Proposition 52K2076

Projet de loi visant à modifier la loi du 21 mars 2007 réglant l'installation et l'utilisation de caméras de surveillance.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

Jan. 29, 2009

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

security services public safety police criminal law video surveillance

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo

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 ¶

Oct. 22, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, in July 2008, the Senate Committee on the Interior and Administrative Affairs received from the Minister of the Interior a note concerning the assessment of the law of 21 March 2007 regulating the installation and use of surveillance cameras.

Following this assessment, senators from the Open Vld submitted a proposal to amend this so-called "camera" law.

A change was indeed indispensable because the use of surveillance cameras was, until then, a complex matter that was well controlled only by a handful of people. There was an urgent need to clarify legislation, in particular with regard to the use of mobile cameras.

Mobile cameras are by nature regularly moved to film from different locations or positions. They are regularly used by the police in open spaces, mainly on public roads and in closed spaces accessible to the public. They equip the irrigators and helicopters, some patrol vehicles or are used by the video teams and the proof teams of the general reserve.

So far, decision-making regarding the use of mobile cameras by the police has encountered various obstacles.

How can I require the municipal council, which must give a prior opinion, to be available on an ongoing basis? What if police operations are planned in several municipalities? Other difficulties: the question of pictograms, that of the prior consent of the persons filmed, compliance with the required deadlines, etc.

The draft law provides that mobile cameras may only be used in a specific setting, that of large gatherings as referred to in article 22 of the law of 5 August 1992 on the police function. These are exclusively non-permanent tasks and whose duration of execution is limited.

The objectives of the use of mobile cameras are limited to either taking preventive measures aimed at avoiding disturbance of public order, or to gather evidence of facts constituting an offence or a violation of public order, or to gather evidence of facts constituting damage or discomfort, or to seek to identify the perpetrator of the facts, a perturber of public order, witnesses or victims.

Furthermore, if the images cannot contribute to the proof of harm, offence or damage, or cannot identify an author, a disturber of public order, a witness or a victim, they may not be stored for more than one month.

In the case of open spaces, the mayor must be informed by the administrative police officer who has the operational responsibility and who makes the decision to use this type of camera.

In the case of closed spaces accessible to the public, the mayor will make the decision himself.

Furthermore, the so-called "cameras" law contained another stumbling stone to which it was necessary to remedy: the obligation to have two opinions, that of the municipal council and the head of body in case of placement and use of fixed cameras in certain places, which sometimes led to inconsistencies.

From now on, the decision to install one or more surveillance cameras in an open place will be taken by the controller, after a positive opinion of the municipal council of the municipality where the place is located. The municipal council gives its opinion after consulting the head of body of the area where the place is located.

When the House Internal Affairs Committee began to examine this bill in July 2009, it was decided to seek an opinion from the State Council and the Privacy Protection Commission. Both declared themselves in favour of the project, but formulating a number of constructive suggestions to which the members of the Interior Committee wanted to give a useful follow-up.

In order not to delay the adoption of a law text expected on the ground, it was decided that these clarifications would not be incorporated into the bill, but that they would be the subject of a circular drawn up by the Minister of the Interior, which would be presented to the Interior Committee before the adoption of the bill in plenary. The circular was presented on 20 October, as planned.

During the general discussion, Mr. Xavier Baeselen says that legislation in this area is urgent. However, it does not oppose the idea of using a circular, although respect for privacy affects fundamental freedoms and rather comes from the competence of the legislator. It is desirable that members express their requests so that the circular can be inspired by the preparatory work.

by Mr. Doomst gives an opinion regarding the opinions of the State Council and the Privacy Protection Commission; it says that these opinions should be taken seriously. Given the need to act promptly, the use of a circular is preferable to the adoption of amendments involving a referral to the Senate, provided, of course, that the circular is communicated within a short time.

by Mr. Lahssaini believes that while the protection of society must be ensured, it must also be ensured that the freedom of privacy is respected. Responding to the Commission’s observations on privacy through a circular carries dangers, which is hardly convincing.

by Mr. Josy Arens, for the CDH, asks the minister to expose the contents of the circular, which would not only anticipate the work in commission, but also save time.

