Proposition 53K2429

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 17 mai 2006 relative au statut juridique externe des personnes condamnées à une peine privative de liberté et aux droits reconnus à la victime dans le cadre des modalités d'exécution de la peine et la loi du 5 août 1992 sur la fonction de police.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Oct. 2, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

arrest criminal procedure criminal law alternative sentence carrying out of sentence surveillance

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

∉ N-VA VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.
• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) abstained from voting.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) abstained from voting.
• Damien Thiéry (MR) 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 ¶

Nov. 28, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to my written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, the bill containing various provisions in the field of justice, submitted to our vote tomorrow, addresses in particular the theme of weapons. The provision submitted to vote is related to the draft royal decree aiming to remove certain firearms from the list of firearms of historical, folklore or decorative interest, known as free-selling weapons.

This change follows various dramatic events that occurred in us and in our close neighbors. The first elements communicated concerned the participants of the folklore marches and collectors. My speech and the question I asked you yesterday aim to reassure these people about the changes that will affect them tomorrow.

The explanation provides that flexible transitional measures must be provided for persons already in possession of such weapons at the time of entry into force of this measure. You also told me yesterday that, I quote you, "Nothing will change for black powder weapons, neutralized weapons, weapons used during folk marches and historical reconstitutions. These holders will have to declare their weapons and they will receive a detention permit if they do not pose any danger, of course, to public order. Authorized collectors will then be able to register their weapons in the register without making any other action. It will also be easier to get approved as a collector of these weapons. For the shooters, nothing will change.”

The goal shared by all is the protection of human lives and ⁇ not to impose constraints on honest citizens who pose no problems on a daily basis. First of all, we need to tackle illegal arms trafficking and therefore improve the safety of all. This measure is also part of the National Security Plan 2012-2015, which also targets the fight against the trafficking of so-called heavy firearms.

I therefore take the opportunity, Mrs. Minister, to invite you and your colleague in charge of the Interior, to come quickly into commission to present a state of the place of the measures taken so far and the impact of these measures on the safety of our fellow citizens.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, this first draft containing various provisions contains several provisions relating to the Criminal Code and the execution of penalties, arrangements by which we can declare our global agreement. We have also said this in the committee. I mean, among other things, the measures on electronic surveillance, the limitation of detention and the provisional detention.

At the same time, I would like to highlight a number of other points of attention, which we have also made in the committee, to make sure that they are followed up and acted.

First, we are in favour of measures relating to domestic detention under electronic surveillance. However, the measure should not lead to the extension of the provisional detention. We expect that it is a substitution measure and that there is sufficient control. This will also depend on the court that decides on a provisional detention, whether or not through electronic surveillance.

We are pleased that, as we have urged, after 18 months there will be an evaluation. We believe it is important to evaluate the measure at that time in terms of its added value and its effect.

What we also find important are the changes associated with personal appearance. We advocate video conferencing and other technical capabilities, which you refer to in the explanation. At the same time, we want the defendant to retain the right to appear in person and not to be represented in court by his lawyer. We believe that the principle of personal appearance must remain guaranteed.

With regard to the punishment for violence against cybercriminals and NMBS staff, we understand the signal you want to give in connection with violent acts. We also want to emphasize the seriousness of such facts. At the same time, we ask you once again to ensure that there is also effective prosecution. After all, it should not be just a punishment with no effect on the ground.

With regard to the penalties, we believe that you should commit to ensure that there is no disproportion between the facts and the penalties. That element was also cited by the Council of State, but yet we ask you for that commitment. We are also asking for another bill that will come to the House.

We are also pleased that the correction is still possible and that an amendment has been approved.

Finally, I would like to express a concern regarding the access and copy of the criminal file. There is a serious expansion in this area. We have said that we will support the draft, also for the injured person, but with some reserves. For example, we ask that you pay a lot of attention to how these measures are implemented. In fact, at present, the argument is used that the injured person can in this way view his file and find out whether he should make a civil party. In fact, it incorporates the practice as it currently exists in the law.

On the other hand, I read in the opinion of the College of Attorneys-General that the College fears a significant increase in questions for access to the file, and therefore more administrative formalities and more workload for the judicial assistants. These assistants must provide guidance and information to those concerned. Mrs. Minister, I hope you have calculated the financial impact and the increase in the workload for judges, prosecutors and judicial assistants. You must also take your responsibility for this.

