Proposition 50K1125

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 7 décembre 1998 organisant un service de police intégré, structuré à deux niveaux et modifiant les lois sur le Conseil d'Etat, coordonnées le 12 janvier 1973.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

Feb. 28, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

administrative court police

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR

Voted to reject

LE

Abstained from voting

FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Richard Fournaux (MR) voted to reject.
• Mark Eyskens (Vooruit) abstained from voting.
• Karel Pinxten (Open Vld) abstained from voting.
• Marc Van Peel (Vooruit) 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 21, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

In the meantime, not only the report, but also an amendment from our hand has been broken. I would like to submit this amendment to you and to the Chamber. The implementation of the entire police reform also requires a revision of Article 184 of the Constitution. The State Council has suggested that and the Government has decided.

I have told you that we, as a group, are willing to consider our cooperation in order to obtain the necessary majority. However, we also set some conditions. For example, we ask that in the Brussels municipalities, in particular in the Brussels police zones, the presence of Dutch speakers should be ensured. That is the purpose of the amendment.

Are you already going to defend your amendment?

No, Mr. Speaker, but so that everyone knows what it is about, I would like to say for a moment that this amendment is ahead and that it may be useful to consider referring to the committee, rather than addressing it right now.

The amendment can then be discussed first in the committee. In fact, this is about adding a new element to the draft law that precedes. It would therefore be useful to discuss this first in a committee and then return to the plenary session. Mr. Speaker, if you do not comment on this, I must announce that I will at least ask for a vote on the referral to the committee.

Mr Tant, you have submitted an amendment which I have just received the document, 1126/6. Everyone has the right to submit amendments that re-impose the amendments submitted to the committee or are new. Otherwise, we would not have a discussion. When examining Article 12 of the draft, I will have the amendment examined after the rapporteur has issued his report. We cannot get into that now.

Mr. Speaker, you are taking one of the possible ways of working. However, Parliament can now decide to refer the matter again to the committee. On behalf of my group, I am a requesting party. I ask for a vote on this.

The votes depend on me. I have opened the debate and we will address your amendment at the appropriate time. I ask Mr Smets to present a report now.

Mr. Speaker, for a moment. You will receive a formal request to refer this back to the committee. Now you want to follow the prescribed scenario. This amendment may be of the nature of affecting the composition of certain political groups in the debate. It is my full right to propose this. I would like you to allow the Chamber to speak about this now.

Mr. Tante, you are now asking for a vote at a time when no votes are planned.

Mr. Speaker, if you now decide to refer this matter again to the committee, I will not ask for a vote.

I will seek the advice of the Minister and deal with this matter in the appropriate manner. Mr. Minister, you have heard Mr. Tant’s proposal. I will also leave other speakers to speak.

There is a lot of talk about good management. As far as I am concerned, I am committed to implementing a difficult reform that is expected by ⁇ 40,000 police officers. by

When I hear each other speak, I might think that this concern is shared by all. But I have the impression that we are hiding behind procedural pretexts to try to slow things down. You know we are bound by a very tight timing because we have legal deadlines. by

I received the chairman of the CVP group, with whom I had the opportunity to discuss. The issue he talks about is not new. We have already discussed this in the Senate on the occasion of the consideration of the proposal for the revision of Article 184. In the Senate, a similar amendment was submitted in particular by the CVP group, which was withdrawn by Mr. by Vandenbergh. by

The problem that is raised is real. From now on, the police councils have been installed as provided for by the law of 1998, also voted by Mr. Tant and his group. The problem raised concerns more the municipal level than the police council itself because, in the current philosophy of the law, the police council is nothing more than a breakdown of the different municipal councils that are grouped together to form a police council. Thus, the problems of the minimum representations of one and another concern primarily the municipal councils. I think this issue deserves consideration, especially in the COSTA.

