Proposition 54K1851

Projet de loi instituant un fonds budgétaire relatif à l'aide juridique de deuxième ligne.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Sonja Becq, Raf Terwingen
MR Gilles Foret, Philippe Goffin
N-VA Sophie De Wit, Goedele Uyttersprot
Open Vld Carina Van Cauter

Submission date

May 24, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

lawyer financing fine legal aid penalty access to the courts

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP VB

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

∉

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.
• Stefaan Van Hecke (Groen) 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 ¶

March 9, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs are Mrs Becq, Mrs Özen and M. Calomne.

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, this proposal is a closing step in the legal aid reform that we approved earlier in this half-year. Everyone is entitled to the assistance of a free lawyer. This is a fundamental right. This is stated in the EVRM.

Some of us know something better than others, because they have experienced that as a lawyer themselves in pro-Deodossiers, that if one gives legal assistance, one sometimes only gets a compensation one or two years later, not knowing how much it will be. The budget is always divided by the number of files. That number is never known in advance. At the end of the year, there is often the conclusion that there is insufficient budget and that an adjustment is needed.

We also know that the number of pro-Deodosiers has grown enormously in recent years, causing the costs to rise every year. There are several reasons for this. In 2003 there was an increase in income limits. This means that in ten years there was a doubling of dossiers and the budget tripled, so that we now reach 75 to 80 million euros.

In the spring of 2018 – which is now up to us – the first payments from the files of the asylum crisis will come, as well as the extension of Salduz, which had to be carried out following the regulation in Europe. Therefore, additional budget is needed.

The lawyers have called the alarm clock several times. Mr. Brotcorne has asked a question about this, there was also a debate about it, because a lot of pro-Deo lawyers resign or even strike. The pro-Deoclient is the pro-Deoclient, the one who needs legal assistance. The guarantee of quality legal assistance is therefore increasingly compromised. These people should not remain in the cold.

We saw it already arriving at the first Salduz in 2010 and 2011. It must have been the most pleasant parliamentary period because there was no government. There were very good debates in the committee.

The first Salduzwet was created at that time and we already felt that it would cause additional costs for the budget of legal aid. I remember an infomoment on the table, which explained how everything should go in his work. We continued to discuss this. Some lawyers came to me to ask how the payments would be made and whether there was sufficient budget. At that time, there was also cracks. They asked me how we could solve it.

There was then a sort of solution, after we looked at which systems already existed. We started thinking with a number of people and we came out on a fund, by analogy to the Victim Fund, where everyone who is convicted criminally makes a contribution. It could then serve for the pro-Deodosiers. Our group has developed this idea in a bill, which was submitted in the previous legislature. According to the analogy of the victim fund, there would be such a kind of pro-Deofonds. Each convicted person should contribute. The Court of Auditors had already calculated that it could raise 14 to 16 million. So it did not seem to be a bad idea. If the budgets were insufficient, we could help a little.

The proposal was not approved at the time, but it achieved the government agreement. We re-enrolled it and gradually we had to revise and adjust our initial bill, because there were a number of risks associated with it. I would also refer to the discussion we are holding today on the Victim Fund, which is primarily funded by people who commit a traffic offence. However, there was then also an opinion from the State Council, which stated that we could not limit it to just criminal cases, because it would constitute a discrimination. That in itself is not illogical, knowing that 70 % of all contentieux are rather civil and only 30 % are criminal. The State Council also told us that we should provide for social corrections.

There has been a whole search and a whole exercise was done, together with the Cabinet, across the boundaries of the Cabinets of Finance and Justice and in concert with the Greffies. I would like to thank all who have worked on it very much. This is how the current proposal arose, in which we ask for a non-reasonable contribution of 20 euros. This is not multiplied by opdeciems. It is a nominal amount, it goes specifically to a pro-Deofonds and can also be used only for that. During the debate in the committee there was still confusion around this. No, only and only for pro-Deodosiers can be used. There are many social corrections: pro-Deans should not pay the contribution, there are exemptions in labour disputes and in social contentieux. This applies, as requested by the State Council, both in civil matters and in criminal and administrative matters, namely those for the State Council and the Council for Foreign Disputes.

The system applied is as follows: in criminal law, the 20 euros will be charged at the time of the conviction, i.e. at the end of the proceedings, and the court costs will be charged. In administrative and civil matters, the claimant will have to pay the amount of 20 euros, but he can recover that from the loser, if he gets right.

During the discussion in the committee, I also heard a lot of criticism of the proposal. I understand that too. It was an interesting debate on this subject.

A first criticism that has been formulated there was about the additional threshold. This would be another threshold for justice. I would like to say four things.

