Proposition 52K1856

Projet de loi modifiant la loi relative à la police de la circulation routière, coordonnée le 16 mars 1968, en ce qui concerne le recours à l'éthylotest antidémarrage.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Jenne De Potter, Roel Deseyn, Jef Van den Bergh
LE Josy Arens, David Lavaux
MR François Bellot, Valérie De Bue
Open Vld Ludo Van Campenhout
PS | SP Bruno Van Grootenbrulle

Submission date

March 5, 2009

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

alcoholism road safety road traffic

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

LDD

Party dissidents ¶

• Ine Somers (Open Vld) abstained from voting.

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 ¶

June 4, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, the Infrastructure Committee has indeed discussed the problem of the alcohol lock during two sessions in the months of April and May. It is about the possibility of punishment, to sanction, by the judge issued of the installation of an alcohol lock in the car. In fact, it is the integration of a piece of cutting-edge technology, where the driver is subjected to a test before he can take the initiative to drive a car.

The President quoted the two bills that led to the final text. There was the proposal of CD&V, cdH, MR, Open Vld and PS and the previous proposal of Mr. Arens of the CDH. The first proposal gives the court the possibility to impose on alcohol offenders in traffic the installation of an alcohol lock as a supplementary or partial alternative punishment. It is also on the basis of the latest bill that the discussion was eventually held in the committee. Important compared with Mr. Arens’s proposal is that we can point out here that this is about provisions under Article 38 concerning the expiration of the right to send, whereas in the other proposal it was about punishment provisions resulting from alcohol abuse.

Another difference between the two proposals was the payment of the cost of the alcohol lock. In the withholding proposal, the cost of the installation can be deducted from the fines.

Also an important issue on which an amendment was submitted was that in the first proposal one could start the vehicle with the alcohol lock at no more than 0,22 milligrams of alcohol per liter of exhaled air, in the retention proposal is that 0,09 milligrams, which corresponds to 0,2 promile. This, by the way, is entirely in the extension of the practices of alcohol locks in professional transport.

The bill was discussed very thoroughly in the committee. There was not only the State Council’s opinion on the two proposals, but also the opinion and the comments and suggestions of the Chamber’s legal service. In the presentation, co-contributor Jef Van den Bergh of CD&V has already pointed out the extensive range of sanctions and fines that consists of punishment and expiration of the right of sending. This additional measure was ⁇ in the case of recidive an important tool for the judge.

The alcohol lock, to be installed in a vehicle, is a practice, a tactic, a strategy to be applied by the judge in the future and is supported by the various factions.

N-VA and sp.a have been very positive about this. The Flemish Interest Group demanded that this should be accompanied by the tightened police control. At Open Vld there were concerns about the principle of equality. After all, people who install such a lock are subjected to a stricter alcohol test than people who go into traffic in a regular way.

From PS, questions were asked about the pilot projects already implemented by the European Union and by the BIVV. From MR, questions were asked about possible fraud with the alcohol lock. Apparently the system is closed. There are intermediate tests during driving. For the fact that someone else can blow instead of the person who drives the vehicle, the technology turns out to provide a solution.

From the green groups, comments were also made on the controls and the rearrangement of the use of the alcohol lock. After all, one cannot simply proceed to imposing an alcohol lock without any indication, formation and framing.

The State Secretary then referred to the pilot project of the BIVV. This was further developed in a presentation by colleague Jef Van den Bergh. It is important that the proposal gives the judge the possibility to deduct the cost of the alcohol lock from the fine imposed. This is fully in line with the objective of the proposal to encourage individuals to conduct more responsible driving.

These were the main points of the introduction. Then the punctual discussion came around 0.5 or 0.2 promile. Mr Van den Bergh has, in response to Mrs Somers’s explanation, stated that the norm of 0.2 is ⁇ justified because it is already the norm in many cases abroad.

As regards the entry into force, an amendment was submitted to plan it a little later, in particular on 1 October 2010. After all, if the bill is adopted today, a number of implementing measures will still take some time to make it a success across the entire mobility story.

The bill, as amended by the amendment, was adopted unanimously and consequently expires the bill no. by 1339.

