Proposition 52K2302

Projet de loi portant assentiment à la Convention entre le Royaume de Belgique et le Royaume des Pays-Bas sur la mise à disposition d'un établissement pénitentiaire aux Pays-Bas en vue de l'exécution de peines privatives de liberté infligées en vertu de condamnations belges, faite à Tilburg (Pays-Bas) le 31 octobre 2009.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

Nov. 12, 2009

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Netherlands prisoner international agreement penal institution

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE PS | SP Open Vld MR VB

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo

Abstained from voting

N-VA LDD FN

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) 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 ¶

Dec. 15, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

As far as I know, the report on this subject was only distributed yesterday. I therefore call for the application of Article 85 of the Rules of Procedure. We cannot now discuss the draft.

From which article do you request the application?

I call for the application of Article 85 of the Rules of Procedure. We cannot discuss the draft, because the report was only rounded up yesterday. Is this a problem for you?

You correctly request the application of the Rules. Article 85 allows each member to postpone a point if the three-day deadline is not respected.

Mr Annemans, if you wish to make use of that right, we must include the point on the agenda of Thursday.

Mr. Speaker, since this is a Puppenkast Parliament, someone must pull the brake. I think it is even worse than it was at the time of the purple government. The Croo would not have encouraged such matters.

The report is divided. You talked about the draft containing various public health provisions.

In my opinion, Verhofstadt would not have encouraged such behavior. It is literature that begins with it. The Croo would have appalled it if Verhofstadt had demanded it.

Mr. President, the matter is simple. You shared all the reports on the subject yesterday. No high urgency was requested in this regard. I therefore call for the application of the Rules of Procedure for the three points mentioned.

Mr. Annemans, please allow me to consult with the secretary – you may otherwise stand here behind me – to check some dates and hours. Can I do that for a moment? You request the application of the Rules of Procedure.

That is no problem. You do not have to believe my word.

You ask for the application. I’ll take a few things for a moment.

The reports of the three draft, for which Mr Annemans requests the suspension in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, which are points 11, 12 and 13 on the agenda, have indeed only been rounded up last night. The point he makes, therefore, seems to me right.

I conclude the morning session. We will resume the session at 14:00 with the discussion of the program law

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

Full source

The Minister explained the draft. In this I also refer to the memory of explanation. Today I would like to briefly report on this. The government has decided to build a total of seven criminal institutions between now and 2012. Of course, they are not yet ready and need to be provided with capacity. There is a structural shortage of at least 2 000 cells in Belgium. An annual fee of 30 million euros will be paid by the Belgian State for this project. It’s about people who have an average profile as detainees. It will be about detainees who do not have the Dutch nationality. The Minister has pointed out that French-speaking detainees also have the possibility to request their transfer to Tilburg.

During the discussion, colleague De Vriendt pointed out that these are wrong priorities and that capacity can be created if people are removed from interim detention. Collega De Croo referred to the positive aspect of cross-border cooperation and made suggestions regarding electronic surveillance.

Collega Van den Eynde has drawn attention to the fact that in the Netherlands there appears to be surplus cell capacity. According to Mr. Moriau, this would be the result of the Dutch drug policy with respect to soft drugs. He was ⁇ concerned about the social support measures and whether the prison officials in Tilburg will have sufficient knowledge of the Belgian regulation.

Collega Boulet, on behalf of the Ecolo-Groen! group, pointed out that the overpopulation should be addressed differently. Collega Mark Verhaegen of our group has expressed his concern about the cost and capacity on Belgian territory and the associated employment. Collega Baeselen of MR had questions about the compensation, namely whether the 30 million includes transportation. He also had questions about the application of Dutch legislation.

Collega Landuyt had specific questions about the approval and ratification procedure and the role of the Flemish Community in the social counselling of detainees. He also had questions regarding the principle of equality and asked for more explanations on the selection criteria for detainees.

The Minister responded that this is not a prelude to a larger debate but that this measure is part of a larger set of measures to eliminate overpopulation and that, of course, projects such as electronic surveillance are also being worked. He further said that Tilburg is well accessible in terms of visiting rights and he promised the members a note in which the calculation of the 30 million euros is fully explained. The Minister emphasized in particular that this also has a budgetary basis. There is a special budget reserved for it.

There were also answers to language problems. This Convention will be subject to an evaluation period in mid-2011. Furthermore, there are sufficient guarantees from the Flemish Community regarding the continuation of the accompanying measures.

During a subsequent committee meeting, colleague De Schamphelaere, on behalf of the CD&V group, said that she is very satisfied that there is a temporary solution to the problem of the overcrowding of our staff facilities and that this naturally fits in the construction of the new prisons. It also requires a thorough preparation and the cooperation of many agencies.

Mr Landuyt reiterated his objections from the meeting of 8 December 2009. These objections relate to the necessary budgetary resources, the implementation of the Convention, and the possible discrimination of detainees who do not possess the Dutch nationality.

Collega Dallemagne has asked questions about the concrete outcome and also asks whether the freed places in prisons can be used to ease the pressure on the chambers of judgment.

Collega Baeselen has returned to the costs for the ⁇ secure transport and asked whether they can be reduced to a minimum. Mr. Landuyt asserts that the budget in this is not final. The Minister rejects and refers in this to the policy note Justice. Minister De Clerck also stated that it is intended to start the transfer from 1 February 2010 and that the detainees are not only Flemings in the strict sense of the word, because 40 % of the prison population is of foreign origin. There are also French-speaking prisoners imprisoned in Flemish criminal institutions.

Mr Landuyt went on to discuss the budget gap and was not really satisfied with the arguments raised.

Finally, we voted on the two articles of the treaty submitted to us. The entire draft law was unanimously adopted.

Several speakers were included in the general discussion.

First, I give the word to Mr Baeselen. Then the word is given to Mrs. De Schamphelaere, Mr. Lahssaini, Mrs. Déom and Mr. Luyckx and Mr. Van Hecke.

