Proposition 55K0175

Projet de loi modifiant le Code judiciaire afin d'améliorer l'accès à l'aide juridique de deuxième ligne et à l'assistance judiciaire par l'augmentation des plafonds de revenus applicables en la matière.

General information ¶

Authors

Ecolo Zakia Khattabi
Groen Stefaan Van Hecke
PS | SP Khalil Aouasti

Submission date

July 16, 2019

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

poverty legal aid judicial proceedings access to the courts

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB VB

Voted to reject

Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Party dissidents ¶

• Isabelle Galant (MR) voted to adopt.

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 ¶

July 15, 2020 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs Özlem Özen, Vanessa Matz and Bercy Slegers refer to the written report.

There are many lawyers in the Parliament, and more specifically in the Committee on Justice. I think all of them still have memories of things they have pledged as a trainee pro Deo. Some pro-Deozaken are never forgotten. For many, the first Pro-Theosacre ever given will also remain written in their memory. Often, this is also the first case you get to your office as a beginner lawyer, and it’s not that easy to forget.

This is equally true for me, because 25 years ago, in October 1995, I advocated my first pro-theozaak for a certain Mary. She was retired, widowed, 80 years old. She was not fortunate to own a property, she had to rent a house. She lived on about 20,000 Belgian francs a month; it was still the time of the franc. With her low retirement, she barely survived. The classic problem occurred: problems with paying the rent, problems with the owner, the heating did not work properly or leaked, there were wet spots in the house. The owner refused to do anything about it. The woman was entitled to a pro-Deo lawyer because her pension was far too low.

That right to a pro-Deo lawyer did not have that lady because she had committed a crime. Many people believe that pro-Deo lawyers serve to defend criminals. However, a lot of pro-Deozaken concerns the everyday misery of people in civil law, in family affairs and in rent matters. These small problems are often big problems for those involved.

We are now 25 years later. The house I talked about is still there. The resident is no longer there. That case is written in my memory and shows the importance of a pro-Deo system and second-line aid in our country.

I am not alone with my testimony. Following the voting in the committee, my group colleague Tinne Van der Straeten also gave a very nice relay of her experiences in helping people who needed a pro-Deo lawyer. She wrote something about this on her Facebook page.

Collega Van der Straeten describes the case of a young woman who rented a social home whose roof leaks. That woman had credited the social rental office several times, every time without result. It continued to rain inside. She worked and had taken a special day off to come to the Office of Legal Assistance for a pro-Deo lawyer. Someone from her family had come to help her and she had everything: all her letters and all her payrolls. Her salary was barely 10 euros above the limit to be entitled to a pro-Deo lawyer. The person who presided over the meeting said that she did not meet the income requirement. Collega Van der Straeten continues: "We sat there with a dozen lawyers around the table, it became silent and in that silence our hearts broke together. Yes, lawyers sometimes accept pro bono affairs because a client is not eligible for pro Deo. They do it for free and for nothing. They should not do it, but they do it.

There are people in Belgium who need legal aid but earn too much to be entitled to a pro-Deo lawyer and too little to be able to consult a lawyer themselves. That’s why we stand here today: the income limits have long been insufficient.

Not only do we say this, but also the Constitutional Court’s judgments and the opinions given to Parliament by the State Council on various bills and draft laws submitted over the years, in fact to raise the threshold for Justice.

There is a red thread in the decisions of the Constitutional Court and the opinions of the State Council: access to justice is at risk in our country. However, access to justice is a fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution. That right has been compromised by the introduction of a number of changes in recent years that have resulted in higher costs of access to justice. Judicial fees have been increased, a 21% VAT on honorary wages has been introduced, contributions have to be paid, for example, to the pro-Deofonds, and also role rights and registration fees have been increased. However, the income limits remained the same and so the aid remained far too low.

Today, colleagues, a single person may earn no more than 1,026 euros per month in order to be entitled to the full free of charge. Today, the family income may not exceed 1.317 euros to be able to appeal to a pro-Deo lawyer, which amount can be increased with children in charge. These are ⁇ low amounts. Colleagues, those amounts are below the poverty line and far below the poverty line! An increase is therefore absolutely necessary, hence the present legislative proposal.

I would also like to point out the path that the text has taken.

It was one of the most thorough debates of the last year. We have discussed this thoroughly several times. Hearing sessions were organised. There were even two opinions from the Court of Auditors on this text, the first two years ago, but there was also a recent opinion. Colleagues, I would like to challenge you to find a bill or bill that was calculated twice by the Court of Auditors. There was an opinion from the Committee on Finance. There was a second reading. There was a advice from the Chamber’s legal service. All the comments of the Legal Service were also accepted by the committee in second reading.