The Minister responds to enlighten the members of the Commission. She declared her willingness to state the elements she intends to take into consideration in order to be able to present the circular to the committee, which was done quickly.

by Mr. Vandenhove approves the use of a circular, the urgency being put in place.

by Mr. Thiébaut, for the PS, also adheres to the principle of the circular on condition however that it is issued very soon.

Like the previous speakers, Mr. Roland Defreyne (Open Vld) invites you to meet with the comments made by the State Council and the Privacy Protection Commission without delay, i.e. by means of a circular.

In the context of the discussion of the articles, in Article 11, Mr. Baeselen asks if this article means that police can enter with mobile cameras into a closed place accessible to the public, without prior permission, and then view the recorded images.

by Mr. Baeselen thus evokes the example of a night club, that is, a closed place accessible to the public. A pictogram at the entrance mentions the following phrase: "You are filmed here." Does the text allow police forces to enter it with cameras and film it without providing any justification?

The minister’s collaborator explains that the bill only targets large assemblies. It follows that the answer is positive, but the action must be limited in time, since it cannot exceed one hour. As it also requires the authorization of the mayor, the guarantees are sufficient to avoid unnecessary observations.

by Mr. Baeselen is reassured, but wants the circular to take a stand on this point, so that police forces can realize that the law is not intended to allow law enforcement to scrutinize citizens in general without a particular goal.

This concludes the reading of my report, Mr. President. Can I afford to continue with my speech?

Please please ! In any case, I thank you for your report!

Mr. Speaker, the Bill No. 2076 aims to respond to the realities of the field regarding the use of surveillance cameras. Its aim is to correct the shooting for more efficiency.

The main contribution of this bill is to incorporate into the so-called "camera" law, the use of mobile cameras by police services. No one will deny that these cameras are useful. It was therefore essential that their use be regulated, as is the case for other types of cameras, to avoid any deviation and to ensure the harmonisation of practices.

The MR group had submitted a bill in which we suggested a solution more or less identical to that proposed in the bill we are examining.

We find that all guarantees appear to have been taken for appropriate use, without deviations, and that does not hinder the work of the police by a too heavy administrative procedure preventing any quick and effective action.

For these reasons, our group supports this bill and we welcome the progress it allows. However, if we advocate the use of cameras because they allow criminals and offenders to be captured and have a deterrent and preventive effect with regard to criminal offences, we consider them as a complement to the police presence on the ground.

For the MR, surveillance cameras are tools, supports, on which the police can rely to result in a more effective and faster action on the ground, to avoid unnecessary police interventions, to make available the appropriate means during rallies, to put the perpetrators of offences, crimes or crimes in front of their responsibilities and finally, to contribute to the fight against the feeling of insecurity. However, we would like to remind you that the use of cameras should in no way diminish the importance of the visibility of law enforcement forces on our streets.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, ladies and gentlemen, every law affects, in a way or another, the lives of citizens in our society to a lesser or more extent. Every law must also regulate the coexistence of citizens in our society in such a way that the constitutional rights and freedoms of those citizens can be protected optimally. In this sense, the camera law is no exception to these principles. On the contrary, she confirms them correctly.

The Camera Act of 21 March 2007 and the amendment presented today to that law represented a delicate balance between, on the one hand, the performance of a task of public interest and, on the other hand, the respect for the fundamental right to respect for private life. In the previous legislature, the law was passed for the placement and use of the fixed cameras. That law was a first initiative to create a framework within which surveillance cameras could be used, with respect for the protection of privacy.

The law caused a number of application problems in the field and also offered no response to the use of mobile cameras. Therefore, Open Vld submitted a bill to the Chamber by the leaders of Chamber Members Hilde Vautmans, Sabine Lahaye and Sofie Staelraeve. It was ultimately the merit of the minister and the members of the committee that they hit two flies in one blow with the legislative amendment in question.

First, the problems arising in the field with the use of the fixed cameras are resolved.

Second, the new mobile camera system will provide new resources for police and administrative authorities to combat preventive harm, detect crimes and maintain public order in general.

Finally, the Minister also responded to the request of the members of the committee to take into account the opinions of both the State Council and the Committee on the Protection of the Privacy in the matter.