I would like to add, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the only problem. The 98 lawmaker provided that it was the majority of the municipal council that would designate its representatives within the police council. I believed, ⁇ naively, that one would take care, somewhat everywhere in the kingdom, to ensure a normal representation of one and the other, even when they are in the opposition. This was not the case. Ms. Pelzer also asked me about this in the committee. I told him that one should also think about this problem and ⁇ evolve towards a system of proportional representation at the level of the municipal council or to another system — I have no a priori. by

Mr. Speaker, I am open to dialogue, but I do not wish that this should be done at the rescue, on the occasion of the consideration of a project essentially technical and whose urgency has been demonstrated.

As I have clearly announced, we are currently in the discussion of Bill 1125, to which no amendment has been submitted.

I now give the floor to Mr. Smets, rapporteur of project 1125 and only then will we address 1126.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the substance of Mr. Tant’s amendment. I am surprised that he raised the problem in the committee.

Mr Cortois, you ask why is this amendment put on the table now? This is a consequence of the agreement that we have made, including with the Minister of Internal Affairs, though in the Senate and through other people, to cooperate with the revision of Article 184.

Ladies and gentlemen, you will have the word later. Bill No. 1125 is now in question. The word is to Mr Smets.

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. 1125 was dealt with in the Committee on Internal Affairs on Wednesday 14 March 2001 and aims to provide for a dispute procedure for disputes concerning the election of members of the Police Council or for the resignation of a member of the Police Council. The Permanent Delegation or the College and, in second instance, the Council of State, shall intervene in disputes of competence. In his introductory presentation, the Minister referred to the memorandum of explanation and the comments to the articles. During the article-by-article discussion, a member proposed a number of technical improvements. These improvements were approved by the committee and the text was adapted accordingly. Finally, the bill was adopted with 9 votes for and 1 abstinence.

I would like to support Mr. Tant’s proposal to send this draft back to the committee. Mr. Minister, I will explain why. I appreciate the way you approach the problem. We also want the police reform to succeed. The parties to the Octopus Agreement have been eager to enable the police reform to come into effect and succeed. 40,000 people are waiting for the entry into force of the mammoth decision, which will determine their personal status for the rest of their professional careers.

It would be wrong to think that this is a political game. This question is about how we want the police councils for the Brussels Capital Region to be composed and function. This problem was already discussed during the negotiation of the Octopus Agreement, but the problem of Brussels was then undisputed. The VU Group, in particular Mr Borginon and myself, submitted amendments at the discussion and voting of the 1998 Act to address this issue. At that time, they were not prepared to deal with it.

Today we stand for the amendment of Article 184 of the Constitution. This amendment is necessary, otherwise the mammoth decision cannot be published and does not enter into force. Mr. Minister, we have said that we are willing to cooperate with the amendment of Article 184 of the Constitution. The debate on this subject was conducted constructively in the Senate by Mr Vankrunkelsven. Mr. Minister, you know that in the context of the discussion of Article 184 we have set a number of conditions, which relate, among other things, to clarifications that we wish to obtain on a number of points. One of them is the composition of the police councils. You have said – you have repeated it today – that you have an eye for the problem.

So what we ask is not exaggerated. I think we are on the same wavelength.

The problem is the fulfillment in time. Everything must come into effect on April 1. We have no objections to this, we even want to collaborate on it. However, it is not our fault that the revision of Article 184 of the Constitution was discussed only a couple of weeks ago. That would have been possible much earlier if one had diligently addressed this problem. Article 184 of the Constitution has not yet been approved by the Senate. In the best case, it will not happen tomorrow, and we are still uncertain about that today.

At various levels, we have pointed out that the composition of the police councils is important to us. First, we introduced that in the mini-Costa, where it is also discussed today. It was promised that this issue would be discussed at least by the end of the month. The problems could be resolved by the end of this month. Secondly, we also raised this problem when we discussed this issue in your cabinet.

It is not fair to say today that it is a new fact that suddenly falls from heaven. You know very well that for us this is an almost insurmountable problem. We cannot accept that in the police councils in the Brussels Capital Region the Dutch speakers are insufficiently represented or that they cannot participate in a proper way in the security policy and in the preparation of the security plan.

