Proposition 53K3105

Projet de loi relatif à la gestion de l'information policière et modifiant la loi du 5 août 1992 sur la fonction de police, la loi du 8 décembre 1992 relative à la protection de la vie privée à l'égard des traitements de données à caractère personnel et le Code d'instruction criminelle.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Nov. 4, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

protection of privacy database police information technology applications

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo ∉ N-VA

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 ¶

Nov. 28, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, as regards the report, I refer to the written report, but I have another question.

The Privacy Commission would have sent you a letter asking you to still seek a opinion from Committee P. You should have received that letter today.

That is correct. I received it this afternoon at 4 p.m., just before our meeting. Maybe you’re working with bpost? I sent the letter to the committee.

In this context, I would like to request that the draft law be returned to the committee, so that we, as the privacy committee recommends, can ask the Committee P for an opinion. I think it is only logical that we would do so. Therefore, our group asks to send the draft back to the committee.

I give the floor to the second speaker, while we reflect.

First of all, I would like to thank Mr. André Frédéric proposed me to be a rapporteur this afternoon.

The plenary session of 27 November 2013 decided to return to the committee the amendments no. 4 and 5 to the bill amending the law on the police function, the law of 8 December 1992 on the protection of privacy with regard to the processing of personal data and the Code of Criminal Instruction. Your committee examined these amendments during its meeting on 28 November 2013.

First, we were pleased to receive the introductory exhibition by Catherine Fonck, the principal author of the amendments. by Mr. Catherine Fonck recalls that one of the important innovations of the bill is that it clearly addresses the transmission of police information to Belgian and international partners. The bill even provides for a direct connection to the BNG for a number of authorities playing a role in criminal or security matters. Two levels of access are planned: a full access, for the Committee P for example, and a partial access, for customs, State Security or the Anti-Money Laundering Cell.

The departments concerned have been consulted and are pleased that access to the BNG is regulated by law. A very strict framework is envisaged. The terms will be different for each service depending on the needs. In the draft law, the OCAM is granted partial access. The fact that the access of the OCAM to the BNG is regulated by law is also an advance, even if this access is provided by a royal decree. However, the OCAM noted that the police officers deployed there already have full access to the BNG and not partial access. A limitation of the OCCAM’s access to the BNG makes it more difficult for the OCCAM to exercise its threat assessment functions and may also result in additional work for the police, which will have to respond to the requests for additional information from the OCCAM, as soon as it no longer has direct access to these data.

These distinctions and the fact that the OCAM already currently has full direct access to the BNG, it is desirable to amend the text.

It should be recalled that the possibility of access, contained in the bill, does not obviously mean that all the staff of the OCAM will have access to the BNG. The terms of access will be defined in a decree deliberated in the Council of Ministers, as provided by the draft law. The non-police personnel of the OCAM will therefore not necessarily have access.

Then came the discussion of articles.

Article 31 of the bill inserts in the law of 5 August on the police function an article 44/11/8 which stipulates that "personal data and information may be communicated to the Permanent Committee P and its investigation department, the Permanent Committee R and its investigation department and the Control Body to enable them to exercise their legal tasks".

Catherine Fonck and colleagues submitted Amendment No. 4 to replace the words "and to the Control Body" with the words "to the Control Body and to the Body for the Coordination of the Threat Analysis".

Your server considers that it makes sense to provide access conditions for the OCCAM as the data and information targeted are sensitive. It asks whether the College of Prosecutors General and the Judicial Police have been consulted on the amendments to the review, how that access will be framed and from when a use will be considered as abusive.

by Mr. Stefaan Van Hecke regrets the speed with which this bill has been discussed and adopted. The speaker is of the opinion that such a text deserves a thorough examination. This opinion is confirmed by the submission of new amendments by the majority groups, he said, as well as by the questions posed by Mr. by Ducarme.

Catherine Fonck points out that the purpose of the amendment is precisely to ensure that the procedures for OCAM’s access to the BNG are clearly marked in so far as it is obvious that not everyone can have access to such sensitive data. These conditions will be defined by Royal Decree.

Criticism of Mr. Van Hecke on how the bill was discussed, the speaker replies that the text, on the contrary, was the subject of serene debate and was unanimously adopted by the committee.

