Proposition 54K3260

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 1er août 1985 portant des mesures fiscales et autres en ce qui concerne les sauveteurs occasionnels et les victimes dans des affaires non élucidées.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Sept. 12, 2018

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

administrative procedure damage victim help for victims indemnification

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo DéFI ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP

Abstained from voting

LE PS | SP PVDA | PTB VB

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 ¶

Dec. 20, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to this in my written report.

I would like to speak directly to my party.

You have the word.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies, Gentlemen, Gentlemen, dear colleagues, we will never be able to forget the date of March 22, 2016, which makes a fall of government almost anodine. That day, Belgium was experiencing one of the darkest pages of its recent history. Two years after the attack on the Jewish Museum, terrorist madness once again hit Brussels. Dozens of women and men were affected by what violence has more cowardly, more terrible, more unjust. The recent news reminded us: the terrorist threat has not disappeared. The head of Interpol reminded us today. Thro ⁇ the world, terrorism strikes and, closer to us, on December 11, a blind violence struck the Strasbourg Christmas market.

We have seen the same images, those of a desolate city, full of astonishment and incomprehension. We heard these same testimony, mixed with deep sadness and anger. We were moved by the tribute ceremonies and by the expression of those collective emotions and solidarity that continue, despite the pain, to give us faith in the future.

In these circumstances, in the face of such events, there is for the State an absolute urgency. This urgency, in addition to security measures, is that of taking care of the victims and accompanying them. The State must take care quickly, effectively and dignifiedly of those and those who, throughout their lives, will carry in their bodies and in their souls the stigma of this barbarism. This is the very reason for our rule of law.

Now, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, my dear colleagues, we must recognize today that in this area, our State, collectively, has failed. On March 22, we were not prepared enough to meet the needs of the victims of a large-scale attack.

The Attentate Commission, set up after the attacks of March 22 – and within which several colleagues here present and I myself have been sitting for many months – was able to realize this. We have tried to work in tribute to the victims in a spirit of consensus. Overall, I say well, all the recommendations were unanimously voted.

We received the victim associations, who explained to us their difficulties and the lack of consideration they felt, wrongly or rightly, from the state. They told us their feelings of abandonment, explained the complexity of the current system and expressed their desire to revive, with each new expertise, the suffering of the attack, as well as their desire to justify their distress and burn-out before, in particular, representatives of insurance companies sometimes questioning the consequences of the attack.

An attack, my colleagues, is an act directed against the state. He is therefore responsible for managing the assistance and accompaniment of victims, taking responsibility for their compensation. However, since March 22, this resigning government and this majority have for too long left this management in the hands of private insurers, who are actors guided by a logic of profitability. This mode of operation leaves too little room for the fundamental need for humanity and the dignity of the victims.

To put an end to this revolting situation, the Attacks Commission has adopted, I repeat unanimously, recommendations to entrust the authorities with the legal means to act and confront.

After receiving numerous Belgian and foreign experts, we understood that it was necessary to examine the policies carried out in neighboring countries and to be inspired by a rather extraordinary model, that of France.

A simple idea, supported by victim associations: create a guarantee fund with unique expertise to fully, quickly and equitably compensate victims of attacks. It is this fund that, subsequently, turns on behalf of victims to insurance companies. We no longer have this situation of the pot of land against the pot of iron. It is the state with all its power over insurance.

Far from these recommendations, far from what victim associations demand, this minority government has taken another path, another path. Yes, in this bill and, fortunately, there are some important advances for the victims of attacks – that’s why especially my group wanted it to be included on the agenda. I think, for example, of better reimbursement of certain movements or of increased emergency aid. This is not negligible.

At the reading of the projects, however, an impression emerges: that of passing by the car, that of making an already unreadable system even more complex, that of further encouraging the multiplication of medical expertise that will only have the effect of reviving once again the memory of the attacks among the victims and that, above all, of irreparably moving away from what advocate together not only the members of the committee Attentats but also and above all the associations of victims.

You have decided to entrust the fate of the victims to the insurance companies and to release yourself from your responsibility. As you know, another path was possible. Some here will remember what happened with the drama of Ghislenghien, with his victims who experienced in their flesh this accident of very large scale. Immediately after the Ghislenghien accident, we developed a system that allowed the State to directly compensate everything, to take over everything. Why not take this path? Why have you denied the demands of victim associations? Why have they left these victims in the hands of the insurers? This is really the fundamental question I ask you today.