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. We have even innovated since we have dealt – it is the case to say – with this project even before the Senate voted for it in a committee. This was a first in terms of the use of the House of Representatives, justified – I remember well, Mr. Minister – by the urgency. That being said, I can understand that there was urgency in this matter in that it was wanted that the entire arrangement be applied in accordance with the agreements concluded with the Netherlands.

Several parliamentarians and I have emphasized, on the occasion of questions on the subject, the need for an international treaty between Belgium and the Netherlands. There was a doubt, at first, about this element, but it was well done – and the State Council stressed it – to go through the path of an international convention between Belgium and the Netherlands to settle all the elements of this problem and thus ensure the legal certainty of the arrangement adopted.

The Reform Movement may adhere to the general principle of this making available, in some way, against remuneration, a prison situated on a foreign territory but which is part of Europe. This is ⁇ a practical example of a growing Europe of justice. This is a first in this regard. Belgium and the Netherlands are an example in terms of cooperation in the field of justice and prison policy. Other countries might follow this example. In any case, within the framework of this Europe of Justice, it is a good example in itself that does not pose an opposition of principle, but on the contrary.

I share the concern of several colleagues who stressed in the committee – I would like to point out that the matter was dealt with in the committee on Foreign Relations, but many colleagues from the committee on Justice participated in the debates – that this should not be “the solution” to the problem of prison overpopulation in Belgium. Our priority must therefore be – and I know that you are attentive to it since you have announced your master plan with regard to the renovation of our prison facilities – the renovation of our prison facilities and the construction, when necessary, of new prison places in our country.

I would also like to emphasize that we are not opposed, contrary to what has been announced by the media, to financial means granted to Dutch-speaking prisoners. We have no objection in this regard. We also say that there must be a balance in investments and renovation of prison establishments, including those located in the French Community.

As for the cost of the device, the agreement has been properly negotiated and this cost is reasonable, given the cost of holding in our own country. I welcome the fact that I have targeted the categories of prisoners who will find themselves in Tilburg: it will be people for whom transfers to courts in Belgium will be limited. These will be prisoners who have passed the part of preventive detention and who will not be at the end of the sentence. This is the middle of the punishment. This will limit travel and transfers between the Netherlands and Belgium, if I understand your explanations, which they are relatively expensive, especially when they require increased security.

In conclusion, the MR group will vote on this project with satisfaction and enthusiasm.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, from on my bench because I’m locked here, but that doesn’t matter, because my communication will be short.

Mr. Minister, we are very pleased that the treaty could finally be concluded, that it can be approved in Parliament and can get implemented. We know that you are working on the Master Plan. Increasing the cell capacity is a priority of this government, but that naturally requires preparation and elaboration of the plans. In addition, municipal and municipal authorities should be able to cooperate. There must also be space available. Then the construction plans and building permits must still be delivered. However, this is an ideal temporary emergency solution to somewhat temper the existing pressure, due to the overcrowding in our penitentiary facilities. We hope that the detainees who will stay in Tilburg will also have more space to work on their formation and reclassification. We also hope that the situation will become more humane and more viable in our penitentiary facilities on Belgian territory by reducing the presence of five hundred detainees.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I would describe this operation as “costly, inefficient, inequal and financially risky.”

Ineffective if the main argument is to fight overpopulation. Today, the Belgian prisons have approximately 10,500 prisoners. When 500 detainees are transferred to Tilburg, there will remain 10,000 detainees in Belgium for a capacity of 8 450 detainees approximately. The problem of overpopulation is therefore not resolved and the missing 1,500 seats will ⁇ not find a solution with this system.

Mr. Minister, as you said a few years ago, the fact of increasing the number of places of imprisonment does not solve the problem of overpopulation at all. There are other ways to ⁇ this. Contrary to some media statements, this transfer of 500 people to Tilburg will create another air call and, after February 1, we will see the prisons re-populate again. You know this process better than I do, so I don’t need to explain it to you.

Moreover, the problem of overpopulation does not lie in prisons where long or medium sentences are purged. It is mainly located in the Brussels detention houses.

You say that the prisoners of these Brussels prisons will also be affected by this transfer. I see more or less the game of musical chairs that could occur: we will try to find prisoners in prisons somewhere on the Dutch-speaking side, since it is from there that you intend a priori to extract prisoners, but without excluding French-speaking prisoners, I will return to it. The fact of extracting some prisoners from Brussels prisons may allow you to install prisoners imprisoned in the overcrowded prisons of the French-speaking region of the country.

Let me give you this equation. Personally, I don’t believe much in this game of musical chairs.

What I would like to denounce here is that this project will allow the establishment of a two-speed detention mode. In Tilburg, there is an internal regulation. I do not know what internal rules will apply to Belgian prisoners imprisoned in Tilburg, but I would like to see this internal rules of the Belgian prisons, Mr. Minister! He does not exist! I am sorry, there is no internal order regulation in the Belgian prisons. Maybe it’s being developed, but I haven’t been able to put my hand on it, while I’ve been looking for it for several months!

Thus, detainees who will be transferred to a place where there are clear rules, a right to complain, transparent procedures in relation to their detention, will find themselves at a gap compared to detainees remaining in Belgian prisons. If you have an internal regulation of one of the Belgian prisons, I would like to have a copy. This is the first example of this two-speed detention.

TV footage showed you, Mr. Minister, visiting the Tilburg prison. It seemed to me that it contained individual cells, in which prisoners transferred from Belgian prisons would be locked. However, in Belgium, imprisonment in individual prisons is almost a luxury, as the cells often house two, three, or even four detainees. This is a problem, when you know that 1,927 prisoners do not have a bed in their cell! In this matter, the priority should have been given to those 1,927 Belgian prisoners who do not even have a mattress!

Who will be transferred to Tilburg prison? You insisted to say that it would first be Dutch-speaking volunteers. On what basis will they be chosen? Their identity card? In fact, not many French-speaking people live in Flemish regions.

I think in particular of those who have been legalized or of those who have the status of political refugee who, without necessarily being Dutch-speaking, are domiciled in Flanders. Will these people be voluntary or will we try to see if they meet this criterion?

