Proposition 51K1807

Projet de loi instituant le transfert de certains militaires vers un employeur public.

General information ¶

Authors

MR Philippe Monfils
Open Vld Hilde Vautmans
PS | SP Bruno Van Grootenbrulle
Vooruit David Geerts

Submission date

May 26, 2005

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

armed forces

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

CD&V LE N-VA FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Guido Tastenhoye (VB) voted to adopt.

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 ¶

June 9, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. President, Mr. De

Minister, dear colleagues, the Committee for Lands Defense discussed yesterday the bill concerning the transfer of some military personnel to a public employer. In his introductory presentation, Mr. Van Grootenbrulle, who submitted the bill together with Mr. Geerts and Monfils and Mrs. Vautmans, pointed out the problem of the current, too high age pyramid in the military force. As a result, a rejuvenation of staff is urgent, ⁇ in the light of the international operations in which our military participates.

The Department of Lands Defense is working on this rejuvenation and not only conducts promotional campaigns to recruit young people, but also introduces reconversion opportunities for soldiers over 35 years old, who have a rich experience to offer other employers. In this framework, the status of the mixed career that is currently being negotiated should also be considered, which will provide the military with the opportunity to pursue a second career as a citizen in the military itself, the Ministry of Land Defense, in another federal department or even in the private sector.

For example, the current law of 20 May 1994 on the employment of military personnel outside the military force has created the possibility of employing older military personnel with public employers as well as with non-governmental organizations of public benefit. However, this law applies only to military personnel who have been removed from their military retirement for a maximum of five years. It also has a non-negligible financial impact on the Ministry of Land Defence, in the sense that Defence will bear half of the salary of the serviced military during the entire period of relocation. Hence this bill that gives military personnel, regardless of their age, the possibility to be transferred to public services of the federal government, the regions, the communities, the provinces, the municipalities as well as to the bodies that depend on them. These include, for example, public utility institutions such as OCMWs and intercommunal associations or even the police zones.

However, not all soldiers will be able to claim this transfer. Indeed, it is necessary that the military force can continue to fulfil its mission and therefore certain categories of military personnel are excluded, in particular the young military personnel who at the end of their training are first dedicated to the performance of operational tasks but also the military personnel who only serve within the military force for a fixed and limited time, in particular the short-term military personnel and the auxiliary officers.

Also, the financial impact of this bill on Land Defense is limited because it only pays out the bet during the period of maximum one year prior to the transfer.

The bill is both in favour of the Department of Land Defense that can rejuvenate its staff and in that of the public service to which the military goes and who can use his experience. Under these provisions, a number of military personnel will be transferred to the Department of Home Affairs very soon. That is why this legal basis is now necessary. Ms. Vautmans pointed out in her presentation that the bill is a ⁇ good step towards the future mixed career statute. Due to its wide capacity, it offers good prospects and will allow various public administrations to enjoy the experience that military has to offer. In response to Mr Sevenhans, Chairman Monfils pointed out that the functioning and structure of the military force should not be compromised. Mr Denis informed for explanation on the costs associated with this system and was also concerned about possible abuses in the sense that certain administrations just before the expiry of the one-year term, the year in which Defense pays the bet, will decide not to definitively transfer the military and transfer him back to Defense. He also pointed out a possible community aspect associated with the number of transferred military personnel.

The Minister pointed out in his response that the bill will ⁇ benefit the implementation of the Defense Steering Plan and will ⁇ promote the implementation of the statutes for the mixed career. The proposal, which has an urgent nature, allows the transfer to a range of public services. The fact that the relocation takes place at the military’s own request and the possibilities that both the current and future employer have to direct the transition guarantee the balance of the proposal. Various safeguards were incorporated to make the system attractive, such as transparency, transfer to another status and the preservation of pension rights. In order to avoid the above-mentioned abuses of administrations, namely that they would send the military back to Defense just before the time of one year, prior agreements will be concluded between the Minister of Land Defense or his delegate and the employer concerned. The bill is in accordance with the law of 25 February 2003 on the Security Corps and the policy of the government aimed at a higher level of activity.

In response to Ms. Lejeune regarding the financial aspect and the impact on the budget of Landsverding, Mr. Van Grootenbrulle specified that the current legislation allows military personnel to work in another sector but not earlier than five years before retirement.