The technical aspects of the law which may give rise to interpretation in the field will be clarified in a ministerial notice. The minister did not sit down at the packages, which the committee however feared, but has already delivered the circulation letter to the committee for domestic affairs. The committee has already been able to formulate concrete suggestions in this regard. The letter clarifies, among other things, first, that the inconvenience must be understood as intended by Article 135 of the new municipal law and, second, how the decision to place fixed cameras is taken by the municipal council after prior consultation with the head of the corps.

Thirdly, the letter describes how the mayor should be notified by the officer of the administrative police of the use of the mobile camera, fourth, the exceptional circumstances under which the use of the mobile camera may be made, fifth, the manner in which the privacy committee should be notified of the use and, sixth, the public perceptible way in which mobile cameras should be used in large crowds.

Our group is convinced that the proposed legislative amendment and the detailed explanation in the ministerial circulation letter accomplish what police and administrative authorities demand, namely a law applicable on the ground that enables them to fulfill their duties of public interest even better.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, on behalf of the CD&V group, we are also very pleased that with the adjustments we remove some of the shortcomings in the daily application of the law of March 2007 for the placement and use of surveillance cameras. There was, among other things, a problem with the use of mobile cameras by police services. This draft provides a solution and sets out the procedure to be followed in order to use mobile cameras in accordance with the privacy legislation.

The notice, which the Minister of Internal Affairs will also publish following the Chamber Debate, will also provide more clarity on these procedures. For us, it is important that work is done on the possibility of submitting the data also electronically to the privacy commission. In this way, we will relieve the police services and the privacy commission itself as much of unnecessary administrative burden as possible. We are pleased that this request has been responded positively.

For the rest, the draft also provides clarity on the procedure for advising by the municipal council when installing fixed cameras. From now on, the municipal council will give an opinion after consultation with the head of the police zone.

In the current legislation, there was already a greater responsibility on the chief of the corps than on the processor of the images. With this legislative amendment the balance has been restored and the image processor will have to demonstrate that the placement of a camera is in accordance with the principles of necessity and proportionality, as also required by the privacy legislation.

We are therefore convinced that the text is an important supplement to the correct and useful use of surveillance cameras, although of course the concrete application and use in practice will have to provide the final evidence.

The important thing is that we do not stop with this. We must be aware that technical and scientific development, including in the field of camera surveillance, is progressing tremendously quickly. It is a pity that we are always a little behind the legislation. Hopefully the legislator will better follow up on these aspects and our police services will be able to use the camera surveillance tool for police work in a sound and legal manner thanks to the new camera law.

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. First, while recognising the usefulness of surveillance cameras in certain situations, for prevention, for the detection of crimes and other problematic situations or to help the police clarify certain cases, we believe that the conditions of use of cameras should be thought out in order to find a always delicate balance between protection of society and protection of privacy. In this regard, the debate in the committee has not been pushed far enough to establish the conditions for the observance of this balance to which our Ecolo-Groen Group! It holds especially.

Moreover, we must know that police cameras will not solve everything, they will not replace the presence of a police officer, which can be reassuring. On the other hand, the presence of cameras may suggest that the places are not safe. The presence of a police officer can bring something else than the feeling of being filmed. The presence of a camera gives the impression that all our facts and gestures are controlled and we do not know very well what becomes of these images. It is important not to believe that cameras are the panacea and that with them all problems will be solved.

A more important problem that has not been addressed in the debates in the Senate or the House is the tendency of the police to develop files, to resort to so-called "proactive" collections intended to counter alleged threats. These data captured by cameras, stored unknown where, are used for purposes that the citizen does not always understand. I regret the way the work was carried out in the committee which allowed to evacuate this issue.

I will also not mention the threat that today weighs on privacy protection from the use of GSM, images stolen from the street at any time, which are sent on websites and spread around the world, without any control.

These are two missed meetings by our commission and I deeply regret this.

The reform of the law that we are dealing with today deals with the use of mobile cameras. The citizen does not know when and where it is filmed. He is not aware of the use made of files constituted without his knowledge. Mobile cameras will be an even more intrusive tool in the privacy of citizens, especially since they can be used by the police in places that are not made known to people.

