Proposition 50K2001

Projet de loi portant création de la fonction d'agent de sécurité en vue de l'exécution des missions de police des cours et tribunaux et de transfert des détenus.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

Aug. 6, 2002

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

public safety transfer of prisoners police

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

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 ¶

Dec. 5, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Mr. Colleagues, although this is a competence of the Minister of Justice, the bill was discussed in the Committee on Internal Affairs. In the general explanation it is clear why. A number of officials will be given limited police powers that fit into the police of the courts and courts and the transfer of prisoners. It is intended to form a corps of 158 security officers. They will be recruited among the former soldiers. In order to make the position of security officer attractive, an amendment provides for an adapted pension scheme. Article 3 lists the tasks on which security officers may be charged. Article 5 specifies the powers of the security officers. The government hopes in this way to relieve the local police from a time-consuming occupation.

During the general discussion, Ms. De Permentier asked what criteria would be used when distributing the security officers across the police zones and hopes that those areas that most need this security corps will actually be able to resort to it. She also had questions about the internal organization of the corps, the role of the corps in unexpected events and who should bear the cost of training.

Mr André Frédéric wanted to know what would happen if it turned out that the Security Corps is able to recruit too few staff members or if it even becomes over-qualified. In order to avoid employing too few statutory officials, he submitted an amendment to allow contracts to also qualify for the position of security officer. This amendment was not suspended.

According to Mr. Coveliers, it is necessary to be careful that the police carry out police work. The bill also addresses the demands of those areas for whom the presence of a court, a prison and others means a heavy burden. The proposed draft will significantly reduce the workload in some police zones. He also submitted an amendment that allows security officers to be engaged in the transfer of judicial files between prisons and courts and courts.

Mr. Paul Tant is concerned that this corps could involve a change in the dotations to the zones. He also asks whether a credit has already been allocated to the budget and whether there have been consultations with the trade unions.

The Minister of Justice responds that the Corps will in the first phase consist of 158 security officers. In addition, a videoconference is also being done and in the future judicial files will be scanned on a hard drive, which gives detainees the opportunity to view their files in the prison where they reside. The influence on the federal subsidy is and remains a decision of Home Affairs. The distribution of the available crews will take place based on the needs of each police zone. Employees will be recruited only on statutory basis. The bill has already been discussed in the trade union consultation committees.

The draft law was adopted by the committee for internal affairs with 12 votes and 1 abstinence.

I note that the colleagues Tant, De Permentier and Bourgeois wish to take the floor.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I would like to point out in advance that we actually support the idea of the establishment of a security corps. Indeed, in particular, municipalities with a court or court in their territory face additional problems, especially in terms of manpower. Indeed, it seems appropriate to us to look forward to a solution that can cope with that specific problem.

Mr. Minister, this bill is therefore a first but necessary initiative for the establishment of that separate corps, but it still causes us some concerns as to how the concrete implementation of the bill will be accomplished. You have indeed stated — we have just heard of the rapporteur, and I would like to congratulate him on the completeness and accuracy of his report — that in order for the corps to function properly it is necessary to engage at least 600 personnel, at least to the extent that the services that the corps would provide would be evenly distributed across the whole territory.

On the contrary, in the first phase, the number of people who would actually be appointed would be mainly from military circles and that the number would be limited to 158. That is very little, Mr. Minister. You promised us in the committee that you would try to work pretty quickly to increase that number. In any case, we keep your word. I must add that in the context of the entire police reform, we still have some bad experiences with promises made by the federal government, especially in the context of financing the so-called surplus costs. In this regard, we remained largely in the cold. We therefore assume, Mr. Minister, that for you a commitment is a commitment and that indeed, in the short term, it will be sought to expand the corps, preferably as soon as possible, to the 600 predetermined people.

Moreover, Mr. Minister, the government in extremis has yet to come up with an amendment that was primarily intended to provide for a system of pensions of that new corps. Although you submitted your amendment in time to be discussed in the committee, of course the time and the opportunity to submit it to the State Council were lacking. I think this has happened with premeditation. Why Why ? Not only to gain time, but mainly also because you may well know that the State Council would point you out that normally prior consultation should have taken place with the representative trade unions. We have asked you about this in the committee whether there has been a yes or no trade union consultation on this yet important issue, especially for trade unions. You did not actually bring complete clarity about the issue at that time, but you gave the impression that the consultation had indeed taken place.

Mr. Minister, I would like you to be fully clear about this now, because this is not a mere formality. It is about the pension situation of the persons concerned.