Colleagues, for CD&V it was important to be able to carry out an increase from September. Collega Servais Verherstraeten has been involved in the Committee for Justice several times to make this possible. However, he called for the introduction of a phase-out, as the proposals presented would immediately represent a major step when it comes to raising the income limits. We found each other in it. Together with the colleagues of the PS – I thank colleague Aouasti and ⁇ and ⁇ also colleague Verherstraeten – we have tried to set up a timing and phases. We have drawn up a phased scheme in which all income limits existing today from 1 September 2020, within two months, can be raised by 200 euros and then three years in a row by 100 euros, to make a major step towards an acceptable income limit.

Today, approximately 7 to 8% of our population can resort to a pro-Deo lawyer. If this law is adopted and comes into full effect, after four years the proportion of residents who can rely on partial or complete assistance of a lawyer can be increased to 30 %. It would be like in the Netherlands.

This text has received extensive support in the Committee on Justice. I sincerely hope that tomorrow, at the vote in the plenary session, there will also be a very broad support. I had hoped for unanimity. I know that some parties could not vote in favour and voted against or abstained, but in any case I count on a broad majority so that we can take this very important step and thus put the guarantee of our Constitution into practice.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, when we adopt this text tomorrow, our democracy will grow out of it because it will consolidate a new right: that right to legal aid that will now no longer be provided by a regulatory text, but by a text of law. It will be enlarged because it will be a historical advance; in fact, the last thresholds that were fixed, although they were recalculated at the margin, were in 2003, seventeen years ago. Today, with a large majority in this Parliament, we can finally respond to this first fundamental right that concerns all our fellow citizens: that of being able to defend their rights.

This right is legitimate, when you face a owner, when you have a need for custody of children, when you are prosecuted for criminal offences, when you are a non-documented foreigner and you need someone to carry your voice. The lawyer, the “advocare”, is the one who carries your voice. This legitimate right, today, will come out reinforced, consecrated, in a law. It will be revised up because, from this vote and from this 1 September, this right will be increased by a threshold of 200 euros. It will be revised upwards, not marginally, but for 700,000 Belgians.

Tell yourself that when you vote tomorrow, it is at once 700,000 people to whom you will dedicate a new right. And this will not stop there, because this Parliament shows itself to be ambitious. This threshold will continue to increase over the next three years. From 1 September to 1 September, we will increase from 200 to 300 euros, from 300 to 400 euros and from 400 to 500 euros. In the end, it will be more than 2.5 million Belgians who in 2023 will be able to simply say: "I can today have the assistance of a lawyer to be able to defend usefully, legitimately, my right before a court."

2.5 million Belgians are currently deprived of this right. And it is not especially the poor, but also the middle class. I speak of this middle working class, suffering, earning less than 1500 euros a month and who, tomorrow, for the same reason, working full-time, will be able to afford not to choose between paying his rent, filling his refrigerator and asking to defend his rights, but to fulfill the three at the same time. As a result, she will be able to defend herself thanks to the useful assistance of a legal professional.

So tomorrow, when we vote, we will dedicate this historic advance to the justifiable, but also to those and those who fight daily to defend these rights. As such, I would like to send a message to the lawyers who provide in the legal aid sector, to tell them that they should not worry. My colleague Van Hecke recalled it, we have done twice the turn through the Court of Auditors, in order to number this bill, so that we can clearly indicate what amount – if 2.7 million Belgians integrate in 2023 this system of completely free legal aid – it will be necessary to provide in the state budget to continue to finance the services of lawyers. We now have these figures: they are null for this year and for 2021. By 2022, they will reach approximately 35 million euros and will continue to grow. Today, I believe that we can largely afford – in order to dedicate a new right to more than 2.5 million Belgians – to consider extending the budget envelope by 30 million in 2022.

This struggle for access to justice will not end tomorrow with a vote on this bill, since the questions on this subject remain many. I know that they are shared by all the parties that supported the text. This debate includes dedicated offices, the face value of the point awarded to the lawyer (which has no longer been indexed), the frequency at which those lawyers who devote themselves to legal assistance are paid. We will approach all these workshops, as we did with this one: with serenity, patience and seriousness. We will ensure that access to justice in 2023 will be even greater than it is today.

Believe us, believe yourself tomorrow, when you vote and support this text! This is not just a budget issue. These are new rights, rights now enshrined by a law whose progress is ensured by a law and which can only be stopped if a majority is elected in that Parliament in the future. Another not least element, the indexation that has not existed so far will now also be ensured by a law.

To these 2.5 million Belgians, whether they are in a situation of precariousness or from the middle or other classes, I say: don’t wait anymore to make your voice stand, to ask that your voice be raised! A lawyer will now be at your side to carry it and make your rights and claims heard.

The increase of the income limit to be eligible for second-line legal aid is a ⁇ positive initiative to ensure better access to justice. Access to justice is a fundamental right and one of the foundations of the rule of law.

