Proposition 50K1173

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 13 mai 1999 portant le statut disciplinaire des membres du personnel des services de police et la loi du 7 décembre 1998 organisant un service de police intégré, structuré à deux niveaux.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

March 26, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

police disciplinary proceedings

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

N-VA FN VB

Abstained from voting

LE

Party dissidents ¶

• Alfons Borginon (Open Vld) voted to reject.
• Els Van Weert (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 ¶

April 26, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, you will remember that the organization of the new police training was added to the draft law amending the disciplinary law four weeks ago at eleven o’clock by amendment. The fear that such inappropriate legalistic work would be performed allowed us from the opposition to seek the advice of the State Council.

Colleagues, it will be known to you now that the advice emphasizes that the fear was justified. In fact, the opinion expressly states that police training — ⁇ in its broad line — should not be regulated by a royal decree and that Parliament itself should assume its responsibility in this regard. Some will remember that we had called for the debate to be grounded, warning of rush and pure formalism. I mean the increasingly strong incentive to stop discussing submitted bills or participate in the debate as a majority.

Colleagues, at the same time we placed the government in default due to the loss of time in the further implementation of the police reform on the legislative level. The disciplinary legislation is a regrettable but clear illustration of this. To our question and that of colleague Van Hoorebeke, why the government had spent so long to submit and discuss in Parliament the draft law that should provide for a revision of the disciplinary law, the Prime Minister replied, and I quote: "We have had to wait months for, among other things, the opinion of the Council of State."

Well, I have checked each and every one and I can only say that the Prime Minister has lied to Parliament and that in this way he is also trying to escape his responsibility by pushing them to the Council of State. The truth is, and the Minister of Internal Affairs will not contradict this, that the State Council was not consulted by the Minister of Internal Affairs until 20 February, and that within a three-day period. For an important matter such as the disciplinary statute, therefore, not only the Chamber, but also the Council of State was exploited. At the request of the Government — I repeat on 20 February — the State Council shall deliver its opinion within three days, more specifically on 23 February. Apparently, the government needed more time to process the advice than the Council for providing it. In fact, the press releases of the Council of Ministers mention that the Council of Ministers only approved the draft on 9 March, fourteen days after the opinion. It was only on 28 March that the government was able to divide the item in question in the Chamber.

Colleagues, I give you these data because truth has its rights and because responsibility should be placed where it effectively rests. It is something easy to point the finger on colleagues who make another attempt to discuss texts, to understand as well as possible and to exchange thoughts with each other about it.

Whenever something like this happened over the past few months, we were sent the complaint that we just want to slow down the course of things. The same happened following our request for advice to the State Council. Well, the advice gives us substantially absolutely right!

Even on the side of some media, it is gradually coming to the realization that the functioning of Parliament is going in the wrong direction. Apparently, it is quickly and efficiently concluded that the parliamentary discussion of bills is reduced to pure formalism without debate, as the majority, under pressure from the government, repeatedly fails. There will be reasons for that, I suppose. Of course, if one no longer participates in a debate, if one no longer interprets an opinion, one can no longer be confronted with opposing opinions in one’s own womb. More and more I feel that this is the real reason. I will illustrate this for a moment. In the newspaper De Standaard of yesterday, the discipline statute was cited as an example. The kafkaian nature of the situation in which we are at that point is even more pronounced than this article shows. This is for those who still have the courage, because there is a certain intellectual perseverance needed to understand in what situation we are currently in. Their

The original law holding the disciplinary status dates from 13 May 1999. That law was, I insist, applicable from 1 January 2001. Among other things, the fact that the Minister had failed to take the necessary implementing decisions, including the installation of the disciplinary board, forced, through a bill proposed by colleagues Coveliers and Lalieux, the new disciplinary statute to be repealed retroactively: from 1 January 2001 to the end of March 2001. This has not yet been done. The bill was quickly approved by the Chamber and the Senate. It was only published in the Belgian Staatsblad on 18 April 2001, to become applicable on 28 April 2001, i.e. ten days later. This law came into force at a time when it had already lost its effect. This was so approved by this Chamber, by this majority, as if in this way some legal certainty would be achieved. The exact opposite is the case! Their

To understand each other well, it may be useful that you create some clarity, Mr. Minister. If we assess the situation correctly, then from 1 April 2001 the new disciplinary statute of 13 May 1999 is again applicable. After all, the duration of the text Lalieux-Coveliers is over. The new discipline statute is therefore applicable, but is not applicable, because the implementing decisions are missing! A number of institutions that must ensure the practical application of disciplinary law do not even exist. Their

Not only is this a fine illustration of the Kafka situation in which we are, but moreover and above all this raises high questions about what rules should be followed from 1 January 2001 for ongoing or to be initiated disciplinary proceedings. Remember that colleague Van Peel at some point in the course of the debate the minister faced with the question of how it was with the two Antwerp police officers. Their

I hope they are doing well, Mr. Van Peel, but to what extent do they know exactly what they are doing? In any case, on a disciplinary level, there is no clarity in this regard.

