Proposition 54K2050

Projet de loi modifiant le Code d'instruction criminelle en vue de promouvoir la lutte contre le terrorisme.

General information ¶

Authors

N-VA Peter Buysrogge, Karolien Grosemans, Koen Metsu, Sarah Smeyers, Valerie Van Peel

Submission date

Sept. 22, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

professional secret judicial inquiry public prosecutor's department social security criminal procedure terrorism access to information

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP DéFI ∉ PVDA | PTB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.
• Francis Delpérée (LE) 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 ¶

May 4, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs are Mr Hellings, Vanden Burre and Crusnière. They refer to the written report.

This proposal has taken a very long way. Actually, I still do not understand this today. Apart from some legal discussions, I honestly expected this to be a walk through the park, the logic itself: if someone comes across a terrorist crime, there is only one thing that counts. That information should be sent to the competent services as soon as possible so that worse can be avoided. That sounds logical, right?

This is already the case for every citizen today. If you come across a terrorist crime as a citizen, you must report this to the prosecutor’s office. Otherwise, one becomes guilty of guilty failure. Until now, only social workers were subject to professional secrecy.

To claim that current legislation is sufficient to enable secret officers to report terrorist crimes is the truth of violence. In fact, at present, professional secrecy has absolute priority over the declaration obligation of citizens and officials. This is regulated in Articles 29 and 30 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Persons bound by professional secrecy may report terrorist offences only if the conditions of the state of emergency are met. This is an exception created by jurisprudence that allows different interpretations. In order to meet the conditions of the state of emergency, there must be a real and serious danger that cannot be avoided by any other means than by communicating the data. Furthermore, there must be an actual, certain and serious danger to the interest to be protected which cannot be protected by any other means than by breaking the secret.

Are you still with? I actually not. Even for the judge it is a difficult task to determine whether the conditions of the state of emergency are fulfilled or not. I’m not saying that, the law teaching says that. So for a social worker, it is even more difficult to make such a consideration.

By the way, not all terrorist crimes can fall under the state of emergency today. This bill now creates a legal basis for breaking the professional secret, which is obvious. At least much clearer than the conditions of the emergency state.

The legal certainty of the person concerned is therefore only advanced. Not backwards, as can be claimed here.

And yes, it becomes a duty. If one has such information, there should not be a moment of doubt.

It is also very clearly chosen for the protection of employees by not punishing the reporting obligation. Nor is it the result of the investigation that will determine whether the employee breached his professional secret or not correctly, in application of this law, but rather the question of whether the employee has the inherent belief that he has been struck by a terrorist crime.

Since no criminal sanction is linked to the reporting obligation, this duty is above all a moral duty, but also an important duty. For those who would still doubt the necessity of this proposal, I can point out the following. The reality has proven for years that some OCMWs – a minority, but a minority that gets the most to deal with it, namely some Brussels OCMWs – do not show any willingness to think about what was legally possible here today.

The College of Prosecutors-General has been warning for years that at every question in a terror investigation to some Brussels OCMWs they are returned a standard letter containing not much more words than: “Sorry, but professional secret.” For example, if they had questions about the real places of residence of arrested terrorists, it remained in that Brussels OCMW’s mouse silence, let alone that they are inclined to report something themselves.

To those who come here later to tell you that all this is not necessary: the reality is against you.

Certainly so remarkable is that those who come today claim that it can already today and that it happens, often five minutes later end their argument with the phrase: “This proposal goes ridiculously far.” Both views are difficult to reconcile.

This bill provides clarity for all stakeholders and guarantees a better flow of information, which is crucial in the fight against terrorism. If the Prosecutor’s Office, within a terrorist investigation, asks a social institution questions about benefits or the actual place of residence, that institution will be obliged, under penalty of a fine, to answer them. If one of the employees himself, during the execution of his job, hits a terrorist crime, then there is no time to lose and he or she will have to report this stante pede.

The employee concerned no longer needs to worry that he may be exposed to prosecution for infringing his professional secret. This is what this proposal provides: clarity and legal certainty. Sorry for those who envy it!

To all those who continue to claim that we are thus looting the professional secret and thus undermining a democratic principle, I would like to say the following. Professional secrecy is not absolute. This has never happened and it has good reasons. If a democratic order of judgment is that prevails over another interest, the professional secrecy must deviate from this. Now, honestly, I wonder who would think that the safety of our citizens is less important than the bond of trust that a terrorist has with a social worker. You can raise your hand, because I would like to know who. (No one raises the hand)

I already thought so. Professional secrecy is never intended to be inviolable. Professional secrecy is never meant to protect terrorists better than our citizens, and that is where we today draw the boundary.

On the French-speaking side, the bill caused even more commotion than in Flanders, often also through a lot of disinformation, until in Le Soir, I thought, a letter appeared from the father of a victim of the attack in Maalbeek, after statements of the rector of the ULB. I think the discussion was silent at that time. I called that person and asked if I could read his letter. I will do it in Dutch, with the greatest respect for the victim, Aline, who it is about, and the family and relatives of the victim, but in the hope that certain colleagues will think about the criticism they have sprinkled unjustly about the present bill.

“My daughter Aline studied and obtained a master’s degree in communication at your university, one of the fundamental principles of which is the struggle against obscurantism and dogmatism. Unfortunately, her short life abruptly ended on March 22, 2016 in Maalbeek, crushed by terrorism and religious fanaticism. The investigation is still ongoing, but it is slow and laborious, and although we have placed our civil party, we do not have access to the investigation file, as the law allows us, because unfortunately we have too much and this material is impossible. So we wait patiently and trust the investigative judge in charge of the file.

That being said, you probably understand my disbelief and my amazement when I hear this through the voice of the Prime Minister in response to your free tribune: “In September 2015, the Brussels Attorney General regretted in his opening speech the attitude of certain OCMWs who refused to cooperate with Justice in the context of investigations into certain social benefits beneficiaries who are suspected of terrorist activities by hiding behind their obligation to respect professional secrecy.”

This statement was confirmed during several hearings in the House within the framework of the Parliamentary Investigative Committee of 22 March. On this occasion, both the federal prosecutor and various officials of the police services pointed out the problems relating to professional secrecy, behind which certain services and their employees hid themselves in the context of investigations related to terrorist crimes.

As a reminder, during his interrogation by the Investigative Committee on 3 October 2016, the Attorney General of Brussels pointed out that a few days earlier he had received a letter from the OCMW of the city of Brussels refusing to cooperate in a terrorist investigation under the guise of professional secrecy.

In order to remedy this situation, the majority rightly proposes, and with the praiseworthy assistance of the opposition party CDH, a bill to abolish the secrecy of social workers, but only in the case of terrorism.

That you reject any change on that level is one thing, and that is your right as a citizen. The fact that you believe you can use the moral authority associated with your function is another matter that deeply saddens me. At some point in history, the professional secrecy of bankers was still demonstrated. Can we still imagine that this would still exist under the same circumstances?