In short, we support the design. However, we will closely monitor its implementation and, if necessary, emphasize an evaluation.

Mrs. Minister, I said the same last week, but I would like to once again congratulate you on your first bill, which, after eighty announcements, is finally on the vote in the plenary session. We did not organize a party for that event this time. I will also explain why not.

I am very disappointed. In the draft law, we miss a number of points.

First, it is clear from your draft law that there is no vision of criminal policy. The design is completely inconsistent. It contains as many as nine loose, different ideas, which were joined together, which of course can be. However, certain ideas were better treated separately and deserved a separate debate. Now they are poured into one project, which, of course, is not the best method.

That is not the only problem. The quality of the work that is now ahead, too, leaves for all sorts of reasons to be desired. After all, what is the big problem? Your bill has not been tested in practice at all. This is stated by the College of Attorneys-General. In the end, under pressure from the opposition, only written opinions were requested.

In it we must read that the bill you are presenting now and that is still one of the projects that you are interested in, has not been tested at all on the experience in the field.

The advice is very clear. Fundamental shortcomings and various mistakes are pointed out, which once again shows that the design is not properly prepared and your homework is not actually done.

In the meantime, the provisions will have to be applied in practice, but without any guidance.

Also with the explanation of the bill, the situation is sad. Let me give you one striking example, Mrs. Minister. You provide the possibility of home detention in case of intra-family violence! I suggest it cautiously, but that may not be your final instruction.

Finally – this is another feature of your policy – you announce all sorts of things with the big drum, but nothing is solidly and thoroughly elaborated. You simply suggest a solution, which is not substantiated, and you then pack them in the press as one major realization. In fact, however, you do not solve anything and the mess of Justice simply persists.

In the committee, we have thoroughly examined every aspect of the draft law. I will not repeat the discussion, but I will remain silent on some highlights of your project.

First, when I say that Belgium is struggling with a problem of overcrowded prisons, I express myself cautiously. Today, there are already 2,000 places too short. Then we should imagine that there should be more convicts in the prisons. Among those 2,000 are not included those sentenced with less than three years, because those sentences are simply not executed.

Each proposed alternative is therefore worth exploring. Any alternative that could do anything to the overpopulation should be investigated.

Your predecessors have already begun drafting the measure now under vote. They requested a scientific investigation from a specialized body, the NICC. That study was to examine the impact of the measure. In its comprehensive report, the NICC states “that the new electronic surveillance is a policy measure that will require additional and possibly heavy budgetary effort, with a likely rather modest, ⁇ not substantial impact on the size of the accused population in our prisons, which is also surrounded by numerous legal and practical-organizational issues.”

This seems to me to be a very clear message, but you apparently do not take into account this scientific study. The written advice requested on the ground has been referred by you to the garbage cart, and with the scientific research you do exactly the same.

In the committee we submitted to you a number of relevant and practical questions. I list some of them. How much will it cost? What about control? Mrs. Becq had already talked about this. Will there be sufficient space in prison if the conditions are violated? Is it a solution to overpopulation? Will the system not lead to the extension of the duration of the preliminary detention?

We have listed more questions and practical problems in the committee, but you have hardly answered them. This shows once again that the system is not working, is not sufficiently prepared and is not thought out at all.

Under pressure from the opposition, there is at least an evaluation possibility. Mrs. Becq also talked about it. She also found it apparently useful that the project will be evaluated. We are pleased that there will be an evaluation. We asked for an amendment that a pilot project would be made. Unfortunately, this has been voted out. Later, we heard from the press that you are starting some pilot projects. Those pilot projects will undoubtedly reveal problems on the basis of which the law will need to be refined so that a more realistic response can be given to the problems to be expected in practice.

Mrs. Minister, we think this project is worth exploring, but you must take into account the practical problems.

A second point where I would like to stop is the penalty liability for violence against cybercriminals and the additional general penalty liability. This amendment of the law comes following a concrete case of aggression against a MIVB staff member.

Mrs. Minister, as I have already said in the committee, violence against individuals, regardless of their function, is, of course, unacceptable. Unfortunately, the solution you propose, a penalty barrier, does not provide the victims with any soil and does not scare off the perpetrators.