Driving under the influence of alcohol is unfortunately still a major cause of serious road accidents and therefore should be strictly controlled and sanctioned. In addition to the already existing criminal arsenal of fines, imprisonment, termination of the right to drive and traffic therapy, the court will now have the possibility to install an alcohol lock in the vehicle of drivers convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol.

It is clear to us that this measure is primarily aimed at hard-learning recurring drivers who are systematically influenced in traffic. It is clear to us that these devices must be absolutely fraud-resistant at the moment they are effectively installed in the vehicle.

For our group, the installation of an alcohol lock is primarily a preventive measure that prevents drivers from reaching behind the wheel after a conviction under the influence of alcohol, without this being accompanied by a long-term driving ban that can impose a heavy mortgage on the exercise of professional activities or the opportunities on the labour market.

It is precisely from this preventive perspective that we see little reason to reduce the current legally permitted alcohol threshold from 0.5 promille to 0.2 promille for drivers who move in a vehicle that is equipped with an alcohol lock. The reduction of the current alcohol limit for specific target groups seems to us primarily to be a stigmatizing measure on which there is no scientific and political consensus yet. Also in this case there is a threat of unnecessary sanctions for, for example, family members who also wish to make use of the vehicle. For this reason, an amendment was submitted to the committee to raise the 0.2 promille to 0.5 promille.

The Open Vld Group will therefore, for this reason, submit the amendment here for voting unless this issue is again discussed in the committee, which I think is best for all the groups.

Finally, we would like to emphasize that we should ⁇ not intend to introduce the alcohol lock as a substitute for police checks. We remain convinced that it is the driver who must bear as much final responsibility as possible in traffic. We therefore ask that we continue to be careful with technological innovations in which the vehicle thinks or decides in its place.

I therefore request that the present proposal be forwarded again to the committee.

Regardless of my statement, I would like to expressly ask that the proposals not be returned to the committee. The proposed amendment, which would be the reason for the return, has already been substantially discussed in the committee. It has also already been voted. Therefore, there is no reason to send the point back to the committee.

I consult the room. The proposal should be returned to the committee. I consult the room. Mr. Deseyn and Mr. De Croo ask for the word.

Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as a rapporteur, I would like to reiterate the rich discussion we have had on this subject, including the arguments cited.

This is an additional penalty. People cannot simply be subjected to a regime of 0.5 promile, as it exists for everyone in case of punishment for recurrence.

The discussion was fully carried out. The amendment was voted by the Commissioners not only in honour and conscience but also with full awareness of its importance. As I just stated during my explanation, the amendment was just the breaking point. The amendment was an important issue in the discussion.

I do not understand at all why we should resume the discussion in question, only because a group did not get right during the vote.

That is an opinion.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to point out that in the committee two aspects were cited by us. That was, on the one hand, the recurring character, over which we have finally demonstrated our willingness to leave it more or less so.

Nevertheless, we would like to emphasize the fact that lowering the alcohol limit from 0,5 to 0,2 promile is very special. In the end, it will be up to the legislator to be able to make accountability. The constitutional principle of equality applies to every driver. We will now have to ensure that the legislator can assert that there is a deviation from the aforementioned equality principle on an individual basis.

This is the main motivation for me to discuss the previous point in the committee. We will then see what the views of the various groups on the issue are.

However, the point is very essential. This is contrary to the constitutional principle of equality, which is fundamental.

Mr. Van der Straeten, I note that ... The government can, of course, ask for the word at any time.

Mr. President, Mrs. Somers, I hear you talk about the principle of equality. That is a beautiful principle.

Mr. De Croo will undoubtedly know – he will undoubtedly also be able to explain it to his group – that the alcohol limit for pilots is 0,0 promile and for a railway driver is 0,2 promile.

If therefore the principle of equality must prevail somewhere, we must choose between 0,0 and 0,2 promile. In this case, we should definitely not go back to the limit of 0.5 promile.

I point out – Ms. Somers has said it clearly and clearly – that it is a recidive and a judge’s ruling that makes it mandatory, after one was caught to have driven a vehicle several times while one was above his tea water. If one proposes to keep it at 0.5, I wonder where the concern for road safety remains when people are in traffic under such conditions.

