Proposition 54K3111

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses sur le banc d'épreuves des armes à feu.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

May 23, 2018

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

administration of the Institutions management audit military equipment firearms and munitions

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Ecolo Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

PS | SP PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

Vooruit LE ∉ PP VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Elio Di Rupo (PS | SP) 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 ¶

June 28, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, the colleagues may be confident: I will keep it shorter than most; no one needs to panic.

What is proposed here today and will be voted on is, in a sense, historical. We amend the law of 24 May 1888. That law even went back to a situation from the 17th century, when the Luikese prince-bishop was lord and master over the arms trade and arms manufacture. In 1888, a statuut sui generis was proposed. The test bench was initially commissioned to test the weapons, to test them for the sake of safety. Over the years, powers have been added. Anyway, the test bench had an outdated structure and that was to be replaced.

I can point out that there were some problems. I would like to briefly describe a fifth. There were problems with security and access control at the test bank. Until recently, it was possible for people with bad intentions to get very close to the weapons arsenal with thousands of weapons. Something has been done about it.

There were problems with the well-being of employees, for example due to saturnism or lead poisoning. Several people contacted me from Leik. Yes, one must come from Liège to a N-VA'er to complain about the problems at work, because one has no confidence in the trade unions at the trial bench. I have intervened several times.

There are also administrative problems. The statute avoided all possible controls, such as accounting and financial controls.

There were problems in the field of integrity, with the bottom point being the detention of the former director, who was in prison for a while and still, to the great annoyance of the staff of the trial bank, continues to enjoy all benefits under the pretext of presumption of innocence.

There were problems with the director's OGP status. He was OGP for the whole country, but he ⁇ ins a self-designed attitude, so that, among other things, weapons owners in both Wallonia and Flanders, greffies and courts have already encountered many problems.

Therefore, the approach to the file does not come too early. Both the proposal I have submitted, as well as the government’s draft, wants to address the problems. I will briefly mention a few decisions. A very important decision is the adjustment of the statute of the trial bank. The test bench will now be a public utility institution, unlike in the past, when it was headed by seven weapons masters. As a public utility institution, the trial bank will have at least one board of directors. In addition, two government commissioners will be appointed, who will be accountable to the Minister of Economic Affairs and the Minister of Justice. In certain cases, government commissioners may invoke veto rights.

There will be greater transparency as the pilot bank will now be required to submit certain reports, such as accounting and financial reports and annual reports.

In addition, the staff is now subject to the Law of 16 March 1954 on the Institutions of Public Use. This provides a good status for staff members, while previously any disputes could not even be brought before ordinary courts.

Also very important is that the director is no longer OGP for the whole country and the Arms Act, but only for the Arms Test Bank Act and its implementing decisions.

In this way, we hope that a lot of differences in interpretation will be ignored. We hope that the new board of directors will bring order in certain areas.

Finally, it is possible to set up antennas. Colleagues from the PS were afraid that the aim was the relocation of the test bank from Liège. However, that is not the intention, neither of the proposal nor of the draft. It is intended to create the possibility to set up antennas. The Board of Directors can decide on this. These antennas can be found in both Arlon or Charleroi in Wallonia and in Gent or Bruges in Flanders. It is intended that those who have to turn to the test bench, to save large movements. It is the Board of Directors who will decide on this.

If a foreign trial bank ever asks for an establishment in Belgium, this cannot be stopped under European regulations, which prohibits a monopoly. However, this is not the matter now; I mention that in the interest of completeness.

In the interests of the citizens and the weapons owners, we would like to go a step further. We want good cooperation with the arms dealers. There are many arms dealers, both in Wallonia and in Flanders, who are willing to take on a number of tasks such as the destruction or reconstruction of weapons. The threshold fear to offer their weapons is very low. Therefore, we should seize the opportunity to cooperate with arms dealers. That will be in the interests of security; I would ⁇ do that.

In conclusion, the design means a major step forward, which our group will surely approve. I think everyone should do that.