First of all, I do not want to say that 20 euros for some people is not a lot of money, because I am aware that for some it is a lot, but it is in itself, fortunately, a reasonable and limited contribution.

Second, the low-property owners, the truly financially weaker, are exempt and do not have to pay the contribution.

Thirdly, if the claimant gets right in civil or administrative matters, he can recover the contribution from the losing party.

Fourth, in criminal cases, of course, it is not a threshold, because there the amount is imposed only at the time of the conviction and of course no one is obliged to commit a crime. I understand that a comment is being made about the threshold, but I try to clarify in this way that that additional threshold deserves a certain nuance.

The second major criticism was that the government should finance the extra-needed budgets and that this should not be requested from the citizen. I also understand this criticism. I will not hide from it. However, there is the reality of budgetary constraints. Then I think – what we already wanted to do in the previous legislature, at a time when we were not in the government – that one must also be creative, otherwise the global budget remains too low and then the qualitative assistance for the wealthy is compromised and that we do not want.

If one says today that it must come from the general budget and that the government must pay for it, then I ask the question of where the money comes from in the general budget. We all know that it comes from every citizen and every taxpayer, even from those who do not appeal to the Justice, who do not come into contact with it.

The purpose of this fund is now just to have a portion of those additional costs – not all but a portion of them – paid by the user, by the one who actually comes into contact with Justice, and not to roll it down on every taxpayer.

As I said before, this fund hopes that the surplus costs of what is incurred on us can be paid without being charged to any taxpayer. As I said before, and I want to repeat it again: this is very specific to the pro-Deos system, not for anything else, and for a qualitative assistance to those who really need it.

It is a political option, with which some will agree and others will not. In a perfect world you may find others, but in this world and in the current context we have found a reasonable and very feasible solution to ensure that there is legal certainty for those who want to commit themselves to the poor and those affairs, to continue to guarantee a good service to those pro-Deoclients, to the financially weaker, to be able to continue to guarantee a good service to those pro-Deoclients.

Colleagues, that is, after all, the ultimate finality of this proposal: not just getting money, but above all ensure a quality service for pro-Deoclients. This finality must be guarded and that is what we are trying to do with this proposal.

Accessible justice is a necessity for every democratic society. Access to justice is not a theoretical right. It should not be a utopia.

Guaranteeing access to justice means guaranteeing the rule of law and ensuring equality for all citizens. It is also rejecting the law of the strongest and ensuring that the laws voted here will be respected by all and for all.

Since the beginning of this legislature, we know that the government has not ceased to remove the citizen from justice, in particular by increasing role rights, the moderator ticket, VAT for pro deo. All these majority measures have steadily increased what I call the black figure of justice, namely that all those who are considered too wealthy to benefit from second-line legal assistance are actually too poor to pay for the services of a lawyer.

Today, it is a large part of the middle class that is concerned with these measures that limit access to justice. Nevertheless, it is this population, already disadvantaged in its economic strength ratio, that needs justice the most.

What other legal means do these persons have to assert their rights? This is a question that can be asked based on these findings.

It can be stated that the majority falls back in its faults because this proposal is undoubtedly unfair. The MR/N-VA majority creates a new obstacle to access to justice. Indeed, every additional tax to enforce its rights excludes a new layer of the population from the services of justice.

Furthermore, imposing a new flat tax on each justiciable, which does not take into account income, is socially unfair.

As I have repeated several times in the commission, demanding twenty euros from a multinational company and demanding twenty euros from a single family mother who receives a minimum wage, is obviously not the same thing. It is desperate to have to recall such an obvious in this assembly in 2017. I have repeated it many times, but I have the impression that we continue to make the deaf ear.

Beyond this social injustice, this proposal falls within a unfortunately commercial conception of justice that would be a consumer good like any other and those who choose to use it should bear the costs. To act in justice would therefore become a luxury that some people can miss. The Minister has often mentioned the notion of responsibility, that is, to hold those who would make abusive judicial actions, etc. This is a position that I do not share at all. I don’t think that, for pure pleasure, people initiate legal proceedings, waste their time, energy and money. There is nothing more false since acting in justice, especially for low-income, is a choice often very heavy. This is often the ultimate remedy, and again, having to explain it today, in this assembly, is nonsense. To be honest, I am almost desperate.

I have said this, and Ms. De Wit has also repeated it, we do not have the same notion of this fundamental right as access to justice, which, I repeat, serves society as a whole and of which it is necessary to preserve its democratic character. For this reason, the "legal aid" envelope must be fed from the state budget. However, contrary to what this MR/N-VA majority makes us believe, this fund for legal aid is not inevitable. It is just the consequence of its own budgetary choices.

To maintain the already insufficient budget for second-line legal aid, the government turns toward the middle class and forces it again to compensate for the tax gifts made to the richest.