You said that French speakers could be transferred there at their request. There is a principle of equality that is not respected. Either this prison is open to all prisoners and attempts to resolve the problems of overpopulation, or the principle of equal treatment is violated, which is unacceptable.

Furthermore, in the convention, I see no trace of negotiations with the Communities and the Regions. Does this mean that French-speaking detainees who have submitted a request and who have been transferred to Tilburg will not be able to benefit from the aid to detainees provided by the French Community and the Walloon Region? Certainly, I read in the convention that there would be contacts with the Flemish Community that will accompany these detainees, but what about French-speaking detainees?

Mr. Minister, you say that the detainees who will go to Tilburg will be chosen from those who have a manageable, non-dangerous profile and who are sentenced to a more or less lengthy sentence. Prisoners who are dangerous or convicted for acts of terrorism will therefore be excluded. Do you not think that this is a white-seek that will allow, tomorrow, prison directors to be able to decide which prisoners will be accepted? Isn’t there a drift that will allow, as is already happening, that prison directors or prison officers issue conditions for accepting one or another prisoner?

This point was not addressed during parliamentary work that took place both in House committees and in the Senate. I am interested in this and would like to know your opinion on this.

If I have understood correctly, the Tilburg prison will be considered a Dutch territory but the law enforced will be the Belgian law. In addition, the prison officers will be Dutch. However, if a punishable act occurs during detention, it is Dutch law that will apply to those detainees. They will therefore be subject to two laws simultaneously, because it is convicts in Belgium who are detained in the Netherlands.

I would not interrupt Mr. President. Lahssaini for too long. However, many of the questions you raise have been answered in the convention that was submitted to us, in the discussions in the committee. I acknowledge I do not remember your presence in the Committee on Foreign Relations but several of your colleagues members of the Committee on Justice came to attend the debates and the minister reminded on this occasion that the Tilburg prison is not an extraterritoriality of the Dutch territory. It is normal that Dutch law applies to offences committed therein, as opposed to the disciplinary law relating to the management of the establishment which falls under Belgian law.

I do not understand exactly what the problem you want to raise. Per ⁇ you think prisoners will walk around with the two codes – the Belgian disciplinary code and the Dutch criminal code – to find out what they can and can’t do. However, things have been put to the point: everything that came to the management of the establishment and the disciplinary component comes to the Belgian law; on the other hand, if offences are committed on the occasion of an escape, for example, as the prison remains on Dutch territory, it is Dutch positive law that is applicable. All these questions were answered in the convention and in the debates that took place.

It is true that I did not attend the discussions of this committee, but I read the reports and took note of your question regarding the handling of attempted escape.

The Belgian law does not prohibit attempted escape; it considers that this is part of the rights, if I can say, of detainees. In this case, the Dutch law will apply. Are we not here in a schizophrenic game? As every citizen is supposed to know the law, the persons who will be imprisoned in the Netherlands will be supposed to know two laws: the Belgian law and the Dutch law.

I do not want to play the Minister of Justice, but I have to tell Mr. President. Lasssaini that I actually put in committee the question he just mentioned. In fact, it seemed to me that if Dutch law had punished escape, a discrimination would have been made between detainees imprisoned on Belgian territory and those imprisoned in Holland. The Minister replied that the Dutch positive law does not suppress escape or attempted escape. The problem is therefore solved.

This is a simple and ⁇ the easiest example.

But there is no internal order in our prisons. I also challenge anyone to give me an internal order regulation applied in all Belgian prisons. In any case, despite my requests, this document was not communicated to me.

If you want those regulations, ask me and I will deliver them to you.

This poses a problem! How does it happen that when I ask for the internal order ‑ I asked for it in all the prisons I have visited and I have visited many in Belgium ‑, no prison has been able to deliver it to me? Is it because I am ecologist?

(...): (...) (out of the micro)

Do you find this normal?

This is probably because we never imagined that you would need it.

Whether I need it or not, I consider that the fact that they do not communicate it to me when I ask for it is a problem. My work as a member of parliament is hindered by this refusal! Mr. Secretary, I am referring to this issue. You will provide me with a copy of the rules of procedure, but I would like that on my next visit to a prison, it will be delivered to me when I request it. I would be happy if this problem was resolved.

It is known that in the Netherlands, there are special units that intervene in case of a serious disorder, in case of a problem that goes beyond the daily management. I’m not going to ask what rules will be observed but I wanted to draw Mr. Mr.’s attention. Ask the Minister a very specific question.

In the event of a serious disorder, if these special units intervene, have you planned in the budget what it will cost? I don’t know if this can happen, or how many times, or the importance of these interventions, but I would like to know if you have planned a budget post.

These are the comments I wanted to make. What a law? Which regulation will be applied and what will be the cost?

The prison officers who will take care of these detainees will be Dutch. In order to be able to fulfill this function optimally, they will need to undergo training. I would like to know the place of this training and its content. Will they be taught what the detention plan is?

The [...]

The Rules ! They are happier than me! But will they be taught the plan of detention?

The [...]

The detention plan is included in the Rules. No, it does not appear there! The detention plan is a matter that we have been claiming for several years and that you are supposed to implement. This is the most important reform of the penitentiary policy in our country in the last ten years.

Is this element taught them? Indeed, if, in the rather favourable conditions that will be theirs, the plan of detention is not applied, where can it be done?

In the training they are offered, are they initiated to the detention plan that we want to see implemented in Belgium?

The transfer of prisoners to Tilburg will save jobs in the Netherlands. So much better! If we had not sent these prisoners to the Netherlands, some prisons or some wings of Dutch prisons would have closed. So we now allow Dutch prison officers to preserve their jobs. I have no problem in this regard.

But I think of the jobs we could have created here, Mr. Baeselen, by hiring more prison officers. Did you know that our prison officers cannot take recovery leave? They have several hundred hours to recover and that is impossible for them.

What do you say to them, Mr. Baeselen? Let us create jobs in the Netherlands and let us laugh at them! I think of them and I would like to create jobs here for their intention!

I would like to speak for a personal fact.

