Proposition 55K0647

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 19 mars 2013 relative à la Coopération belge au Développement et érigeant la charte d'intégrité existante en matière de coopération au développement en référence nationale pour la politique d'intégrité.

General information ¶

Authors

N-VA Peter De Roover, Kathleen Depoorter, Anneleen Van Bossuyt, Valerie Van Peel, Kristien Van Vaerenbergh

Submission date

Oct. 18, 2019

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

code of conduct international cooperation development aid sexual violence

Voting ¶

Abstained from voting

Vooruit

Party dissidents ¶

• Karin Jiroflée (Vooruit) voted to reject.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

June 25, 2020 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I will briefly explain the bill.

The implementation of the Charter of Integrity among actors in development cooperation. I believe that this legislative proposal deserves special attention. Abuse of power in the form of cross-border sexual behavior. I’m sure everyone here in the hemisphere agrees that this is unacceptable. It is unacceptable in this society, but ⁇ when it comes to vulnerable people in the South. Unfortunately, development cooperation is not spared from such facts. We’ve all experienced the scandals surrounding a number of large organizations.

When we look back at the debates that have been held here about victims of sexual abuse, we know that even in a society with a lot of framing, where victims can turn to help, the taboo is very large. Victims sometimes need years to seek effective help. How then can we live in the situation of a girl or boy in the South who experiences cross-border sexual behaviour in the context of abuse of power, in the context of someone whose life or that of his or her family depends! Therefore, we will bring this bill here again to the plenary session after the discussion in the committee.

What do we want to do concrete now?

We propose a central call point where victims can report in all neutrality and in all security. We want to elevate the Charter of Integrity to the national standard for all actors in development cooperation. Then we are talking about institutional organizations, then we are talking about private actors, then we are talking about organizations of civil society.

If infringements are ⁇ , subsidies may be suspended or cancelled, depending on the severity of the infringements.

This bill will also include a progress report, allowing Parliament to carry out its control task with regard to the resources of development cooperation and allowing us to increase the support level of development cooperation.

In the committee, we have thoroughly discussed this proposal and there were a number of legal and technical amendments to be submitted to the vote. We ask the Chamber for permission to bring the bill back to the committee. There was a vote. There have been some mistakes. It was asked to go back to the vote, but it was not possible according to the Rules of Procedure. We would now like to work on that text again in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, vote on the amendments, and then return to the plenary session with a text carried by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, in order to speak about it in essence.

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

Full source

I am referring to the written report.

I give you the floor for your speech.

Sorry, but you are not registered.

This is your group secretariat. I turn to the service. This is not the first case that appears. I would like to give the floor to Mrs. De Laveleye. We will clarify your registration.

I will take a few minutes because we have had an exciting discussion in the committee. I will explain our position.

The purpose of this bill is integrity in the field of development cooperation. We can only adhere to this principle. Integrity must be a central value of cooperation. It must be one of the pillars.

What are we talking about when we talk about integrity? In the head of its authors, this proposal only targets displaced sexual behavior and abuse of power taking the form of sexual behavior. This is at least what was presented in the introductory exhibition. One can regret it because integrity also covers financial integrity, therefore corruption and fraud, for example, in addition to moral and physical integrity, but either.

Integrity is therefore an element that must be central in all sectors and at least in development cooperation, which must embody the values of human dignity, human rights, good governance, solidarity and equality. This is also the conviction of the sector itself since its various actors are widely engaged and this, from a very long time, in the establishment of procedures aimed at ensuring the integrity of their structure and their teams, will be returned.

If we take the effort to carefully analyze the proposal that is submitted to us by the colleagues of the N-VA, we realize that it poses several difficulties. These difficulties were also highlighted by the experts we audited on 4 December 2019, namely a representative of the cabinet of Minister De Croo, the director of the Flemish Federation of NGOs and the representative of the French-speaking Federation of NGOs.

These difficulties have been partially alleviated by useful amendments, notably from the N-VA but also from colleagues from CD&V, but they remain nevertheless. What are they?

The first is that this bill overlaps with arrangements that are already present both in the law and in the practice of the sector. These elements were recalled by the representative of Mr. De Croo’s office who highlighted the various elements of the existing legal framework, putting the integrity objectives at the forefront.

We were able to recall that the foundations of integrity are already found in the 2013 Law on Development Cooperation, but also in the Enabel and BIO management contracts and in the Royal Decrees on Humanitarian Aid and Non-Governmental Cooperation.

Beyond the legal framework, we must also emphasize that a specifically integrity-oriented arrangement has been put in place since 2018 by Mr. Minister De Croo and cooperation actors such as civil society organisations, institutional actors, BIO and Enabel.

Indeed, being aware that the commitment to integrity deserves to be always reinforced, and aware that zero risk does not exist, the actors of the cooperation took the step to participate, with the General Directorate of Development Cooperation, in a “integrity” task force established by Mr. Minister De Croo in 2018.

The [...]

I am sorry. This is difficult for interpreters. I thank you for the comment. I will try to be a little quieter.

This task force has resulted in various measures. The first is a "integrity" charter in which each organization confirms its commitment on ten specific points. The agreement was signed by the various actors. It is this charter that the authors of the proposal want to incorporate into the law.