You will understand, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, that we cannot support this text. As in the committee, I will oppose it, as well as the whole of my group. I thank you.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, our group will support this text in the voting that will take place tonight. This is not a surprise, we did it in the committee.

The difficulties of second-line legal aid and the question of its financing are not new, unfortunately. As Ms. De Wit said, we would all like an ideal world. Unfortunately, we have a world with constraints. Within the framework of these constraints, we must try to ensure that the service of justice is rendered and that everyone can have access to justice.

Mr. Minister, you have undertaken, over the years, to maintain the value of the point at an acceptable level for lawyers practicing second-line legal aid. In recent years, budgets have been increasing. We know that this increase will not stop, especially with the effect of the development of the Salduz legislation.

The proposed solutions can be criticized. The advanced solution here has at least the merit of giving more resources to legal aid. It has the merit of pragmatism and realism. The establishment of a legal aid fund will allow oil to be put into the pro deo rods. This would provide more guarantees for lawyers.

I would like to welcome here the important work carried out by the authors of the proposal. This is not a proposal that comes here on the basis of an emergency. The State Council was consulted. The work has been handed over to the profession several times to reach the text proposal submitted today to this assembly.

I thank all the members of this committee, as I do every time, because the commissioners, the majority and the opposition, do not hesitate to bring their reflections, their amendments. These elements are sometimes retained, sometimes not – this is another debate – but in any case, they are systematically interesting.

Mr. Minister, you have pledged that the funds collected will be used for legal assistance, a key element in this reform, without which it would have no meaning. A category of the population sometimes has to refrain from seeking a lawyer because they are part of the middle class, which is above the thresholds for obtaining assistance. In some cases, the situation is difficult. The hope is then transferred to insurance, a complex topic being discussed at the moment. Financial balances must be found in order to design this reform positively. My group encourages you to find a solution so that everyone has access to justice, either through assistance or through insurance. No one shall be deprived of the basic right of access to justice, because of his financial situation and his means.

It is also important for us that access to justice is for everyone. Therefore, it is important that the pro-Deos system exists and that there can be in a qualitative way assistance from people, which in recent years, thanks in part to the Salduz scheme, has taken a huge expansion.

With the Act of 6 July 2016, we reformed legal assistance and tightened the criteria for those who can benefit from second-line legal assistance. This law also includes a limited contribution to cover the costs of the lawyer.

The proposal for the Fund has sought to generate additional resources, in order to compensate pro-Deoadvocates in a proper manner and to be able to pay them out in proportion to the work they deliver, also in order to ensure the quality guarantee, which everyone wants, also in cases of assistance to poor people.

We support the bill.

I would like to add another element. For us, it is important that a next step is taken in taxing the pro-Deoprestations. That proposal has been submitted. After all, it is often young lawyers who do the pro-Deobijestand. They are not immediately reimbursed for their performance in pro-Deozaken, but are only reimbursed a few years later. When the remuneration only follows a few years later, it is, what I most hope, added to their higher income, because those lawyers are already busy a little longer. At that point, we have the proposal to mitigate the relevant rate and reach an average rate. We hope that the proposal can be supported and approved in the near future with equal enthusiasm.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, we may say too little, but Justice is one of the foundations of our democratic model. A good justice system means that one as a citizen can assume that one will be detected and prosecuted if one is a victim of a crime. Furthermore, it is necessary to ensure that appropriate compensation is paid. If a citizen becomes involved in a conflict, one must be able to effectively appeal to Justice in order to obtain a qualitative decision in the dispute in a qualitative manner – that is, quickly and efficiently.

Colleagues, the assistance of a lawyer – I do not like it myself, because for us it is a fundamental right – is an integral part of the right to a fair trial. That is also the reason why it was already long ago – and that is glorifying our society – that the government has provided in a system second-line assistance for those who are financially unable to provide that assistance, so that even the poor have the right to that basic assistance and a fair process.

I think we all know that in recent years it has become clear that the second line assistance system, as we know it today, did not remain feasible.

That had two reasons. On the one hand, modernization and reform of the system was necessary. That has happened in the meantime. On the other hand, we must recognize and acknowledge the need to ensure a sustainable refinancing of the system. That is what this proposal aims at.

I know that it is not the best choice, but I also realize and doubt no moment that the Minister of Justice has done his utmost to release additional resources for Justice, supported by all majority political groups. In order to refinance and continue to guarantee this second-line aid, the search for an alternative was necessary. As stated by colleague De Wit, this was ideally applied only in criminal cases. However, the State Council pointed out to us that if we wanted to work with a remuneration or contribution, we had to ensure a general application of the rule. That has happened.

