The N-VA is submitting a bill to do away with the pandemic law

The federal N-VA group is submitting a bill to put an end to the pandemic law. It was approved last year after a heated debate in the Chamber and served as the legal basis for the coronavirus measures taken from October until two weeks ago. “The pandemic law remains potentially a dangerous proxy law and must be consigned to the dustbin of history as soon as possible,” explains N-VA group chairman Peter De Roover. He has a fundamental problem with the pandemic law on three counts.

Lack of democratic control

The activation of the pandemic law takes place in two steps. Initially, the epidemic emergency is declared by the government, after which it can take far-reaching freedom-restricting measures at the government’s own discretion. Within 15 days, the parliament must ratify the emergency, not the individual measures. After that, the executive power can take any measures it deems necessary for up to three months without parliamentary participation.

“It can never be the intention that parliament can be reduced to a spectator for three months while potentially drastic restrictions on civil rights are imposed,” Peter De Roover states. “When the pandemic law is activated, the legislature itself disables its legislative function without thorough parliamentary debate. That has now become clear. An open discussion of measures restricting freedom increases transparency and quality, as we could see in the treatment of the question of the desirability of a vaccination obligation. It may even alleviate the public’s deep distrust of ‘the powers that be’.”

Moreover, Peter De Roover wants to emphasise that it is not so much a question of the extent to which we trust this federal government to always take measures in good faith. “This instrument is also available to future governments. After all, you can never rule out the possibility that at some point, figures will end up in Wetstraat 16 (the Belgian decision-making centre) who will abuse the pandemic law to appropriate extensive powers. For this reason, too, this law must be removed from the legal toolkit.”

Vague criteria

“The definition of an ‘epidemiological emergency’ is so vaguely defined that it is actually always met,” Peter De Roover adds. “Even in a robust flu season, the pandemic law could potentially be triggered. An emergency situation that makes the activation of the pandemic law immediately unavoidable is referred to as an event that can cause a serious threat. This is sloppy legislation that leaves too much room for interpretation. Moreover, the initial three-month extension of the pandemic law at the end of January demonstrates the bankruptcy of that definition,” Peter De Roover states.

The declaration of an epidemic emergency has far-reaching consequences and, according to the N-VA, should only be used in very exceptional cases. “It must not be the case that overly vague criteria undermine the concept of ‘emergency’, resulting in disproportionate measures. I am terrified of the ominous threat of an emergency situation that would be all too easy to implement,” Peter De Roover warns.

Contrary to the Constitution

Article 187 of the Constitution stipulates that the Constitution may not be suspended in whole or in part. “A state of emergency is therefore constitutionally not permitted in Belgium,” argues Peter De Roover. Nevertheless, the pandemic law does go that far. Earlier, the N-VA also submitted a request to the Constitutional Court to annul the pandemic law.

Conclusion

Because a new outbreak of the coronavirus in the autumn cannot be ruled out, the N-VA does not want to be saddled with the pandemic law a day longer than necessary. “During a crisis, a balance must be found between decisive action and democratic control as a guarantee of the protection of rights and freedoms. Measures that restrict fundamental rights must be taken by law after a thorough debate in which proportionality is tested, and must always be the subject of parliamentary debate,” Peter De Roover says. “For all these reasons, we must do away with the pandemic law.”

“The pandemic law was a bad law when it was conceived in August, it was a bad law when it was activated in October, it is a bad law today, and it will still be a bad law tomorrow. So do away with it,” Peter De Roover concludes.