This issue has other important consequences. You assume that a number of soldiers will take the shift on a voluntary basis. This will, of course, only happen if a decent pension scheme is also provided. It would therefore be useful to provide clarity with regard to all aspects of this pension scheme, including the formal issue of consultation with the trade unions.

Although CD&V fully supports the establishment of the security corps, it is still difficult for our group to step into a scenario where the actual applicability of this design is actually on the slope. You may understand that if the pension scheme is not clear or even uncertain in terms of its sustainability, you are also undermining the applicability and in particular even the entry of the 158 persons with regard to the first phase.

Mr. Minister, Mr. Speaker of the Chamber, you know very well that if the legislator acts regarding the regulation of the statute of the members of the public staff, in this case the security agents, this must be consulted with the representative trade unions in advance. This is imposed by the law. However, this law is not enforceable and I know that too well. There is no external body other than the Arbitration Court which may be called upon to assist in imposing, where necessary, a government — the Parliament as such — to respect this law. Their

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, we must make sure that this legal obligation is taken seriously.

In order to give that consultation an opportunity, it would be desirable to postpone the vote on this draft, unless the Minister sees a different solution. In this regard, Mr. Minister, I look forward to your response.

Mr. Tant, the Minister will provide you with an answer, as it is appropriate for a Minister.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, my dear colleagues, the Government today submits to our attention a project struck with common sense. The problem is well known. There are a number of activities undertaken by the local police that fall only very indirectly under the police tasks; this is in particular the case of the transfer of detainees. The problem is not anecdotal. Hundreds of men are thus, almost daily, assigned to fulfill this type of tasks.

Of course, in proportion, there are as many and fewer officers on the street in the service of the population, while the reform of the police had the primary purpose of bringing the policeman closer to the citizen.

The matter is all the more problematic as it generates inequality between the communes depending on whether or not they have a prison or a courthouse on the territory of their area. And as I was able to discuss this with you at the meeting of the Interior Committee, for example, Zone 2 in Brussels, which is the area chaired by Mr. Simonet, which consists of the municipalities of Forest, Saint-Gilles and Anderlecht, and which has three prisons (two in Forest and one in Saint-Gilles), can currently account for 32 men/day assigned to these tasks. by

This problem deserves a solution. The one you propose adopts the contours of a new body of officials — that is, the security officers — composed mainly of voluntary military personnel placed under the authority of the Minister of Justice.

This arrangement requires, in my opinion, three remarks of equal importance. The first takes the traits of a satisfied: the government’s option goes in the right direction. Local police will be supported in a significant number of activities: court and court police, the transfer of detainees, the transfer of persons illegally staying, the transfer of persons to be interned and then, of course, the important transfer of criminal records. Part of the natural tasks of the federal are therefore taken back to this level of power. This is a good thing and we look forward to it.

My second comment is more of a question. The local police remain competent for the matters I have just listed; it could not be otherwise since the new body will only have 156 officers. It remains to be determined how these agents will be distributed between the police areas. In the committee, Mr. Minister, you explained to me that a number of objective criteria will be established for this purpose. Do we know more about this today? By the way, can you tell us if the framework of the new body will be complete? Should additional statutory officers be applied?

Finally, I would like to stop a few moments on the budget section of the project. It must be considered here that the proposed reform does not stop with the transfer of personnel from National Defense to the Department of Justice. It seems to me obvious that the corresponding financial means must follow the same path. Furthermore – and I have just referred to it – it may be that the framework needs to be supplemented through the involvement of statutory agents. The project also provides for training of military personnel for their new functions, further training for potential non-military personnel.

Considering all this, I am a little interrupted when I see, in your budget, a loan of only 2 million euros.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, my colleagues, I would say that the Reform Group will support this text that goes in the right direction. The philosophy that he understood underneath us. Police officers today perform far too many tasks in which the added value that characterizes them is not fully evident. I believe I know that other projects will soon be put into the profession in order to continue more before the recentration of police missions. I also expressed my remarks, ⁇ my concerns, as to the concrete implementation of this reform. I am confident that the Minister of Justice will be able to calm them down. I thank you for that.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I would like to join the words of thanks to the rapporteur, Mr. Smets. However, unlike my colleague Tant, our group is not so unsharedly positive towards the proposed design. I will tell you immediately, colleague Tante. We will not approve this draft because we have some serious comments and objections.