The second measure is the introduction or updating of codes of conduct in each organization. Finally, the third is the establishment of reporting procedures in case of abuse that would occur despite the risk prevention procedures.

This device, consisting of the task force, the charter, codes of conduct and reporting procedures, has different merits. First, that of being anchored in the realities of organizations and based on their own risk analysis, which are very different from one organization to another. We understand that the risk management of a humanitarian NGO in the front line or an NGO that advocates is necessarily different.

This device also has the merit of being built by the organizations themselves, with a control system by the DGD, of course. It thus gains in ability to mobilize their members and therefore ownership of the device.

All this to say that the current legal framework already puts integrity at the forefront and that, on the other hand, the sector, with the minister, the DGD and the actors, have already given themselves clear tools and tags to continue to evolve.

So it seems to us that this proposal is redundant and therefore largely useless.

The second difficulty we have with this bill is the respect and protection of victims. The text proposes us to create a central point of contact for victims of abuse. This is a problem. The proposal does not provide sufficient guarantees in respect of the privacy of individuals, and in particular of victims, while the purpose is to provide assistance to victims of abuse.

Therefore, it must be well understood: a person is a victim of abuse and the description of his abuse comes to a central point without a guarantee of confidentiality. This lack of guarantee undermines both the protection of the victim’s privacy and its security since it is not known how the victim’s surroundings can use this information. It can turn against her. So it seems to us that this proposal is potentially dangerous and counterproductive.

The third difficulty lies in the fact that the aim is to establish a central contact point that is both distant and little visible. I explain to myself. Populations that could be victims or witnesses of abuse are very largely inexperienced in institutional arrangements of cooperation, and are understood. It should therefore be expected that a central contact point is not actually identifiable and therefore not actually accessible to victims.

Furthermore, the proposal highlights that this central point exists subsidiarily and parallel to the contact points established at the level of the organization. While it is relevant to keep decentralized points of contact closer to communities, it is well understood the difficulty of having multiple points of contact, namely the decentralized points of contact, on the one hand, and the central point, on the other. To this, adds the fact that the actors have multiple donors who might all want, at once, to have their own central point. The confusion would then become total for the victims or witnesses of abuse.

In short, this central point, which wants to be neutral and accessible to all parties, would de facto only be very inaccessible because very little identifiable by the parties directly concerned. This proposal seems to be ineffective.

The fourth and last difficulty lies in the fact that there is a confusion between the individual responsibility of an abuser and the moral responsibility of the organization that employs him. Any breach of the obligations of the Charter of Integrity gives the Belgian State the right to proceed, depending on the gravity of the breach, to the immediate immediate suspension, complete or partial, of the liquidation of the subsidies and to the complete or partial termination of the commitments within the framework of its programmes. This article, although it was the result of useful amendments, remains at least complex. If an employee or a volunteer of an organization has had criminal behavior, it will first be necessary to check the organization’s liability to see if its charter has been properly followed, implemented, etc., and, if necessary, withdraw its subsidies. But nothing explains, in the bill, how these links will be analyzed and by whom, nor from what moment the responsibility of a member should fall on the organization as a whole.

It would therefore be as if a supermarket employee was stealing in the box and pursuing the store for theft. This proposal seems to us to be abusive from the point of view of law. These are the main difficulties that this text poses.

In conclusion, the bill refers to an object – integrity – that is and must remain at the heart of our concerns, everywhere and all the time. Nevertheless, on the basis of the hearings, our experience of the case and our analysis, it appears to us redundant, and not only useless, since the legal framework of the "Integrity" device set up by the minister already responds to it. Furthermore, it is counterproductive, inasmuch as it does not guarantee the protection of the victims’ privacy. In addition, due to its off-ground and centralized dimension, it is inefficient and potentially abusive for organizations. As such, we will not be able to support it.

I thank you for your relative attention and, Mr. Speaker, for your patience.

I thank you, Madam.

We received the application for registration at 14:31. I insist on the group secretaries to make an effort to inform the services of the House on time and on time when it comes to registering a point, because this somewhat disrupts the overall organization. We will try to catch up with this by reducing the length of the interventions.

Thank you for the word, because this is a very important proposal. I am very happy that I am the second to speak here and that I have heard how that one left party is all looking for drugs to undermine a bill that deals with victims of sexual abuse. I find this incomprehensible. I also hear the comparison between theft and cross-border sexual abuse. Are these the great, progressive words? We compare theft to a victim of sexual abuse that can bear the consequences of what has been done to him or her for a lifetime. That is hallucinating.

With this bill, we will make the Charter of Integrity binding. This is forgotten in the speech. It becomes binding and it becomes enforceable. We can really point the actors to their responsibilities. We do this for the most vulnerable victims, where the progressive parties in other debates have so much to say. Abuse of power in the form of sexual abuse is unacceptable, here, now, everywhere and always. Sometimes we are talking about that. We must bear in mind that despite the effective steps taken, despite the Charter of Integrity, it still happens too often.