Mrs. Somers, we will not discuss here as in the committee. There is a proposal for reference to the committee. I will still listen to Mrs. Van der Straeten and then I myself make a proposal to deal with the work here further.

This is an interesting discussion. I think we have taken part in the committee. I can even recall that I asked Ms. Somers at that time whether she would like an additional opinion from the Council of State on the amendments submitted, also in relation to that aspect.

Mr. Speaker, since it turns out that there is still a discussion between two majority parties, it seems to me the most sensible thing to actually go back to the committee and see there how this can be clarified.

Mr Dedecker has the word.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to announce that we are also submitting an amendment in the plenary session, to bring it to 0.5.

A further amendment will be submitted in the plenary session.

There are two possibilities: either I ask the Chamber to speak immediately, to sit down and to stand up, unless eight members request a unanimous vote, or I propose to finish the general discussion now and vote on the proposal for dispatch at the end of the work. If one can live with it, then we would at least be able to exhaust the general discussion and then we could vote afterwards on the proposal to send.

Mr De Croo has the word.

Mr. Speaker, if a vote is requested now, the Chamber will not be in number to validly vote. Therefore, I suggest that you hold the vote at the moment of the voting. Then everyone can decide whether he or she wants the shipment or not. I see, Mrs. Somers, that an opinion has been requested from the State Council. Mr. Secretary of State, the amendment that provided in case of recurrence is no longer submitted. It is only 0.5 and not 0.2. It does not apply in case of recurrence. The judge could therefore, in that hypothesis, declare this in the first sentence as an additional punishment.

My proposal was to ask the House whether it can agree that the general discussion be exhausted. If, however, Ms. Somers ⁇ ins her request for sending to the committee, I propose that the Chamber declare it at the end.

The President has the word.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to avoid carrying out the debate in its entirety, and then eventually decide that it will be sent. Let us immediately speak about this.

Are we voting to sit and stand up or is someone calling for a general vote?

Mr. Speaker, if we ask for voting with eight members, then you must be called, as you would do in a few hours.

Are you asking for the general vote, Mr De Croo?

Together with eight other members, I ask for the general vote. We are probably not in number to vote validly.

I think you are right in that. You are asking for the general vote and if we are not in number, we must suspend our work.

I think I made a reasonable proposal by extending the general discussion. If, at the end of that general discussion, Mrs. Somers keeps her proposal to be sent to the committee standing, the Chamber may still take a decision on that at the end.

If Mr Verherstraeten cannot live with this, then we must organize a general vote and then we are not in number. Anyone can establish this with me. We will have to suspend the work.

Mr. Speaker, you can call and leave room for the members of the Chamber to come here. If a group wants the work to be suspended...

I can assume that your question is supported by sufficient members.

Mr. Van Biesen, you are not in your place.

If you want to call to vote.

(There is a call for voting)

(The call to vote ringtone)

Colleagues, for the good order, I inform you that we are working on the bill proposed by Mr. Van den Bergh, Bellot and consorts, on the amendment of the law concerning the police on road traffic.

In her presentation, Ms. Somers requested that the proposal be forwarded again to the committee. Mr. Dedecker has also announced that he will submit an amendment in this regard, which has been done in the meantime.

I propose to vote on the proposal to send Ms. Somers to vote. There was a call for a general vote. (The opposition leaves the seat)

Mr Verherstraeten, you have called for a general vote. Do you still do that?

The [...]

The main vote?

If you let the work go that way, then do it. Then I wish you a lot of fun with it.

I do not understand your point. I just follow the Rules.

Ms. Somers requests the transmission of the proposal to the committee. You do not agree with that.

My question is whether you are insisting on a general vote. There is an alternative: we can always vote and sit and get up. Do you continue to insist on a general vote?

and yes. The [...]

Mr De Croo asks for the word.

Mr. Speaker, I understand very well that the opposition is leaving the chamber. That has yet to happen. That we do not appear to be in number at the moment, that has already happened.

The proposal to vote at the time we are in number, I found more sympathetic and more feasible for the procedure.