This design is, of course, a better institution than enabling private police. This may be obvious, but nevertheless it is a new confirmation, by this purple-green government, that it fails to carry out the necessary security tasks and provide the necessary public services with the police personnel — which are now, however, in one corps, federally and locally structured. The safety cannot be effectively ensured and therefore an additional cost is again opted. It is about 600 employees in the longer term. It starts with 158 officers, but there will be a security corps of 600 officers, in addition to the current potential of the police. If I see that now in the budget is already registered a cost of more than 2 million euros, I think that in the long run we are evolving to an amount of 8, 10 or 12 million euros on an annual basis. Very soon this will rise to half a billion Belgian francs annually, in addition to the costs of the police reform. In addition to the statutory officers, there are contracts for non-security tasks. These statutory officers will come from the Ministry of Defense or from statutory staff members of other ministries. However, it remains a surplus cost. Defence is being demolished, but in the judiciary, in addition to the effective staff of the police, a number of staff members must be appointed. All this does not mean that there is less police coming, even though these tasks of security officers were previously performed with the same personnel by the former National Guard.

I would also like to draw attention to the cost of training. I read in the text of the law — about it not much extended in the committee discussion — that these people will be given a basic education. Let us not underestimate this function. I read in the law, Mr. Minister, that for the dangerous prisoners you will rightly continue to appeal to the police, which are much better trained for this. I can imagine that those security officers—the people of this corps—will also be armed. It is not because it appears to be harmless conditions that in any court, in any transport, a robbery or an escape attempt can not occur. Please do not underestimate the training of these people. I wonder what will be in that basic training. If those people come from the army or were statutory staff members of any other government service, I do not see so well that they will be immediately fit to perform this task, let alone that in extreme circumstances — we all know how difficult it is — they will switch to the use of firearms.

I wonder, Mr. Minister, whether it was not appropriate to look for more creative solutions, with less risk and possibly with less costs. There is the system of videoconferencing, which allows from the court to confer with the prison, without the dangerous transport. There is also the suggestion — I have already done them here, but one seems to have no ears to them — to examine whether it is not better for the accusation chamber to move, rather than for the prisoners. In addition, there is now an infinite amount of time wasted between a decision of the council and a decision of the accusation chamber.

The file must be transferred, the prisoners must be transferred, time is wasted. In this way, there is less efficiency.

If one says that on the first-instance level one will not appeal against a decision of the council chamber by equals of the chairman of the council chamber — not before judges of first-instance, even though one could consider this if that chamber of appeal is presided over by the chairman of the court; I would, however, assume that there are at first sight quite a few objections against it — why can we not move those three people from the chamber of accusation? Why can the same substitute, who has indeed plotted the case before the council chamber, not immediately before the AI, if one goes toward verticalization? For me, in some cases, the appeal can be handled almost immediately in the afternoon. There will be less time wasted, legal certainty will be served, the rights of the accused will be served, and you will have much less costs. I only embryonically outline a possible solution, which in any case seems to me more efficient and faster, and above all less cost and risk.

In view of the objections that we have, also in view of the objections expressed by colleague Tant — and I think that the problem of the staff negotiations must still be addressed — we will abstain from this draft.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, the PS can only welcome the arrangements taken, allowing certain officials to fulfill well-defined tasks of police of courts and courts and transfer of detainees, arrangements long demanded by our municipalists.

Indeed, the reform of the police had, among other things, as a consequence the overload of the local police of missions that did not properly belong to the police competence. Additionally, certain areas, in particular those on the territory of which a prison facility is established, have been penalized for lack of additional means to perform tasks such as transfer of detainees.

If the bill under consideration represents progress, one may question whether it is appropriate for the government not to hire security officers on the basis of a contract of employment.

Although I understand the concerns expressed by the Minister of Justice in committee regarding the assignment of such functions to contractual agents, I cannot help but wonder about the hypothesis where an insufficient number of military candidates or statutory agents would manifest themselves.

It would be quite aberrant that, as a result of such reservations, local police districts are again obliged to perform these tasks due to the lack of staff according to the standards provided or the heavy procedure for recruiting statutory officers.

I take the opportunity, Mr. Minister, to recall another claim of the Socialist Party. The use of local police officials to ensure security and the organization of private events falls within the same line as the bill under consideration.

If one cannot criticize the strictly police or non-police nature of the transfer of detainees and police from courts and courts, doubt is not permitted in regards to the organization of private events. The reasoning that you hold in the exposition of the reasons of the bill applies a fortiori in this case. It is unacceptable that local police personnel are assigned to maintain the order of this type of demonstration, while the total staff is sometimes insufficient to ensure the safety of citizens across the entire territory of the area since the policy reform.