If you refer to internal reports, I would like to point out that despite those internal reports, there have been victims even recently, there have been people who have fallen from the boat. That is why we took this initiative. In the debates we have had about the non-ageing of sexual abuse, we have heard a lot of testimonies from victims indicating how difficult it is to cross that threshold in our social system, where there is a lot of support to cross that threshold and to go and declare it and make clear to the perpetrator that he must not do so with the victim, that he does not have that right. All the courage must be gathered by those victims in order to make a complaint.

When one thinks of a victim in a developing country, who depends on certain actors for his or her existence, for the existence of his or her family, who has no support like here, one sees the need of this bill much more.

I have heard all the side jumps mentioned here also in the committee. I remain especially satisfied that no progressive, leftist party has approved this proposal. I still do not understand this.

There is often a reference to the legal systems of the countries there on the ground. SDG 16 calls for a strong justice system. SDG 16 calls for strong structures, for every citizen. We of the N-VA are absolutely in favor of this. We must work on that.

But do you have to explain to me how, at this time, in a legal system where she must report a rape with four male witnesses, a woman is protected by that legal system? She must bring four male witnesses to report her rape.

Well, it is for those women, for those men, for those children, that this initiative now prevails.

The Charter of Integrity is now officially elevated to the national standard. That is nothing more than logical. If we want to stimulate the capacity of development cooperation, if we want to put it in proportion to all the efforts made by the Belgian State, it seems to me not more than normal that we effectively respect and appreciate that national standard.

Then I find it absolutely unacceptable that we hide behind legal systems that currently do not defend the rights of citizens at all.

In Latijns-Amerika, colleagues, exists an assertion dat prachtig klinkt in the Spanish, but the truth is horrible. Justice is a serpent that only bites the barefoot.

Justice is a snake that bites only those who don’t wear shoes. For those people without shoes, who need development cooperation, for those victims, we want to guarantee legal certainty with a neutral point of contact, where they can be accompanied and where they can end up with their sometimes very serious concerns and complaints.

It is our task to ensure that people who are volunteers, people who work for an organization in development cooperation, are also reminded of their responsibilities. That is a very nice typing of right and left today, because we have problems that we can name and address. So yes, see a problem, appoint, address and kordaat and act fairly. That is what this law wants to mean.

Will we be rigorous? I hear you referring to a single employee organization that runs a bit next to the line. Of course, we will not be rigorous. Of course, in proportion with the Minister, we will give the opportunity to take action. “Violations of the obligations of the Charter of Integrity give the Belgian State the right, depending on the severity of the violation, to proceed to the immediate complete or partial suspension of the grant agreements and the complete or partial termination by law of the commitments within the programmes, projects and contributions.”

I do not understand why this accusation should be made. We will not declare anyone bird-free. With this text no one is reduced in labour force. No one is limited in projects and statements. We will protect any possible victims. We will ensure that an organization must or can take responsibility when someone in that organization commits unacceptable acts towards others.

You talked about the internal report. This bill also makes the progress report truly binding. This can be used to prove the proper functioning of an organization. It is like a means to which organizations can refer. This is not pest law. This is a law that should ensure that everything goes right and victims are effectively protected.

I am very pleased to be able to present this text. I think he died four times, and just as often reanimated. This is very difficult in real life. But it is because we have continued to work in the committee and some colleagues have worked very constructively. I am very satisfied with the result and I also want to thank the Cabinet of the Minister, because they too have made a very good contribution to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, as Ms. Depoorter has very directly asked me, I will intervene quickly since I have already expressed myself clearly.

Ms. Depoorter started sarcastically by claiming that I was making a comparison between theft and sexual abuse. But that is not what I did. I think we are all able to distinguish the two acts well - there is no doubt. I have only come out of the present case to show that the responsibility of a structure is confused with that of an individual who must be punished for his criminal behavior. There is no doubt that an abuser must be identified, prosecuted and punished. I simply pointed out the confusion brought by your text between levels of responsibility.

On the other hand, you have ridiculed the progressive left that has not supported you. I don’t think we spoke sarcasm during the debate about your text. On the contrary, I think I have always shown the respect I was inspired by the submission of the bill by the N-VA. We have been regular and constructive in our exchanges. We would like to emphasize that your bill was not effective. Mr. De Croo, who just arrived at that moment...

No, let’s not start the debate again.

This is a draft law, and I am the only one to intervene. I would like to pay tribute to Ms. Depoorter by speaking.

The device set up by the industry has the merit of existing and must first be evaluated before any precipitation. The fig in a law would probably make it less relevant, less flexible and, most importantly, less listening to victims – which are our first concern. We therefore simply regret that this initiative does not take into account the needs of the sector and the victims. We don’t have to worry about it and we’ll stay there for the moment.

That is a good idea, Madame.

Madame Depoorter, do you conclude?

You reassure me that you do not equate theft and sexual abuse. However, I hope not too many victims have looked at. They will not be reassured.

After your observation that the N-VA comes up with a constructive proposal on development cooperation, I will give you one thing. There are no bad N-VA’ers. We are all good people with a good inborough. We would like to work on a correct world, but rather on a world in which we also name and address the problems and in which we do not hide behind so-called ideological games.