Proposition 53K2038

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 21 décembre 1998 relative à la sécurité lors des matches de football.

General information ¶

Authors

PS | SP Laurent Devin, Anthony Dufrane, André Frédéric, Rachid Madrane, Éric Thiébaut
Vooruit Peter Vanvelthoven

Submission date

Feb. 6, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

administrative sanction violence public safety sport criminal law penalty alternative sentence

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.

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 18, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

There are two rapporteurs.

For the first part of the report, I refer to the written report. For the second part, the pressure test of the report has been reached. For the second part, I would therefore refer to that written report.

Mr Van Esbroeck, you have the word on behalf of your group.

I have already said this in the committee, but I would like to repeat this explicitly here. This is an extension or amendment of the current football law. Unfortunately, we must come to the conclusion that we are dealing here with pure leaf filling for the Belgian Staatsblad, which, in my opinion and many colleagues, is already thick enough.

How did we get there? Commissioners who face a bad bill have five options.

The first option is for the applicants to try to make it clear that they should withdraw their proposal. In this case it would not have been such a bad thing.

The second option is to reject the bill on the whole line. That is what our group will choose in this case.

A third option is to try to make something out of it. In these we could have extended the discussion to the statute of the stewards. If we could have conducted a more intense discussion on this point, as has been suggested in the hearings several times, then we could have done something more meaningful with the present bill.

The fourth option is to turn the proposal into an empty box. It is absurd and useless, but in the end you give a colleague his bill.

A fifth and undoubtedly the worst option is the approval of the bill.

The majority did not choose the worst option but the second worst option. We vote on a bill that is dressed in such a way that only a few absurd and unnecessary provisions are left. We can talk about a real phantom law.

The original bill aimed to regulate three matters. First, the football law applies to the third class. This was not achieved thanks to our hearings, which, by the way, was a sensible occupation. What remains of this possible application is the possibility for clubs to appoint a security officer. However, they can already do that today. I do not know what the added value is. A lot of clubs in the third class already have a security manager. It makes no sense to include this in a law.

Secondly, all separation seals would be banned from the stadiums. This provision has not been achieved because in many cases it is already so far. In other cases, clubs are asked to do it at their own pace. They fear that a legal obligation will force them to engage additional stewards, but stewards are not simply available. Therefore, a debate about stewards would have been much more meaningful. Today, some clubs are removing their gates. Clubs that are not ready yet do not. Should we then pour it into a law and provide them with the right to remove the fences whenever possible? This is totally absurd.

The most controversial provision in the proposal was the system on alternative penalties. In practice, there were short labour sentences. The hearing showed that the sector is not a requesting party. The idea is, of course, beautiful, and it sounds nice, but who should then pronounce the alternative punishment and who will carry out the control? Who controls compliance with these alternative penalties? This also affects the leaders of the clubs. However, they are pleased with the legislation as it exists today: they can impose a stadium ban, they can impose fines. The legislation exists today, and it works. Everyone knows that we now have fewer problems. Hooliganism has almost disappeared and all clubs are satisfied with how it goes today. Of course, this last part was also deleted.

Fortunately, common sense came back in time. However, by removing that last part in the last assembly, the original bill was put to death. There really is nothing more about it. All that remains are recommendations. Things that the clubs can do, things that they already do today. In short, colleagues, what are we actually doing?

If the majority will necessarily approve this meaningless legislation, it will do so. We will vote against.

With all respect, colleague Devin, we are not here to grant anyone his bill. It was honorable and honorable that you came up with the bill. We have therefore honored and honouredly discussed it, but we have determined that it was a measure for nothing and that we could better put it aside. Until then, everything went as it should.

To do everything we can to approve a bill on behalf of colleague Devin, our group is not involved in this.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, a few weeks after the end of the European Football Championship, a week before the resumption of the Belgian Championship, a few colleagues and I wanted to change the mentalities and encourage more conviviality. We took the time to meet with the leaders of the football world to discuss with them security, user-friendliness, their financial possibilities and the legislative arrangement in place.