Nevertheless, our group is concerned about a possible privatization of any task devoted to the public service. We would like to remind you that it would be unacceptable that order-keeping tasks be assigned to guard companies or any other private body. We will always be strongly opposed to such practices.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, my answer will be relatively short, in the sense that it is a first step taken in both the surveillance that we want to take place in the transfer of detainees between the Palace of Justice and the prison, as well as the surveillance that takes place in the Palace of Justice. It has already been said abundantly that this costs 650,000 manure hours per year, or 600 full-time equivalents. With this first step of 158 we aim primarily to arrange the transfer of the prisoners. Of course, this effort will have to be followed. I have given this commitment and that will be followed. And what concerns the criteria that have been applied in this matter, as well as the statistics that had been established by the ancient brigades of the gendarmerie that the number of movements registered by the corps of the local police have been inscribed in the debate. The numbers available in the framework of preventive detention and the information relating to the transfer of prisoners have served as the criteria for the provisional repair of the security agents available on the territory. In this respect, also, you could therefore have your apaisements. As for the training, I note that this training will have to be completed taking into account the tasks. Before completion, the effect and outcome of the efforts undertaken, on the one hand, in the field of videoconferencing enabling de facto councils and charges to act without displacement, and, on the other hand, in the field of scanning criminal records using the new technical means, should be assessed. And in case of insufficient number of the military or the statutory, it is necessary that we make an effort to complete the cadre. So, also, on this subject, we will find the solution. Mr. President, I close with the comment of Mr. Tant, who rightly noted that such a bill should be submitted to the trade union consultation. That has happened. At the time of the consultation, however, the government had not yet submitted an amendment concerning the divergent pension scheme for military personnel. In those circumstances, this was not taken into account in the sectoral consultation and should not have happened.

Why was the amendment made? The amendment came at the request of the military trade unions themselves, which have drawn our attention to the need to amend. In those circumstances — the legislation in question is for me — it is not specifically necessary to submit to a new prior consultation with the trade unions. Article 2 of the Act of 19 December 1974 regulating the relations between the government and the trade unions of its staff expressly provides that the prior consultation takes place for the draft laws or draft decrees. If there is a change in the procedure, as has been the case here, no further consultation is needed. This does not prevent that a demand from the military trade unions has been fulfilled here.

I listened attentively to the Minister’s response. Formally he is right. He quotes the law. Mr. Minister, we are facing a matter of essential importance for the representative trade unions. This is about the pension system as such. If something needs to be discussed, it is about the pension scheme. To appeal to the fact that the regulation has been laid to the table by amendment and not by a draft law, it seems to me to formalize the issue. This issue deserves, in my opinion, a more thorough treatment. The trade unions should have the right to speak about this.

Mr. Minister, what prevents you — if I can make this suggestion — from organising a consultation on a relatively limited issue like this and then coming back to Parliament again. It won’t come in those few days.

Basically and taking into account the critical comments I have made, the CD&V can follow you. We are willing to support the project. The statement by Mr. Bourgeois that the CD&V unconditionally supports the draft is the truth by force. You know that. My party is on your line. I repeat that we regret that the number is too limited and that we are a little concerned — I have been talking about this in detail in the committee — about the territorial spread of the corps across the various courts and courts in our country.

Mr. Minister, I still sit a little on my hunger. I am not satisfied with your formalist response regarding the prior consultation. I repeat my suggestion which I think is really feasible in practice.

Mr. Speaker, I would fully understand the usefulness of the consultation that Mr. Tant asks if the trade unions would have trouble with the arrangement proposed by the government. But you must know that what the government proposes is precisely the request that the trade unions have provided to us. In those circumstances, I do not think that we should hold an additional consultation, because a consultation is being held on something about which there is no agreement. Here there is an agreement on the full line, both in terms of the question of the trade unions and in terms of the response of the government.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make another comment. The Minister mentioned talks with the military trade unions.

The only question is whether these people will continue to maintain the status of military personnel. I think I know that this will be a special corps, which, by the way, will depend directly on your department, because at least part of the appropriations is registered in your budget. The question arises, therefore, even if this has been discussed with the military trade union, or that the appropriate body was to organize the consultation with it. That is one more reason to answer my question.

Mr. Speaker, you know that, by the transition they make from the military corps to the security corps, they will fall under Justice. The only arrangement to allow those people who are transferring is that they receive an adequate pension scheme that corresponds to their original status. That is why we concluded the agreement with them.