Proposition 53K2275

Projet de loi améliorant l'approche des abus sexuels et des faits de pédophilie dans une relation d'autorité.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Sonja Becq
LE Christian Brotcorne
MR Marie-Christine Marghem
Open Vld Carina Van Cauter
PS | SP Valérie Déom, Karine Lalieux
Vooruit Renaat Landuyt

Submission date

June 20, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

seizure of goods paedophilia judicial proceedings sexual violence sexual offence victim criminal procedure criminal law access to information residence carrying out of sentence

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

N-VA

Party dissidents ¶

• Sophie De Wit (N-VA) voted to adopt.
• Rita De Bont (VB) voted to reject.
• 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

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, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. The present legislative proposal aims to transpose into legislation a second part of the recommendations contained in the final report of the special committee of 31 March 2011.

I recall that on 31 March 2011, the special committee unanimously adopted its final report and recommendations and that a first package of measures was already adopted before the summer break of 2011.

There are currently two legislation proposals aimed at transposing a second package of recommendations. The text of the majority parties was taken as a basic proposal. This was discussed at the committee meetings of 26 June and 3 July 2012.

The second package of measures covers the following points. I will briefly list them. Mr Madrane will continue the various interventions on this subject. These include the return of documents after seizure, the transmission of the judgment to third parties, the improvement of the exchange of information between different actors, the prohibition of residence, the equality of parties in the criminal procedure and a victim declaration.

Several amendments have been submitted to this bill. Most amendments, relating to a number of technical corrections, were accepted.

There was an amendment by Ms. Van Cauter on the transmission of the judgment. There were also several amendments by the N-VA and Ecolo-Groen regarding the residence ban, on the one hand for the registration in the ordinary procedure before the Criminal Enforcement Court as the ordinary penalty enforcement modality and, on the other hand, for the addition of the possibility of effective follow-up and control of the residence ban. These amendments were also accepted. In addition, there were two other amendments, also of the N-VA and of Ecolo-Groen, which were not accepted, on the one hand concerning the ban on residence, even when a foreign conviction proceeds, and, on the other hand, concerning the adaptation of the legislation on the limitation and the unity of intent.

The bill, amended on the basis of the adopted amendments, was subsequently approved in the committee. The committee was unanimous, like last year.

A further explanation of the various presentations will be made by Mr. Madrane.

Mr. Speaker, if you allow me to do so, after the reporting, I will give my substantive explanation on the bill on behalf of the N-VA group.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, as recalled by my colleague, Mrs. De Wit, the bill submitted and analyzed in the Justice Committee has been split into two separate texts since part of the provisions of this proposal containing various provisions can be evoked by the Senate.

I recall that the first signer of this text is Ms. Van Cauter, but the latter was co-signed by the majority parties and thus elaborated by various authors, each author having presented his text.

Van Cauter stressed that the bill under consideration aims to translate into law a second part of the recommendations made by the special commission on the treatment of sexual abuse and pedophilia in an authority relationship, ⁇ within the Church. It subsequently presented Chapter 2 on the return of coins after their seizure.

by Mr. Brotcorne presented the proposals relating to the transmission of the judgment to third parties. I will not go here into details; he will do it personally, but I can tell you that he explained in particular Article 4 which now provides for the possibility for the judge to order the transmission of the device of the judgment to the employer, the legal person or the authority exercising the disciplinary power. Ms. Van Cauter also presented Chapter 4 on improving the exchange of information between the police, the prosecutor’s office, the court houses and the sentencing courts.

by Mr. Landuyt presented and explained Chapter 5 of the bill, which deals with all aspects of the residence ban.

Ms. Lalieux presented Chapter 6 which deals with the equality of the parties in criminal proceedings.

by Mr. Landuyt presented Chapter 7 concerning the victim’s statement.

Ms De Wit and Boulet and M. Van Hecke presented their bill which was attached. During the discussions, Ms. De Wit explained that the bill filed literally resumes the texts prepared after the adoption of the recommendations of the special committee and that the authors had filed that text in April 2012 to advance the debate.

During the general discussion, Ms De Wit and Boulet deplored the fact that they were not involved in the preparation of the text submitted by the majority, the slow processing of the file and the omission of a recommendation. Marghem and Van Cauteur responded that the text submitted translated as many recommendations as possible in legislative terms in the shortest possible time. Mrs Becq highlighted the fact that some of the Commission’s recommendations should not be implemented by amending the law, but by means of royal decrees and through other agreements. She also requested that special attention be paid to her bill establishing a national register of judicial experts.