So I would like to ask you in all serenity to agree to refer this matter back to the committee. In this context, the debate can be resumed. This issue could then be voted in the plenary session next week, together with Article 184 of the Constitution if necessary. However, if you put us in front of the wall today, it could create problems.

We are willing to cooperate in the revision of Article 184 of the Constitution, but it is bound to the conditions we have set. These conditions have been known to you and the Prime Minister for a long time. If you force us today to renounce it, then I fear that the revision of Article 184 of the Constitution will be compromised.

Let me remind everyone that we are working on the general discussion of number 1125.

First, I would like to resume the problem in its overall context.

Revision of Article 184 of the Constitution. This is less the problem of the so-called "Mammuth" decree than that of the 1998 law, which was voted by the parliament's almost unanimous vote. I consulted the preparatory work and saw that Mr. Both, in particular, had advanced a thesis that, ⁇ , was somewhat bold on the legal level, saying that the legislator could implicitly modify constitutional provisions.

I do not share the opinion of the jurists, however prominent they may be and even if they are of the State Council, according to which a constitutional amendment is indispensable before they can take the Mammouth decree. On the other hand, since there is a legal controversy, for reasons of legal certainty, I think we should try to end it. And we have the opportunity with the amendment of Article 184, which is not the main object. I would be very surprised that all those who, yesterday, voted the law of 1998, executing the Octopus agreements, do not accept the modification, without any other form of condition, of Article 184 of the Constitution and thus put their conscience in peace, since they voted the law, to settle the legal controversy definitively. I believed that this had been well understood in the Senate, by everyone, especially since I found that the amendments had been withdrawn.

In addition, I received, at their request, the CVP group and the VU group, with whom I had interesting, positive and very serene discussions. And I also receive all those who ask to be received and to discuss intelligently a reform that is important.

I indicated that, in the concerns that were expressed, there were a number of concerns, which were legitimate concerns, that some were already encountered, that others were in the process of being, that some required a little time. Specifically, the one concerning the minimum representation based on linguistic membership in a police council is one of those. by

I have to tell you that I have taken a stance on this issue, and ⁇ not alone, but in consultation with the Prime Minister. by

I have never, Mr. Van Hoorebeke, made the commitment that this problem could be settled at the rescue, on the occasion of either the revision of the Constitution or the examination of the current bill. by Mr. Leterme had the correctness to acknowledge it. by

I truly believe that today, for various reasons, and which are not only the responsibility of the Minister of the Interior, we cannot find a solution to this problem. But our desire is undoubtedly to meet him. Sending and returning the project to the committee would not allow progress in a serene climate and would not prevent some from considering that one is trying to obtain, through a form of pressure or blackmail, things that one should be able to discuss and for which one should find a solution within the framework of a constructive and positive dialogue.

The reform of the police is ⁇ not a matter of majority and opposition. Moreover, the perception that one can have things does not depend on the linguistic role to which one belongs. Although French speaking, I am quite able to understand the sensitivity of Dutch speakers and the problems they may encounter. I have also had the opportunity to demonstrate in the past, Mr. Van Hoorebeke, that I took these concerns into account in the same way as I do with regard to the legitimate concerns of Wallons and Brussels.

Trying to use a procedural tool or believing that the problem will be resolved in the event of a procedural incident does not seem appropriate. The right method is to continue the dialogue we are currently conducting. Mr. Leterme, you have had the opportunity to dialogue with me as well as with the Cabinet of the Prime Minister. You know that there is a real willingness to find solutions to this problem, like many others elsewhere. I ask you to continue on this path. This is important, on the one hand, if one wants to find a solution to the immediate problem since ⁇ 40,000 police officers are waiting for a decision; on the other hand, if one wants to move forward things in a peaceful way by showing understanding towards everyone in the framework of the new community dialogue.

Mr. Speaker, I will not cut off the grass at the feet of my colleagues.