The bet remains to be borne by the Land Defense budget in the amount of 50%.

The proposed legislation aims to expand the possibilities for military personnel and to give their careers a different turn already at a younger age. The department will charge the bet for a maximum of 1 year.

The 12 articles of the bill and the whole were approved with 9 votes in favour and 2 abstentions.

Mr. Speaker, although I have not registered in the general discussion, I would like to briefly add a personal note and immediately draw the attention of Minister of Development Cooperation De Decker, who is still among us and, like me, reserve officer, on the next.

Mr. De Decker, at the time, when we were together senator, we were very angry about this problem. This is a first initiative. The possibility of transferring military personnel to another public employer is a first step that many other countries, allies in NATO and the European Union, have already made a tradition.

In our country, we were faced with the social problem to convince the public opinion of this. If we want young people as soldiers to spend the best years of their lives in the service of the community and we want to keep the logical pyramid in the military force — retaining younger soldiers in the combat units — we need to have a solution for these people after 35 years. This can only be done by giving them a correct and credible outlook for a career after their service in the army. The proposal to give military personnel the opportunity to be transferred to other public services is a first step towards this.

It is an important data and I hope that the bill will get a lot of consent pocket and that it will be approved.

The mixed career concept — the debate on this subject will soon begin — is very important in this context. Hopefully, a mixed career is the combination of service in the military and then in both the public and private sectors.

The rapporteur correctly referred to the Security Corps that was a test case, a first experience to assess the extent to which this could work. Meanwhile, Minister Verwilghen has arrived who in a previous life as Minister of Justice and in consultation with the Minister of Land Defense, has contributed to shaping the Security Corps.

This success story has shown that indeed a cooperation between Justice and Defence in the field could also be. Let us therefore have the mission to work on this together.

I have a question, possibly to the Minister of Defence. It is rather a rhetorical question. We know that the trade unions of the Public Service respond rather rejectingly to these proposals. They say that the Public Service is their department and that it is not up to the military to bother with the entire human resources of public officials. It is not up to the military force, even after passing and passing an exam, to impose, through so-called positive discrimination, former military personnel to become the inspector of any department.

I would like to call for some flexibility and some understanding for all officials. An officer, sub-officer or soldier in the Belgian military force is also an official in the service of the government and also has the right, I think, to a certain security. Depending on the specificity of what is expected of a military, and given the age that plays a major role in it, I think that we should all gain understanding of the situation and work together to ensure that these people can also later, at the useful age, make themselves useful again in other departments. I therefore advocate for some understanding from all actors in the departments of the public sector and I look forward to this bill being presented today and hopefully soon will be approved by as many colleagues as possible. Thank you, Mr President.

You surprised me a little. I thought of a small supplement to the report.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank and congratulate Mrs. Meeus for the quality of her report: it was very precise and very well taken all discussions on this bill yesterday in the framework of the Defence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the Defence Directory Plan – which sets out the main lines for modernizing our Armed Forces taking into account the new geo-strategic context and within the framework of a limited budgetary envelope – plans to reduce, by 2015, the Defence personnel to 37.500 people, or 35.000 military and 2.500 civilians.

To this goal adds one major challenge our Defense is facing today: the rejuvenation of its staff, which must be done without neglecting the situation of the older members of it. Indeed, the vast majority of the defense personnel is in the age range of 35-45 years. However, in order to be able to engage dynamically and flexibly in long-term operations abroad, an army essentially needs young people aged 20 to 35 years.

In order to reverse this trend, Defense is pursuing a staff management policy that aims not only to develop promotion actions aimed at recruiting young people into the Armed Forces, but also to create reconversion opportunities for military personnel over 35 years of age who, in addition, have an interesting and special expertise to offer.

It is in this context that the mixed career concept, which is currently being discussed, involves, for the military, the transition to a second career as a civilian, within another department of the public service or in the private sector.

In this context, this bill has been discussed and voted in the Defence Committee.

Its objective is to establish a system of transfer of certain military personnel to all public services that depend on the federal, regional and community authority, provinces, municipalities and organizations that depend on them, such as intercommunal, CPAS or police areas.

This bill offers no negligible benefits for the Defense, for the public employer and for the military concerned.