It is not the best solution. Ideally, second-line aid was financed from the general resources. As this proved impossible, we were faced with the choice to provide insufficient second-line assistance or to provide an alternative. We have chosen the latter, but we have chosen what can be expected in a democratic society: everyone has the right to that assistance that provides the right to a fair trial. It is a small contribution, so it must be feasible for those who do not have to resort to second-line aid. This is the social correction. Furthermore, and that also seems just: if it effectively proves that a rightful appeal was made to the Justice and one is confirmed in his rights, one can also recover that contribution. That is the fairness of this system.

The government will not be affected. What we absolutely do not want, after all, is that the government is prevented from detecting crimes. I think we can all agree on this.

All this makes it not an easy choice. It was a difficult decision.

I would like to congratulate colleague De Wit for the way she, as is tradition in the Justice Committee, has sought solutions beyond the boundaries of opposition and majority. I cannot repeat enough of this too. This is at least why I was elected to this Parliament: providing solutions. This is what we all hope to do together today.

Mr. Minister, colleagues, in our Chamber of Justice Committee pass a lot of framework laws that are often difficult. Difficult and very technical.

As a non-lawyer, a great exception in this hemisphere and ⁇ a great exception in the committee, I look at many files from the standpoint of ordinary people, and therefore not as a magistrates, lawyers or legal scholars.

I speak on behalf of many who, although they did not study law, still find well-functioning and above all accessible courts in Belgium a must. I try to look at many of those files with a portion of common sense.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have noticed one thing. Some things are deliberately complicated, making it hardly noticeable that unfair affairs are arranged.

Colleagues, today we will vote on a majority party proposal to regulate a budget fund for second-line legal assistance. Why did such a fund have to be created? Per ⁇ because the government provided too few resources for the second-line aid, better known as the pro-Deobijstan. Those resources are not there, and that is why the colleagues of the majority are so kind to create a so-called fund for it.

But, ladies and gentlemen, what appears today is not a budget fund. It is a flat new tax of 20 euros per trial, for everyone who goes to court.

Maybe, we’ve heard it already, 20 euros is not a lot for a minister, for a lawyer or for a lawyer, but 20 euros is a lot of money for very many people and is again a threshold that makes access to Justice difficult. What are we going to vote on today? About the New Nonstaks.

The majority’s colleagues make justice more expensive. And not once, but over and over again. In recent years, the VAT on lawyer expenses has already been increased by 21%. The government has also increased the office and role rights. And today, a little between the soup and the potatoes, we are going to approve another tax of 20 euros.

Colleagues, will the next budgetary problem within the Judiciary this legislature also be passed on to the people? It is the world on his head. You tell people that they should draw their plan when they are in misery, that they just have to pay, while a judge must be right there to help people who are no longer able to do it.

Initiators of this proposal initially tried to avoid even the words “tax” and “tax”. They talked about a kind of budget fund, which sounds more innocent. But even the State Council has rightly pointed out that this is a flat, new additional tax. The shame here is that the majority is still trying to get away with it by saying that it is only about 20 euros. You are sending people along the box, while those people want to be helped with their misery.

Also sp.a is for a good pro-Deos system, it should still be missing in Belgium. In this case, however, we must provide sufficient resources in the general budget. Now, by means of an additional tax, another extra cost to ordinary people in search of justice, can not for us. We continue to advocate for a good and accessible Justice, but we see today that we are further evolving towards a Justice for an elite with enough money. Well, ladies and gentlemen, we are prepared for this.

The story of an accessible justice is once again hit seriously today. Our group will therefore say very explicitly no to the proposal of this new Geenstaks.

We worked hard in the committee, but the end result was not what we expected. Nevertheless, we had a good debate.

I notice, by the way, that Mrs. De White is at home to that time, when we could still debate quite freely, and when we tried to find a majority, over borders of... well, there was no majority and no opposition. We were just looking for a support to implement certain measures.

Mrs. White, now you’re a little more in a carcan. I also hear that frustration to a certain extent from colleague Van Cauter, who says that what lies ahead is actually not the best solution. Between the lines, I understand that Mrs. Van Cauter will soon press the green voice button with long teeth.

Well, we have had a thorough debate. We also requested the opinion of the State Council. Following the justified comments of the State Council, amendments had to be made.

We also used the system of second reading, which has become a habit that works well. As a result, three amendments were submitted in the second reading, which means that the second reading is useful, as we all know in the Justice Committee. Per ⁇ we need to persuade our colleagues to do more in the other committees as well, because that would improve the quality of the legislation.

Until then the good news.

