Proposition 51K1680

Projet de loi portant modification de certains aspects du statut des membres du personnel des services de police et portant diverses autres dispositions relatives aux services de police.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

March 18, 2005

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

police

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

CD&V Ecolo LE N-VA 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 ¶

May 18, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Mr. Colleagues, the present draft law was discussed by the Committee on Internal Affairs on 13 and 20 April 2005.

In his introductory explanation, the Minister of Internal Affairs refers to the judgment of the Arbitration Court of 22 July 2003. That judgment destroyed a total of eleven articles and urged the Minister to amend Part XII of the Royal Decree of 30 March 2001, subsequently ratified by a law.

During his presentation, the Minister gives an overview of how discrimination is eliminated. The underground airport masters can be appointed through Mobility in a higher framework. They retain the status of judicial police officer and administrative police officer and are scaled into the middle frame.

Former middle officers of the former judicial police receive a special degree, in particular chief inspector with special specialization.

Former Division Commissioners 1C are awarded a new grade, in particular First Class Commissioner.

For the former Commissioners of Division 2C, it is provided that they may be included in the red carpet and may apply for a position of Commissioner.

The functional title detective is granted to all inspectors from the federal judicial pillar. This scheme will also be extended to the inspectors of the local research services. This requires a decision of the police or municipal council.

Previously obtained patents are better validated by allowing those patents to be eligible for extensive exemption from the training conditions, the framework test or to provide reserved access to the officer’s framework after passing the comparative recruitment exam.

CD&V and cdH doubt whether the proposed adjustments are an adequate response to the judgment of the Arbitration Court.

CD&V notes that the statute from the beginning was already controversial. Furthermore, the statute must be financially feasible and should not limit the operational strike ability.

CD&V, however, considers that certain categories of staff receive something without the Court of Arbitration’s judgment taking this into account.

CD&V also has questions regarding the waiting allowance for members of the former judicial police. CD&V also regrets that staff members of the municipal police who are holders of a license of a judicial police officer do not see that patent automatically validated.

Both CD&V and cdH submit various amendments. Both sides expressed concerns that the new law will not be able to avoid certain groups feeling disadvantaged and going back to the Arbitration Court.

The Minister of Internal Affairs replicates that the present text takes into account whether what is proposed is legally in order, whether the adjustments are budgetarily feasible and whether the existing balances between the different corpses are not disturbed.

The minister also points out that the verdict destroys a number of articles, but does not say what the government should do to restore the violated rights.

The various majority parties support the Minister’s position. They express the importance of the fact that any adjustment must be budgetally neutral and that it must not reduce the operational employability of the police. They also hope that the changes will not again give rise to countless procedures before the Arbitration Court.

None of the submitted amendments were adopted.

The bill was finally approved with nine votes for and five abstentions.

The following speakers took part in the discussion: Ms De Permentier, MM. Maene, De Groote, Arens, T'Sijen

The main objective of this bill is to remedy the discrimination raised by the judgment of the Court of Arbitration No. 102/2003 of 22 July 2003. This judgment annuls 11 provisions of Part 12 of the Royal Decree of 30 March 2001, concerning the legal position of the staff of the police services, confirmed by Article 131 of the Program Law of 30 December 2001. The provisions criticized concern all transitional law. Schematically, a series of discriminations were identified in four areas.

With regard to aviation police in particular, some members of the former aviation police raised the problem of staff members who had the capacity of judicial police officer and/or administrative police officer before the police reform, but later.

As regards custody allowance, the Court found that some members of staff inserted in the rank of Commissioner could value a custody allowance in their monetary insertion while this was not permitted for others. This aspect was submitted to the Court by officers of the former Judicial Police. For the valorisation of certain patents acquired in the past, the Court referred to the holders of the municipal police patent held, in this regard, that this patent was less valued than that of a judicial police officer.

As regards the judicial pillar of the integrated police, in particular that of the federal police, the Court disputes the impossibility of commissioning to the rank of chief inspector the members of the former municipal police, who join the federal judicial police, exercising investigative functions equivalent to those assumed by the members of the basic framework of the gendarmerie for which commissioning is possible.

The Court also identifies discrimination in terms of insertions: insertion in level 2+, insertion of officers 1C, mobility opportunities for middle cadres 2C, baremic career opportunities for 2D winners, the problem of the red carpet relating to 2C and the refusal of additional allocation to middle cadres from the former judicial police.

The draft law under consideration aims to counter the discrimination raised by the High Court. The text proposed to us is the result of a very consistent work that will require months of reflection and contains progress on certain points.

One fundamental question that has been raised in the framework of committee discussions is that of the budgetary implications of the bill that is submitted to us. The budgetary involvement must indeed be estimated both at the level of the federal police and at the level of local police. The Minister conducted this exercise and handed a note to the members of the committee. Police status is an extremely complex matter. The MR group is aware that if one touches an element of the pyramid, one risks ruining the balances sought.

We hope, however, that the text that will be voted today will respond in all respects to the Arbitration Court, at the risk if not to see again a series of appeals successfully brought before the Arbitration Court. The future will tell us.

For my part, I will limit my intervention to the integration of members of the former aviation police in the new integrated police. As part of the implementation of the Octopus Agreement, members of the aviation police were transferred first to the gendarmerie, then to the integrated police, structured on two levels.

Schematically, during the first integration, also called the small integration, the members of the former aviation police had the choice: either to integrate the operational body of the gendarmerie, or to maintain their original status and therefore enter into the so-called category of special police personnel of the gendarmerie.

Those who made the choice to fully integrate the operational body of the gendarmerie and who had the status of Assistant Judicial Police Officer of the King’s Prosecutor and Administrative Police Officer, were inserted into the degrees of Marshal of the Houses and First Marshal of the Houses. Insofar as they considered that their baremic scale, responsibilities, training, diplomas corresponded to the grade of Assistant Brigade Commander, some members of the Aviation Police submitted an annulment appeal to the State Council. Considering that the qualifications of judicial police officer and administrative police officer corresponded at least in the former gendarmerie to the position of adjunct brigade commander, the State Council cancelled these appointments.

Since the Ministry of the Interior did not react to this annulment decision, some members of the aeronautical police brought a new appeal which resulted in a sentence to pay a fine of 2,000 euros per day, as long as the Belgian State has not properly integrated the applicant party in the former gendarmerie. The amount of these penalties amounted, in June 2004, to more than 8 million euros. Today, the amount can be estimated at more than 10 million euros.

As a result of this judgment, the members of the aviation police with the status of OPJ and OPA were again appointed in the same grade as the one that had been canceled, i.e. Marshal of the Lodges or First Marshal of the Lodges. Of course, the persons concerned submitted an appeal and obtained a new annulment decision of the State Council, which also annulled the appointments in the rank of inspector of the new integrated police, which occurred in the meantime.