There are already numerous penalties, for example for violence against bus drivers, doctors, and so on. Criminals, however, will not be prevented from committing their acts, whether the sentence is six months, a year, or four years. So the solution you propose is a pseudo-solution.

What is needed is to act vigorously in problematic areas, looking beyond just security policy. What is also needed is a clear approach to criminal youth, which is now hopefully being transferred to the Communities. More efforts should also be made to provide wider support to prison personnel, to give a few examples.

If that new punishment warrant would bring sows to the dive, then we would of course support that, but you have not even done numbers or research to demonstrate that the solution will really be a solution and will really make a difference on the ground.

You cannot even demonstrate that the existing penalties already registered in the law – and there have already been a lot added – work on the ground, because no numbers are tracked. In the past, penalties have already been introduced, but we cannot even check whether the measures of the past are now being tracked.

For our group, on the other hand, it is an absolute top priority that punishment is addressed. Penalties of less than three years must be re-executed. That, and only that, is a signal that is powerful enough to scare off potential criminals.

As I have said several times, the problem is not in the criminal law, but in the execution of penalties. As long as we do not have sound punishment enforcement, that punishment enforcement will solve nothing.

In addition, the introduction of the new penalty warrant undermines the logic of the Criminal Code. A punishment must be proportionate to the crime committed. As legislators, we can punish violence against certain categories more severely, but with this additional punishment, you undermine the whole logic, because, for example, a crime committed without the intention of killing could be punished as severely as a crime with the intention of killing. In our opinion, that cannot be the intention.

In addition, you introduce a series of penalties and do not take into account existing penalties, making the Criminal Code completely illogical.

Finally, I would like to talk about the last point that we discussed in the committee, namely the amendments you wish to make to the Arms Act. I would like to again urge you to work on an evaluation of the 2006 Arms Act because many problems have been known in the meantime. Our position remains clear: evaluate and review what works and what doesn’t work before rushing to change the law. At the moment, we are skeptical of the idea of making all weapons of historical, folkloristic or decorative value licensed, unless they will be effectively used as sports shooter weapons, because that would only lead to more administrative burden. The current clutter around these weapons permits is already sufficient.

This bill is too poorly thought out. They simply did not take into account the opinions, criticisms or scientific research. The bill is also not understood at all. A lack of numbers remains the red thread in the whole story, because here again blind, without numerical material – and measurement is know – measures are taken. There are also some pseudo-solutions.

The N-VA faction has tried to conduct constructive opposition. We have submitted 30 amendments, amendments that may not be the major adjustments that allow you to step immediately to the media, but amendments that suggest solutions to problems identified by the people on the ground and for which they themselves can provide a solution. We submitted amendments to these people, but unfortunately they were not taken into account.

We do not believe that this bill will contribute to a better justice. With this bill, you will not remove the rubble of Justice. Mrs. Minister, it is clear, we cannot support this bill, you must first improve your homework.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, here is one of your large-scale projects that concludes its legislative course in the House. I am pleased with this because it contains many provisions contained in the government agreement and which are very important in the eyes of MR.

I think first of all about the alternative to preventive detention in prison. We know the situation of our prison establishments: a prison overpopulation and the degradation of buildings. Despite the lack of means, this should not prevent us from thinking, on the one hand, and from undertaking reforms, on the other hand, to try to improve this situation.

The overpopulation of prisons should not be a barrier to defending our principles in terms of execution of sentences and more broadly in the area of criminal policy that we must lead. The MR defends the vision that the effectiveness of the rights and freedoms of all citizens is met only if society is able to organize a quick and adequate response to the various violations of the social bond.

For this reaction to be credible, it must be prompt, adapted and followed by effects. Furthermore, in order for a repressive system to be credible, it is essential that a sentence is effectively executed. This does not prevent a differentiated, modalised or adapted execution according to the fault committed. The principle is clear: any unlawful act must receive a response, an adequate punishment both in relation to the profile of the convicted person and in relation to the fact committed.

Otherwise, the sense of impunity that reigns in some will only grow, with the perverse effect that violence will be increasingly serious in relations between individuals. This applies to respect for the work carried out by the entire criminal chain, namely from the police officer to the magistrates, through the justice assistant. The human and financial resources must be used effectively and not in vain.