It seems incomprehensible to guarantee the way professional secrecy is used today as described above. In this case, it is not a case of shop theft or strikes and injuries. These are 32 innocent people who have been killed and dozens of traumatized individuals who will have to bear their suffering throughout their lives.

The State has not been able to guarantee their safety and will no longer be able to make them right because the perpetrators who have disappeared will remain suspects forever. In any case, they at least have the right to the truth behind this tragedy and it would be inhumane to remember those secrets.

While the families of the victims have been struggling to grasp compensation procedures for almost a year and have to mourn through sleepless nights that will undoubtedly demand their toll, the national authorities have the duty to do their utmost to ensure that other citizens are not hit equally in the future.

There is no utopian world, no utopian world. Taking your resort in denial and rejecting any change does not help us. This will only benefit our enemies, who use all our weaknesses to try to disrupt our society.

If we are unable to stand up, then the philosopher Michel Onfray will unfortunately be right when he says: “After a period of terror, in which the West’s blood was abundantly shed, we can only and only answer with candles and hugging animals, poems and silent rallies which are signs of the nihilism in which we wander away.”

Pierre Bastin, father of Aline Bastin.

We obviously all got acquainted with this white card that was written by the father of one of the victims. This is a dramatic, painful testimony. The words that are chosen do not leave anyone indifferent. I understand the anger and incomprehension of this gentleman who wrote his letter in response to the plea of the rector of the ULB. I am, after all, uncomfortable that you use it in this debate, because this white card speaks of the pain of the father of one of the victims. We have all been asked to give our opinion in response to this letter.

We know that there is no question here of obstructing the best possible collaboration between CPAS and justice. This is what this man denounces. But he did not go into the detail, as we did in the committee, on the difference between the passive obligation and the active obligation, which you added in a second text and which poses the problems that we have been able to discuss in the committee.

I find that using this letter in this debate blurens the cards, because it is a real drama, a real suffering. Not all legal and technical elements are found in this white paper, which is normal. I would like to bring back the debate on less emotional bases, as there is a big difference between passive and active obligation and the impacts for field workers are strongly different too. I would like us to focus on this without interpreting the emotional statements of the relatives of the victims of the March 22 attacks.

I have already answered the legal questions in my first presentation. There will be another piece, but I found it important to communicate the letter, again, in consultation with the person himself. With all respect, this letter makes it very clear the importance of the bill. There has also been a lot of discussion about this. He puts it together very well. You call it an emotional call. I think the letter is excessively emotional. It is a very thoughtful letter from a man who has seriously thought about it. I find it not wrong to bring that letter here into the global debate to emphasize the importance of the proposal, again with the consent of the Lord himself and with all respect for his words. Furthermore, in French-speaking Belgium, a debate has been held on the corresponding letter.

That you want to conduct the legal discussion, I have no problem with this. You can do it; you have the word immediately. I have already rejected some of your points. We are talking about protecting our citizens. That should be our main task. This must be done with respect for everyone’s rights, that is true. That is why we also draw the line on terrorist crimes. How many times the VVSG and its Wallish counterpart can still declare that willingly and knowingly, it is not here today – I emphasize the word “no” – about radicalization. This is also consciously not the case. Indeed, local security cells, the so-called LIVCs, were established for this purpose, and colleague Terwingen submitted a bill on the shared professional secrecy, so that at the first signals for the best guidance one can sit together.

Such a system works, which is good. It is not an or-of-story, it is an en-en-story. This proposal is about terrorism in its purest form. The proposal is about terrorists. These are people who have travelled to Syria with the intention of fighting there. These are people who help prepare a terrorist attack. These are persons who cheer and incite other people to travel, to prepare, to act in weapons in order to commit attacks. These are people who incite others to commit attacks. These are persons who participate in activities of a terrorist group by providing material resources or by providing them with financial support. They are terrorists who have already committed an attack or who will commit it within a short period of time. All these matters are very clearly listed in the articles of the Criminal Code referring to terrorist crimes.

When there are serious indications for such matters, we should not doubt. Then this must be ⁇ to our security services, so that they can take the further steps necessary, and so that suffering can be prevented. Employees of social institutions have special information due to the nature of their relationship with their clients. It is absolutely not unthinkable that this information contains serious clues about what I have just stated.

In any case, the flow of information on terrorism is crucial. This may, without I want to anticipate the report of the committee of Mr Dewael, also be one of the most important conclusions of the work of the investigative committee on the attacks of 22 March. This is what the College of Attorneys-General has been asking for years. That is what is presented here today. More than ever, I am convinced that there should be no discussion about this. I hope that the same applies to you.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, gentlemen ministers, this assembly wishes unanimously to fight terrorism effectively and consistently and, therefore, to take the necessary measures to ⁇ it. Our opposition to the text presented to us today does not question this will at all. If this trial were to be made to us, it would be false and unhealthy to imply that we do not want this text because we would not be in the front line to strengthen the fight against terrorism. Simply put, we do not share and do not want to share a security vision that undermines our most precious values and rights including the right to social security, the right to social assistance and, above all, the right to respect for privacy.

You seal this security vision into a text of such inaccuracy that it opens wide the door to the arbitrary without preventing terrorist acts. I would like to remind you of a consideration of the State Council, in its opinion of 24 June 2016: “We do not understand why confidential information held by members and staff of the CPAS is so much more relevant and necessary in the fight against terrorism than confidential information held by other trusted persons.”

Today, terrorists have different trajectories. Some had stories, many were quidams without history, Mr. and Mrs. All-the-World. Individuals who were involved in the CPAS and involved in bloody acts showed no particular signs. Giudicelli said: “Since surveillance remains focused on radical Islam and its various outward signs leading forward, the next step should logically see a generation of individuals escaping these characteristics, in the seemingly smooth past, socially surrounded, perfect citizens, undetectable, early strong of an inner clandestinity... Nationals whose only outward signs are those of normality.”

This way induces a culture of suspicion. As Kofi Annan said after the 2005 Madrid attacks: “Violating human rights cannot contribute to the fight against terrorism. On the contrary, it makes it easier for terrorists to ⁇ their goals, by giving the impression that morals are in their camp, and by creating tensions, by arousing hatred and distrust of the government precisely among those among whom terrorists are more likely to find new recruits.”

We are not the only ones to denounce the text to be examined, to point out the dangers it contains, to think that it does not ⁇ the goal of fighting terrorism. I recall that the three CPAS federations, trade unions, human rights leagues, poverty-fighting networks, the youth aid sector, the CIRÉ, university professors, the rector of the ULB and many others have risen to the niche. Some were seen, in the early afternoon, in front of our parliament;

I will not cease to repeat it: professional secrecy is indispensable to the relationship of trust that the citizen must necessarily have with certain confidents. Social workers, doctors, lawyers, journalists, police officers, psychologists or teachers, for example, are bound to do so.