Of course, our dialogue allowed some small adjustments and, at the last session of the committee, at the end of the race, the Minister of Justice promised to take a step for the recognition – because it wasn’t even in the bill – of associations of victims. I hope that he will be able to do so even in periods of ordinary business if this is the sovereign’s decision.

It was one of the advances that we were able to ⁇ but, for the rest, I say and I repeat that this project is not at the height of recognition of the drama experienced by the victims, that your philosophy is contrary to that we advocated in the Attentate Commission, in particular supported by an extraordinary expert, Dr. Martens, who helped us all these months.

One of the advantages of common business, if so, is that it may be able to escape the Peeters project that was worse than what we have on the table. In fact, this text is: nothing by the state, all towards the insurance. This is completely unacceptable.

This is what I wanted to say to you. We are re-deposing with virtually all the opposition, and maybe, I hope, some who could join us today, amendments that comply with the recommendations of the Attack Commission, which enable the creation of a real guarantee fund.

Dignitely helping the victims of an attack is also a means of fighting terrorism.

It is time for us to finally meet the expectations that the victims place in us all.

It has been almost three years since our country was hit by the attacks in Zaventem and Maalbeek. Following those attacks, an investigative committee was established, in which we worked very hard on a number of themes: emergency aid, security architecture, the status of the victims and radicalism.

We have reached a hundred recommendations in the committee with the aim of making our society of tomorrow better, safer, fairer and fairer. We are therefore pleased that with this draft we are implementing the recommendations, with which we set an important step forward for the victims. These drafts will bring significant changes to the procedures for the treatment of victims of terrorism and will improve the functioning of the Committee on Financial Assistance to Victims of Deliberate Violence and to Occasional Rescue. The procedures are adapted, improved, made faster and simpler. There will be a unique lock.

An important question of the victims eventually becomes a fact by implementing through this design. Even the victims who do not have Belgian nationality will no longer remain in the cold. They are also awarded a status of national solidarity, which comes with a number of advantages.

Of course, no design is perfect, as the opposition has said. We have gone a long way with this project. Professor Martens, a very good expert who accompanied our committee at the time of the investigative committee, has shed his light on the present draft concerning the implementation of the committee’s recommendations. He said the draft was a big step forward for the victims and that the recommendations of the investigation committee were also respectfully addressed.

I think this is an important step forward. Nothing is perfect and we can take a step further. However, I think it is also important to take this step today. Therefore, it seems to me a good thing to approve this bill because it represents an important step forward for the victims of the attacks.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, there is no need to argue that 22 March 2016 has made a lot of people victims for their lives. We have witnessed the drama that has happened to them in the committee during many hearings and in contact with a number of victims. If we could, we would all want to delete these black pages. Unfortunately, this is impossible.

During the hearings it became very clear, and Ms. Onkelinx has a point there, that our regulation is not calculated on a comprehensive scheme for compensation for victims of terrorist attacks in which compensation can be obtained at the same place for all damage suffered by victims. Indeed, we have found that victims, who have to live day after day with their injuries, also have to go searching and puzzling the different compensation options provided by different legislations side by side.

I have been able to see that within the government a number of ministers have immediately struck the hand on the squad and sought a solution. Let us think of the retirement pension. However, this does not take away, colleagues, that it is difficult for victims to obtain that full compensation.

Reading the regulations – the pension on the one hand, the retirement pension on the other –, finding assistance and being helped in finding and reading all those different rules is not easy. Legal assistance by someone who is expert in the matter, as well as assistance in medical expertises to budget human damage, is, in my opinion, very important.

It is your honour, Mr. Minister, that you implemented the recommendations of the committee immediately, taking into account the state of the regulation. That regulation was imperfect at the time of the attacks. It is a pity, but that was the reality.

Today we must look for solutions that allow the victims to solve the puzzle. The legislation that will be amended today, on the assistance that can be obtained through the Victim Fund, is once again an important step, which does not take away that we need to do it better in the future.

Ms. Onkelinx has a point, we cannot speak of majority and opposition for this problem, because the Chamber does in these unanimous recommendations. We must ensure a comprehensive compensation scheme, where an application can be submitted in one and the same place, if necessary, and where all damages, of any nature, can be fully compensated. A Guarantee Fund to be created should then eventually turn to the insurance companies and third parties who are liable and should pay the damages schemes.