About a month ago, our assembly unanimously passed a bill concerning enhanced protection of arbitrators by aggravating penalties for physical or verbal assault against them. Today, it is a part of conviviality.

This aspect was discussed with the general directors of clubs, with the security officer of the Belgian Union, with the security officer of the football cell of the Ministry of the Interior, with club security officers as well as with university officials who worked on the issue.

In a month, some will complain, as they complained a month ago, about infrastructure problems in our clubs. You have had the opportunity to admire the stadiums in Poland and Ukraine. Previously, it was said that England and Germany constituted a different type of country than ours; okay, but Poland, Ukraine, Greece, Spain, Italy, eventually the whole of Europe has infrastructure adapted to a new sociology of the football audience.

This new element was well understood by the members of the committee. In fact, when it was about removing the grills, not everyone was informed of how things went. Indeed, the hearings helped to better understand the subject.

Today, a football stadium is no longer made up of the same supporters as before.

Now there are women and children. We go to the stadium with family. Of course, the tribunes are still largely occupied by male representatives, but the evolution is ongoing.

At the same time, the football law works very well. It has shown its effectiveness. Thanks to stadium bans, like what happened in England, we have seen the violence decrease in our stadiums in the last few years.

Mr. Devin, do not regret me that I interrupt you for a moment.

I understand perfectly what you say. It is really important that people can sit in clean and clean stadiums. The question is to what extent the current bill, or what is beyond it, contributes to this. What will be done through this bill?

For the rest, I agree that we should pay attention to the infrastructure around the stadiums, but that is already possible today. The question is, then, why the present bill is put to the vote.

I tried to explain it to you in the committee. People who were interviewed, and who were not anyone, brought a lot of answers. Mr. Van Esbroeck, if you didn’t agree yesterday, I fear you ⁇ ’t agree today either!

With regard to the arbitrators, we agreed, we voted the same thing.

Some of our stadiums date from the second half of the last century, and others from the first part. Will the removal of the grillage bring more conviviality? When we discussed this issue in the committee, some raised their arms! However, we realize that this is already the case at several stages and that this trend will continue. There are several practical ways to consider, but this is where we are going and all the arrangements are taken to ⁇ this. Mentalities are also evolving.

With regard to the Conviviality plan, everyone who goes to the stadium sees the parking conditions, the reception conditions in the stadium and the state of the sanitary facilities. Honestly, there is a way to do much better! Safety and convenience should be increased in all stages.

We talked about Division 3. The question is whether we want a stagnation of the situation or an evolution. We didn’t want to put the knife on the throat of the club leaders – we would have been blamed – by making these provisions mandatory. First of all, the policy of small steps should be practiced. We must be able to move forward in a reasonable way.

Like me, as you have noticed, Mr. Van Esbroeck, two opinions were requested, and these two opinions are different. Some club leaders feel good in Division 3 and want to stay there; others, more ambitious, want to move forward. When we want to climb into division 2, we go forward, we put our stadium in conformity, we make all the necessary arrangements. I find that today, we can’t ask everyone, but I think it’s good to show the way to go.

The two opinions are different; you read them like me. Two clubs in the same division, two clubs in the same region, have divergent opinions. It is a matter of will, of mentality. If we had gone further – you were against – you would have blamed us too!

We have made sure to have the lowest possible cost for all these measures.

As I said, we absolutely want an evolution of mentalities. With this Conviviality Plan, we are resolutely moving forward. We will make sure that our stadiums are reinvested.

Finally, when it comes to the question of stewards, I remain on my hunger. Could this issue be resolved this time? Honestly, I do not think so.

This issue is essential for the proper running of football matches. If one wants to avoid everything being privatized tomorrow, if one wants to be welcomed tomorrow in the best way possible, one must actually think about another remuneration of stewards.

I think that could not be done in this committee. If we talk about stewards, maybe we can, together, think about all the volunteers. We cannot – as we did with the Football Act – target specifically a sport.

I repeat, I think the reflection on stewards should take place. I will contribute to this, with you and with all the colleagues of the majority. It must extend to all volunteers active both in the world of football and in the associative world.

