Proposition 52K1997

Projet de loi portant diverses dispositions concernant le casier judiciaire central.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V the Van Rompuy government

Submission date

May 19, 2009

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

protection of privacy child protection criminal record criminal procedure enforcement of ruling access to information detention before trial

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

FN VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo N-VA LDD

Party dissidents ¶

• Luc Sevenhans (VB) 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 25, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I am therefore obliged to give you an oral report of the debates that took place in the Justice Committee, on the draft and proposed laws relating to the central criminal record, the certificate of good conduct, life and morals and the excerpts of the criminal record issued to individuals, for the simple reason that this file was first the subject of an emergency request in our office.

It was therefore dealt with in the Justice Committee without disappointment by the functioning President, Ms. Nyssens, and all the commissioners present so that by June 30th, all the municipalities are not disturbed and can continue their work on the matter without legal vacuum.

With regard to the introductory explanations of the draft and the bill proposals, we had the opportunity to hear the representative of the Minister who informed us that the Act of 8 August 1987 on the Central Criminal Register provides a legal basis for the criminal record. It restores articles 589 and following of the Code of Criminal Instruction and allows the registration, retention and modification of data concerning decisions made in criminal matters and social defence.

Article 29 of this law specifies that the King may fix the entry into force of Articles 9 and 10 of the law. Unfortunately, since then, no royal decree has been taken for technical reasons that are related to the incomplete computerization to date of the criminal record and the incomplete organization of the connection of all the municipal authorities of the country to the central criminal record.

Ministerial circulars were then taken to organize the transmission of these data. These are the circulars of 1 July 2002, 3 April 2003 and 2 February 2007. It should be noted that these circulars have all been cancelled by the State Council, mainly because the Minister of Justice does not enjoy either any basis of constitutional or legal authorization, or any particular competence to organize a mandatory regulatory regime relating to the issuance of extracts from the criminal record. This poses a serious problem in terms of legality. Therefore, there was a need for a law: it is being examined today.

Today and despite these cancellations, a circulary No. 134 entitled "Extracts from the criminal record" of 2 March 2009 again regulates this issue. However, as the representative of the Minister of Justice, present here, it is worth noting that this circular poses two important problems.

First, it allows for extradition only until 30 June 2009. Without a law, from 1 July 2009, municipalities would no longer have any authority to issue criminal record extracts.

The second problem is that this circular has unfortunately been the subject of a new request for cancellation filed last June 11 before the Council of State; it is therefore likely, like the previous ones, to be cancelled.

We were also explained that it was urgent – we will understand this in the exposition of what I just said – to legislate on this matter. That is why the government filed a bill on 12 May 2009 to counter the lack of legal basis for the issuance of criminal record extracts in order to allow the issuance of criminal record extracts in the context of youth protection and to give the magistrate of the penalty enforcement court access to the criminal record. This is not only a legal basis, but also an extension of the possibilities provided by the law.

The Legislative Section of the State Council issued its opinion on March 2, which was incorporated into the bill currently filed in the House.

I will conclude with two explanations that were given to us before we approach the discussion of the articles and the fate that was made to two of them by the filing of two important amendments.

We had as information that it was to report essentially two main problems.

First, information that comes from current instructions could not previously and so far be mentioned in the criminal record, the purpose of the record being to process data from decisions made in criminal matters and social protection. This meant, according to the exposition of the reasons of the Criminal Records Act, measures or decisions taken after the closure of the investigation and not before.

Secondly, when it comes to taking into account the protection of the child, the second basis for expanding our bill, it was necessary to find a fair balance between the various interests in question: on the one hand, the protection of the child, the right to work and free choice, respect for privacy and, on the other hand, the presumption of innocence, an essential element. The European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the right to privacy and allows state interference only under conditions of predictability, legitimacy and proportionality.

Thus, the opinions from the body chiefs or the police regarding the good conduct or not of the interested persons, not otherwise motivated, deprived the persons of contradictory debate, which is intolerable, and could be based on information that they did not ask for the guilt to be established definitively, since the information was prior to a final decision.