The less good news is that despite all the changes that were made after the State Council’s opinion and the second reading, we remain with a very fundamental and principled discussion in which we differ. The question is how the measure will be financed. Will the fund be funded by asking for a contribution to every prosecutor or accused, everyone who goes to court, or is it funded by public funds? In our view, this fund should clearly be financed with public funds. The applicant now receives an additional invoice.

This issue has been debated in the Justice Committee for years. It does not stop. A few years ago, court fees were increased. Then the VAT was introduced. Then the licenses were greatly increased.

However, the Constitutional Court intervened to raise the royalties and we were ordered to do our homework again; I am curious how that will happen. Furthermore, the argument of the Constitutional Court is interesting, and ⁇ that argument also applies to the current bill. The Constitutional Court said that it was enough now. Again and again, measures are being taken to make access to justice more difficult and more costly with arguments that, in terms of raising the fees, do not actually stand.

If this text would come before the Constitutional Court – I don’t know if that will happen – then I’m curious what the Court will do, but the argument it has used in the abolition of the increase of the greeting fees is still a very clear signal. A signal that asks to pay attention: here we are touching an essential principle of access to justice, an access that is made far too high. Additional thresholds are introduced, which is unsustainable.

What is it about? You have a shortage of 15 to 20 million to be able to pay out the pro-Deo fees. I find it very sorry. Mr. Minister, there have been money flows to the Belgian State, though not directly to the Justice Department, but especially to your colleague of Finance when it comes to VAT and the customs duties. You can do it until August 1st and then we have to find a solution. That money would go to justice. Then you would not have to introduce a tax of 20 euros.

In addition, you should take into account the administrative burden. You implement this system in order to collect 15 to 20 million, but there will be administrative costs, which have not been taken into account, so again a very unfortunate measure that will significantly raise the threshold.

As for the principle, but I would like to address two aspects. In what matters is this applicable? We have had a whole discussion about this and the problem of the classactions was clarified, but I still have difficulties with, for example, the homologation.

Homologation occurs when the parties in a conflict find themselves out of it, conclude an agreement and go to the court to ask whether the court can give it legal force; they ask the court to homologate it so that it has a certain proof force and the parties, if there are problems, have a title to be able to enforce.

There must also be paid. Where one actually asks for a service from Justice – we had a conflict, we have agreed, it is on paper, puts a signature and a stamp on it – also for that one has to pay.

What one should not pay for is the application of the law of repurchase, the friendly settlement. That was stated in your first text, Mrs. White. It was in it before, but it was taken out. I know that the Constitutional Court had problems with this. We will see what solution will come out of the bus, but that will only be after the results of the Kazachgate investigation committee.

If, however, the majority would later decide to keep that law in a certain form, as it is today or in another way, and we want to apply that tax to it, then we will have to change that law again.

We are in favour of the abolition, but if they keep this, I suggest 10%. If one recovers 200 million euros per year through the Rescue Act, then 10% is 20 million euros and the hole is closed.

We need to think about how to ensure that there is no inequality, but that is my suggestion. I think that then ten or twenty people in this country, who have a lot of money to buy off a fine, can make a small contribution for them that we can finance the second-line aid. That would be fairer for me than smashing out the invoice on everyone, in whatever situation one is in, to go to justice.

This government makes justice more and more a luxury product, an unpaid service. This is the evolution that has been ongoing for years. This is completely unacceptable for us.

Therefore, we will later vote against it with a lot of conviction. I will abstain because I have a vote agreement with a sick colleague.

Mr. Secretary, it will not be. Mrs. De Wit, it will not be. Dear colleagues of the majority, it will not! A triple no to your proposal, which is just a disguised bill.

What are we discussing? From the access to justice for the most disadvantaged, and more specifically from the financing of this access, since we all know that justice has a cost.

Mr. Minister, in my young career as a lawyer, I did what was still called pro deo – which is no longer called pro deo. It was then practiced truly free pro deo: without any remuneration. I even remember that on the envelopes, which were not to be released due to agreements with La Poste, it was necessary to switch to the release - so that the trainee lawyers had to pay the stamps.

Then, and it seems to me all in the honour of our democracy, it was considered that this system was somewhat banal and not quite normal. It has been said that a public service is being run for several people and that it may be time for it to be properly paid. This is how the idea of funding for legal aid was born.

Mr. Minister, dear colleagues of the majority, the functioning of the judiciary, the access to justice as well as its financing for the most precarious concern a public service that is performed by private persons, namely the lawyers – who, as I just recalled, have financed the system for a whole time. With the proposal that is submitted to us today – and the loop will be closed – it is the justiciable who will now finance the access of the most disadvantaged to justice. Where is the state in view of this system? Apart from appointing a few judges – therefore, not 100% – and hosting Justice in generally ruined buildings, where the state still intervenes in the financing of legal aid?