The reason for the cancellation was again very clear: appointment in a rank that does not take into account the OPJ and OPA qualities of members of the aviation police. The Court of Arbitration followed the case-law of the State Council, stating in a judgment that members of the former aviation police who are equipped with OPJ and OPA qualities should be integrated into a higher framework of the new integrated police. Indeed, the Court has held that the appointment of airfield subchefs, bearing the status of OPJ and OPA to the status of inspector of the new integrated police, was irregular in so far as no officer of the basic framework or the middle framework is bearing these two qualities. In the problem of the former aeronautical police that integrated the operational body of the gendarmerie, it was above all the insertion of the former gendarmerie that posed the problem. This first insert also caused the same problem when inserting the members of this poll into the new integrated poll.

As part of the discussion of articles in committee, the Minister was asked about the scope of Articles 2 and 10 of the bill. We asked him if all the categories of the former aviation police were covered by these two articles that provide for the maintenance of the OPJ-OPA quality and the insertion into the middle frame.

The expert present in the committee assured that effectively, the three categories of members of the former aviation police were covered by these two bills. After examination, it appears that there is nothing.

As I pointed out earlier in my speech, the problem of the former aviation police must be divided into two parts. The first part concerns members of the former aviation police who have chosen to maintain their original status. They are precisely those referred to in Table B, 3rd column, points 3-5, points 3-8, points 3-9 of Annex 11 to the PJPol. These points insert the underhead of the gendarmerie airfield, the first underhead of the gendarmerie airfield and the main underhead of the gendarmerie airfield into the basic framework. It is precisely the members of the former aviation police that the decision of the Arbitration Court is aimed at.

Article 12, 2-15 confirmed by the Royal Decree of 30 March 2001 has as a consequence that those of the former subchief of airfield and first subchief of airfield who have chosen to maintain their original status do not retain the status of judicial police officer auxiliary to the King’s Prosecutor and of administrative police officer. The means are founded. However, the draft wording of Article 2 is intended only, in the current wording, to the police officers of the special police services who pass to the operational body of the gendarmerie, without targeting those who belong to the category of special police personnel to the gendarmerie, namely those who have thus made the choice, on the occasion of the integration of the special police into the former gendarmerie, to retain their former status.

The reference to the category of personnel of the special police of the gendarmerie would have merited to be made to express in a more explicit way that all members of the former aviation police, bearing the double quality of judicial police officer and of administrative police officer retain in the former gendarmerie this double quality.

Taking into account the current formulation, only the regime applied to a portion of the former aviation police bearing the above-mentioned double quality is mentioned, namely those who have opted for their integration into the operational body of the former gendarmerie. However, the arbitration court’s judgment explicitly targeted the members of staff of the former aviation police who had the choice to maintain their original status. We hope that the intervention in the committee of the expert of the minister will be sufficient to interpret the project article as also targeting the category of special police personnel of the gendarmerie.

The second part concerns the members of the former aircraft police who have chosen to integrate the operational body of the gendarmerie. The law of 17 November 1998 concerning the integration of the maritime, aeronautical and railway police in the gendarmerie entrusted the King with the care of determining the modalities of transfer of the members of the former aeronautical police who have made the choice to integrate the operational body of the gendarmerie, as well as the equivalence of certain degrees.

It is on this basis that the Royal Decree of 29 April 1999, establishing the equivalence of the grades of certain members of the staff of the category of the Special Police - Airborne Police Service of the Gendarmerie - to those of the staff of the Operational Corps of the Gendarmerie, inserted a part of the members of the former Airborne Police in the following gendarmerie grades: Marshal of the Houses and First Marshal of the Houses. It is from these grades that they have been integrated into the basic framework of the new integrated police. The bill does not, therefore, solve all the integration problems raised by the State Council. So the strain continues to run. In order to resolve this question definitively and to respond to the decisions of the State Council, we could have taken advantage, Mr. Minister, of this draft to insert a provision that would have retreated to the date of the integration of the special police in the former gendarmerie, namely 1 March 1999. It would have followed that: - the grade of sub-chief of aerodrome would equate to that of marshal of chief logies; - the grade of first sub-chief of aerodrome to that of first marshal of chief logies; - the grade of sub-chief of main aerodrome to that of first marshal of chief logies; - the grade of sub-chief of first class aerodrome to that of adjudant; - the grade of sub-chief of first class principal aerodrome to that of adjudant chief.

At the end of this stage, in accordance with the Statute, the fate of these agents would obviously have been linked in the new integrated police to that of the former gendarmes dressed with the equivalent grade, namely that: - a member of the former aviation police who became chief marshal of lodges would become chief inspector inserted in the M3 scale; - a member of the former aviation police who became first chief marshal of lodges would become chief inspector inserted in the M4 scale; - a member of the former aviation police who became adjudant would become chief inspector inserted in the M7 scale; - finally, a member of the former aviation police who became deputy chief inspector would become chief inspector in the M7 scale.

The legislature could have recovered the delegation to the King that had been made on November 17, 1998. Now, if we want to resolve this problem definitively, it will be up to the King to review, in a supplementary decree, the equivalence of degrees during the first integration into the gendarmerie. This is a missed opportunity that, in my opinion, is generating a new discrimination.

In addition, members of the former aviation police who have chosen to maintain their original status during the small integration are, under this project, included in the middle framework of the new integrated police. As for the members of the former aviation police who chose to be integrated into the operational body of the gendarmerie during the small integration, they remain integrated into the basic framework of the new integrated police.

I do not see what justifies a different treatment compared to these different categories of personnel that originally come from the same body. It would therefore be the responsibility of the Minister to urgently draw up a decree incorporating the members of the former aviation police who have chosen to be integrated into the operational body of the gendarmerie, under conditions equivalent to those of the members of the former aviation police who have chosen to maintain their original status during the small integration.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the present bill has a long history. The merger of the different police services into an integrated police organization organized on two levels, was, is and remains a difficult balance exercise.

If such an operation is already difficult in the merger of two companies, in the case of the police, this applies a fortiori. There are also other motives and sensitivities. We know that. We do not say that simply. For every politician in this country, the principle is that the police services must first and foremost guarantee the safety of all our citizens, like a pillar over water. In order to do this, it is important that all involved are drawn to the same seagull. What can lead to rivalry, competition and working side by side, we have all experienced in the past. It was the direct cause for a thorough reform of the police landscape.

At the same time, of course, a unified statute was also required for the members of the new police, say, the same statute for the same work. That this goal has not been achieved everywhere, and that the rivalry and distinction between the former police and the National Guard have not yet disappeared, we, unfortunately, still very often record on the ground. Who here hasn’t received dozens of emails, letters, phones about the present Vesalius design in the last few days and weeks? Who was not convinced of what differences existed before in the various corpses and what the consequences of unification now mean for all? Who here did not receive letters from organizations in which he must determine that they still mention the names of the old corpses?

It can only lead us to decide that the new integrated police on paper exists and should work in practice. In the heads and hearts of the 40,000 police officers, however, apparently still exists the municipal police, the judicial police or the national guard. It is sad, but maybe it could be predicted.