I now come to the examination of the bill itself and to the discussion on the articles. The bill contains 11 articles. The articles as a whole did not give rise to much discussion. There was a vote on each of these articles. I will only pinpoint the two important amendments that came to amend Articles 6 and 11 of the bill, since a majority has been found for this to be so.

Article 6 states that, in accordance with the opinion of the State Council, it replaces but modifies Article 596 of the Code of Criminal Investigation restored by Article 10 of the Act of 8 August 1997 on the Central Criminal Register and to be more clear, this concerns the problem of preventive detention. Speech by a colleague, Mr. Stefaan Van Hecke, asks why prisoners cannot obtain criminal record extract by indicating that during detention, a reinsertion work is already carried out and that it is therefore not unthinkable that an extract can be requested. It therefore proposes an amendment aimed at deleting this provision.

A response is then given to him by the Minister’s representative who explains that this provision applies to persons in preventive detention. The purpose, in the way it is formulated, was to prevent the issuance of an incomplete excerpt on which would not appear, for example, the prohibition of the investigative judge. Indeed, in the case of preventive detention and in the case of provisional release, a number of conditions are added to this decision on provisional release, in particular the prohibitions which should possibly be repeated in this excerpt. Otherwise, it would have allowed some people in preventive detention to act as if nothing was, this to be brief.

by Mr. Raf Terwingen considered that in this case, the text should be clarified. He therefore submitted amendment no. 7, which was adopted by ten votes and two abstentions, thus amending article 6 of the draft which will be adopted by a vote identical to that concerning the amendment.

I now come to the last article of the draft, Article 11, which concerns the entry into force of this draft. by Mr. Terwingen, too, proposes an amendment that tends to fix the entry into force of this law on 30 June 2009. Therefore, he says, that the Circular No. 134 of March 2, 2009 of which I mentioned above rules the issuance of extracts until June 30, 2009, it is desirable that our new law immediately take the relay, this to avoid a hiatus in the event that the publication of the law would be delayed.

Amendment No. 1 submitted by Mr. Terwingen is therefore adopted in committee by ten votes and two abstentions, and replaces article 11 of the draft.

After the articles and amendments were voted, we voted on the whole. The entire draft law as amended is adopted by ten votes against one and one abstinence.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, in fact, we should not really be proud that we are starting this discussion today and approving this law. We have already had a small discussion about it when the Minister asked to add the point to the agenda.

The way this bill has been dealt with in the committee is actually an allegation of what a good parliamentary function should be. I think that all colleagues who were present in the Justice Committee – both of the majority and of the opposition – can bear that.

The draft was put on the agenda of the committee with great urgency. The members of the committee were not even informed twenty-four hours in advance of this, although this point, with the preliminary draft, the opinion of the State Council, and the like, concerns an important matter. Therefore, some preparation was needed.

The majority wanted to approve this draft in one meeting.

There was a thorough opinion from the State Council, with a thorough analysis, in which numerous comments and suggestions were made. It was especially important for us in the committee to verify whether the comments of the State Council were effectively followed and included in the conclusion of the final draft law.

At the beginning of the discussion, of course, it was said that this was the case and that all the comments of the State Council had been taken into account. But when we came to the first article that we would discuss thoroughly, article 2, it quickly turned out that the representative of the Minister for two comments of the State Council could not give a statement. These two comments were apparently not taken over and he could not give an explanation. If there is no explanation, it is said that it is a political choice. That is of course easy. If technical questions are asked to the Minister or his representative and one cannot answer them, even after two or three phone calls, then it is said that it is a political choice.

Today we have the Minister in our midst. If political choices have been made, the minister will of course be able to explain to us what choices they are and why they were made. Per ⁇ we know a little more today.