I would like to say a few words about this reform. The position of the PS is clear and was developed by Jean-Marc Delizée in commission. On the one hand, it is obvious that the structure – which in fact dates back a very long time – no longer corresponds to our standards. It is therefore perfectly legitimate to modernize it. We do not oppose it.

On the other hand, there are other elements in this modernization that are not the driving element of this reform. Among other things, Flanders wishes to create a satellite antenna, ⁇ in Ghent. We are not opposed either. It is legitimate that Flemish hunters can have a public service that is located closer to their home.

However, this bill goes even further. First, it removes the idea that the gun test bench is established in Liège. You understand that this disturbs us. Second, it allows the King to decide, by royal decree, to move the seat of the test bench, in addition to creating antennas elsewhere in the territory. This is stated in Article 4 of the bill. This is much more worrying. This is clearly the open door for the relocation of the activities of the Liège Test Bank. From now on, the Ministers of Economy and Justice will be able to decide, by a simple royal decree, to relocate this activity elsewhere in the territory.

I cannot understand that the MR has not intervened in the Council of Ministers to correct this point! As a committee, we submitted some amendments to correct it and Ms. Cassart-Mailleux, with some discomfort, seemed to be aware of the manoeuvre and abstained from our amendments.

We cannot understand that we can go in that direction. It should be noted that 70% of the activities of the weapons test bank concerns weapons that come from the FN of Herstal, whose sole shareholder is the Walloon Region. A relocation of this test bench would therefore be done to the detriment of the Walloon economy. This situation must be taken seriously.

In the face of our fears, what are we responding? The Minister replies that we must trust Minister Peeters. I hear well. Minister Peeters says he does not intend to move the headquarters as long as a major arms producer is established nearby. But he will not be Forever Minister of Economy. What about what will happen next? This situation is insecure!

That is why we submitted a few amendments. If the position is clearly not to relocate, let these amendments be adopted. If they are not supported, we can only conclude that this is once again a community position backed by MR.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, this text profoundly modernizes the regulation relating to the test bench, which dates back to the 19th century.

It was necessary to shape its structure, its obligations, its functioning. The basis of this review is the revision of the test bench management structure to make it more balanced, by incorporating independent administrators. I know this annoys some, but we argue that on the test bench there are independent managers, and that, with an emphasis on transparency. This also disturbs.

This bill provides the possibility for the Board of Directors to establish antennas of the firearm test bench on the national territory, whether in Arlon or Ostende, whether in Liege or Bruges, in any Region of the country. This will reduce the number of travels to firearm users.

As noted in the committee, there is no question of moving the headquarters of Liège. Historically, the test bench was established in Liège because the weapons industry was established there. We want him to stay in Liège.

The MR group supports this project and welcomes the modernization of this institution. This law is going in the right direction. It brings modernization and transparency. Its relocation is not on the agenda. I think it is much more interesting to reassure workers and explain the advantages of this text rather than sowing doubt, as some do.

Mr DeGroote, we ⁇ are not against the modernization of the old law. Let it be clear. We are in favor of transparency and greater transparency. We also offer a number of antennas. We congratulate that.

What we regret, however, is that the social seat cannot be located in Luik. The Minister said that this was not a problem for him. He would even settle it through a royal decision.

We ask ourselves, if we intend to leave the seat of society in Liège, why not simply leave it in the law?

If I can plagiarize Open World: just do it! It is no problem. The intention is to assign the social seat there by a royal decision to Luik. Why is that not included in the law itself? Why should you panic unnecessarily among the staff?

We find this very inappropriate. It is not done. We will therefore abstain from this bill.

I was not in the committee because I was in other committees. I read the reports and interventions. Together with my whole group, we share the need to modernize and improve the governance of this test bench. We also share the idea of creating test bench antennas to prevent displacement across the entire territory of people in need.

