Proposition 53K1265

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 13 juin 2005 relative aux communications électroniques en ce qui concerne l'accessibilité des services d'urgence.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Leen Dierick, Jef Van den Bergh
Ecolo Ronny Balcaen
LE Christophe Bastin
MR Valérie De Bue
N-VA Peter Dedecker
Open Vld Maggie De Block
PS | SP Valérie Déom
Vooruit David Geerts

Submission date

March 1, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

first aid disabled person emergency medical treatment mobile phone emergency aid telecommunications

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 ¶

July 19, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Ms. Lalieux, the rapporteur, refers to her written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, we are pleased with this bill because it is indeed necessary that emergency services are accessible to everyone, including those who, due to a disability, cannot use a voice device to call the emergency number. It is important that the target audience is described as clearly as possible, not only people with a legally recognized hearing and speech disorder, but also a number of other disabilities can make them unable to phone.

The bill also states that mobile operators should be able to take the necessary measures so that they can reach the emergency services by text message. This, of course, requires a lot of consultation and that is why I have been contacted in the last few days as the operators consider a four-month period rather short to develop a technical solution. After all, there is a need for consultation with the emergency services, Home Affairs and the ASTRID network. In addition, this is a holiday period and there is a government of ongoing affairs that I think will still take a few weeks of vacation. They make some reservations.

There is a implementation period of 12 months. The implementation of the ASTRID network experienced a three-year delay in meeting the statutory deadlines and requirements. I would therefore like to ask the Minister to, if there are alarm signals from the ground, eventually review the entry into force and see if the deadline can be met.

There are quite a few comments on the safety conditions that must be met. For example, what happens when an operator blocks an emergency SMS because the customer is not registered and cannot respond to an emergency? The question surrounding the definition of responsibilities is very important here.

We assume that the solution for centralization should be developed in collaboration with ASTRID. The question arises whether other central management centers of emergency services may also need to be involved. The issue could become more complex than it seems at first sight.

These are all comments that come from the stakeholders in the field.

We also know from the experience of the previous dispatching for the other calls for the emergency services, such as the ambulances and the MUG, that a considerable number of problems can arise on the ground.

Therefore, there is fear that the implementation of the present law and the deadlines imposed by us could be somewhat too tight. Let us hope that this will encourage them to work well and continue to meet, so that we can ⁇ the intended goal as quickly as possible.

It is important that the group of people concerned can also make use of the created call for emergency services.

I would like to thank the members for the fruitful cooperation in the committee. It was not always easy. Nevertheless, the consensus on the present proposal was high. I also thank Mr Van den Bergh for taking the initiative to submit the present proposal.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, for 400 000 deaf, deaf, hearing or speech disabled persons, it is still not possible in 2011 to notify the emergency services whether they need to assist with a fax device.

When they are involved in an accident, victim of a crime or are in a medical crisis situation, it is important that they too can quickly reach the emergency services.

Of course, the problem is not new. It has been known for a while. Recently, Article 4 of the Act establishing the 112 centers and the 112 Agency also stipulated that people with a particular speech disability must be able to send an electronic emergency message.

How this should be completed was not specified in the law. This is what we aim to do with the present bill.

It is intended that not only deaf people but also other people who are in a state during crisis situations in which they cannot reach a hearing or understandable relay should be able to take advantage of this possibility.

Ms. De Block has already pointed out the broad definition of potential users. In the case of a poor reception, it is often also not possible to phone, but still to text. This can also provide a solution to this problem.

It is actually bizarre that in Belgium, where more than 5 billion text messages are sent annually, a text message to emergency services is still not possible today. SMS and the Internet are no longer exclusive parts of youth culture, but a broad social data. Emergency services should also evolve in this area.

In many emergency situations, a telephone call for the person who receives the emergency calls is a better and faster means of communication. After all, one can then ask more focused questions about the situation and location.

However, we must keep in mind that for at least 400 000 Belgians calling emergency services is not an option. A technical solution for deaf, given the current technological possibilities, should therefore not constitute a problem and is a matter of priority.

Ms. De Block just pointed out the difficulties that may arise in order to respect the implementation deadlines. I think we should still insist that this will happen to ensure that the SMS possibility quickly becomes a reality.

By the way, there are plenty of foreign examples that demonstrate that this can work perfectly. I refer to Finland, Austria, Iceland and Sweden, where emergency services have been available via SMS for some time.

In those countries, approximately 0.5% of emergency calls are made via SMS. To counter the fear that some operators of the 112-central and other power plants have about an abundance of text messages, it is a small but important target group, to which we now offer a solution.

It is regrettable and regrettable that there is a need for a law at all to enable the accessibility of emergency services via SMS. The problem has been known for a long time and discussed several times.