The police reform was repeatedly pointed out that there was a need for a new corporate culture. This was completely contrary to the culture in the various former corpses. Many business psychologists warned at the time that this was almost impossible, a utopia. Unfortunately, we have to give them partly right today. Realising real integration may take time. That is true. In the meantime, giving the various categories to which they are right can ⁇ give a positive boost in the process. And that’s where the shoe still rolls.

The police reform stands or falls with the fact that around the statute there must be a consensus in which the different groups feel valued and properly treated. After a lot of doubts and keys, the government, not least with its own majority, puts a draft for vote. You know, Mr. Minister, that this will not be the end point. After all, despite this design, discrimination still exists. In this way, the dissatisfaction gets a new nutritional ground. We all know it, we must not deny it. New procedures for the Arbitration Court are already in the starting blocks. Knowing this, you have put this bill to vote in the committee. It was swept without blows or blows by the majority parties. Nobody took the word, while you all know very well that the design does not offer a solution, but that new problems will emerge. This is likely to be the next minister. As the former minister moved the hot potato, so does the current minister. The problems on the ground and the financial consequences thereafter are all for later.

Meanwhile, the citizen expects from the police a high availability and good service. Rightly, we also consider this to be a priority. In practice, however, so far we see little or nothing of the lake blue on the streets. Local agents are still unknown to many people. What do we see in the field? The term Mexican army threatens to get a whole new meaning with the Belgian police. The entire operation of the red carpet will not do this well. It will be important that you, as a minister, will apply the principle "the function primates on the degree" in your daily operation. If this is not done, then the “CALOGIZATION” threatens to become a blow in the water.

In this draft, the government has been guided by several principles, such as the attention to the achieved balance within the Mammouth Decision. CD&V also finds this an important point of attention, but is it not exactly an excessive concern for the balance that underlies a lot of problems regarding the statute? I will give an example. At that time, many people from the former National Guard were appointed in a certain degree in the context of proportionality. They did not possess the necessary diplomas or patents for this position, but to this day they still exercise the functions, without the prospect of any further appointment. This situation seems unsustainable in the long run. I give a second example. In order to maintain the balance, persons from the former judicial police were scaled in the same degree as the persons of the former national guard, despite the fact that the ex-judicial police belonged to a higher degree.

This is the problem of the so-called 2Cs. We are now again calling on balances to maintain this discrimination. Why does it not create a specific degree within the operational services of the integrated police that is equivalent to level 2+ as it also exists within the administrative and logistical framework? The problem is now focused on the former GPP and BOB, but also within the municipal police existed the level 2+. Therefore, we ask ourselves loudly whether this would not have been a better solution.

The second principle of the Government was that the budgetary implications of the present draft should be taken into account. This is also understandable and even more relevant in the context of police reform. After all, it is no secret that the reform has left a financial catch and that is caused by this statute. However, the budgetary restrictions should not...

I have referred to the risk that the execution of the decision of the Arbitration Court and the adjustments we should make or the correction in the statute could lead to what is called a Mexican army. You say that the design may put us in the direction of what you call a Mexican army. Two minutes later, you are actually advocating to include that category of ex-division inspectors 2C in the rodeloper scheme. Are you aware that if we simply followed the judgment blindly, without taking into account other considerations, in a two-year period four hundred new officers would be added to the federal investigation? How can you now say on the one hand that you are concerned about the fact that the police could evolve into what is called a Mexican army and on the other hand say that that category 2C should get what it is entitled to? That implies, if one applies that tightly as you see, that one gets four hundred new officers on top of it. What do you really want?

Mr. Minister, we want, on the one hand, that the judgment be executed, but on the other hand, that the discrimination be eliminated. The initial problem, of course, lies in the initial statute. I also get there so quickly. You have indeed inherited it, but it is up to all of us to correctly remedy it. We think so and we will also submit amendments to that. They will be submitted by Mr. Claes. I come to the second starting point.

If I can wait for a moment, I assume that I am not convincing you.

No, indeed not.

As you rightly assert, I naturally inherited a statute and I will not shoot the predecessors because integrating three corpses into one and the same statute is indeed not an easy task.

No, it is indeed so.

There was a risk that the Court of Arbitration would possibly intervene. I will not say this was written in the stars, but the risk was real.

Eventually, eleven articles are destroyed and we are looking for a balanced solution that meets the principle of proportionality. I also read in a newspaper yesterday that your group rejects the principle of proportionality. One must know what one wants. Either one does not attract all that and one drives equality to the top but then one rolls out the runner for adding officers "à volonté" That is what you actually advocate, because one of your amendments hit the category 2C. I tell you that this represents 400 additional officers. On the other hand, you say that we must be careful that things do not disappear. If you maintain your 2C-related amendment, CD&V actually stands for creating 400 additional officers. That is what you want. Accusing me of creating a Mexican army by enforcing the Arbitration Court in a more nuanced way, I find that intellectually and politically incorrect. On the other hand, I will not push the controversy to the top.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, we consider it more important that there is a proper legal arrangement. That is our great concern as the starting point number one. We cannot be out there. We believe that the arrangement now provided for the 1Cs leads to new discriminations and will again be challenged before the Constitutional Court. I do not have to convince you of this. You will also assume that this will be the case. We want to protect the legislator from falling back into that trap. We want to ensure that there is good legislation. That that correct legislation and the elimination of that discrimination sometimes leads to other problems in other areas, as you say, we cannot do that. First and foremost, however, it must be legally correctly regulated. That is the priority.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, as regards the third principle on which the Government is based, the adjustments you propose should solve the problems raised by the Constitutional Court and eliminate the discriminations identified. That is the most important thing for us.

We believe that the present draft law is deficient in this regard. Can the concerns about ⁇ ining certain balances and limiting the budgetary consequences dismiss the judgment of the Constitutional Court and the safeguarding of constitutional rights? We mean no.

We would like to warn you here. This design provides raw materials for new procedures. As the government itself stated in the memorandum of explanations, the government has succeeded in delivering a solution that holds the middle between all those servitudes and which, in addition, results in virtually nothing being deprived of the staff concerned, not to mention a few punctual rearrangements.

Let us also not forget that the status of the members of the integrated police has a legally anchored character. By now registering measures which, in addition, deprive certain paragraphs of rights already acquired by statutory provisions after the normal date of entry into force, it challenges the principle of the rule of law. This is what we think happens with the so-called red loop. This is a statutory acquired right that normally entered into force on 1 April 2005 and was spread over two years. In this way, a number of members of the middle cadres could, on their own request, be appointed into the officer cadres. The Government amends this regulation with the present draft, with one penny draft.

It extends its entry into force over seven years and at the same time introduces a new principle of proportionality in the context of balances. This is not only contrary to the principle of the law on the integrated police, in particular that only proportionality could be introduced in the establishment of the new corps. Also, some staff members of the former judicial police, given their age, are deprived of the chance to enjoy this red carpet. Does this belong to the points that are virtually not described in the memory or to the punctual rearrangements? We are of the opinion that this overlooks a number of principles of a rule of law only and only in order to better fit the budget-bound shoes.