Today, income limits are unrealistically low and unfortunately a lot of people are falling out of the boat. This often leads to very overwhelming situations, with important consequences that have not yet been discussed here and which we should not lose sight of. If the applicant cannot resort to second-line assistance, this has important consequences, including the absence of free legal assistance. Specifically, this does not mean assistance to cover the costs of a court enforcement officer, for interpreting work, for medical assistance in the context of an expert examination, etc. Both are inseparably connected. If a pro-Deo lawyer is appointed, you are automatically entitled to free legal assistance. It must only be requested.

Our group will therefore support this proposal with great enthusiasm.

However, we must be aware that there is an adder under the grass. This proposal will in any case result in an increase in the budget, both for the remuneration of lawyers for the services provided, as well as for additional administrative fees for the Legal Assistance Offices. The question then arises: is this government prepared to significantly increase the amount spent on second-line legal aid? Today, that is far too low. I wish I had a clear answer from the Minister today. Unfortunately, he is still absent in this important debate.

In addition to raising the financial thresholds for the award of a pro-Deo lawyer, we must also dare to acknowledge that, unfortunately, there are abuses today, both among a small minority of lawyers and among law seekers. A thorough control of the means of subsistence does not always happen today. Often a statement on honor is sufficient, for example, for owning a car, a property, a savings account. It should be better. We must also have the courage to address these abuses. We should not close our eyes for this. During the hearing, it was revealed that the bars are working on a system to better identify and filter possible abuses of legal assistance. This system would be rolled out in an initial phase in September. But we must not wait for the full functioning of this system and we must take initiatives faster.

Unfortunately, this proposal is not enough. More is needed to fully guarantee access to justice.

Proper and timely remuneration of lawyers is important, otherwise good and competent lawyers who today also work in part within the framework of second-line assistance are at risk of being cut off. The value of a point today is 75 euros, much too low. In the past, proposals were already formulated here in the Chamber to determine the value of a point, with an opinion from the Court of Auditors. Unfortunately, the proposals remained. The gross value is never fixed and theoretically it is possible that the value of one point per year varies and can even sink below that 75 euros.

During the hearing, the Order of Flemish Balies (OVB) therefore rightly held a plea to determine the value of a point and provide for an indexation. It was rightly referred to abroad, because in most countries the remuneration for the pro-Deo lawyers is significantly higher. I will only give the example of the Netherlands, where it comes to 110,62 euros per point, with a subsidy of 10,88 euros per point for the first 1,500 points of the year. This is de facto up to 120 euros per point. The system also works differently there, with what is called the “social attorney’s office” and the channeling of the pro-Deoa jobs to law firms that focus on this social attorney’s office to ensure its profitability. Unfortunately, this is not the matter here.

It should also be a focus to ensure that lawyers who are willing to work in the framework of second-line assistance have the opportunity to work in a cost-effective way. Otherwise, impossible quality can be delivered and these lawyers will be cut off, which ⁇ should not be the intention. It is firm that an amount of 75 euros per point is far from realistic to correctly reimburse a lawyer for the services provided. Today there is an underestimation of the work to be delivered when assessing the value of a point.

During the hearing, an interesting comparison was made with the concrete example of a case, treated on the one hand in the framework of second-line legal assistance and, on the other hand, in the framework of legal assistance insurance. The gap was ⁇ large. I therefore dare to draw your attention to the call of the OVB for further investigation and consultation in order to come to a more realistic compensation.

Colleagues, another pain point remains the late payment of the pro-Deo lawyers. Today they have to wait one and a half years to be paid because it is based on the system of the closed envelope. That is of course too long. This too needs to be considered. Initiatives are needed, such as working with intermediate payments. This is a suggestion that we have heard during the hearings, but there will undoubtedly be others.

Today, we are working on raising the income limits. In particular, this will mean that the number of people who can apply for second-line legal assistance will increase significantly. In order to make this work in practice, attention must also be paid to the far too heavy administrative burden, both for the applicant and for the lawyer. For example, different documents and certificates must be submitted with the application. I will give an example. For someone who stamps, proof of the monthly amount of the benefit by the trade union or Hulpkas is not sufficient, there must also be submitted a separate certificate indicating the number of days and the amount per day. The trade unions are delivering this relatively quickly. Unfortunately, with the Helpkas for unemployment benefits, it is a different story. It involves a lot of administrative work, especially for lawyers. This too should be easier. During the hearing, proposals were formulated in this regard, such as the use of the electronic identity card and the automatic consultation of all possible databases necessary to form a picture of the income and financial situation of a claimant. There must also be initiatives for this.

Finally, colleagues, I would like to break a lance for the reduction of the VAT on the performance of lawyers, because even if the income limits are raised, an increase of the invoice by 21 % for many people who fall above the new limit and do not belong to the big winners, or who cannot deposit the invoice in one or another company, is a fairly heavy financial dobber. The reduction of VAT, together with the stimulation of legal assistance insurance, can provide a solution to this. I hope that attention will also be paid to this.

