Proposition 53K1015

Projet de loi créant les centres 112 et l'agence 112.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅱ

Submission date

Jan. 13, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

first aid emergency medical treatment emergency aid public health

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

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

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, the bill that is on our banks is a major step towards the integration of calls to the numbers 100, 101 and 112 for emergency medical assistance, fire services and police.

In 1991, the European Council introduced a single emergency number, 112, so that anyone travelling to another EU country does not have to remember the emergency numbers of each country. In Belgium, 112 came into force in 1993 and works in parallel with the numbers 100 and 101. We had opted for the integration of these call numbers and for their processing in one place. We also decided that the integration of these emergency calls would be done through the technology provided by the SA ASTRID, technology already used by police services.

The draft law that is submitted to us aims to define an adequate legal framework for the integration of calls 100, 101 and 112. In principle, there should be a 112 center per province. The processing of emergency calls will be divided into two stages.

The first phase is the taking and analysis of the emergency call, the call taking. This phase must take place in a neutral context in relation to the disciplines concerned. The call-taker will have to listen to the call and analyze it. This first processing must enable the call-taker to have sufficient information to transmit to the discipline concerned accurate information on the nature of the incident and its location in order to enable the sending of the means most appropriate to the situation. It is then that the call taker will pass the relay to the dispatcher.

The second phase is the sending of means of intervention adapted to the needs of the situation, dispatching; it will be organized by type of emergency service. In addition, the bill ensures continuity between services 100 and 112, ensures consistency in the daily management of 112 centres and their staff by the Ministers of Interior and Public Health and regulates functional relations.

The bill abandoned the idea of a 112 agency as a type B parastatal because this option turned out to be too expensive. It is therefore proposed that the 112 Agency become a supervisory body for the 112-centres. The missions of the 112 Agency and its co-financing are also specified.

The law will enter into force in two phases. The first phase will be the entry into force of the regulations organising the 112, protocols and instructions determining the functional authority of ministers on the processes within their respective competences, the 112 agency and the necessary budgetary instruments. During this first phase, emergency calls will continue to be processed separately in police CIC 101 centers and 100 emergency centers. However, these centers will gradually be integrated into the same computer structure of ASTRID’s CAD.

The second phase includes the implementation of Article 206 of the Civil Security Act, a provision that entails the federalization of emergency centers 100 and their staff. It is at this time that the 100 rescue centers will be fully transferred to the federal authority.

From the outset, the MR group welcomed the scope of the bill and the options chosen. It was actually about defining a way of operating and clear goals to save lives. This is exactly what it is, my colleagues. However, we wanted to supplement the text that was proposed to us with several points that could be settled by the pistes developed on the occasion of the adoption of a bill submitted by the MR group to the Senate. We consider it essential that any urgent call to the numbers 100, 101 and 112 handled by the 112 centers can be handled at least in the three national languages and in English, in accordance with the conditions, quality criteria and modalities to be determined by the King. In this context, it would also be up to the King to set the requirements for linguistic knowledge.

Each call must be able to be answered in at least three national languages and in English. In fact, under shock, it is sometimes difficult to express yourself in your own language. What if the answer is in a language other than yours? It is therefore essential that anyone who calls 112 can speak in their own language and be fully understood by their interlocutor.

Additionally, call centers must regularly face calls or fake emergency calls that do not require priority intervention. These calls are both obstacles to an urgent, effective and appropriate response from emergency services, hence the importance once again of well understanding your interlocutor in order to best assess the situation and make the right decisions.

Our country is at the crossroads of Europe. English is a language that we need to consider. The example of France, yet a one-language country, should inspire us since in 30 departments, it is answered in 28 languages through a remote service of emergency translators. Within seconds following an incident, the calling person is in contact with a third person to whom they can report their problem in their own language.

It is obviously not about imposing every person who receives an emergency call in a call center to be systematically quadrilingual. The King shall determine the conditions, quality criteria and modalities. The use of distance interpreters is one of the pursued paths. It is also worth noting that the Permanent Commission for Language Control (CPCL), requested by the Minister of the Interior, issued, on 19 March 2010, an opinion as part of the discussion of the bill on emergency calls filed by the MR group of the Senate. The CPCL held that a provision providing for emergency calls a specific regulation on the use of languages does not violate the laws on the use of languages in administrative matters.

In the current state of legislation, the language must be that of the Region in which the emergency center is located. However, the law allows for specific language regulations for certain services. This is precisely the purpose we pursued by submitting this amendment. It is about avoiding tragedies and saving lives!

It was also crucial for us that deaf and hearing impairment, as well as those with any other disability that could prevent the use of an emergency number by a voice call, could send an emergency e-mail message to 112. It shall be the responsibility of the King to determine the modalities for the implementation of this possibility, upon proposal of the Minister of the Interior and of the Minister of Public Health.