Mr. President, Mr. DeVin is right in everything. Some third-class clubs that are now preparing for second class have already envisaged this, but others do not want to prepare for it yet.

Anyway, it all happens. The question is why this bill is put to the vote. Let us, please, conduct such discussion as soon as possible about, among other things, the volunteers and stewards. We must do that. However, the piece of paper that we are going to vote on today does not resolve anything of what you cite.

I always try to go beyond the provincial level. I will try to do that from Gooik now.

I believe that sport and football are an important social outlet. It is also a barometer. However, it is important that we take a look at the evolution. Through the committee hearings, we have thoroughly exchanged opinions, tried to launch a number of suggestions for improvement and listened carefully to what is possible on the ground.

The most striking thing we’ve heard is that, more than I thought, the football law on the field has led to good results. The recent figures for the next football season also show that families are increasingly finding their way back to the football stadium. This is a positive signal, which can also be given from Parliament.

I admit that in the beginning we had put the latte higher, but we listened well. We are now trying to improve what appears to work well in practice. The ability to give the safety coordinators armshake and the possibility of an effort commitment for safety and accessibility are once again a step forward.

It does not always have to be prohibition laws. This is more of an incentive law.

The [...] !

It happens, Mr. Dedecker, that people express themselves positively and do not break things. That is possible. So I hope that this law of football will make a little more a family party again.

I will briefly comment on this bill.

Mr. Van Esbroeck, she brings a little more to football. As stated by Mr. Devin, conviviality can be infused in the football stadiums, which are not called to be a Roman arena. Clubs are encouraged to do so. Indeed, the interest of this proposal is that it is not based on coercion, but on incitement. For example, it is offered the possibility for D3 clubs to mandate a "Mr. Security".

Beyond the text itself, it was interesting to bring club leaders to parliament. The hearings were long but constructive. It was also our responsibility to welcome them.

Mr. Speaker, we did well to send this text back to the committee, because its first mounting carried some risks. I think of a certain form of contractualization, if not of privatization, of sanction. We humbly returned to this first version to remove the article that could have become harmful.

This is a small plus for football. This is a good thing.

We have already said a lot about this bill. I will try to be brief.

I would like to start by stating that football has experienced a very positive evolution in the last few years. The time when football could only be identified with hooliganism, violence and insecurity has evolved into a family sport, where a lot of men, women and children are present in a much safer and more constructive environment. We can only welcome this.

The draft law, which preceded, had the ambition to extend the rules of play that existed today in the first and second class to third class. Interesting hearings have taken place on this subject, raising awareness – an awareness that my party had from the beginning – that it would not be a wise choice to transpose those rules into third class. That would mean too much financial and administrative burden for third-class clubs. Those clubs, which today often have difficulty already, would not be able to finance all this.

There was then a debate arising which essential points of this bill we wanted to retain. I will not contradict Mr. Van Esbroeck entirely, that would be a shame. This is indeed not the most intrusive milestone in the regulation that we have been able to realize so far in the House of Representatives.

A complete black-and-white approach, such as colleague Van Esbroeck who sticks, I do not like, because there is indeed a point in this bill that I personally find important. Third-class clubs would be required to draw up an action plan each year, indicating how they intend to deal with the aspects related to safety, accessibility, family-friendly and so on in the coming year.

That ensures, Mr. Van Esbroeck – and you also know football very well – that in those club management, which, of course, are primarily focused on the transfers they will realize, on the team they will gather and on the sponsors they will attract, one gets a system of reflection, of thinking and proposing measures to come to a safer stadium and a more customer-friendly environment.

I welcome this action plan, which is drafted annually. If the law can ask clubs to think about it every year – I find it weak to encourage, Mr. Doomst – and to put it on paper, and therefore to take action, then I think that there will not be many clubs in the third class who will want to propose an empty box year after year.

I think this is in itself a valuable signal, with which I once again agree with Mr Van Esbroeck when he says that we have already put more in-depth bills on the table here and have done more in-depth regulatory work.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will not disrupt the Football Act, which is a good law that shows its effects. Nevertheless, it brings improvements in some areas that were not considered, especially in terms of safety during national and international matches. In the future, a security officer may be appointed. The latter will also have to meet the minimum requirements provided for in the Football Act.

