done in the establishment to comply with the new provision by mentioning a deadline. The deadline will be related to the investments planned by the institution. These agents will then go back to check whether the adjustments have been made correctly before sanctioning.

I call on Parliament, especially those who have advocated a voluntary policy against tobacco, to be coherent, also in this difficult phase on the ground. What is happening here in the discussions is one thing. On the ground, in the establishments, they will have to program from day to day the smoking ban to their clients. The discussions will then be of a different nature and we will have to be on the ground to explain too. Therefore, I call on all parliamentarians to carry out this work alongside the controllers who will be on the ground. I will soon come up with an assessment. I think I will be able to give you an assessment of the work of the inspectors in the course of May. I will tell you how this goes for the realization of the new provisions that we decide today.

I am also volunteer to start work as soon as possible so that the general ban can take place in 2012, since it was between 2012 and 2014 that we scheduled it following a consultation with the sector. I am willing to start consultation with the sector as soon as possible. For the rest, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that last night and this morning we spent almost five hours on a debate on a public health topic.

I would like to emphasize this because I think that it is with such debates that we can awaken awareness of the public health emergencies that we must face in the short term.

July 9, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

First, I give the floor to Mr Geerts for the report.

A purely practical question on the order of work. Can you reassure me that Ms. Onkelinx will be present at the important debate on the smoking ban? With all sympathy for Minister Magnette, but the relevant competent minister is of course Mrs. Onkelinx. I assume that you will give the Chamber the favor that Mrs. Onkelinx can be in our midst for a moment.

Your wishes were immediately heard. Just then I was angry, but now my name is Mrs. Onkelinx who is just on time, warmly welcome in this Room.

Mr Geerts, you have the word for bringing your report.

Mr. Speaker, I think that every political group will take the floor today, so it seems to me wise to refer to the written report and wait for what the different speakers will say.

of which act.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, you know without a doubt that this debate has been ongoing for a while.

I would like to start with an important punctual question, which is unusual in a large thematic debate. It’s not my habit, but I want to do this today as an exception to the rule.

I will quote a few newspaper reports about the new bill, as it may soon be voted by this House. “New smoking ban is rampant.” “CD&V hopes that Europe will soon impose a general smoking ban.” “The new smoking ban creates the same problems as the previous one.” “Judge’s ruling puts a smoking ban on the slope.” “By smoking arrest, any outbuilder can go to court.”

Mrs. Minister, a first punctual question I want to ask you in this fundamental debate is whether we will not do meaningless work in the future. You know as well as me and the colleagues who followed the case that the Antwerp Court of Appeal recently issued a judgment. The Court argues that the 2005 Royal Decree creates a very serious problem, in particular that the constitutional principle of equality would have been violated.

I would like to expressly ask you whether it makes sense to continue today the work as it is on our agenda, given the decision of the Court of Appeal of Antwerp where the eminent lawyer and VLOTT senator Hugo Coveliers has done a very meritorious job as a lawyer.

The Court’s ruling clearly states that there is a problem of discrimination when we treat workers who are entitled to protection measures against smoking differently in dining facilities than workers in drinking facilities.

Mrs. Minister, you know as well as I do that this will be the new situation when this bill – presumably – is approved by the majority in Parliament.

Mrs. Minister, what is your reaction to the judgment that I just referred to? That is my first crucial question. What are the concrete consequences for the amended smoking law as we are likely to pass later? Does it make sense for us to conduct the debate today in the plenary session, knowing that we still have all sorts of other statements above us, if we do not take into account the judgment of the Court of Antwerp? I hope that today we will get an answer from you to those questions.

On the general lines, we agree. I think everyone understands that public health is a priority and that smoking is not healthy. I cannot imagine that in this Chamber we would find one or more colleagues who contradict me on this point. However, our group has always warned that too many and too explicitly stigmatized smokers. We refuse to participate in this, because in the long run, one comes to a kind of health dogmatism. I think we should give people the right to smoke a cigarette and use smoking items.

We agree on public health concerns – smoking is not healthy – but please stop overly stigmatizing smokers. These people also have some rights. In some places, however, a cigarette is still allowed from time to time. It is part of our social life and the social reality and I hope it will continue to be.

From that idea of freedom, I want to stop our tendency as mandatarists, to always want to arrange everything. The catering sector must be aware of the strains in which we end up after today’s vote. Everyone who has read your Cancer Plan carefully should already know where we are going. You also did not put under chairs or benches during the committee work that you want to land in the future with a total smoking ban. In this we differ in opinion. We have always said that we are not in favour of an absolute smoking ban in the hospitality industry. I will later explain in more detail why.

It is good that the hospitality sector is aware of where we are going today, as the chances are very real that the European Commission will impose that obligation by 2012. The House will therefore be obliged in the coming years to implement what the European Commission will likely impose on us.

A third element in the debate is that we all, beyond the boundaries of majority and opposition, agreed on the fact that the arrangement, as it was drawn up by your predecessor Minister Demotte, showed quite a few flaws. I think it is an understatement if I say that the earlier scheme, I refer, among other things, to the 2005 KB, was difficult to apply and clearly showed very sharp flaws.

I could also refer to the notorious 33% rule that applied to sales. I could also refer to the 50m2 rule for ordinary cafes. Anyone who has followed the file in the past knows that those rules were difficult to apply and gave rise to very large grey zones. Ultimately, this led to heavy debates with the auditors of the FOD Public Health, who, whether or not very strictly, in a flou artistique, went to control the hospitality sector.

Mrs. Minister, what we must expressly dare to say, that is a real concern of our group, is that the catering industry asks rightly, and we support that, to seriously take into account the costs incurred in the past. Many who are active in the catering industry have made all sorts of efforts over the past few years to install smoke rooms, place drainage facilities, and so on. It is no more than logical that they assume that we give them a little sustainability guarantee and that we at least recognize that those past investments should not be lost. We must take this into account at a minimum. Our group was therefore won for a positive incentive. Instead of imposing new strict rules on the hospitality sector, we might have chosen to positively stimulate the hospitality industry. I continue to say that there is indeed a market for smoke-free cafes and restaurants, but that an incentive might have been better than imposing new rules.

We are constantly falling into regulations. We, as Members of Parliament, believe that it is important to make as many rules as possible, which we then change with the regularity of a clock, rather than asking ourselves whether it is necessary to impose new obligations and whether it would not be appropriate to provide positive incentives, for example through fiscal measures.

You are here today as the representative of the government. I would therefore expressly express my indignation over the fact – the file should be linked to the present file – that the long-promised 6% for the hospitality sector, which is the famous VAT reduction from 21% to 6%, for all sorts of, supposedly budgetary reasons, continues to be placed on the roof of the current government.

On behalf of our group, I would like to again expressly refer to our legislative proposals on this subject. I would like to point out that it is more than time for the current government to fulfill its promises made to the hospitality sector. A reduction in VAT could have been an arrangement. After all, if the government chooses – this is clearly not our choice – to impose new obligations on the hospitality sector, it could have at least emphasized the fair play to, in compensation, also work on the promised 6% VAT reduction.

In times of economic crisis, such a reduction is more than necessary. Anyone who knows the dossier somewhat also knows that in the hospitality sector in this regard there could be quite some reward effects realized.

Where have we finally landed? We have arrived at the fact that there is indeed an incompatibility between food and smoking.

Honestly speaking, the Flemish Interest is satisfied. We can take note with some satisfaction of the point where we have landed with the bill as it is presented now. It is perfectly in line with our own bill. In the context of health, we are also convinced that food and smoking do not go together. With that part of the present regulation, we could be satisfied. It makes for a small step forward. The partial inconsistency of the previous scheme is removed by the proposal in question. The proposal also provides for some administrative simplification.

However, in the second part – you hear me already using the word “truer” – we are mildly expressed very amazed at the fact that the smoking regime as it now exists for the drinking establishments and the cafes in the narrow sense of the word, remains in the same way as it existed in the past. At this point, we do not follow the majority at all. We would – I will return to it later – have much rather seen that in the cafés – the ordinary, small public cafés – a number of choices had been left and absolute freedom had been played for them. In our opinion, there is also a market for this, just as there is a market for smoke-free cafes. There is also a market for those who want to choose smoke extraction installations or for smoke rooms. There is also a market for those who want to introduce a complete smoking ban.

A number of colleagues will undoubtedly make the technical note that the preceding with the pending, existing royal decrees is already partially possible. Honestly, I am not really convinced of this. It would have been much better if we had clearly included the option in the bill, so that any ambiguity in this regard would have been removed.

In that sense, we have a little more confidence in the free market than you as a socialist, Mrs. Minister. This will not surprise you. We wanted to see incentives rather than new rules again.

Mrs. Minister, I also remain in this presentation, as in the committee, urging a very rapid evaluation of the new law, which is likely to be voted later in the House. Unless we say that we should not evaluate because we already know that the European Commission will impose new obligations on us from 2012, I continue to insist that the new law will be evaluated very quickly. That’s good, even if it’s just to control ourselves. Furthermore, we may then have to find that the new law, like the legislation of the past, once again plagues that it has no name.

I would like to refer to our own bill, Mrs. Minister. We have said very clearly that the Flemish Belang is not in favour of the absolute introduction of a general smoking ban. In this regard, indeed, we differ very explicitly. When it comes to the combination of food and smoking, we are willing to take a step. Smoking and eating do not go together. It is therefore a positive element in the present document that a part of our thesis is indeed supported by the majority.

I have just said that for the cafes and drinking facilities in the narrow sense of the word, we do not follow the majority thesis. The obligations and limitations with the 50 square meters remain. We would have preferred a little more freedom.

In conclusion, Mrs. Minister, I am a bit afraid that this proposal is again a compromise. Anyone who has followed the file knows that it was very difficult to find a compromise in this majority. In this speech, I dare to say very explicitly that for the Flemish Interest it is once again a half-strange compromise. I did not expect anything else from this majority. There remains great uncertainty. The ruling of the Court of Appeal of Antwerp, to which I have just referred, already clearly indicates that we also risk new problems with the new legislation, which will be voted here later. There remains uncertainty for some catering operators and there remains uncertainty for some customers. In that sense, we are disappointed and we will of course not approve the present arrangement.

Ms. Muylle requested the floor for an interruption.

Mr. Bultinck, I do not understand your statement correctly. Here is your proposal number. 1763 for me, which you submitted on 28 January 2009. When I read that proposal, I think that for almost two-thirds it is a copy-paste of the amendment submitted here today by the majority. You speak very clearly about the current discrimination in dining cafes and restaurants to which the 33 percent rule applies. You say very clearly that food and smoking do not go together and that the ban should be lifted. This is about all the issues that we are going to vote on today.

When you talk about the cafés, I do not see any accompanying measures. Your proposal is quite short. You say you just want to leave the choice for cafes. You can choose to make your cafe smoke-free, you can install a smoke zone or you can install a separate smoke room. Mr. Bultinck, today there is no cafe in the way of taking that decision with the current arrangement. If a particular cafe decides that it wants to be smoke-free, then the buyer can make that decision today. I feel like you are blowing warm and cold at the same time. In the proposal that is voted here today, 80% of what you propose in your document 1763 is also found in the amendment that we are putting here to vote today.

Mr. Speaker, of course, I expect to be able to replicate this.

Colleague Muylle, I had expected these words and I am therefore not entirely surprised. I would much rather have seen a clear arrangement as described in our bill, even if it was only to deviate from a number of royal decrees that indeed leave room for play, but in which also the limits of 50 m2 and the like remained. Current royal decrees such as those applicable to the drinking facilities continue to exist. You will remember that we also made it clear during the committee work that all those absurd rules of restriction, for example the rule of about 50 m2, whether it is a smoking room or a smoke extraction installation, should be abolished.

In additional order, there is a new element since the approval of the entire document as submitted by the majority, namely the important judgment of the Antwerp Court of Appeal. We ask why it makes sense to approve a new regulation here today at a time when it is already obvious that a number of lawyers – and not of the few – will argue that the new regulation is rampant on all sides. We will see what the Minister will reply to my specific question on this subject later. So I remain with the question of whether it makes sense to approve here quickly a cracking compromise between the majority if it already shows that this will be legally challenged and that a number of discriminations will continue to exist.

Some members also acknowledge this. Colleague Muylle, I quote you from The Standard: “There are indeed some new problems, some new grey zones.” In short, from the majority, it is already admitted today that the new arrangement is rampant. I would rather choose no new arrangements. It would then be better to do its useful work, given the fact that there is already a clear judgment that has done groundbreaking work in that area.

Mrs. Muelle would like to comment on one thing.

Colleague Bultinck, I can only state that your proposal does not eliminate discrimination either, not at all. You leave the freedom of choice and therefore creates an even greater ambiguity.

By the way, when I speak today of unresolved matters – I did not speak of grey zones – it is, as I will repeat later in my presentation, about the youth homes, about public health, but not about the text that is clearly on the table here today.

I will listen attentively to your speech, Mrs. Muylle.

I am trying to get the attention of the Minister. I will listen very attentively to the answer, Mrs. Minister, to the first and very clear crucial question: what will you do with the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Antwerp, which has very clearly stated that there is a problem with regard to the principle of equality. Does it then make a fundamental sense that we adopt new legislation today, knowing that it is already in trouble before it is adopted here today?

Mrs. Minister, colleagues, I think I have made it clear what the position is and what the attitude of our group will be. I think it was already clear from my speech: it speaks for itself that we will not approve the semi-fortunate compromise that is presented today.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, dear colleagues, I say to you from the beginning that we will vote on this bill which is the subject of consensus at the majority level. That being said, I do not claim that this proposal is perfect. We know that we are still at a stage of evolution and therefore in a likely transitional period.

This proposal is, in my view, undoubtedly a progress compared to the previous situation. In fact, it removes the grey zone in which establishments were located that ⁇ a turnover of less than 30% resulting from the supply of food and prepared dishes. It also eliminates a whole series of controversies. Control will be facilitated. From now on, everyone will know clearly that where you eat, you no longer smoke.