Currently, there is no system for quick access to a unified call center for the country’s 400,000 deaf or hearing loss people. They can only use the “Emergency Fax” system. This system had a considerable advance but seems now outdated at the time of GSM, satellite phones or other 3G.

Some police areas have already taken the initiative to make available to deaf or hearing impairment people a GSM call number to which they can send an emergency SMS. However, they must be requested in advance and must be registered in the local system.

However, access to emergency medical assistance by telephone should not be limited to the territories of the areas providing the emergency number, but should be extended to the whole territory.

Therefore, we wanted to facilitate access to emergency services for people with hearing impairment, deafness or other disabilities that could prevent the use of an emergency number through a voice call. The amendment we have submitted gives them the possibility to send an emergency e-mail message for this purpose to the 112. This amendment does not provide an exhaustive list of technical means to be used, but sets out a term that can include different systems. By using the concept of e-mail message, we are able to respond to developments in the technologies that could be used in this context and avoid having to change the law every time a new tool comes into being. Those affected by this measure will be able to use emergency services at any time and from any place.

With these measures having a certain budgetary impact, we left the King the freedom to set the date of entry into force. In doing so, we allow the government to give itself sufficient time and resources to implement these new devices optimally.

I would like to thank my colleagues in the Interior Committee and the Minister of the Interior who supported these amendments. They will help ensure a more efficient, tailored service for people facing an emergency situation and who need to be rescued.

The bill and its amendments will help to avoid dramas, misunderstandings and, I repeat, save lives.

As a conclusion, I would like to recall, Mrs. Minister, as I did in the committee, the difficult financial situation of SA Astrid. In order for the 112 project to be a success, it will be to ensure that it has sufficient resources to carry out the technological migration of emergency calls.

It will also be about ensuring that the royal decrees implementing the text we are about to vote on are taken as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, the problem of the 112 agency and the 112-centrals has been drawing up for years. There was a regulation provided for in the Program Law of 2004, but the concrete application of the uniform call system remains behind on the ground.

We hope to accelerate the establishment and merger of the different disciplines of aid. The draft clearly shows the existing willingness of the competent departments of Home Affairs and Public Health to set up a construction that will improve the victims of accidents or those who need to resort to emergency services.

The draft should also be a call to all relevant departments to accelerate the development of that uniform call system. This is precisely the problem that has left the file behind. We hope that the competent ministers will one day jointly represent the matter.

This is indeed about the Regie der Gebäude, which must provide the necessary infrastructure, about the FOD Economie, which must conclude important agreements with the telephone operators, about Public Affairs regarding the personnel issue of the new 112-central and of course also about the Minister of Public Health, who must conclude the new protocols and cooperation partnerships for an efficient execution of the emergency calls with Internal Affairs. It is of course up to you, Mrs. Minister of Internal Affairs, to draw the file. We therefore expect you to make this a priority focus for the coming months.

As regards the adaptation of the multilinguality of services, you should bear in mind that this corresponds to the reality of our society. Not only do people speak different languages, but our country also knows many foreigners. We only look at the number of tourists or businessmen who visit our country on a daily basis, especially due to the international role that our country plays in various fields. The ability to make an emergency call in English often makes the difference between life and death. Of course, we are still waiting for the technical translation of this assignment. Therefore, we must ⁇ not give the impression that this could happen today or tomorrow. Given the specific language problem in our country, it is of course not an easy solution, also because we want to deviate as little as possible from the language law.

A possible solution proposed by the minister himself could be the creation of a kind of multilingual platform on a federal basis, which will further handle the calls if a language is spoken other than that of the operator.

In that case, the provincial centers may remain single, but they are supported by multilingual operators, in our view preferably in a rural center. On the technical level, there are clearly more and more things to be considered and we also rely on the Minister of Internal Affairs to speed up this file.

CD&V will therefore approve this draft and closely monitor its further implementation.

Thank you Mrs Dierick. Mr. Weyts, you are just on time.

Mr. Speaker, given, on the one hand, the unlimited respect for you and your agenda and, on the other hand, the line put forward by colleague Van Esbroeck, I will also keep it very brief.

I feel obliged to intervene here because this design has pleased me twice and disappointed me once. I am pleased, on the one hand, because of the content. It is good to work towards centralization, to a single 112-number. On the other hand, I am pleased that my amendments have made the majority awake and shaken. Nevertheless, I am also disappointed that my amendments have been thrown on a wall of misunderstanding because of the majority.