After the discussion article by article, the vote took place. The whole proposal, as amended and corrected on the legal level, was adopted unanimously.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, with a near-certainty probability, we would not be here today with a new bill if the victims, the actors and the experts had not had the courage to speak and did not make the efforts to provide us with the useful and necessary information, so that we as legislators can address the problem of sexual abuse in the best possible circumstances.

We have done this with a first series of legislative proposals that were passed earlier this legislature. However, as has already been said, and I cannot emphasize it enough, words alone are not enough.

It requires action to fulfill promises and turn commitments into legislative work. This is what we are doing again today with a new set of legislative proposals that turn some of the recommendations from the report back into legislative work.

Colleagues, the rapporteurs have listed the various proposals that will be adopted. I do not think it is necessary to go into detail on the development as shown in the bill. In this final discussion in the House, it is important to emphasize that these innovations and the unwavering attention necessary for the problem of sexual abuse will be of great importance for many, and not least for the most vulnerable among them, children and young people.

The fact that the problem is still real today can be illustrated by two figures that I would like to give you. First, on 20 June, 239 victims had already applied to the Arbitration Commission to appeal for its intervention. Second, last year the Flemish trust centers received no less than 7,163 notifications, i.e. an average of 20 per day.

Colleagues, the recent pedophile scandals which we have learned through the media illustrate that today there is a more alert and faster response to misery states. This is a necessary step in the right direction. It is important that victims of sexual abuse have easy access to justice after reporting sexual abuse and that the assistance is organized as well as possible. Furthermore, unwavering efforts will be needed to trace, prosecute and adequately punish the perpetrators. Today we are taking another step in the indicated direction.

Colleagues, I conclude my speech with the commitment that I and the Open Vld Group once again include today. We want to finish the work that has been started. Meanwhile, approximately 15 recommendations have been converted into legislative work. Not all recommendations are directed to ourselves, other actors have already done some of the work or are still doing it. Our work is not finished, colleague De Wei, but that work continues. We will undoubtedly return to the Chamber with this issue.

Mr. Speaker, as has already been pointed out, the proposal that is subject to our approval today tends to turn into law a second part of the recommendations made by the Special Committee on the Treatment of Sexual Abuse and Pedophilia in the Church.

This special commission had gathered after the revelations of serious sexual abuses committed within the Church, which had shocked everyone. This committee had worked serenely, beyond the usual divisions. The subject needed to put the political joutes on the margins in the name of the disasters caused by these facts. Once the report has been approved, it remains to be translated into legislative texts in order to make it effective.

Nevertheless, the time between the drafting of the report and the publication of this second package of recommendations was so important that, seeing nothing coming from the majority, colleague De Wit with Ecolo and Groen decided to provoke the movement and submit a text last April. This would probably have enabled the majority, which subsequently submitted its own text, to get into play.

It’s a bit of a shame to have to work this way after a committee that had been united and strong behind a comprehensive report.

In essence, I will not take back all of the recommendations, which was very well done by the rapporteurs. Moreover, the discussions in the committee eventually allowed us to incorporate a number of amendments proposed by colleague De Wit and ourselves.

I will only point out one aspect that remains pending: the case of persons convicted abroad and this, in order to allow, in particular, the Accusation Chamber to eventually exclude them from access to certain professions or activities. It will be necessary to legislate on this important point in a third package, which, we hope, will not come, this time, too late.

This is not exactly what we wanted, but this is a step forward. While we were still skeptical about this majority in this case last year, because we thought that there would be only one legislative amendment and that it would then be over, we must now conclude that there has been a second round. This goes even further in the direction of what we have always proposed, especially with regard to the housing ban.

Last year, around this time, when the work of the special committee “Sexual Abuse” was completed and the follow-up committee was installed, there was little animo for a residential ban among most parties in this hemisphere. Only colleague Landuyt and, of course, the Flemish Belang stood calling in the desert. Today, the residential ban is introduced and we can only rejoice at this.

However, there are still a number of things that fall between the folds. I will talk about it later.

What is very good about this proposal, and what we welcome, is the fact that there is a return of the documents after seizure. We have always pledged for the transfer of the judgment to third parties, and that is now regulated by law. There is no mandatory transmission, but the prosecutor has a certain sovereignty to decide to whom to forward the judgment. In the end, we can live with it. If it were to be enforced entirely, in some cases it could indeed cause more harm to the victim than a satisfaction. We are also in favour of improving the exchange of information between police, prosecutors, court houses and criminal enforcement courts. We can also find ourselves in the equality of the parties to the criminal proceedings and the declaration of victim.