This is even more dangerous as the use of mobile cameras depends largely on the subjectivity of the agent filming what interests him. Here we deviate from the conditions set when drafting the fixed camera law. In addition to the subjectivity of the agent who uses the mobile camera, one must also take into account the subjectivity of the agent who will process the information. This debate could not be held in the committee.

What happened in this commission?

I would like to mention three points. Two concern the form and one concerns the substance.

At the first session of the committee, we were in possession of the comments of the State Council and those of the Privacy Protection Commission. On the basis of consensus, the members of the committee decided not to open the debate. The debate we are going to hold today will probably last longer than the one we had during the two committee sessions.

It was only decided to follow the opinion of the Minister who told us that she would respond to the comments and criticisms of the Privacy Protection Commission, on the basis of a circular. There was something to fall in the reverse! The committee had discarded a substantive debate that touched on essential issues, entrusting it to the minister on the basis of a circular!

You will tell me that there is nothing illegal but we are deprived of the substantive debates, which are the foundations of our democratic society. If we get rid of this kind of debate, if we work at the hussard as we did in the commission, I cry out of discomfort. The right of parliamentarians to hold a substantial debate and to assume it. At the first session, we knock in and wait for the Minister to bring the comments of the Privacy Protection Commission. Then we end the debate by voting the law!

Dear colleagues, I would like you to know in which room we play! We vote the law while we do not yet know the content of the circular, we do not know how this circular will respond to the criticism of the Commission on the protection of privacy. You can consider this anodin; I, I consider it serious!

Mr Lahssaini, we voted the law in committee after receiving from the minister the assurance that we can examine the circular with it. This is not often the case in Parliament.

The fact that we have not had any democratic debate in this commission is unacceptable!

In fact, you are right to say that we bought a cat in a bag!

It is exactly the opposite!

We had no text. I had no reason not to trust the minister. I trusted him, but that is not the problem. The problem is that we have disengaged from the debate. It was not the parliament that tried to respond to the criticism of the Privacy Protection Commission; this work was entrusted to the minister. I do not criticize the work of the minister, I criticize our work and our responsibility.

Mr. Arens, you said at first that you were reluctant; then you agreed that the commission would dismiss the matter. I will then return to what happened in the second session.

Also during the first session, several colleagues wanted to get this circulary as soon as possible and the minister was committed to it.

Mr. Lahssaini, my circular was submitted and we also discussed it. I do not understand your intervention. You have received the text of the circular. Were you in another committee?

I no longer knew where to put my head. I was stunned! At the first session, everything was transmitted to us very quickly and we received the circular at the second committee meeting at 14:10 when it started at 14:00!

It is not true!

How dare you say that is not true? Mrs. Minister, I do not criticize your circulary, but is it not true that we received it ten minutes after the opening of the session?

Mr. Speaker, I can reopen my e-mail and I can show when we have forwarded that e-mail to Parliament. That was before the committee. We discussed this circular in the committee. This was in addition to decisions of the State Council and the Privacy Commission. In this way, the legislative work was not delayed, but it was ensured that we could vote on the law here today, knowing that all legal guarantees that should be there and comments from the privacy committee were contained therein. I actually do not see the problem.

In particular, I would like to let you know that this is a bill coming from the Senate. I only made clarifications, after comments from the State Council and the Privacy Committee, in a circular with which I came to Parliament, as Mr. Arens says. I did not have to do that, but I did, Mr. President.

I personally have some prior knowledge of the origin of this proposal, Mrs. Minister.

I will simply respond by saying that speed and precipitation should not be confused.

I have the impression that our commission worked in a hurry. We all agreed to work on the texts but to do so seriously, not to entrust them to others or to treat them on the basis of a circular that no one has read. No one has read this book, I repeat. I read it after the meeting. We had no time! Within 15 minutes, the project was approved. Do you find this normal? I am not!

To come to the bottom of the circular, I will have only a few comments to formulate and two questions to ask the Minister.