Not to mention that what today presents for the victims of terrorist attacks is an important, welcomed and sought-after assistance.

Mr. Minister, during the discussions in the committee, you have committed to recognizing, by royal decree, the victim associations, which are very important for the victims. Often they are the only authority where they can get support and help in their difficult quest. You would do so by royal decision. I know that we are in a ⁇ difficult situation today, but I would like to ask you to do everything possible to obtain that recognition in a very short time. I would also like to invite you to come to the committee with such a royal decree, if necessary, and to request the support of the Parliament. As I assume, we will unanimously support these drafts. I expect that the House can also unanimously support such a proposal.

On March 22, 2016, Belgium was undoubtedly somewhat deprived of the human consequences of the attacks. We were not sufficiently prepared. Responses were put in place at this time to meet the legitimate needs of the victims. But, unfortunately, the system has shown all its flaws. We are very sorry for the victims. Since then, the government has worked to try to improve, on all levels, the gaps that have been identified in the aid and compensation of victims of terrorist acts but also to respond more humane and more efficiently to the specific needs of these victims.

As you explained in the Justice Committee, Mr. Minister, the option was taken to tangibly improve the existing system. Not everything changed at once. We wanted to improve what existed, which obviously does not close the door to improvements in the future. There was a lot of talk, especially during the hearings, about the effectiveness of the French system. You have also had the opportunity to highlight some of the weaknesses of this system. We all know that no system is perfect. What one often tries to do, at least it must be a good practice in law, is comparative law, that is, go to look for the best practices in the legal systems of neighboring countries, to avoid making mistakes or having some regrettable delays in this matter in particular.

Among the undisputed improvements are the ceilings of emergency aid and primary aid granted by the Commission for financial assistance to victims of intentional acts of violence. These are doubled. It is nothing. Furthermore, the victim of a terrorist act must no longer initiate or have to conclude a procedure in order to benefit from the primary aid. Finally, a status of national solidarity was created, as well as the possibility to be granted a compensation pension under certain conditions.

The draft, which is presented today to our plenary assembly, adds other positive elements: an advance of EUR 125 000 can be granted to a victim of terrorist acts, regardless of their financial situation. Emergency is presumed by office. This is an important element. The procedure before the Commission is accelerated. Different damages are provided: lawyer fees, travel costs and stay costs. A procedure is established to make the provisions of the Act of 18 July 2017 on the creation of the status of national solidarity, on the granting of a compensation pension and on the reimbursement of care following acts of terrorism, applicable to non-resident victims of acts of terrorism.

Alongside these new provisions, there are elements that the Terrorism Commission had put forward and that are becoming concrete. First, there is the establishment of the single bucket. It is obvious that when one is a victim, one has the frustration of having to take many steps with respect to different administrative authorities. It is difficult. You explained the reasons why this was delayed. The organization of our country means that several levels of power must coordinate. I am not throwing a stone at anyone. The reality is that we are virtually in the completion phase of this single wardrobe, which will facilitate the lives of victims in the steps to be carried out.

Another important aspect is that relating to expertise. As it has often been recalled, it is terribly frustrating to have to repeat sometimes five or six times the same thing; to have to submit to five or six expertises for the same problem. This element has also been taken into account.

My conclusion is also my introduction: unfortunately, there will never be a perfect system for victims, including terrorist acts, when it comes to trying to help them get their lives back to before or as before. But it is of paramount importance for our country to hear the suffering of the victims and to provide answers, despite the difficulties facing Parliament today. I would like to thank all the groups for allowing this project to be put on the agenda.

March 22 is a date that we should never and will never forget. This also applies to all innocent victims. Immediately after the attacks, the government, the Minister of Justice in particular, caught the cow at the horns and made improvements in our regulations. The limits of financial assistance were immediately sensibly increased, including those of emergency aid.

The draft laws presented here now follow those drafted away. They focus on the problems faced by the victims after the attacks. These issues were explained during the hearings in the Parliamentary Investigative Committee. Many of these concerns are now addressed in the present draft laws. Thus, procedures will be accelerated, advances will be increased and the high urgency will be easier to accept. There will also be additional coverage for all kinds of expenses such as costs for lawyers and accommodation and travel costs. There are also indirect victims and victims who do not have the Belgian nationality.