Mr. Minister, I am troubled by something. After a year and a half of addressing a lot of problems through interpellations, oral questions and interventions in various debates, we have only found audiences for a constructive dialogue on the problems at the moment when the State Council forced the government to revise Article 184. The government was suddenly forced to expect a two-thirds majority. It was only then that we could really debate on the basis of a number of problems, requirements and conditions that we had put together with the colleagues of the People’s Union on paper.

I am sorry that you see this as blackmail. For a year and a half, we have been seeking dialogue, and now you are talking about blackmail. In the interests of the 40,000 police officers, the country and the successful completion of the police reform dossier, we ourselves have made the offer to deliver a two-thirds majority on the condition of a serene discussion on those 11 points.

I would like to clarify to my colleagues what I did after I went to Minister Duquesne. I told him that together with the colleagues of the People's Union this afternoon we will hand over to him our updated list of questions and conditions for delivering the two-thirds majority. The Minister told me that the point spoken by colleague Van Hoorebeke from the tribune was a problem for him. We recognize this and colleague Van Hoorebeke has asked to discuss this. I have not informed the Minister more or less. I wanted to see this somewhat clarified.

I ask for the word for a personal fact. The Minister believes that we must use every opportunity to moralize in our direction. He claims that we are threatening to make police reform impossible. I would have said once and for all that the minister’s time need is due to the fact that for at least one and a half years he has either done nothing in this matter, or has clungled. In any case, he has not sufficiently prepared the police reform and that is the true reason for the current time shortage.

Mr. Minister, my group will not deny the paternity for this reform, on the contrary. What you have made of it in the meantime is something completely different. Their

Mr. Speaker, despite these comments, we are aware of our responsibility to the 40,000 police officers. We are also aware of the fact that the security of the community can be endangered. For these reasons, we have decided not to answer in a negative manner to the question concerning the revision of the Constitution proposed by the State Council. We have linked a number of conditions to this. These conditions were clearly put on paper.

Mr. Minister, you also received these conditions during a meeting in the Senate. You have agreed in principle. In any case, you said that this was discussable for you. Mr. Minister, it is time to start this discussion.

However, it would be completely illogical not to take advantage of this opportunity to make the adjustments we propose. The least the Minister can do is say that he is willing to talk about it in the competent committee. Mr. Minister, we make the offer! This does not need to result in a great loss of time. Then we would know clearly and clearly where we are.

Mr. Minister, our group is not satisfied with the vague promises you made here. We would like you to finally work on it.

The incident is closed. The incident is closed.

A brief response to the words of the Minister. First, I agree with the Minister when he says that this amendment appears here quite suddenly. I disagree with his claim that this problem that was raised here would be new. I have already cited this. This problem has been known since the moment we negotiated the Octopus Agreement and made the composition of the police councils in Brussels. This does not create a new problem today. Their

Secondly, Mr. Minister, it is up to me whatever solution comes out of the bus today and whether or not it is linked to the two draft laws at hand. I just want to say that we will not be satisfied with a dead mouse. We will not approve Article 184 of the Constitution unless we have the certainty that something substantial is happening with regard to the composition of the police councils. This does not mean that there must already be a definitive arrangement, but that there must be a clear commitment from the government that it will be worked on. In any case, I do not want to approve Article 184 of the Constitution next week if we do not have clarity about it. I accept your statement and your possible commitment, but the past has already sufficiently demonstrated that your commitment is not always the commitment of the government. Therefore, I also ask that this matter be referred to the committee, where we can talk quietly further. It can be this weekend too. By the way, we are dealing with this today because the Minister of Home Affairs is not present next week. We are present and we can clarify this matter further next week. Since the Minister is not present next week, it should be discussed today. We still have time. I ask that this be sent to the committee in all serenity so that this can be clarified and consulted with the Senate. If necessary, we can approve Article 184 of the Constitution. We do not link the one to the other, but we want to give a clear signal.