No matter how kafkaic it may be, the legalistic geklungel is not yet behind it. It was prosecuted yesterday in the committee for internal affairs. By the way, I understand why colleague Peeters preferred not to deliver a verbal report; it is quite delicate, as a member of parliament belonging to the majority, to support the government on matters about which one can only be shy. Well, the government, following the opinion of the State Council, is forced to introduce an amendment that provides for a new article 45, i.e. a new, more elaborate arrangement, in connection with police training. The ink of the first draft was not yet dry or, at the beginning of the committee meeting, a new government amendment was submitted which, however, subsequently turned out not to be in order according to the form. This was followed by a second amendment allowing the same comment to be made.

It is attempted to regulate the training of police personnel first through an amendment to the disciplinary law. The State Council considers that this is not possible. The Government submits an amendment that, before it is discussed, must be amended by the Government up to twice. Language art is done through texts submitted on the spot, without giving rise to any question, comment, criticism or anything else, on the banks of the majority.

We are also wondering whether any new government amendments will be submitted during this plenary session. After all, during yesterday’s committee discussion, the Minister stressed that he would agree, moreover, that he considered it desirable, to remove the words “if necessary” in Article 142bis up to twice. He did not submit an amendment on this subject, but he still has time to do so.

The truth is delivered by this government with mouth measure. To what extent this is a desirable situation, of course, is another question. In any case, it is the actual situation.

Thus, this government, with the cooperation of the majority, makes the law. Indisputably, the present text, as it is now submitted in the form of amendments following the opinion of the Council of State, has clearly less the character of a law on powers. However, a number of critical comments and questions arise.

First, together with the State Council, we regret that the reorganization of police training is regulated through an additional article in the Disciplinary Law added to the amendment. Mr. Coveliers suggested this four weeks ago and he had it at the right end. The accessibility of the legislator is made completely impossible by such a method, in the sense that anyone who wants to know a little more about the organization of police training in the future will have to know that it was regulated by an added article to the disciplinary law.

This is the way in which good governance is demonstrated and ensures that governance comes closer to the people. However, every opportunity is missed to ensure that the basic legislation is at least accessible to the people.

Colleagues, in order to make progress in this matter, however, I myself had suggested that, after the opinion of the State Council and the announced submission of an amendment by the government, the committee would meet to calmly have time to exchange views and submit amendments that would not compromise the timing. The agreement was that the text would be discussed and approved today. One had the opportunity to ensure some accessibility at that point without any loss of time, but one has consciously refused to seize them.

Yesterday, we asked you a series of questions about funding. Mr Vanpoucke will come back to this later. We also asked a number of other questions. Has there been consultation with the people of the sector, the police schools? These were questions for explanation. These were not maliciously intended and were kindly formulated, but the reaction is only emotion. We received no answer. There was only the attack ad hominem that must hide the inability to respond. I regret that, Mr. Minister. Is there a consultation? With whom and when is this done? These are not difficult questions. I do not understand why this is not answered.

Colleagues, it will be just as technical, but also that should make an opportunity for any conversation. If we read the article 142bis incorporated in article 45, we find that the basic training of the basic framework is entrusted both to the federal police school and to the recognised police school. Read: The provincial schools. It is added that, if necessary, training courses that are not provided by one school can be included by the others. Read: If the provincial school does nothing, the federal institution will have to offer training courses. In other words, a clear task description and a clear assignment of responsibilities are not included. That is serious in itself, because I thought that a clear separation of powers is a good starting point for a well-managed organization. There is more. The State Council calls for clarity on this point. They want to know how schools relate to each other. There is also political irresponsibility. In some provincial schools, the basic education for the basic framework will also be made a matter. This will not be done in other schools. This could even make a significant difference financially. Colleague Vanpoucke will, I suppose, also come back to that point for a while.