In addition to this, Mr. Minister and dear colleagues of the majority, the other during the financing of legal aid is to ensure that lawyers who practice it receive a decent remuneration.

Should we be pleased with the text that is proposed to us since it has, we are told, as a virtue of financing this legal aid? I don’t believe it, and I told you. It will be a no, and a not very firm, on the part of my group. Why Why ? Just recently, on the occasion of the topical questions, I used the word “abdication”. I will come back to it right now. Obviously, the State abdicates its obligations in the financing of this public service and access to justice, and abdicates them.

As usual with this majority, it is privatized. It’s a bit like saying, “I’m going to put the burden of this funding on the justiciable. This will allow me to fulfill my obligations.” This is a political choice, and you have already repeatedly recalled it in this tribune. This is an ideological choice: to make support by “the client”, not the recipient of legal aid, but the “client” who, precisely, he, can not claim to legal aid, the financing of this service, instead of the state. It is an ideological choice, which I would ⁇ never have made and that my group would never have made. I do not understand that this choice can be made. It is up to the state to finance services that are still fine. Of course, this is done through taxes.

You will tell us that you will only ask for 20 euros at the end. It is a kind of door-to-door, which must be paid in order to be able to file a proceedings in court. The majority who spoke has repeated it before: there are budget constraints, one does not yet know how to do what one wants. We can no longer do what we want, nor even fulfill our fundamental state mission. We need to find funding sources elsewhere.

Dear colleagues of the majority, public protection, the police service that we provide in our municipalities and at the federal state level is a true public service.

Have you ever imagined, even for a moment, asking those of the concerned population to call a police service to pay 20 euros first, under the pretext of financing problems of this service? This would not come to anyone’s idea. However, this is exactly comparable to what you do with regard to the financing of legal aid.

Also, you will understand that I do not see this measure as an objective solution. That is why I think it should be rejected. You’re going to ask for 20 euros, but to whom? Not to all taxpayers, not to the recipients of legal aid; they would not be able to do so – which has not prevented your government from already introducing a package of €50 to be charged to the recipients of legal aid. Who is going to pay the 20 euros that are being discussed at the moment? The justiciables, not beneficiaries of legal aid, who will dare – since this is the term that, it seems, will impose itself – to initiate a judicial procedure or who will be prosecuted before a correctional court.

“These 20 euros don’t mean much,” they say to me. But this is a new increase in transplant fees that adds to the previous ones, already voted by this government. Even if, Stefaan Van Hecke has just recalled it, the Constitutional Court obliges you to review your copy.

Who will pay those 20 euros? Who will have difficulty paying them? Everyone who is already in a difficult situation. This is confirmed by all legal professionals. These are those who have rights to claim in court but are hesitant to do so because they do not benefit from legal aid, or significant income, or tax deductions for lawyer fees. They will end up wondering if they are interested, despite the importance of what the procedure can represent for them, in lengthening a whole series of fees, saying to themselves that they are likely to lose them if they do not earn their stock.

And it is not because we have won a trial, because the expenses are placed on the part that succeeds, that we will have a 100% chance of recovering all the costs and expenses, as they are called. Indeed, one may face a convicted person or an opponent who is obliged to repair a damage but who is insolvent. In this hypothesis, the 20 euros will be definitively lost, all the profit being for the state that will thus finance the legal aid.

Mr. Minister, if this is not part of a concerted overall plan, wanted, we find ourselves facing an addition of measures, of measures presented as being of little importance, starting from the principle that 20 euros, it is not serious, that 50 euros, it is still feasible. The increase in transplant rights, my God, but here is it! The judiciary must focus on its essential tasks. Maybe she should not do a number of things anymore.

I wonder whether the ultimate goal is not to divert as many as possible of the justiciable from the judicial apparatus, so as to be able to remain in the budgetary nails imposed from the outside, without objective analysis of the real needs of the judicial world, but also of the population that may, one day or another, find themselves justiciable. It is, ultimately, diverting justice from the vocation that is his own.

Until now, the majority has repeatedly stated that there are constraints and that solutions need to be found.

Dear friends of the CD&V, dear members of the majority, is there no other way to go and get the money? However, at first glance, the amount is not as important as one might think, since it is about 15 or 20 million that would be covered by the 20 euros in question.

In the interposed press, we hear regularly about the willingness to tax surplus values. This is even one of the goals of a part of the government. Do you not think that, thanks to a taxation of surplus-values, even minimal, we would have a much more interesting budgetary mass that would allow to finance the legal aid otherwise, without yet appealing to those who already have difficulties to go before a judge? Do you not think that this would allow these people to appeal to justice without being prosecuted or questioned by financial aspects that do not have their place when choosing to assert their right in court?