Furthermore, she recalls that the bill is the result of long years of work and cannot be considered a blatant text. by Mr. Van Hecke does not dispute.

We can simply say that you are reading the report. This will be included in the report of the meeting.

No, Mr President, [...]

How long have you been a member of parliament? You are not new anyway. Do you believe everything you are told?

There is only one and a half pages left. They insisted that I should present the report and read it. So I agree. I am a submissive person.

by Mr. Van Hecke does not dispute the fact that the project could have been the subject of long years of preparation. However, he believes that Parliament should take the time to discuss it in depth. He also recalled that some groups had requested the organization of hearings.

The representative of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior and Equal Opportunities confirms that the bill is the result of the work of a multidisciplinary group.

As regards the amendments to the review, both the Federal Police and the College of Prosecutors-General were consulted and expressed their oral agreement on this direct access of the OCAM to the BNG. It will request a written confirmation of this positive opinion, so that it can be transmitted to the committee. The Minister’s representative also refers to Article 44/11/12, § 2, of the Law on the Police Function as inserted by Article 35 of the draft, which defines the minimum conditions to be taken into account by the Royal Decree on the terms of access.

Eventual abuses will be regulated by the legal and regulatory provisions specific to each body or institution.

by Mr. Van Hecke asks if the opinion of the College of PG and the federal police was known at the time of discussion of the bill in commission. If so, the speaker regrets that the file submitted to Parliament was not complete at the time of its submission.

by Mr. André Frédéric, insisting on the fact that he is rural and of common sense, believes that the discussion should focus on the substance and not on the form. The fundamental question to be asked is, in fact, whether or not one agrees to allow the OCAM to access the information contained in the BNG.

Amendment No. 4 and Article 31 as amended are successively adopted by 10 votes and 2 abstentions.

Article 32 of the bill contains, in particular, the list of bodies and services to which personal data and information may also be communicated in accordance with the modalities determined by the Ministers of Interior and Justice.

Catherine Fonck et consorts submit amendment no. 5 aimed at deleting in paragraph 1 of article 44/11/9, § 1, proposed the 5°.

Amendment No. 5 and Article 32 as amended are successively adopted by 10 votes and 2 abstentions.

The entire draft law as amended and corrected is then also adopted by 10 votes and 2 abstentions.

The report is finished. The general discussion is open, but first I have a procedural question. Is there a consensus to postpone this point?

Mr. Speaker, we can make a little laugh about this, but it is not for nothing that there is a lecture of the report of the additional session of the committee. Not only was there an amendment by the majority that was submitted yesterday to amend the text that was approved on Tuesday, apparently there was also a question for new opinion.

We heard this afternoon in the committee that there would be positive opinions on the amendment. However, when we asked when that advice was given and whether we could see it, one could not present it because it was a verbal advice. Then it was promised that this oral advice would be confirmed in writing and that it would be delivered to us later.

Mr. Speaker, the way this law has been discussed in the committee is a real shame for this Parliament. We really cannot accept that. I therefore agree with the colleague to say that this file deserves more and more thorough attention, ⁇ with the new elements that are there. We therefore support the request to send the file back to the committee.

I am somewhat surprised by the comments I have just heard. In committee, Ecolo representation was present when the bill was voted unanimously. No comments were made during the vote of the articles. I therefore do not understand the need to suddenly do in plenary what could not be done in a committee, while the Ecolo-Groen group was present at the unanimous vote.

Furthermore, I continue to say, as mentioned in the report, that the arrangements for organizing access to the OCAM, which has been added by amendment of the majority, will be determined by royal decree after the opinion of the Privacy Protection Commission. We will therefore have all the necessary time to gather opinions for the royal decree. I do not see any reason to postpone the amendment, since the amendment was adopted by a majority. I think that is not at all necessary.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, there are effectively new elements, which were not yet known in the committee. I think you have just not fully understood the question: the Privacy Committee asks for the opinion of the Committee P in these matters. This is stated in the letter received today by the President. We therefore request that the discussion in the committee be restarted. This is very clear and simple.

Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday the draft was indeed unanimously adopted, but in the meantime some things have changed, first and foremost by the majority itself. It has apparently determined itself that the text is apparently not good enough and needs to be repaired, despite years of work on it.