But, let us be clear, professional secrecy provided for in Article 458 of the Criminal Code is not an absolute right. We all know. It must, already today, in some cases, give way to other imperatives, the essential being always to preserve a balance between ⁇ ining the bond of trust and the protection of society as a whole. To believe the opposite today is a lie.

Yes, the lifting of professional secrecy is already planned in case of testimony in court or before an investigation committee. Yes, the lifting of professional secrecy is already envisaged in the case of infringement on minors or on a person vulnerable due to their age, a state of pregnancy, violence between partners, disease, infirmity or physical and mental disability! Yes, the lifting of professional secrecy is already planned in case of non-assistance to anyone in danger! Yes, the lifting of professional secrecy is already envisaged through the obligation that is made to any official to report to the Prosecutor of the King the crimes and crimes he would have known! The Code of Criminal Instruction.

In view of our legislation, professional secrecy does not, contrary to what this bill tries to make believing, constitute an obstacle to the fight against terrorism. All persons currently bound by professional secrecy can, in fact, already lift it in specific situations and, most of the time, let’s also acknowledge, the collaboration with the judicial authorities and the police services goes well. Was it necessary to ignore the information transmitted by the Attorney General of Brussels, who deplored, in September 2015, in his mercurial, the attitude of some CPAS refusing to collaborate with Justice by systematically cutting themselves behind professional secrecy? The answer is clear. and no!

And we also showed ourselves open in the context of the discussion about what has been called the passive information obligation and that, in order to find out how to clarify the situation. We supported the idea of a better collaboration between the Social Security Cross Bank and the judicial authorities that seemed to allow us to meet the objections that were raised.

We also supported the development of a circular aimed at defining a specific procedure for the information to be transmitted to the King’s Prosecutor on his request. Obviously, while these were constructive proposals, we were not heard.

And, despite this, we continued to be constructive. We have, for example, repeatedly requested that the necessary clarifications regarding the administrative information deemed necessary within the framework of this obligation of passive information may be made in the text, clarifications, I recall, also desired by the State Council. Some clarifications may have been made, I agree, and others, since Mr. Minister Borsus announces it to us, will ⁇ be made through a circular. I hope it.

But where we cannot join you in any way, it is in this obligation of active information that you impose today on the social workers but also on all members of the institutions of social security.

Those persons who, by their profession, become aware of one or more information that may "constitute serious indications of a terrorist offence" shall so declare to the King's Prosecutor. As the State Council pointed out, with this obligation of active information, one touches the very essence of professional secrecy. It affects professional secrecy in its substance, so the scope of the provision is broad.

According to the Council of State, it was also up to the legislator to judge the proportionality of such an obligation. It has repeatedly systematically recalled this and, in each of its opinions, encouraged the legislator to review these provisions and to proceed with this justification. This has not yet been done today. The legislature, in the committee, decided. This majority decided, reducing professional secrecy to the skin of sorrow, stigmatizing the social allocators again. And as I have just stated, the aim sought is likely not to be achieved.

All the members of the institutions of social security (including mutual companies, trade unions, and also the CPAS), or tens of thousands of staff members, are now assigned a mission that cannot be theirs, and for which, by the way, they are not trained. They are social assistants and not police indicators.

By forcing them to be the right arms of justice and police, your majority, your government, among other things, discredit social workers, making them believe that they would not measure the responsibility that is theirs. Your majority, your government, thus undermines the essential work they do on a daily basis, rather than addressing the deficiencies of security services by providing them with sufficient human and financial resources in the context of an effective fight against terrorism.

Your majority, your government, puts a new, too heavy, responsibility on the shoulders of the people concerned. Furthermore, as the State Council has said, this text is too vague, too vague, too imprecise.

This text opens the door to arbitrariness and creates real legal uncertainty. What information is a serious indication, rather than a clear indication, of a terrorist offence? It is about fighting terrorism, not fighting radicalism. How will the persons concerned be able to assess the relevance of information in relation to a terrorist offence? What will happen if they are wrong? What will be their responsibility and who will bear it in case of unfounded denunciation? Who will pay the damages to the unjustly suspected individual? What happens if it turns out that the indicators have not been transmitted? Dismissal of the employee concerned. Damage and interest? The criminal prosecution? There are many suspensive questions. As several professional organizations have announced, a complaint before the Constitutional Court is unfortunately not to be excluded.

The interests at stake in this case are multiple. They should not be removed from one side of the hand. It is the right of citizens to privacy, the duty for professionals subject to secrecy to preserve not only the relationship of trust necessary for the fulfillment of their mission, but also the general interest of society. These primary interests must all be protected. The legislator has always strived to maintain this difficult balance, which is now troubled by this text.

Our fears for tomorrow are big. We fear that this lifting of professional secrecy will extend to other professions: journalists, doctors, etc. We are also concerned that it will be extended to other offences. These concerns are legitimate. I recall that the Prime Minister tried to make the press believe that the lifting of professional secrecy was examined in the sole perspective of the fight against terrorism. However, Mr Borsus, you have expressed – as part of a response to a question I asked you – in favour of extending this obligation of information to other offences than those relating to terrorism. Maybe social fraud? Who believes in the government and the same political party?

Finally, there is your proposal, Mr. Minister of Justice, currently being considered in the Justice Committee; a text concerning shared professional secrecy. It has also been the object of a virulent opposition. This text remains vague, despite some amendments made, as it allows to lift the professional secret of all professionals held to the secret to avoid any harm to the physical or psychological integrity of a person, without the requirement of a minimum degree of seriousness, without the consent of the victim or the alleged perpetrator, on the basis of a simple fear and without that it is not necessarily justified.

The president of avocats.be, Jean-Pierre Buyl, estimated, in March last year, in the information letter of the Order, that the secret of those who hold the confidentiality of citizens by necessity, or even utility, is thus threatened. So the work of sape towards professional secrecy that you have begun is just beginning.

So, yes, we must fight terrorism effectively. We need to hear the victims. Yes, we need to provide effective solutions to ensure greater security for our citizens. But, clearly, the text that is on our banks today does not allow us to ⁇ any of these goals. Beyond the defense of social workers and social insurers, it is the defense of our fundamental freedoms that is at stake.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, as Eric Massin said and repeated at the moment – and this is probably the only point of his speech that I agree perfectly – I think that we all here share the goal of improving the fight against terrorism. To improve this struggle, one key is highlighted by the Attacks Commission: better circulation, better collection of information.

This will clearly emerge from the recommendations that will be published soon, following the work of this committee. This is one of the keys to improvement: circulation and collection of information.

Let’s go back in time for a moment. In September 2015, Mr. Delmulle, Attorney General, published a mercurial. I regret the attitude of some. It does not make it a generality. He does not say that they are numerous, but he regrets that some CPAS, in response to requests for information, oppose the rule of professional secrecy and shrink behind it.

