Proposition 53K1005

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 15 avril 1994 relative à la protection de la population et de l'environnement contre les dangers résultant des rayonnements ionisants et relative à l'Agence fédérale de Contrôle nucléaire et modifiant la loi du 11 décembre 1998 relative à la classification et aux habilitations, attestations et avis de sécurité.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅱ

Submission date

Jan. 11, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

nuclear energy environmental protection nuclear safety public safety radioactive waste access to information confidentiality

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

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 ¶

Feb. 17, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Considering your time frame, I would like to refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, the PS Group welcomes the vote on this bill that will allow to greatly strengthen the security in the nuclear sector.

We are quite in favour of raising the security level for access to a limited perimeter to perform certain ⁇ sensitive tasks. However, the possible negative social consequences for workers must be limited to the maximum, and it cannot be accepted that the change of requirements in terms of the required level of safety qualification may serve as an incentive for the employer to voluntarily dismiss workers who have been in the enterprise for months or years without serious problems or threats being identified.

Mrs. Minister, my group asks you to look after the fate of workers who would be denied a “secret” or “very secret” qualification while they already have a “confidential” qualification.

That is why we want you to confirm in the plenary session what you said in the committee, namely that those who work in the public sector should be prioritized to remain in the company through a reorganization of their business.

For the private sector, it will be imperative that you consult with the social partners in order to limit the pernicious effects of this new legislation on current workers in the sector.

Based on these two small remarks, this project is not a problem for my group.

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 will support measures that can be taken to strengthen and improve nuclear security and that address the uncertainty that has existed in the past years.

I have two comments, two comments.

In the committee, I was somewhat excited about procedural matters. My anger is still somewhat present today.

The preliminary draft submitted to the State Council at that time had only three and a half pages. The final draft that we discuss here has ten pages. This is something I deserve to note, especially since it is a bill that will interfere with a number of civil liberties and a number of democratic principles. For us, a second opinion of the State Council had been appropriate on this subject. This question was unfortunately rejected.

Also, a similar request to organize a number of hearings around the bill was not supported by the government of ongoing affairs. Mr Thiébaut first called for a hearing with the social partners. The draft law had to be approved as soon as possible.

I would therefore like to make the previous comments on the procedure.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have a second comment.

Before the end of the year, the Committee on Internal Affairs and the Committee on Business have decided to start quickly with a Subcommittee on Nuclear Safety. The present draft law deserved a reflection in such a subcommittee. It is therefore ⁇ regrettable that the aforementioned subcommittee is not active today.

I understood that a round of polls was organised among the political groups today on who will sit in the respective subcommittee. Nevertheless, I would like to point out that precious time has been wasted in this regard. The bill presented today, which is substantially good, had deserved a reflection in the aforementioned subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, in connection with the procedural I have also explained in the committee that it is logical that, if a bill is sent to the Council of State and there are comments, it is subsequently amended.

As regards the hearings, nothing prevents the Subcommittee on Nuclear Safety, as it should, to follow up on a bill that is submitted here for voting today and to organize hearings in the framework thereof.

Mrs. Minister, there is a difference between giving succession to a number of comments and sensitively expanding the bill. I am talking about three and a half pages, which have become ten pages. It is a much more substantial fulfillment. Therefore, it is a pity that the Council of State opinion has not been requested for this purpose.