However, it is normal that if a group leader asks for a general vote, we move on to that. In that case, it will appear that we are not in number and the meeting will have to be suspended for an hour. We are doing well!

That’s why I just proposed – I don’t wrap anyone’s arm? – to simply draw up the general discussion and to check whether Ms. Somers continued to insist, at the end of that discussion, on the sending to the committee, and then to speak to us on that.

If colleague Verherstraeten cannot live with this, then I now agree that we vote unanimously on the proposal to be sent to the committee. I cannot otherwise.

Mr. Speaker, for the good order and to sketch the history, the following.

The general vote was not requested by me, but by colleague De Croo. You wanted that vote to continue immediately, knowing that we were not in number. You waited very quietly until the opposition was out. That, Mr. Speaker, is the history of the meeting of this afternoon on this issue. (Applause of Applause)

I don’t think Mr. De Croo insisted on that, but I may be mistaken, of course.

I do not want the Chamber to have any difficulties at such times.

I suggest the following. We submit the question of sending to the committee and the amendment is submitted here. Then it can be discussed here further.

Can everyone live with it? Then we continue the general discussion and I give the floor to Mr. Van den Bergh.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, this morning a new road safety action was proposed to Parliament. The new action of Life Line, with the figures Zeppe and Zikki, calls for respect for children in the traffic. She demands respect for herself and respect for the other road users, so that no one is in danger.

When you drive under the influence of alcohol, it is clear that you are putting others in danger, as well as yourself. The slogan presented this morning is therefore also applicable here. Driving under the influence of alcohol remains one of the most common disorders concerning our road safety issues. In 2006, 14 percent of the tested drivers involved in an accident involving injured were under the influence of alcohol. If you know that in an accident in 50 percent of cases no alcohol control takes place, that 14 percent may be a gross underestimation. As a result, it is very difficult to fix an exact figure on the number of alcohol-related deaths and serious injuries in traffic. According to the study of the BIVV, one in four accidents involving deaths or serious injuries would be involved in alcohol. This accounts for more than a quarter of all fatal accidents.

The European Traffic Safety Observatory (ERSO) also states that about 25 percent of all road deaths in Europe are due to alcohol use, while only 1 percent of vehicle kilometers are travelled under influence.

These are impressive, high-profile figures, of which, of course, you must remember that the combination of drinking and driving involves very high risks.

Can I ask that everyone should listen to the speaker? Those who are not interested can do something else.

The negative effects of alcohol on driving behavior are well known. Even with small amounts of alcohol, the ability to drive is impaired: one reacts slower, the concentration decreases, the vision decreases, the judgment ability deteriorates, an excessive mood arises, resulting in more risks and more aggressive driving.

Fortunately, thanks to the BOB campaigns, a real mentality change has already occurred in recent years: the combination of drinking and driving is no longer accepted. This effect also appears to be the greatest among the risk group of young drivers. We must admit it: Thirty-five-year-olds appear to be slightly less attracted to it. Every year, many drivers are caught with too much alcohol in their blood. Adequate controls are essential in this regard: targeted controls to target audiences at specific locations at certain hours, but also asselect controls play an important role in spreading among the population the idea that alcohol control can be done at any time and everywhere. After all, the higher the objective and subjective probability, the fewer people will crash behind the wheel still drunk.

The recommendations of the States-General of Traffic Safety 2007, otherwise signed by almost all parties in this hemisphere, fit into this logic. According to these recommendations, one in three drivers should be subjected to a breath test annually. Unfortunately, we are not there yet, but we are on the right path. For example, during the most recent BOB campaign, 10 percent more checks were performed than the previous time, but still found that almost 5 percent of the controlled positively blasted.

Then we come to the sanctions. There are already many sanctions in our legislation for alcohol abuse behind the wheel. This includes fines for the expiration of the right to send to prison sentences and all kinds of training that colleague Somers has already referred to. Despite this whole range of heavy penalties and accompanying measures and the increased controls, there remains a hard core of problem drinkers combining drinking and driving.