Mr Lahssaini, you are concerned about the work situation of the prison officers in our country, that I have well understood. We too! They can no longer function because of the overpopulation. The situation is inhumane, both for the detainees and ⁇ for the persons who have to work in our prisons in that situation. If there are 500 prisoners less, the job is a little more pleasant for them. The Convention also comes from the point of view of the working situation of all those who must work in prisons.

Mr. Lahssaini, I am not “fooled” by anyone! I just say that your speech is full of contradictions. On the one hand, you explain to us that you are against building new prisons because they will be filled immediately and that, therefore, this will not solve the problem. On the other hand, when the government announces the creation of new prison places and new facilities as well as renovations, which means better working conditions for prison officers in our facilities, you do not find that this is a good idea either. Mr Lahssaini, be a little consistent in your intervention and determine what you find right or wrong! Your speech is contradictory.

Mr. Baeselen, we are in favor of renovation because we want prisoners to be held in human conditions and to be put in order with regard to all convictions.

When new places are created, they fill up immediately. Do I not have to tell you, or do you not understand the courses you took? This is a basic principle in criminology. Where you see a contradiction, I see a mere intellectual exercise. I am totally in favor of renovations because we must respect some fundamental human rights principles. There is no discussion on this! However, building new prisons will not solve the problem of overpopulation. This will only create new places. Since 1980, the number of prisoners has increased by more than 50%. I don’t see any contradiction in what I say. I can only see consistency.

We have always been in favor of the renovation of prisons. However, to say that we will solve the problem of overpopulation by creating new places is false. For my part, I would have preferred to increase the number of prison officers working here, so that those who have provided overtime can recover them and take leave. I prefer to increase the number of doctors, nurses, especially psychiatric nurses, because our prisons are overflowing with interned people who do not have their place there. This is a priority! I would like to increase the number of places for social assistants and psychologists so that we can work and put in place the detention plan. Thus, the sentencing courts will be able to track the files submitted to them. This is a priority! I don’t see anything extraordinary or extravagant in what I say! The job in the Netherlands is preserved. This poses no problem to me. However, I think there are other priorities here. I would like to give priority to employment in our country. Some prisons insist on having more resources, but they do not receive them.

Thirty million euros a year. We could have at least accelerated the renovations, Mr. Baeselen, and I have not heard you talk about it. It would be necessary to insist for at least 280 seats that could easily be liberated. Since 2008, the masterplan exists and 280 places remain in line; the number of places is only increasing and my information dates from six months. It is also known that every day he sees the disappearance of cells because their deterioration prevents prisoners from settling there.

Mr. Baeselen, you know, since you have made visits, 250 cells do not have sanitary facilities. Do you consider such a situation as anodine? Is this not an emergency? This is unacceptable. I prioritize the issue of human dignity. This is what I would have liked to be used for the 30 million euros annually: first of all allowing people to benefit from sanitary facilities in their cells. We would think of ourselves in the Middle Ages: to see them in the morning, their bowl in the hand, to make the line to empty it, is it worthy of our country? I answer that no.

Then I have the impression that this budget was negotiated by a kind of carpet merchant. In Belgium, the cost of a day is 122 euros. Mr. Minister, you negotiate for the first year the cost of a day at more than 160 euros. What justifies such a cost? What justifies this difference between the current cost of 122 euros in Belgium and the cost of 160 euros from 1 February 2010?

All these elements have been thoroughly discussed, thoroughly documented, are detailed in the report. Here it is relevant to say the opposite. I would like to answer this question, but that does not make the least sense.

This makes no sense! I explained everything! I am not a carpet merchant, I explained how this price had been set!

You should have read the report before presenting yourself to the tribune!

I have read the report, Mr. Minister.

I do not see what justifies the fact that in Belgium, the cost of a day of imprisonment is 122 euros while in the Netherlands, it is 160 euros, in any case the first year. In the following years, this amount decreases to 140 euros. What justifies this way of doing? I don’t understand the calculation that was made and I think we could have been a little more “looking” at the expenses.

In addition, the Court of Auditors has just issued an opinion in which it indicates that there is no trace of the expenditure agreed by Belgium in the budget that will be voted in a few days. Therefore, it will need to wait for the budget adjustment to be able to incorporate this expenditure.

According to the initial assumption, it is about 30 million euros. However, there will be indexes. We know that we will face unforeseen events. We also know that some things will probably not be easy to obtain. Therefore, one enters into a policy that consists in setting up a project without knowing whether, tomorrow, it can be financed at the amount planned. Are you sure that this project will cost 30 million euros a year?

Mr. Minister, the issue of overpopulation will not be solved by transferring 500 prisoners. In view of the number of detainees remaining in Belgium, prison officers will continue to work in difficult conditions. It was the resolution of this problem that needed the urgency. That is what the 30 million euros should have been devoted to. This significant amount could have helped solve this problem that is now known for several years.

Finally, I regret the way to proceed. On the one hand, the amount in question was not envisaged in the budget and, on the other hand, we are trying to get this project voted in urgency because a convention has been signed with Holland.

Mr. Minister, it is not up to you that I will learn that the solution that has been unleashed is not sustainable and that it will not solve the problem we are facing. It is not only a costly, inefficient and unequal solution; it is also a financially random solution.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I will be brief because this topic has been long discussed both in the Committee on Justice and in the Committee on Foreign Relations.

I would like to emphasize four points.

First, it is obvious that the solution of transferring Belgian prisoners to the Tilburg prison must remain a provisional, urgent solution, pending the settlement of the fundamental problem of prison overpopulation in our prisons. Indeed, as I have already pointed out, this type of provisional measures as well as the increase of the prison park are insufficient if it comes to providing a lasting response to the prison overpopulation. A structural response must be provided; a comprehensive work must be undertaken with all sectors concerned. This work should focus on the problem of preventive detention, the duration of sentences, suspension, conditional release, the use of alternative penalties but also and above all on reintegration.

Secondly, to return to Tilburg, I would like to emphasize the need to resolve the issues of social protection of detainees and their accompaniment. Equal treatment between detainees transferred to the Netherlands and detainees in Belgium must be fully ensured.