Even if, in the beginning, some may consider that this is a wrong right, we will still have to wait for a magistrates to say it. I think there are other ways than the ones you have suggested that would lead to the same outcome.

Mr. Minister, do you really believe that, thanks to the system set up, you will be able to properly compensate the lawyers who still accept today to practice legal assistance? You may no longer find enough of those private individuals who agree to fulfill a regal service instead of the state. Do you think you will be able to improve the compensation, while we are still within a closed envelope? Legal assistance is equivalent to 26 euro gross per hour. One point is one hour and there are more and more subjects that fall into the field of legal assistance. We talked about the extension with the Salduz law. Because of your limited envelope, you will always face a misery compensation for lawyers.

There are today lawyers who, by practicing legal assistance – that is, by associating themselves with the duties of the State to allow the most disadvantaged access to justice – find themselves in a situation of precariousness or even distress. I learned, a few years ago, that in my bar, some trainee lawyers appealed to the insertion income. It is to tell you that at some point, the problem is on the side of the justiciable to whom it is necessary to guarantee access to justice, but it is also on the side of the lawyers who will no longer be able to accept, due to the indecency of the compensations offered to them, to practice this legal aid.

Mr. Minister, you will have understood, the political and ideological choices made by the majority, I cannot share them, my group does not share them. We will not support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to see that this proposal has been dealt with in the Justice Committee, while it should have been in the Finance Committee, since it is purely and simply a new tax!

However, it is true that this reduces access to justice, contrary to what I could hear from some of the co-authors. There is a problem with access to justice in this country: too few people can use a pro deo lawyer. Indeed, the income ceiling is too low, the access threshold continues to increase and the underfinancing of legal assistance leads to great uncertainty among lawyers who commit themselves in favor of those who are entitled to a pro deo lawyer.

I am surprised that the right, and especially the MR, has this anti-fiscal demagogy in this file. Finally, a citizen pays the natural persons tax and says to himself that he has access to state services, including justice. He accesses that justice, but he realizes that in addition to his personal tax, he must pay VAT on lawyer fees, plus the transplant fees, which you have even increased. Then he discovers the moderators tickets, in one or another case.

How do you call this accumulation of taxes in the jargon of your party?

... and solidarity.

Solidarity is not in your jargon. How do you call this?

The tax rage!

The tax rage. It is the PS that must give the answer to the MR! It is serious!

Tax rage is the accumulation of taxes. But this is not about any taxes. The tax on natural persons is progressive: the higher you have a high income, the more you pay a large tax. VAT is already much less fair because it is proportional and everyone pays the same rate.

The tax that is discussed here is completely regressive: the higher one has a high income, the lower the tax rate. For Albert Brother, the tax does not mean anything. For Albert Brother’s concierge, for example, who would have a legal dispute with his boss, the tax rate is much higher.

This is what you do through this system. It follows the principle of “the user pays”.

I could also compare with the health insurance system: only the sick would contribute to a fund funding their care. It is crazy! The social security system, which applies true solidarity – not yours, which is biased – implies that each fellow citizen contributes according to his means.

Your system is opposed to solidarity. It also creates uncertainty regarding financing as the amount of funds raised will depend on the persons who will resort to judicial proceedings. It could have a perverse effect. If fewer people appeal to justice, unable to pay these fees, there will be fewer and fewer money in your fund. Consequently, the purpose of this law, namely the payment of the pro deo, will not be achieved.

In conclusion, I would like to say that access to justice is a democratic right and not a luxury. Justice is a public service – although I know that the right does not like this expression of “public service” – and should remain so while with your reforms it is less and less so.

In order not to increase the access threshold further, the existing item of legal assistance must be increased in the budget. The solution should be that the value of an hour of work as a lawyer is set at at least 75 euros and therefore there is no question of closed envelope financing. This would end the uncertainty for lawyers and ensure quality work while ⁇ ining the right to justice, including for the most disadvantaged.

It is in the general budget that the resources must be taken. Therefore, the PTB will vote against this proposal.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, like other speakers, I wonder what your real conception of legal aid as a condition of access to justice is.

In short, you are ripping up the system, without having the courage to raise the real debate that is that of access to justice for the greatest number of citizens. This is a principle debate. This is a debate that the bars want to be conducted for a long time by the legislator, by the government but, in reality, it is a debate that is continuously postponed because you have, as your sole concern, the search for new revenues to try to find balances – increasingly threatened by your policy – of financing Justice. This is the basis of all the reasoning you have put in place. And I am grateful to Mrs. Van Cauter for having the frankness to say that this is a very bad walk, a very bad walk. This is a choice that simply aims to tell the entitled: you are ultimately responsible for the financing of legal aid, regardless of your financial status and, including, those with low or very medium incomes because, ultimately, you will be charged essentially on those entitled ones.