But it is worth not to stop there and realize that the effective application of a punishment also depends on its suitability with the situation it intends to punish or correct. A punishment that would effectively fulfill its role is a punishment that exercises a positive influence on the conduct of the convicted. In other words, the prospect of reintegration should ideally be the parameter to be taken into account in choosing the sentence.

Like others, we believe that prison is not the universal panacea. On the contrary, we have long supported the idea that the percentage of detainees in preventive detention in our prisons is too high – more or less 40 percent – and we question the usefulness of systematic use of preventive detention.

The draft law is part of this path and provides, we are pleased with it, that the investigation judge, when deciding to place a person in preventive detention, will be able to decide whether this mandate will be executed in prison or if it can instead be implemented through a residence assignment under electronic surveillance.

Therefore, it is a new mode of execution of preventive detention. This assignment to residence may be accompanied by various prohibitions that would be issued by the judge of inquiry to strengthen it. The accused is considered detained and each day is equated to one day in prison. Its tracking is carried out by bracelets equipped with the GPS system and the police are therefore responsible for monitoring the actual condition of this assignment.

The practical arrangements for implementation at the level of the new system are of fundamental importance for the sustainability of the measures. That is why an evaluation was envisaged in the bill and it is so. Like any new system, this really requires a concrete follow-up. The impact on the disengagement of prisons will probably not be immense since, as we know, it leads to other projects compared to punishments and to reflections on other modes of detention and the effectiveness of punishment. However, this is a first step, which may call for others.

A regular and thorough assessment of the application of the Preventive Detention Act of 20 July 1990, in particular to avoid large differences between judicial districts, also there, is necessary to avoid too large disparities. The findings of this evaluation would allow to develop alternatives to preventive detention and, to some extent, also to prison overpopulation based on good practices developed by field actors.

Another aspect I would like to discuss with you concerns the amendment to the Arms Act. The debate on the issue of arms trade is crucial for citizens holding arms but also and above all others. We have repeatedly insisted on addressing the real node of the problem, namely the illegal trafficking in weapons. I recall that the Liège murder was perpetrated with, in particular, military equipment of smuggling. Criminal circles procure themselves on the illegal market and do not use over-the-counter, too expensive weapons.

The plan includes fundamental components such as the strengthening of the tracking of seized firearms, the strengthening of international collaboration but also the increase of the expertise and training of experts responsible for this issue and the problem of weapons.

I have held on to two issues that seem important to the MR; they are fundamental. The project contains other important and interesting measures, such as a clearer regulation for access to the repressive file during information and instruction or even the aggravation of penalties for certain categories of victims such as prison guards.

I will conclude by assuring you, Madam Minister, that our group will vote on this project.

We have had an extensive discussion in the committee. I am not going to repeat everything here, but I would like to emphasize four points.

First, a general concern. If you are working with a law containing various provisions, it is because it is a lot of technical provisions. This, of course, is not a problem, but this also includes a number of legislative changes that are not just technical provisions. Consider the introduction of home detention.

I therefore find it not a good way of working to send such legislative amendments to Parliament by means of a law containing various provisions.

Secondly, I think this legislation came into effect too quickly. There has been a hurry. I will give three examples of this. That swift work will ensure that a number of legal disputes remain and that legal and practical uncertainties are created.

A first example is the provisions relating to interim detention. We have had an extensive discussion on this, Mrs. Minister. The case is that the prosecutor’s office at the Criminal Enforcement Court could also order a provisional arrest if a detainee who has been released does not meet the conditions.

That is a good thing in itself, but it is mainly about the way the text is designed. The text is very unclear about which criminal enforcement court it is. We both agreed in the committee on who it should be, but the text does not translate our consensus into the right legislation. There will therefore arise a problem.

It is also unclear who will make the decision if the competent or designated substitute is not present, for example due to illness. At that point, you said very clearly that it is then the Attorney General. Mrs. Minister, I am afraid that it will not be the Attorney General. He will not be able to do that. If the prosecutors-general read that in the report, they will laugh as loudly. The problem will rise. This is not resolved by this law.

A second example showing that this is urgent work and there will still be problems, is the provision on home detention. In theory, it is not problematic to introduce it. I do not think this will solve the overpopulation. It is not a miracle remedy.