One of the main observations of the Privacy Protection Commission concerned the use of terms such as “noise” and “public order”. The circular textually reads the wording of the Commission but does not provide further clarifications. It is well known, however, that the terms "noise" and "public order" are terms that may mean everything and its opposite while the use of surveillance cameras requires to be precise.

As for my questions, the first one is technical. In the case of fixed cameras, when there is a disagreement between the opinion of the police officer and that of the municipal council, it is the opinion of the latter that prevails. In this case, must the municipal council comply with the same sheet that the police officer must fill when applying for authorization? This sheet includes a series of very precise criteria relating to the destination, the duration of storage, viewing.

The second question is more general but more fundamental. The Privacy Protection Commission focuses on three fundamental principles, namely purpose, subsidiarity and effectiveness.

My colleague, Michel Doomst, emphasized above all the principle of efficiency.

I would like to emphasize the principle of purpose. What will you do, Mrs. Minister, so that the images stored by the police do not find themselves, as has already been the case several times, on the public square? How will you do to ensure that within the police force, there is greater control and greater control of users who have access to these images? Are there any penalties for the misuse of these images? This is the point, Mr. Minister.

In terms of form, I would like to express my disappointment. In particular, as I said earlier, it was related to the precipitation in which the commission worked. In addition, during the discussions on the draft and the bill proposals that occupy us today, I did not know very well if I was at the legislative or executive level. In fact, the majority of the committee members are made up of mayors and shevens. Of course, this situation has nothing illegal. And I have absolutely nothing to say about this. Only, I can’t help but think that the MPs, who are also mayors or chiefs and therefore competent in the installation of cameras, were in a somewhat special situation. Therefore, I ask myself about good governance and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to wish that we stay a little back on this point. Indeed, I am very uncomfortable with the idea that members of the legislative power are also part of the executive insofar as they also fulfill the role of mayor and are directly affected by this law.

Here, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, are all the points that I wanted to discuss with you. I would also like to draw your attention to the discomfort that is mine since the adoption of this bill by the commission. That is why my group will not vote on this proposal.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, this bill has become a bill as it comes from the Senate. My presentation will be brief, despite the insistence of colleague Landuyt for the opposite.

Mrs. Minister, I have already said it in the committee: of course our group votes in favour, and it is because that bill is based on a bill that was submitted by me on 14 February 2008. This was the first bill that was submitted. Later, several colleagues followed with roughly the same content. Finally, a number of technical adjustments have been made to this bill, with the intention of amending the original law of March 2007. In this sense, we as the SP-A-Fraction vote in favour. I repeat that the proposal came from our hands and that it is now primarily technical comments. I said the same thing in the committee.

First, we regret that today we approve something that was submitted to Parliament in March 2007, i.e. about two years and six months ago. In politics this is an eternity, and ⁇ in the field of police officers. I understand the game of majority and opposition, but when I submitted that bill, I also did not let myself be guided by data from the air empty, but let myself be inspired by police officers on the ground. My colleagues from the majority parties did so a month later when submitting their bill. I understand the game of majority and opposition, but I regret that this law actually comes two years and six months late in this Parliament.

We now approve an adjustment of the original law of 2007, but in fact the facts on the ground are outdated, so we should already approve a third adjustment. I voted for it, but I regret it.

Second, there is the circular letter that Ecolo’s colleague has already talked about. This law is adopted today, I suppose, given the intervention in Parliament and the vote in the committee. It is regrettable that at the same time we have to send a circular letter that we discussed this week in the committee to give clarification to this law. In fact, this confirms what I just said: the law we are now approving should have been approved two years ago. After all, we must take into account the comments of the people in the field that we now know, so we may now have to make a third adjustment. This is undoubtedly related to the game of majority and opposition, but also to the fact that we have already been in charge of our third Minister of Home Affairs for a little over a year.

Third, you have advised me to mention the following, whatever I will do.

In the message, there are a number of things that I am happy with, which I have communicated to you, and which are right. I would like to address this immediately very briefly. Of course, you can also not include in the circulation letter a number of matters, which are already happening in the field and are not stipulated in the law. The circulation letter must fall within the scope of the law in question.