Third, we insist that adequate training should be provided to the guards of the Dutch prison on the Belgian penitentiary law since this right will apply within the prison.

Finally, and this is very important for my group, we will remain attentive to the evaluation of the project that will be established in mid-2011, including the budget impacts. In the committee, we asked several questions that received only partial answers. But since this is a first, it is true that one cannot necessarily answer everything. These points will need to be clarified and discussed again during this evaluation.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, the N-VA group knows that you want to work on a profound reform of the prison system. We all know that a profound reform has been pressing for a long time.

By outsourcing 500 prisoners to Tilburg, you create a overpressure valve or expansion vessel, which allows you to buy some time and partially remove the overcrowding in our prisons.

Mr. Minister, the outsourcing to Tilburg should ⁇ not be a escape route, not for the prisoners, of course, and not for your policy. The N-VA group would like to give you extra time, but we would like to make some suggestions about this Belgian-Netherlands experiment.

By the way, I would like to point out to the French-speaking colleagues that this Flemish-Netherlands cooperation will go well. I have a good feeling that even the Flemish prisoners can coexist better with their Dutch neighbors than with their French-speaking neighbors. Who knows, there may be a germ laid for a Great Dutch thought.

Currently, the arrangement is to provide five hundred seats, while there are 681 seats available in Tilburg. There are 8,500 cells available in Belgium. According to the master plan, 10 433 cells should be realized by the end of 2012. This means that there is already a shortage of 2,000 seats in the Belgian prisons.

Why don’t we fill that capacity right away for all 681 seats? However, it is clear that there is an urgent problem. We fear that you will have to fill the additional seats, which you are postponing now, in practice anyway. In fact, you are underestimating and golding the financial pill that this Parliament must swallow today, a financial pill that will taste bitter at the end of the ride.

This Belgian-Netherlands operation is not very cheap. 30 million euros per year for the accommodation of less dangerous prisoners is a solid price mark. The additional cost per 50 additional prisoners is EUR 213 000 per month. In other words, a budget of approximately 38 million euros per year. Furthermore, I must confirm that, according to the Court of Auditors, this budget was not included in the 2010 budget. The Netherlands, which, unlike the Belgian southern neighbors, struggles with overcapacity of available places and in that sense is also a requesting party to fill that void, is doing a good thing.

Mr. Minister, we are convinced that it could have been better negotiated. We were a little bit driven by the Dutch. This is a temporary measure and the time you buy with it runs until December 2012. In extent, the agreement can be extended by one year. Let’s be honest, that extra year you may need.

Here too, we fear that you will minimize the budget impact a little. On its own, the runway, the Tilburg escape route, remains not a bad thing, only and only if the measure is not freelance to push the renewal and improvement of our prisons on the long runway and only and only if this measure is not a runway for a faulty structural policy.

For these reasons, our group will abstain at the vote. We here make an urgent call, which my colleague already made in the Committee for Justice, to work in the meantime on structural solutions, the development of alternative criminal treatment, electronic surveillance and house arrest, the increase of the bands to 1 500 pieces, a better approach to the recidivists and finally of course also the construction of functional additional prisons in Belgium, because that’s the matter.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the overcrowding of prisons is a topic that has long been very current. Every year, every month, we see the figures increasing systematically. Everyone agrees that we should solve the problem, but about how we should solve it, we may differ. This is of course the case in this case.

For two years, the Minister of Justice has been pointing out the existence of the master plan. That plan is actually aimed at capacity expansion as the solution to address the overpopulation. You can see this in two phases. In a first phase, you want to perform a number of innovations — seven new settings — and in a second phase, the old settings that are closed will be replaced by new ones. This second phase is very good and necessary. Indeed, European and international institutions have repeatedly condemned us for the inhumane conditions in our prisons. The examples have been cited and you understand that too well.

There are many plans, but this government has failed to address the overpopulation over the last two and a half years, since the 2007 elections. The Tilburg Treaty perfectly demonstrates the failure of the prison policy of recent years, in particular the failure of the CD&V ministers, responsible for Justice.

What has your party promised before the federal elections? I still remember the SOS Plan Justice, Mr. Minister. I don’t know if this is in your office. It was proposed by a number of colleagues. I read it, more specifically the chapter on prisons. It stated that it was five for twelve, but that with CD&V everything would change and improve; in two years time there would be 1,500 places added.

Two years after the elections, in June 2009, 500 had added. That means a third of your promise has been fulfilled. A third one. You predicted the voter that it would be resolved, but it failed. You have sought refuge in Tilburg. So Tilburg is an attempt to hide your failures. Tilburg is a laparoscope, but a very expensive laparoscope. However, Tilburg is not the solution. It is not a structural solution, because more capacity will of course not solve the problem. I also blamed your predecessor that, by focusing almost exclusively on capacity expansion for two and a half years, many other possibilities were not exploited. Now, at the end, in your last policy note, it is stated that the electronic surveillance is going from a capacity of 1 000 to 1 500. That is a solution.

However, there are many other problems that are not addressed. The greatest problem, the greatest shame, are the thousand interned in our prisons. A few months ago, the cap of a thousand was exceeded, for the first time in history.

Yes, there are plans to address that problem, and those plans have been in place for a long time: two institutions in Gent and Antwerp, equivalent to 390 places. That is a very good thing, but what will we do with the other 600 interned in the prisons? For this, too, we must find a solution.

You will need to work with Public Health. We have been asking for this for two years. Work with the Minister of Health, who is negotiating with Mr Gillet, to address the problem of the 1,000 interned in prisons.

The [...]

The Minister considers the problem very important and she will solve it together with you. I have not read this in your policy plan, nor in the policy plan of Mrs. Minister.

What will you do with the 600 interned who will remain when your 390 seats are created? In the medium term, there is no solution.

It can also be collaborated with existing institutions – which do not always have to be new institutions – to determine whether they can not accept more interners.

If a thousand interned people are removed, that would be a very nice solution for the overpopulation.

Second, there are the persons convicted for drug-related facts. Therefore, this is not about serious crime, but about facts where the cause lies in drug use.