Justice accessible to all was one of the five demands of the judiciary that mobilized during the last legislative campaign under the theme “Rule of Law, I believe in it! 66 days to save justice.” One of the five claims, because in addition to this, the judiciary world always demanded and demands other measures that also have a budget impact: respect and fill the cadres in all jurisdictions and all prosecutors, judicial buildings in good functioning condition for the prosecutors and for the staff and, last but not least, a performance and integrated IT system.

These claims have been relayed and integrated into most electoral programs: raising legal aid thresholds is undoubtedly a measure that all political groups consider legitimate. It is an integral part of the program. Our intention is to realize it, but not in any way, without worrying about the rest.

The bill proposed today represents, following three annual increases, an additional cost of €177 million for legal aid and without any flexibility, as the annual indexation mechanism will now be anchored in the law and no longer in a royal decree.

For us liberals, it is not a responsibility to vote this now. However, we proposed a first outcome: increasing the minimum threshold of accessibility to legal aid by aligning it with the poverty threshold, then “monitoring” this first step in order to examine whether the measure will bear fruit and finally, considering subsequent increases.

If this bill, supported in committee by the left parties and the Vlaams Belang, is adopted in plenary, the MR hopes that it will not have an impact on other measures equally necessary for the judicial world. I think of what Attorney General De Valkeneer told us about police violence, the indispensable commitment of magistrates to decrease the number of cases classified without success for reasons of opportunity, according to the jargon, and which remains much too high. I also think of the value of the point of pro deo lawyers, ⁇ ined at 75 euros for many years. Between 2014 and 2019, the total budget of justice increased from 1.8 billion to 1.9 billion. Therefore, it has not decreased, but many requests are still awaiting.

For these reasons, the MR will vote against the bill. We have repeated this repeatedly during the debates: such a measure must be taken within the framework of a full-time government agreement that will have to conduct arbitration on the basis of the budget it will have at its disposal to respond to all legitimate demands from the judiciary and the prosecutors.

For several years, the PTB has denounced the fact that the ceilings for access to legal aid are far too low and below the poverty line.

In 2019, one in ten Belgians was at risk of living below the poverty line. In practice, many people who have trouble connecting both ends have been excluded from legal aid. The priority of families is to accommodate, feed, dress, care and not to bear the costs of a possible judicial procedure.

Justice is not cheap. Given the current obstacles, giving up its rights is often the only option. It is not possible that only those who have money have access to justice. This is how class justice is established.

Christelle Triffaux, member of the Justice For All Platform, said: “Today, the finding is that in Belgium, prosecutors are abandoning the idea of enforcing their rights, in the absence of accessible justice, and this is very serious.” Manuella Cadelli, former president of the Association Syndicale des Magistrats, said in September 2019 that the budget for justice had been reduced by 20% in recent years. According to her, "it is a justice of the poor that does not even welcome the poor."

Access to justice was under pressure during the previous legislature with the collection of VAT on lawyer fees, the increase of role rights, the provisions on procedural compensation and the tightening of access to second-line legal aid, in particular with the introduction of a flat-rate contribution, even though the latter restriction has since been repealed by the Constitutional Court.

These problems, which we denounce, have also been repeatedly raised by the Service for Combating Poverty, the Justice Platform for All, the State Council and the Constitutional Court.

For us, legal aid and access to justice are inextricably linked. If a person does not have the financial means to bear the cost of legal advice, he is denied access to justice and is therefore unable to protect his or her rights. This is an obvious fact that we cannot ignore.

Today we offer ourselves the opportunity to return to this sad finding.

This is a political choice and taking into account the less fortunate justiciables must be a priority. The PTB welcomes the vote on the bill improving access to second-line legal aid by increasing the financial thresholds of accessibility. From now on, the thresholds for access to fully or partially free legal assistance will be increased by several hundred euros gradually and will take a little more into account the social realities of our country. The thresholds for access to legal aid will be increased by 200 euros from September 2020; subsequently, this threshold will be increased annually until 2024. The amount deducted from the income per dependent person, usually children, will be increased to 20% of the social integration income instead of 15% currently.

If the text is adopted today in the plenary session, it can enter into force in September, from the beginning of the judicial year. These measures are a great step in the right direction but may not be sufficient to ensure access to justice for all. An increase of several hundred euros should be applauded but the threshold of access to legal assistance should be set above the poverty threshold to ensure effective and real access to justice for all.

We hope that this can be a starting point for further legislative initiatives to eliminate the financial, material, temporal, linguistic and social barriers that citizens face in their access to justice. I thank you.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, there has already been a long way ahead of this case. Mr. Van Hecke, we have also admitted that and that is ⁇ not our problem.

What we see here today is the raising of the income thresholds for those who wish to take advantage of second-line legal aid. For all clarity, we are not against this principle. For our party, an accessible Justice has always been one of the most important points in ensuring the proper functioning of Justice in a rule of law. We therefore believe that everyone has the right to access justice, including those with lower incomes.