It is not the commercial societies, it is not a number of justiciables who will obviously see some difficulties but it is the justiciable citizen who, he, has only his only income from labour to finance the recourse to justice and, sometimes, his income from labour is very modest.

It is therefore an ideological choice that makes the middle class, and more ⁇ the representative justifiable of the lowest middle class in its income capacity, bear the burden of financing a service as essential as that of legal assistance. It is a real ideological choice against the middle class you make and against the lowest incomes, for not having the courage to put up the true debate about access to justice.

For example, I can understand that we are told that tax revenues are what they are, that we are not going to overload. But you did not think about how to ⁇ set a percentage of the insurance premiums taken for legal assistance: to allocate, as is done for other policies, in terms of financing of the Victim Aid Fund for example, a part of the premium paid for legal assistance to insurance companies, to the financing of legal assistance.

The mass would be enlarged. There might be a more proportionate criterion. Because of course, those who pay high insurance premiums would pay more to go to court. This is a proportionality principle that would probably have been more just than your system. But you did not choose that. You have chosen what could be called taxation rage.

When you add all the tariff increases you have invented – the transplant fees and the moderator ticket for those who use second-line legal aid – every time you tell us that these are modest contributions, that the amounts are modest, almost insignificant.

I am addressing those who are still lawyers; when you see the convictions and make the record of all the costs and other costs of justice that come in addition to the main conviction, you see substantial increases in the cost of justice. To the point that those who fear to be the subdued party question themselves and no longer dare to defend themselves in court. Those who have financial problems, who must assume from average or modest income, make the calculation to see if the risk of trial is ultimately not penalizing financially in relation to their contributive capacity. How far will you push this infernal reasoning that is undermining the trust of the justiciable in the role and importance of the judiciary? This is what I accuse mostly of your ideological approach.

This is what you are implementing. The result is that either you accept private arbitration formulas (those who can finance it do); or false negotiations, to the point that the lawyers themselves advise to accept a compromise between the parties, even to the point that your rights are no longer recognized in their entirety, because it is better than to assume the costs of the court costs. Or, simply, you renounce any defense of your rights and you sometimes abandon your claim, sometimes the rights that you can yet ask the justice to make respect.

I will finish with one aspect. I am convinced that your law will go to the Constitutional Court without problems, because you have only answered imperfectly. You selected some aspects of the State Council opinion but did not answer all of its arguments, in particular with regard to the principle of equality and non-discrimination. For example, you have targeted certain administrative courts to claim the obligation to pay a supplementary role fee, but you have not targeted all of them. Only the State Council and the Council for Foreign Disputes are concerned. Why are all other administrative jurisdictions forgotten in the legal reasoning that is yours? There is no explanation. I can tell you that tomorrow you will have an appeal before the Constitutional Court to try to understand this difference in treatment depending on whether you are before certain administrative courts and not before others. I believe you will be familiar with a famous legal problem in the coming months!

So you invented a system that has been the subject of a very interesting opinion of the State Council, by the way. When you read this review, you find that it invited you to abandon this system. He told you that you were mistaken about several aspects. But you persisted, and then the government, as well understood, took back the hand. He had to rearrange a bill that was eventually very poorly drafted, and found a bad balance, a bad outcome in the underlying debate that you didn’t want to address.

Mr. Minister of Justice, we expected, as soon as the government took back the hand, that you conduct a reflection of a different scale rather than refining what was already misconceived from the beginning. When you embark on a way without a way out, you may try to find a way through, but you always find a new way without a way out, and that is what threatens you. There is no way to go before the Constitutional Court. We will discuss this issue again in a few months. But how much time is wasted on a truly essential issue such as the access to justice!

This is a legislative proposal. A government intervention may, but should not, Mr. Minister.

I will no longer intervene on the basis of the case. We have in the committee, with the opinions of the State Council and the second reading, sufficiently spread this matter. It is clear that we are implementing the government agreement. I am very grateful to the N-VA and the other parties of the majority because they have drawn this proposal, as agreed in the government agreement.

Furthermore, I would like to emphasize that the legal aid insurance will in any case be reduced. I am far advanced with this. Those who are just above the pro-Deod threshold will also have better access to court in the future. The preliminary draft law on mediation is also ready. This also comes into account.

Finally, you also know, colleagues, that this proposal should be able to go to the Senate for a bit, as regards the section on the State Council and the Council for Foreign Disputes. The other loop will immediately be followed by an implementing decision. I therefore hope that we will be able to apply the contribution from 15 April or, at the latest, from 1 May 2017, in order to help cover the costs of Salduz bis. The graffiti are being prepared as well as possible for a long time.