But one thing disturbs us. Everyone says in his speeches that the test bench will remain in Liège for all the reasons that have been cited by both. This is also a concern for us. In his response, the minister says that he does not intend, at the moment, to move the test bench. Nevertheless, you reject the amendments that have been proposed and which simply say that the test bench will remain in Liège and that the possibility of creating antennas will exist. We will therefore support the submitted amendments that specify this basic settlement that everyone here says supports.

Mr. Speaker, following the previous interventions regarding the problem of the test bench of firearms, if you allow it, things should be put back in their context. These are firearms and many weapons from collectors or hunting weapons. Consequently, if the test bench of firearms is for the moment where it is, that is, in Liege, the reason for this is simply historical. In fact, armourery is a long-standing activity in the Liegeois region.

This test bench of firearms is carried out in collaboration with all the armourists and professionals in the sector. They intend to continue implementing the dynamic that is theirs to enable this bank to work in the collaboration that is currently at the heart of their missions. I recall that staff is working there and that he is also questioning this text that changes the place of assignment of the test bench, even if the minister says that is not his intention. We are not opposed to regional cells. But why not write in the text rather than elsewhere that the headquarters is preserved where it is, in the Liege region. Given the nearby weapons factories, the collaboration with the armourists and all the historical work already done, I will support the amendment submitted in this regard by my colleagues in Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard all speakers, without exception, declaring that either the test bench must remain in Liège or that, in order to reassure others, there is no intention at all to move the seat.

The most punishable is that a member of a Flemish party, the sp.a, considers it not done that it is not in the law that the seat must remain in Luik. That a member of a Flemish party wishes to enter such a provision in the law is, in my opinion, inappropriate and not done. The common sense in the sp.a is apparently crushed.

Colleagues, we are for modernization and after 130 years, this law was also necessary. However, the fact that the seat of the test bank is located in Luik is a problem for us.

Through this modernization, the trial bank is now transformed into a public utility institution category C. It is customary to establish the seat of federal government institutions and of institutions of public benefit in the bilingual capital and not one seat in a French-speaking Region. In order to make neither of the two counties too short, it is appropriate to establish the seat of the trial bank in the bilingual capital.

We have submitted an amendment. After all, it is not only the most correct but also the most economical solution, both for the institution itself and for its users, knowing that the test bench must be fully self-driping. This can only be achieved with the tariffs it imposes on all users of its services.

It is stipulated by law that the trial bank may not incur any financial burden on the State Treasury. Therefore, it is also the most economical solution to establish the seat in the bilingual capital.

When I hear today’s statements, I understand that my amendment is very difficult for almost all parties. For this reason, in the event that the trial bank is not moved to the bilingual capital, I have submitted a sub-amendment in second order. After all, the committee discussions show none that an antenna will be provided in the Dutch-speaking language area. Mr Degroote has, however, pointed out that this is possible in accordance with Article 4(2) of the law, since the Board of Directors can decide so.

However, given the fact that the test bank must fully finance itself financially, the establishment of an antenna is discouraged, as an antenna would involve a lot of additional costs, which will be charged to the users. This can and should not be the intention. Also the Flemish region has the right to a full service regarding the services provided by the trial bank. Thus, those who do not agree with the establishment of the headquarters in our bilingual capital, must at least approve my sub-amendment, which ensures that an antenna is set up in the Dutch-speaking area.

As regards the composition of the Board of Directors, I have also submitted two amendments.

In the board of directors, as stated in the current bill, the representative interest associations of arms collectors, sports shooters, hunters and special guards are not represented. However, they are a highly involved party in these matters. It is therefore, in our view, worthy of recommendation to provide for them a place in the governing bodies of the test bank. This is the purpose of the first part of our third amendment.

With the second part of that amendment, we aim to address something that is also contained in this bill, denigrating parity. The Flemish make up the majority of the inhabitants of this country, but in the representation there are always fifty-five. In the case of the parity of mandates in the Board of Directors as provided for in this bill, this is the case again. We propose that the Flemish who constitute the majority in this country also have the majority in the Board of Directors and thus change the composition to five Dutch speakers and three French speakers. Here is my comment on the amendments.