However, we have not approved this proposal in the committee and we will not do so tomorrow in the plenary session. Although we support the principle in itself, we are seriously concerned about the financial impact of this text. We would therefore have liked to see that here in Parliament, where this text is likely to be adopted tomorrow, there would be more demonstration of financial accountability. These proposals will cost 77 million euros in the first year, and by 2024 the cost plate will reach 177 million euros. I know that this gradual increase is already a concession from the applicants, as the original proposals would have increased the budget by at least 41 million to a maximum of 278 million euros per year. Nevertheless, a recurring cost of 177 million euros is ⁇ significant.

In these financially bizarre times, when money must be sought to cover, among other things, all the needs due to the health crisis, we find this impact on the budget at least careless and actually even irresponsible. As the colleague of the MR said, there is also immediately an advance reduction on the financial resources for the next three to four years.

Colleagues, the money will ever have to come somewhere today and Justice has a lot of needs. The question is where to save. Will we save on human-worthy detention, on the safety of prison personnel or on computerization? Will we sometimes, as we work with a closed envelope for the pro-Deos system, simply bring down the value of the point? For all clarity, I do not think this is the intention of the applicants.

We believe that what is now on the table should have been arranged in a government agreement. It is a matter for a government with full powers. Of course, I do not mean that this Parliament should become a voting machine of the government. However, what those who will approve this proposal here now do is mortgage the future.

Mr. Van Hecke, for all clarity, it is of course not your fault that there is still no full-fledged government. A full-fledged government would have the overall picture of the budget in mind and could judge about a balanced increase in this file, taking into account other budget items.

Our group therefore regrets the fact that this proposal was accepted by a majority in the committee.

We are all in favor of the principle behind the proposal, but we cannot support it at the moment for the reason I mentioned recently. After all, we want the financial picture to be correct, and we fear that this will no longer be the case due to the amount of expenditure and advance deduction. The Parliament can adopt many measures, whether or not useful, but someday the bill must be paid and that is why we will vote against the proposal tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the applicants on the work done, which was done very carefully and also very meaningful. This has been well discussed in the committee. As far as possible, many opinions were also taken into account, as well as the many, also justified, concerns that were formulated in the committee, with, among other things, the phasing as a result.

For the SPA, access to justice is the highest good. Access to justice is a fundamental right for every citizen, but that fundamental right has remained a dead letter for many people. This is unacceptable in a democracy. Justice can only be accessible if it is affordable for everyone. Furthermore, strengthening access to justice is an effective way to combat the vulnerability of people in poverty. If we really want to bring Justice closer to the citizen, then a raise of the income limits is necessary.

Our group is therefore very pleased that this proposal has been well cooperated within the committee and that together solutions have now been found to improve the legal second-line assistance. Therefore, we fully support the bill.

For many years, we have denounced the income ceilings that allow access to legal aid. The current ceilings are largely too low – below the current poverty line – to allow low-income people access to justice. They no longer reflect the social reality and are unacceptable. As the magistrates say, only the very poor or the very rich still have access to the courts.

I hear that it is the left-wing parties that have voted for this text. Mrs. Gilson, I do not see what access to justice has to do with a left-right debate. It has absolutely nothing to do with it! On the other hand, when you say that you had made a proposal up to the poverty line and that you wanted to then evaluate and phase, I will tell you that, in fact, this is what is being done. From September, it will be slightly above the poverty line and then phases will be carried out from year to year. This is what will happen. This debate cannot be reduced to a left-right debate. Personally, I am neither left nor right. I simply believe that this is a debate on which all parties have special attention. Whether in the framework of a government or not, I do not see so much the difference, since, all and all, we had a commitment to this legal aid.

The current ceilings penalize the lower middle class. It’s not just about being extremely poor. This lower middle class is currently penalized. It does not have access to justice, on the one hand, because it is not within the threshold and, on the other hand, because it is not rich enough. Therefore, access to justice is prevented for a significant number of citizens. In addition to the fact that they cannot receive legal aid or legal assistance, they must pay office fees, a 21% VAT on lawyer fees and, of course, these fees are often very high.

We had to raise those thresholds to allow this access to justice, this access to a basic public service. Of course, the proposal that was voted in the committee will have a cost but, when we highlight the differences between the countries of Europe in terms of access to legal aid – to remember, in the Netherlands it is 37% against 7 to 8% in Belgium – the conclusion quickly imposes.

The budgetary impact in these times of crisis is obviously significant, but the modification of the ceilings of access to legal aid is all the more important, given the difficulties in which the eligible find themselves. Nevertheless, I would like to remind you that this proposal has been on the table for a long time, long before the outbreak of the crisis, and that it has even more importance in the times that occupy us.

Furthermore, the amounts indicated must be nuanced since lawyers themselves will have increased professional income that will necessarily be subject to tax.