Therefore, I will submit a legislative proposal on this subject in a relatively short time. I am pleased that the present House Speaker, in his capacity as then Minister of Home Affairs, expressly requested that the Senate and then the Chamber make the conscious law. Therefore, I will submit a bill, in which I will again insist on a number of adjustments, which have little to do with politics, but rather have to do with the fact that in the field, in the meantime, some things are already outdated.

This has nothing to do with bad legislation. It testifies to good legislation that we approve laws, then on the ground check whether they are applicable or not, that we listen to the interested parties and then adjust the law.

In this regard, I will submit a bill myself. I hope that we will then take the same path and that the members of the majority parties will be in favor of my bill. However, I also hope that then we will not wait as long as now to carry out the new amendment of the law.

Fourth, there are some good adjustments. I will not go into detail.

It is good that the aspect of injury is now very clearly defined in the legislation. Injury is a very important phenomenon in many cities and municipalities. Injury, subjectively or objectively, is almost the safety problem at its peak. It is a very good thing that the present law defines something very clearly on the basis of Article 135 of the new municipal decree. That is a good thing: trouble, turn on cameras, together with police officers on the ground.

However, some things are not included. We have discussed this issue in the committee this week, not discussed, because we agree on it. We also agree that you cannot solve any problems with the mailing letter.

Compared to the original law and also compared to the amendment in question, there has already been a whole evolution in the field of the use of fixed and mobile cameras. I do not want to conduct the debate here. However, everyone who is somewhat at home in the sector and everyone who is active in a municipality in the field of safety agrees that we need to urgently adjust the matters we are talking about. This cannot be done through the aforementioned letter.

The above is a reason for me to amend the law, which should have been passed here two years ago, as soon as possible. I fall into repetition. I will propose the adjustment in a new bill.

Finally, Mrs. Minister, I would like to point out another point that I also cited in the committee.

I am pleased that you propose to approve this bill, which comes from the Senate, today.

You tell parliamentarians that if there are shortcomings or if matters need to be updated because people in the field advise, they should submit a bill. I hope this can happen beyond party boundaries.

I hope we can have a good discussion about it. Currently, a lot is happening on the ground. My biggest motivation to implement that camera law in the Senate was precisely because around that camera law in practice a lot of things happened that were not regulated by law.

Despite the updating of the camera law that we approve today, I note that in the way of speaking in the media, every week facts appear about camera use in the field of security that are not regulated in this law either.

I’m just overlooking the media of the last few weeks. I have questioned you, Mrs. Minister. I have questioned your predecessor, the chairman of the Chamber. I have questioned Mr. De Padt about, for example, the illegal cameras on the helmets or the police kepi. There is currently no law that allows this. This week I submitted a question to the committee about the famous video glasses. This is illegal, according to the Privacy Commission. Wearing those glasses can give rise to exciting situations, Mrs. Minister, I admit that.

I read this week in the newspaper that certain fire cars will be equipped with cameras to judge big disasters faster and decide on the basis of images what interventions to take. That is a good evolution, but there is no legal basis for it.

I hear that in some cities, such as Gent, De Lijn is thinking about certain cameras that would not only keep the safety in mind, but also do traffic guidance. This is also not legally regulated.

To brief a long story: we will pass this law because it is urgently needed. Only she comes too late. We regret that a number of things already need to be adjusted with a circulation letter. We will submit a legislative proposal in a relatively short time to correct the gaps that are currently occurring on the ground but are not regulated by law. I hope it can be settled as soon as possible, and across party boundaries.

I hope that on that occasion we will be able to conduct a fundamental debate on all the existing but illegal camera applications in practice.

First of all, I would like to congratulate our Senate colleagues for the work done on this matter. The substantive work, and I address more specifically to my friend Fouad Lahssaini, carried out by the senators is far from negligible: they organized a debate, conducted hearings and reflected so that the text that is submitted to us today is balanced, measured and above all respectful of the law on the protection of privacy. As for the substance, we must therefore respect the task carried out by the Senate.

Therefore, it seems to me unnecessary to start the exact same substantive work again in the Chamber.

On the one hand, it was about providing a legal framework for our police areas for their administrative police and prevention tasks; on the other hand, it was also about ensuring privacy respect for all provisions provided in the text.