However, we call for a third round, in which an additional tooth should be added, and then especially in terms of punishment. At the moment, we find this too little back. The fact that someone refuses to undergo treatment in prison, that someone simply wishes to finish his sentence and then gets released so that he can start again – something that some, by the way, openly unpack – is yet too little addressed with these bills. There should be a lifetime disposal for those who refuse to undergo Mordicus treatments. Once they are then released into the free nature, they can start again. This problem should absolutely be avoided and this is not happening today. Hopefully this will be discussed in a third round. Colleague Van Cauter has promised that this third round will indeed take place.

The exclusion of the possibility of honor recovery should also be included in the law. Some convicted child rapists would never be allowed to receive an honour recovery. The mandatory provision is also necessary. I remember the debates that were held in the special committee “Sexual Abuse”.

There came some scientists to say that those who take medication sometimes order contra-medication via the internet, so that the means that are meant to suppress their urge no longer work. The solution of the scientists to this was then means that should suppress the oppressive means. As a result, one gets into a medication carousel, in which the convicted pedophile tries to escape treatment. This will have to be kept very closely in mind.

We have the greatest mistrust towards those who have made themselves responsible for child abuse, because they also hit the weakest and make them victims. A mandatory disposal for most pedophiles would be advisable.

In addition, we also advocate for a specific life imprisonment, so that heavy child rapists and heavy recidivists of severe moral crimes would never be released again.

Unfortunately, these things are not realized, but we also look at what is on the agenda today. In this we can find ourselves and therefore the Flemish Interest will vote in favour.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I am also pleased that today we stand for the adoption of a second package of measures. We promised this last year too. Permit me, no matter how glad I am that there is a second package, yet to add very briefly that our group remains a little disappointed with the method used here.

Last year, a package of recommendations was approved unanimously in the final report, which we have worked hard on. A number of measures were subsequently adopted. This was done unanimously, beyond the party boundaries. It was well worked on. There was an agreement that we would do that again after the recession, in October 2011. We would continue to work. We made a promise to the victims and we would keep that promise. Unfortunately, it did not happen. Our group has repeatedly asked to come together and to convene a working group. We asked for it then, but it did not happen.

I find it ⁇ regrettable that it had to be done in this way, but since we already had a number of draft texts and the recommendations already had, this has led to the fact that together with the Ecolo-Groen group we have submitted a legislative proposal for the second package of measures. And so the locomotive could finally be pulled into action, so we could leave again and work there.

The aim was to restore the debate. It has helped. Our bill was submitted in April and in June we received a bill from the majority parties, calling for urgency. We are pleased that in this way we have at least been able to stir up the debate, although I still find it a regrettable method. This is a very important issue that needs to be cooperated across party boundaries. The game of opposition versus majority should not be played.

Anyway, done things do not take a time. The main thing is that the debate has been restarted and that a second package of measures has been proposed. It is, in honour of whoever is worthy of honour, in certain areas even wider than was initially anticipated, which is ⁇ not a bad thing. This is what we all solemnly promised to the victims last year.

We are very pleased with this bill and agree with it. It is in accordance with the recommendations. We will therefore approve it, especially now that some of our amendments have been accepted by the majority. This is appreciated by us, colleagues. Despite the fact that a year had passed, it turned out that there were still uncertainties or that something had been done too hastily. I would like to emphasize two aspects.

The first aspect is the residential ban. This very important measure is now being provided. There were further precisions needed and they were also made. However, it turned out to be registered in a special, separate procedure before the Criminal Enforcement Court. This resulted in an additional charge for the now overloaded courts, which made it not so process-economic, since two judges could be competent for the same convicted. This could be amended through these amendments.

Moreover, these amendments now allow for control and follow-up, which were not initially envisaged. That was now corrected with the support of the majority, for which our appreciation. The procedure is now simpler, more efficient and, very important and essential, there is control and follow-up possible.

A second aspect was less discussed during the discussions in the committee. Suddenly there was the high urgency and everything had to go quickly, but it still worries me. There could be a problem related to the victim’s right to hear. I would like to give it a moment.

What is it about? Victims can now request to be heard by the investigative judge at least once. This is fully in line with what has been shown during the committee discussions and the protection and involvement of the victims.