This is obvious, but it is fundamental to reaffirm that lawyers should continue to benefit from a stable point that is not dependent on the number of cases or the Legal Aid Fund. A major advance was made by fixing the point to 75 euros, guaranteed by the Legal Aid Fund, and by increasing the budget for legal aid. It is obvious that we cannot go backwards. The envelope must be open to allow this public service to be fulfilled in a dignified manner both for the justiciable and for the lawyers who provide this service. It would obviously be counterproductive that the increase in the ceiling would cause lawyers to be underpaid, which would obviously not allow to render a quality public service.

Furthermore, I rebel, as many of my colleagues have also done, against the idea that there would be many errors in second-line legal aid. Avocats.be is obviously false "against the claim that there are many abuses in the field of second-line legal aid known to all but very rarely punished. The appointment of a lawyer for a justiciable shall be made only after a thorough and precise examination of whether the latter is well in the required conditions. Many applications for designation fail because the applicant is obviously not in the conditions, does not provide a complete dossier..."

Madame Matz, I allow myself to interrupt you but as you have asked me personally, I have to react. It is a fact: the left-wing parties and the Vlaams Belang voted this text. You are neither left nor right, either, but the others are all left parties, plus the Vlaams Belang.

We proposed to align ourselves to the poverty line. In the proposal that is submitted here, I do not know how Mr. Aouasti comes to 35 million. But we – and Mrs. Gabriëls also said it – in the Court of Auditors documents, we reach 177 million in addition to a total budget of 1.9 billion. It was 1.8 billion at the beginning. Of 1.9 billion, 177 million, we estimate that is a lot.

This Parliament does not stop voting on texts that cost a lot of money. Of course, the ideal would be to be able to offer everything to everyone for free but the money must come from somewhere. The state budget is not infinite.

I feel like there are tearful speeches in this Parliament, but we must be reasonable. Disaster situations exist. However, let us install a full-time government, which will be able to do its job and make arbitrations, as soon as it has been constituted, to offer a possibility of legal assistance, of course, but not at the expense of other policies.

We are not in the committee. Mr. Aouasti was arrested. Mr. Van Hecke felt interrogated. I suppose you have already held all these discussions in the committee. We are not going to resume them here, nor to resume the discussion of the numbers. Otherwise, the Court of Auditors will be constantly consulted. I feel the balloon coming. The Council of Ministers has already been held twice today. Never two without three.

Mr Aouasti, then Mr Van Hecke, you have the word. Then I will give the floor to Ms. Matz to finish her speech.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will be brief.

There is a saying that lawyers cannot count. I wonder how we get to a figure of 35 million. This is very simple when it comes to the legal aid system. The first increase would reach 200 euros. According to the Court of Auditors, this brings us to a budget of 77 million euros for the State – but not for this year. In fact, this amount is related to the new population that would enter in September. However, if you are familiar with the system of legal aid and the remuneration of legal aid, you know that the encoding of points takes place only after the end of the service and that it must take place by 30 June. In addition, the remuneration is paid only on 30 June of the following year.

In other words, if all new entrants on 1 September were to engage in a procedure that, by miracle – given the deadlines of the Belgian justice – would end before 30 June 2021, the lawyers would be remunerated, at best, only on 30 June 2022. This means that there will be no budget impact for 2021 and that, for the year 2022, if everyone returned and the files were closed – while the judicial backbone would disappear as by spell – the surplus cost would reach half the envelope, that is, 35 million euros. It seems to me possible to find such a sum in 2022, when I see that your group supports an Open Vld amendment that introduces a spending of one billion euros in a text for which it has been requested to be referred to the State Council.

Between one billion euros for tax fraud and 35 million for legal aid!

We have also held this discussion in the committee.

The figures are placed on the table. We have received two reports from the Court of Auditors. I think that few texts with two calculations of the Court of Auditors are submitted for voting in the plenary session. I have seen few liberal texts with calculations from the Court of Auditors.

I fully follow my colleague’s argument and I would like to add two things to that.

First, the initial payments will indeed only be made in 2022 for four twelfths of the planned budget, because from September to December is four twelfths of a year. That is four twelve of 77 million euros.

Secondly, the expenses are income for the lawyer. This is the salary of a lawyer. Therefore, social security contributions are paid. There are also taxes paid. One often speaks of revenue effects, but if there is now one measure that has a cost price but also a revenue effect, then it will be this measure. Part of it will flow back, unfortunately not to justice but to finance.

The argument from a liberal angle is that it will cost a huge amount of money. Yes, it will cost money, but this is a fundamental right. This should not be exaggerated, it must be nuanced.

I found it important to repeat this here again so that it is clear in the report.

I think no one in the committee questioned the figures. There are two opinions from the Court of Auditors. Nobody doubts the figures. Let’s just talk about the recurring cost price on an annual basis, everyone knows that it will be 177 million euros in the long run. Let us not argue about the numbers, because everyone agreed on what it would cost.