But we are far from a perfect situation. In terms of preventing smoking or, in any case, reducing the toxic effects of tobacco, we can imagine subsequent steps with people who could find themselves in a private but collective space by being immunized against the effects of tobacco.

However, I can’t help but wonder whether the method of regulation and prohibition is definitely the only tool we have to dictate behaviors. It is here a almost philosophical question, but also a "angle of attack" of propositions relating to this object.

Progressive accountability in this area is probably more effective and more effective in the long run. Everything cannot be solved by the method of prohibition and regulation: what behavior must then be stopped? What is the arbitrary who presides over the determination of behaviors that should be subject to prohibitions and regulations compared to those that escape any measure of regulation or prohibition?

Responsibility is probably the best prevention system in the field of public health for various cases.

I am sure that this law allows any coffee owner or manager to decree a smoking ban in their own establishment. Therefore, the proposal developed by the representative of the Vlaams Belang has no object: in the current situation, any coffee owner can decide whether his establishment should remain non-smoking or likely to receive inveterate smokers.

This is an incentive policy to be carried out with regard to coffee makers and breweries. It seems to me possible to imagine incentive systems that gradually make sure coffee owners perceive certain benefits from decriminalizing their non-smoking coffee. One could ⁇ , always in a prevention policy, introduce a kind of quality label, which would not only concern smoking, to be awarded to coffee makers who would agree to adopt various rules in their establishment that aim at the overall quality of the place and that are favourable to the users of these cafes.

The amendment submitted, in particular by the ecologists, goes somewhat in this direction by granting a support premium. It would be worth elaborating.

So why not vote immediately since the amendment has been submitted? At some point, we need a majority that decides to move things in the right direction.

We have arrived there. I said it: it is far from being perfect, it is a step. I think we will go further. European recommendations will make this development necessary or European directives will become more precise on this subject. I think we are going in the right direction.

The best way to prevent a project from succeeding is to demand that it be perfect. This project is not perfect, but it enables some progress in this sector that is in difficulty. I don’t want to balance economic difficulties and prevention in public health. It is always a bit delicate to operate this type of approximation or comparison of "compensations".

But it is true that the horeca sector is facing many difficulties: more than 1,500 establishments went bankrupt in 2008. There were twice as many bankruptcies during the first five months of 2009 as during the same period in 2008. There are clearly growing difficulties in this sector. This is why we are so committed to the reduction of VAT, whatever the OECD says, in the horeca sector. It is often said that the OECD is a supposition of liberal theses. You can see that this is not always the case!

I have already submitted this amendment to the committee so that it can be included in the discussion. What is striking in the current system, with the tax support measures that were adopted during the first restrictions on tobacco use in the horeca – supporting investments for the creation of a smoker and the establishment of other equipment required to be able to smoke – is that the tenant who invested in this type of equipment is more supported than the one who invested in rearranging his establishment under the smoking prohibition.

The time to reflect on this amendment and the support measures in favour of tenants who opt for the non-smoker could have been taken. There is still a short moment before the votes and I think it would be important to give as a message that we want to support those who, on their own initiative, choose this approach.

On the other hand, you note that prohibition is constantly used while there is also accountability to guide behaviors. I can share this concept for a whole range of areas. The difficulty, with regard to tobacco, is that the smoker, if he is responsible for himself, at the same time uncomfortable those who are next to him and who must suffer the smoke of that cigarette. In this case, responsibility is not enough. Workers and consumers must be protected.

I fully agree with this point of view. I think that the non-smoker himself also has the ability to assert his own responsibility by not attending cafes that are the prey of a smoking abuse. Responsibility plays in both directions: both for the one who smokes and who may not have to do so and for the one who does not smoke, but who goes to places where he knows he will be in contact with tobacco smoke. It is part of individual behaviors and freedoms to try to manage their own behaviors as best as possible to suffer the least toxic effects.

However, if I fully agree with the spirit underlying your amendment on the support premium, I consider it to be insufficient. Per ⁇ it would be necessary to determine with the Public Health sector and the Economic Affairs sector a true quality label that would be awarded to institutions open to the public that would meet a number of criteria. This measure would be accompanied by tax incentives (primes or other). This initiative would deserve a broader debate than the only support premium policy. This is a way of thinking that I think is appropriate.

Mr. Bacquelaine, you mentioned, in my opinion, rightly, the difficulties facing the hospitality sector. I think we are all concerned about this.

The phenomenon introduced by this amendment, namely the deviation from the initial proposal, will ensure that in some of the cafes it will still be allowed to smoke while in other cafes it will no longer be allowed to smoke. If there is a market for coffee shops for smokers, and there will be, coffee shops with a smoking ban, about half of the sector, will be in a competitive disadvantage compared to the rest of the sector.

I think you will intensify the problem that the hospitality industry is already facing today for a part of the cafes. If, on the other hand, we impose the ban all at once for the whole sector, they would all fight with equal weapons.

The difference between restaurant and coffee and the competition between the two are elements that should also hold our attention. It seems to me that we are moving towards the goal, namely the global ban. We are in an intermediate phase. We can conduct an incentive policy both in terms of taxes and bonuses, so that, spontaneously, coffee shops decide not to smoke. Gradually, we are getting closer to the goal that everyone wants. This is a first step. This is a progression compared to the previous situation. We will support this proposal!

Just in the period when that sector is struggling, you will put a significant part of the sector in a worse competitive position over the rest. What is the ratio behind it? The initial proposal was equal to everyone before the law, the whole sector. Now you cut that in two and thus take a number of competitive weapons from the hands of a portion of the sector. I do not understand that from a liberal party.

Mr. Bacquelaine, that is not true. I also disagree with the argument.

The hospitality federation and many self-employed organizations say that when one stops smoking today in dining facilities and dining cafes, there is room for a new audience such as families with children. Even growth was observed. A dozen dining cafes from a pilot project that has banned smoking see their food sales even increase as a completely new target audience is addressed and comes to their dining cafes.

I am convinced that many things will benefit when they make that choice.

Mr. Speaker, I wish Mrs. Muylle was right, but a study by the NSZ shows that 7 out of 10 catering ⁇ would choose a meal-free cafe. I wish Mrs. Muylle was right, but due to the inequality of treatment and discrimination, some cases are forced to ...

As for this exchange of ideas, Mr. Bacquelaine is registered and has the word. When one asks for an interruption, the speaker must replicate and there should be no new debate between the others. Ms. Muylle has interrupted the speaker on this point three times. I propose that Mr. Bacquelaine end his presentation now.

I have finished my speech. I simply said that we will vote on this proposal because it constitutes an advance compared to the previous proposal. This in no way removes the search for an even more favorable evolution, which would push all establishments open to the public to be smoking-free. This is the goal that we must pursue together more on an incentive mode rather than on the way of prohibition.

I have a practical question, Mr. Speaker. I am a little surprised. We have heard only two members of the majority and I already hear a contradiction, in its softest expression.

I have a practical question to you as the President of the Chamber. There is a strong rumor that there would also be a majority amendment, or even an amendment of a majority party, namely CDH. Can you, as the Chairman of the Chamber, confirm whether or not that amendment has been received by your services? If that is the case, the debate will naturally get different dimensions.

There is no amendment, Mr. Bultinck, at least not from the majority group you refer to, the CDH. Mr. Brotcorne also shakes his head in denial.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, This question should have called for a clear and unambiguous answer. Yes, in terms of public health, a clear and clear ban is the necessary response in the fight against passive or active smoking. But there are also exceptional situations that cannot be ignored, which must accompany and which must accommodate certain imperatives.

After a year of debates, some members of the Public Health Committee are now frustrated by the compromise found. It is clear that in terms of public health, nothing can yet justify today that it is acceptable that consumers and especially workers are exposed to passive smoking in a recurring and prolonged manner. We all in this assembly know the dramatic consequences of this exposure on health.

However, in order to be effective and respected, it is better that a measure is well accepted. The current climate ⁇ does not allow for the necessary serenity. To be quite honest, my group would have preferred that the commission opt for a widespread ban to strengthen the fight against passive or active smoking but also for a question of equity among workers. However, my group also does not ignore the concerns and concerns expressed by the sector. That is why we have joined ourselves to an intermediate solution that allows us to move forward both in our desire to reduce smoking and in the way of accepting the measure by the industry.

What are the advances? We are pleased that legislation soon into force – on 1 January 2010, which is a first step forward from the initial proposal – will ban cigarettes from all closed public places where people eat. Thus, a coffee that today offers non-pre-packaged foods and whose shelf life date is less than three months will have to choose within six months between continuing to offer catering and in this case become a non-smoking coffee, and continue to admit the cigarette but can no longer offer only chips, peanuts or other foods of this type.

The work of the inspectors on the ground will of course be simplified. It will no longer be a question of checking in the account books whether the catering offered by the coffee represents more or less 1/3 of its turnover. They will only have to check if sandwiches, omelets or chips are offered to customers. The progress is therefore indisputable. Here we take a first step.

That is why we advocate that, in the near future, we can finally proceed to a widespread ban, as is already the case in countries that our fellow citizens will join massively during this summer period, namely France, Italy, etc.

That said, it is not a matter for us to support an amendment aimed at compensating for this ban by tax premiums, a possible right to unemployment, etc.

We need to be consistent in this matter. Or, one is convinced, as long as a study does not state the contrary, that the measure will not disrupt the sector and that, as is the case in Ireland or Great Britain, the attendance will not decrease, on the contrary, and, in this case, no premium should be granted. Or, it is considered that the crisis will be significant and that the ban will result in the closure of small cafes. In this case, instead of granting unemployment to self-employed, let us decide to postpone the measure. In the logic of some, we would be chained by offering economic unemployment to employees!

Mrs. Burgeon, I do not understand you. You say that you will not accept amendments that could facilitate the transition for those who would face difficulties. We know – you have just said – that they will be few. And at the same time, you do not dare to assume the fact that it is necessary to stop smoking in these places and you refuse to set a deadline so that everyone knows from when the measure will apply. I don’t understand what the socialist group’s position is about smoking prohibition. You are entering into a compromise process that, of course, allows you to move forward, but that does not allow you to position yourself in relation to the elements that are on the table.

The outcome of the commission hearings is clear: from the moment the sector asks to take a small step, it was necessary to be attentive to the question.

The crisis is the source of many problems faced by small farmers. We do not live in a closed world. We must listen to the demands of the industry.

In terms of public health, this would clearly be the best solution. However, in addition to this, it was necessary to take into account these workers and listen to what the industry was asking for. As with many laws, a compromise had to be found. Maybe not everyone will be satisfied. However, this is a first step and above all a simplification for inspectors.

I reiterate my wish to see all workers of the Horeca soon protected from the harm of passive smoking. I also want to ensure that they will always have a job. I therefore welcome the progress that we are now allowed to make and the positive signal that we can give by voting this text, in terms of protecting workers, fighting passive smoking, simplifying legislation and eliminating the discrimination that the current regulation entails. This is a step in the right direction. That is why my group will vote on the text that is proposed to us, with the exception of one member who will abstain to remind us that we must continue to work and move towards a total ban, at the right time and as soon as possible!

Mr. President, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, now we are discussing the bill proposed by Mr. Van den Bergh and myself, concerning a general arrangement for smoke-free, closed spaces accessible to the public and for the protection of workers from tobacco smoke.

In March 2008, after a number of hearings followed by the colleagues of the Public Health Committee, you launched your cancer plan, holding 32 measures for preventive and curative care, including, among other things, the refund of smoking cessation methods and the appointment of more tobaccoologists.

You have repeatedly stressed that only a general smoking ban, both in the workplace, in the hospitality industry and in all public places, would really benefit public health.

Driven by the cancer plan proposed by the Minister at the time, Mr. Van den Bergh, Mrs. Smeyers and I submitted a proposal based on two major objectives. Our first goal was to address public health in two ways. First, protecting non-smokers, and, secondly, reducing the number of smokers, especially among young people, and reducing the influx of young people.

I will not overlook the hearings held within the framework of the Cancer Plan and this proposal, but we all then heard from various doctors-specialists that it turned out that smokers are two to three times more likely to develop lung cancer, oral and esophageal cancer, cardiovascular disease, respiratory problems, dental problems and so I can continue for a while.

We continue to pump millions of euros in the treatment of such diseases, without actually doing anything to the source, to the cause of all this.

A second argument is the problem of passive smoking, also in the workplace. It was one of the first KBs in which it was assumed that the right to a smoke-free workplace belongs to everyone, thus also to the employees in the hospitality industry. It was from this first viewpoint of public health that we submitted this proposal.

The second reason was everything that had to do with discrimination. It has already been mentioned. The previous legislation consisted of a set of KBs, various KBs that followed each other in different periods and that make up the current legislation. We must have determined that those KBs in the field cause a lot of problems. This was especially the case in the field of controls. During the hearing with the people of the FOD Public Health, as well as with the auditors of the Federal Food Agency, we have been able to establish that the KBs are unclear, that there is a lot of discrimination and that they are very difficult to control.

One of the issues discussed here today is the conscious one-third rule, the 30% rule, which applies. I remember the story of an inspector, about restaurants where there are sixty people sitting to eat in the afternoon, while the check of the billing shows that one remains below 30%, and about the competitive disadvantage over a restaurant next to it, where one can eat just the same thing, but where one is correct and where a smoking ban is applied. For such a system that leads to discrimination – which has also been shown in the debate in the committee – a solution needs to be found.

However, there were other arguments, such as the youth homes. I come from Roeselare. We have a very strong youth activity. I see a lot of social work lost there today. That is very regrettable. We have social workers who are very committed, especially to assisting some alcohol addicted young people and also young people with drug problems. We have noticed that after the introduction of the scheme in 2007 many of those young people disappeared from us. They just went back to the station neighborhood. They went there to a café and came back into contact with the public who provided them with the drugs or relatives. We saw a lot of young people decline again and a lot of effort disappeared.

