Proposition 50K1112

Projet de loi relative à la pension du personnel des services de police et de leurs ayants droit.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

Feb. 20, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

pension scheme police survivor's benefit

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR VB

Abstained from voting

LE FN

Party dissidents ¶

• Richard Fournaux (MR) 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.

Discussion ¶

March 14, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, this bill did not give rise to any discussion in the committee. I also did not take the word on this. I assume that this design meets what is expected by the staff. This was discussed with trade union representatives. I know how difficult it has been to find a balance in that difficult pension system, still silent about the implementation on the various police categories. You will remember that at one point the PRL group submitted an amendment to increase the retirement age from 54 to 56 years for a certain category. This amendment was accepted. I abstained, but the bill was approved by a very large majority. Apparently, this amendment has caused some commotion. Since we, as people’s representatives, must communicate what lives in the people or in a portion of them, I must discuss this. I will read one of the letters I have received on this subject. He is mainly from the brigade commanders. I read this for the sake of the report, so that one knows that it has been paid sufficient attention: "We are very upset to hear that the draft law on the pensions of the staff of the police services was submitted with an amendment that directly affects us. In the negotiations, it was agreed that brigade commanders could retire at the age of 54. The proposed amendment raises that age to 56. We fully agree that this is a new advantage over the past. This is also responsible in this way. This was already understood during the negotiations. Touching only this aspect is not taking into account the whole of the agreement that falls on the brigade commanders.” I think this is an important passage. “Regarding our request to be equal in terms of money with those police commissioners who are equal to us: nothing has come into the house. Nevertheless, there could be a difficult balance by satisfying us with the possibility of retirement at 55. Now that this part is unilaterally illuminated, the balance has become disturbed. Everyone has acknowledged that the brigade commanders belong to the key figures who must ensure the successful integration at the local level. This disappointment must now be processed, it ⁇ does not work motivating.”

What is the content of this letter? It is stated that there were negotiations, that a number of cases were accepted and that the retirement age of 54 years was opposed. By now lightening that element from there and bringing the age from 54 to 56 years, the balance is broken. I am a civilist in the sense that an agreement is an agreement. An agreement often contains several elements and if one changes one element, the agreement expires. You will answer it, but I did not want to omit this aspect in the debate. This lives in some people. Furthermore, I will no longer speak contrary to this draft.

The President, Mr. Van Hoorebeke does well to signal to me this concern expressed by the brigade adjudicators-commandants. This intervention does not surprise me and since the beginning of the trade union negotiations, everyone has sought to draw the maximum possible benefits from the negotiation that was underway, forgetting the considerable effort that has been consented by the government in terms of budgetary for all personnel: 8 billion, this is not a little thing. Commanders of brigades will benefit from this as well as others, as they will benefit from other advantages.

Mr. Minister, I think I can say that the CVP has even stated that we have gone too far in accepting the personnel’s demands.

I think this is quite true, Mr. D’Hondt, and I am also receiving tribute from other officials of the State or the Communities. When I meet with teachers, they tell me that it is a pity that I am no longer a Minister of Education. by

Everyone made their accounts and I was asked to persuade my colleague in National Defense to make comparable efforts. Things are indisputable. What is certain is that in terms of pensions, we did not want to grant new advantages to categories of staff. Instead, a number of acquired rights were dedicated. In other words, if we should follow the brigade commanders, we should also speak of the police commissars.

The amendment that has been submitted purely aims to clarify the agreement as it had entered into. It is intended to ensure in the new statute the maintenance at 56 years of the age of retirement of gendarmerie adjudants and gendarmerie adjudant chiefs, brigade commanders, as was the case in their former statute.

The integration of the contracting authorities and the contracting authorities-chief of the gendarmerie has as a consequence that they have the rank of officer in the integrated police services. by

Offering certain contractors and chief contractors the possibility to retire at age 54 would create internal discrimination against their colleagues who, due to their inclusion in the corps of officers, can only be retired at age 56. Offering this possibility would also mean granting a new advantage and going against all agreements that provide for retaining only the existing advantages of gendarmes.

In addition, there would be the risk of creating, within the local police, an external discrimination against officials from the municipal police, who can be admitted to retirement at the age of 54 years. by

The granting of the leave prior to retirement, provided for in Article 238 of the Law of 7 December 1998, depends entirely on the good will of the municipality concerned, which is entirely foreign to the matter under consideration. In addition, there are comparable provisions for judicial police. I would therefore like to reaffirm once again that the proposed measures are simply aimed at ⁇ ining existing schemes for a transitional period, until they disappear at the end of that period.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for his clarification in this mini-debate. It is important that those who have expressed their concerns about this matter know that it is being given sufficient attention.

I accept the explanation given and I know that this is part of ⁇ difficult negotiations and that it was not obvious to reach a balance.

However, it was strange, Mr. Speaker, that it was not included in the original bill, but that it was introduced through an amendment of the PRL. This, of course, belongs to the parliamentary method and I have no problem with it. In any case, there was a surprising element in this matter and I would like to express my amazement about it.

I understand your surprise. I must confess to you, Mr. Van Hoorebeke, that I myself was, when I learned that the GSPSP, in particular, had filed an imprecise and indefinite strike notice for unclear reasons, while — I just pointed out — this reform will really value the monetary and administrative status of all these agents. I am also happy with this, as it will contribute to the implementation of the reform. I acknowledge that many of these agents carry out a difficult and risky profession and that this valuation will allow us to be more demanding towards them, both in terms of training and benefits. However, there is a reasonable limit not to be exceeded, even though I understand that until the last moment, one tries to shoot the maximum on the elastic.

General discussion is closed. The general discussion is closed.