That the Mammoth Decision is a dragon, we all know. It is much too retail and works too hard so that a smooth employment of the staff is impossible. It has been overloaded with numerous premiums that have made the police services pepper-dead. We can finish the list and I think everyone here will endorse it.

The Vesalius project should respond to the ruling of the Constitutional Court. They are, according to us, lap means for a car with square wheels. If you now make square wheels into triangles, you will never be able to drive smoothly, even with hard pulling and pushing. We admit that the cause actually lies in the previous legislature. Nevertheless, done things do not take a time. However, this design will also not provide an answer and therefore we regret that so much time is wasted here. Mr. Minister, you know very well that there will be another episode.

Mrs. Schryvers, I cordially congratulate you on your maidenspeech. (Applause of Applause)

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, this bill, as already repeated abundantly today, has as its main objective to execute the judgment 102 of 22 July 2003 of the Court of Arbitration.

This judgment, supplemented by the order of 14 July 2004, annulled a number of provisions relating to the status of the police and contained in the Royal Decree of 30 March 2001, the famous Mammouth Decree of which we will remember the gigantism, since it included more than 2,000 articles, if my memory is accurate. So, to commit to touching this Mammouth order, is to take the risk of touching various elements that have required enormous work for several years. However, a modification of this order appeared to be necessary.

The provisions repealed by the Arbitration Court were all subject to transitional law; I refer here to Part 12 of the Mammouth Decree. This cancellation did not immediately create a legal void. The disputed provisions therefore continued to produce their effects. A correction was necessary and urgent in order to end the discriminations contained in this text and identified by the High Court.

Most of the cancelled articles dealt with the structure of the grades. Mrs. De Permentier gave us an extraordinary exposition; it would be necessary to have it more often in committee, Mr. Minister, because I think it would be easier to understand the technical nature of some of the reforms you want, of which we know how complicated the text is.

While it is true that one can regret that this bill comes so late, it must also be recalled that it has been taken into account that this reform must be carried out in a serene climate and that the proposed project respects, in the context of its elaboration, some important principles regarding its implementation.

In fact, it must be recalled that the present bill was to take into account the following principles: - provide an adequate response to the discriminations identified by the Arbitration Court. These discriminations are real and you have never ever challenged them. Maintain or restore balances that had been achieved in 2001, knowing that the decision of the Court of Arbitration resulted in a break of some of these balances, but also knowing that the overall balance contributes to the acceptance of the new structure and the position occupied within it. - Finally, it was also necessary to seek a budget-acceptable solution, to safeguard the correct functioning and organization of the police services - I will return to it - taking into account the complexity, the technical nature of the subject, knowing that the full status of the police staff, as I have already said, is inserted in almost 2,000 articles.

If, indeed, the present draft comes to correct the errors contained in the Mammouth Decree, it must also be remembered that some parts of the negotiations of this very large-scale and difficult balances Decree took place at very bad times: the European Football Cup and the European Presidency. Thus, some seem to have forgotten that the minister was at the time almost back to the wall when he had to negotiate this Mammouth order. This must be taken into account. Nevertheless, it was found that the provisions contained in this order were good since the provisions cancelled or incriminated by the Arbitration Court are quite limited.

One question remains. Can we claim that the present project solves all the problems encountered in this area? Certainly not, and I think, Mr. Minister, that you do not have the claim.

The reform of the fonts is not yet fully implemented and I think that this text should be incorporated as part of a reform that continues to evolve. In this regard, it is sufficient to refer to the texts disseminated by the trade unions, and all the parties present in this parliament have received multiple. All these texts announced potential new appeals before the Arbitration Court. The speaker who preceded me indicated it. We can always make advertising effects but we also know that the work done was ⁇ difficult.

Finally, I would like to emphasize – this is the subject of my intervention – the priority to be given to the harmonious functioning of police services, in order to avoid any insecurity in such an advanced sector. Today we can say that this reform is a success. One can hear one another complaining, talking about the Mexican army, but when one goes on the field, that one sees the number of successful business, the serenity in which the field men work, I think that one must congratulate one another on this gigantic work. The arrested Mammouth bears its name, there was something ⁇ striking to accomplish. We know that this is currently happening under good conditions. To say today that everything is perfect, it would be false, it would be abusive but you must be able to stay with your feet on the ground, recognize things, maybe move a little more on the field and not just hold speeches behind the micros at this tribune. In fact, it must be said that in the field there are a number of concrete achievements.

Finally, even if we must see a progress through the text you propose to us, it seems to me indispensable to keep in mind the need to fully assess the scope and the possible consequences of the implementation of this text. Any slowdown would be disastrous. Mr. Minister, I would really like to insist: less slowness in the assessment and in the balance sheet than in the implementation or in the output of this text!

Furthermore, we would like to emphasize in particular the necessity - this has been mentioned - to resolve the last problems that remain. These problems could be solved through a parliamentary initiative. Mr. Minister, you reassured us that you would be willing to support this initiative.

This reform has already flowed a lot of ink, a lot of words. Everyone speaks about it by criticizing it. This actually cost a lot of money, but at the level of budget balances, the necessary efforts were undertaken. Where we were told of the worst disasters, nothing happened. As I said earlier, this reform is still ongoing, there will still be changes to be made but the main thing to remember today is that you will work hard to correct what was supposed to be in terms of discrimination between staff members. We need to be constantly vigilant, so that the security of our citizens is guaranteed today as it will be tomorrow. This is where we can win some battles on the extreme right.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, we really know how much it is to walk on eggs to get to that good police reform. One cannot separate a discussion around the Vesalius law from the history of police reform. Their

With the Octopus Agreement, the three former police services were incorporated into a new integrated police structure. The three police services had different grade systems and wage scales that had to be aligned. With the Good Friday Agreement, an agreement was reached on the various statutes and bets. According to this agreement, there were four personnel cadres in the integrated police, namely a aid, base, middle and officer cadres, and within one framework there is only one degree. All the different old wages and statutes had to be incorporated into this structure, which is a delicate balance exercise. Additional difficulty is undoubtedly a history of mutual rivalry and a different fulfillment of function content. No one wanted to lose any of his accumulated benefits, but everyone wanted to have the benefits of others. Overall, it is my view that one can assume that no one has lost anything, but that there may be a difference in the extra that everyone got. Their

Everything was stipulated in the Mammoth Law. There have since been numerous adjustments to this law in program laws, royal decrees, and so on. Several articles from these adjustments were eventually destroyed by the Arbitration Court due to discrimination between all those statutes. The government is trying to take this into account in the new law, the Vesalius Act. I do not argue that all legislation surrounding police reform and the alignment of the statutes is terribly complicated. Their

I would like to point out two things. In the course of the police reform, the winners of the promotion exam for judicial commissioner of the then judicial police were assigned to the prosecutors as police commissioners. By its judgment of 22 July 2003, the Court of Arbitration incited a number of discriminations, including from former members of the local police who found that their patent was undervalued in the new police statute. Somewhere came the suggestion to eliminate this discrimination by degrading the fifty-four police commissioners. However, the involvement of a police commissioner was not destroyed by the Arbitration Court and as such is not irregular. I highly appreciate, Mr. Minister, that in the final draft law the police commissioners were not degraded.