We then see a phenomenon that apparently comes mainly from West Flanders, which, in my opinion, is ⁇ not permissible, but understandable. In order to preserve that social work for a part, many youth centers began to introduce a strong drink license, which actually equated them with a café, precisely to keep that social work and social care with them.

I also mention the whole problem of the sports canteens. Every one of you has some kind of associate with the volunteer associations, and you see that many of these volunteer associations often have to have the income they get from their dining rooms. Well, after a lot of competitions it turned out – we did some inquiries about this – that sales in sports cantines have dropped by a third. This also means less income. After the competitions – it is also the social event of the sport – one no longer hangs in the canteen, but one goes much faster to a café where you can smoke. Therefore, one is no longer always hanging in the cantine of the association and that is not a good signal.

Mrs. Muylle, do you now provide that a smoking room can be installed in a sports canteen? Is that right?

and yes.

Which fourth provincial club can pay for that?

Mr. Geerts, it is true, but the clubs are not obliged to install a smoking room. We have the possibility to install a smoking room, let in our proposal. That is correct. However, the Minister has proven in figures that about 6% of restaurants and other establishments have set up a smoking room between 0.5% and 1% of smokers. If the cantines want to do that, then they can. If it is up to me, then I also think that we should not make this discrimination. If youth homes and parish halls can install a smoking room, then sports cantines can do so for me.

That discrimination was a second reason why we submitted our proposal. Our conclusion was, therefore, that to make everything clearer, clearer and fairer, a general smoking ban was the only possibility. It was not our intention to stigmatize the smoker. On the contrary, the smoking room is one of the elements that should provide a solution for this.

At the beginning, when we submitted our proposal, we were ⁇ not blind to the economic aspects. I also remember that in 2007 – I read the articles from when the previous government introduced the KB with the 30% rule in restaurants – it was screamed in the sector that there would be a lot of bankruptcies. Then, in the course of 2007, we saw that this was not the case. This is always the first reaction. We also see in our neighboring countries that there are always such reactions.

This was originally the proposal. We all know, colleagues, that the proposal presented here today is not the original proposal we submitted together with the colleagues. The proposal presented here today is an amended proposal. We feel this somewhat regrettable because we would have preferred to see a general smoking ban here today. The proposal presented here today is a step in the right direction. I will submit the arguments for why we find this a step in the right direction.

In the course of the debate, we have clearly felt among the various parties that the economic crisis we are experiencing today is the reason why a majority in the Parliament could not be found to move forward. We are also not blind to the economic situation and we know that the crisis is very strongly felt today in the cafes. Especially the smaller cafes today have difficulty surviving.

However, I think the smoking ban is often abused in this discussion. I will not say that there is no reason at all to consider the economic aspect. Some colleagues would like to refer to England and Italy. They point out that the ban has been in place for a few years now, but the economic crisis shows that cafes have a very difficult time, with bankruptcies and declining turnover as a result. In England, one pays 3 to 4 euros for a pint. So there are reasons why the coffee shops in England are going bad today, it can not be pushed only on the cap of the smoking ban. I feel that this important argument is often misused.

Mrs, your argument about England is even ridiculous and I will tell you why. I will give you the study done on this subject. The fact that one has to pay 3 to 4 euros for a pint comes because the mass disappears from the pubs. In order to keep the head above water, one must count 3 to 4 times more.

You said something about the smoking ban in other countries. I advise you to go to Spain today and determine how to put this prohibition on its own. I suggest you go to Germany, Berlin or Baden-Württemberg, or to the Netherlands. There have already been trial wins so that the small cafes can remain open.

I will give another speech later. I will continue my arguments. However, it is extremely cheap to simply refer to abroad. I think you should have shown the courage to say what you intended, but you did not dare. The proposal has been amended and it is voted only after the elections.

I would only like to refer to a study related to the current smoking policy in cafes. The overwhelming majority, 75 to 80%, of the clientele of cafes consists of smokers. The operators find the ability to smoke in their case really important: 82% of the cafes that offer only drinks and 73% of the cafes that also serve light meals. And you come here to argue that this does not play a role in the daily course of affairs for people who go to the cafe.

I know a lot of fun smokers. They are incredibly cozy people, not knee eyebrows, who still like to drink a drink. If you continue this way, we may soon have coffee shops without beer. I will talk about it later.

Mr. Dedecker, I think you have not been in England for a very long time, for a pint has cost there for ten years four to five pounds. Now it is much harder for people to be able to pay for it. So it has nothing to do with the smoking legislation, but I also invite you – you are talking about the Netherlands, Germany and Spain – to go to France, Italy or Ireland, where today one is very satisfied with the scheme. There has been a sharp decline in the number of smokers. After the introduction, there has even been an increase in sales. There is also an economic crisis here today, but it has very little to do with the smoking ban. The Chamber is almost in recess, Mr. Dedecker, maybe you can also visit those countries, to look at the regulations there.

I would like to add one thing, Mr. Dedecker. You pretend that there are very few countries where there is a smoking ban today. In Europe, 13 countries have a general smoking ban. What is revealed? A year after the introduction of a general smoking ban, 80% of the population supports the measure. I think the Minister can only confirm this. He also cited it in the committee. You only speak for the smokers, I speak for the whole population. 80%, Mr. Dedecker, is not a little. I think you need to have the courage. If it were up to us, we would ⁇ have had that courage today.

The proposal here today is going in the right direction for us, for several reasons. Today’s debate may give a different impression, but there is initially a broad support for what is ahead here today, including within your party. I have heard Mrs. De Maght in the committee say that food and smoking do not actually go together and that there is discrimination. I have heard this from colleagues from the Flemish Interest. I have not heard this only here in Parliament. I saw that at 4 p.m. a message came in from Unizo, which says that what is announced today is actually a good arrangement. Also Mrs. Matheussen, who is so happy to bring you to the committee, to defend all sorts of matters, says that what is presented here today is good and that this is what they want.

So I can only state that what we will approve here today is broadly carried out. That is positive. I have also always heard Mr Geerts say that we must address the issue step by step and that we should also do so in coherence and consultation with the sector. This is what we have tried to do with what is presented here today. I think this can only take away our support.

I come to a second point. I often hear that this scheme offers few solutions in the field of public health. There are today – referred to here and I think the minister has also referred to it in the debate – 20,000 cafes or dining cafes, which do not fall under the term “restaurant”, in our country.

The new regulation now affects 15,000 of the 20,000 cafes.

Mrs. Smeyers, I too saw today the study of the Neutral Syndicate for Self-Employed. I have a very strong suspicion that the Syndicate conducted its research mainly in the smaller public cafes. After all, the many responses I get in my mailbox come from dining cafes, which are very satisfied and very happy. They will clearly make the choice. They are happy that discrimination is eliminated. I would like to see which target group the research was conducted. After all, it is easy to prove something with numbers.

I am convinced that the text presented today is also a great benefit for public health. After all, if a family goes out to eat today, it can do so from today in a smoke-free environment. This also applies to the workplace. Remember that the food cafes provide most employment. From today, the staff of the dining cafes can work in a smoke-free place.

I can only congratulate that. Therefore, I would not dare to argue that nothing happens with the new regulation in the field of public health.

A third argument achieved by the new scheme is that the whole problem of the fries and kebab shops, with which the inspection services had a lot of problems and which were not covered by the previous legislation, is now disappearing. The aforementioned matters are now covered by legislation. In the aforementioned cases, smoking should no longer be allowed. These are the young people as their target audience. The fact that it can be achieved that young people in some, such things can no longer smoke is a good thing.

A final argument that we can agree with the submitted amendment is that the amendment makes a lot of controls from today much clearer and more possible.

The above was clearly confirmed during the hearing by the representatives of Public Health and the Food Agency. Last week, for example, figures from the Federal Food Agency showed once again that today one in eight cases sin against the smoking ban. It is very difficult for the Food Agency to carry out targeted controls. The amendment is therefore a step forward towards better controls.

Are we completely satisfied? No, of course we are not. The problem of youth homes still exists. It is not a good idea that youth homes continue to have strong drink licenses. I would also have preferred to see that the above-mentioned problem was solved with the present proposal. We could have done a lot more today with regard to the influx of young people. This requires a majority in Parliament.

My party continues to advocate for a general smoking ban. We were therefore very pleased with the recommendation made by Europe in the field of smoking prohibition. We also hope that the new European Commission can go a lot further on this subject.

Another hope that we express is that Mrs. Minister will also take initiatives. I feel that in the debate she has often remained an attentive listener who, however, has taken very few initiatives. Nevertheless, I believe that she and her administration have taken a very constructive stance in the proposal presented today. Nevertheless, I would have preferred to see that the Minister of Health would have pulled the car a little more towards a general smoking ban.

Today’s proposal is a step in the right direction. We are also committed to a general smoking ban.

Mrs Muylle, Mr Jambon has another comment. So wait a moment. You can, if you wish, also answer from your bank.

Mrs. Muylle, I have listened to your strange discourse with great attention. It started very hopefully. At the beginning of your speech you have beautifully outlined our position and our responsibility for a general smoking ban. In the midst of your discourse – which will be peculiar to your party – you suddenly made the curve, which we also saw in the committee at a certain point.

I have a few concrete questions for you.

First, on the youth homes, in the run-up to the 2007 elections four or five debates held with representatives of your party, in youth homes. Those people were witnesses of your surrender: you can count on us, we go for a general smoking ban, we find the discrimination of the youth homes, we will support the general smoking ban, you can count on us, exceptions on our bodies!

We have heard this in other subjects, now in this matter. How can you justify that you have changed your point of view now?

Second, you say you do not find a majority. I just heard Mr. Bacquelaine emphasize that they want to go further, but do not find a majority. I’ve heard Mrs. Burgeon of the PS, who said the same thing: we want to go further, but we don’t find a majority. I hear you now and I count all that, together with the colleagues of NV-A and sp.a. That majority is there! You didn’t want to hit them!

Third and last, Mrs. Muylle, you say you want to move towards a general smoking ban in the future. You refer to the European Commission. My question is very clear and clear. How temporary is the provisional measure? When should it be converted into a total smoking ban? Please give a clear answer, a specific date.

Mr Jambon, you are in the opposition. We had the choice: either one does nothing, what you do, and one simply stays with his point of view. We also had the option to take a step forward. I would like to see you explain it to all those restaurants and dining cafes where there is very strong discrimination today, where people today work in a workplace that is not smoke-free.

To deny a regulation today or to deny the employees of the FOD Public Health or the Federal Food Agency a tool that can make the controls much better, while there is a support in the Parliament to advance that important step, is totally unacceptable, I think, Mr. Jambon. You can easily continue to do that from the opposition, but our party has decided not to go that way.

As for the comments on the youth homes, it is true that we would have preferred a different arrangement today. If you have listened carefully to my presentation, you know that that concern remains very strong with us.

As for that majority, Mr. Jambon, I suggest that you seek for me that majority today, because I have not found it.

You asked for a certain timing. I can only tell you that we continue to go for a general smoking ban. Therefore, we will not fail to take new initiatives in this area in the future.

As you know, I was also a rapporteur on this subject. In the report you could clearly read that there has been a hearing and that the matter has been discussed several times in the Public Health Committee. During the processing of the various bills, all stakeholders had many working meetings and received many emails with studies. This shows that the involvement of the civil society, of the interest organizations, but also of the people was very great, of course because this matter is at the heart of each of us.

The legislation that the majority will adopt today has an impact on the employee in the hospitality industry and on those who reside in the hospitality industry, smokers and non-smokers. Probably this will also have an impact on the hospitality industry and the cafes as such; on profitability and turnover. It is therefore logical that this is a sensitive legislation.

During the hearing, I heard many figures that were actually interpreted completely opposite by pro and opponents. Based on the same figures, I heard completely different conclusions in the different hearings. Foreign examples were used inappropriately and inappropriately. There was talk about the profitability of cafes by people who just before said they didn’t actually go to a cafe visit. They talked about the profitability of coffee shops. It was talked about the effects on public health as if everyone there was suddenly a trained doctor who could estimate all the effects on public health. That surprised me a little. As a rapporteur, when I was taking a few notes, I wondered what happened there. Some committee members – it has just been cited here – even said that this or that study was actually not valuable because the hand of some lobby group was behind it. That is why it was not so scientific.

Colleagues, as far as I am concerned, all the studies and all the various arguments have value. In a matter like this one has a thesis and an antithesis which must then lead to a synthesis. This synthesis would then lead to a much clearer legislation. I speak in the conditional form; I can’t help if I read the last text that we discuss today.

Colleagues, from the first meeting after the hearing, I have said that in the stars was written that there would be a general smoking ban in the hospitality sector. Those are not the stars of Nostradamus, but the concrete European directives that determine that there will be a European directive for a smoking ban in the hospitality industry, unless Minister De Gucht can convince his future colleagues Vassiliou and Špidla to postpone that yet. If one takes the Green Paper of January 2007 at hand, one can clearly read in it that there is a smoking ban in the hospitality industry.

Our party will fully support the implementation of that directive. Mrs. Muylle, we are in favor of the smoking ban in the hospitality sector, but what comes ahead today, I can not support at all. This is too much unclear. With all the amendments, your text is a circus. I like to play the clown, but in your circus I do not participate.

Colleagues, I think a smoke-free ... Mrs. Muylle, you also want to play in the circus?

Mr. Geerts, what you say surprises me. In the committee meeting of a couple of weeks ago, when the sp.a was present, colleague Detiège said that the sp.a was not all so well known.

I did not read that in the report.

The members present heard it all. She said that sp.a did not know it so well and has not yet taken a position.

I have the report of the hearings. In your argument – and if that is not true, it is important that you react – you said that the smoking ban will come in the long term, but you advocate that such a step-by-step and in consultation with the sector.

Mrs. Muylle, the steps you take increase the uncertainty.

We met in the committee for a whole day last Tuesday; amendments were discussed and explained and all questions were answered, but no one was present from sp.a. I am glad you are here today, Mr. Geerts.

That gives me the opportunity to take a clear position, so that you know today what our position is. I hope you listen.