This regret, he repeats to us a year later, as part of the hearings that are conducted by the committee investigating the attacks. He is reinforced in this rehearsal by another character from the Judicial Order who is Frédéric Van Leeuw, the federal prosecutor. We are not talking about a single case. Mr. Delmulle spoke about a situation encountered in 2015. Mr. Van Leeuw speaks on cases experienced a few days before his hearing in 2016. So this has repeated itself.

This obviously begins to worry not only the commissioners but also the victims (the father’s testimony has been heard). The reaction of some CPAS worries many people. Initiatives are taken.

What is it about? It is a proposal that has raised a lot of questions, a lot of reactions, a lot of criticism, a lot of questions. I think we should be able to listen to them. Above all, we must be able to meet them. What are we talking about here? We are talking about a proposal which has two objectives and which, in parallel, wants to clarify a situation with regard to social workers and with regard to institutions and their staff working in the field of social security.

The first objective is to compel social security institutions and their staff to provide the King’s Prosecutor with information – administrative information – about individuals who may be the subject of investigations relating to terrorist offences, when the King’s Prosecutor so requests. This is what was called the “passive part” of the proposal: the obligation to respond to the requests of the King’s Attorney.

This is the second issue, and I think it is the one that is being discussed. This includes the introduction of an obligation for institutional staff to report any information that may constitute a serious indication of the existence of a terrorist offence. This is the active part of the proposal.

I think that, there, we go beyond the Code of Criminal Instruction which obliges everyone to denounce crimes and crimes of which he has knowledge, because we are not talking here about a crime or a crime of which we have knowledge, but of the serious indication of the existence of an offence. We are therefore on the rise and, as the State Council has emphasized, in a wider, wider sphere, probably more questionable in the noble sense of the term, that of the debate. It is understood that all information relating to strictly medical data, and which have a personal character, will continue to be fully covered by the medical secret.

Dear colleagues, our group supports this proposal, because we consider that it absolutely does not question the work, the action of social workers. I know the social workers well, personally, because I started my political career at the presidency of a CPAS. For six years, I had great pleasure working with social workers and I was able to measure the difficulty of their work. Anyone who has exercised a mandate in a CPAS can understand what I say here.

They are first-line actors, yes. It is not up to me to say yes.

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to intervene in the debate, but to submit my presentation later. However, I feel attracted by my colleague, as I have also had the honor and pleasure of being the chairman of an OCMW for six years. I also generally have very much appreciation and confidence in the employees of OCMWs. I have spoken explicitly about what you call the active part of the bill, which introduces a duty for the social workers.

My question, as a former Chairman of an OCMW to a former Chairman of an OCMW, is whether you feel that your employees of the OCMW in Koekelberg, or anywhere else, have failed to take responsibility when they have seen criminal offences and to notify you or the police services of your area. Have you experienced this problem? What is the consequence for someone who knows something but does not do it for all sorts of possible reasons, for example because he does not find the right prosecutor’s phone number? What sanctions does the social worker risk if he does not do so?

You talk about CPAS and field actors. How do you explain that all the CPAS federations, the secretaries of the CPAS of the Brussels Region, have expressed themselves against this text, in particular against the active obligation? You yourself refer to your field experience, and the respect you show, like everyone here, for the work done within the CPAS. So I wonder how you feel interpelled by this movement of the ground that takes extremely clear position against this text. How do you explain it? Why have you not answered some of their expectations and some of their questions?

Mr. Speaker, in the case of former OCMW chairs, a current OCMW chairman may be able to answer first.

Mr Bonte, you had two questions, and as fellow OCMW chairman I can also answer you. First, does it happen that social assistants hit criminal acts and do not pass on them? Well, they should not pass on that today. There is a professional secret, except in an emergency.

So it depends on what it is about, Mrs. De Coninck. This is now subject to professional secrecy. That is why we are here today.

Mr. Bonte, you also asked how it can be that the VVSG and its Wallish counterpart are still against and that a lot of social assistants have indeed come out on the streets, especially in French-speaking Belgium; in Flanders this was not the case. I will answer what I said in my speech. Well, that may be because the VVSG three to five times, and its Wallish counterpart up to ten times, have sent a circulation letter in which they write actual untruths, in which, for example, black on white states that this bill applies to radicalization. I handed them the bill over and over again, and told them that this is actually not true, but they continue to communicate.

I only note that an independent organization apparently begins to engage in politics because otherwise it will not get the field grown up. If it were for radicalization and a duty, I agree that it would not be a good thing. For this, they have the LIVCs. This must indeed be dealt with in a different way.

This is about terrorist crimes. This is not to be discussed. Sorry, but the field has grown up. That is the reason. These are discussions that are being conducted within the OCMWs.

With this proposal, it is clear what they should do and they are legally protected if they do. So what is the problem?

Mr. Pivin, my goal is not to interrupt you, but I think we’re going to do some ping-pong!

Before I ask you my question, I would like to clarify that we are talking here about active denunciation, and therefore serious indications. There are no offences. I would like to recall Mrs. Van Peel, who talks about offences.

You are a former Chairman of the CPAS. This is an excellent thing. You have a field practice. I am still, in the current state of affairs. Imagine, tomorrow, a health care provider going to someone’s house and noticing, on the table of the dining room, a gsm disassembled with wires that go beyond. Is this a serious indication?

We are not here to play the Experts, Mr. Massin.

I would like to answer first to our colleague, Hans Bonte: I personally have never faced the slightest difficulty because I have always had the heart to talk with the staff of excellent relations of cooperation and collaboration. This is the philosophy that attempts to unleash this bill. So, I have never been confronted with the situation but it goes back to years when there was not so much talk about terrorism.

Today, we are faced with some reports of serious clues about fathers wishing to leave Belgium, etc. All elements come back, but the case of a CPAS in a municipality is not the case of all CPAS or all situations. We have never experienced the situation but, in any case, I have been able to find that, sometimes, social workers are uncomfortable to express something, ask themselves the question of whether they can say what they are ready to say. Sometimes I have collected confidentiality in my office, with all the precautions of use, because these people don’t always know if they can explain to you what they want to explain to you.

I think that’s also the clarification that this bill brings.

Mr. Pivin, if you receive in your office, as the Chairman of CPAS, people who ask themselves whether they can denounce or not, it is quite normal. You are subject to the same professional secrecy. Then, the denunciation that is referred to here is not that of a social worker or other worker providing under a CPAS that opens up to the general director, the director of the service of social assistance or the president of the CPAS about indications he has found. Here, we aim to transmit to the police authorities! It is not at all the same thing!

Mr. Pivin, I do not doubt the sincerity of your approach, and I confess that I can still understand the argument – and I will repeat it in my presentation – which is to establish a clear rule. But you just gave, I think, the answer to a real problem. You say to yourself, “I received in my office staff members who came to explain things to me.”

That is why I submitted an essential amendment that I think could reconcile many points of view. At some point, instead of weighing the burden on each staff member, you could allow them to have a referent. It would be either the highest official of the institution concerned, or the political authority. This referent would check whether the conditions are met for the transmission of the information to the judicial authorities and the police services. This is a guarantee of legal security.