During the discussion we came to a point of dispute. There was great uncertainty about the social position of the detainee in temporary detention who is in home detention. The detainees can and should not work. He may be allowed to do homework, but he cannot leave his home.

Then arises the question of what that person should live. Is he entitled to unemployment benefits, is he or she entitled to a living wage? The social legislation is very clear on this. If you are not available to the labour market, you are not entitled to unemployment benefits or to a living wage. That person can and cannot therefore work, but at the same time does not have the right to any benefit. This is, of course, a problematic situation, because people can be in this situation for several months. They will have to pay rent, food, energy, and so on, and will have no means of subsistence. Therefore, it is necessary that the legislation be adapted in order to accommodate it. Otherwise, there will, of course, be a problem in applying this legislation, and many individuals who may in theory be eligible for home detention will choose not to do so and still go to prison, because otherwise they will have no means of subsistence.

A third example. The extension of the access right is positive in itself, but the extension of course will provide some more work for the prosecutors and the investigative judges. We then had a discussion about whether they will be able to cope with that and whether there is enough staff. With all the savings that have already been made and with the circulation letter no. 154, which makes the prosecutors and the courts really in trouble in terms of staff, there will be a problem – if the circulation letter remains – with the recruitment of sufficient people, especially if a number of additional tasks are added. However, even for this, you are still stoicly deaf. However, those problems exist.

Another issue I would like to address is the position of the investigative judge. In fact, two small changes are made through this law, which relate to the position of the investigative judge. The viewing not only provides for an extension, which is in itself a good thing, but it is also said that during the duration of the judicial investigation led by an investigation judge, in principle, the investigation judge makes the decision in a number of cases that are listed. Then it is stated that in all other cases it will be the parquet. In other words, it is literally stated that it will go to the King’s Prosecutor or the Prosecutor’s Office to assess whether a particular person gets access to a criminal file while it is a judicial investigation. Therefore, it may be a person who asks for access while the investigation judge is still considering conducting an investigation. He may be a potential suspect at the head of the investigative judge. However, he will no longer be allowed to decide and will not even be involved in the question of access to the criminal file. This, of course, is problematic.

Secondly, I will come to the provisions on heterosexuality. Now it is stipulated that an investigative judge must be involved to validate a measure after 24 hours, to extend. At the request of the Federal Prosecutor’s Office, which you apparently listen very carefully to, that provision disappears. In particular, I would like to talk about the motivation. The explanatory memorandum states that the investigative judge, due to its independent position, may sometimes come into conflict with the operational leadership and with the decisions taken in the field. According to you, therefore, it is problematic that an investigative judge is independent, since that independence could sometimes lead to an investigative judge may decide not to extend certain measures.

Mrs. Minister, this testifies twice to a yet great lack of confidence in the investigative judge. In this way, you will begin, systematically, piece by piece, to adjust a number of tasks and powers of the investigative judge.

I have absolutely no problem with having a fundamental debate about the direction we should take with our criminal law and about the role of the investigative judge in the future. Probably everyone has their own ideas about it. I find it no problem to conduct a thorough debate on this, to take a decision on it and to adapt the legislation in accordance with the decisions we have taken. What you do, however, is undermining the role of the investigative judge in a sluggish way. That is not a good thing.

Finally, I come to the penalty. Previous speakers have already talked about this. Punishment is problematic. The above provisions will ensure that the penalties are theoretically heavily aggravated, while the solution actually lies mainly on another level. We have talked about this many times.

If you really want to deal with serious crimes, three things are needed. First, a priority for the police services. Second, a priority prosecution policy by the parquet. If a bus driver or a police officer in office is attacked, and so on, the parket should never go to the seponation, but must be effectively prosecuted. That is important. Third, if penalties are imposed, those penalties must also be executed, even if they are short penalties. These are far more effective measures than simply deciding to increase the theoretical maximum penalties.

My conclusion on the law containing various provisions on justice is as follows. This is urgent legislation, which we will of course not support. I see all the recovery laws appear in the coming weeks and months, in order to be able to quickly correct the errors contained in the present law.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, it has already been said here that your bill is a summary of everything and more. That is not to say that there are no good things in this rubbish law. By the way, I will start with these things.