I have been able to conclude that there is still a majority in the committee for domestic affairs, which unanimously and without too much debate and reflection rejected an opposition amendment. I have submitted amendments regarding the linguistic aspect, which should ensure that all 112-centres are organized in such a way that they can answer calls from their own language area and from the adjacent language area. Specifically, this would mean that all 112-centres in Flanders, except in Antwerp, would be organized in two languages. In Limburg even three-language. All Welsh 112 centers, except those in Nam and Luxembourg – if my geographical knowledge does not let me go – will also be organized bilingual.

Why Why ? We have repeatedly discussed the concrete problem in the committee for domestic affairs, Mrs. Minister, and thus also with you. It is the case that GSM calls from one language area are routed to a 112 station in the other language area. We have experienced harsh conditions. I refer to the example in Riemst five years ago with dramatic consequences. One could not answer a Dutch-speaking emergency call from Riemst because it ended up in the Luikse 112, then still the 100-central, where one did not understand Dutch. I can give you numerous examples from my own area. In the Pajottenland now sometimes MUG services are lost because they do not understand street signs. They are called from the Flemish language area, while they leave in the French language area.

I refer to recent precedents in Wallonia, more specifically in Saint-Sauveur, a cynical name. From there, a call came to a Dutch-speaking call center, to Dutch-speaking calltakers who did not understand French. They were unable to properly respond to the call.

The amendments I have forwarded to all my colleagues in advance have apparently led to majority amendments going in the same direction, unfortunately with a profound difference in the sense that a majority amendment provides for the organization of a four-language 112 station across the entire territory. I regret that the majority did not want to listen to my arguments and amendments. I am concerned about a closing regulation. The problem is, of course, the fourth language. It is said that the service is organized not only in the three official languages of this country, but also in English. It is not an official language and is not recognized by the Constitution. This creates legal uncertainty. Officials cannot be required to know English. In a four-language service, at least one or two officials must impose obligations. I checked the regulation again.

Mrs. Minister, you are hesitant with an opinion of the Standing Committee for Language Supervision on a previous proposal. In that opinion, the Standing Committee for Language Supervision merely states that it is not competent, since it is only competent for language legislation in administrative matters and that the proposal falls beyond that.

There are sufficient examples in the jurisprudence and judicial practice. I refer to Orban in Le Droit Constitutionnel, a work that says that a law can only impose a language spoken in Belgium, never a foreign language. There are exceptions to that rule, resulting from international obligations, such as for diplomacy and air traffic management. In other cases, I am afraid that this is not all legal.

I am sorry that they did not really want to listen to those arguments. The majority played a little.

Mrs. Minister, in any case, it is not the disappointment that prevails, but the joy that there is finally an arrangement in that area, let it be clear that one can ask big legal questions about the four-language. However, at least a three-language organization will be provided. This is a big step forward. We can finally ⁇ success in this area. I am pleased that I have been able to participate in this and that I have been able to give the initiative to do so.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, my group is quite in favour of the vote on this bill that will enable to strengthen the safety and health care of our fellow citizens.

With this project, the processing of emergency calls will be easier and faster in the three national languages and in English.

In addition, calls will be redirected to quality and competent staff for each type of call.

This project is therefore part of the principle dear to my group of the quickest and most appropriate help possible.

Furthermore, for the 40,000 people who are deaf and hearing impaired or who have difficulty expressing themselves in words, arrangements are provided so that they are not penalized by their disability, which would be unacceptable for my group. Indeed, a device allowing to receive any type of e-mail message is planned in this project.

In this regard, we are pleased that the resolution proposal submitted in 2006 by my colleague Valérie Déom has finally echoed among the various groups.

However, I would like to draw your attention to the situation of the staff of the centers and dispatches. Indeed, 100 staff grooming movements appeared here and there, especially in Namur, a few weeks ago.

My group will remain ⁇ attentive to the transfer of municipal staff, whether statutory or contractual, to the federal. It is, in our opinion, unthinkable to impose a Selor review on municipal staff who have worked in these sectors for sometimes decades.

We will also remain attentive to the relationships between the different types of personnel (police, medical and civil security).

Mr. Speaker, this is, of course, a very important bill, but in connection with the comment – that’s all I’ll add to it – about the language and the ideology, I think that one should not idealize helping people. One should not say: sorry, but if you get a heart attack in English, then we will not help you.

The amendment submitted here by the majority is, in my opinion, a very correct amendment, which covers the three national languages, but that also adds English, as an international language.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, I took this initiative precisely in order to finally work on a sufficient two- or three-language service. I want a legally closing organization and a legally closing regulation.

I have approved this in the committee and will do so now. I point out my concern for a legally closed organization and regulation. There is a huge gap in this bill. I am very sorry that you do not want to see this because of an ideological reasoning, because you are part of a majority.