You are not seeking legal security. You are looking for an effect of announcement, which will make that, in fact, very few members of the institutions concerned will transmit information on their own initiative, even if they are holders of certain findings. Someday we will make a review of the actual implementation of the law. It would therefore be wise to create the balance between the protection due to staff members and the guarantee of the effectiveness of the transmission of information, passing through a referent. If you had the intelligence to join this balance, you would gain security and efficiency, but you don’t want to make that choice.

I largely agree with what Mr. Maingain recently said.

Mr. Pivin, I would like to come back to what you said. A social worker in an OCMW may possess sensitive information and have doubts about whether or not to contact the police. It can include neglect, incest, a crime or a crime. What we are talking about now is terrorism. I think that the social worker is correct if she discusses the issue with her OCMW chairman in case of doubt.

This is, by the way — and I also address Minister Geens — also the philosophy of the Local Integral Security Cells, the LIVCs, in which the OCMW chairs, together with the police services, the mayors and possibly other persons if necessary, weigh the sensitive information and transfer it within the legal framework.

Mr. Pivin, what is stated here is exactly the opposite. Everyone is charged with the obligation to call the prosecutor immediately. In my explanation, I will also ask who is intended, because it goes much wider than the social assistants: in the discussion at the committee meeting there was a discussion about the chef, the gardener and I know a lot. Consequently, as president, you can no longer make a balance, nor the police services, because it is expected that the matter will be immediately ⁇ to the prosecutor. I wish the prosecutor a lot of success. I hope he has enough telephone lines. In practice, a lot of information is already transmitted within a legal framework. You have experience in Koekelberg, I in Vilvoorde.

Now I come to your comment, because indeed, that experience may not exist everywhere. However, for this purpose there are consultation platforms and associations of OCMWs and cities. The government should be happy, because according to the local authorities, the VVSG in Flanders, the LIVCs are the appropriate channel.

This is now completely crossed by the individual obligation imposed.

I also remain on my second question. What happens if someone knows something and does not transmit it? What sanction does that man, that woman, that gardener, that cook risk? I would like to know. So far I have not received an explanation on this.

I have already answered you five times, but I will do it again. There is no intentional sanction for not opening a hunt on employees.

The [...]

Maybe you can let me speak, then you will get the answer immediately.

What always remains is the guilty failure that also applies to ordinary citizens. If one deliberately and deliberately retains information, it falls under guilty omission. It is so for everyone. We all need to make that consideration. Why should a social worker not suddenly be able to do that?

As for that intermediary, I understand in itself that this is being talked about, but the parquet... You pretend that they all have to call the highest in rank. In the bill, the prosecutor of the King is stated, which means that they can go to the police. It is about that the direct link, the direct information, must come from the person himself in such matters.

I can only emphasize it again: this is not about doubts and conditions, this is about terrorism, about terrorist crimes. Therefore, the direct link has been created and therefore, in addition, a LIVC is being developed for a very different problem.

We’re really in an exchange, which is good; but I don’t think this is the place to reshape the entire committee debate. I think everyone should be able to move forward and express their point of view. If you allow it, I will continue.

Regarding the passive information obligation, the State Council has made no comments, we all know it. Regarding the obligation of active information, comments and observations were made. There have been amendments. Thus, since it was a topic of discussion, the authors recalled that the preparatory acts were also covered by the proposal. Otherwise, how could the difference in treatment between different offences be justified, since they are all of a terrorist connotation?

Finally, regarding the fact that the device would affect the privacy of the person who opens and communicates information to the person whose assistance will be requested by the prosecutor, the State Council says three things. The first is that a limitation to privacy protection must be provided in a law. This will be the case if this Parliament votes the draft. The second is that the text must pursue a legitimate purpose. I think that is important. Third, the State Council proposes that the legislator, i.e. us, assess whether the option of targeting all terrorist offences can be reconciled with the principle of proportionality. By saying this, the State Council invites us to make a political choice. And as you said, Mrs. Van Peel, this is a political choice in favour of better circulation of information in the context of the fight against terrorism.

Mr. Massin, you pointed out that professional secrecy is an important principle. I want to say that it is essential. But this is not an absolute principle. He already has exceptions. Two of them appear already in Article 458. The first is in the context of a testimony in court. And the second must be provided by a law.

Just after, in Article 458bis, there is still an exception to the principle of professional secrecy. And I think I read it in the letter that the prime minister had addressed to the rector of the ULB: between 2011 and 2016, not less than 5 times, we have deviated, in a legal way, from the principle of the protection of professional secret. These are two examples of these exemptions.

As soon as there are exceptions, let’s see to what extent one should be added in terms of terrorism. Mr. Massin, you said, “But all this is already planned. Article 458bis allows, when it comes to moral offences committed against a minor or a vulnerable person, to inform the Prosecutor of the King. But, attention, on the one hand, it is only offences against minors or vulnerable persons and, on the other hand, it is only when there is a serious and imminent danger to the integrity of the vulnerable person. So we ask the question of whether, in terms of terrorism, we must wait to face the imminent imminence of a danger. Is it not already too late at that time?

That is why this proposal should be, because it creates an ad hoc regime for social security institutions, and the State Council has not challenged it.

Mr. Peterson, I would like to thank you for reminding me of some things. You may have forgotten something that I think is important. All employees of social services are targeted. Most of them have the status of civil servants. You know the obligation to which they are subjected to report the crimes and crimes of which they are aware.

According to Article 29...

The abolition of professional secrecy. So don’t say that it’s just in case of testimony, that it applies to offenses against minors and that one has to wait. Other possibilities are planned.

I did not say this, and I even anticipated your statement, since I cited Article 29 by telling you that a nuance was necessary. Indeed, it deals with the obligation to report a crime or a crime, hence a committed offence, while one of the two parts in discussion does not concern it.

The same article obliges you as a citizen to report an offence to the prosecutor, but it does not provide that you must respond to a request for information from the prosecutor.

The [...]

Yes, but it is not planned either!

and yes!

I have to ask you to use your microphone.

Mr. Speaker, this is what I do, but the witness lamp unfortunately flashes.

We are here again conducting the legal discussion we have had in the committee. I have already answered that. However, I must admit that such a legal discussion in French is somewhat more difficult to follow.

If I understand it correctly, you say it is already so today. However, you forget that the legislation on professional secrecy is older and precedes Articles 29 and 30. We will discuss later on for whom the provision applies. Anyway, it is correct that every citizen that duty already has, that is perfectly correct, except for those with a professional secret. That article precedes Article 29 and Article 30. For this, you need to read the law. This is precisely why we are addressing this regulation today.

In the interventions of both Ms. Van Peel and Mr. Pivin, there is a systematic reference to the fight against terrorism and to immediate action. This is the term you have just used.