You know, Mr. Minister, that our group laterally had a number of comments, including on the appreciation of the appointed chief inspectors and commissioners, in the context of the proportional distribution of official posts within the local police. An appointed chief inspector has now held an authority function for more than three years and several months and is sometimes not fully valued for it in light of the additional responsibilities and associated tasks that he or she exercises. I can hope and trust, Mr. Minister, that you will pay due attention to this. Their

The Vesalius design is important for the proper functioning of the various police services. It is ⁇ difficult to find the balance, but I am convinced that you, as Minister of the Interior, keep the dialogue with the police officers open, so that these people feel fully respected in the exercise of their sometimes difficult and ungrateful profession.

It is true that by listening to the different speakers of the majority, I must acknowledge that I agree with you. You say rightly that this project does not solve all the problems: we do not say anything else. But then, since we are in the midst of discussing an important bill, why not go a little further, gentlemen ministers, to solve most of these problems? This is all that we, the opposition, asked you in the committee, through the submitted amendments. That’s all the police officers who came to meet us. Virtually all, regardless of which party we belong to, we realize that all and all hold the same speech and we cannot go further. Of course, I assume that the majority is held by its government agreement and that it cannot go beyond. That is the problem.

As a mayor, the minister knows this very well because this is not the first time I say this, I am very satisfied with the functioning of my local police. Not only this morning, reading the newspaper, I learned that it is safer to drive in the countryside and that I saw that the municipality in which road safety is probably the most effective, given that it is the municipality in Belgium that has the least accidents, is a small municipality in South Luxembourg. I am very proud of it, I said.

It must be acknowledged that this is due to the police reform.

And with a good mayor, it must be recognized. Isn’t that Mr. Arens?

It is clear, it is obvious.

Congratulations Mr Arens.

You are better than the president in office. I hope you will preside over the meeting more often. It is true that the police participate in the security, whether at the level of road safety or at other levels in each of our municipalities. But it is also true — and I say it very openly — that if we can be proud as a mayor or as a minister of what is happening on the ground, it is because women and men do their work correctly, despite the status problems they know and we do not have the ability to solve in Parliament. This is the reality of the field. And this morning, it’s true, looking at this map of which I’m proud, my look was drawn to the left of page 6 of “Soir.” Title of today’s newspaper “Le Soir”, Mr. Minister: “Tribunals paralyzed due to the lack of police.”

It is no longer about road safety, it is clear and clear: "the courts paralyzed because of the lack of police." As a commission, I had previously requested the presence of your colleague, Ms. Onkelinx, since that pillar depends on her. I do not ignore his difficulties in recruiting agents for the Security Corps but in Arlon, when we speak today of the Security Corps, we say in Luxembourg: (citation in Luxembourg). In what is dat?

We are waiting for nine people. After two years of law enforcement, we have painfully seen the arrival of a second agent, which, in other words, Mr. Minister, means clearly that it is your policemen who take care of the transfer of detainees, our municipal policemen! This is proof of a phenomenal dysfunction that we cannot accept.

If there are indeed advances in the bill you propose to us, we do not understand why we do not go further, why we do not complete this reform. Under no circumstances can we accept certain "leaders" of the current police who are sabotaging this reform to get to the single police. Here too, we clearly say “no”!

Tomorrow we will not vote on this bill. We will continue to fight to help you, Mr. Minister, to obtain from your government colleagues the budgetary resources necessary to complete this reform we participated in a few years ago, when we were also in the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, recently Mrs. Schryvers has given a general explanation on behalf of CD&V. I will give another brief general explanation, but I will focus primarily on the explanation of the amendments we will submit.

The Vesalius draft is, of course, a very theoretical bill on the adjustments of the statute of police officers to the criticism of the Constitutional Court, formerly the Arbitration Court. I don’t think there are many members of parliament who have troubled themselves to talk about this with some knowledge of matters. It is also not easy. Mr Deseyn has also said this. It is a ⁇ complex matter that actually goes back to the former statutes of the National Guard, of the police, of the judicial police, and so on.

I am pleased that this was paid some attention to in the Standard of yesterday, even though we have not sent a press text, Mr. Minister.

The [...]

We have to have allies somewhere. If the Standard wants to do that, we will not stop them.

It is, of course, only after a thorough study that one can conclude that this bill actually overlooks its purpose. We can be 200% sure that new proceedings will be submitted and conducted to the Constitutional Court. If no amendments are approved, one can be 200% sure of them. Many discriminations accused by the Court are not or insufficiently or incorrectly addressed, and this is mainly due to two reasons.

First of all, there are financial constraints. I can give a bit of understanding to that. Indeed, there are a number of measures that cost some money. We have taken this into account in our amendments in the sense that we have looked at the financial impact. We even skipped some amendments because they would be financially overweight. On the other hand, I cannot understand it because it is the application of a judgment of the Constitutional Court, which has caused a number of destruction and which must be repaired. That this money will cost is due to the current provisions of the statute.

Another argument that continues discrimination is the preservation of the balance between the former corpses. This is especially used too inappropriately as an argument and sometimes even to stop new matters that bring about new discriminations.

Within the majority, there was a lot of hassle around this bill. I can imagine that Minister Onkelinx and other members of the majority parliament have also started to appeal to interest groups.

What is new — I have not said it in the committee — is that the financial surplus expenditure in connection with this bill — and that is important, however — according to the report of the Court of Auditors of 13 May, is insufficient. I received the report today and on page 24 it is clear that at least 2.4 million should be provided to meet this bill. However, we note that only 1 million euros are provided.

In addition, an additional €1.9 million should be allocated for the adjustment of the 2005 budget for the additional hiring of prospective inspectors. No credit was provided for this.

I also insist that the additional costs of the statute resulting from the police reform will be fully borne by the federal government, thus also all adjustments that we approve here through amendments or that are already in the draft. In my opinion, as agreed in the initial police reform, the additional costs of the statute should be fully borne by the federal government and should not be transferred to the local government. That was from the beginning the agreement in the police reform.

I will now go deeper into the amendments. As previously stated, the Arbitration Court destroyed 11 articles of the Mammoet Decision. These articles can be reduced to 4 main points.

The first point concerns the problem of a number of people who before the reform had the capacity of judicial police officer and/or administrative police officer. By joining the new police, they lost this double capacity. The present draft regulates this issue for the members of the former aviation police. During the hearing we discussed whether the members of the former railway police would also be in the same case. However, we do not understand why they were not included. They were part of the same operation that included the former rail and air police in the federal police. Their

Is it true that this is about another category which, by the provisions of the Vesalius, does not again receive the double status of officer of judicial and administrative police? Why was this not corrected for the members of the former railway police? We have already discussed this in the committee and already know the answer.