We have abused the high urgency. I would like to remind you that the State Council’s opinion on the preliminary draft dates from 2 March 2009. So the government has had enough time, if it was so urgent, to quickly adjust the preliminary draft and come to Parliament in April or May with the adjusted draft. That has not happened. The government has talked, the minister has talked, as in many files, and then it must suddenly go fast. So quickly even that one—per ⁇ it is tactically intended—will deliberately schedule it for the last useful committee meeting, yesterday.

In this way, it could then be put into plenary session at the last useful plenary session, because it all had to be approved by 1 July or there would be a major problem. In fact, both the committee and the Parliament have put the knife on the throat. We had to swallow everything under pressure.

I would like to address three specific points on which I still have a few questions and which I hope you will be able to answer the questions then, Mr. Minister.

First is the protection of minors. In the draft law – this is of course a good thing – much attention is paid to how we can protect minors as much as possible. It is, of course, about people who have committed sexual offenses, for example.

The investigative judge has an important task. The investigation judge may, in the context of an ongoing judicial investigation, impose conditions on the release of an accused. For example, it may decide to impose a ban on the exercise of a particular activity in which the person concerned could come into contact with minors. It is the investigative judge who makes that decision. He makes that decision when he releases the accused. When should this decision be notified? This is now concrete. When should the decision to impose a ban be ⁇ in the Central Criminal Register? This must be the case, first, when someone has been charged and, secondly, when that person has also remained in interim detention.

I then ask what you will do in cases where a person is accused of sexual offenses, but in which he is not taken into interim detention. These situations also occur. There can also be a potential danger there. Well, in that case, Mr. Minister, there will be no entry in the Central Criminal Register, no one. However, if that person has been in pre-trial detention for one day or two days and then has been released on condition, this shall be stated.

Are there sufficient guarantees in this text that the persons we intend to target, who have made themselves guilty of that crime, will be known. My answer is no. Why is this distinction made? Why will it be traceable if someone has been in pre-trial detention for one day and not if he has not been in pre-trial detention? This is a very concrete question.

Secondly, in addition to the prohibitions that may be imposed by the investigation judge under the provisional detention law, those prohibitions will only be listed in the Central Criminal Register in the case of persons who do not reside or reside in Belgium. Those who have a place of residence or residence in Belgium, their data will go to the local police. So there are two levels where notifications can happen, where registration will take place.

The State Council asked: why not simplify the situation and include in the criminal register all the information and all the prohibitions? This is a fairly obvious comment. The answer to this is, very technically, that everything is not yet possible. However, the Council of State insisted that it was absolutely necessary to provide for a procedure for the transmission of information if the person concerned moves, if he changes his place of residence. Well, that comment is not included. It is an explicit suggestion and an absolute condition according to the Council of State, but that is not included in the present draft.

Mr. Minister, why did you not include that condition despite the express request of the State Council?

A third element. Article 594 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that administrative authorities may have access to the data in the criminal register. After three years, they will no longer have access to data in case of light penalties. Under “light penalties” were listed: imprisonment sentences up to six months and fines up to 500 euros.

In the present draft, a category is added, namely convictions in simple convictions. Thus, even in the case of simple convictions, after three years, there will no longer be any mention on the extract from the criminal register.

In fact, it incorrectly suggests that the simple declaration of guilt would be a light punishment. In itself these are light penalties, but those penalties say nothing about the facts that have occurred and about the gravity of those facts.

For example, in the discussion of the Parliamentary Investigative Committee on Tax Fraud we have often heard that in tax files that last twenty years, eventually no more penalties can be imposed, but that a simple guilt statement is pronounced. As an example, one always refers to the case-Beaulieu – I will only name it by name – which has been postponed so far that if there ever came to be a conviction, the probability is very high that there will be a simple conviction.

Therefore, we have a problem with the inclusion of that simple guilt statement. From someone who has committed tax fraud and after eighteen years is not convicted, the information disappears from the system three years later. That person may then be a candidate to become a director at Dexia or another banking institution or whatever. These facts can no longer be traced.