In addition, there was the statement of the afternoon that there would be oral opinions. If the Prosecutor’s Office, the College of Prosecutors General, or the federal police agree to any text, I would like to believe that it has been communicated orally, but that is still a little too light to continue with.

What then appears? One cannot or apparently does not want to answer the question when the advice was given. As I have heard, the opinions would date from before Tuesday, when the matter was discussed in the committee. However, there is no word on this in the committee. This is not a serious way of working. If we want to take our work seriously, the draft must be returned to the committee.

I have listened closely to my colleagues from the various parties. This is almost incomprehensible. A debate was held in the committee on Tuesday. I have the full report of this debate, the interventions of one and the other, the questions and replies. I read by chance. Eric Jadot believes that “the bill is going in the right direction.” Things have been said and well said. The proposal was approved unanimously. Two amendments were approved by a large majority. The explanations were given. They were clear. The discussion went well and, above all, in a thorough way. I really don’t understand why this project should be submitted to the committee. On the contrary!

Ms. Fonck, we are not going against the opinion that is to say that this project is going in the right direction. It happens that when we receive texts on Friday and they are worked on Tuesday, we don’t always have time to thoroughly examine some elements, some details. Proof of this is that the majority has, itself, submitted amendments and requested a meeting today in the committee to correct the text. Some elements need to be corrected. A new opinion from the Privacy Protection Commission draws our attention. Because one wants to work in a majority logic "compressor roll" is one forced to vote for texts that are badly fooled, whereas, if one waits a week, there is a way to meet the goals?

These texts are not bad! They are so balanced that Ecolo-Groen has emphasized it. That is enough!

Items can be improved and, if not corrected, will harm the text and the intentions supported. We only ask to give ourselves time to do a proper job here in the Chamber. Otherwise, this project will go to the Senate, which will correct it and the text will then come back here. Otherwise, you will get stuck in a bad book. I find it a pity that in the Chamber, we don’t tell each other from time to time when a text can be improved: let’s improve it and take a week to do it!

I do not understand the attitude of Ms. Gerkens. This supposedly "mal foutu" text, which suddenly contains, in a half-second, all the evils ...

I didn’t say “all evils.”

I was in the committee, you not. I heard your representative. He was so happy that he voted for it. A draft agreement was unanimously adopted. The text is quite balanced. We have worked for 10 years with all the services and stakeholders. I don’t know why you suddenly have a problem.

In addition, it contains a quasi-technical amendment, which enables the OCAM to fulfill its mission with regard to the threat. I don’t see how this suddenly changes the balance of a project that you found so good that you voted for a few days ago. The amendment was passed in the committee. I do not understand this debate.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I think that this argument is given on a wrong issue. We asked this question because we received a new letter from a non-important authority. Therefore, we have asked to be able to deal with it back in the committee so that we are sure that we are doing the right and good legislative work here.

Furthermore, I have seen that both Ecolo-Groen, Vlaams Belang and N-VA are asking for changes in the agenda. If I can count, there are more than 50 members. So this question is justified.

The text was unanimously voted on Tuesday. The amendment was approved by a large majority. Those who, here, do a political show rather than politics abstained from this amendment in the committee!

It is surprising and pitting that those who abstained, or even voted for, now say, three hours later, totally the opposite! This is small politics.

Mrs Fonck, I can also throw into the debate that it was yesterday Wednesday and tomorrow Friday. Such things are entirely irrelevant to the question which is now present, for otherwise we may cite many elements that give answers to other questions.

The question we have now asked is the following. A letter has been sent to the Chairman of the Chamber regarding the current draft law. In my opinion, it would be a good way of working to take this into account before we hold the final vote, so that at the vote we are aware of the insights of that important body. That is our question.

What you say about an amendment has nothing to do with it. We are only asking for the handling of the letter that arrived here this afternoon at four o’clock. We have more than 50 members to support this request.

The request must be made in writing. Fifty people must be present to support the request. Is it so?

by [...]

If you want to vote, yes. Those who support the proposal have to vote.

The [...]