I have always said that I am in favour of a general smoking ban. Colleagues, I think that a smoking ban in the hospitality industry can only succeed if there is a social support for it and if there is a clear legislation. Only in this way will the social support level increase, both among smokers and among non-smokers.

It is important to finally stop stigmatizing smokers. Smoking is unhealthy. I think the vast majority of smokers know that too, but stop stigmatizing people who smoke. Stop organizing a competition between smokers and non-smokers. I think no one is beneficial in this.

Let me return to the current legislation. I remember the criticism that CD&V had at the time on the current legislation. She was unfair to sports clubs, youth homes and parish halls. If one uses the argument of the parish rooms, it is, of course, difficult to find counterarguments. You know, I give my ball even in a parish hall. The statement that it is unfair in relation to parish halls was your biggest argument.

The uncertainty for dining facilities, brasseries and bistroes was another argument. At that time, when examining that legislation, I was the first to acknowledge that there were uncertainties in that legislation. I have always made it clear to my colleague and then Chamber member Dirk Claes that we would first evaluate that legislation and then take further steps.

Colleagues of CD&V, after the 2007 elections I saw, probably from your philosophy of the five minutes of political courage, which at that time hanged above your bed, suddenly appear a text for a complete ban. The work was initiated on the basis of this text. You wanted to start discussing the original text on 23 June, while I could read abroad that amendments had already been submitted by your colleagues in the Senate. You said you didn’t see me last week. I couldn’t be there, but via tsjeventruc can count that.

I come to your text today.

First, all the speakers have already said here that today there is a support for the statement that smoking and eating do not go together. I agree with it. Your text is based on that principle, Mrs. Muylle, but the transposition of those principles is far from clear to me. You will undoubtedly explain it to me. You say that smoking can be in a drinking facility where only pre-packaged foods are served. So I assume that there is a beer sausage, chips or a package of minute soup – I will not advertise – can still be. Is that true, Mrs. Muelle? If I am wrong, you need to improve me. A serving of cheese, salami, a bullet and fresh soup can no longer be allowed?

The [...]

Mrs. Muylle, it is important that everyone knows what the regulations are, otherwise I think the services of Mrs. Onkelinx will have a lot of work.

Another question, Mrs. Muylle: Can we give a croque monsieur there? Can I, as a coffee boss, pick up a bread and put cheese and hese between? May not. Can I, as a coffee owner, sell a croque monsieur pre-packaged in plastic? Can I sell it? You are talking about products with a shelf life of three months. I would like to be clear about what is allowed and what is not. Can you give me clarity?

You are in the ridicule, colleague Geerts. I see that you do very little shopping, because then you would know that there are pre-packed bulbs of cheese that can be stored for more than three months.

But I can’t take a bulk of cheese and cut it myself!

Pre-packed cheeses with a shelf life of more than three months, which exists. I think the proposal is very clear. I hope you have already read it. In fact, the proposal states that it concerns pre-packaged foods with a minimum shelf life of three months with which no additional action occurs. What you say there about a croque monsieur in the grid, that cannot. I think it is very clear.

By the way, I didn’t invent it; the Federal Food Agency has been using that definition for a very long time and has given us the definition, which was quite clear to everyone in the committee during the debate.

As far as I am concerned, it is not clear. As long as there is plastic around, it can, and otherwise not. This is still good for the environment.

I would like to extend my speech. and Geerts. Everyone also knows that among the most powerful lobbies is the lobby of cigarette smokers. Cigarette owners, not being idiots, have invested not only in cigarettes but also in agri-food, especially in pre-packaged agri-food. Therefore, we risk a packaging of pre-packaged products, filled with preservatives that allow them to be stored for three months. It will be possible to drink his cabbage soup in a canned box, which will be served in a cafe where it will always be possible to smoke.

For me, it is obvious that a field of prospects will be opened, where I am sure that the creativity of cigarette makers and the agro-food industry will be unlimited, only to allow people to continue smoking.

Mrs. Gerkens, today there are pre-packaged croque monsieurs that are longer holdable than beer cakes.

I have another practical question. Packed young cheese that is left in the fridge for three months, is it still young cheese when it comes out? What are we actually doing here? I apologize to the inspectors who have to inspect this. I hear Mr. Claes on the radio still talking about beverage nuts, chips, a portion mixed, which can be added with cucumbers and snacks. Is this still serious legislation?

I have asked you the questions, not to challenge you, that is not in my character, but only because I say that the uncertainty here is enormously large.

I come to the smoking room. Our colleagues at CD&V say, depending on the occasion where they are, that smoking is still perfectly permitted in cafes, brasseries and others as long as one only installs a smoking room.

Colleagues, I don’t know where you’re going to the cafe, but the village cafes, the ordinary cafes are either too small or have no suitable facility to install a smoking room.

Moreover, do you not fear that there will be growing inequality between the ordinary café, the cafe around the corner and the large brasseries that possibly have that space? How do you go your legislation, where you leave the protection of employees in the hospitality industry, rime with a self-employed person who will go to court tomorrow and say that he has no employees, that he does his cafe alone and that legislation therefore does not apply to him? How will you resolve this legally?

In connection with the smoking room itself, the minister has given figures that today 6% of restaurants are equipped with a smoking room. How would that come? How could it happen that it is only such a limited number?

Now you say that the smoking room is the big solution. I think today no catering businessman will install a smoking room, because he knows that it is written in the stars that Europe will impose a general smoking ban. Who will make this investment? Who can make this investment? You go to sports clubs. Which four-provincial club has the budget to do so? Who has that infrastructure? Stop all that trouble about those smoking rooms. Stop selling that to your backbone.

Colleagues of CD&V, unfortunately you will have to deal with the colleagues of MR at the next point. I’ve already referred to you, but actually you can’t win. This is about the MR, whose chairman and deputy prime minister of your government this week has received another prize from your youth organization, the Lamme Goedzaktrofee.

Mr and Reynders received the trophy. In the Integraal Report, I was able to read the argument of colleague Flahaux – who, unfortunately, was not present here. He was of the opinion, followed by the colleagues of the majority, that in casinos it was allowed to smoke. Then I froze the eyebrows.

There is, therefore, clearly another class society: in a cafe where people smoke a self-rolled cigarette, smoking must urgently be banned, but in a casino, where one smokes a thick cigar, one can smoke. For you is public health: smoking is unhealthy, except when one smokes in a casino. I think this is roughly the philosophy that MR brought.

Mrs. Muylle, you kneel for the bourgeois of Mr. Muylle. You are kneeling because you have signed that amendment. According to you, there is no problem in this regard. In short, if one reads the amendment on the casinos that you support with, it turns out that you are leaving all your rhetoric away from then on.

Mr. Baeselen, you can respond immediately. I quote the amendment on the casinos: “There has always been a de facto very tolerant attitude towards the casinos and gambling establishments. The usual practice is that a gambler who rises from a table loses his place to other present.”In casinos, therefore, it is true: qui part à la chasse, perd sa place. I wonder how can you motivate that there is no problem there and that one can continue to smoke in a casino?

I will also quote the responsibility of the amendment: “In accordance with the Royal Decree of 30 December 2005 on the prohibition of smoking in public places, the applicants consider that the special situation of certain institutions, such as the casinos, should be taken into account. If there is a smoking ban in those establishments, it could cause players to resort to clandestine play holes.” Colleagues, frankly, I don’t understand that you take responsibility for the majority amendment. When I read this, my pants fell off of shame. Blozen is difficult for me, but when I read such a response – and I think that colleague Flahaux was the ghostwriter of the group leader of MR, Mr. Bacquelaine – I wonder in which circus we are playing here.

Tegelijkertijd was het die gleiche partij van de heer Flahaux die tijdens de commisiewerkzaamheden verklaarde het roken in auto’s te willen verbieden omdat het slecht is voor medpassagiers, zeker als dat kleine kinder sind. But in a casino, there can be everything. There is no problem! Rise of the bourgeoisie!

Ladies and gentlemen, I will conclude my speech. I have always wanted to conduct the debate serene, but if there are such flat manoeuvres in the text, for me the game stops, because it thus loses all intellectual honesty.

Mr. Baeselen, you are probably having fun in your casino, but as far as I am concerned, this is unacceptable. Such amendments make this legislation as leaky as a seed. This is not the part of our party!

Mr. Speaker, when the CD&V bill was put on the agenda of the committee, she envisaged a total ban on smoking by allowing the installation of smokers. During the general discussion, I clearly positioned myself for this total ban on smoking.

With regard to the first bill, I have made clear reservations on the installation of smokers. Indeed, in my opinion, this discrimination can generate a discrimination between coffee shops that have the place and the means to create such smoke and those that do not have the possibility. Furthermore, I emphasized the importance of protecting certain sectors: cultural and sports centers and the youth home sector, which accommodate a public deemed to be more sensitive. Why Why ? Because the health objective of a prohibition measure is first of all to protect non-smokers from passive smoking, not to stigmatize, as some have said, but to protect non-smokers who still have the right to go to discos or cafes. This applies to people who visit public places as well as those who work there. A recent study on this subject is revealing the risks incurred by staff working in beverage flows.

The second health goal for a ban measure is to reduce tobacco consumption. Statistics show that there is a decrease in smokers, but this is the effect of combined measures. In a more comprehensive way, this is also the effect of the strategy of de-normalization of tobacco, carried out by public authorities in Belgium for several years under the auspices of the WHO. However, it remains difficult to assess the impact of a ban measure in the horeca. Our group believes, in any case, that all efforts must be made to ⁇ these public health objectives.

However, within this committee, no clear majority has come out to vote on the law as it is. However, we wanted to move forward by clarifying what had appeared during the different hearings as gray areas. The grey area of turnover less than 30% in the horeca as well as a definition problem related to sports facilities.

The amendments to the proposal were worked in majority and in consultation with the control bodies who had ⁇ the difficulty for the controllers to verify the figure of 30% and the blur around the sports halls. It is thanks to this that we can see this bill as a step forward, even if, for us, it is not enough.

From January 2010, where you eat, you will not smoke anymore and where you do a sport either. Ms. Muylle said: 15,000 establishments out of 20,000 would be affected by this new measure. Additionally, precise definitions improve the quality of control, which will be facilitated. This will allow for the proper implementation of the law. These advances seem to me to be a first step. That is why we will vote on them today.

On the same day, the European Commission issued a new European recommendation. We received confirmation in the afternoon. This recommendation advised all Member States to make a total ban from 2012. Following this recommendation and internal discussion, our group had wanted to propose an amendment to the signature of the majority groups, an amendment that gave a precise date for a total ban, in 2012.

This seemed important to us to see in the long term, especially following the European recommendation. This also allowed us to clarify things further. Indeed, if the law that we are going to vote today is a first step, which gives a better feasibility especially to controllers, we find it insufficient to protect the many victims of passive smoking.

Given the very relative enthusiasm that this amendment has aroused in the majority, we have chosen not to file it. We will vote on the proposal as it is, but we will not fail to discuss the proposal in the Senate. We believe that the debate should be continued and will continue to defend this proposal of the total ban with a date that I find relevant, namely 2012, which is that of the European Recommendation.

Mrs Schyns, if I understand you well, your discourse is as follows. You are in favour of a total smoking ban, but you agree with the majority, who only want a limited smoking ban. You are also in favor of setting a deadline to introduce a total smoking ban, but you agree with the majority, who refuses to record such a deadline.

Can you describe this behavior politically?

You say you have a clear position, you say where you want to go. But you agree with the majority, who only want to go halfway. The end date you want to record will not go, so just agree, without end date. That is a first question.

I have a second question. You are referring to a EU directive that comes out on the same day as the present legislation.

On the same day, however, the Antwerp Court of Appeal also issued a judgment. That judgment read that the legislation, so the current one, stops somewhere halfway the field, namely by making a distinction between restaurants and cafes. The legislation includes discrimination. The Antwerp Court has repealed this legislation.

What you are presenting now is actually something more of the same. You are moving a little further toward a total smoking ban, but you are still stuck somewhere halfway.

Do you have any idea how that can pass the test of legality?

I am also a little surprised, Madame Schyns. The European Commission recommends that it be stopped in 2012. It is also true that the final text arrived only in the afternoon but we knew that we would receive it, and we also knew that it was not an obligation but a recommendation. The interesting message was the following: since we want to go there step by step, let’s enter the date of 2012. Amendments were submitted to the committee where they were rejected. I submitted them again today.

To hear you all and all, frankly, I would like to ask you not to blow us the Senate now. There is a willingness to adopt the text before the holidays since the date of entry into force has been advanced to 1 January. We were asked to work quickly so that everyone has time to prepare. If the Senate makes amendments, the text must be returned to the House and then it is failed. If there is a general agreement on 2012 to give everyone time to adapt to the new provisions, it will take half an hour. We ask the President for his consent to gather the Health Committee, we do it, we come back and we vote. You will earn several months and you will be guaranteed to see the project adopted.

I therefore appeal to the reason and the motivation of all who have intervened or almost. If you want this to be better formulated, I see no inconvenience to correctly rewrite an amendment. A small interruption of the session would be sufficient.

As for the CDH’s desire to submit an amendment and propose it to the majority, I believe that each group has the opportunity to reflect. We didn’t make the nose on the guidon on Tuesday, in commission; we did it afterwards. We could not find a consensus, you have seen it. Not all groups have yet expressed themselves today. If anything emerges in the five groups of the majority and there is a reflection around a possible amendment for 2012, we will be a part of the discussion. I obviously cannot commit myself on behalf of the other four majority groups who did not wish to vote on the amendment on Tuesday for reasons that are their own.

As for the Senate, this is the wish of our group, but the Senate in its great wisdom may decide something else. This is just a proposal.

If you don’t try to tame the other members of the majority...

We have tried, Madame Gerkens!

Take advantage of the opportunity given to you!

I suggest you wait until all the groups have expressed themselves first.

Mrs Schyns, if I understand you correctly, we are only playing a little today and the majority will approve the text that is now in advance, but we will receive a very different text from the Senate. Is that what you say? You must dare to say this clearly.