Are all these things resolved? No to. Are all the recommendations of the investigation committee fulfilled? No to. With these bills, however, the government, in consultation with the victim associations, met many of these comments. Therefore, the work is not finished, it must still be continued.

This is not only the work of the federal legislature but also of the Communities and of the judiciary, in particular the federal prosecutor’s office. Of course, this is also the job of the federal regulator. I know that there were texts in preparation, which contained improvements and would contain for the victims, such as a single lock and the one-off of expertise. Those who have experience in managing and handling cases of victims, whether common law or terrorist acts, know that the bottleneck often lies in the expertises and assessments.

In the implementation of the terrorism law, insurance companies are given a role in financing but the government and the Commission for Financial Aid to Victims of Deliberate Violence still have an important role to play. This committee has a great deal of expertise. In addition, the hearings showed that the victims also appreciated her good work.

Let that expertise and talent that is present there be maximized. Let us work together on the recommendations that need to be further completed. Even in these difficult political circumstances, it should be possible to make improvements before the end of the legislature.

Our group is helping the other groups and the government so that we can reach consensus and make progress through consultation.

March 22, 2016 is indeed a date to never forget. A date that called for urgent action and it has come.

The four bills implement some of the recommendations of the investigation report on the terrorist attacks. These bills will improve the situation of victims of terrorism in terms of financial assistance and long-running criminal investigations. The reform of the Commission for Financial Assistance to Victims of Deliberate Violence is the guide of these four bills.

We can stand behind a lot of things. For example, I think of the maximum advance, which will be raised again and will be EUR 125 000. There will be a separate terror department within the Commission for Financial Assistance to Victims of Deliberate Violence. The procedures will become more transparent and requests will be processed faster by a single court. The victims no longer have to prove the urgency. Any application will be considered as urgent. For victims of terrorism, additional reimbursement for lawyer fees is provided, up to EUR 12 000. To that end, the Bar will draw up a list of lawyers who are specialists in the matter. The travel and accommodation costs of victims of terrorism will now be reimbursed up to a maximum of EUR 6 000. The upper limit for funeral and procedural expenses had already been raised.

The draft law also provides for a coverage of material costs for indirect victims, such as family members. The Victim Fund will also provide compensation for foreign victims who are not assisted by a similar fund in their country or by their insurance, including recovery pension and medical expenses.

The latter draft — which we also consider very important — provides for an arrangement for the victims of cold cases, for example the Bende van Nijvel, for whom a compensation post will be established. For victims of intentional violent acts, exceptional damages may be granted if the criminal investigation lasts more than ten years and one remains uncertain about the identity of the perpetrator as well as about the motives.

At the committee meeting we approved the draft laws. However, we have also signed some of Mr. Onkelinx’s amendments. She rightly asked questions about the situation of future victims. We too would have preferred a better and more efficient system, as it exists in France, where there is also a central reference person, where victims of terrorist acts can end up. This was at the request of the victim associations. Of course, we also advocate the approval of these amendments.

Several amendments have already been approved in the committee based on the recommendations and questions of the victims and the Honorary Chairman of the Constitutional Court, Mr. Paul Martens. However, the system can be even better. The arrangement is necessary and what is now ahead is already much better than what existed before.

In short, we have taken a good path. However, we want to go even further and I and my group are therefore very pleased that many members of other groups of both the opposition and the coalition, if I can say so, want to go along with us.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mr. Minister, soon it will be three years since the attacks in Zaventem and Maalbeek hit our country. Almost three years have passed and today we are here with a number of texts aimed at improving the assistance to victims of terrorist acts.

Today, at the time we discuss the texts, the process of assurance against the perpetrators of the attacks on the Jewish Museum also begins.

Sometimes it is said that justice is very slow. This conclusion can be made today too. However, we must also note that the legislative process is not always quick. Today we are almost three years after the attacks. When the commemoration will be held on 22 March 2019, we can already predict that there will again be criticism in the victim associations, which is actually right. After all, everything is going too slow.

We had a parliamentary investigation committee that made a number of recommendations that were unanimously approved in that committee. It also included recommendations to improve the status of victims as well as to improve the frameworking, support and assistance to victims. During the investigation committee’s work, promises have been made following very emotional hearings with victims which have shown that they have actually remained in the cold for months. The government, all of us, have failed to provide adequate support and assistance to the victims of these terrorist acts.