We have interesting pilot projects. We also visited them, including the drug treatment room in Gent. There is also a pilot project. These are very interesting initiatives. We will always support you, Mr. Minister.

These pilot projects should be continued and expanded. It is a different approach, addressing the causes of the problems. For this, you need guidance and guidance. There is also a lack of funding. I have recently questioned you about this. You say that we should review it thoroughly within a year.

If we want to continue with this, we can keep many people out of prison and we can immediately offer the right help. Many do not belong there at home.

Third, there is the expansion of electronic surveillance. We talked about it. You are taking new steps in this regard.

Fourth, you can further develop alternatives and labour penalties. I think there is still room for this, even though a lot has happened in the last ten years.

Fifth, there is the well-known problem of interim detention. The figures in our country are very high.

If we work on these five points in addition to capacity, it will have a huge impact on the prison population. These are measures, which are much more structural than Tilburg’s laparoscope.

In the long term, we need to invest much more in reintegration. I think we need to invest in it, if we want to work on a medium and long-term solution for overpopulation. The legal basis has existed for years, namely the Basic Law which speaks about re-integration and re-integration paths, but that law is implemented only step by step and there are only a few pilot projects in progress.

If you invest the 30 million per year in the alternatives and in people to guide those paths, then that would be good, structural solutions in the medium term. Therefore, Mr. Minister, it is also good to look over the borders.

In Scandinavia, for years, it has been working with a different detention policy, with small-scale prisons, in which detainees in small groups are prepared for their return to society, for their reintegration, through a much stricter guidance. It works on the causes of the problems, such as financial problems or drug and alcohol problems. This must be done in prison. Prisoners must be able to work in order to obtain a degree and must receive training so that after leaving prison they can work and thus function in society. That is essential, but of course it also requires political courage, because there are parties that do not prefer but to conduct the debate about more prisons and more and longer sentences and much more.

It is, of course, very difficult to go against the public opinion, but if we want to work long-term, structural and other solutions are needed. If you come up with such a solution, we will support you, Mr. Minister, but with this proposal we cannot follow you.

I would like to subscribe to the debate, because our good colleague has such a formidable presentation, which I would like to contradict.

I would like to answer Mr. Van Hecke indicating that the minister announced very soon, for the month of January or February I believe, a new guidance note on the execution of sentences.

If there is a debate about prisons – and mr. Van Hecke is right in posing the problem – I would like to go ahead in the Justice Committee on this matter, starting with this important political note.

I understand that we are making generalizations on prisons tonight, but it is difficult, on the occasion of the debate on the Tilburg case, which is an exceptional temporary measure, to refresh the whole debate on prisons. The problem should not be eliminated. I therefore invite you, as a Justice Committee, to express your long view of the prison and the execution of sentences during the discussions on this note.

Mrs Nyssens, I agree with you. I would also be happy to accept your invitation. However, whenever we have discussed the master plan in the Justice Committee, both with Mr Vandeurzen and Mr De Clerck, we have made the previous comments. In fact, we believe that over the past two years the emphasis has been too much on capacity and capacity expansion and too little on the other alternatives.

I look forward with you to the note, in which we will notice whether the Minister is willing to move in another direction. That other direction is the right path that we must follow.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I am pleased that Minister Onkelinx and Minister De Clerck are present at the same time, not to talk about the projects in Gent and Antwerp. That is for later – not too much later, I hope. In any case, I am pleased to join with what Ms. Mia De Schamphelaere has stated, in particular that it is not true what CD&V once announced, at a time when the aforementioned party criticized Ms. Onkelinx’s good works. After all, it is not true that prisons can be built in two years.

I quote Mrs. De Schamphelaere, as the ultimate proof that the aforementioned campaign was a wrong campaign and actually a lie. Mia, it’s nice that you have expressed so beautifully on what level the problems lie.

It is unfortunate that we have to talk about Tilburg in such a context. Indeed, within the European context, we should welcome such a project. Why should we not cooperate properly at European level?

However, as in the case of the major master plan for the prisons of Minister Vandeurzen, which was taken over by you, Minister De Clerck, the present draft is not provisional.

From the beginning I pointed out to Mr Vandeurzen that there were no budgets registered for the above-mentioned master plan in the budget for the Regie der Gebäude. What am I fixing today? There is also no budget for Tilburg.

So we are speaking here today, on a Thursday night, with the highest urgency of a treaty on Tilburg to be approved. However, there are no cents for allocated, unless – this is a question – on Tuesday one of the amendments to the budget will be an amendment related to Tilburg.

It is not serious to chase everybody to approve the present treaty and then conclude that there is not even a budget to take the first step.

This reminds me that there is a method of allowing two hundred prisoners in the Netherlands to perform their sentences free of charge, especially the Dutch who are now in the Belgian prisons.

Mr. Minister, how is the situation regarding the implementation of the normal agreement between Belgium and the Netherlands on the performance of the sentence by Dutch citizens, free of charge, in their own country. My problem remains standing because if there were money, you will also have a problem with the execution. By the hurry you want to approve this convention, you too quickly overlook that you have a problem with equal treatment of all prisoners in our country.

Like Dick Advocaat, the Dutch will laugh twice. They succeed in letting their 200 prisoners stay here at our expense in Belgium and they are willing – if I have understood the mechanism correctly – to accommodate only Flamingen at a cost price, including their pension rights. It is about those who know Dutch, have done something wrong and are not Dutch. Therefore, I think it is the Flammers who are eligible to be sentenced there. It is regrettable that we cannot approve such a way of working. We have some homage to the former Minister of Justice.

According to my colleague Landuyt, it is already night, but as far as I know it is still evening.

I will not fall into repetition. On the one hand, I welcome, Mr. Minister, the end of impunity and the extension of penalties. That people who do not serve their sentences because the prisons are overcrowded cannot be an excuse from the government. I really find it a good solution to knock on our northern neighbors, although there were other solutions. In any case, our northern neighbors have carried out a future-oriented policy. In the short term, 6 000 cells were built up, up to a capacity of 24 000 cells. In the meantime, even the system of the bajesboats is applied. Belgium could have done this too, and still, to counter the overpopulation.