Our legislation is aimed at this target group. They are not discouraged by controls and repeatedly run against the lamp. Unfortunately, good statistics for this are not yet to be found in Belgium, but in the Netherlands it was established that as many as one in three convicts within three years must appear before the court again for the same facts. I am also convinced that this will be in our country of approximately the same size order.

Alcohol recidivists, through their irresponsible driving behavior, endanger the lives of themselves and others. Additional safety measures are therefore in place. For a number of years, there has been a way to prevent these drivers from crawling behind the wheel drunk for even longer, in particular the instrument that is proposed here today: the alcohol lock.

The alcohol lock is a breath analysis device in which the driver must blow before he can leave. If he or she has drunk too much, the alcohol lock prevents the vehicle from starting.

In a number of countries, this alcohol lock has been used in cars of alcohol offenders for many years. Experiences in the United States and Canada have shown that alcohol consumption of recidivists decreases by even 95 percent if their car is equipped with an alcohol lock. Also in Sweden, Finland and Australia, the introduction of such devices has led to very positive results. In the Netherlands, after a trial period at the beginning of this year, the alcohol lock has also been launched as a possible sanction to prevent problem drinkers from driving.

A few years ago, a successful pilot project was conducted in the framework of a European study. Its results should encourage us to provide a legal framework for this measure also in our country. That pilot project, by the way, ran with a standard of 0.2 promile for the good understanding.

With this bill, we also create a legal framework in Belgium for judges to impose the installation of the alcohol lock on alcohol offenders in the traffic. This is primarily a sanction and prevention measure for alcohol recidivists. However, it is also a possible punishment, a possible means of punishing drivers in case of one-off serious alcohol offences, such as accidents involving seriously injured or fatal victims, and preventing such acts from happening again.

For good order, the possible obligation to impose an alcohol lock does not replace existing sanctions such as fines, imprisonment penalties and such more, it is left to the judge to determine in the concrete situation what the most appropriate sanction is or sanctions are.

The aircraft costs between 1200 and 1300 euros. If this is pronounced in a court, it means, of course, a decent penalty for the convicted. The proposal gives the court the possibility, if certain reasons or considerations can lead to this, to deduct the cost of the alcohol lock and the accompanying framework program from the fine.

Contrary to what many people think, the device is not susceptible to fraud. It is almost impossible and meaningless for another person who has not drunk to blow in the driver’s place or to try to get the car running anyway without the driver’s own test. The results of all projects and studies abroad have repeatedly demonstrated this. There is a fraud resistance of up to 99 percent.

I asked the following question in the committee a while ago. How will this fraud be stopped? How is it done? If one person has drunk and wants to blow another, how can one stop it?

This is a question of the practical application of these instruments. The alcohol locks are equipped in such a way that one cannot do so, for example, with air collected from balloons. All sorts of stories emerge. There is no air out of a balloon. This must be done with a certain blasting technique. Ballons are excluded.

If one wants to blow someone else, it means that that person becomes a complicit. In addition, it promotes dangerous driving. An alcohol lock can also be set in such a way that, for example, one must blow again every quarter of an hour, even when one is driving. Or there is then a sober person next to the driver who can better sit behind the wheel. Or you will then stand still at the moment you put the car on the side.

Isn’t it dangerous to have to blow every quarter of an hour while driving?

Experiences with the device in all European countries, the US, Canada, Australia, and which we are not familiar with in our country, show that this does not create any danger. You will also not stop immediately if you blow positive on the road. This will only happen from the moment the car stops and you want to start back.

There is no danger, so be calm. It is intended to do something for road safety and not to create road safety.

Until then, the operation and fraud resistance of this alcohol lock.

Of course, the alcohol lock in the first instance works preventively, both for the driver and for all of us, innocent and less innocent road users. Drunk drivers are no longer allowed to enter traffic. After all, if a driver has 0.2 promile or more in the blood, the vehicle will not start.

This is not just a preventive measure. It is also one of the possible sanctions a judge gets available to punish a repeatedly drunk driver.

The measure must also lead to a real change in the behavior of the alcohol offenders. After all, simply punishing people with an alcohol problem and not accompanying them further, usually does not lead to results. Once the driver is allowed to drive back behind the wheel after the expiration of the prohibition or after the dismantling of the alcohol lock, it is observed that the driver often returns to his old habit.