In addition, a real plan can be presented and implemented for conviviality and comfort in the stadiums. These elements, my group brought them in the form of a comprehensive amendment to the original bill. Indeed, it appeared, on the occasion of the hearings, that these elements could be proposed, brought on the table, and that those originally planned were not practicable.

I recall that the element relating to the procedures of civil sanctions did not appear to us indispensable in view of additional information, since there are already, on the one hand, criminal sanctions, on the other hand, administrative sanctions as well as a regulation of civil exclusion, provided for in Article 10, § 2, of the Football Act. We also considered it superfluous to extend the list of sanctions, especially since the Interior Minister recently released figures that indicate that security in football stadiums has significantly improved in recent months.

I repeat, although this proposal is not a disruption, it constitutes an improvement, to which our group has contributed in a useful way, since we have proposed this comprehensive amendment, co-signed by all the colleagues of the majority.

First and foremost, I would like to apologize to the members of the committee for not being present at the discussions. However, this does not mean that I have not read the reports. I was not present because, in honesty, I have to admit that my time is too precious to engage in such bushelaries. If I then see how much paper has been used for this, I would, together with the greens, also feel sorry for the trees.

I have here added the product of what was discussed there all those weeks and for which specialists were invited here. I will discuss with you which law is put to the vote here. We have a Minister of Administrative Simplification. Wouldn’t it be better to ask this individual first to make his judgment on this rather than to come up again with such “reglementitis” and “illegalities”? Mr. Doomst, you talked about incentive laws. I had never heard of it. In this way, one can fill an entire code with buzzararies.

What did you decide during those weeks I missed? The accessibility of the stadium, the tribune and the tribune buildings should also be guaranteed for persons with reduced mobility. I suppose that as a politician you have ever been invited to a football match or that you have ever been allowed to eat for free in some skybox? Have you, besides in your board, also looked at the field? Have you seen what is done for disabled people? This is also the case in the fourth province. Consequently, your first argument is kaduuk.

A second reason why you made this law concerns the number of sanitary facilities and points of sale of food and beverages, as well as their accessibility. Mr. Doomst, I think that your municipality has a football club in third provincial. I am sure this will cost a fortune to the municipality, because the first thing that is built is the canteen. Football associations do nothing better than selling drinks. The first thing that is in order along a field of fourth provincial is the cantine. You will now pass a law to improve the accessibility of stadiums, tribunes and tribune buildings and to provide toilet facilities and food and beverage sales points. I wonder how you could have thought of such a thing.

Point three deals with the view on the playing field from the tribunes, taking into account the policy carried out to limit the height of the fence at the edge of the playing field. I could not think of it. I really couldn’t imagine building a stadium and making seats for the public, where you couldn’t see the field. A law must be passed so that this will not happen in the future. I have never seen such a tribune or such a field in my whole life. Mr. Speaker, to be honest: I have traveled somewhere and seen some stadiums in illo tempore, during the 35 years I have been engaged in top sports.

Point of 4. We are voting a law, Mr. Devin, for the cleanliness and maintenance of the stadium. We need a law for the squirrel of the stadium! Imagine yourself!

Article 2 of the law that you will approve includes the four points I have read here. This happens in every stadium! How silly it is not to include this in a law, because there must be a decoction of what was said here. I will talk about the stadiums later, Mr. Devin, because what is said here crumbles me in the clothes.

There is another article that needs to be approved. There is nothing else in it, because the rest is gone. “The organizers of a football event can also appoint a properly authorized security officer.” What is “a properly authorized security officer,” colleagues? More is not in. You will have to vote on this, you have been meeting over weeks and months. Sorry for your time, Mr. Bracke.

Mr. Dedecker, you are right in your general criticism. There is very little left of this bill. Every year, make a paper with your intentions. That is the only concrete point, the rest is leaf filling. This is indeed an unnecessary law, because I can imagine that even from the football organizations clubs can be asked to draw up a plan. A club that is good for it will do it.

