Proposition 50K0376

Projet de loi relatif à l'enveloppe en personnel militaire.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

Jan. 12, 2000

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

armed forces

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

N-VA FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Claudine Drion (Ecolo) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

This proposition could possibly include unrelated discussions due to a heuristic extraction bug in propositions prior to 2007. As soon as I've got time to fix it, these will be removed when they're not supposed to be here.

Discussion ¶

March 16, 2000 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to my written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, on the proposed bills we had in the committee only comments as regards the 60/40 language ratio in the staff. We must continue to repeat these remarks, because under all kinds of pretext, the above-mentioned relationship is deviated. In any case, we acted in good faith given the additional recruitment efforts. Furthermore, we assumed that these bills aimed primarily at creating legal certainty, and we supported this. However, after a number of complaints from military personnel, I would like to return for a moment to the regularisation procedure concerning the retroactive effect until 1 August 1997 of the documents in question. It is clear that the executive power here in the future could very easily circumvent the powers of parliament. Article 182 of the Constitution stipulates the manner of recruitment in the army and regulates the promotion and the rights and duties of the military. According to the Court of Arbitration, the criteria developed by the legislator are so inaccurate and incomplete that they give the King a too wide discretion, which is incompatible with Article 182. This deprives a certain category of military personnel of a constitutional guarantee. These draft laws, which were therefore originally intended not to intervene in pending matters, but rather to create legal certainty, are formally contradicted by the decisions of the Council of State. This means that these draft laws are intended only to prevent the ongoing proceedings, both before the Council of State and before the Arbitration Court, and, if necessary, to have them annulled with retroactive effect. In this way, we actually get the opposite of what was intended. Therefore, I propose, Mr. Speaker, to send these three draft laws again to the Council of State for a substantial opinion.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. It meets the desires of a significant part of the staff. Furthermore, it can bring about a real rejuvenation, so that we can carry out a thorough positive reform. This allows us to build a staff contingent with a healthy age pyramid. We would like to support these bills.

I would like to emphasize that the SP group is ⁇ enthusiastic about this bill. When we submitted legislative proposals three years ago to enforce the right to interrupt a career and the right to the voluntary four-day working week, we received harsher criticism. Now we know what we know. Based on the provisional regulation, we have noticed that the need to make use of working time reduction and labor distribution is ⁇ large. Several hundred soldiers have signed this regulation, which has been in force until now on the basis of royal decrees. We are pleased that today we will provide a legal basis for these rights. In our vision, soldiers should also have the right to labour distribution and reduction of working hours. In addition, there is also a more fundamental reason why the SP fully supports this design. This has to do with the unattractiveness of the military profession, which today causes recruitment problems. The modernization of the statute and the social rights of military personnel could provide a response to those recruitment problems. I would like to point out to my colleagues that the SP has submitted a bill in which we advocate the introduction of the start-ups in the army as well. Today we ask for the timetable of this bill in order to contribute to these recruitment problems. We want to respond to the ongoing campaigns on this subject.