Proposition 53K2295

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 20 janvier 1999 visant la protection du milieu marin dans les espaces marins sous la juridiction de la Belgique, en ce qui concerne l'organisation de l'aménagement des espaces marins.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

June 22, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

marine environment environmental protection marine pollution

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.

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 ¶

June 28, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The draft law on the protection of the marine environment in the marine areas creates the framework for the preparation of a marine spatial structural plan.

It empowers the King to draw up a procedure for drawing up the plan, as well as to establish the marine space plan itself.

The marine spatial plan will start from a spatial analysis of the Belgian marine areas and, based on a long-term vision and objectives, develop a policy package of measures, instruments and actions.

The King will also set up an advisory committee.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Economy, Consumers and the North Sea points out that there is currently no integrated spatial planning plan for the Belgian part of the North Sea.

So far, few countries have such a plan for their territorial waters. However, there is now a tendency in the European Union to develop a maritime strategy and planning. Given that there is a bottom-up demand from the North Sea users, the government considers it necessary to amend the law on marine planning and to enable marine spatial planning.

Several factions noted that a broad delegation is granted to the King, including in terms of the composition of the advisory committee. The Minister points out that the regulation is inspired by the legislation on spatial planning.

The composition of the committee is not included in the law because there is a need for flexibility and because the composition could be changed. However, the Minister is of the opinion that as many actors as possible should sit in the committee.

The N-VA asks how it will cooperate with other actors, such as the Regions and other countries, and whether exclusive rights on the sea will be granted.

CD&V is concerned about whether all actors will be involved and asks whether it is wise to move forward on future European regulation.

Green is curious about the impact of the plan on the definition of the second zone for offshore wind energy, on the scope of the binding character of the plan and on the relationship to coastal protection.

In particular, the PS wants to know who will take on what tasks. Ecolo wants to see sustainability anchored in the law and in the plan. CDH and Open Vld inform for further planning.

The Minister stressed in his response that the broad consultation phase is very important in order to reach a coherent plan. Therefore, contact with the regions, the provinces and the municipalities has already been established.

The Minister also said that after contacting the European Commission it became clear that it will only prepare a framework legislation and that the Member States can further develop them themselves.

The Minister says that the drafting of the plan is binding. That is, it is a legal instrument, which must be respected by everyone.

In some cases, we can convince our group with good arguments. We were not persuaded in the committee not to bring our draft resolution to the plenary session. We would like to ask you to approve our resolution rejected in the committee.

Colleagues, I would like to point out that the reasons why we submitted our resolution date from 2004. The former Minister of Mobility Bert Anciaux then in the 1998 Royal Decree on the driving license abolished, among other things, the provision that: “the person who has failed the theoretical driving exam twice may only pass a new theoretical driving exam after obtaining a certificate of theoretical instruction issued by a driving school.”

In 2004, Minister of Mobility Bert Anciaux decided to abolish this provision. This has been criticized, among others, by the Federation of Belgian Professional Authorship Schools. According to Vlaams Belang, she is very rightly complaining. She notes that for many young people the theoretical exam had turned into a gambling game. If one takes enough part in the electronic examination, one would, in the long run, have understood how it came together, and one would pass his theoretical driving examination without having sufficient knowledge and insight about the traffic regulations.

During the discussion of our resolution in the committee, all sorts of arguments have been cited for not approving them. I would like to take this opportunity to refute some of those arguments.

It is clear that at the moment theory is only taught on the basis of the exam questions and therefore no longer on the basis of the manual. Everyone still knows those two books, before it was with, among other things, commissioner Vervucht and also with a socialist police commissioner. Everybody knows the books of the driving school, which one had to run through. One began by solving the examination questions, and where one did not get out of it or did not understand the solution, one might read it. In this way, however, they tried to pass their theoretical driving exams smoothly.

This has ensured that one is faced with the next. When passing this electronic exam, one must obtain 41 out of 50, but each question has the same weight. So, if one answers five times at the theory exam that one can drive through the red light, one has brilliantly succeeded. That is a bad thing.

I was informed at the examination centre that there are now six sets of 50 questions. These questions are not all different. This means that if one fails six times, one gets the same questions again anyway. There is a shortage in how the exam is taken.

Since we have been faced with this problem for years, one should evolve from a gambling system for the questions of estimation of traffic situations, to risk acceptance and so on. Such questions would lead to a much better outcome and a much better assessment of whether one has the right knowledge of the traffic regulation, rather than simply gambling on A, B or C.

The current database contains approximately 300 questions for the theoretical driving exam. That too is too little.

These are all concerns with the current exam system.

Collega Wollants asks, if one is faced with these problems, whether one would not better adjust the driving exam.

The reservation or non-reservation of the second zone should be included in the framework of the plan. It is too early to make statements on this issue.

Coast protection is an element to be taken into account. Once the draft has been approved, the royal decree on the procedure may be submitted to the Council of State. After that, the task can be started. A draft plan can be worked out at the same time. It is intended to finish all this within the year.

The opposition parties support the purpose of the law, in particular the implementation of a spatial plan for the North Sea region. Given the aforementioned reservations, in particular concerning the broad delegation to the King, they abstained at the vote in its entirety.

The bill was adopted with 8 votes for and 5 abstentions.

In this regard, there is a problem with the legislature, which apparently allows a particular examination centre, once it has obtained its recognition, to have free play.