Therefore, it is also so important to impose additional measures which will require the person in question to follow an accompanying program in order to get rid of a possible alcohol problem. In this way, we can also address structural alcohol problems and prevent such people from returning to traffic in the future.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, in 2008 there were 922 deaths on our roads to regret. It was in itself a good figure, as the best in 59 years. Traffic statistics have been kept since 1950. At that time, there were 1,051 road deaths. In 2008 we went there for the first time. I would also like to note that there were 550,000 vehicles around then and now 6.5 million.

So in itself a historical low point and a hopeful figure. However, it would be completely inappropriate to be satisfied with it. Behind every victim in the traffic statistics lies deep human suffering. It is therefore our duty to make every possible effort to further reduce this figure.

If we want to ⁇ the goals of the General States on Traffic Safety – to reduce the number of road deaths by 2010 to a maximum of 750 and to a maximum of 500 in 2015 – it must be one of the priorities in the fight against driving under the influence of alcohol, but also of drugs. A draft law is currently being discussed.

The alcohol lock fits perfectly in this battle. It is an ideal tool for reducing alcohol use in traffic and thus contributing to increasing road safety, on the one hand, as a criminal sanction for certain people, a criminal sanction that immediately has a preventive character, and, on the other hand, by installing an alcohol lock on a voluntary basis, where a few months ago an opening was made so that it can also be installed on a voluntary basis in commercial car parks.

I am very pleased today, at least if it continues, that this proposal has finally been approved. I launched this proposal in December 2005 and there was not much interest in it at the time. The proposal received a unanimous majority in the committee.

However, there was discussion about the amendment on the limit of 0.5 and 0.2 promile, which colleague Somers presented here again. I want to return to that. I find it absurd to send something that has already been discussed in the committee back to the committee. I can still assume that the vote will be repeated in the plenary session, but I find it absurd to send this back to the committee. However, this is already from the job.

There are some elements that advocate the installation of the 0.2 promile limit. If we say that the target audience of the alcohol lock is primarily drivers who have a problem with alcohol use or abuse, then it would not be wise to give them a small margin to still drink a few glasses of alcohol. If they are allowed to do so, their limits disappear and there is no service to them.

The principle of equality does not apply here. It is about convicted persons. I don’t think condemned – punished on the basis of breaches of a law – should impose the same rules as someone who follows the law and the rules. That seems to be an absurd reasoning.

The limit of 0.2 promile is used in all pilot projects and in other European countries. If we want to come slowly to a leveling of limits and borders between the different European countries, then Belgium, in my opinion, should not again make an exception against all other countries that have already introduced the alcohol lock.

The limit of 0.2 promile is also used in the voluntary installation of alcohol locks. There are companies – taxi companies, transport companies – that install an alcohol lock on their fleet. They also do this at 0.2 promile. The transport sector, by the way, is asking the party to go to 0,0 promile, but we believe that a small error margin is necessary to exclude erroneous measurements.

In itself, this is already a constructive punishment for the punished. Often one has the choice between an expiry of the driving license, the right to drive or an alcohol lock. We think that with an alcohol lock and the accompanying program we give a much more constructive punishment, but it should remain a punishment. If one puts this at the same limit as for all other citizens, who have not been punished, then we can no longer speak of punishment.

I am just as concerned about road safety as you are. Mr. Schouppe knows that I am committed to this at the European level.

However, if one approves something, it must also be practical. I will give an example, but in doing so I will leave the discussion of 0.5 or 0.2 out of consideration. The judge gives an additional penalty to someone who sent under influence. After a temporary withdrawal of his driver’s license, he puts an alcohol lock on him in a particular car. If that person takes another car without alcohol lock, he will be checked. Where appropriate, his driving license shall include the condition of driving a vehicle with alcohol lock. This is, of course, the only way to carry out a control. Therefore, the alcohol lock is not made own to the car, but to the driver. Is that right?

In the bill, the driving license is limited to vehicles equipped with an alcohol lock. This is how it is formulated and this is how I think it will answer your question.