We therefore hope that through the unanimous approval of this bill, at least already in the committee, the mobile operators together with the 112 services will be able to quickly find a solution and through mutual agreement will be able to implement this possibility of SMS to the emergency services, so that the emergency services will finally be accessible to users who cannot express themselves via a regular telephone line.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mr. Secretary of State, it is a good thing that the bill on electronic communications and emergency services, which was unanimously approved in the committee, is now present. It is also surprising that, compared to countries such as Finland, Austria, Iceland and Sweden, which was mentioned by colleague Van den Bergh, Belgium only used this possibility in 2011. This possibility has been introduced in Hong Kong since 2004.

It is also surprising that the unfortunately absent competent Minister for Telecommunications, Mr. Van Quickenborne, who boasts that he tweets faster than he speaks, apparently has never taken any initiative to work on that. However, this problem concerns more than 400 000 Belgians who are unable to communicate with a regular phone or GSM. For them, this option is very necessary in crisis situations.

The arguments put forward in the committee by Commission President Mrs De Block respond to a number of questions. Everyone has questions about the extent to which the telecommunications sector itself will be able to realize this within the predetermined four-month period. On the one hand, it will be awaited whether the telecommunications sector will effectively be able to fully comply with the legislative proposal in question. On the other hand, I wonder whether it is not appropriate for the government – and I look at the government banks and the Secretary of State – to launch an information campaign to promote the use and handling of such calls.

I think this is very important. There are the traditional communication channels and in them the media will play their role. The question is to what extent the government, as an information provider, will play its role in this matter and when. Will that happen once the four-month period has expired? In the present bill, deadlines up to twelve months are used as a limit. Within what time can we expect a government initiative? Or do you hide yourself in this dossier under the umbrella of current affairs? In any case, if the telecommunications companies that provide effort and make the necessary investments for it, then it seems to me logical that the government in the same movement also does the necessary and sets the necessary communication up.

A final consideration concerning the present proposal is as follows. Initially, the proposal will only target the group of 400 000 Belgians who are unable to conduct a traditional telephone call. The Minister of Communications has clearly stated that other calls will also be addressed, but what is the relevance of the limitation to that target group, if it is stated that all calls will be addressed? I think there will be no sudden and huge influx of SMS for that emergency number. In communication, therefore, it could be immediately stated that one is directed to everyone. That would be a logical consequence.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, in May 2006, I had already submitted a proposal for a resolution concerning the accessibility of emergency and police services by SMS for deaf and hearing impaired people. Indeed, already at that time, the latter had been demanding for a number of years measures that could allow for faster, more efficient, more appropriate and more suitable access to the different emergency services of our country. It should be known that for people who suffer from such a disability, preventing an adequate service, especially in difficult and/or urgent times, is a real bet.

Five years later, I am especially delighted to have co-signed a bill that will finally be able to respond to these concrete and legitimate demands of deaf and hearing impaired people.

This bill represents an achievement, a real legislative advance, advanced obviously made possible by the technological evolution but also thanks to the common will of the members of the commission and, I hope, soon, thanks to the members of this assembly.

I would like to say a few words to welcome the introduction of this bill on the agenda. Approximately 400,000 people today suffer from a disability, whether they are deaf, hearing defects or have a speech disorder. In everyday life, this disability prevents them from using the usual modes of communication and therefore, a fortiori, from calling emergency services. It is known that today there is a fax procedure so that these people can call the emergency services. It will be agreed that this technology is a bit outdated, more in fashion and can only be applied at home and not on the public road. This proposal seems to be well-adjusted. It is balanced and offers the ability to use text messages to reach emergency services.

I would like to emphasize that the work in the committee took into account, in particular through Mrs De Block’s amendment, the opinions of the interior and health sectors. A comprehensive amendment significantly improved the text. Today, the ball is in the field of operators and it is obviously hoped that they will have the heart to implement with voluntarism a technical solution, otherwise the bill provides that a ministerial decree can impose a solution.

We will be happy to support this bill at the time of the vote.

Mr. Speaker, as colleague Déom said, during the previous legislature we submitted a resolution addressing the same problem, in particular that the discussions would start through the government.

We are pleased that we were able to sign the bill of colleague Van den Bergh. It is a stronger signal. It is true that eight police zones at the local level have already found a solution in advance, although one single number is obviously much better.

I agree with colleague Van den Bergh when he says that it would be logical if it had been realized for a long time. I hope that this bill, which we will, of course, support, will be quickly put into practice.

Does anyone ask for the word?

Does anyone ask for the word?

Mr. Speaker, it is not always CD&V that follows the N-VA because this time I would like to join the initiative of colleague Van den Bergh.

The importance of such measures for deaf cannot be sufficiently emphasized. Among others, colleague Helga Stevens has long been pulling the car in the Senate.

We look forward to the rapid implementation of this proposal. We also look forward. There have already been experiments with SMS alerts and broadcasting from the services to the deaf community in major disasters. In this area, we can also take initiatives to strengthen something.

Thank you Mr. Dedecker. As far as possible, I ask you to register in order to allow me to properly organize the debate and to observe a certain order in the interventions.