For Defence first, because by allowing the transfer of certain military personnel among those over 35 years old, Defence will see its personnel eased and rejuvenated. For the public employer then who, by hiring a military for a determined and vacant position, will have an employee with particular expertise. For the military finally, who will benefit from a transfer to a category of statutory officer with all the advantages that this entails.

This bill, which has become a law, will not remain a dead letter. Very soon, the Defense will use this legal basis to carry out the transfer of some military personnel to the Internal SPF. This transfer will take place at the request of the Department of the Interior in order to succeed the "call taker" project, also known as "112". The start of the training of the selected candidates is scheduled for October 1, 2005. That is why this proposal needs to be voted quickly so that Defense can confirm its first candidates their future rights.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, too good to be true, that summarizes the present legislation.

Colleagues, let me be clear: the proposers of the bill serve only and only as a kind of façade. The bill was written on behalf of Minister Flahaut by the services of DG HR, the General Directorate of Human Resources. The basis for the so-called bill would have been a request from Elio Di Rupo to have military personnel available for administrative police work in Bergen. It was intended that there would be a draft on domestic affairs. However, it is now the Land Defense that has submitted a bill through a few useful members of parliament.

Land Defense is looking rightly for opportunities to allow older staff to flow to other employers. Indeed, the previous system of banning was too limited and only applied for the last five years. There was really a need for a system.

Land Defense also worked on the famous mixed runway concept, GLC. This is a design with which we have no problem at first sight. However, we have made it clear that from the beginning of the study, any employers – public services, employer organisations, and so on – should be involved in the concept. After all, one must know what to do with new employees in the future, how to attract and motivate them. In my opinion, we must avoid the mixed-track concept becoming a law, which in the long run would prove to be an empty box and which could cause a social drama.

In fact, when reading the present bill, it seemed strongly that it is a precursor of the mixed runway concept. It seems to me clear that it must bridge over the transition period. My first reaction in the committee was that I should first inform myself properly, because there was something wrong with the so-called bill. This has proved true.

I would like to formulate a few comments. Article 2, § 2 speaks about the target groups. We understand that Land Defense does not want its staff to leave without restrictions. That is obvious. The problem will immediately occur in practice with staff who have acquired a certain specialty, computer science, nursing, air traffic control and so on.

Of course, it will be those who will not be placed in those target groups.

Next, I would like to comment on Article 2, which goes a little further. The Defence Minister must accept this. In other words, the chances will not be equal for everyone. If one must first pass through the cabinet to qualify, I mean that the door is opened for arbitrariness.

Article 5, last paragraph, deals with the provision of the Rules of Employment; if it already exists in all public services. One should therefore come into possession of the statutes under which one shall serve. The latter should be an overview of the career and the commitment that the person concerned can expect until his retirement, both administrative and monetary. If this is not the case, one can just as well make a CD-ROM available with the statutes of the said officials and say: good luck with it.

Article 9 is very strange. I might even call it hallucination. If the military person concerned truly completely loses his status of military, he automatically loses also the pension scheme that favors military personnel. So, older soldiers will ⁇ not use that status. I do not see them really standing down on the basis of that bill.

The big problem with the bill is that it is actually very superficial. It is about what should be understood by a parliamentary initiative — a term that is actually misused because there should be no negotiations with the social partners. If I read it all, there is indeed very little room for negotiation for the implementing decisions. Article 4 is only side-by-side. But everything will be settled through the notorious agreements between Defence and the social partners. In practice, this means that they will not be involved.

Our great fear remains that the same game will be played as with the concept of the mixed career. If that concept of mixed careers – which would replace all statutes – were also regulated through a false parliamentary initiative, I think we are facing serious problems. I understand that the Minister has already made statements in that direction.

I have one last comment. Why does the so-called bill not provide for the possibility of moving to the private sector? I would like to have a clear answer to that, because I think that was also being investigated at DGHR. Why did the DGHR not include that in that bill?

Mr. Speaker, I have not much to add after the report of Mrs. Meeus, the presentation of Mr. Meeus. Van Grootenbrulle and the intervention of Mr. by Stef Goris. The most important thing has been said. This bill goes in the right direction and precedes another project on the mixed status which will include in particular the remarks made by Mr. and Sevenhans.

This is an important first step that will allow us to work effectively and quickly with other colleagues in the federal departments, and ⁇ thus make the military happier, meet a series of expressed collective needs, and do useful work in the interest of the community.