A second point relates to the waiting allowances that the members of the ex-GPP could wrongly not be charged in the betting setting. The Court of Arbitration found that this was contrary to the principle of equality. The proposal now responds to this by charging the waiting allowance for the members of the exGPP and of the former Reichswache who were scaled into the rank of Commissioner on 1 April 2001 and who were deprived of this choice. We have already made our comments during the discussion in the committee and the proposed solutions will in any case give rise to new alleged discriminations.

The third point concerns the validation of the certificate of officer of municipal police. The Court of Arbitration also found a violation of the principle of equality. The design offers a solution for them. However, this solution will depend on the extent to which vacancies will be created within the overall structure of the integrated police. In that sense, the valorisation of the said patent will not be automatic and the government risks the destruction of the arrangement introduced by the Arbitration Court.

The solution proposed by the Government to the identified discrimination is limited to enabling the validation of the municipal police patent and this only if a commissary relationship in the context of mobility is unleashed. Furthermore, it should be noted that the probability of this is further complicated by the existence of the principle of the red loop. The framework of the officers will be fully consolidated in the coming years. A possible opening in the officer framework necessary for the validation of the patent seems ⁇ difficult.

CD&V will propose the necessary amendment so that the holders of a license of officer of municipal police who at the age — only at the age — of 55 years have not been given the opportunity to valorise their license through mobility can still be appointed as Commissioners on their own request. Estimating the cost of this measure is very difficult because we cannot say how many patent holders will not be able to valorise their patent through mobility or how many holders will eventually choose to be appointed as Commissioner. We leave the choice to the staff member concerned. If the person concerned, at the age of 55 years, chooses to eventually switch to a Commissioner, he must remain in service for at least five years and can only retire at 60 years. I assume that some staff members prefer to retire at 58 years of age and do not choose the status of Commissioner. The key is handed over to the staff. What CD&V does is to create an automation to resolve discrimination at a minimum cost. This is, in my opinion, a creative and good solution, something we see too little of in the entire present design. I do not deny that the design contains good solutions. However, the design contains too little of this kind of creative solutions.

A fourth domain of the Vesalius design stores most of the articles destroyed by the Arbitration Court. It concerns the inclusion of various degrees of the former judicial police in the new structure of the integrated police. I have a few examples.

A first part problem that we have already discussed concerns the so-called 2 C's of the former judicial police. Within the former judicial police, the cadres consisted exclusively of staff members of level 2+. That was the result — Melchior, now you must listen — of the royal decree of 25 November 1991, the famous KB-Wathelet. Then the level 2+ was introduced. At the judicial police, it was mainly recruited and recruited personnel at that level. For the services of the National Guard, there was no framework with level 2+ and was the middle framework of training level 2. In addition, there was a very extensive basic framework of levels 3 and 4.

However, the scaling did not take this data into account and the members of the former GPP, in particular the department inspectors, the 2Cs, were scaled in the same degree as the members of the former Reichswache, thus at level 2 instead of 2+, which is evident.

“The integration into the middle frame of the integrated police will also result that, by ignoring the command functions it exercised for the reform, subordinate agents of the former municipal police or of the former national guard are placed on an equal footing in virtue of their capacity as judicial police officer.”

In defence before the Court, the Minister at the time cited several arguments in order nevertheless to defend his right. He said: “The wage scale in which the inspectors and department inspectors of the former GPP were scaled is indeed that of Level 2+.” It was also referred to Article 120 of the Act on Integrated Police, which stipulates that priority is given to the authority exercised on the basis of a functional hierarchy, to a hierarchy based on degrees and that creating a second degree in the middle frame would incur against the spirit and letter of the law of 1998. I remind you that these are exactly the same arguments that the government now uses in defense of the present bill.

The Court of Arbitration has explicitly stated, in its resolution section concerning those 2Cs: “The arguments raised by the Minister of Home Affairs during the Parliamentary discussions which preceded the adoption of the Act of 2002” — that are the points 2 and 3 which I just mentioned — “neither the inclusion in a pay scale corresponding to level 2+ makes it possible to answer or compensate for the fact that the contested measure disproportionately impairs the applicants’ rights with regard to mobility with the public that they could enjoy because of their diploma”.

In other words, the proposed amendments to the RPPol do not meet the observations of the Court, and there is still a violation of the principle of equality. In the spirit of the Integrated Police Act of 1998, the number of degrees is limited to a minimum, in particular one degree per frame. Only for the officer framework are two degrees provided.

Therefore, a hierarchical restoration should only be introduced with respect to the level 2 chief inspectors. The only technical solution is therefore to create an additional degree here, in particular the degree of department inspector of police.

The degree of appointed aspirant department inspector is equally necessary, since the execution of the judgment must take place with retroactivity from 1 April 2001. At that time, there were still judicial inspectors in training at the judicial police. Meanwhile, most inspectors have their training behind their backs so that the degree is exhaustive in practice.

We would also like to point out that the legislature for the operational framework has not provided for a framework level 2+. However, direct recruitment was provided for at the same level 2+, with the same degree of chief inspector as at levels 2, but with a title of "police assistant with special specialization" or "police assistant with speciality". As far as we are concerned, there is no objection to the creation of Framework Level 2+, to the incorporation of the higher degree of Department Inspector of Police, and thus to the elimination of the aforementioned titles at Level 2, Middle Framework Chief Inspector.

Secondly, another point relating to the former judicial police concerns the problem of the department commissioners 1C.

The discrimination identified in the judgment could be illustrated by making a comparison between, on the one hand, the betting scales of the Majors of the Rijkswacht, integrated in the rank of Chief Commissioner via the betting scale O5, and the betting scales of the Division Commissioners 1C, integrated in the rank of Commissioner via the betting scale O4. Indeed, the previous betting scale is almost identical. The new betting scale of the Division Commissioners 1C has remained virtually the same, but the betting scale of the Majors of the Rijkswacht was increased by approximately 175,000 Belgian francs. This is serious discrimination.

As mentioned, however, the 1C division commissioners were scaled into the framework of the lower officers, while the major of the former Reichswache were scaled into the higher officers. The Court of Arbitration therefore clarifies in the resolute part of its judgment: "Because the Division Commissioners 1C, who were senior officers within the former judicial police, are integrated in the degree of Commissioner within the framework of the lower officers, they undergo a resettlement in grade." The Arbitration Court itself says it is a resettlement in degree.

The creation of a grade of first class commissioner, the intermediate solution that the draft now provides, does not in any way bring the concerned back to the degree from which they were resettled, namely the degree of chief commissioner. The only difference is that they are now restored to the grade of Commissioner first class, which is indeed higher than the grade of Commissioner, to which they were originally restored. However, it is still a resettlement.

The accountability with the amendment explained that the functioning was organized on the basis of indications in authority functions, where the degree plays a subordinate role and the octopus proportionality was respected. Well, the position for which the Section 1C Commissioners are currently appointed remains unchanged, regardless of whether the Section 1C Commissioners hold the rank of Commissioner, First Class Commissioner or Chief Commissioner.