Mr. Geerts, I only pointed out that we will vote today on the text as presented. Our group had made other proposals, which could not be decided by a majority. We heard other positions this afternoon: maybe, for some groups, it just takes a bit of maturity in the debates. We will see what the future reserves for us, but we will vote on the text as presented.

Mr. Speaker, we tried our best to try to reach an agreement within the majority and we had to find that this was not the case. Today I hear the expressions of one another, I hear the interpellation of Mrs. Gerkens. I would also like to know the position of the Minister in charge of Public Health on this subject: this would ⁇ allow us to ⁇ this time saving that you referred to.

I do not like this kind of interpellation. I said – and I speak under the control of the chairman of the House Public Health Committee – from the beginning that I was in favor of a total ban. I said it and I called for it in the committee. I have noticed, like many others, that there was no consensus on this point in the commission. So, instead of having nothing at all, it was better to go through a step.

This step is not negligible: in fact, at present, 5,500 cafes are establishments without small catering and between 10 and 15,000 cafes offer small catering. According to the text currently under discussion, the latter will have to make a choice by 1 October 2010.

As far as I am concerned, I have been clear and I do not change my mind on the road: I am in favour of this ban because tobacco kills every day and that the risks of such serious diseases as cancer or cardiovascular damage increase with tobacco, but I prefer a step rather than no progress.

What I agree with Ms. Gerkens on is that the worst would be to make a decision here, then discuss, to make another decision in the Senate, to return to, finally, not get any change by 1 October 2010.

I therefore advocate for consistency: either we decide everything immediately, or we take a step and agree together to take this necessary step.

Since I am given the word, and in order to prevent me from taking it again, Madame la Présidence, if you allow me to do so, I will add that this is a step for me and that it will be appropriate to continue the fight.

Since then, I have been in contact with my administration. If this vote is confirmed, it will work with all the horeca establishments by signaling them that they must make a choice. It will tell them that, depending on the European recommendations and discussions we have just had, this is most likely only a step ahead of a global ban. I intend to launch a public awareness campaign to warn the public.

I also hope that within the three months following the introduction of this law, one can have an assessment by my services. We can thus determine whether the difficulties that have been joyfully cited to this tribune have occurred and know the number of establishments that have made the choice either to become cafes without a small catering with the possibility to smoke there, or to continue the small catering with a ban on smoking there.

The assessment of the first three months following the implementation of this decision – if it is confirmed – will allow for a new debate in Parliament. This is, in some way, the “clausule of appointment” for which I was advocating in commission. Remember it ! This clause is not provided in the text but will be applied in a different way, through a deposit by my services of an assessment report on the step. If the Parliament, in accordance with what I hear today, wants to continue, this will lead to the implementation of the European recommendations. Why not do it at the dawn of the Belgian Presidency of the European Union, at the time when we will preside over and where the recommendations will be formulated, while knowing that thirteen European countries have already opted for the formula of the ban?

Mrs. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the Minister and I would like to demonstrate the intellectual flexibility to participate in her thought process. However, in order to avoid experiencing what we have already experienced so often in this House, namely that such commitments in the future will prove to be empty words, I think we are doing well to impose on ourselves to set an end date for this phase in the struggle for a general smoking ban. We have submitted an amendment proposing 1 January 2011. I hear that the CDH is willing to support an amendment with the date of 1 January 2012. I would like to hear from the other majority parties whether they can take part in that thought process. This is entirely in the logic of what the minister has just said, but it obliges us as a Chamber to make words effective acts.

When we have heard the representatives of each party, you will surely have received answers to your questions.

Does this mean that we are asking the last speakers to take a position on this topic? It would also be good to ask those who have already intervened and who have not expressed themselves on how they position themselves.

I know that the PS, CDH and MR have nothing against setting a date. Except for the VLD, which I have not yet heard, and ⁇ the list of Mr. Dedecker, I think a majority would be in favor of this.

After all the interventions, we could make a point and see how we continue the work.

When everyone is finished, I will no longer be in the tribune. I will therefore report this to the President, who will return before the last speech, that of Mrs Avontroodt.

Mrs. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, today is a black day for public health and for all who fight cancer. The path that the bills that are now on the table have taken has been a true path of suffering. This could end today, but due to the lack of courage among the government parties, the path of suffering has not yet ended. One and a half years ago, in early February 2008, I, together with my then cartel partners, CD&V colleagues, submitted an ambitious bill, to come to a general smoking ban in public places. I suspect that Mrs. Muylle and Mr. Van den Bergh still remember it as if it was yesterday.

Members of the Senate were also fully involved. In the Senate CD&V’er Dirk Claes pulled the car, along with our N-VA colleague, Senator Louis Ide. The parliamentary process started very slowly. A consultation was requested from the State Council. After some technical aspects, the advice was very positive. Through a simple amendment, the comments of the State Council could be addressed. I did that afterwards too.

In September, the CD&V-N-VA cartel broke up. To my great surprise, the cooperation in this case was also interrupted. For reasons still unclear to me, Mrs. Muylle and Mr. Van den Bergh withdrew their signature and submitted to CD&V a quasi identical proposal, which so-called took into account the opinion of the State Council, but it could thus also be resolved by submitting an amendment to our joint proposal, as I did. I submitted an amendment to what was still my proposal at the time.

Although I had all the reasons at that time to feel my purchase, I reacted sportively and constructively. The only thing I had to do was, and still is, to come to a general smoking ban. The bearer of the bill or who delivered the majority was less important to me. If the last straight line towards a general smoking ban had been introduced from then on, a satisfied member of parliament would have stood here today, regardless of what had happened in the past. However, this was not the case. The path of suffering was not yet over.

The process of dealing with the bills has been carried out for months. They were removed from the agenda. Mr. Goutry is not present, but he has also offered some excuses to delay the treatment of the bill. Arguments such as that the period before the regional elections is not the appropriate period to resolve such a difficult dossier; I have heard everything, seen everything. No panic, after the elections it would happen and the general smoking ban would be approved.

Effectively, two weeks after the regional elections, the bill holding a general smoking ban in closed public places was again on the agenda. Finally shot in the case we thought. That, however, was already counted outside the colleagues of CD&V because one small Unizo study of what coffee owners thought of the smoking ban was enough for CD&V to take a turn and weaken under pressure. Honourable Mrs. Muylle, it was not you but your colleague Dirk Claes from the Senate who went as the first step and accepted his demand for a general smoking ban. A week later, next to the Committee on Public Health of the Chamber, a disgusting display. Everybody knows it, it has been repeated here. It was about the discussion of soup with balls, cheese, salami, portion mixed, young cheese pre-packaged. Such a discussion is not worthy of a public health committee. Instead of making laws that should protect people, we have ended up in discussions that are a blow in the face of everyone who struggles with health problems due to passive smoking.

Dear colleagues, we are here today to approve, in my opinion, a bad, half-foolish law. We must pass a law that nota bene last week by the judgment of the Antwerp Court of Appeal was already considered obsolete by reality. We must pass a law that does exactly the opposite of what was originally intended.

If I am not mistaken, it was originally intended – which is read in the memorandum of explanation – to eliminate the discrimination in the current regulation and to develop a clear, transparent regulation. None of the problems have been addressed, the only thing I have just heard is that the control of compliance with the new regulation will be easier. A public health committee should not worry about this. The FOD Public Health and the FAVV must check the rules, whether they are difficult or not. This is not our main concern.

It was therefore the intention of CD&V to counter the discrimination in the current regulation. I think it is not being resisted now, it is being perpetuated. Discrimination between restaurants and cafes remains.

I now address Mr Van den Bergh, who has left the hall for a while, but will read my comment in the report. Mr. van den Bergh is the self-proclaimed pioneer of the youth homes in Flanders. I would like to point out that the discrimination between youth homes and the typical youth cafes will remain. The explanatory note to his proposal still states that it is intended to protect young people from tobacco smoke, while the same proposal still allows smoking in all youth cafes.

I propose that the presenters of the proposal in question be at least as honest as to remove the passage that states that young people are protected from tobacco smoke.

By the way, it was precisely because of this discrimination that the Court of Appeal rejected the old system last week. Discrimination is still in the new law. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is a precedent. I am confident that the first proceedings against the new scheme will be challenged very quickly. The only ones who will be better off the legislation that will be passed later will then be the lawyers.

Meanwhile, the majority parties act as if nothing happened. They let us pass laws of which they know in advance that there are fundamental, legal objections. I am sorry, but such a behavior is not worthy of a Parliament.

Clearness was also an argument for a new legislation. However, the grey zones are not completely resolved. They are simply shifted.

During the discussion that followed, Mrs. Muylle told Mr. Jambon that he had ridiculed the case. The discussion is ridiculous. She does not need to be drawn into the ridiculous; she is simply ridiculous. The regulation is ridiculous.

Soup with ballets and fresh soup should not. Solution soup – we can’t name it – can then again. After all, solution soup is not food. Are fruit cocktails eating or drinking? I do not know. You do not have to ask me. I refer to anyone who has questions about the new legislation, directly to the majority, to CD&V and to the submitters and amenders of the proposal.

That there is once and for all clarity about the fact that in kebab bags and fries it is not allowed to smoke, I don’t even mention a cloth for bleeding.

What I have often heard in the Public Health Committee is the screen with the economic crisis.

“The time is not ripe for a general smoking ban, because we are in an economic crisis.” The suspension of the general smoking ban was presented almost as a relief measure. I will tell you what a real relance measure is and I have heard it here today, among others by Vlaams Belang. A real relance measure is the reduction of VAT from 21% to 6% in the hospitality industry. There would be much more benefit to the hospitality industry than with what is now on the vote.

Mrs. Onkelinx, I would like to address you as Minister another word. The present proposal was a parliamentary initiative and I am the first to congratulate that the legislative power can play its role. However, I think it is also your job to watch for a coherent policy. This is a responsibility that first and foremost belongs to you. You have always openly stated in favour of a general smoking ban. You have also rightly fought for your cancer plan, which costs millions of euros. Well, I think you can’t execute a cancer plan at the same time and then look the other way when laws, such as the present proposal, are passed in Parliament. This is called guilty failure.

So much has been invested, though not only by the federal government, but also by the regions, in prevention. The Foundation Against Cancer and the Flemish League Against Cancer have pumped so much resources and money in advertising spots and all sorts of preventive measures that should make it clear to people that smoking is harmful to health, passive smoking as well. We are so far now. Time is ripe for it. At that moment, we take a step back rather than a step forward. I think this is really a missed opportunity.

I really get the crumbs of counterarguments, such as those of the Flemish Interest and of sp.a, that we stigmatize the smokers. It is not about stigmatizing smokers. I am sure. In my circle of friends there are plenty of smokers. These people are all going out spontaneously to smoke a cigarette. Per ⁇ they do, too, because the regulations are so vague that they just take the certainty for the uncertain and go out to smoke a cigarette. Of the fact that they are going out, however, I heard no one saw. This is further proof that the time has come for a general smoking ban.

I would like to conclude positively, dear colleagues.

Colleague Smeyers, of course, I feel encouraged when you mention our party name, but I will kick the ball back. I will ask you a concrete question. You will later, probably with pleasure, be in the Flemish government, together with the CD&V colleagues. For a while there has been a pivot to take a number of measures within the framework of the anti-smoking policy at the Flemish level. Can you make me clear now – that can be with a simple answer, yes or no – or in the Flemish government agreement, which has been negotiated by you, CD&V and sp.a, concrete measures will be stated. I like to hear the N-VA say. You are now advocating for an absolute smoking ban. You know we have a different point of view on this. You will soon be in the government. What measures will you take concrete in this regard? These would only be acts, rather than words.

Mr. Speaker, I will not lie about the content of the Flemish government agreement. I have not exploded it from the beginning to the end. It is true that it is also aimed at even more prevention with regard to the anti-smoking campaigns, but I will give you a reply later if that is explicitly stated in the Flemish government agreement. I do not want to lie about it.

I said I wanted to finish positively. Just before the vote in the Committee on Public Health I have heard from all majority parties – I have heard it here also between the lines – that they are in favor of a general smoking ban, but that the time is not yet ripe for it.

Mrs. Muylle, you could not emphasize enough that this is only a transitional measure, a necessary intermediate step in the right direction. Well, I take you on your word. As Mr Jambon has already said, the N-VA is proposing an amendment to Article 16 to make this bad law a real transitional measure. With this amendment, we want to have a legislative initiative before 1 January 2011 to bring about a general smoking ban.

If you, Mrs. Muylle, Mr. Van den Bergh, support this amendment, then you prove that all the harsh statements from the past were nothing more than banal spinning. If you do not support it, I would never want to hear from your mouth that you are in favour of a general smoking ban.

It may be clear that N-VA will later turn against the present proposal with all its amendments. I am sure that neither the citizen nor the hospitality provider is waiting for such a semi-fatal measure, but the opposite.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker.

If this text has been reviewed in the Health Committee, it is because tobacco concerns are health concerns.

Our goal – which everyone shares – is to protect smokers by trying to set rules that help reduce their tobacco consumption, but above all to protect the passive smoker who unintentionally inhales smoke and carries health risks. We all know the number of cancers and deaths due to tobacco, as well as the number of millions of euros spent on treating or relieving the pain of people suffering from diseases resulting from exposure to tobacco smoke.

That said, remember, during the discussion of the bill for the ban on smoking in restaurants, the horeca sector had told us that it would encounter difficulties, that bankruptcies would take place, that the number of customers would decrease, that this would require too heavy investments. Therefore, an intermediate phase is planned. Who can now say that because of this law, the horeca sector is bankrupt? Who can say that customers have fled? Of course no one!

Would a consumer still agree today to eat at the restaurant with a smoker at the next table? No to No! He entered into the customs that, in order to smoke, you must go out and that you should no longer smoke next to non-smokers. Even young people respect this measure, they are said to want to continue smoking by going to cafes where you can have fun. In order to have fun, you have to smoke.