It is good that you point out the organization of which you are the chairman, namely the European Transport Safety Council. The ETSC is precisely an organization that strongly encourages the introduction of the alcohol lock in all European countries. In addition, the organization advocates for the 0.2 promile as a limit. I think that in this way we can follow the suggestions of the organization whose Mr De Croo is chairman.

You have to say everything. I expected that. The 0.2 promille applies to new and young drivers. Colleague Schouppe knows this very well. I can also follow the reaction of Mr. Schouppe at that time.

I will give the floor to Mrs. Detiège and then let Mr. Van den Bergh conclude his speech.

Thanks for the clear explanation. In the committee we supported the proposal, but I would still like to point out here in the plenary session that it is very important to reach a global alcohol plan. This has also been said in the committee and I think we will be around the table again in a few weeks.

You have repeatedly talked about the recurrent behavior of people who have drunk too much when they get into traffic. One can deal with this with an alcohol lock and punish the people in that way. On the other hand, it seems to me very important that someone with an alcohol problem is accompanied. This was, by the way, also the comment of the lady of the VAD. I think we should pay a lot of attention to this. In that case, one must remove those people from drinking because if a truck driver drinks too much, he has a problem.

Mrs. Detiège, I can only confirm that. The bill also provides that it is not just about installing the alcohol lock, but that it is linked to a mandatory framework program. This support program needs to be further developed in the government.

The date of entry into force of the bill is 1 October 2010. This is determined on the indication of the administration, because it said it still needs so much time to develop a good guidance program. We will closely monitor whether there is actually a good accompaniment program. Simply installing the device without the accompaniment of problem drinkers, of course, makes no sense.

The proposal is, by the way, an element that was also cited in Minister Onkelinx’s alcohol plan. In that sense, we have a good proposal here and I hope that it will soon be unanimously supported, as has happened in the committee.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, last year, the Belgian road killed more than 800 people in circumstances that, in any case, could be avoided. Statistics on road safety remind the high number of accidents to dramatic consequences.

Of course, the figures also show a very sharp improvement lately, but there are still a lot too many victims. Among those injured or killed, often young people who drive under the influence of alcohol are over-represented. Alcohol is the leading cause of death on our roads. It is therefore important to continue and intensify our efforts in both prevention and repression where necessary.

This project, which we renamed “Ethylotest anti-start” is part of the European commitment to further reduce the number of road deaths. That is why the MR co-signed this proposal and supported this project.

I would like to summarize four points briefly.

- The anti-start ethylotest device, as shown by pilot projects and studies, is ⁇ effective and encouraging, as there is very little recurrence.

- Alcolock is both a tool of repression, since it can be imposed on those who have been controlled positive to a screening test of alcohol-influenced driving, but it is above all a tool of prevention, which should help awareness and behavior improvement.

Active participation and accountability of offenders is an essential element of the success of the device. As with any preventive measure, Alcolock will only be effective if it is properly accompanied. The choice by the judge to opt for this alternative measure to the punishment and the follow-up of those who will have to use it will be primary.

I would like to recall the comment raised in commission by its chairman, François Bellot, namely the problem of fraud. Measures should be taken to prevent potential fraudsters from bypassing the prohibition to consume alcohol before driving by blowing another person or using a spray designed to neutralize the device. Similarly, any stigmatization of the user will have a counterproductive effect.

- Let’s not forget that as an alternative to the complete withdrawal of the right to drive, this device allows workers and job seekers to retain the driving license!

New technologies allow us to put in place the tools of prevention and self-control. Therefore, it is our duty to establish regulations suitable for the service of road safety.

I would like, as a conclusion, to recall a famous phrase: "Drink or drive, you have to choose!".

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I have repeatedly, as the mayor of a municipality, had to announce to parents the tragic accident of their son or daughter after a evening, probably watered. Today, in our communes in the province of Luxembourg, I realize that alcohol merchants settle next to the places where dance evenings take place. As a mayor, I immediately prohibit such projects and here it is vodka, therefore pure alcohol. We need to realize how dramatically dangerous alcohol can be among young people.