During our committee debates before the parliamentary holidays, we had requested the opinion of the State Council and the Privacy Protection Commission on the text. These two opinions were heard and the recommendations they contain will be incorporated into a circular that the Minister presented to us in the committee this week.

In this regard, Mrs. Minister, you see me coming and you know what I intend to tell you. Obviously, I will congratulate you for the speed with which you have written this circular; indeed, in other circumstances, you have not always shown such speed. In the case that concerns us today, you have succeeded in three days; like that, when one wants to go fast, it is always possible.

For my group, what was fundamental was the guarantees in terms of privacy protection. This is done through this circular. We are delighted.

The bill presented today not only provides guarantees in terms of privacy protection, since, in all cases, a detailed notification of the decision is sent to the Privacy Protection Commission, but also in terms of democratic control since the use of mobile cameras is subject, in all cases, to the opinion of the local authority.

In this regard, I would make a small comment. It is clear to me that having mayors – I am also one of them – in this committee is not necessarily a problem: they are perfectly aware of the functioning of the administrative police since they are responsible for it. The opinion of a mayor in this committee is always interested.

That said, by taking legal provisions for all citizens of this country, as we are all citizens, we fatally always take legal provisions for ourselves too. So where do we stop the limit, the witch hunt and the debate about good governance? We should not go too far in this direction either.

For all these reasons, my group will vote in favour of this bill.

Dear colleague, your comments are the same as those I made in my speech. In fact, the opinion of the mayor or the chief who sit in our committee is interested. I would have liked it to be interesting, to be relevant, to bring us information that we do not have. The debate was inconsistent. I do not underestimate the debate that took place in the Senate and that lasted several months.

Meanwhile, the State Council and the Privacy Protection Commission have issued their opinions. What have we done?

That is why I say I have dealt with colleagues very interested in the matter!

I think we were especially interested in the effectiveness of parliamentary work in this regard. From the moment when all the comments from the State Council and the Privacy Protection Commission were incorporated, we could have all our consolations.

Therefore, my group will vote on this text as presented today. I will not extend further, since the debates have already taken place both in the Senate and in the House.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, allow me to point out again that, on the benches located at the entrance of the chamber, we really hear nothing. It should be indicated to the services that, without the earphone, one can hear nothing at all!

We will examine this problem. As you know, it was under my predecessor that the technicians began to chip the machinery! All the facilities have been changed but the acoustic has never been restored.

This actually worked better before.

At the adoption of the law of 21 March 2007 regulating the installation and use of surveillance cameras, it was agreed to carry out its evaluation. Two years after the implementation of this law, the police services, the Unions of Cities and Municipalities, the SPF Interior and the Privacy Protection Commission issued various proposals.

Two major difficulties appeared in the implementation of the aforementioned law. On the one hand, existing rules undermined the use of mobile surveillance cameras by police services, in particular for helicopters or video surveillance teams. It is impossible to satisfy the duty of information contained in the law by means of the pictogram for those people.

On the other hand, it was necessary to determine precisely the timing of the opinions of the head of the corps and the municipal council in the context of the installation of fixed cameras in open spaces. All of this is now regulated by this law.

In addition to the need to address these two difficulties, legal corrections were also required, as the 2007 law contained some inconsistencies in terms used. The bill responds to the concerns raised by field actors. It is important! We can only rejoice.

Furthermore, since the use of surveillance cameras affects privacy, it was crucial for our group that it is subject to a privacy control. In this sense, during the Senate work, our group had filed an amendment requiring the administrative police officer to notify his decision to the Privacy Protection Commission. Through this amendment, the bill puts on the same level two fundamental values of our society, namely the safety of our fellow citizens, in particular by ⁇ ining order, and respect for privacy.

The opinion of the Privacy Protection Commission was requested on the initiative of the then minister who feared that the amendment would be unnecessary. At the same time, the House Interior Committee had also referred to the State Council.

Both the State Council and the Privacy Protection Commission approved the amendment to the CDH and submitted additional observations which had to be taken into account.

The State Council has indicated that the conditions to which the proposed Articles 7.1 and 7.2 submit the use of mobile cameras appear to be compatible with the requirements to which Article 22 of the Constitution, read in conjunction with Article 8, § 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, submits such interference with the right to respect for privacy.