I take the common opinion sent in October 2016 by the Union of Cities and Communes of Wallonia, the Vereniging van Vlaamse Steden in Gemeenten (VVSG) and their Brussels equivalent. According to this opinion, paragraph 3, which precisely stipulates that the information must constitute "serious indications of the existence of a terrorist offence referred to in Book II, Title 1b of the Criminal Code", is dangerous. They call this terminology, which is used in the bill, dangerous.

Here, we are not in the absolute immediate. There are serious signs. This will be part of my recent speech. How can one at a given time put cursors and tags in relation to this? Regarding your speech, Mrs. Van Peel, and the questions I had asked Mr. Pivin, I repeat that all the CPAS federations oppose, in any case, this specific part. This is the great difficulty of this text.

I add that all field actors oppose it also in Flanders. That is why I asked you the question of how you react to this. A group of Brussels CPAS secretaries expressed their opposition. Finally, I would like to remind Ms. Van Peel that this opposition, although very firm in relation to that paragraph, was also expressed by the VVSG. Let us not be mistaken in our arguments.

Sorry, I had just lost your question.

I have the deepest respect for these institutions and for these federations, but by reading their text and other interventions in the press, I realized that there was not a lot of bad news, ⁇ not enough pedagogy or explanations. I also saw a variety of reasons that were expressed, some saying that the law is too blurred, others that we do not need this law. Finally, I have the impression that the people who spoke against, spoke against a text that is not the one we are discussing today.

That is my feeling. And the federations, which I deeply respect – excuse me to say, Mr. Vanden Burre – do not hold the truth, neither do we. I will therefore not kneel before a phrase, an expression or an argument emanating from a federation whether it be Wallonia, Flanders or Brussels.

I do not agree with the opinion expressed on this subject. Why Why ? Because, in my opinion, it starts from a totally wrong premise which consists in saying that we want to make all social workers collaborators, in the wrong sense of the term, Justice, indicators and that we want, in the end, to make flicking through social assistants. This is not exactly what is being discussed in this bill.

What is concerned, at least in our eyes and – I think I can say it – in the eyes of all groups of the majority, is a better cooperation between the social workers and the judicial institutions.

We should be able to join on this point. This is a way of fighting terrorism. Moreover, you know it because you participated in the work of the committee and you were present at the hearings, this is a philosophy that has been emphasized by several speakers in the committee Attacks. The head of Fedasil and the head of the Foreign Office told us that they were demanding better cooperation with social institutions.

As far as I am concerned, I share this philosophy which is also found at the municipal level, in CSILs where there is an exchange of information and where social workers also participate.

It is therefore high time to extend this philosophy to the sphere of social security institutions and, more specifically, CPAS.

I am not a member of the committee but I would like to react to what you have just said. You note that federations and social workers are worried and mobilizing on a text or provisions that are not those contained in the text of today.

I insist on the following point. There are already binding provisions for these social workers. When they detect any worrying elements, they must report it. However, you consider that in the specific case of terrorism, they must report it differently. But as this is not justified in their eyes, it is normal for them to bother and tell themselves that they are invented rules for a particular subject while they can quite address these concerns without having to modify the device as you plan here.

If you aim for a better collaboration philosophy, this is not the right way to take it! This must be built around values, ways of working together but not around a law text whose intent is not shared. Social workers feel threatened. At the limit, they will not be able to collaborate properly because they are disqualified in the way they perform their work.

I will try to explain it again. For radicalization there are the LIVCs, which is entirely true. This is about terrorist crimes.

Do you want to know why the social workers came out on the streets? I will read it to you. This is from the circulation letter of the VVSG. It was the third time in a row that this was written: “The Van Peel Act obliges individual OCMW staff members to report signs of terrorist crimes or possible radicalization to the King’s Attorney.”

This is manifestly false. They know that. I have said it over and over again.

I have not read the French text yet.

In conclusion, we are in favor of a change in the functioning of the partnership between social operators and justice operators. We see that in other countries, whether in France or Denmark, another dynamic has been established, with better collaboration between all actors. This is what some have called, ⁇ within the framework of the commission of inquiry, the “security community”. We are supporters of a larger security community, in which social workers must be able to join us without a state of mind and under the cover of a law that protects them and which is ⁇ not there to worry them.

Since you referred to the work of the investigation committee, I wanted to react because I am also part of it. We have heard the same things and we share the finding of the need for better information and an intelligence community. Our controversy in this debate does not place here. I do not want to give the impression that we disagree with these findings that are made in the commission of inquiry, because we fully agree with them.

Here, the real change of society that this text brings, in the wrong direction in our opinion, is the part that concerns the active obligation to inform, which holds in a short paragraph. And that, we never talked about it in the commission of inquiry, except when we heard, for other reasons, the officials of the CPAS federations, and that they repeated to us, even if it was not the subject of the hearing, how much they were opposed to this text. Let us not tell the commission of inquiry what it does not say. Yes to better collaboration, but we have never talked about active obligation and such disposition. Do not confuse the topics.

First of all, I am pleased that we can finally debate in your presence, Mr. Minister. The current bill has already caused a lot of commotion. This has been discussed repeatedly in the committee. However, we have never had the opportunity to hear the views of the government and the Minister of Justice.

I think the proposal is in line with what the government wants to do in the fight against terrorism. In my view, a number of questions remain open and it also involves risks, which I would very much like to present to you as Minister of Justice.

Even though I will primarily address the government, I still have to say the following of my heart with regard to Mrs. Van Peel. Her position, which she formulated when she left the speaker’s floor, that there should be no discussion about the proposed measures – and we have debated the text for a very long time – does not fit in Parliament. This is a sensitive topic that affects a lot of people who are engaged in safety and social work.

I think we should discuss this. I think the comments of colleagues in the committee are worth discussing.

Furthermore, you suggest that the opposition, in this case the socialists, is less concerned about an efficient security policy.

We are shocked by the events in Maalbeek and Paris. I don’t need to read letters to be shocked. When I visit some of my staff members who are still in treatment today, I know what we are talking about. Based on this, I do not pretend that you would be less engaged than me.

We have agreed here once that, beyond the boundaries of majority and opposition, we must together seek out methods to ensure the highest level of security for our country. You will always have an ally in sp.a to cooperate on an efficient security policy. And we will take this role with great enthusiasm. I have not yet missed a committee meeting. We will also bring our expertise into the debate. We are therefore very engaged in the debate, which must result in an efficient security policy.

I read today the response of colleague Degroote to a report that we discussed yesterday in the accompanying committee of Committee P and which concludes that the deployment of military personnel has not reduced the workload of the police. Well, Mr. Minister, I can give you a whole series of conclusions that are on the table with the government – I have also learned that every report we receive from Committee P is also submitted to the government – about which we have been discussing for a long time and which are also pushed forward from the police services, in order to increase efficiency in security policy, but for some reason fall under the dust and with which nothing is done.

Thus, nothing is done with the problem that police services perceive in connection with the coherence of the recommendations in the context of the terrorist threat, even though it is black on white in their reports.