According to our group, it is therefore not a good thing to automatically add that simple conviction to the list of penalties that will no longer be traceable after three years and that will no longer appear on the extract.

Mr. Minister, therefore, we have submitted an amendment to remove that conviction from the draft in simple conviction so that those data will also be permanently present during the period applicable to other crimes, so that that important information is also not lost in, for example, major tax fraud.

Colleagues, convictions for serious facts can, for example, in the example case or in the case of fraud, disappear after three years. On the other hand, other common crimes remain in the criminal register for a very long time. In fact, we should also conduct the debate on this. How long must the convictions in question remain known, registered and present in the criminal record? The deletion of the criminal record takes a very long time. It is also ⁇ difficult to extract those data from the criminal record. This is not always obvious for people who want to find a job after a certain number of years.

The above requires a thorough study and a thorough discussion of the problem. We did not get there yesterday.

Mr. Minister, I am going around. Yesterday’s meeting was a shameful show. We have once again experienced a stable of emergency legislation, which was and will be pursued by the Chamber Committee and now also by the plenary session. It is bad legislation and a bad legislative procedure, a Parliament unworthy. We will not approve the current legislation.

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. Nevertheless, before I begin the discussion, I will give you a brief account of how I experienced yesterday’s committee meeting.

The committee session was the greatest appeal to parliamentary decency in the last ten years that I sit here. I am still upset by its progress.

The present draft law was sent to the Justice Committee with great urgency, which I understand very well. In that case, however, it is very painful to find that members of the majority appear one hour late and that they seem to see their job as a representative of the people as their secondary vocation. It is always the same members. In that bed, the Justice Committee has been sick for several months, not to say all the legislature.

There was also no Minister present at the time we started the discussion. The explanation by the Deputy Minister lasted two minutes. After the insistence of the opposition, there was a slightly more circumstantial explanation, for which we thank the representative of the minister. Then the Minister challenged for a moment, primarily for a procedural debate. After that, he had to return to the Senate, which I fully understand, because in the Senate at that time the assistance procedure was reformed.

Then we had to start the general discussion. There were no comments from the majority. It limited itself to its physical and numerical presence, despite – I am not speaking for myself in this regard – pertinent arguments of the opposition, which we have yet to hear here at the speaker’s seat.

The arrogance of power that was displayed there yesterday had no boundaries. I think that a member of parliament who respects himself should be very angry about this. There was a shadow in the discussion that a number of technical issues should be discussed in this context, but in the end it turned out that it was a solid, clear political choice that the majority did not want to discuss.

Per ⁇ I should believe the previous speaker, when he said there was an intention behind it. In honour and conscience, I would not be able to, but I should still believe that indeed, until the last moment, there has been expected to hunt through here a number of matters that are absolutely contrary to all the principles of sound law.

I will briefly comment on what I presented to the committee yesterday. Labor penalties are not included in the criminal register. This was already the case in the past, but now, with a different majority, one could have made a clearly different political choice and also registered the work penalties. I refer to the incident of last week, in which a person who had to appear before the criminal judge was sentenced to a work sentence, while in a full shopping street seven years ago he severely injured four people, including a father with a child on his arm. Sorry, it can’t be done by the bucket.

Thus, such labour penalties cannot be included in the criminal register. Allowing such a thing is an allegation of any good legal system in a civilized world. Excuse me, my colleagues, but you will approve this today. In many cases, prison sentences are already reduced. What we hear today is almost abolitionism. The prison doors are opened and, as if that is not enough, criminal judges must then again impose working sentences for very serious criminal offences and those do not even enter the criminal register. In what rule of law do we end up? As members of parliament, we should all be ashamed.

Then there is one positive point in the new law, namely the fact that conditions imposed by an investigative judge – it is not yet a case of definitive penalties imposed by a judge – in the case of minors will indeed appear in the criminal register and that one can use them. But why, for example, the condition imposed on someone who caused the death of a person in traffic is not included in the criminal record, in order to prevent such person from employing as a truck driver. I think such things are equally obvious.