Colleagues, Mr. Minister, our allies are ⁇ not the insurance companies. When we read the letters received by the victims of the insurance company or the occupational accident insurance company, we must see that the victims are only a number. The only goal of insurance companies is to try to escape payment. When they cannot escape, their goal is to keep the payout as low as possible. However, that is not the attitude we should take when people are faced with such great suffering, which has a very great impact on their private life as well as on their professional life, with all financial consequences.

We are now three years later. Many legislative initiatives have already been taken. However, there is a great lack of coherence. This has also been pointed out several times.

Various amendments have been made to various legislations with many references to other legislations. No cat finds his son back. Some things are very complex. It will be a legistic cacophony, even for lawyers.

There is, therefore, a real need, after we have made some really necessary changes, to develop a general coherent legislation, in which it is clear to everyone what the actual rights of victims are now, and in which it is not to be sought in a specified number of different laws in different places, with cross-references that are completely unreadable. This is a huge task for the Parliament and for the ministers. I hope that if it will not be able in this legislature, which I fear, it will still be a real priority in the next legislature.

What is clear today is good in itself. It is definitely an improvement, for example, in the system for the cold cases. If we see what misery the victims of the Bande de Nijvel have all had, what amounts they have only received in the past, with what great damage and enormous costs they have faced for more than thirty years, then it is more than right that we take advantage of the opportunity to make an arrangement for this too, which is surely and surely a big step forward.

We must also look to the future, as other speakers have said. There is still work on the shelf to prepare a plan for the future. Hopefully we will never have to use that scheme because hopefully we will no longer face such attacks, but if it happens, we can no longer work like three years ago. There needs to be a new legislative framework to ensure that victims receive assistance and financial assistance very quickly and adequately. It should not be a law like the draft that Minister Peeters prepares for the insurance companies, but with the responsibility of the government. So in the future, please do not give the arrangement of damages in the hands of the insurance companies, that is my call.

Are we there today? Not at all, because a number of things still need to be resolved. There is a wide debate about the 10 % threshold as included in the 2007 Act to be entitled to an allowance as a victim of a terrorist attack. This limit must also be addressed, because this is now unacceptable. The central point of contact that has been promised for so long is still not there today. The reference person who would accompany victims in their daily worries and paper bags is still not there today. The unique expertise still does not exist today.

There is a problem with expertise, there are too few experts who are driven and who are competent on post-traumatic stress issues. There remains an enormous problem with regard to the objectivity of experts, as too many experts who are appointed still have links with insurance companies and are unable to perform their tasks in full objectivity and independence. Also there lies a crushing responsibility with the Parliament, the legislative power, and the government, to appoint a pillar and a perch there.

Then there is the statute of the associations. As Ms. Van Cauter has cited, you have promised to be able to proceed to the recognition of these associations by royal decree so that they can play a greater role in all aspects of the arrangement of damages.

Mr. Minister, it all takes too long. Why does it all have to take so long? Why, three years after the attacks, so many questions still have to be answered? I think we should also ask that question and consider how we can ensure that when there are major needs we can prepare solutions much faster and present them to this Parliament. This is a joint responsibility of the executive and the legislative power. It is unacceptable that we can solve this only three years after the attacks.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I will say from the beginning that we will not, Mr. Minister, oppose your bill because, in some respects, it represents a progression compared to the current situation. In fact, it aims to strengthen financial assistance to victims of terrorism as well as assistance to victims of unclear acts of violence, such as victims of Brabant killers.

Thus, the procedures of the Commission for Victim Aid are eased, in order to be able to proceed faster with the payments of the financial assistance which increases from 60 000 to 125 000 euros. The amounts for lawyers are revised upwards and the compensation for travel and stay costs is increased from 1 250 to 6 000 euros.

Indirect victims are also taken into account when it comes to material costs.

And you, following the discussions in the committee, Mr. Minister of Justice, promised that victim associations will finally be recognized and approved. I hope that they will receive from your government the material and financial support they deserve.

But it must be admitted, and most of the colleagues, former majority and confused opposition, said this today at the tribune...

Colleagues, I can ask you that if you want to conduct conversations that outside do. I ask you to show at least the courtesy to listen to the different speakers.

Please stay in the police.

All the colleagues who have spoken before me about these bills have said it in more or less radical or measured words: these bills are a new and terrible disappointment for the victims of the attacks. Nearly three years after the attacks, few of the victims’ legitimate expectations are met. They demanded, however, Mr. Minister, from your government simple, often inexpensive, common sense initiatives, given the extreme cruelty of these terrorist attacks which, wanting to attack the Belgian State, wanting to terrorize the whole population, had blindly hit Belgian and foreign citizens whose only fault was to be there at the time and at the place where the bombs were launched.