I know that when you’re a smoker – and I’ve been – you think it’s impossible to have fun without smoking. It is believed that it is impossible to make a phone without smoking. It is believed that it is impossible to think without smoking.

This is the drama of tobacco consumption and the effect of nicotine: the use of cigarettes becomes indispensable in the eyes of the smoker to be able to live normally and do what he likes to do. But non-smokers also drink a drink, laugh, phone, write! Without cigarettes, this is possible. Our responsibility is to reassure and say that proof is made every day that one can live and better live without tobacco.

Today, in surveys that have made some of the members who had submitted the proposal change their minds, members of the horeca are asked if they think they could lose customers. It is clear that whenever you change things or disturb a good customer, you believe that he will not come again and that he will go to the neighbor.

We could also look at what is happening elsewhere, where the total ban is in all establishments. It is worth noting that the horeca is getting better in general.

On the other hand, it is true – and that is why I had submitted amendments – that some small establishments, with old tenants who have ten customers all smoking, may be forced to close because they will not have the financial and physical capacity to find a new clientele and completely change their establishment. For those, I proposed that arrangements be put in place to help them or, ⁇ , for self-employed people who normally do not have the right to do so, give them access to unemployment. Other formulas were possible.

I respect everything you say. I understand that you are concerned about the cost of smoking for social security and health implications.

I would like to draw your attention to this. You speak, quite rightly, of the dependence of smokers on tobacco, but then is it normal that, in your group, we defend with so much vigor the decriminalization of soft drugs? Many people who use soft drugs also become addicted!

So for some things, one can’t be addicted and for others, one can be, with all the consequences that it can have on health!

Mrs. De Permentier, I will answer your question without any difficulty! I am not saying here that it is forbidden to sell tobacco. I could say it, but I do not say it. I was talking to you at the moment about nicotine addiction and I could defend you here the prohibition of selling tobacco. What would happen if this option was chosen? As this product creates addiction, I know that, therefore, the black market, an uncontrolled parallel market would develop with the introduction of a whole series of products that would further strengthen the addiction.

Compared to other drugs, since tobacco is also a drug, would it not be wise to prevent the sale of these products in circuits where you have absolutely no control and where you sell anything? It is no longer only cannabis or heroin that is currently a problem but also the ecstasy pills that are served to you everywhere! Is it wise to leave those who are dependent on it only to the mercy of this parallel circuit? Should such products not be distributed through controlled networks, so that preventive intervention, quality monitoring and testing can also be carried out? The fight against addiction to cannabis or other substances must also be continued.

However, the two aspects should not be confused. Madame De Permentier, nothing is easy! We must effectively work collectively in one or the other camp, especially in the horeca sector. I regularly meet with the horeca sector because I work a lot on the status of independent workers, on the facilitation of crafts and I encourage those who dare to undertake.

When I met with the representatives of the Horeca regarding the proposals on the table, they told me their preference for the ban not to come into effect immediately, but rather for 2012, so that the investor knows for how long he is doing them and that he is not betrayed by a legislation, of which it is known that it will evolve into a total ban.

It is in this sense that both in the committee and now, I have resubmitted an amendment to set a date known to all. Thus, anyone who now chooses not to move directly into a non-smoking establishment knows that the investments he will make will be lost in two years.

We had barely voted the law in commission that we were receiving calls from associations representing the horeca or other independent ones telling us their disapproval, because some having made investments two or three years ago, regretted not being able to amortise them and must, in addition, make many changes.

Let’s really give them the opportunity to choose by giving them a year and a half or two to amortise their investments according to their clientele, their turnover. Do we give them time to think about any investment, unless they prefer to anticipate and attract new customers and why not the neighbor’s customer base?

I would also like to add a few points regarding the claims that we should not normalize everything or constantly impose rules. We know how many deaths and illnesses tobacco causes. I would like to establish a rapprochement with the number of road traffic victims. We are constantly told how scandalous it is that people die on the road and that there are so many! In Flanders, you are ⁇ vigilant in this matter. You are attentive and ask for road safety rules, checks, because it is unacceptable to die at the wheel or because of the behavior of a driver.

However, tobacco causes more victims, especially among young people, because the purpose of cigarette smokers is obviously to make the young people smoke. Once you have smoked a cigarette, it is very difficult to quit. Also, I cannot accept a reasoning that rules should no longer be imposed, while where it is easier to address drivers rather than a financial lobby, rules are called for to protect lives!

It is in the name of the lives that we want to protect that we ask here that at least one date be included in this law, since it has been found that economically it was more interesting to wait a little. If we agree on the date of 1 January 2012, we can re-vote our vote.

As a committee, we abstained while acknowledging the progress that was made by abandoning the 30% turnover principle, which is difficult to enforce. We move on to something a little more clear, which is a first step. But if we decide to include the date of January 2012, we can approve the arrangement that will be adopted.

Mr. Speaker, I will ⁇ not wait long because I think that after me Mrs. Avontroodt will come and everyone here sits on hot coal to hear what Mrs. Avontroodt has to say about a general smoking ban and its timing.

Colleagues, I have a little déjà vu with the election debates of before the 2007 federal elections. I am speaking especially about the election debates in the youth homes, to which Ms. Muylle has also extended reference. These discussions went for a large part on that smoking ban. I can't remember that there was anyone against a general smoking ban. In fact, it could not go wrong.

The original bill was a very courageous step to finally find joining with many other European countries that have introduced such a smoking ban for a long time. We also supported this and we would like to approve this because smoking does not only harm our own health, but also those of the people around us. Employees are an essential focus. Many of them have to work in a smoking environment without having to choose to do so. Unfortunately, CD&V is once more heavy. There was also no search for creative solutions at all, and the health of people is in that sense, unfortunately, subordinated to the interests of some strong lobby groups. These lobby groups are even so strong that, although I think there is a majority in this Parliament, there will never be a vote for that majority. I think there are few lobbyists as strong as the lobby groups behind this proposal.

Colleagues, the committee has destroyed the original text of colleagues Smeyers. The original proposal provided for a total smoking ban, so no non-smoker should be exposed to the negative effects of passive smoking. In that sense, it was a closing point of the many steps. It is always said that this is a step in the right direction. I think many steps have already been taken in the past. It would have been great if we could have concluded this now. In contrast to a beautiful closure, we made a vague, faint and grey compromise. Even greener, vague and flatter than the smoke around which it revolves here.

More than once, the majority was divided. This is not new in this government.

Mrs. Van der Straaten, I would like to hear you all say. You have a very consistent, militant attitude. I only wonder how you explain your position on the general smoking ban with regard to cannabis smoking and the tolerance that your party exhibits in that regard. Can you explain a small word about this?

Mr. Goutry, as far as I know, we are not in favour of smoking cannabis in cafes, in public places, in casinos. We are also absolutely not in favour of the fact that people should get more, on the contrary.

Our party believes that a person who is arrested for smoking cannabis should not go to jail, but to an institution or organization that provides assistance to get rid of his addiction. That has always been our point of view, and it will continue to be so far. I do not rule out that one can never change a position, but so far this is the position.

I return to my point. I think we should look at Article 10 of the bill, which states that every worker has the right to have access to work spaces and social services, free from tobacco smoke. I think this is not a light-sensed judgment.

I wonder how to rime this with the exception for cafes, casinos and dancings. In casinos, I think you can also get food, in some casinos maybe more than in others. I think there are also casinos with a restaurant. They will then have a double arrangement, inside or outside the restaurant.

Furthermore, it has been extensively and very convincingly argued, among other things by VUB researchers, that a remarkable link can be demonstrated between mortality and the profession someone performs. Among Belgian men between 30 and 59 years of age, waiters were found to be three times more likely to die from lung cancer than the entire working population.

Meanwhile, it is generally believed that active or passive smoking explains at least 80 to 90% of deaths from lung cancer.

Article 10 of the draft law states that every employee has the right to dispose of work spaces and social services, free from tobacco smoke.

This is not a sterile discussion, but an ethical issue, in particular, can the government allow a certain category of employees to be left behind by law? After hearing the previous speakers, also from the majority party Open Vld, I think that no one can answer affirmatively. In fact, the government cannot abandon any category of workers.

If we agree on this, ⁇ we ⁇ ’t get rid of the yoke of the majority, colleagues of CDH? If we agree that this is actually about almost an ethical question, then is the voting behavior on ethical issues according to good tradition usually not free? Let us then, each for himself, vote freely about it and see how far we have come. If we count the heads, then we can ⁇ reach a parliamentary majority. It is not because there was no consensus in the committee, as I heard later, that there is no majority! I think everyone should answer this question for themselves and then vote in honour and conscience.

We do not want to be blind to the economic crisis. Not to be blind, but also to be realistic. To put it in the words of Mrs. Muylle: the argument of the economic crisis should not be misused. Hence also the proposals and alternative pistes formulated in the committee, such as the aid premium, which colleague Bacquelaine has apparently also become a supporter in the meantime.

Even more important is to limit the effect of the law in time. Mrs. Burgeon expressed the desire that the hospitality workers should be protected and that this would best be done through a general smoking ban. It will even strengthen its position by the abstinence of some of its group members. Ms. Muylle says there is no majority in Parliament. In the meantime, the CDH has made its position clear, in the sense that there will be no majority amendment to limit the altered smoking ban in time. However, both PS and CDH have clearly stated in the press and on this tribune that they are in favour. I think the summary is that the ways of cdH and, in extension, of the majority, are actually impenetrable.

If there is such an amendment, after each group has spoken as they have agreed, then it ⁇ enjoys our support. We will be absolutely positive about this.

So far, we are very disappointed. What was a beautiful bill has become a crumbling vehicle that wants to save the goat and the cabbage, but in fact does not do both. This is a bad compromise. It has been said repeatedly that it is a step, but I think it is a bad way to take steps toward a total smoking ban. It is also about poor legislation, as Ms. Smeyers has convincingly argued.

We continue to strive for a total smoking ban in the hospitality industry for the benefit of customers, employees and operators. Since we believe that this proposal is not at all achieved, we will abstain from voting on it.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, today we are discussing an extension of the existing legislation on the prohibition of smoking to restaurants and brasseries. The majority has understood that a general smoking ban would be the deadline for the hospitality industry, since they have been pushing this out for themselves for a long time, and since this bill appeared to be discussable only after the elections. Therefore, we can clearly speak of voter fraud. The bill could have been discussed much earlier. There is still uncertainty about the position of the majority. This is shown again in the discussions that have been held here today.

The proposal, as it is now put to the vote, is two-fold. It cannot be considered sufficiently as a good thing for public health. According to the current proposal, from next year, smoking will be banned from all catering facilities, with the exception of the cafes that do not serve meals. Only in cafes where pre-packaged foods with a minimum shelf life of three months are sold will still be allowed to smoke.

Mrs. Minister, you must honestly admit that pre-packaged foodstuffs, regardless of their shelf life, cannot be described as healthy. In order to guarantee the freshness, products are added to ensure that the food items remain edible for months or weeks and that young cheese does not become fungal cheese, as the colleague just explained.

In the public health window, one should advocate the use of fresh products. This is ⁇ not the case with this legislation. There was a grey zone in the legislation. There was a 30% rule when it comes to offering foodstuffs and fresh products. That grey zone is now moved to whether or not serving pre-packaged food in the catering business.

Smokers nowadays prove to be good coffee customers, and therefore also good consumers of light meals. A study found that eight out of ten cafe visitors are smokers. These are the numbers that I think speak book parts. The catering sector is still the sector with the highest number of bankruptcies and severe profitability problems. This was also correctly cited by the member of the SP. Some colleagues in the committee, including our liberal colleagues, understood by Mr. Flahaux that compensation is necessary if the introduction of measures causes financial losses.

However, this is not mentioned anywhere in the bill, except in the amendment where any compensation to be determined by the King is proposed by the colleagues of Ecolo.

Electoral promises, such as the reduction of the VAT rate from 21% to 6% and the new fiscal measures that should come in order to stimulate the hospitality industry, are also nothing to be found here. These were just election promises.

With current legislation it is not always as clear where to smoke or not to smoke. Instead of introducing a clearer, simpler and more transparent regulation, the uncertainty with the current proposal remains equally large.

Furthermore, it is clear that public health may make proposals as long as they do not harm the economy. According to the current proposal, smoking and eating do not go together, but there is a curve made. Pre-packaged foodstuffs can be, whatever they are. If the same foods that are offered fresh today are pre-packaged, it can. What is the logic of this? Mrs. Minister, maybe you can give me an answer. I will give an example. Where should the commercial traveler who eats his butter hamsters at the cafe go today? There is no space. Per ⁇ he can go out in the rain on a picnic field, because in a cafe that will no longer be possible.

I would like to make clear to Mrs. Muylle, who misused my words from the committee, that I have not at any time stated that for List Dedecker smoking and eating cannot go together. On the contrary, we want to relax the legislation that applies today with regard to the cafes that serve light meals.

What I have said – and we stand for it, and I think no one in the hemisphere will contradict this – is that no one believes that smoking is healthy. Smoking is unhealthy. I have made an attempt in the committee to convince the minister that the pedagogical effect of persuading the smoker to stop smoking is not achieved with this bill.

The current bill only imposes obligations on the hospitality industry, but offers nothing to the smoker and will not persuade him to smoke less or even quit smoking, which would be the most ideal.

It is true that efforts have been made.

Dear colleague, where do you get the claim that a decrease in the number of places where it is possible to smoke would have no impact on the smoker’s behavior? Everything I read shows that a good way to get the smoker to quit tobacco is to multiply the places where it is forbidden to smoke. I would like to know what studies, what documents, what experiences you are based on to assert that this will be without effect.

The figures are, of course, interpretable depending on the position that one defends. This was correctly noted by the colleague. You can interpret the figures, also made available by the Minister, as you wish. However, it is a fact that today a smoker who goes to a restaurant does not quit smoking; he or she just goes outside smoking. Sometimes two smokers at a table even dare to leave without paying. This text does not encourage smokers to quit smoking. This is not the purpose of the legislation. I thought it was fundamentally intended to encourage people to smoke less or even quit smoking. Today, however, this is not the case. In fact, you only drum smokers in a corner and only there they are allowed to smoke.