This also applies to structural problems. Indeed, we read in all sorts of reports that there is a structural problem – also Ms. Van Peel has referred to it – regarding the flow of information between the federal and local police. We read that. We know that. Two years ago we knew this. Last year we knew that. It is absurd that police services that have to monitor radicalised or potential terrorists can watch public cameras in their area, except when they are hanging in a station or subway. This problem would have been solved two years ago. This problem would be solved last year. I understood last week from your colleague, the Minister of Home Affairs, that a new law on the exchange of camera data is coming. They continue to encourage.

It is also not new that, according to reports, LIVC is still not established in some places, even in vulnerable places. Nevertheless, the government makes the right action on the LIVCs, as they can ensure that data is exchanged correctly at the local level, including between social services and local police services. There is also no policy conducted to force its creation.

I must also say, like the top of our security services, that I am shocked by the fact that secret reports of the State Security are suddenly posted on a website or are given by a minister to a member of the Flemish Parliament, which fundamentally undermines the functioning of the State Security. There is no reaction against it. I have not heard that one or the other is being persecuted. However, this should happen, so it is explained. You don’t have to hang it on my nose.

In short, I can only repeat the words of the people of the State Security and of the OCAD, with whom I sat at the table last week, that such practices are ⁇ nefaste for the functioning of the intelligence services and that there will be a very great reticence to share still confidential information, not only with external but also with police services.

That is what they come to tell me. I do not see any outrage from the Minister of Internal Affairs or the Minister of Justice. You should not hang it at my nose, but those things happen, even under terror threat level 3.

I can also assume, Mr. Minister, that there are urgent questions on your table for emails about how police services should act against people who have psychiatric problems and are dangerous. These questions are on your table and on the table of the Minister of Home Affairs. From my experience, I know that these typologies return to the OCAD list.

From the police world, they are asking or screaming for clarity about this. These questions remain unanswered. Everything is pushed on the long track. They do not look at it. The LIVCs, which were not established, are also not established now. It remains so. What will come? Two bills, one from N-VA and one from MR. That is the deal. They must each have a symbol, but the question of whether this works efficiently is never addressed to the bottom. This is exactly what I am trying to get here again. I would like to address you as a responsible and competent Minister.

I would like to draw your attention once again to the fact that we too – I repeated it at every meeting, Mrs. Van Peel, and I repeat it now also with regard to the minister – are shocked when OCMW’s pertinent refuses to provide information, despite the request of the prosecutor. We may have been as angry as many of you.

Therefore, we have not much to say about the first section of the bill. We have repeatedly made this clear.

A second case came into consideration later: I really fear the way of work in which one is obliged to report serious indications. It should be clear what this exactly means. What are those serious signs? An example was given, but there was no answer. What does it mean that all those social assistants are “mandatory”? Is it about social assistants? The applicant explained that the chef and the gardener of the OCMW, who, in my opinion, are not bound by the professional secret, also have an additional duty.

The [...]

Mrs. Van Peel, you have said, “If the chef finds a bomb in his soup, he must...” It has to be clarified. I do not make illusions about whether the majority will approve this, because the compromise between MR and N-VA must remain, but if you approve a law, you must still be able to answer the questions of the people outside who feel addressed by that law, who ask whether they fall under it or not. This is the biggest uncertainty.

Mr. Speaker, can I say something? Mr. Bonte knows that I cannot stay. I informed him. I find this very serious and very regrettable.

Mr. Bonte, for all those who are not mentioned in the bill and you mention, for example, the chef, of course, Article 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies. Those persons are not kept by the professional secrecy and they must, pursuant to Article 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if there is an indication of a crime, report it to the prosecutor’s office.

As for the LIVC, I understand you. Your colleague in the Committee on Justice, Mrs. Lambrecht, knows this very well: there is a general bill, which is currently presented in the Committee on Justice, to introduce professional secrecy within the framework of the LIVCs and the case consultation. We are also working on this and your call in this regard is being fulfilled. My humble apology for having to interrupt you. You know why, I will never do it again.

Mr. Minister, you actually informed me ten minutes or a quarter of an hour ago that you could not stay. Mr. Speaker, I think we have a problem with the parliamentary treatment of this bill.

It is one or the other. Or you made an appointment, as I was told...

Mr. Geens, you told me about a quarter of an hour ago. I will now speak explicitly to the government. This is the first time that we can do so after five meetings. Is the government at the disposal of the Parliament? Mr. Speaker, the Minister has come to tell me that he has to go to a television studio. Mr. Speaker, it is up to you to decide what is more important, a parliamentary debate or a TV performance of the Minister of Justice.

It is normal for at least one member of the government to be present. This is the logica zelve. Mr the Minister?

I am very pleased to come back around 20:30. I had reached an agreement with all the speakers, including Mr. Bonte.

Mr. Speaker, with all respect for the work done, good and clear agreements are always made at the Conference of Presidents. Last week this proposal was moved to the agenda of this week because the minister could not be present at the time. He announced it in time. Now we are conducting the debate in the presence of the minister, but ten minutes ago he said he cannot stay because he must attend a television performance. I am very sorry, but we also have our work here and there are also agreements here. Either we conduct the debate in the presence of the Minister, or the debate is suspended and postponed until next week.

We are talking about a proposal from a colleague. This is a bill, not a bill. This proposal was discussed extensively in the Anti-Terrorism Committee.

No, I do not say that. However, a member of the government is present.

We have requested a debate with the Minister of Justice at all committee meetings and we have pledged to conduct that debate here. The [...]

Mr Bonte, I will give you the word later if you ask for it.

Will we continue the debate?

We know this is a very important and very sensitive debate. The emotion is great among the population concerned, notably the social workers, but also the magistrates and lawyers, who also expressed themselves. A whole crowd of civil society has made its voice heard.

This case is serious enough for not only the Minister of Social Integration, but also the Minister of Justice to be present. If the latter had to go, for example, to a European summit, we would obviously have understood it. Another minister, such as Mr. Borsus, could have replaced him. But it is simply about presenting itself in front of the media and thus avoiding the contradictory debate in front of the parliament. Mr. Speaker, this is not okay. This denotes contempt for parliament and for all those and all those who fear the consequences of this kind of bill.

Therefore, I ask you to insist that he be present at this fundamental debate for our values.

Mr. Speaker, I know that this is a very delicate debate and I also know that a lot has already been discussed in the committees. What I always reaffirm in these kinds of discussions is that we actually overdo committee meetings in the plenary session. I don’t understand that well, but that’s apparently the habit and over the years — I’m just sitting here ten years — ... (Tumult)

The truth hurts, of course. The truth seems to hurt. If one now says that the presence of the Minister of Justice is necessary, then that is not a problem. I understood that he could come back at 20 o 30 o.m. He said it clearly, it is within an hour. Then we wait. I have already seen contradictory signals, but, again, the government is represented, even by two members, even by the minister responsible for the OCMWs. In this way, I think there is sufficient representation, especially when it comes to the sensitivities of social assistants, whether or not related to OCMWs. In this regard, everyone who has to conduct the debate is present. If one stretches it a little, as one is doing, then we can continue it in half an hour or an hour, ⁇ in the presence of the Minister of Justice.