In that regard, I think of the procedural measures concerning the electronic access and the copy of the victim file, with which we can of course agree. As colleague Becq of CD&V has already said, the practical implementation of this, as well as the probation measure, may cause difficulties. On the probation measure, which also applies to a fine and not only to a prison sentence, we can agree in principle, but the shoe will, in our opinion, knock when the execution by the judicial assistants. For this, you will have to stick a tooth in your concrete policy.

We, of course, agree with the harsher punishment of violence against cybercriminals, but it is about the punishment execution that the great problems arise. Those sentenced to short sentences — less than three years — have almost no longer been sentenced to imprisonment, and they also enjoy enormous favourable measures due to the undercapacity of cells. And so I wonder which acts committed in prisons will then be effectively punished in the implementation of this measure. These will have to be very serious facts. I do not immediately see here a stricter policy towards unwilling prisoners, because the execution of penalties cannot follow that.

We also agree with the extension of the measures of interception for the Prosecutor of the King, in the case of arresting for theft in cases of serious crimes. Hopefully you will be able to extract the necessary resources for this.

We are not at all satisfied with the home detention for the temporary detainees. In principle, we agree to home detention, as in the case of people who need to be reintegrated into society at the end of their sentence. Home detention at the end of a sentence is therefore, in our opinion, an appropriate measure. Even in the case of a provisional detention, a judge could decide that the person concerned is not yet guilty. For someone who has not yet been found guilty, certain measures may be taken so that he or she does not get into prison but can stay at home. It is up to the court to determine whether there is a danger of recurrence, whether evidence can be removed, whether one can engage with third parties and whether there is a danger to public safety. We must leave this to the judges.

On the other hand, I refer to the example I asked you two weeks ago, in particular the practice of the Brussels court, where a person in possession of four kilograms of cocaine is sent to the wider world and then he can return to his country in Latin America, though without cocaine on the bag, but in full freedom. You may understand that we make some critical remarks.

What, in our view, principally lacks this, is that home detention is a lightning bearer for a failing prison policy, with the undercapacity in prisons at the forefront.

Mrs. Minister, you take this measure of home detention under electronic surveillance not at all because the criminal procedure would accompany it, but to make place in the prisons. So you’re not really acting as a Minister of Justice or as someone who puts a policy on foot, but as a accountant-clerk who makes a balance of the in- and outgoing detainees to align that traffic to the manifest shortage of available cells. The proof of this, by the way, lies on the banks in the Committee on Justice, in particular the pending bill of some members of the majority — by the way of your party — to make home detention an autonomous punishment. There are few nuances in it, at least not the nuances we would like to see in it.

There are also questions about the effectiveness of home detention. We must have heard last weekend that a professional criminal, a drug dealer, with a single belt and a large sum of money in his pocket, after a discotheque visit with a Porsche held a street track and died in the accident he caused. On these facts, I will again feel you to the tooth.

We really ask ourselves questions about the effectiveness of home detention, if such occupational offenders with a single belt can simply cause serious accidents, in which they themselves then find death. This is difficult to accept for us.

This is not a good example of a policy to counter the prevailing laxity and impunity. As the opposition, we would like to confidently acknowledge that the bill contains good elements, but it is too little, too late. It is too little. In my thirteen years of parliamentary career, you are the fifth minister in this kingdom to whom I must repeat this time and again. Therefore, you will not get our approval for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, with regard to the provisions relating to the possession of weapons, many fears emanate from the collectors or folklore in relation to this legislation. It will be up to you to confirm to us what you have said in the committee, namely that all people who have a passion for weapons, but a passion well understood and of folklore use, have no fear to have regarding the amendment of the legislation that we will vote. Confirming it will be useful to reassure them.

I would like to point out an interesting aspect of this bill. I would remind you that the Court of Auditors’ latest report, which dealt with prison overpopulation, stated that the only effective way to combat this overpopulation was to act on preventive detention. The project that is submitted to us mentions this possibility, which will now be offered to an investigative judge to issue an arrest warrant, but under electronic surveillance, which will be executed at home. This is the beginning of a solution, although it is known that its results will not be quantifiable, but it is the beginning of a solution to this problem of prison overpopulation.