There may be, in the Court of Auditors, a left side and a right side. It is like that.

This is written on the table of the Court of Auditors, from September 2023.

There is no agreement between you. The Court of Auditors is like the Gospel: you believe it or you don’t believe it!

This is what you say when you give me the word.

I will not extend on the numbers. This question is of course important, and I think that both of our colleagues have largely justified it, since you are talking about a short-term, constitution of a government - in any case, we hope. So the question is not that.

You are talking about arbitration. Imagine that, because we would have done legal aid, everything else, we would put it aside? Unless some tell “cracks,” it seems to me that all democratic parties, who want justice to have more resources, are well aware that this will not be limited to legal aid. This is an essential element for accessibility to the service.

But of course, we know it, there is the state of the buildings, the appointment of magistrates, the framework, the staff missing. There will be sufficient funding for justice. We had estimated that to 500 million euros of supplementary funds for justice. At some point, we must be able to put our words into execution.

To say that the budget of justice under the previous government... I’m sorry, but we don’t really have to live in the same country. All the judicial services that were heard in the committee told us the same thing: the resources were reduced compared to the number of continuous complementary missions requested by the justice.

Still, a substantial increase in the justice budget must be envisaged, both for this second-line legal aid and for many other budget lines. We have stated this for a long time. Despite budgetary difficulties, our group remains very favourable to the bill that is submitted to us; and we hope that it will come into force as early as this month of September 2020.

Another point seems important to us. All conditions are now set by law – Mr. Aouasti reiterated – including the ceiling amounts and their adaptation to the evolution of the index, which will start in 2024. By then, each amount will be increased by 100 euros on 1 September of the year, for the first time in September 2021 and for the last time on 1 September 2023, date from which the amounts will be indexed.

We would, of course, have preferred to move immediately to a substantial amount, but we highlight, as we did in committee, the constructive amendment that was filed by Mr. Van Hecke and Aouasti aimed at making a phasing out in order to try to meet this budgetary objection that is important but which is no longer sustainable with regard to the amounts currently defined.

For budgetary reasons, the amounts will be variable. "One of yours is better than two you will have," and that's why we support this compromise. We welcome these advances and our group will vote for this text, without reservation, because it offers a greater access to justice for many of our fellow citizens.

This bill is an important bill, especially in the light of improving the access for legal seekers to second-line assistance. Access to justice and the right to defence are fundamental rights that must be absolutely guaranteed in our democracy. Being assisted by a lawyer in court is a right for everyone and not just for those who can afford it.

CD&V agrees to expand and facilitate access to second-line assistance for legal seekers. We have always said this in the committee. We have taken part in the quest to get there in a realistic way. Income limits are subject to revision, we are convinced of this.

Nevertheless, this proposal goes a long way budgetarily, ⁇ to the year 2024. There is also an adjustment, which now provides for a very extensive presumption of being eligible for the free second-line assistance. These two elements have forced us to see the opening too wide. We abstained from this in the committee.

Colleagues, the economic consequences of the coronary crisis are not yet fully clear, we have not seen the latter yet. In the meantime, many reasonable measures have been taken in this Parliament to protect citizens and ⁇ , which will also have a significant budgetary impact. We think we will see the full budget impact in the year 2022. In our opinion, we must therefore be vigilant at this time.

Since we are nevertheless constantly looking for solutions, we have formulated a proposal in the committee through an amendment, in which we agreed to provide for a one-time and direct increase of the income limits of 200 euros, from September 2020. This seemed to be an acceptable compromise. A proposal initially limited in time, to see what budgetary impact it will have in 2022 and to see what we can gradually insert into the budget in the coming years. First, we need to ensure a realistic and correct budget.

So, colleagues, today we do not want to commit ourselves with this proposal until 2024, because we do not want to do with symbol legislation. We want to make sure that the resources are available at the time we need them. We do not want this legislation to go beyond its purpose.

That being said, we live in a democracy. Democracy is expressed in the committee. We accept the decision of the majority and we will not vote against it, as we are also in favor of raising the income limits for second-line aid. However, we will abstain for the sake of budgetary caution.

Finally, I would like to thank the initiators for this important proposal and for the debate we held in the committee.

Dear colleagues, I allow myself to insist because Ms. Slegers was not included on the list. So I had to add it, just as Ms. Rohonyi seems to have for procedural issues. If others want to sign up, it must be ⁇ because it becomes improvisation. I conditioned Ms. Rohonyi’s speech to its briefness.

I would like to assure you that we made our request on time. But the concern lies in the fact that we are not part of the Conference of Presidents and therefore could not register for these different points until the moment we echoed the decision taken at that same conference.

It will be better after the next election.

That is why I want to speak to this fundamental text. I would like to thank my colleagues for submitting this proposal, which aims to ⁇ access to justice. This was essential because it is the access to justice that conditiones the exercise of our rights, whether we are socially and economically strong or weak.