I know that the Committee on the Protection of Privacy has a different opinion on this, but ultimately we, as members of Parliament, must still take the responsibility to eliminate such cases. People who have been convicted on the basis of highly fundamentalist beliefs that tend to terrorism and the like, thus also receive a release, if they are imposed conditions in the absence of conviction by an investigative judge. These things are all kept outside. This is totally contrary to any common sense.

Here, poor legislative work is delivered, with hurry and urgency, and that is, according to a Flemish expression, rarely good. I will not mention all the shortcomings. This has been done extensively by colleague Van Hecke, who, of course, based on the opinion of the Council of State.

It was undoubtedly hunted. We weighed it and found it too light, you can be sure.

I have one more comment from the heart, Mr. Speaker. The fact that during the committee discussions, with a majority that was numerically and physically present and no more than that, the committee room is transformed into an internet cafe, is truly shocking. Those who were on Facebook yesterday will have seen that tomorrow is a bh-free Friday. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Justice Committee can one day hold a laptop-free Wednesday. I have a sense of home to the time of Fred Erdman, a man for whom I have great respect. He hated the Flemish Interest as the plague, you may know, but I have a sense of home to the time he was in the committee and protected the dignity and the profession of the members of parliament. Dignity and professionalism were reduced to a minimum yesterday. You should all be ashamed. I do not thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I will give a brief explanation and replicate from my bank. I do not feel affected by the words of Mr. Schoofs, on the contrary. I don’t think he targeted me either.

If I take a brief overview of what has been said here, I find that if one looks at the matters substantially – I invite all the colleagues from the bill – it is a number of articles that have already been introduced in a law of 1997, but never entered into force. These articles are now added on certain points. The articles therefore existed, but have never entered into force.

Indeed, there are a number of additions, including certain punctual points that must now be included in the criminal records, concerning the persons or bodies that can control the criminal records and have access to them. Furthermore, there is an expansion of the possibility for the investigative judge to take certain measures, as soon as a person is released after temporary detention, which end up in those conscious central criminal records or in the local criminal records.

The content has not changed much. I understand any criticism about this. This is evident, by the way, from the pleas of the gentlemen Schoofs and Van Hecke. It is about discussions about whether or not to mention, for example, work penalties. These are political choices that are being made. These decisions were clearly criticized yesterday. It has been made, and it has been done again in this plenary session. That possibility was indeed offered.

I come to my second point, in particular the criticism of the opposition that it has gone too fast, that it has not been given the necessary time. The group members who did not attend the committee yesterday and did not listen to the report today – in addition to a good and comprehensive report – have no right to speak anyway. Overall, a consideration must be made in the file. The consideration is whether we are willing to get into a legal vacuum regarding the delivery of the conscious excerpts from the criminal records, or whether the opposition should be given more time to prepare the case. I must tell you once again that the interventions of the gentlemen Van Hecke and Schoofs indeed showed that the matter was well examined. There could be substantial criticism here. If I have to choose, I will choose a faster solution. I choose that from 30 June, our citizens who need their criminal records for a job offer or a job application can actually consult their criminal records in a legal way and get extracts instead of further discussing here and postponing the case.

Mr. Speaker, I was clearly not targeting Mr. Terwingen. The only thing I could blame some colleagues is the fact that they do not bring other colleagues to order and do not allow the discussion to be conducted in a decent manner. I also did not address the title chairman of the committee, Mrs De Schamphelaere. She was not present. I also did not target Ms. Nyssens who has tried to lead the meeting in good ways. I don’t name the names of those I target.

Colleague Terwingen, I say that the discussion was not conducted, while there was clearly dust for discussion. In the future, one should consider that the opposition should also be able to conduct the discussion and that the majority should participate in that discussion. It takes two to tango, you have to be with two to argue. This was absent yesterday in the head of the full majority. I deeply regret that.