I see some extremely positive aspects. First, an arrest warrant will always be required to act in this way and thus meet the basic legal conditions of the arrest warrant. Only the manner of execution of this mandate will be different, because instead of being imprisoned, the accused will be kept at home. Through this system, we can hope to avoid an increase in the number of preventive detentions. It should also be recalled, because we are within the framework of the arrest warrant, that the various successive passages in the council chamber or in the accusation chamber are obviously ⁇ ined. Therefore, release by the judge is always possible.

It can be hoped that keeping at home, especially small offenders, young offenders, primary offenders, will prevent them from being confronted with the usual prison population. It is known that it is often the first contact with the prison that causes networks to be created, that bad habits take place, and that people whom one could hope they would not recidive are brought to do so. From this perspective, home detention is a good thing. It will allow a good course of social investigations and, more than likely, will put a brake to the feeling of impunity that is sometimes far more serious than that of being convicted without ever having to execute his sentence.

Mr. Minister, we should also, in my opinion, take advantage of this period of maintenance at home, but under electronic surveillance, to develop pedagogical and educational actions in order to avoid recurrences as much as possible.

To these positive aspects, I will put two small bemoons. Others before me have already discussed them. I want, first of all, to talk about the social status of the person held at home, but under electronic surveillance. What will be its real and concrete status? You said that his status would be the same as that of the person imprisoned. We will need to pay attention to this aspect. Like our colleague Van Hecke, I wonder whether it will not be necessary to make certain changes in other legislation, such as social legislation or employment or labour legislation.

The other small problem concerns the task of the investigation judge to whom it will belong to assess the modality of execution of home detention. We must hope that he will be equipped to do so validly, otherwise it could happen that home detention measures are too regularly and too often broken, postponed, and that sending in detention into prison becomes the rule, which would be regrettable. The investigative judge’s work is essential in this project. He must have the means to perform his mission properly.

Another aspect of this bill, Mr. Minister, concerns the aggravation of sanctions against certain categories of persons, essentially here public transport drivers but also prison officers in the exercise of their functions.

Increasing penalties are not necessarily the solution to problems. I know that it is important to send signals to the public opinion, to the victims, but at some point, this type of policy also has its limits. We are faced with this paradox due to the difficulty of executing sentences related to the overpopulation of prisons. Often, as a response to dangerous situations, we bring only an increase in prison sentences and, consequently, an increase in the number of people imprisoned. However, we do not have the means to deal with this overpopulation. Be careful not to create legislation that suggests that serious, important, heavy sanctions are planned but are in reality inexecutable and impractical! This signal would be worse than the one that is supposed to be given to the victims and the public opinion.

In this regard, I am pleased that the committee has been able to agree on an amendment of reason that allows the correctionalization of offences with a criminal penalty, otherwise we would have seen this type of procedure very regularly crowd our sitting courses, while we do not have the means to allow ourselves this type of crowd.

I come to the last part of this law, which contains various provisions. This is the one of the consultation of the file that is extended to the person who makes a declaration of victim or injured person. All this comes from a good feeling and also goes in the direction of the recommendations of the Commission on Sexual Abuse. The place of the victim is increasingly important, guaranteed and respected but, like us, Mrs. Minister, you know that all this will result in very heavy administrative procedures. Some say that the number of reports of injured persons will be multiplied by eleven. Our parquets and transplants will need to be able to meet this demand. Otherwise, we would also have effects contrary to those we pursue, those of secondary victimization of victims. If they have new rights, they will be waiting for their effectiveness. However, if the prosecutor’s office does not follow, they will again feel victims and will point their finger at the organization of our judicial system. These are aspects to which we should pay attention. An evaluation of these provisions seems to me indispensable in the future.

It is clear, Mrs. Minister, that the CDH will provide its support to this project.

The present draft law containing various provisions, which indeed contains different chapters and which is being discussed today in the plenary session, concerns, in the first place, foreclosure under electronic surveillance. This enables the single bands with GPS. In addition to the technology and the budget, the capacity increase at the NCET is also present for this.

This gives the investigative judges an additional opportunity to work with someone who is waiting for his trial with an electronic single belt with GPS recognition. The method is already used in other European countries. In France, the system is even used for criminals who are serving their sentences. In our country, it will only be used in the case of foreclosure.