Mr. Dedecker, these are two different things.

In the restaurant, an inveterate smoker must go out to smoke his cigarette; sometimes, it is true, some people use this process to leave without paying, but non-smokers do so too.

In reality, it is also worth observing the evolution of the number of smokers: according to studies on smokers (by their number, age, distribution, etc.), by comparing states where smoking is permitted to those where smoking is prohibited in a series of places, we observe a decrease in their number where the prohibition is placed. And that, for several reasons: first, simply because I would prohibit myself from smoking rather than allow myself to be prohibited by someone else, because to stay with my friends, it is better not to smoke otherwise I have to go out, because the message passes, and other reasons still. Thus, everything I’ve read indicates to me that the number of smokers decreases in countries where smoking in closed public places is prohibited.

You tell me that the measure would remain ineffective. So I would have liked to know which surveys and/or studies you are based on to assert such an assertion.

Mrs Gerkens, it makes sense that when something is banned, it either enters the clandestinity or disappears in the long run. I agree with this. However, I would like to argue the opposite.

Do you know any public place or public occasion where a joint can be smoked or cocaine can be cut? Do you know one such place?

The most growing pleasure and addiction drug in recent years is cannabis. Up to 40% of young people have already smoked a joint. The fastest growing drug in our country is cocaine. However, I do not know any public place where cocaine can be cut off. So any nuance in your words would not be bad.

I was able to follow the debate in my office. The following, however, must be of the heart to me, although Mrs. Avontroodt will interpret our point of view.

You are not well understood.

My voice is not good. If I say it in French, is it better for you? No to? Apologize to me!

I followed the debate in my office. Mrs Avontroodt will explain our position later. However, if all that is so bad, then both the sale and cultivation of it should be prohibited.

I hear here a hypocritical logic, which I regretfully have to react to. I do not smoke and have never smoked. That is not the problem. Nevertheless, I must remember from the heart that is being exhorted at a certain moment – I can understand this – that smoking is unhealthy, unacceptable and life-threatening for some. Stop it and ban the sale of tobacco products.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply first to what Ms. Gerkens just said.

Mrs Gerkens, it is very short by the curve that you or those who have stood up for the law knock on the chest and declare that it is thanks to the legislation that people will smoke less.

The committee has made it very clear – I have also asked for it – that both the Communities and the federal government have already made efforts to raise awareness and take preventive action. These are combined factors. Nevertheless, it is and remains the fundamental freedom of the individual to choose – I now return to Mr. De Croo – whether he or she wants to smoke or not. The decision not to smoke cannot be imposed by the legislator.

The current bill actually aims to protect non-smokers. It was about that. Mrs. Muylle has recovered and accused Mr. Dedecker of defending the smokers and of defending the population. Mrs. Muylle, however, you rightly meant that you are defending the non-smokers.

Well, I defend everyone. Everyone has a fundamental right to choose whether to smoke or not to smoke.

Smokers are encouraged to smoke less, but with other means. I continue: this is largely insufficient to persuade someone to quit smoking, and I think the current legislation should not or may not even serve that purpose.

The adoption of this bill will not encourage smoking to be reduced or to stop smoking altogether. The only thing that is achieved – I also pointed out this in the committee meeting – is that the smokers, who today in fact are already a smaller group, are stigmatized and criminalized. Smokers are socially isolated. They will therefore be those who are fished and, if possible, still punished, if they drop a speck, for lock-outs, and so on. The objective is not achieved with this bill. Smokers will continue to smoke this way. It does not provide any incentive to convince the population of how unhealthy smoking is. However, we are all convinced of this. However, smoking will now happen in locations, and no longer or not long so much more in the catering facilities, where it is still happening.

The pedagogical effect has not been proven. The legislator, however, has a certain expectation pattern with regard to public health, which the minister must watch over. The legislator should impose rules that have a positive effect on health. However, those rules should not be economically restrictive for entrepreneurs. Therefore, no good decisions can be made today, ⁇ not when I hear from other colleagues that they still believe that the present proposal is not going far enough, that one still wants to expand it. Why this hesitation, why not directly that extension? Is it not a deception of the general public that no clear position is taken? This can hardly be called good governance.

Regarding the discussion on whether or not smoking rooms and/or smoke extraction systems are installed, I would like to raise the following concerns. The creation of a smoking room, accessible to the visiting public, is not possible for every entrepreneur, given the existing infrastructure, the relevant legislation – which is also largely insufficient – and can be called a free choice if the entrepreneurs want to continue to allow smoking. The current legislation as such can therefore be described as discriminatory. So much is clear.

One of the examples that entrepreneurs must face when they want to set up a smoking room is that it needs to be decomposed on the number of seats, therefore also on income, on consumption. There is the question of obtaining or not obtaining a urban planning permit to set up that smoking room. There are additional firefighting regulations. Not every exploiter – I thought even 80% – is the owner of the property he exploits.

Not all owners will allow these investments or do them themselves. Not all entrepreneurs are capital-powered enough to make such investments.

Therefore, we cannot be blind, Mrs. Minister, to the fact that we, who will vote today on that bill, will be solely responsible for the cases where no smoking room can be arranged and for the entrepreneurs who, with or without smoking room, will suffer financial damage from the legislation that comes ahead today. If a smoking room is not an option, – as is already the case in some restaurants – tents, ashes and the like can be placed on the street side, creating inconvenience. The landlord is also damaged by having to pay for taking the public road or, in the worst case, even having to apply for a permit to place a terrace at his establishment. There can also be inconvenience caused by customers who still smoke outside after ten o’clock in the evening and make too much noise for the neighborhood. All such cases have already been established. The police then come by, there are peeks on the ground, there is talk of lock-outs, and then you will be able to distribute fine. It is therefore unreasonable that today additional expenses will be imposed on operators who with these investments still want to allow smoking, ⁇ not if today already there is an intention to further deepen and further extend the bill.

As colleague Dedecker just pointed out, some countries, under pressure from organisations, the industry or the public themselves, are already returning to the extension of the restrictive smoking ban introduced in those countries. We oppose the obligation to prohibit smoking in cafes and brasseries because we assume that the users should be able to decide whether or not to smoke in their cafes. It is then up to the consumer to choose between the cafes where it is and where it is not smoked. Of course, it must be very clear to the consumer when entering the catering case whether or not there is smoking in that case. That is a freedom that must be guaranteed both to the operator and to the customer. This is not the case in the present proposal.

List Dedecker respects the fundamental economic freedom of coffee owners. The government can and should not impose the smoking ban, in our opinion, by law. The freedom of every individual is violated by this bill. Reality is not taken into account here. We estimate that the proposal will lead to discrimination. The necessary legal proceedings will result from this.

I have a small concern or suggestion because the bill is likely to be approved. Per ⁇ one can think about thinking about indeed as a remedy also advocating that, for example, in the cases where no smoke is smoked, the fire insurance becomes less expensive.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, I would like to add one more to the good speech of my colleague Martine De Maght. I am here in fact amazed at the hypocrisy of this we, with even, it is almost hypochondria.

I witnessed eight years ago in the Senate the debates on the smoking ban. There was a lot of hypocrisy at the time. The PS will definitely remember, Mr. Mayeur, despite the fact that you are a doctor. It was about the ban on tobacco advertising. Since it was about cents at the time, this had to be absolutely away from the dolls of Bernie Ecclestone and Francorchamps.

In what I see here today, I see a tremendous lack of political courage.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Dedecker, I do not need to refresh your memory. You were then in the VLD faction and supported the whole trouble around Francorchamps.

So you should not come here to accuse others of being hypocritical. You are hypocritical at times. You then approved by the majority, as a VLD member, Francorchamps and the whole circus around Francorchamps.

Mr. Bultinck, you should really listen to what I say. I supported it then. However, I was against the prohibition of tobacco advertising.

However, it is about the hypocrisy of the majority parties who here today say they are going to ban it.

When it came to big cents, even the PS, the great moral knight in this story, Mrs. Onkelinx, with Mr. Rudy Demotte at the head, who was then Minister of Public Health, said that it must absolutely be approved that in Francorchamps tobacco advertising on the cars should be allowed.

We are now a lot further. During the whole afternoon I hear here now majority parties say that there should be a general tobacco ban.

You just don’t have the courage to say this. Before the elections, the leader of the VLD group said: "We will not submit this proposal now. It must be from the election committee. We will deal with it again after the election."There is something here somewhere that stinks of the knick.

I now hear back all parties very hypocritically say that they will abolish this case in the future. I will only say one thing: I am against it, but I would like you to do it today. At least have the courage to do this today. What are you doing today? You are obliging the cafeteria owners to make a choice and then next year, if it fits the political correctness, to say to those people that the efforts they have made the year before have been annulled. If you let someone with a brasserie make the choice today to make that thing free of food, then that person risks next year – six months later – that there will be a total ban. Please have the political courage to not keep those people on the line and say it’s done. I have heard this from every speaker of the majority parties.

I have respect for Mrs. Smeyers or Mr. Jambon who say, “Do it now! Do not let people make unnecessary expenses or wreak them in the long term."It is not the first Chechen region in terms of smoking prohibition. The first smoking ban dates back to 1590 by Pope Urban VII who introduced the first smoking ban in the church. In 1690, five monks were buried alive in Santiago for smoking in the sacristry. There is, therefore, a certain history concerning the Chechen regions.

The first smoking ban, colleagues, dates from the Nazis in 1941. It was forbidden for members of the party to smoke. We are a little further. The comparison may not be done, but let us say that we are so far. If I say here today that I am against a smoking ban in the hospitality industry, then this actually has nothing to do with a smoking ban. Whatever one may think; I am not paid by the tobacco lobby. As you know, I come from the sports world. I have never smoked and I will never smoke. I am not interested in breaking. I say this simply from a liberal conviction because one must take responsibility for one’s own actions.

I do not like a society in which a certain form of health fascism prevails. The fence touches more and more of the dam. The medical concern I hear here from everyone is increasingly resembling a moral judgment about how a person should live. Well, I have the right to live seventy years as a lion instead of eighty years as a lamb.

My moral judgment was inspired by a very close relative of me. That close relative had smoked all his life and had lung cancer. I asked him what he would do now, since he was no longer allowed to smoke from the doctor. He told me that he would change the doctor.

In the long run, we no longer live in a welfare state, but we tell people how to live. Today, for example, there are already restaurants in America where one must stand on the scale. One should not exceed a certain body mass index or suffer from obesity, because otherwise you will no longer get food in the restaurant. Later, one will probably have to put on each bag of fries how many calories it contains or one will not be allowed to eat them.

I am convinced that one is responsible for his actions. I am not talking about the ridiculousness, the ridiculousness of the bill. You have the right to prohibit smoking in the workplace. But, Mrs. Van der Straeten, I would not want to count the garçons and the waiters in the catering business that also smoke.

What is it about? It’s about the little coffee boss who takes advantage of his business alone and who doesn’t even have the choice to say that it is still allowed to smoke in his cafe. I have experienced things concrete. Probably it was just about writing to say that first there was a 1941 ban by Karl Astel on Hitler’s order. However, when one looks at the witch hunt today on the smoker, then it is almost a civilization deficit, he is almost an asylum seeker in his own tribal corner. I have experienced a case of someone 67 years old who went billiards in Oostende, on the first floor. Rules had been established. The rules were that there was smoking below and that there was a billion above.

They are visited by the Health Inspectorate. He did not like to play billiards anymore. The billiards in the cafe had to be closed, because billiards are a sport and when you go out from the first floor through the cafe, the lungs of the billiards are open. I have never heard that the lungs of the billionaires are open. Some people know a lot about sports. Coincidentally, I also sat there for a while. That man was punished.

Today there is a witch hunt to the smoker, the seller of cigarettes.

Last week, someone with two cases – so not a big seller – who sold twelve cigarettes with a number of lighters included, received a fine of as much as 55,000 euros! This is not a one-off incident, Mr. Minister.

On Sunday, it was checked again, in Westouter of all places. The Black Mountain, the Kemmelberg, they are not higher than the Baraque Fraiture, well, there is a man there who also sells tobacco. That man also sells a couple of cigarettes and he adds a few lighters. That man called me yesterday to say that he had also received a fine of 55,000 euros. That is the minimum penalty.

Is this normal in our society? (Protest of Minister Onkelinx) No, Mrs. Minister, that is the reality. It is not a brothel, Mrs. Minister, it is a tobacco business. I will show you a milk.

Is it normal that society is not protected from what, day after day, kills fellow citizens? Especially since, in the horeca establishments, there are not only people who smoke, there are also those who do not smoke and who undergo passive smoking.

I will tell you how to solve this. If I exploit a cafe, you are not the minister who pays my rent or my mortgage or all the taxes I have to pay to keep the barracks open to stay alive. All those costs are for me.

I will tell you how you solve this. I make a choice. On my front door, or if necessary on my forehead, I paint the words “there is allowed to smoke” or “there is not allowed to smoke”. Then you have the choice – I know that it is difficult for socialists to make choices – to enter or not. In the first case, you know that you can play a game of billiards and smoke a cigarette. I’m not going to put those people on the road, I’m not going to put that guy on the road and I’m not going to help that coffee boss his affair to the bars.

Mrs. Gerkens, I heard you speak beautifully.

... ...

Ask the word if you want to say something! Press the button!

I have not been a lot in the committee, but I heard Mrs. Gerkens say that there is a problem for nothing. What did you say in the committee? We will have to provide for that little coffee boss, if he has to close his business by giving him a social income, a replacement income. Are you going to keep those people on the line for another year? What are you actually going to do? That is what we are talking about today. Now you are dealing with the slow worship of those five thousand or six thousand or how many there are, ten thousand or eleven thousand or twelve thousand involved. Have the courage to make a decision. I can even assist Mr. De Croo.