Our proposal is clear. It provides for the inclusion of the former department commissioners in the higher officer framework and for the elimination of the intermediate grade of first-class commissioner created by the Vesalius design. In this way, the principle of the Octopus Agreement, in which there is only one degree per framework, is also respected, except for the officer framework where two degrees are provided. In the proposal of the government one deviates from this principle and one even creates a third degree. Furthermore, we would like to point out that this third degree should in no case become a degree and regime and should only be a transitional degree.

I now come to the last amendment that I would like to explain. The last group of amendments concerns the issue of appointments. There are currently a lot of people in the police who are appointed in a position without being appointed. In practice, they have been exercising their functions for years. There are so many more than we would think at first sight. The Minister acknowledged at the hearing in the committee — we have talked about it in detail, Mr. Minister — that this is a problem that requires a solution.

Let one thing be clear: also the practice of appointments is one of the discharges of the Mammoth Decision, which have arisen from the principle of proportionality. I would like to make it clear that this is mainly about people from the former National Guard, who were involved in the basic or middle framework but were appointed in a degree of a higher framework. The appointment, rather than the appointment, does not, of course, mean that they receive the remuneration associated with the function they perform. They are also denied career opportunities. Thus, they cannot attend exams of a higher degree because they do not have that lower degree. However, as a government, one cannot insist that these people are qualified to continue to perform this job without providing the financial translation thereof. Our position is that we can assume that persons who have worked in a position five years after their appointment without a negative evaluation also have the right to a appointment in this degree. This is, by the way, a principle that has also been incorporated in the law for the commissars-corp chief who, after three years of office, can also obtain their appointment as chief commissary.

I will decide, my colleagues. The Arbitration Court destroyed 11 articles of the previous draft law. At the discussions at the time — I wasn’t there myself, but our group leader, Pieter De Crem, will ⁇ be there — we submitted nine amendments which would have addressed nine of the eleven destruction. Let this be a sign on the wall. Dear colleagues, I therefore ask you to think about our amendments again and approve them because otherwise we know with certainty that the present bill will again be largely destroyed by the Constitutional Court.

Mr. Speaker, during the committee meeting on Wednesday 20 April, the Minister spoke to limit the text to the elements that were purely and solely related to the 11 suspension of the Arbitration Court. He said that there were still talks in the government about the differences between the former BOB and the former judicial police, with an invitation to the members of parliament who wanted to take initiatives themselves.

To help all the misunderstandings from the world, I quote from page 23 of the report. "It is obvious that one must find a solution to monetize the former members of the BOB versus the GPP." A little further I read: "The government is thinking about a solution, which does not prevent Parliament from taking an initiative, insofar as the problem is not politically linked to this bill." 22 and 23 of colleagues Dirk Claes and Katrien Schryvers, who met a bit with a facet of the aspirations of the former BOB.

I quote from the Minister’s answer on page 45: “This issue does not belong to the discussion of the present bill, but the Minister was willing to exchange thoughts on it at a later stage.”

Of course I had bad luck. A week later I responded to that request to exchange opinions and asked seven oral questions in the committee, four of which were very specific about the discrimination of the former BOB versus the former GPP. Mr. Minister, you said, or rather: you shouted, that they were not included in the Vesalius design. We discussed this issue for hours in the framework of the Vesalius draft. That that has been addressed during the discussion of the Vesalius design breaks my clump. This is not reflected in the report. I think this is deontologically incorrect. Their

If one stands for the rights of a group, then one is sometimes worn out as a defender of syndicates. In the case of the BOB, that accusation is ⁇ cynical. The BOB was not represented as such by a syndicate in the police reform. There was the syndicate of police and security personnel. They had the VSOA, which represented the staff at the National Guard. Within the former National Guard, however, the BOB represented only a very small, a minimal fraction. The BOB was actually completely isolated in that large group.

The good conditions that some of the national guards received during the police reform have had to compensate the BOB with a very poor status. By the way, if these trade unions acted in front of the other 37,000 police officers, what is the importance of a trade union of a category of people representing only 1,400 people? That is the only tragedy in the whole story of the police services. Those who were unable to go through the trade union poorly, paid the league. You tell me, Mr. Minister, that I defended the interests of the trade union. Which syndicate has defended the ex-BOB?

I heard that last week you received the NSPV and the liberal trade union VSOA in your cabinet to exchange opinions, which in itself is of course not wrong. I also heard in the walkways telling that the other trade unions were not invited. I would like to note, however, that it is said that political colour does not play a role here, but that one has only opted for the two largest trade unions. Why would you actually consider those 1,000 ex-BOB’s? When you are invited to the cabinet, it does not really matter, because I think I can say that no trade union has given its approval to the Vesalius design. In fact, no one is satisfied and that is a pity for the further motivation of our police officers.

A thousand people were forgotten throughout the whole reform by the trade unions, by the government, and ⁇ later by the Parliament. I think it is the responsibility of the members of Parliament to point out this. Approval of everything the government proposes, as most government parties do, is just slave. I think you cannot blame me for that comment. If I look at the discrimination made against the ex-BOB, I see, first of all, a wage discrimination of the people from the judicial police. One could assume that against equal work and equal responsibility there is an equal bet. With the unified police, this is not the case. They are classified into two groups. This leads to situations in which, for example, in the mixed, specialised services in the various GDAs, an investigation chief or a commissioner who is a former BOB is paid less than his subordinate chief inspectors, because they are exGPPs. An ex-BOB'er therefore has all responsibility here, and is apparently skilled, because otherwise he was not appointed in a higher position, but nevertheless he still earns less.

This is due to a double subsidy. First, the BOB is scaled into the basic frame and the GPP is automatically scaled into the upper middle frame. Secondly, the GPP will receive a diplomatic blow.

A partial compensatory measure was taken against the ex-BOB by introducing a compensatory premium, which was not attached to the bet. Why not ? On that compensatory premium even a temporary index blocking was carried out.

The [...]

It could be, Mr Annemans.

An ex-BOB'er who has been sick for more than thirty days also loses that premium. These are all small discriminations, which ultimately have huge consequences.

A second discrimination is that the patent of BOB is neither recognized nor validated. In order to obtain that patent, however, one had to go through a whole procedure. One first had to attend the territorial national guard for several years in the judicial service. It also required a favorable assessment. Then one was allowed to participate in the candidate-BOB exam. To give an idea, for thirty seats there were from two hundred to five hundred candidates. Those who then received an accurate assessment at the exam, could take a course BOB. Then followed another exam. Whoever succeeded, could walk the stage. After several evaluations and a final evaluation, he was eventually appointed. Well, that patent-BOB is in the Mammouth Decree of zero and no value. BOB and the Reich Guards without BOB patents are equally scaled, despite all those previous efforts and demands.

The former GPPs were immediately appointed. The former BOB members are still appointed after four years, but not appointed. This leads to disadvantages for promotional opportunities. Members of the ex-GPP could continue to grow, but the ex-BOB is stuck in its current status and that — which is very bad — without future prospects.

Fourth, the ex-BOB members appointed in a higher degree lose that degree when they postulate for another service. Why is this only the case with the ex-BOB and not with the ex-GPP?