We believe that 5 to 10 % of persons in interim detention may be subject to these conditions. During the discussions in the committee we dropped the term “home detention”. It is a detention “at address” where that does not necessarily have to be the address where the person concerned lives.

The draft law also states that we will provide for an evaluation within eighteen months, to verify whether it is indeed a new method in the use of the ankle tyres. Instead of working on pilot projects, we choose to immediately roll out the technology everywhere. Through the evaluation, it should then be examined whether the legislation is being properly applied. If the evaluation shows that it needs to be updated, then it should also be done.

The second part of the bill deals with stricter penalties for violent acts against prison officials and MIVB agents. I agree with the colleagues that it is primarily necessary to work on the execution of penalties. This is exactly what the government is doing. If we can start rolling out the electronic single tires with voice recognition in addition to the electronic single tires with GPS from the beginning of January, then this is mainly focused on the very short imprisonment sentences between 0 and 8 months. These prison sentences are currently inadequately executed. In this way, in addition to the classic ankle bands and prison sentences, we have another method, namely speech recognition.

This also means that committing very serious acts against people who are the cornerstone of safety in our society – bus drivers or prison staff – will be punished more severely than committing similar acts against other people.

I also said in the committee that I will ask the NICC for a report. In recent years, we have increased a number of minimum and maximum penalties for certain categories. Now we end up at a point where we need to make the full analysis. That analysis, including any adjustment of the legislation, should be made on the basis of a sound scientific report, as requested by the NICC.

Finally, there are a number of other measures in the present large-scale multi-thematic bill, which, however, will lead to a major reform of certain aspects of the judiciary. For example, the parquet and the police services can listen for more than 24 hours in an acute problem state and in this case the unit of command is of great importance.

There is also the weapons law. A few months ago we already talked about a KB on freely available weapons. We are the only country in Europe where weapons are still freely available without a license. For these weapons there is no ammunition available, but often they subsequently dive into the criminal circuit to threaten individuals or commit criminal acts. They are sold when there is no more ammunition available, but then it is often produced, if the manufacturers find that there are enough of those weapons in circulation.

Therefore, we will remove the list of freely available weapons. The bill provides for transitional measures. To folkloristic manifestations at commemorations of the end of the war, for example, is not touched. The draft law contains an article to regulate this in a proper way. The list of freely available weapons will be abolished, but we will ensure that it is also practically feasible on the ground.

In summary, there is a bill on the vote with a whole bunch of articles on various topics, often very extensive, and a reform for the relevant aspects of Justice.

I would like to thank the Minister for the summary she just presented to us.

I did not understand one point, Mr. President. You explained that the electronic bracelet and/or GPS – two objects you didn’t really distinguish – could cover up to 80% of preventive detention. If I am well informed, this represents more or less between 35 and 40 percent of people incarcerated today. This means that you expect that 5,500 to 6,000 individuals will be affected by these two methods, while the situation is already sufficiently complicated. I would like to get some clarification on this.

For the rest, I regret that you acted in reverse. Instead of launching pilot projects, which may inform us about the effectiveness of such a device in order to evaluate it subsequently, you submit to us a law and you promise – as usual – an evaluation knowing very well that, never, this will take place! We would have preferred a greater rigor in the elaboration of this project with various arrangements, which would have begun with the establishment of a device without testing. I would like to remind you that your intentions and goals did not raise major objections.

Finally, when it comes to the issue of weapons, the weight of the lobby is noticeable behind your hesitation and your refusal to clearly resolve in order to ban the sale of certain weapons. By insisting on folk weapons, you let the blur persist. Therefore, you do not give any clear signal and do not specify when the decision will be made about the end of this activity.

I will answer briefly. Approximately 4,000 people are currently in preventive detention. Through electronic bracelets and GPS, the investigating judge is given the opportunity to resort to other means. Some individuals do not necessarily have to find themselves in prison, without yet being able to enjoy complete freedom. That is why we estimate that the proportion of people meeting these conditions ranges from 5 to 10%. Of course, it is always the investigative judge who makes the final decision.

As regards weapons, this bill will allow, on the one hand, to organize the transition period in a logical way and, on the other hand, not to affect people who do not use their weapons for criminal purposes but for folk activities.