If you say it is so harmful to the population, then prohibit it! Now you are hypocritical. It should not be in a cafe, but of a ban you dare not talk. If it is so bad for the people, then prohibit it. You do not dare. You will take away the pleasure from people, from social drinkers. 70% of people who go to coffee are social drinkers. You will be denied access.

Mr. Dedecker, you are right in saying that the simplest thing would be that from now on, smoking is completely banned. I regret that this option has not been chosen. There is an intermediate alternative proposal that I advocate, that is to set a date. In this way, we know what we are committed to.

As for your argument against “the socialist-communist model where it is collectively forbidden to have this or that behavior,” know that it is people who defend liberal ideas like you who also propose to abolish the reimbursement of health care for those who have a behavior that costs public health. Will you continue your reasoning by saying that you should let smoke anywhere, expose anyone to smoke, and that for those who smoke, the INAMI will not intervene? Be consistent until the end.

We can do the same with everyone who drinks and prohibit the drink. A ban on alcohol is probably the next step. After all, alcohol makes you a little sad, you become aggressive of it, the brain cells die off, and you also run the risk of causing an accident.

In short, all people who are in the hospital with liver cirrhosis will not be treated? I will answer with an intellectual argument. In fact, you say that people should be forced to live healthy lives. Since it is a duty to live healthy lives, it sounds a bit fascist. It comes from the book by Robert Proctor. People will be obliged to live healthy lives so that they are not a burden to society. It can be said that people have a duty to become rich, because the poor are the burden of society. Or not ?

The [...]

You say you have an obligation to live healthy lives.

At any time of our lives, we can be a burden for society: at birth, when we are sick, when we are old. This is solidarity! Today it’s you, and tomorrow it’s you.

I take responsibility for my actions. You must teach people to take responsibility for their actions. Choosing whether to enter a cafe where you can smoke a cigarette or choose to enter a cafe where you do not smoke is the personal responsibility of the individual. That is also the personal responsibility of the builder of the café, to meet a need in society. 30% of people still smoke. I do not want a civilization deficit. That should not be paria for me.

This also applies to youth. The WHO has conducted a study. 214,000 young people in Europe were interviewed, with the collaboration of the RU Gent, and 17% of our youth is still smoking.

Mr. Dedecker, you mentioned a socialist or communist vision of society and a liberal vision. I do not fully agree with your point of view on this subject.

You cannot deny that the general European trend is to ban smoking in public places.

As far as I know, countries like France and Italy – colleagues will agree – are not governed by socialists or communists! Your speech on liberalism and freedoms to talk about a public health problem is therefore somewhat delayed.

I agree with you on the question of freedom to enter or not enter a restaurant or cafe displaying a pictogram. However, we are talking about a particular problem, namely passive smoking. I would like to be quoted as another behavior than smoking that is harmful to health.

( ... ) The behavior of certain drivers.

That is true, Madame. But rules have been set. There are also speed limits.

I repeat, Mr. Dedecker, I do not very well understand your mention of a socialist or communist society, on the one hand, and of a liberal society, on the other.

I will explain to you.

For me, it is about the responsibility for the actions that are made. That is the essence of the society in which I want to live. I know very well that this is a lost battle, but until that battle is delivered, I will not exclude people.

I know very well that smoking cigarettes playing Russian roulette is with your own health. I know very well that in one or two generations there will be no smoking, but in the meantime I will not exclude 30% of the population. I will also not support foolish bills such as this proposal.

I received an email from a lady who exploits a cafe in the Westhoek. She has a café and serves a sandwich with hesp or a plate of soup and it is allowed to smoke here. From tomorrow, she can no longer serve it, but she must put a bag of nuts on the table.

That is not a law. You are slowly getting rid of the caterers. Those people have been making all sorts of expenses for ten years based on the bills that are formulated here. You let them make expenses, you let them place exhausts and smoke rooms and then the elections are over and we make ourselves interesting again.

It is only a month ago and we are here again with a new law. While that new law still needs to be voted today, the majority parties already say that it is not a good law and that it must change in a year or two if I hear some people, and if it gets some minister in his head, it will be in fourteen days.

I complain about that. Have the courage to say that no more smoking is allowed. I am against it, because then smoking will go into clandestinity and there will always be something. Stop the witch hunt on those people. This is about it.

The superman who does not drink alcohol, does not smoke, does not display psychological abnormalities, is not obese, does not suffer from obesity, does not drive too fast, does not take drugs, does not overuse pills, is not noisy, a man who is perfect according to aligned and preconceived forms and standards, is not my man. This is what liberalism is about: the freedom to live as one wants, as long as one does not harm others.

The more statements I heard, the wiser I found this law. She is wise in many areas. First of all – this is the merit of the applicants – the smoking ban is extended. According to statistics, in 90% of catering cases a smoking ban could come into force.

A second element of wisdom is that there is ⁇ no witch hunt organized. The longer I listened to colleagues, the more coherent I found the law.

Collega Avontroodt, I may not have mentioned it explicitly just then, but I find it difficult to do so now, because you also refer to it. There may not be many operators who set up a smoking room or who have trouble about the fact that there is no smoking in a restaurant, but I notice that very often there is a sin against the regulation that is in force today, if checks are carried out.

Mrs. De Maght, I would like to add a third, fourth and fifth argument. Why do I think it is a good law? Several colleagues explained it. Today, the controls are impossible. A turnover must be determined. Is it 30% or not? This is not controllable. I think there is now clarity being created and that is a good step forward. The present legislation has a great power.

Is there any support for the general smoking ban today? That is an open question. What the text ⁇ does not intend is to hit the small cafes, the folk cafes. After all, this guarantees low-threshold access to the small public cafes.

Even in my capacity as a doctor, I dare and can bear that the folk cafe indeed also responds to a certain social need.

It is not by reducing people to clandestinity – ⁇ a big word, when it comes to smoking – or to the marginality, that one makes them quit smoking. On the contrary, 90% of catering ⁇ will be smoke-free. From the point of view of public health, smoke-free catering is a big step forward. However, no witch hunt is practiced on those who cannot quit the cigarette, but still have an effective need for their conversation and social contact. We target in this especially those who we do not want to let go into unity.

Mrs Avontroodt, I have heard you well and I can conclude from the arguments you now cite that you – I assume that you speak on behalf of your group – and your party are against a general smoking ban in the hospitality industry?

It is too fast.

That is why I ask the question.

You need to practice some patience from time to time in life.

That is difficult.

Practicing patience is difficult for men.

That is a bit sexist.

Women are better trained to listen from time to time and only then react.

Mr. Jambon, let Mrs. Avontroodt finish her reasoning. After that, you can still respond.

Mr. Speaker, I will let Mrs. Avontroodt finish her reasoning. However, I never thought that the anti-smoking debate would degenerate into sexism.

A debate is unpredictable.

For the economic support – you must admit – we cannot go. The catering industry is crunching today and is having a very difficult time. Should we just fish the people from the hospitality?

Mrs. Gerkens, I was, frankly, also shocked. Should we take measures that will result in the fact that we will have to pay unemployment allowance to the self-employed coffee boss? That cannot be the purpose of a legislation that must be gentle and humane. You have confirmed what we ⁇ do not aim for. We want to effectively allow the midfield and the small café with its social added value to live their lives.

There is another colleague without patience, Mrs. Avontroodt.

Colleague Avontroodt, I fully support from our group your concern about the hospitality sector, but I would rather see that it also happens with actions. Can you tell me specifically why the government, in which you form a majority majority party, currently keeps up with the introduction of the 6 percent VAT rate for the hospitality industry? If you are so concerned about that catering sector, I would like to see that it is being done very quickly. I will not even give you a lecture of the past catering plans of colleagues Daems and consorts. I could read them all to you, but I would rather see actions than words.

Can I suggest that we stay in the debate? I think interruptions are fine, but a speaker who is speaking also has the right to develop some arguments. If one says in advance that one wants to bring forward five arguments and one is interrupted all the time after one or two arguments, then the argument is partially lost. I want to have respect for interruptions, but also for speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify the intention that Mrs. Avontroodt gives me.

I think to submit a bill on self-employed and small ⁇ as our society is evolving. In the face of the requirements and legislation that are changing especially on hygiene, such as the ban on smoking, some tenants of the horeca, but also small grocery stores, will not have the ability to adapt because they are at the end of their career or because their customer base no longer allows them to invest. This is what worries me! This is true in many sectors!

Despite the ban on smoking, it was found that, overall, the horeca sector has not suffered and is getting better. Nevertheless, a minority of establishments did not have this ability to adapt, which was confirmed by the ONSS, INASTI, etc. I did not reintroduce an amendment on this subject, since it was found that it would not produce the desired effect.

If it were a long-term law – which I do not hope – it would not be that minority that would benefit from the exemptions or exceptions present in the law, but rather all the big dancings or cafes where all the youth of our neighborhoods comes out. Young people are the target audience of cigarette smokers. These are the institutions that we have released today!

The two debates are always mixed. I just tried to make it clear that it is a step forward by extending the smoking ban and at the same time not witch hunting. The elements that Mrs. Gerkens and Mr. Bultinck insist on relate precisely to the current economic reality. With this majority, we do not want to cause more bankruptcies. This was also unanimous in the committee meeting.

The assessment announced by the Minister will therefore be very important. After all, we will put a number of bistroes for the choice. Several elements have already been put forward by the various stakeholders. One says he will choose the cigarette, while the other says he will choose meals. I don’t have a big Madame Soleil content, so I can’t know what will be chosen. Therefore, it is clearly stated that 90% will be smoke-free, while in the remaining 10% the freedom of choice will remain at the forefront, both of the buyer and of the customer.

What is it actually about? Where have we not stopped yet, except for some arguments developed by colleagues? I think that quitting smoking doesn’t happen on the road. Other arguments are raised, such as the VAT reduction. That, by the way, is an element that we would continue to say that we will not penalize.

On quitting smoking, I would like to take examples, if you allow me to do so. When I was sitting on the university banks, we had a professor in anatomopathology. I would like to ask that all smokers be careful now, because it has helped half of the students. That professor of anatomopathology began each course either with a lung of a deceased smoker, or with a deadly sick patient, or with a testimony. Every lesson, systematically, he confronted us with reality. Then you have an example feature, a awareness, despite all the campaigns. I am not going to do politics here by stating what the Flemish or French Community should or should not have done, or by stating that no false image can be created by other legislation.

Quitting smoking is more likely in a dialogue. We have talked about this with Mrs. Minister: we did not immediately agree, but we have reached an agreement on tobacco consultation or anti-smoking consultation that will be reimbursed. I believe more in those rules to limit the number of smokers than in the cheating of the low-threshold, small cafes where now people could possibly still go. It is a step.

Finally, Mr. Jambon, as I see you already looking, we have two other elements: first, the evaluation and second, Europe. of course ! This will happen when both the economic support and the social climate have fully matured for it. I have experienced the time when people smoked in editorial offices; one could not write an article without a cigarette. I have experienced that time. One started with politeness for colleagues and today one sits with smoke-free offices and work spaces. That is accepted. I am convinced that this step will also evolve, and under the measurement of Europe, there may gradually be another expansion. Of course, our country will also be involved. In the meantime, we could still keep that freedom for those for whom the cigarette on the row is still important.

I would like to finish with Descartes. Descartes said that every doubt is the beginning of wisdom. I think there has been a lot of weighing and weighing around this law, but in the end I am convinced that it is today the wisest law that could already be voted on. I would like to thank the initiators.

Mrs. Avontroodt, you can sit back quietly.

I have practiced a lot of patience and listened attentively to your speech. A lot has become especially clear to me. I have heard the PS say to be in favour of a total smoking ban in the hospitality industry. I have heard Mr. Bacquelaine later say that his party’s preference also goes to a total smoking ban. I have heard CDH, very militant even, say: total smoking ban! In the last year I have also experienced CD&V, where they also departed from a total smoking ban but today on the speech floor came to express their regret that it did not happen.

I wish the open world congratulations. I think that today has been clear that Open Vld has achieved that a total smoking ban in the hospitality sector has not come. All the other majority parties have left the floor today by Open Vld. It is clear to me!

I have already submitted the amendments I have submitted. I will not start again. For me, there are two that are essential; I let go of the rest. They are about introducing a date at which the smoking ban would be generalized.

What we had agreed when Ms. Burgeon was president was that once everyone was heard, we would see if an agreement could be reached to send the proposal back to the committee in order to rework these amendments, or write another introducing a date at which the exception would be generalized. We will then return to the plenary session for the conclusion of the discussion of the documents. Could you clearly ask the question to the assembly: do we go back into the committee to vote on these amendments so that it can pass next week in the Senate and come into force on January 1st?

I heard your proposal, but this is a change in the agenda. The government does not ask for it, and neither do I. Is your proposal supported by 50 members? This is what is required to introduce an amendment to the agenda.

Absolutely at all. It is necessary to ask the Assembly to take a decision on this proposal. I heard the interventions of the CDH group, the PS, the MR, the CD&V, although it was not as precise as to the date. They found that the idea of introducing a deadline was interesting and that this should be settled in the House and not in the Senate next week. Otherwise, the documents will be finalised only in October.

I agree, Madame Gerkens. This is your interpretation. You say you’ve heard everyone, even me. But in this case you are proposing a change in the agenda. This requires the support of 50 members. Is your request supported by 50 members?

If my colleagues are consistent with their words, yes!

I find that your request for referral to the committee is not approved.

I propose to close the discussion and continue our work.

The [...]

You can vote by standing and sitting.

Do you want to vote standing and sitting?

Yes Mr President!

We vote to sit down and get up! Who is in favour of the proposal of Ms. Gerkens?

Please call the members first!

Madame Gerkens, I am applying the Rules as they are! Are there 50 members standing up to support your proposal?

If all the members of the parliament are present, yes! In this case, the appeal must be made. You can get bored and follow the rules.

No Mrs Gerkens! You are misunderstood!

A member can always request an amendment to the agenda, but the question must be supported by 50 members.

I ask you for the last time: is your proposal supported by 50 members? I do not see them. If I do not see them, I will proceed with the handling of the agenda, as we all approved them.