On the other hand, I have points of criticism. They have been cited many times, but I will repeat them again. Mr. Minister, you have been rolled by the Dutch. They charge a fee of 164 euros per detainee, while in our home country we only charge 127 euros per detainee account. It is obviously bad to eat cherries with our northern neighbors. This has also been seen in the world of football.

It does not solve the problems structurally. Colleagues have already pointed out that thousands of interned persons do not belong to the prison home. It is time for us to do something about it. Two to three thousand are in temporary detention. It is time that we do something about it. Our electronic surveillance, which is still lacking, needs to be expanded. We can safely move up to 1 500 to 2 000 people. It would solve a lot of construction problems.

One point that has not yet been addressed today is the execution of penalties in the country of origin. No matter how you turn it or turn it, the overpopulation in our prisons has a lot to do with the alien problem. 70% of the population of our prisons consists of immigrants or people of immigrant origin. It is time for us to implement that law. Ms. Onkelinx is present here. At that time, many agreements were signed with, among other things, Morocco. Nothing has happened to that. We need to change things structurally.

On the one hand, I congratulate you that you are going to Tilburg and that you are planning to build seven prisons. Casernes are empty. So you do not have any spatial problems to do so. There is still a lot to change structurally. Therefore, we abstain from voting on the draft.

Mr. Speaker, I must humbly confess that the immediate cause of my reason has everything to do with the song here just on behalf of Ecolo-Groen! It was sung by Mr. Van Hecke. It is about a song whose refrain has long been canceled. It is a song that can be found on a record that is more than gray twisted. This is about the history of prevention. They must study. We need to think long-term. We need to make sure they get diplomas. This is how it will be solved. Sorry, Mr. Van Hecke, this song has been sung for a very long time, for decades. For decades, I have heard in politics only talk about prevention, about soft approaches, countermeasures, and so on.

I would still like to believe you, because we will not think dogmatically here, but just following what we are discussing here now, we could hear that in the Netherlands, unlike Belgium, there is a place in prison, because there has been a much stricter policy.

In other words, your dogma, I cannot call it other than your credo, of more prisons means only more prisoners, is not correct in reality. Come back to Earth. Leave those green-left utopias. Take a look at reality.

Consequently, I think that we really should not only approve the design, but maybe also inspire us a little more about what is happening in the Netherlands.

We will approve the Minister’s proposal on the prison in Tilburg without complexes. I also advocated this in the Committee on Foreign Relations. However, I add, Mr. Minister, that we will approve it, because it is the least evil that can be proposed to us. It is not the best yet. Why is it so?

First, I think that Mr. Dedecker has just emphasized it, one will now be able to send Flamings to the Netherlands – and I repeat it, we have no objection to that in itself – but of all the promises made at that time, among other things by Ms. Onkelinx, to let foreigners in their own country have their punishment, so far very little has come into the house.

A second reason why we approve the text, of course, also has to do with our cipiers, for whom it is a relief of their duties. However, it might have been recommended to choose the boats, which was the original idea. It was according to the inspection of finances, so not according to my idea, a lot cheaper. We should have taken that into account and in that respect we may have chosen a more expensive solution.

Finally, I would like to say this, Mr. Minister. Dutch speakers will be sent to Tilburg. Is that the best idea? I hear regularly that in Flanders robberies are committed by people who speak French. It might help them if they could learn Dutch in the Netherlands, which would facilitate their case.

That being said, at least part of a solution is offered. It is not the solution, but you ⁇ do not mean that. From that perception, the Flemish Belang will vote together with the majority this time.

Mr. Minister, I did not have the opportunity to attend the meetings of the Foreign Relations Committee because I was retained in the Justice Committee. Nevertheless, I had the great advantage of taking part in a short trip to the Netherlands, during which we visited some of its prisons.

This trip was interesting as we saw extremely positive aspects of taking care of detainees in prison for their reintegration. I think in particular of the individual reclassification plan for each prisoner and all the techniques, including the ultramodern group communication techniques used to give the prisoners the voice and through collective exercises that really allow these people to talk about their lives and eventually find a certain balance. This greatly impressed me.

I also noted exchanges of good practices and programs between the Netherlands and Limburg. We were shown programs, according to which Dutch and Belgians already participated in reclassification programs. This is eminently interesting. Working together beyond our borders can only be profitable.

Nevertheless, I wonder how our neighbors managed to empty the prisons they built! If they built enormously, they now own empty prisons! It would be an interesting, long-term goal for Belgium to dream of empty prisons!

Mr. Minister, will the Belgian prisoners who will meet in Tilburg benefit from this particular framework favourable to their reintegration? If I have heard correctly, will they be accompanied and framed as we are in Belgium?

According to the Belgian system.

So, unfortunately, transferred prisoners will not benefit from the contribution of the Dutch system!

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the intervention of the fellow of the Flemish Interest, who, of course, does not believe in prevention, which I have not talked about. I asked what they do with prisoners. Are they being trained and taught a job in prison? You do not believe that, Mr. Van den Eynde, and that is your good right. However, there are numerous examples that this leads to good results, where it happens in a serious way, as in the Scandinavian countries. In Belgium, it happens in some prisons, but not everywhere, because there is no place or because the VDAB sometimes cannot enter.

What should happen to someone who enters prison, is unskilled, has an addiction problem and is unemployed? He has been there for three years and nothing happens to him. Then he is released. That is not a solution. That period in prison should be used to work on training. There are many beautiful examples of this, and the prison of Old Earth is one such example. Diplomas are awarded annually. This motivates the detainees, when they are released, to integrate into society. That is not to say that everyone succeeds, but if it is not organized, nobody succeeds. It does well with a certain portion of the population, and we must invest in it, if we want to reduce the recidive in the long term.

It is your good right not to believe in it, but we believe in it and we think we should invest in it further.

The last intervention comes from Mr Van den Eynde. Then the Minister will have the word in his replica.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague of the Greens! has used the correct word at the end of his speech, in particular the word "belief".

