Proposition 54K2969

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses en matière pénale.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

March 12, 2018

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

European arrest warrant International Criminal Court legal expenses criminal procedure criminal law prison system

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ PVDA | PTB PP

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

June 27, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr Gautier Calomne, rapporteur, refers to his written report.

Mr. Speaker, I will intervene quickly on this text, which, as usual, contains several scattered provisions, the most important concerning the bodies of prison surveillance.

As we have repeatedly called by our will, like the Council of Europe, we have finally separated from the executive power the control of our prison establishments by entrusting it to our Chamber. It will therefore be necessary, Mr. Speaker, that we take care to adopt a dotation that allows both the Central Council of Penitentiary Surveillance and the various Surveillance Commissions to function.

In this regard, one may be surprised that the minister, who is not with us this afternoon, intervenes in fixing the remuneration and compensation of the members of these different Councils, ranging from fixing them at rates so low that one asks how, while we already experience great difficulties in completing these different Commissions and even the Central Council, we will still be able, tomorrow, to call on people who, I recall, do essentially accompanying work and volunteer work.

Another source of concern appears in this text. Indeed, the implementation of this independence of the Central Council was scheduled for 1 July 2017, and that for the Supervisory Commissions was fixed for 1 January 2018. Today, however, nothing has yet been established. Only royal decrees are promised at the end of the year to set new dates of entry into force of which we know nothing. We do not even know in what time all this can happen.

Even more fundamental is the composition of the Central Council of Penitentiary Surveillance, which is not renewed from the entry into force of the law, although it should be considered. No vacancies were published for renewal, no appointment procedure was organized for recruitment. This leads me to think that the entry into force for the establishment of this Central Council and the various Commissions is likely to take some time – and not a few years, I hope.

Furthermore, in the organization of these different Commissions, in addition to monitoring and hearing the detainees and accompanying them, the Commissions, that is, the people who make up them, will be entrusted with the task of listening to the detainees in a recognized right that is the right to complain, to examine these complaints, to deal with them and to decide the fate of them. This is obviously something that is not right. It is like asking someone to be a judge and a party at the same time. There will inevitably be conflicts of loyalty between the tasks that are requested from members of the Supervisory Committees and this handling of complaints.

We limit here to absurdity. It is obvious – the Supreme Council of Justice also reminds, as well as the State Council – that it is now up to our House to take over the hands of the practical organization, the financial organization, but also the way complaints will have to be handled by these different Commissions.

In the draft that is submitted to us – we point out here with the State Council what could be considered a discrimination –, the possibility for the detainee to be treated, to be accompanied by the doctor of his choice is removed, in terms of health care. It will necessarily and necessarily have to pass through the doctor of the institution, which is understood as a discrimination that may eventually pave the way for cancellation by the Arbitration Court. This is even more surprising as we know the state of health care in our prisons, which is catastrophic. When it is known that the doctors who are appointed by the State are struggling to get paid and are now reluctant to fulfill their mission, it is here a matter of adopting a measure that will worsen the situation that is already far from being brilliant.

Finally, the project creates the transition houses. This is a new way of considering imprisonment and imprisonment. In itself, it is obviously a good thing, if this is integrated into the course of detention, and therefore in the organization of training and the means to give the detainee to get out of these places of detention in a better situation than when he entered. Unfortunately, we have the feeling, reading the text, that this will be a new obstacle to conditional release and that this will contribute to the delay of it, which will ⁇ not improve the already so complicated atmosphere within our detention and detention establishments.

These are all the reasons why our group will abstain tomorrow on the proposed text.