Until now, it was mainly about social workers. The competent minister is present, so I suggest that we just continue.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say two things.

First, my group and other groups have always requested the presence of the Minister of Justice in the discussions on the present bill in the committee and in the plenary session. This was never discussed in the committee. There has never been a debate on this proposal in the presence of the minister, while the minister comes here declaring that the government is also working on legislation on this subject. Therefore, we do not have the opportunity to hear the government’s opinion and we do not have the opportunity to evaluate the implications of the adoption of this proposal on other legislation or on the intentions of the government.

I understood that last week at the Conference of Presidents the two bills were postponed because the Minister of Justice could not be present. That is good. We put ourselves in this. The discussion of these proposals was postponed for a week, until this week, and then the minister is suddenly gone to a television performance and we do not even get a response to our question.

Secondly, and I also address myself explicitly to you, Mr. Speaker, it is actually a punishment that we should conduct such a debate here. A member of the Government must be available to the Parliament. The point. That is a constitutional rule of play, and you must be careful that it is observed. This is a Kafka situation. When Parliament requests and receives the presence of a member of the Government, it is logical that the member concerned is present. It is not so difficult!

Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Terwingen said, we had interesting discussions in the committee. But, at no time, the Minister of Justice was present in the committee, while legitimate questions were raised, in particular from my part to Mr. Borsus, including what, one doubted, could happen. Therefore, one could legitimately expect the Minister of Justice to be present in the plenary session if interventions or interpellations were to take place, in order to avoid having to subsequently ask questions in a committee. He is not there. It is not OK!

There is a lot of talk about respect for democracy. There is a lot of talk about good governance. There is a lot of talk about parliamentary work, the involvement of parliamentarians and the presence of parliamentarians in the debate. Today, we regret the absence of the Minister of Justice who, in the first place, even more than the Minister of Social Integration, must be concerned with the protection of fundamental freedoms and the scope of professional secrecy. He is not here to hear what parliamentarians are saying. This is called the denial of democracy. This is a real scandal, an insult to the whole parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I did not participate in the Conscious Conference myself, but if that arrangement is made, it seems to me good that it is respected. But let’s go about it pragmatically. The Minister of Home Affairs is here now, let’s start the next debate.

That would also be my proposal.

As we often say, we are spontaneously on the same line.

Great minds and so on.

We are talking about a bill, not a bill. This is about the professional secrecy of OCMW staff. The Minister responsible for the OCMWs is present here. There is also a link with the administrative police. The Minister of Interior, Deputy Prime Minister, is present here.

The Minister of Justice has always been present here, until a few minutes ago. He said he had to leave for an hour. He also ⁇ this to you, colleague Bonte. You did not resist that. The Government is represented by the competent Minister.

I suggest that we continue the debate, Mr. Speaker.

Dear colleagues, you know we have been very constructive in this debate. However, it is also true that we regretted, from the first commission, the absence of any member of the government during our work. I find that on such an important, so sensitive topic, on which the public opinion has asked itself a whole series of questions, to which we have not received a response from the government and because of which we have agreed to postpone our debates by a week, it is incredible that once again, today, we will not have a member of the government to discuss it. In any case, the Minister of Justice will not be present in the plenary session to hear our questions and answer them.

It is already curious that this is a bill and not a bill and that it is not carried out by the entire government. I think that, on such a sensitive subject, it would have been better, Mr. Borsus, that the Minister of Justice could hear all the questions that were raised in the committee and be able to answer them at the beginning of the game. In this way we might have been able to exclude from the beginning some caricatures, some misinterpretations of the draft or the bill proposal under consideration today. I do not wish that we continue this debate in the absence of the Minister of Justice and I would like that we wait for his presence so that he hears our interventions.

Mr. President, Mr. Verherstraeten, with all respect, but good deals make good friends. The Minister of Justice was not present. But why did we postpone the bill last week? The Minister of Justice could not be present. It is one or the other. We have reversed the agenda. The reason was that the Minister could not be present. We are conducting the debate today. He was present. One cannot come ten minutes in advance to say that one cannot be present because one has to come on television. It does not go. We are conducting the debate here in Parliament. We ask the Minister of Justice to be present at the debate.

Mr. Speaker, the Parliament is of course free from its work, but I would like to correct one element with regard to the committee. I formally wrote to her to give her my opinion. I also indicated, at the end of this letter, that I was available for the commission. At no time was I required to be present in the committee, which did not prevent me from closely following all of his work.

Regarding this dossier, it is obvious that an important part concerns the CPAS federations, which I have received several times, with which I have conducted a series of consultations and debates. These interlocutors, in any case in this debate, were, through their federation, their direction or their structure, the most active.

I am therefore fully available for this debate. I have to correct the fact that we would not have been available for the commission, because it is inaccurate.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kitir does not correctly represent the facts. I refer to the agenda. We have indeed postponed two bills that were scheduled last week, because the presence of the Minister of Justice was advisable for this. These were the first two bills that were on the agenda today. These are within the competence of the Minister of Justice. He was also present at the discussion. However, this does not apply to the present bill, Mr. Kitir. Minister Borsus is responsible for this.

I am ⁇ pleased with the presentation of Minister Borsus. I, along with many others in the committee, have urged the government’s presence to know the government’s position, to know the coherence with the decisions related to the LIVCs and with other drafts, which are apparently in the making. So I, together with many colleagues in the committee, have called for the presence of the government, especially that of the Minister of Justice. Now I hear from your answer, Mr. Minister of Social Integration, that you had formally and in writing notified that you are at the disposal of the committee.

Why were you never invited? I also address the chairman of our committee. Part of Parliament requests the presence of government members and the minister says he is available, but then somewhere – I don’t know where and with what motives – decides that the minister doesn’t have to come. I do not think this is an orderly way of working.

Mr. Speaker, I can’t help but ask myself this question: What is the subject of the bill that is currently being debated? This is a modification of the Code – I say correctly of the Code – of criminal instruction. I cannot understand that the Minister of Justice – I was going to say the Minister of Codes, of the Civil Code, of the Criminal Code, of the Code of Criminal Instruction, of the Code of Commerce – is not present.

I would like to go further on this last point. I think we can better conduct the debate in the presence of the Minister of Justice.

Taking into account the proposal of Mr. Calvo and taking advantage of the presence of the Minister of Internal Affairs, I propose to the Chamber that we suspend the discussion of one point in anticipation of the presence of the Minister of Justice. I suggest that, after a five-minute interruption, which I shall carry out for all clarity for our technical installations, we continue our agenda with the discussion of Mr. Ducarme’s bill.

So I propose to examine Mr. Ducarme’s proposal on the mayors and to continue the other debate in the presence of the Minister of Justice. Does everyone agree?

Will everyone agree with this? (Acceptance of consent)