As we know, by targeting these innocent victims, by chance, the terrorists targeted each of us. This obviously creates a particular responsibility on the part of the State and it is for this reason that the claims of the victims, so simple, so obvious, so normal, repeated unanimously in the recommendations of our commission of investigation on terrorist attacks, are obviously perfectly legitimate.

What were these victims asking for? They asked to be taken in hand, not to be abandoned and to be accompanied by a reference person. They demanded that the state finally replace insurance as the sole debtor, with a single way of compensation. Instead of intervening subsidiarily, the state had to intervene in the first line.

The victims requested a single expert assessment, by a completely independent doctor, of injuries and damages suffered, in order to prevent insurance companies, for example, from being judges and parties. They demanded an immediate, unconditional and decent financial response through a guarantee fund. They will have nothing of all this, nothing! Why, Mr. Minister, has your government still not dealt with these so legitimate, so normal and so modest claims, even though they had been unanimously approved by our commission of inquiry and by the entire House?

Why does this ultimately give the impression of a lack of empathy and some irresponsibility? Why is what is possible in France, Britain and the United States not possible in Belgium? This remains a mystery, it remains for many a deep bitterness. There is a feeling that the fears of the insurers have been listened to more than the despair of the victims, as if the terrorist attacks did not deserve much stronger special initiatives.

This is why, as Ms. Onkelinx has already mentioned, we have once again, with our colleagues from the PS, sp.a and Ecolo-Groen, submitted our amendments already submitted in committee, hoping that they will receive today the approval of a majority of colleagues in the House. I summarize them briefly: these are four amendments, which aim to designate a reference person (such designation costs nothing) for each of the victims. This reference person would accompany the victim in all its administrative, legal, financial, social or tax procedures;

An amendment also aimed at organising a completely independent medical examination, a third amendment aimed at granting a first unconditional flat-rate financial support for each of the victims of the order of 15 thousand euros and finally an amendment aimed at removing the 10 percent invalidity floor below which victims are not granted compensation pension.

Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, by not hearing the anger and despair of the victims, it is at the same time that their dignity is defamed, their ability to regain their place in the society that is handicapped and also the dignity of the State and the country that is hurt.

If our amendments are approved, we will vote for your bill, Mr. Minister. Otherwise, we will abstain because this abstinence, for us, must be understood as a call to finally meet, in the nearest possible future, the simple but fundamental needs of the victims which are only partially met in your bill.

Ms. Van Vaerenbergh has followed the draft basic law relating to aid to victims of terrorism.

I would like to thank the Minister for including the draft law on the cold cases in the draft law. The victims of Zaventem and Maalbeek have been waiting for three years, but the victims of the Bende van Nijvel have been waiting for 33 years for an answer about the identity of the perpetrators, about the motives and the commander of the bloody attacks, including in the Delhaize of Aalst. As Aalsterse, I am especially grateful that a financial refund will also be provided here, allowing victims to request the refund of the costs of lawyers and psychological assistance upon request. They can finally do this, because they have been asking for this for a long time. The Minister of Justice knows this. They were often with him on the floor and also with his predecessors. This is the least we and Parliament can do for these victims at the moment.

This is a very important topic. I participated in the work of the commission of inquiry and we were deeply touched by hearing the victims of this drama, which affected all our fellow citizens.

Of course, encouraging, accompanying and facilitating the administrative actions of victims is a duty of our State. We can only see that we failed collectively because these victims are now in distress. They did not have the support – administrative or financial – needed to guide them into the meanders of the different levels of power and institutions.

The second unfortunate element in our state’s reaction is related to deadlines. Too much time has passed! The texts on which we are going to speak today have taken too long to arrive. Even just after the events, the reactions were too late in terms of information or online intelligence possibilities.

Unfortunately, we were not at the height. The victim’s feeling – that’s what matters – is that they felt abandoned.

It is important to be able to receive victim associations. We did this in the Attack Committee, we did it during the discussions on this bill. This was fundamental, but we realized that their distress is still present and that they feel very little backed by the state.

With regard to the text we are discussing today, as other colleagues, including Mr Stefaan Van Hecke, have said, we see a cruel lack of ambition.