Our country has committed to halving the number of road accident victims by 2010. Although it is quite difficult to accurately assess the role played by alcohol in accidents occurring in Belgium, extensive studies reveal that alcohol driving is among the three main causes of accidents. It is estimated that a quarter of serious accidents could have been avoided if all these drivers had refrained from drinking before taking the wheel.

According to the Belgian Institute of Road Safety (IBSR), 14% of controlled motorists involved in a road accident were driving under the influence of alcohol in 2005 and 2006. I would like to point out that this figure only takes into account drivers who have actually undergone tests.

Also, in order to ⁇ the goal we set ourselves, we must also rely on technological advances, called to play an increasingly important role. These innovations include anti-boot systems in case of excessive alcoholemia, called alcoholocks. As of March 2008, our group has submitted a bill in this direction.

Following a European pilot project, the government had suggested in 2007 to compel recidivist drivers to put an alcohol-lock in their vehicles. Also in 2007, the General Stats of Road Safety recommended the generalization of this mode of surveillance. The IBSR conducted from 2004 to 2006 a conclusive pilot experiment.

It should also be noted that the Joint Declaration of 17 June 2008 of the Ministers of Public Health in their responsibilities on the future alcohol policy provides for concrete measures, including the study of the possibility of using alcohol in the context of prevention and repression.

Therefore, I am pleased, as the whole of my group, that Belgium, like countries such as Canada or Sweden, is equipped with a broader repressive arsenal by now giving the judge the opportunity to force drivers who have breached the law to place an anti-start ethylotest in their vehicles, which will now allow those people to prohibit driving their vehicles under the influence of alcohol. For us this is a real legislative advance. Our group will support this proposal.

I do not want to have a long discussion.

The prohibition for those driving under influence is 0.5 promile. Mr. Schouppe, I understand that for pilots the limit is 0.0 promille. However, the limit of 0.2 promile is also not logical. Either the limit is fixed at 0,0 promile, or the limit is determined by the general rule that we now use.

I agree that driving a car after alcohol use should be avoided, but one must ensure that the remedy that one intends to apply is feasible.

We need to work systematically. I have known the period of the 1.5 promile norm and also of the 0.8 promile norm. We are now at 0.5 promile. This also involves a change of mentality. Therefore, we must continue on the above path. However, I do not understand why we are not able to set the limit to 0.5 promile for the current stage. We will soon see how the House will comment on the amendment in question.

Most of the arguments have already been cited. However, I do not understand that for the imposition of a sanction the same limit must be imposed on those who have not been sanctioned.

It could be argued that the alcohol lock in itself is already a form of sanction. However, this is short through the curve.

Second, people are obliged to stop drinking if they want to sit behind the wheel. Accidents should be avoided. For example, if someone eats a beef with Duvel or Portosaus, he or she would no longer be able to start the car, because the limit is 0.0 promile. Mr. De Croo, you first spoke of 0.0 promile.

To maintain the above-mentioned, small, minimum margin, the limit is 0.2 promile instead of 0.0 promile. However, the message must be clear that no one can sit behind the wheel after he or she has drunk. If the limit is set at 0.5 promile, that is no longer the message. This is the message that we need to pass on to the convicted.

I would like to add two elements to the debate.

First, either the limit of 0.5 promile is a safe limit to drive, or it is not. If it is safe, then there is no reason to make the case even safer for a convicted person than to make it safe. I do not see the logic of that. If the limit of 0.5 promile is not safe, it should be lowered. I therefore advise to draw these two things equal.

Second, the sanction does not consist in imposing the alcohol lock with a lower promile. If a driver is driving too fast, for example 150 km per hour on a highway, and is fined, the judge will also not subsequently determine that the convicted on that same highway may not drive more than 120 km per hour but only 100 km per hour. A fine will be imposed and for the rest, the driver must comply with the traffic rules.

The reasoning developed here to keep the limit at 0.5 promile is a completely logical reasoning.

I fully agree with the previous speaker. It is incorrect to say that it would not mean punishment if the norm of 0.5 promile is applied, because the judge is able to impose fines and compulsory traffic therapy. So there are enough resources to make sure, in addition to the alcohol lock, that this feels like a real punishment. Therefore, we should not go to 0.2 promile.