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because I think the discussion of this text will be too late in this plenary session. Together with the other speakers, I regret that we need to address such fundamental legislation so quickly.

I will give an example, Mr. Terwingen, of a substantial change. There was something good added, but in a way that I think it will not work in practice.

In advance, I have a practical question for the Minister, on the functioning of the criminal register system. I am not sure if this is true, but I wonder whether the communication of the court’s data to the Central Criminal Register is done by transcribing the references of the judgments in the court’s register and then sending them to the Central Criminal Register where that list is then transcribed into the central file. It is believed that this would result in a month-long lag in data processing.

Regardless of the legal basis for the issuance of data, I dare to say that the document currently delivered by the municipality, and that may have a legal basis tomorrow, is incomplete. It is only in Brussels. Hopefully this can be done immediately in the municipality. The need for the system is not in Parliament. In practice, however, it is a drama that no one is really dealing with because I don’t see it come back in any master plan. My modest suggestion is the following. Per ⁇ that list in Word can be typed and sent via email so that it no longer needs to be sent with the mail to then be taken over to a computer in Brussels?

I think it wins staff, time, stamps. Budgetary it is not really a problem to introduce that. One simply uses the same Word program and one sends it to an email address. Somebody seems to have to give it an assignment.

This brings me to a point that is very important for practice. I am very pleased that we will now receive a mention of a decision in the investigation phase of the council, for example that a person may no longer contact minors for facts of which he is suspected and which are still being investigated, a measure that can be taken explicitly by the investigation judge. It was not really necessary to write it explicitly. In my opinion, he could already do that, and we must even be careful that with the adjustment of Article 35, a contrario, we do not restrict other possibilities.

Apart from this, I think it is good that one will be able to decide that someone no longer has to go to jail, but no longer has to come into contact with minors. Then the question arises how the outside world will know that it is so decided.

I read here in this quickly amended text that the judgment of the council chamber will be sent to the local police service. If the municipality wishes to deliver an excerpt, the municipal administration must contact the local police service to find out if that measure exists.

What will happen now? Someone, for example a teacher, is released. An investigation is underway on facts involving minors. He can go back to work and he needs a certificate. He goes to the municipality and asks for that certificate. The municipality issued an attestation, with a two-month delay date. Do you think that the good official of the municipality will think of calling the police once to hear if there is something from the council room about the teacher? This is what we are installing now. This is what I read in the two texts.

I read in Article 6 of the draft law, as it comes from the quick committee: "The municipal administration shall also indicate whether the person concerned is the subject of a prohibition to carry out an activity that would bring him into contact with minors, issued by a judge or an investigation court". Then there is a ugly sentence that that prohibition must be contained in this until a final judgment is made.

In practice, a final judgment means that it is transcribed in the office, then that goes with the post to Brussels, where it ends up on a bunch and someone who enters the criminal register.

That all will happen. The municipal official gets someone for himself and must then decide: for that person I call the police to see if he can still work with small children. Where does it come from that the official should have that reflex?

It is written here that the municipality itself should take the initiative to call the police for a moment to ask: should we not mention anything about that person on that certificate, because he wants to teach? That is not true. Normally, a municipal official with his position and rank and formation must be able to deliver that official document. Now it is written in the law that there must be contact with the local police service. When when ? Based on what? In one case, the officer says: I will call. And in the other case, I will not call. That is not serious, right?

Why is it not provided, for example, that this is ⁇ to the municipality via the normal road so that it is automatically on? No, they do it differently here. I mean that. We will again get the blame of the municipalities: what have they done there now?

Why do we get that accusation? Because this point had to be approved very quickly, even today. You will understand that my group does not want to share this responsibility.

It would have taken more time to get to the bottom of things. We had to work urgently, given a categorical imperative. As of June 30, municipalities will no longer have the legal basis for issuing criminal record extracts. So the discussion had to take place quickly.