Let me give you a state of affairs. At the Conference of Presidents, at the request of the Minister who will be absent next week due to European obligations and who is due to attend a Senate session tomorrow, it was unanimously decided to add to the agenda of this afternoon two drafts, namely the drafts nrs. 1125 and 1126. We approved this agenda. I have to start with the numbers I have. There are two possibilities, Mr. Van Hoorebeke. If you now request a change in the agenda, this must be done in a regulatory manner and therefore at the request of a third of the members. I suggest you to discuss the draft no. 1125 to end. Then we come to the draft number. 1126 where the amendment of Mr. Tant is concerned.

Mr. Minister, we first conclude the discussion of project 1125 before moving to project 1126, to which an amendment has been filed.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the colleagues of the CVP and to a lesser extent to the colleague of the VU who spoke wiser language in his second intervention, that I can nevertheless not get rid of the feeling that here for a part of political Spielerei is being done. I can only conclude that this issue was not discussed during the discussions in the committee. At the moment, no amendment has been submitted. I think this is an interesting amendment. However, we cannot afford everything. It is constantly said that there are 40,000 people waiting for some definitive guidelines. Repeatedly asked whether the government could not have done this faster, that is right. But now we are so far. It would be unfortunate if, in the face of the police reform in general, one would take this matter to slow down and then next week say that it should go faster. I suspect there is a lot of political play.

You are partially right.

The bills are ahead of us. They have been thoroughly discussed in the committee, without anyone expressing any objections, and I am therefore in favour of dealing with them now, as it is appropriate for a legislative house. You should not confuse two things.

I suspect that it is a delaying manoeuvre, so that one could later say that it should go faster.

Mr. Van Hoorebeke, I would like to be saved from 1125, if I can say so.

I would like to make a pragmatic proposal. The amendment, which we have submitted, aims to add a new article. It is only a proposal, but I think it must be perfectly possible to complete the two bills, as they are presented today, and to refer the amendment submitted again to the Commission under Rule 71 of the Rules of Procedure. We can then hold the final vote eventually next week, if necessary in the absence of the Minister. It may also be voted tomorrow. In any case, the amendment we have submitted can be referred to the Commission and discussed in the Plenary Assembly next week. Colleague Tant, I think this should be possible, without delaying the two bills. In any case, it is clear that the amendment must be able to be discussed in some way and submitted to the Plenary Assembly for voting.

Mr. Van Hoorebeke, I understand that the title is misleading, but we deal with 1125, which I would like to deal with. Then we discuss the amendment and 1126. Does anyone have anything to add to the general discussion?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond briefly to what Mr. Cortois said. At the time when we must cooperate on a revision of the Constitution, it is not in the interest of the 40,000 police officers and the public that, when we showed willingness to cooperate on the revision of Article 184, two weeks ago, we were accused of delaying manoeuvres. Our intentions are good. We are prepared to make ourselves available also for other points, not only for the amendment of colleagues Tant and Van Hoorebeke. We are also available for a discussion on the other points. This debate will also be necessary in order to complete the revision of Article 184 of the Constitution in a timely manner.

We are still working on the general discussion of 1125. I give the floor to Mr. Van Parys and then we close the general discussion. Then we go to the discussion of 1126.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to look at the general context of the problem, with regard to what Mr. Cortois and, more specifically, the Minister of Internal Affairs have said. We have set up goodwill to try to find a two-thirds majority. We are currently discussing this. However, we note that the mammoth decision cannot come because the State Council will decide that it can not be by royal decree, but must be by law. Hence the initiative to amend the Constitution. However, yesterday we were confronted — and I address the Minister of Home Affairs — with the fact that in the meantime the Minister of Home Affairs has already informed in a letter of contact that from 1 April 2001 the mammoth decision will be effective on the ground. In this regard, the circulation letter is very clear. So instead of interfering with the decision of the State Council that it can not be by royal decree, but by law, now on the ground the matter is settled by means of a circulation letter.

If that’s not provocation! Exactly at the moment the discussion is initiated to find a solution to the problem.

Mr. Speaker, this takes a walk, not only with the opposition, but with the whole Parliament. Instead of regulating this matter legally, it is done by means of a circular letter. Well, I refuse to go into this circular letter juridically technically; its content could lead to funny states.

General discussion is closed. The general discussion is closed.