However, as it is now formulated, a legal-technical problem could arise, which could lead to the opposite effect. After all, we give victims an important right or an important instrument, which could involuntarily result in a possible scattering, because the perpetrator does not have it. Not that I want to give him that, but possibly here the Constitutional Court lies behind the corner and there arises a problem with this measure, which would be ⁇ regrettable. I will give this with me. I don’t know whether this has already been considered or whether a solution has been found, but maybe we can do it together, if we – hopefully – work together again on the third package of measures.

Finally, a few things about the amendments of N-VA and Ecolo-Groen that were not accepted. One of them was very important to us and led to an important discussion about the limitation. This is Recommendation No. 11, which proposes the adaptation of Article 21 of the previous title of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A correction was needed as a result of an existing cassation court. You know that the conscious article regulates the limitation for moral crimes differently than for other crimes: it begins to run from eighteen years and from then there is a period of ten years. The current cassation court ruling leads to the fact that in some cases this is not the case.

For the sake of clarity, I make it concrete. Suppose a minor is abused and tortured at the same time. According to current legislation, the age of abuse is eighteen years plus ten years, after which the limitation can only enter. The torture, however, begins to run from the facts and would therefore be lost if the minor comes out late with his complaint. I give a second casus. One perpetrator causes several victims, ages eight and fourteen. The deadlines are separate. If first no one dares to say anything and then one of the two does, then the case for the other whole is lost. This was discussed at the committee meetings and in order to address it, we unanimously adopted Recommendation No. 11 is approved.

This was also accepted in the plenary session – there were also planned legislative texts – and unanimously approved. However, we did not find that in the majority legislation as the preamble. We have attempted to correct this through an amendment, but this was not accepted by this majority because there would have been several legal objections. I would like to accept that, but there was no real debate about it; only the argument was made that this should be considered globally, in the debate about the limitation. Per ⁇ there was also another technical problem, because the deadlines between the facts were not described in the adjustment that was suggested.

Colleagues of the majority, you indicated that this aspect would be discussed in a later package. However, allow me to deal with this cautiously. First, we have had to wait for a year for the current package. Second, there could be no guarantee regarding timing. I have heard from Ms. Van Cauter that there is indeed a third package arriving and I therefore hope that this could be included, but I still keep in mind that this majority often delays matters.

Since there is no concrete timing, we will submit our amendment again today, provided the adjustment is in accordance with the comment made by colleague Van Cauter. We have made that technical adjustment and we are submitting that amendment again, because it was also discussed at the committee meeting and was unanimously approved last year, and because it needs urgently to be transformed into a concrete measure.

We unanimously made these promises last year. Our group is very happy to fulfill these promises. I look forward to your support for this amendment. We all hope that very soon – faster than last time, not after more than a year – that third round and the next package of measures will come.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, let us recall that a year ago, practically day by day, in our assembly, we voted unanimously on an essential report rendering the conclusions of our special committee on the facts of pedophilia. Everyone had recognized the quality and, above all, the collective aspect of the work, and considered that the recommendations were well written, well suggested, and that the work should continue.

Mr. Brotcorne, I apologize, but I want to clarify, to be very clear in the reports, that I did not approve the committee’s report!

I am not used to rely on you when I proceed with this kind of examination of the situation!

Democracy requires all votes to be counted. So far, my voice still counts. So don’t make me say what I never said! I have never voted in favour of this report.

This is what is said!

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, a year later, being able to present a balance sheet, in which more than fifteen texts that make a good part in these recommendations have been submitted for approval by our Parliament, is a fact that we must welcome. Few special committees — I have already known a few — can boast to see, a year after the submission of their report, so many of their recommendations flooded into force of law. I ask above all, since the work is not finished, that this remains a useful and collective work.

I hear the little points of disapproval of Ms. Boulet and De Wit. I will ask them to be prudent, first of all because the text they submitted is not far from the one that the majority submitted, that the text that is voted is practically the one on which we were all agreed.

There was a small timing problem. However, we must also accept the fact that texts as fundamental as those we are implementing, even if we have taken the bet of supporting the victim and that it can be considered a a priori, require ⁇ ining a balance in our legislation. This can sometimes explain a longer maturity than one could expect. Furthermore, I think that this is also due to the willingness to make quality texts that are applicable.