I remind you that this bill contains 10 articles, that it is almost identical to the bill filed under the previous legislature by Ms. Onkelinx, that it passed through the control of the Commission for the Protection of Privacy and the State Council.

I would like to answer an interesting point raised by Mr. Van Hecke, namely his amendment and concerns about the declaration of guilt. Mr, you do not appreciate how the guilt declaration is inserted in this project. However, I remind you that the Commission for the Protection of Privacy wanted, in order to respect the principle of proportionality, that only the convictions and decisions relating to the punishable effect of which minors are victims, be mentioned in the extract of the criminal record.

Therefore, the text delivers the solution, does not retain the formal opinion of the Privacy Protection Commission, which would have desired that no declaration of guilt appears in the text. In doing so, he proposes a compromise to still insert the declaration of guilt, but under certain conditions. It is pressured by the Privacy Protection Committee that Parliament has adopted this political solution.

Mr. Speaker, I have asked three concrete questions that were not answered in the committee. It is about political choices. I thought I would get a response from the minister, who was absent yesterday because of the treatment of the assistant file in the Senate. If we could not get the answers yesterday in the committee, we should get them today, unless the minister can not answer. In the latter case, today’s situation is very clear.

The Minister is now asking for the word.

This is a 1997 legislation that has now entered a new phase. A number of Kaduke interim solutions were destroyed. Now the law must definitely be drafted. After all the opinions, including from the State Council, good work has been done to create a complete and sound legal basis.

Indeed, it is true that this bill had to be dealt with urgently, because we did not want to create a vacuum. For every job seeker who goes to the municipal services as of 1 July, there should be a possibility, a legal basis, to be able to obtain the previous attestations of good conduct and morals, i.e. the extracts. We could not afford a period without a legal basis. Therefore, this draft had to be addressed urgently.

The report was very well delivered, with a lot of input and a good overview of the debate about a number of articles.

I would like to say to Mr. Landuyt that the practice still exists. Part of the complexity of the legislation in question consists precisely in the fact that the central criminal register, which should actually be one large file managed centrally, in which the introduction is done digitally and that can be consulted digitally by all the services for whom this is provided by law and which we define here, does not yet function properly. It is not there yet. As a result, a different circuit will be created for the municipalities. Therefore, special provisions are needed for the municipalities, in order to further use the services of the police, and to ensure that, where necessary, the police also provides information about a number of convictions.

This must be regulated by 2012 – which is so legally stipulated – all. In terms of information processing, this must be stopped. There is indeed work in the store to resolve this too.

There were some concrete questions about the provisional detention. In fact, it is about the provisional detention. The conditions imposed on a person who is in provisional detention but who is exempted will be included in the draft.

The basic reasoning is that when the final condemnation comes, it comes into it. The addition is in itself a good thing. It is a good thing that this possibility now exists, although it is in a very flawed way through municipal services and so on and not through the Central Criminal Register. This choice for Article 8 is correct. This is good. It is good that this is included.

Colleagues Schoofs, it is true that the labour penalties have not been included. It is a choice not to include them. There are several reasons, also because there are different applications. A work penalty is not always an autonomous penalty. The complexity is such that not every time a work penalty is imposed this must automatically come on the paper.

Colleague Van Hecke, we must indeed conduct a special procedure in relation to these municipalities. This is the result of this organization. You have a comment on that. That central register is therefore not yet functioning, with the consequence that we must do some things in a different way.

There was another final concern that you have formulated about the guilt declaration. I do not understand why you continue to oppose it. The choice is right. When a trial takes a very long time and in fact the punishment is beyond the reasonable deadline, when it has already taken so long that there is only one conviction, then this is a punishment, a judgment that will be recorded. However, it seems to me a fortiori logical that such cases, which have been dealt with beyond any reasonable period and are entered in the criminal record, are placed under the category of the general rule that after three years penalties entered in the criminal record disappear.

The general rule should be a fortiori applicable to those convictions which are based on judgments of judges who must in the first instance judge that it has taken too long.