What I do not follow you in – that is also why I intervene – is your criticism at the hearings. We have tried to listen to the different people we have received in an honest and open way. The changes made to the first proposal were, of course, a consequence of that. It honors “my” commission that they have gone in as far as they have heard. Of course, one could have ignored what was heard from those guests.

I can follow you in your criticism. However, you go a step too far if you wipe out all the activities and work of the committee, in particular listening to people who can know it, with the same, unnecessary hassle. That is a step too far.

Mr. Bracke, what I want to say is that we are dealing with things that do not matter to us.

What is the present proposal? What else is shooting over? It is an internal regulation of every company. It has to be done, or I know a lot. This is the piece of paper that remains on the subject. Should we, the legislator, interfere with this? Should the whole Parliament interfere with what goes beyond the proposal?

I also want to talk about the rest. I know it’s about third class. I read the reports. To be honest, I must admit that I know a lot of people involved who have come here to testify. I come from the top sport.

I will share what Mr. Jo Vanhecke explains, for example. We are working on third class. “Third Class” is a very big word. Dear friends, how many spectators are there on average in third class? It is about 200 spectators. Card club “Koeken troef” in Oostende has just as many members.

So we should not engage in such matters. In third class there are an average of 200 spectators, of which 30 paying spectators. We are discussing here, to impose additional laws and regulations on such clubs, while the Belgian football clubs together today have €51 million in debt.

Mr. Speaker, we have to deal with other issues.

You are right when you talk about infrastructure.

I was here also in 2000 and in 1999, when it was discussed about Euro 2000, which was called "Neuro 2000". The government then spent billions, in old, Belgian franc. For example, it is about 30 million euros for the police and security alone.

We have approved the high speed law. After all, the English would make an invasion and it had to be stopped immediately. High speed law still exists today.

A lot of measures were taken. It is very good that they are deleted in the bill. Things are being removed, such as the proposal for alternative punishments by the Bobo of the Football Federation, whose morality I doubt. They should then impose punishments on others.

That all happens. I am talking here only about the fact of the useless legislation.

What are we actually doing already? I am very upset that it is precisely the socialist parties that come to complain about football affairs. The most government-sponsored sport is football. Then I do not agree on the infrastructure or the Zaventem kantine. I am not talking about that.

That the football clubs have €51 million in debt is their own fault. There is no professional category in Belgium that has to pay as little RSZ or social contributions as professional football. Eighty percent of their contributions will be discarded, provided that they invest a part in youth. Today we talk about youth. Eupen, in second class, is not required to pay 80% of the money for his players, but has today imported 15 Africans from Qatar. That is football.

If we want to regulate, we must look at what we all already do. A professional football player is allowed to retire at the age of 35. 16.5 % on the business manager insurance can be requested. There is no municipality where the local municipality worker will not peel the lines and the grass will cut on the football field. This happens everywhere. We are currently dealing with these types of bulldozers. I call it bushelaries with which we waste our time.

The bills are just tea bags. If you use a tea bag ten times, then there is no more of it. The tea that was originally given here still looked like something, but what needs to be approved now, that really can no longer. It is a shame for Parliament to vote on this.

With all respect for your work, Mr. Devin, because this is not the matter, but I suggest that the proposal be withdrawn. If I were to be a journalist and write something about it for football...

I find it shameful for this Parliament that we have to talk about it, while there are so many other subjects that we need to address.

The problem of our stadiums is something else. This is a problem of mismanagement. Sixty to seventy percent of the income is paid to betting for the players. I have already said here what they all get. There are eight players who earn more than a million euros. We are discussing the bets of the CEOs of the banks and our own people, but we are not talking about those footballers or someone who is going to play for 250,000 euros a week in China.

The problem of the stadiums is not a problem of cents, it is a problem of management. It is also a problem of politics, of ‘reglementitis’. It is a problem of spatial planning and action groups. We can talk about this in Parliament, but not about the cleanliness and maintenance of the stadiums or about the sanitation facilities!