To say that, we rely on the work done together within the attack investigation committee. A series of recommendations were formulated following the hearings and the work of experts. These recommendations were much more ambitious. Indeed, they changed the very structure of the reaction of the State in the face of such a drama, with the intervention of the State first, instead of the insurers. This would completely change the logic of intervention.

This is one of the main recommendations that we have voted, unanimously in the committee and almost unanimously in the plenary session. The base is here. The texts are here. The direction to take is here. The text presented to us today leaves us a great taste of too little.

We regret not being able to go further in terms of flat-rate financial support and about the role of insurers and experts. There are real problems arising in comparison with experts from different insurance companies. We regret not being able to go further, relying “simply” on the work of more than a year and a half that had been done within the investigation committee.

Nevertheless, some points in this bill are going in the right direction, even though it is much too shy. Some refund ceilings are raised. A single booth will be established. This is not yet realised and we hope it will be very soon.

Mr. Minister, you must realize the intention by royal decrees on the recognition of victim associations, as you have pledged to do. It is fundamental. In fact, today they are on the front line to support the victims and their relatives.

In addition, support for victims is extended to other victims. The bill refers to the cold cases. We obviously think especially of the victims of the Brabant killers, but this may apply to other victims. We see this expansion to other victims with a positive eye. It was essential. But for us, the work is clearly far from finished.

There needs to be a structural change in the approach to these types of dramas, of which we all wish that they obviously never repeat. Unfortunately, no one can guarantee this. I can therefore really only encourage ourselves collectively to take the work that has been done within the Attack Committee and to concrete it as quickly as possible in legislative texts reflecting the strong ambition that is found in these recommendations and which, unfortunately, is not translated today in the text on which we will take a decision in a few moments.

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to thank the members of the various committees, in particular of the committee that followed the terrorist attacks under the chairmanship of colleague Dewael, for their constructive cooperation in the creation of this bill. Repeated consultations have been preceded. Two times in the committee I also spoke about the victim scheme, until we finally approved it in the committee for Justice last month.

I realize that time is precious and that, in the eyes of some, a lot of time may have been wasted. Nevertheless, I dare point out that we received the report of the investigation committee only on 22 April 2017, which was very fast under the circumstances, after almost a year after the attacks. With the opinions of the State Council and after intense inter-federal consultations, we have tried to draw up the current legislation.

The legislation was drawn up in two parts, namely an urgent part and another, but the State Council eventually found none of the drafts urgent, which is therefore not a fault of the government. I would therefore like to let the victims know that I also regret that speed was not our greatest quality, but it was also not an easy subject.

I have repeatedly made clear in the committee that in the previous legislature an important step has been taken, in particular by making terrorism compulsory insured. It is difficult to understand how some could hardly forget such a legislative step ten years ago and pretend they were not present in that legislature. The suffering of the victims can account for a lot, but not to forget that at a previous step that terrorism in some cases must be mandatory insured. In France this is not the case right now. The Belgian Victim Fund for assistance to victims of violent and intentional crimes is well financed, but I dare point out that this applies to all violent acts, while the fund in France is specifically financed by a contribution to the insurance premium, which is, in other words, a tax, which we do not charge. It is not right to present such honest arguments, but it is necessary to do so if one wants to speak on the substance of the matter. It is too easy to avoid the ground of the matter.

We also tried to raise the ceilings as quickly as possible. From the beginning of the terror wave that threatened us, we have tried to recognize domestic and foreign attacks as quickly as possible, which in a dozen cases has also been done efficiently.

Like many of you, I have talked a lot with the victims. At the same time, I concluded that on the medical level and as regards the Victim Fund, no victims complained. In our country, the medical care for victims was more than excellent. Foreign victims also acknowledged this. In addition, the Victim Fund of the Ministry of Justice has performed exceptionally.

Do we deserve to congratulate the jury? In such cases, there are no congratulations to be earned, but given the circumstances, our country has done its best to do everything as well as possible. However, there is no way to really ease that suffering.

Colleagues, we have tried with the legislation to make the Victim Fund the first financial point of contact, even if it is almost certain that an insurer will intervene. Everyone here speaks of the slowness of the State, but I note that even in the private sector, high speed in this area is not appropriate. Colleagues, let us not forget that this is not only the case with terrorism, that is the case in all cases where there is severe physical suffering and the insurance must intervene. That slowness is of the world. The great difficulty in creating special rules for terrorism, no matter how convinced I am, is the principle of equality, which is promoted as preeminent in certain countries. For example, the Netherlands never does anything special for victims of terrorism. The fact that we do so under these circumstances is in itself a progress, which the Constitutional Court will still have to demonstrate, if necessary, when it is noticed.