The obsolescence, the time that runs out and the omission after three years is very ⁇ responsible for this. Your amendment on this subject is therefore better rejected.

I would like to thank you for your cooperation in this matter, which is indeed urgent.

I would like to reiterate the difference I have noticed. The entry shall only be included when a person has been in provisional detention and then is released. What happens if someone is accused but not detained? Why should we not have that information? Then one can let go someone who is as dangerous as another, without the information being known.

As a result of a normal indictment of a suspect, a judgment or certain measures can only be reached at the moment of the final conviction, whereas under the provisional detention legislation conditions can be imposed on the person who has been taken in provisional detention. Then one can end the interim detention, imposing certain conditions. This hypothesis is presented here.

Does anyone ask the word in the general discussion?

Mr. Minister, I have understood that we still have to wait for the computerization to have a performance system and that in the current system the data still has to be overwritten twice.

I come up with something that is very important in practice, the prohibition of contact with minors for someone who has just been released. Waiting for the large system to work, you choose at this point to place the information with the local police, while the people need to request their certificate from the municipality. I am still wondering how this can be solved. How should municipalities respond to a request? Should they, in general, report to all police services, at every request? In which case should they do it and in which case not? This is not stated in the legislation. How will this be solved in practice?

The mayors – rather, their administrations – resolve everything, to the extent that the contacts between the police services and the municipal administration are there. Contact is made; arrangements are made between the municipal services and the police services. Sometimes there are differences. At the local level, however, agreement notes are made, in order to align the registers that exist at the police, and the existing registers within the municipality.

The aforementioned, existing practice is simply continued here. The municipalities take their responsibilities in this regard.

Mr Landuyt, Mr Schoofs also asked for the floor. However, you want to immediately follow the words of the Minister.

Please do not underestimate the problem.

First, the system is new and therefore does not rely on an existing practice.

Second, the current practice, in which each municipality draws its plan, has to do with the fact that there was no legal basis. Now, however, there is a legal basis, in which everyone’s responsibility is defined. However, precisely the provisions that are so important for safety are not regulated. In particular, it concerns the certificate of a person who is released and which stipulates that he cannot re-teach, by stipulating that he is not allowed to have contact with minors.

Therefore, certificates will be delivered to such people, in which the municipalities cannot be accused of delivering a false certificate. They have complied with the law. The law does not specify when they should take the initiative to collect the necessary data.

Mr. Minister, I am apparently not able to persuade you to write the article in question, which is not urgent but for practice the more important, more properly. The majority will flatwalk my suggestion. You will post a text that I think cannot work in the workplace.

Therefore, there is my question, being a second, constructive step. Will you at least have the trouble of drawing up a directive together with the Minister of Home Affairs in order to fill the cited gap?

Are you also willing to evaluate the system so that we can write a better, realistic practice-based text in the Chamber?

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak very briefly. I do not want to reopen the discussion. It is also a matter of organization within the municipalities, which will resolve itself.

Mr Landuyt, I am surprised, however, that you now pay so much attention to the current issue in the plenary session, while it could have been perfectly discussed in the committee. Unfortunately (...).

This only proves that the discussion was not completely exhausted in the committee. We are here now to conduct the discussion that we could have easily conducted in the committee if we could have prepared ourselves.

The Minister’s argument regarding the autonomous labour penalties could indeed have been discussed, but that does not impress me. The question remains why labour penalties, whether or not autonomously, cannot be included in the criminal register. The facts committed, the incrimination, is in fact sufficient, with the condemnation that follows, and ⁇ for certain facts, to let society know that certain persons are not suitable for the exercise of one or another profession or function. That is what it is about.

They are punished for certain facts. In fact, it is already bad that one cannot get knowledge of the judgment in certain cases. I want to respect that, so far privacy. If a person has committed very serious offences for which very light penalties are imposed which then do not enter the criminal record, it is contrary to the essence of the criminal record itself. This legislation undermines the intention, the ratio legis of the criminal record.