The funding of provincial schools will have to be borne at least partly by the municipalities. I have understood that so. The funding of federal schools will be borne by the federal government. Therefore, there is a financial incentive to organize certain training courses or to do the opposite. I warn you, Mr Minister. This is the beginning of a new series of community disputes. It is in our thinking about politics embedded. At the slightest occasion, problems will be translated into these terms. This will be your responsibility. It is not only in terms of administrative organization that it is irresponsible not to clearly define the powers. It also contains the germ of a number of new conflicts of which no one gets better. Their

Colleagues, as if this was not enough, you should look at the following. The Government will introduce a final amendment at the session, stating that "specific" proposed training can be included. In fact, there should be ‘undetermined’. If the clarification requested by the Council of State must be made by such an expression, then everyone knows that it does not create any clarity with it. The use of these types of concepts illustrates the ⁇ unclear definition of competence for the various policy levels. Therefore, the State Council’s requirement to establish at least a number of basic rules by law is not met, thus ensuring a clear definition of competence. However, this is a prerequisite for determining under which governments the schools will be classified. Those who have the courage should read the opinion of the State Council, which expressly asks for it. However, this text does not specify the competences covered by the different levels of training. We have the advice for it. Everyone assumes that the so-called recognized schools will be organized at the provincial level. But will this be so? Who will be responsible, including in the financial sphere?

A final consideration. While it is appropriate in a rule of law to first create a legal framework, then make the implementing decisions and then only move on to the implementation of the whole, the government has succeeded in putting the world on its head in this matter. The new style training has already begun. Within what framework has this happened? Who will pay for the training in the provincial schools that have already started? There is no school regulation, no exam regulation, or any official document. The training has begun.

Colleagues, it is clear that after months of unnecessary deceit, the government threatens to go by itself. The time when the Minister of Internal Affairs came to the committee with a very obvious declaration that the training would start a new style in the best conditions and at least on 1 January 2001 seems to have been an eternity ago. Meanwhile, the uncertainty about the disciplinary status remains entirely, not least for the staff concerned. How long will this last, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, in addition to the criticism expressed by Mr. Paul Tant on behalf of our group, I would like to briefly address one particular point. The Minister of Home Affairs has lied to us on this point, and I am very concerned about the financial consequences for the municipalities. It concerns the financing of the training of police personnel and more specifically those of provincial police schools. Their

Currently, 50% of the working resources of provincial schools come from contributions from the municipalities, including through the enrollment fees for aspirants. As from now on, the federal government itself will recruit and send the training, those means of action would disappear. We have asked the Minister about this in the past and he has responded to it in the same sense dozens of times, both here in the hemisphere and in the committee for internal affairs.

I would like to quote for a moment the Minister’s comment at the budget control, in which he said: “The federal government will bear the full cost of these training courses. Everything implies that the zones should be able to function without additional expenses.” Also on the occasion of the debates surrounding the amendment of Article 184 of the Constitution, the minister made clear that the operation of the police schools and their financial loop would be borne by the federal government. Their

What are we fixing now? Yesterday, at the discussion in the committee, the minister said suddenly and I quote from the report of colleague Peeters: "The provincial training programs would be financed according to a system analogous to the current mode of financing, that is, 50% of the financing is borne by the municipalities". The Minister clearly stated that the funding would be made according to the same distribution key. This is completely contrary to previous statements. Their

Colleagues, not only did the Minister lie, but we make it clear that he deliberately lied to us in order to create the impression that the budgetary cost sheet for municipalities would not increase and that it would become a financially neutral operation. He deliberately lied to us. We have often faced the minister in the past with the fact that the municipalities were charged with more police duties and that this would still cost more. The Minister has repeatedly replied that there were indeed more costs but that there will also be fewer costs for the municipalities. Their

When we asked the Minister to give concrete examples of this, he always cited as the first and primary example that the cost of training the police officers would be borne entirely by the federal government. The cities and municipalities have believed the statement of the minister and we have believed him too. Since yesterday, it has been exactly the opposite. Costs for municipalities will rise. The Minister has lied to us in this regard. I therefore make an appeal to the colleagues from this hemisphere – we are not with so many – that not only the opposition, but also the members of the majority, who still have some feelings with the local governments, also use their influence to make the minister and the government return to that decision.

Mr. Speaker, I can understand that there is some fatigue, even with the Minister, to talk about this topic. I cannot understand that when a committee meeting is explicitly organized and questions of a purely informative nature are asked, the minister does not even deserve to answer them. That he limits himself to an attack ad hominem and to a number of emotional eruptions.

Mr. Speaker, you will agree with me if I say that I deeply regret that questions relating to new texts made following the opinion of the Council of States are for no one yet an object of discussion beyond the boundaries of majority and minority. If that is the future image of our Parliament, Mr. Speaker, then we will talk to each other.

General discussion is closed. The general discussion is closed.