That being said, I will be ⁇ pleased with the three elements contained in the package we are going to vote on today – I hope. The first is the possibility for the magistrate, in a very precise manner, in any case more precise than it was today, to decide on the distance of the perpetrator of the facts from the residence or housing of his victim.

The second is the ⁇ difficult problem of transmitting a judgment or an extract from a judgment to third parties who are employers, so as to avoid situations that we have been aware of. Sometimes people found themselves at the service of communities, close to minors, without knowing their pedophile past. These are things that we do not want to see happen anymore. This is achieved with this text.

The third is the declaration of victim, which is ⁇ symbolic for many, but which has the merit of reminding things that, for me, go without saying. At least once during the course of the investigation, the victim must be heard and informed of the progress of the proceedings concerning it.

Mr. Speaker of the Commission, I imagine that you will respond more accurately to the few objections that have been made regarding our timing.

My group will give its full support to this bill.

I am ⁇ pleased with the second package of measures to implement the recommendations of the Special Committee on Sexual Abuse in Authority Relations.

We can jointly regret the beginning, on two sides. I agree, therefore, with the comments made by the N-VA and Ecolo-Groen, but in the opposite sense. If one wants to do good work, one sometimes needs to have some patience to reach a consensus. One must take the time. I feel somewhat an old man who wants to give wise advice, whatever I am. One should not want to go too fast and practice patience. The result is much better if you look at everything quietly than after working quickly, as I once wanted to do myself. I am very satisfied with the result.

The six substantive arrangements consist of four major steps forward. First, we do something about the nullities in the procedure, in particular by explicitly defining what happens to pieces that so-called can no longer be used in a procedure. This is also a big step forward in other areas.

Second, we are moving forward in the equality of victims with perpetrators, with a simplified victim declaration and equality in the procedure. What applies to the perpetrator during the proceedings should also apply to the victim. This is the starting point of the additional detailed arrangements in this proposal.

Third, very important in any analysis: the services must work together. Information on suspected acts should be able to be exchanged before and after a conviction. Adjustment after the sentence. The judgment must, in a sense, be able to be communicated to the authorities of schools and institutions. The services working on the enforcement of penalties should also exchange their information. This is now explicitly stated in the legislation. This breaks the misunderstood professional secrecy of some services.

Finally, there is a huge step forward in measures besides punishment. There is now not only a professional ban for pedophiles, there is also a residential ban. This is arranged in such a way in the law that the rights of the convicted can also be freed for a period of time. The rights of — future — victims will finally be better protected.

I look forward to the third package. There are still tough debates about the limitation and professional secrecy.

Again, friends of the opposition, patience helps to mature things and come to texts like this that now prevails.

Mr. Speaker, our group agrees with the concerns of our colleagues. Ms. Van Cauter correctly said that we have reached this point thanks to the continued efforts of the victims. I also add to this justice and those who have defended the victims.

The second package represents a step forward in making sexual abuse visible and in its follow-up. A good succession makes persecution possible. A good cooperation between Welfare and Justice is important, as are all aspects related to professional secrecy.

We are committed to the realisation of a third package within a reasonable time.

Mr. Speaker, I will not be very long, but I wanted to intervene to say that I am somewhat astonished by the hypocrisy surrounding this Parliament. One claims to want to fight against pedophilia; this is very praiseworthy and I do not ask for better. But we should begin by sorting the political world, which has covered pedophilia facts in recent years; for example, in the Dutroux case, but I have already spoken enough about it and I will not extend on the issue since I know that the audience does not want to hear these truths.

During the work of the commission on sexual abuse in the Church or in an authority relationship, we witnessed a real parody. The language of wood was put in place. Nothing has been undertaken to prosecute pedophile priests. In other words, what happened to them? Not much: they spend holidays in the sun. They were not prosecuted; nothing was done to allow it.

Per ⁇ the commission served Mrs. Lalieux, who was able to make some money on the back of the victims with her famous book which is only a collection of idiots.

I will simply say that it is time for the political world to truly take charge of the fight against pedophilia; not by writing texts, but by asking the justice to prosecute pedophiles, whatever they are, even if they are high-ranking. If this is not undertaken, we can vote all the laws we want, children will continue to be abused. Politics will always be complicit.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the bill that is presented to us today continues the collective action that we have been conducting for almost two years to translate into laws the recommendations of the special commission “Sexual Abuse” which were adopted on 31 March 2011.

I am pleased that this proposal was unanimously voted - less one vote ... - in the committee. I hope this will be the case in the plenary session. Again, this question lies above the left-right and majority-opposition divisions.