Mr. Van Hecke, to come out of this, I see that there is no consensus. Therefore, I must apply Article 17.3 of the Rules, which is clear. According to him, the request must be written. The request is verbal and I accept it as such. I am very liberal in my reaction.

I just ask that those who are in favour of the removal in commission press the green button. The point. I cannot be clearer than that!

For those who have just joined us, a request has been made to send a draft back to the committee and to bring it back to the plenary session, I suppose, next week. It’s about examining a document I received at 14:00 and that is a letter from the Privacy Protection Commission. I can’t do it if it doesn’t work quickly. Those who support the request to refer the text back to the commission next week in public hearing press the green button!

Those who support the request for referral to the committee vote yes.

Electronic counting is carried out.

It is electronically counted.

41 members support the request for renvoi and commission. This cell is not supported. (RGT and art. 17.3 of 3)

41 leden steunen het verzoek tot terugzending naar de commission. This is not supported. (RGT and art. 17.3 and 3)

We continue the discussion.

The letter will be distributed to you.

I inform the colleagues who come to join us that we have not yet finished the works. We are pursuing. We have heard a referral to the report written by M. Jan Van Esbroeck et un rapport lu de M. by Denis Ducarme. The first speaker is M. by Koenraad Degroote.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my explanation was precisely to announce what Mr. Van Esbroeck said, in particular that this letter was on the way to you and that we would therefore request a delay. Given that this postponement was not allowed and it was not referred back to the committee, we will be obliged to refrain.

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. In fact, tens of thousands of Belgians were the subject of filing in various databases of the various police and security services. For my group, such a level of filing was far beyond what is necessary for normal police work in a democratic regime. This statistics showed sufficiently that it was urgent to frame the practices in the field of police database.

This is what we are going to vote on today.

Of course, I will not have the naïvety to say that this text, with a magic stick, will allow us to enter a perfect world, but it brings a strict framework to what contained almost no tags. It should be remembered that the only legal basis in force to date is a 2002 ministerial directive.

The first step is to establish the principle of proportionality. Only adequate, relevant and not excessive information can be stored in databases, criteria that the Commission for the Protection of Privacy will always be responsible for verifying. The existence of a database itself must meet these same criteria.

The second sign is the establishment – finally – of a right to be forgotten, with the entry into force of deadlines after which the data will no longer be accessible. This is 3 years for administrative police and 30 years for crimes.

The third tag is, in my opinion, the most important bug: control of databases is extracted from the executive competence. This control will now be ensured by a permanent sectoral committee of the Privacy Protection Commission, i.e. by a emanation of the legislative power that offers the highest guarantees of independence.

I repeat that it is not easy to find the right balance when it comes to framing the tools needed to ensure security functions. Particular vigilance should always remain and ensure that such tools do not infringe on the fundamental rights of citizens.

I think we are taking a step in the right direction here. Of course, we will remain very attentive to the implementation of these provisions and to correct or supplement them within one or two years, during an evaluation process.

In this sense, my group will of course vote on these texts.

I am pleased that we are able to discuss the present bill today after it was approved almost unanimously in the committee two weeks ago. For our party, information storage or information sharing within the police services is of great importance.

Indeed, one of the most important recommendations of the Dutroux Commission concerned the lack of information sharing between the various police services of the time. In 1998, the merger of the various police services was finally achieved. The integrated police, organized on two levels, had to put an end to the competition between the old police services and had to enable better cooperation.

In the fight against crime, it is of course also important that the information available to the police services is also quickly and correctly accessible. In an age when crime can move very quickly, even across national borders, that information should be available to all police services, or if expanded other security services.

The 1998 legislative amendment provided in the law on the police office a legal framework for the basis of the General National Database, the ANG. However, the necessary implementing decisions remained out all that time. It is therefore not surprising that the lack of a clear framework for the processing of personal data by police services is often referred to as a weak or even missing link in this police reform.

We are therefore ⁇ pleased that the government with the present bill finally sets out a legal framework for information processing. This makes it clear about the establishment of databases for police data, what the procedures for this are, what the retention periods are and who has access to the data. The present draft is ⁇ a step forward in the field of the protection of the privacy of citizens as the specific control body on the police information is housed at the privacy committee so that a democratic control by the legislature on the information processing can take place.

The CD&V will therefore fully support this bill.