This was also essential, because this access was reduced to a skin of grief under our two previous federal governments, under the effect of a significant increase in judicial costs. I think in this case of lawyer fees, office fees, appeal fees, courts, expertise and translation, as well as the famous introduction of a moderator ticket.

Of course, the procedural compensation now allows the repeatability of lawyer fees. But it is only a flat-rate intervention of the succeeding party in the fees of the winning party and it is conditioned by the judge’s decisions not to compensate the expenses.

As I said, the amount of the graft fees was increased during the previous legislature, despite the insistent request of the State Council to assess them in view of all the financial charges already imposed on the justiciable.

It follows that second-line legal aid is more than ever a helpline for legal persons wishing to assert their rights in court. Except that these conditions, have been said and repeated and I think it is essential, remain today far too strict and have the effect of reserving legal aid to the most disadvantaged classes while knowing that the current ceilings do not even correspond to the poverty threshold.

The solutions provided by the final version of this bill thus allow to include a significant part of the middle class, now excluded from legal assistance, and thus ultimately allow the State to finally assume its responsibilities regarding the effectiveness of a fundamental right.

Madame Gilson, you talked about responsibility. Justly, do you consider today that he is responsible for having a justice that is expensive at such a point that after calculation, an increasing number of justiciables prefer to turn his back and thus remain drowned in conflicts that, left in the state, risk to exacerbate?

Can we thus exclude all those who must go to justice, forced by circumstances, by a personal or family drama or by a dismissal, a significant physical injury or even a dishonest entrepreneur? Of course not. Therefore, as said, it was urgent to increase the thresholds for access to second-line legal aid and to enter them into the law. This debate was also held in the committee. It was important to include them in the law.

Madame Gilson, if you want to take the floor, ask it. Is it for a personal fact? Has Ms. Rohonyi quoted you?

I have mentioned it, Mr. President.

I give you the floor, Madame Gilson.

I did not discuss the entire debate in the committee. At the MR, we already agreed to increase access to legal aid to the poverty line. But there is nothing else to deduce from the fact that we consider that all the challenges of justice must be considered in a comprehensive way — it is the case to say it for you! — and to respond to them in an equally comprehensive way. It is not therefore that we answer the question you ask, that we cannot defend ourselves or have access to justice, etc.

I find, however, Mrs. Gilson, — I quote your name, Mrs. Representative of the MR, — that by doing so, you refuse to support a solution that allows the prosecutors facing the types of disputes I have just cited to go to court.

I have to give the floor to Mrs. Gilson. This is the Rules. If you don’t hear it, I can’t do anything.

We had already made a proposal that gave access to justice to anyone below the poverty line, to deal with the urgency. For the rest, we know that discussions are ongoing and we hope to have a government as soon as possible. We believe that we must address all together the issues facing justice and not limit ourselves to a single theme.

I am continuing. These access thresholds must be increased, but also entered into the law because it will result in a much greater legal certainty than if they were entered in a simple royal decree, issued which is known to have deprived us of the public, rich, contradictory and transparent debate that we had in commission.

This discussion was accompanied by opinions of the Court of Auditors and the Committee on Finance. It proves, however, that the improvement of access to legal assistance that is brought about by this text – and which was done by all the parties during the last elections – is far from being realised “in any way”, to take back the terms used by the representative of the MR.

The number of opinions received, the discussions we have had in the committee, the amendments submitted, on the contrary, prove how much the Justice Committee has produced a constructive and responsible work. Such work was essential, even more when it comes to such a fundamental right as access to justice. Improving access to second-line legal aid is aiming towards this qualitative and affordable justice that the Minister of Justice has always called for in the previous government.

This will have a budgetary impact. This is why we have requested the Court of Auditors twice. But here it is a choice of society, an opportunity that, if it is not seized today in Parliament, will eventually have an even greater social, economic and therefore fiscal impact. It is also about supporting justice, as we have supported other sectors that have been hit hard by the coronavirus crisis. Justice is not a sector like another: it is our third power, a third power that will be sought more than ever by the justiciable because they will face bankruptcies, abusive dismissals, domestic violence, divorces, unpaid rent.

I also do not understand that this text cannot be supported by pretexting other priorities in the field of justice. I understand this argument even less when it is raised by representatives of parties who were in the previous government and who have therefore had all the time and opportunity to address these priorities, these needs.

It is true that our justice is sick because of lack of means, and my group has not ceased to denounce it, but also because too many justiciables turn away from it. This cannot be accepted because justice is a whole. Justice is a public service that must operate with a framework of magistrates finally filled, with judicial buildings and a computer system worthy of that name. But it is also a public service that must be accessible to everyone, regardless of their income, regardless of their financial facilities. It is about our social peace. This is a fundamental right that every democrat must not only defend at the time of the elections, but also and above all to concrete, at the desired time, in this assembly.

We have already started discussions on the future budget of the Justice with a possible future government.