In this regard, the State Secretary for Mobility is also assigned a task, to take a number of initiatives.

On the other hand, colleagues, in Belgium, through a multi-choice system, only classic questions about the Road Code are asked. Moreover, in the original exam questions, the text was even too difficult. The text had to be adjusted. The text was made easier and questions that were somewhat ambiguous were simply deleted.

I would recommend the Secretary of State to look abroad. In overseas, more work is done with multiple-choice questions in combination with open questions. For example, in a particular traffic situation, a photo is shown and asked how fast it can be driven. Subsequently, the examiner must fill out an answer with the numerical keyboard and therefore not with a fixed number. With us, we immediately get the opportunity to indicate, for example, 40, 50 or 60 km per hour, which of course makes it very easy to fall back into a gambling system.

To remedy the previous problem, not so much the exam needs to be adjusted, but in the classroom, which we advocate to let people follow the theory, can be worked on the mentality and the choice of mobility. The classroom is the perfect place to work on it and to let young people who have failed twice still work on their problem. This has also proven its usefulness in the past and still proves its usefulness abroad.

Another argument given in the committee is that much is already done in school. When we look at the deadlines, the task package in schools and what teachers already have on their agenda, given the limited time that schools have to spend on traffic lessons, it would be much better to have a separate lesson package from the approved driving schools. Thus, it can be ensured that young people are adequately prepared for traffic and not only through schools.

In the end, it is often the case that what does not happen in the approved driving schools is done in the school within a time frame of eight hours, while the driving schools deal with it over a period of twelve full hours. The educational system now provides about eight hours to do traffic education.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I would like to thank Mrs. Muylle for the report.

For the North Sea, various powers are active. Both the federal level and the Flemish Region are active in the field of marine fishing, drilling or cleaning wreckage. That makes it all ⁇ complex.

Therefore, we support the contribution made by the Flemish administration several years ago during the previous regional legislature on the regionalization of the North Sea. These notes have arrived at the request of the N-VA, sp.a, Open Vld, CD&V and Spirit, where they may be located.

I think this is the path that we must follow. It will not be for today, but it will undoubtedly come. We wait for this to ensure that we can work in the most efficient way possible.

Although it doesn’t always progress in the Room, it was a bit different for this design. I do not know which ropes the minister has pulled, but if here on Friday a draft is submitted that receives the permission to be printed on Monday and is already closed by the committee on Tuesday, I must congratulate him on the quick work that apparently cannot be achieved in other files, I think, for example, telecommunications laws.

In terms of content, it is important for us that there is a spatial planning and that this is done in the right way. After all, we know that the master plan that exists today is too static. In the North Sea, we must enable various things in the field of energy, in the field of shipping, in the field of sand and grinding mining and so on. These things should be complementary as much as possible.

What we also need to be careful about is that we do not get colonization of the North Sea. We will grant rights, but they are always temporary in nature. These are usage rights. We do not want this to happen in another way.

Many factions have already said it: there is a very large delegation to the King and therefore also to Mr. Vande Lanotte in the bill. We are not so happy with this because we also like to have an understanding of the way these things are arranged.

On that point, the Minister and I agreed. If he had been in my place, he would have done exactly the same. That is the difference, Mr. Minister. You are there and I am here.

I think the legislator should take this into account. If you create a committee to advise on the procedure, it is interesting to see who is involved.

We know that the Flemish Region can and should take a lot of measures in this area, and therefore also has an impact on what happens according to your plan. We also know that the French, the Dutch and the United Kingdom also have interests in the North Sea framework. Think, for example, of what happened to that last wind farm, which is being disputed by the Dutch. For this reason, it seems appropriate to us that already at legislative level it is determined who is involved. You can indeed involve anyone that you find useful, but you can also leave out those that you consider a little less useful. As legislators, we need to monitor this closely.

This plan as a tool is a good thing. It is not about this today, but about how to manage it properly. My group thinks that you have attached too much here and that you have left too much open. This is also the main reason why we will refrain from this design.

Not only I, but also the driving schools find that this is too little. The twelve hours of theoretical lessons at a certified driving school are more than necessary.

With the current school system one does not reach the entire target group, only those who have ⁇ a good education. Every year there is a large drop of students in high school. Therefore, they did not follow sufficient lessons of traffic education. According to the current regulations, they are allowed to take their theoretical driving exam.

There is a contradiction between the training in school and the obligation imposed upon one if one has failed twice. If one fails in the current system, then it is clear that one does not control the matter. It is unrealistic to think that someone who does not know the Code of the Road today will possess sufficient knowledge tomorrow. Traffic education and the role of driving schools are ⁇ important.

I have always been taught that trial and error, betting on the right answers, is not a good thing. Therefore, a wrong message is being given to young people who want to get into traffic with a car. Now they say, just bet on it, someday you will win the main prize.

We are the requesting party to address this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, there was no reference to this in the report, so I would like to explain for a moment why our group will abstain. Of course, we also have no problem with maritime spatial arrangement as requested by Europe, but we would rather have about the Flemish territorial waters than about the Belgian territorial waters.

The transfer of power over the North Sea has not yet been planned, which we regret. If the coordination would take place at the Flemish level, accompanied by the transfer of the remaining powers in the North Sea, a much more coherent policy would be achieved and the activities could be completed much faster. Decisions could be made much faster, both on energy and nature conservation as well as on the logistical use of the North Sea.

For this reason, my group will abstain.