We have raised the advances to EUR 125 000 and the conditions under which they are granted are much wider than before. That is, even if it is almost certain that an insurance will intervene, such advances can be paid.

Mrs Smeyers, we have indeed extended the legislation to the cold cases, that is, to cases where no claim has been brought for more than ten years, while the acts from that time date. Even those who have already received benefits, for example within the framework of the Bende van Nijvel, will still be able to receive interventions up to 125 000 euros.

I have not yet read the amendments that have been explained here. Therefore, I will respond as far as possible. I think we’ve already seen them in the committee.

I clarify that the amendment that recommends the removal of the 10% threshold allocated to the pension for the special status is in fact within the competence of my dear colleague Mrs De Block. In any case, we have repeatedly defended the idea that, if we do not reduce it for active or retired military personnel as well as for victims, it would be impossible to do so for those who are terrorist acts.

However, 10 percent is not a very high percentage.

Regarding the single office, I have repeatedly stated that an inter-federal meeting would be held in December – it took place – and that we would like to have a single office with the Federal Prosecutor’s Office before March 22, 2019, which will be the case. The reference persons that are clearly presented in the amendments without stating how it will be financed – indeed, I understand that it costs nothing – fall within the competence of the Communities. The latter agreed to implement this system as soon as the single checkpoint exists.

With regard to the recognition of victim associations, we have said, within the framework of Article 34bis, that such recognition is necessary to provide legal assistance to victims as part of a medical expertise. Although it is true that the Royal Decree of 1986 provides that this recognition depends on the Communities, I have undertaken to amend this Royal Decree so that, in any case, in the sole framework of the assistance in the medical examination of victims of terrorism, these associations of victims may intervene in accordance with Articles 34bis and 34ter of the applicable legislation. I therefore commit myself here again to do so and if you want me to submit this royal decree to Parliament, Mrs. Van Cauter, I will not fail to do so.

So I come to the last point, namely the unique expertise. As I said before, this is a myth. Every expertise has its purpose. To think that one day it will be possible to have a unique expertise is a dream. As I have already pointed out, in France, to receive a pension or to receive assistance from the terrorism fund, there are two different expertise, although in both cases it is interventions of the state and not of private insurers.

We need to simplify and make everything that we want more flexible but the expertise, according to our Commission for Financial Aid to Victims of Intentional Acts of Violence (SPF Justice), runs through the Medex which, in my opinion, depends on the SPF Public Health. This is in itself a simplification. For my part, the assistance of victim associations will be perfectly possible under the royal decree that I promised you to take.

This is a few words, Mr. President, to tell you that this is the result of a long journey. We will not receive a beauty prize for this legislation, Mr. Van Hecke, it is certain. I am not trying to get it anywhere. But, to the extent possible, we have been effective – it must also be said – and it is thanks to the cooperation of all relevant ministers in this difficult matter.

I am especially grateful to Mrs. De Block, Mr. Vandeput, Mr. Bacquelaine, the Chairman of the Terrorism Committee, Mr. Dewael, who has been ⁇ instructive and cooperative in achieving this goal, as well as all the members of the committee.

I am not referring to all the debate we have had in the committee, this is not the place here. However, I will remind you that during the work we conducted in the Justice Committee, we heard many speakers, including lawyers, representatives of associations of victims. Almost all witnesses and speakers criticized the government’s choice. This is stated in the report of the committee.

I said it recently: of course, there are advances to intervene in the emergency but, for the rest, I think that you have chosen to release yourself from the responsibility of the state in the context of terrorist attacks and you have agreed to leave the fate of the victims largely in the hands of private insurance companies including at the level of expertise.

The victims came to tell you how much they suffered and how much they regretted this government decision. Another choice was possible. Consequently, yes, I sincerely regret that you did not take a path, like the one we took in the past following the technological accidents of Ghislenghien, which would have allowed to say once and for all to the victims of terrorism that the State is on their side, that it will intervene and that it will be their shield against insurance. It is in the opposite direction that you lead us and I regret it, on behalf of the victims, very sincerely.