One service that has been completely forgotten in the Mammoet Decision is the Disaster Victim Identification service, which consists largely of exBOBs who combine the task with other work, but who are not actually validated for that task.

Furthermore – which was clearly shown when they were required to provide assistance following the tsunami catastrophe – they are not sufficiently equipped and their special knowledge, which is highly appreciated abroad, is not validated in our own country.

Last but not least, there are internal tensions between certain ex-GPP members versus ex-BOB members, which should still be worked on.

Some feel called to show their higher level again clearly among the appointed, suggesting that one is tolerated in the same group for the performance of the tasks, but that one is not considered full. As an illustration, I quote the statements of research chef Paul Van Thielen in the Dutch "Recherche Magazine" from February 2005. He stated: “The culture at the National Guard was fundamentally different from that at the judicial police. One spoke differently, one set up processes-verbal differently. On the other hand, there was much higher quality at the judicial police at the individual level. They were recruited at a higher level. In some areas, they are real experts. The royal guard will often be less flexible because he is used to his boss telling him what to do. A judicial police officer took the initiative faster and was more creative because he was just going his own way.” Their

Apart from the fact that that person has openly and rightly apologized for these statements and tried to correct them, these statements still typify what is currently living on the ground. They are actually a reflection of the division of the unified police, if I can say so. The Minister has made the comment in the committee when one hears all these grievances that one cannot eat from all wallets. Sorry, but the discrimination I just mentioned here in relation to the BOB is over the whole line, but also over the entire line. There is no wallet. I think the Minister understands this very well. I only hope that he is willing to do something about it. Their

The criticism of a Mexican army against proposals in favor of the ex-BOB is therefore very bad. There is no basic framework for the ex-GPP so this criticism is actually right but therefore the ex-BOB harming is incomprehensible. Nevertheless, in the ex-GPP there are also non-university students who have climbed by antiquity, though by the decisions of Mr. Wathelet of '92. Why is this not possible for the ex-BOB?

During the discussion of Vesalius, three general principles were used. The first was that one must respond to the decisions of the Constitutional Court. The existing balance should be ⁇ ined and it should also be ⁇ ined budgetarily. First of all, colleagues, there is the approach to the Constitutional Court, and the way the previous minister — or I say the previous government — handled the file. There were already immediate confrontations of all kinds of police services and one was immediately drawn to the Council of State. The government was, therefore, very aware of those difficulties, of the discriminations, and then the articles of the Mammoet Decision that could bring the most problems were legally anchored by entering them into the Program Law of 30 December 2001.

As a result, the proceedings that ran at the Council of State became obsolete and there was only the procedure at the Arbitration Court. These are, of course, political tricks, as they say. In addition, the adoption of the bill will trigger new procedures. So, here it does not end!

The second principle is that of ⁇ ining balance. The question is: what balance? I’ve just listed all the discriminations regarding ex-BOBs, so I don’t really know about what balance one has. In addition, a number of consequences did not come to the surface from the beginning. For example, who could initially suspect that the compensatory premium would not be indexed for a certain period of time? Who could have guessed that after four years the “recruited” BOB’s would still not be appointed? What is the balance if one makes progress in the course for one ex-service and freezes it for another in the situation of 2001?

If one could already speak of a balance in 2001, now the two parties, namely ex-BOB and ex-GPP, grow apart. This cannot be sustained if, as the Minister seeks, the balance is ⁇ ined.

Also with the Vesalius design, the people of the ex-GPP acquire a number of advantages, in the sense that by not directly coupling, the existing imbalance is further reduced.

The third point concerns the budgetary aspect. In fact, we have little understanding of the budgetary constraints, for three reasons. First, all good conditions have been thrown away because the former minister — I do not blame you, Mr. Minister — was in a difficult position, namely — you remember — the threat of strike on the eve of Euro 2000. Then all the good conditions that were pushed forward were thrown away.

Second, the police reform has organised a transfer in favour of Wallonia. The Wallish municipalities, which for years — I think it is fair to say — have neglected the municipal police and which for years have resorted to the federal-funded national guard, have actually obtained even greater benefits from the so-called solidarity mechanism.

Third, there is the use of the road police as a taxpayer. If there had not been mass transfers there too, one could have said that the police had substantially raised the incomes for the municipalities.

Now, however, there remains one severely disadvantaged group compared to the other, favoured, group. To permanently backward that group because benefits cost too much, I actually find it a perverse reasoning. It obviously frustrates a group of people.

In addition, that forgotten group is becoming smaller and smaller. It is currently about 1000 people. In 2003, there were 723 appointed chief inspectors, the last of whom will retire in 2034. In 2003, there were also 231 commissioners appointed, the last of whom will retire in 2026.

When I wanted to ask my questions on 26 April, the Minister referred to the report of the discussion of the Vesalius Act. I read this on it and found a small element. Regarding an amendment by Mr. Claes and Mrs. Schryvers for the appointment of an ex-BOB-er after five years, something that the ex-GPP had acquired immediately, it is stated in the report, I quote: " According to the Minister, this measure goes too far. Before such a regularization takes place, it is first necessary to check how many staff members it concerns. Subsequently, the impact of that measure on the budget must be examined.” N-VA fully agrees with this if at that time you did not know how much it would cost and how many staff members are in this particular case, Mr. Minister.

During the discussion of the present draft, you have outlined a number of general principles. In my turn, I will list a number of principles, which were contained in the Octopus Agreement. The agreement in question had a number of principles, such as no excessive additional costs for the municipalities. The then VU gave its approval to this in exchange for the Magistrate School organized by the Communities. You know as well as I how far we stand with this. Other principles included the integration of the different police services, national guard and GPP, a maximum and structured flow of information and — a not insignificant point — more blue on the streets. I will fix a few things. First, the police reform has still weighed heavily on the municipal finances, despite the federal intervention. Second, for years, the PS has blocked the school of magistrates, organized according to the Communities, to eventually turn it into a unitary story. Third, the integration of the police and the national guard has become a major failure. There are some good elements. However, I note that the police war, as it once existed, is no longer an open war between the National Guard and the GPP, but is internally experienced on the workplace. That this has not yet come out is due to the professionalism and the civic sense of the people of the ex-BOB.

This is a negative balance. The Octopus Agreement has been violated throughout the line. It is a failure.

My fourth point is about the flow of information. This, and the previous government, swings up and down with figures on the decline in crime. If Parliament requests figures here, we find that there are no reliable figures about them, neither about crime nor about traffic statistics.

This was about the maximum and structured flow.

For the last point, more blue on the street, I’m going to give you a very simple example of what I’ve picked up in the walkways. Due to a lack of funding, there are almost no weekend services in the federal judicial column, the judicial service of the Brussels district, almost no night services and even in some sections no night and/or permanent services. Since when is it assumed that crime occurs only during office hours?

Mr. Minister, in the future some police officers will go to the Arbitration Court because they are dissatisfied with this bill. You have promised that you will still work out a arrangement. I would dare say that we rely on you.