The Commission for the Protection of Privacy has proposed that administrative police officers notify the decision to use mobile cameras electronically for the purposes of administrative simplification.

Finally, it proposed to gather the information collected in a non-public database in order to ensure control of the use of mobile cameras, in accordance with the law of 8 December 1992 on the protection of privacy, with regard to the processing of personal data.

The Internal Affairs Committee demanded that all the comments of the Privacy Protection Commission and the State Council be integrated into a ministerial circulary that should be drawn up before the vote in the plenary session of the House.

I would like to thank the Minister for informing us, from the first meeting, of the contents of the circular and for bringing the final circular before the plenary session during which we will vote for this bill.

Of course, our group will vote in favour of this bill because the security of citizens is important, but as I said, respect for privacy is equally important. We find a real balance between these two elements in the proposed text.

Finally, I’m delighted that mayors and chiefs still sit in this Interior Committee because their experience and knowledge of the field has been an important element, and I hope it will continue to be so.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, we have to vote on the bill amending the law regulating the placement and use of surveillance cameras. In fact, when the law of 21 March 2007 was adopted, it was planned that the law would soon be evaluated and, if necessary, updated.

Adjustment was needed. Consultations with all stakeholders in the field showed that some uncertainties needed to be addressed and that some legal provisions needed to be made clearer and more concrete. For example, legal provisions were established for the use of mobile cameras, and from now on the cameras can also be used to record injuries.

With regard to the decision to place a camera in an undecided place, only the positive opinion of the municipal council is needed.

As a prior permission to be filmed, now also applies the presence in an undefined place or a publicly accessible closed place where visible mobile surveillance cameras are used.

Mobile surveillance cameras mounted on non-analysed vehicles, vessels or aircraft shall be deemed to be used in a visible manner.

The technical details of this bill.

Colleagues, it will not surprise anyone that our group can find itself in the further implementation of this bill. I step into an open door when I suggest that we as Vlaams Belang attach particular importance to security and the fight against crime.

A revaluation of the bodies that provide for the safety of citizens is urgently discussed. Many cities and police zones point to the preventive nature of surveillance cameras and to an increased level of criminal detection. The use is increasing every year. Even in my hometown of Bilzen, the installation of surveillance cameras has already often resulted in the capture of vandals and criminals. The cameras do not replace the presence of police officers, but undeniably contribute to facilitating the profession.

Justice is also increasingly using camera images to clarify robberies on banks and merchandise houses. The court uses these images conveniently to identify and track off the perpetrators.

Think back to the murder of young Joe Van Holsbeeck, not far from here, where the use of surveillance cameras has ensured that the perpetrators were quickly caught and could be held accountable for their cowardly acts.

Colleagues, we also know that the use of cameras is opposite because of the right to privacy that would be compromised. Of course, Vlaams Belang also regrets that the installation of cameras is necessary to guarantee the safety in our cities. We are therefore not in favour of Big Brother states, where everything and everyone is monitored or monitored 24/7. However, the right to privacy, colleagues, should not precede the sense of urgency, and that is undeniable.

As long as there remains a taboo on a thorough examination of the connection between immigration and insecurity, we will never see the whole truth. But this is another very different debate.

If this draft law can contribute to the increase of the sense of security on the one hand and the safety of citizens on the other, we are obliged to jointly support this and thus support the exercise of all safety-related professions.

In summary, we can without doubt say that it is a good thing that the use of mobile cameras is now clearly regulated by law. Vlaams Belang has always been in favour of the installation of security cameras, and our group will therefore fully support this bill.

Colleagues, I note that this was the maiden speech of colleague Ponthier, for which our congratulations. (Applause of Applause)

This is also the end of the list of speakers in the general discussion. Per ⁇ the government asks the word for a short response?

Mr. Speaker, I have to assist colleague Arens when he says that there is a little blind spot here on the sound.

I have a short comment.

First, in relation to the images and what is done with them, I refer to Article 40 of the Law on the Police Office. That article determines what can be done with images collected in this way. Of course, this new law also applies.

I think that was the only comment for clarification that was requested.