Mr. Van Hecke, it is based on faith. I have not said here that I am against education in prison. I’ve just said that prevention alone doesn’t help and that one should not come to tell us that more prisons and more repression just bring more prisoners.

The next is not a question of faith, it is facts. In the Netherlands, where education is also given in prisons, it is shown that the consistent application of penalties helps. The Netherlands has free space in its prisons. The facts show that, and you cannot lie to them unless with your faith.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the discussion on this issue began in April of this year and after a lot of debates, first in the Senate and then in the House, I am pleased that we can continue this year, at the end of 2009, to vote on a treaty regulating this unique cooperation.

It is indeed a European cooperation model based on European solidarity. This must be emphasized and repeated. It is good that this kind of cooperation, this kind of win-win situation, can be realized.

Why do the Netherlands have so many free places? Per ⁇ the Netherlands has invested a little too much in prisons at a time when we have invested in other things. It is also true that a different kind of mentality has emerged in the Netherlands. When issuing a punishment, there is a kind of confidence that that punishment will be effectively executed, allowing the system to be controlled. We must study this. That mentality, that behavior of the magistrate with regard to the reliability of the execution of the penalty, is, after all, an element that we need to debate further in order to see how reasonability can be achieved in the entire staff process.

I absolutely want to confirm Mrs. Deom and repeat to everyone that what we are doing today is not a structural solution. It is clear that we must continue the work. While we work on many small problems to solve in the judicial and prison world, we continue to face the daily problems of each prison. Even today, in Forest, we have had problems with the municipality, with the police, with the prison staff who complain about overpopulation, who say that it is no longer okay, that something needs to be done!

Currently, I am taking intermediate measures, valid in a transition period. I try to find a solution to reduce the pressure that exists everywhere. With the 500 Tilburg seats, we will have the opportunity to better manage and bring more quality to our prisons from January, February. We will have the opportunity to reduce the pressure, so that the staff feels better. It will be able to manage the system better as prisoners live in more humane conditions. Generally speaking, pacification, social peace must return within our prisons.

It is the ambition to reach a temporary solution by reducing the pressure, because the final solution is indeed in the penalty enforcement note, which we hope to be able to discuss in January or February, Mrs. Chair of the Commission. Once the landscape discussion leaves some space, I hope that we can exchange thoughts on the execution of punishment in its totality. That is the very broad story. We must commit to that. I have always committed myself to continue with this.

I will not repeat some points. The price has been thoroughly negotiated. It is not an abnormal price. There will be training for the staff. There will be no inequality, colleague Landuyt. We have chosen a system where everyone is treated like in Belgium. The many Dutch prisoners here we must indeed try to get back to the Netherlands through the classic, other methods. That is the ambition.

Today, there are 214 Dutch citizens in our prisons. By approving a treaty in the Senate, we may finally have the opportunity to reach a much smoother transfer. Transfer is something different from a punishment execution in the Belgian system on Dutch soil. For the Dutch, it has been agreed that it must be done along the classical road.

We are evolving towards a European model where each country ensures the execution of penalties for its own nationals. That is a good evolution. This framework decision has been adopted in Europe. It is not currently applicable, but in two years it should be applied throughout Europe. I think that is the right development.

I would like to thank you all for the debate. I hope that we will have the opportunity to talk further about the execution of penalties and that we will be able to continue to do so in a European context.

Colleague Luykx, I hope this is not an escape route. I sincerely hope with you that this is not an escape route, but a temporary solution to a fundamental problem that we are now facing, and that we can start the construction of new prisons and the construction of places for interned persons as soon as possible. We have also taken that commitment. Indeed, it cannot be that more than 1,000 interned persons are in our prisons. This is why we build in Gent and in Antwerp. This is why we organized Les Marronniers in Wallonia. We must, together with Public Health – we talked about it today – ensure that there is a proper solution for interned persons. This commitment is also included.

I thank you for the discussion of this matter and I expect that in this way we can also in our own prisons in a more humane way to deal with those who work there and those who are included there and that we can proceed towards a firmly developed detention policy in Belgium, based on the penalty enforcement note that I will present to you as soon as possible, Mrs. Chair of the Commission.

A small clarification.

Mr. Minister, did I hear correctly that you are talking about the implementation of this treaty already in January, February?

1 February .

of which act.

Second question, what about the other treaty in connection with those 214 Dutch citizens who could be sentenced in their own country? How far is it with the implementation?

This is addressed case by case. It is not like we put them in a car and drive them to the Netherlands. This is not the way it goes. Dossier per dossier is requested.

You used the number of 214.

Of those 214 today, 79 have been requested to be transferred. Thirty of these numbers have already been transferred. According to the new legislation, there can be an acceleration to ensure that as many Dutch nationals as possible perform their sentences in the Netherlands. Agreements have been made. This, however, follows its own, separate path and does not go through this Convention. This goes through the bilateral and international law applicable to the transfer of prisoners who have been convicted in a particular country and will serve their sentence in their own country. This is the classic method.

Well, until February.

One point has not been discussed today, it is the question of the execution of sentences. This is our goal for all of us! In fact, it is unbearable and unacceptable that persons convicted after a proper trial do not perform their sentences, while persons who have not been tried and who are held preventively occupy places in prisons. This is the bottom of the problem!

Mr. Minister, if this is what you want to solve, I totally agree with you and I support you. I am for people to execute their punishment. Therefore, the question of preventive detention must be addressed. I am waiting for your note on this because it is the node of the problem and what causes overpopulation. Why is it that today, in Belgium, more than 50% of detainees are in preventive detention?

40 percent

Mr. le ministre, in the month of October, we are 50 % according to the figures of the SPF Justice. Peu importe, avec 40 %, nous sommes dans le peloton de tête en Europe! Votre note devra apporter des solutions pour éviter que la Belgique ne garde le leadership and ce qui concerne la détention préventive. If certain persons condemned are not executing their punishment, a large part of persons and preventive detention are neither prosecution nor condemnation. It is problematic!