We rejoice especially for the victims, since it is again to them that we think today. It is these victims who have advanced the legislation and they are now a little more recognized by our Criminal Code.

Mrs. Boulet’s intervention saddened me because she did not emphasize anything positive.

Some colleagues asked me to recall that the texts that were previously deposited by the N-VA and by Ecolo-Groen had mostly been written by collaborators of the majority! I don’t care much about this controversy. The important thing is that we vote here, unanimously, real proposals, important for the victims! However, I wanted to note this because some colleagues were shocked by this attitude.

The time was not too long either. We are changing some of the basic things in our Criminal Code, like Mr. Brotcorne repeated it. However, these fundamental elements cannot be changed in a round of hand and without reflection. We held this reflection together, in the majority, to find the texts that will be applicable and that will not be challenged in practice.

I return to the unity of intent. In this regard, I was ⁇ surprised that after a lengthy discussion on the limitation period and on the problem of prescriptibility, a proposal undermining all limitations, in particular the deadlines acquired, was submitted. We could not access these requests from Ecolo-Groen and N-VA. It is therefore obvious that even if this recommendation was voted, it cannot thus be transposed into a bill because, I repeat, it would undermine the entire balance of our criminal law.

That was the focus I wanted to do.

Furthermore, this bill contains fundamental elements, including the fact that the victim, who often feels abandoned by the judiciary, will be able, if requested, to be heard by the investigative judge.

With regard to the control of the rules of procedure, there will be a contradictory debate between all parties at the level of the Accusation Chamber.

Declaration of victim will be facilitated.

The press has already broadly ⁇ about the residence ban, so I will not return to it.

It is also important to have improved the exchange of information between the police, the prosecutor’s office and the houses of justice.

I would also like to return for a moment to the report.

There is a translation problem between the French-speaking text and the Dutch-speaking text. For all articles relating to the prohibition of residence, the words "show" should be changed to the words "stand". This is important, Mr. Landuyt! I ask that this correction be made.

The fight against sexual abuse is not over. Other measures will still be developed, but we can be delighted that the legislative amendments submitted to the vote provide a practical, truly effective response to the problems frequently raised by victims and others during the special committee.

If we had to see at this special commission that there is a collective responsibility of society in relation to sexual abuse. It is important to note that society and parliament have been able, for a year, through collective work, to provide answers to the victims. As Carina Van Cauter pointed out, the parallel work of the Arbitration Centre is fundamental for victims of the Church whose facts are prescribed. This center works very well and reports to us regularly. I hope that in September, the first compensation will take place for the victims whose facts were prescribed.

Dear colleagues, together, we have done, at the level of this Parliament, a remarkable but above all very concrete work for both the victims of the past and the victims of the present.

I would like to respond briefly to what has just been said. From the beginning, I thought it was important to move forward quickly and collectively. Everyone has said it, but this is not what has been done. We can at least act the “caffouillage” of the start. We were waiting for a majority proposal, but it did not come. Beyond the words and the willingness to work collectively, this was not done.

The recommendations of the special committee were interesting and could have overcome the divisions. We could have continued to set them up and continue to work this way, if it had been a priority for everyone.

I have said, however, that in the Justice Committee, the work has allowed us to incorporate many of our amendments. In the end, this is a collective work. The most important thing is to concrete the recommendations, to translate them into legislation. These are the recommendations of a special committee that has worked collectively. I appeal to the majority to continue this work, but the opposition is quite willing to resume the work where it was interrupted and to put its foot into legislative texts.

It is not to say that the majority has worked collectively and that it has opened itself to the opposition, because this is not quite the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to agree with the words of Mrs. Boulet. A year of waiting is very long. Collega Landuyt may then say that patience is beautiful, that the thoughts can mature in this way and that the legislation is better. The fact is that there were still a lot of precisions needed and possible, because otherwise our amendments would not have been accepted.

Then there is the aspect of the ageing. The PS colleague says that this is problematic for them on the technical level. I would very much like to engage this discussion in terms of content and technical, but that was not possible in the committee at the time. I think, first, that it is not entirely correct, but, secondly, we must not forget that there has already been a recommendation that was unanimously approved. I find it a little sad that they are now reversing.

But well, we will hopefully see that in the third package, which hopefully will come a little faster than the second. However, I am and remain hopeful in this regard and I truly hope that we can work together on this again in a good way, as has happened in the committee.