Proposition 51K2302

Projet de loi modifiant l'arrêté royal du 30 mars 2001 portant la position juridique du personnel des services de police en ce qui concerne la nomination dans le grade de commissionnement de certains membres du personnel de la direction générale de la police judiciaire.

General information ¶

Authors

Open Vld Guido De Padt
PS | SP André Frédéric
Vooruit Jan Peeters

Submission date

Feb. 16, 2006

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

police

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR

Abstained from voting

FN VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

April 27, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Since this proposal was unanimously voted in the committee, I refer to my written report.

Mr. Chairman, dear colleagues, CD&V has a lot of trouble with this bill. It should address a ⁇ sensitive issue relating to the legal status of certain members of the police services. It does, but only for a certain group of those members.

CD&V would like to point out that other police officers who are in exactly the same circumstances are excluded from the application of this bill. In ordinary human language, this still means discrimination. The government knows this too well. Just and only to avoid the examination of this text in the Council of State and above all to avoid the necessary negotiations with the trade unions...

Just a moment, Mr Claes.

We are discussing a bill.

I would like to clarify that, in my opinion, the government would come back in a few moments.

I’m looking for Mrs. Onkelinx and I think I see her.

Mr Claes, apologize to me. I had not seen it.

Thank you for pointing my attention to the short-term absence.

Mr. Minister, I am addressing you immediately. The government knows too well that only to avoid the examination of the present text by the State Council and to avoid the necessary negotiations with the trade unions, this document was submitted as a parliamentary initiative by Mr. De Padt, Mr. Peeters and Mr. Frédéric. I don’t think they wrote it themselves. We find this ⁇ regrettable.

The applicants refer in their explanations to the Vesalius law. They say that their proposal serves precisely to correct a number of problems within the judicial pillar. However, this is a mistake. The Vesalius Act was aimed at correcting a number of violations of the principle of equality thus recognized by the Arbitration Court. Their

However, the situation of the nominees has nothing to do with this judgment of the Constitutional Court. This was precisely the reasoning of the government when we and our group at the time, during the discussion of the Vesalius Act, submitted a number of amendments which also aimed at solving the problem of the appointed. This starting point of the proposers of the bill and the reasoning they subsequently maintain in the memorandum of explanation are, in fact, fundamentally wrong.

Of course, CD&V can support the principle of the proposal, since we also submitted the same or similar amendments to address the situation of the appointed. However, the problem is not whether the appointed employee has a history with the former BOB or with another entity, but rather the precarious situation of the career of the appointed self. In other words, the reason for a change in the employee’s statute is not because he formerly belonged to the BOB, but because he has no further career opportunities as an employee. Their

However, this applies not only to this category, but also to the other. After all, within the police services, other staff members were also appointed in a higher degree. For the basic framework, these include, for example, the members of the municipal police who were connected to the investigation services and who, provided that they succeed in training and in applying the rules on mobility, switched to the general judicial police or a decentralized judicial service of the federal police. For the middle frame, for example, the chief inspectors of first class of the municipal police, the adjudants and the adjudants-chief of the former national guard and the inspectors 2D of the former judicial police, which gave access to the surveillance and training brigades of the former BOB. In order to appoint those in the degree in which they were appointed, the other appointed staff members in the higher degree shall be excluded from this appointment. This is a fundamental violation of the principle of equality. At that time, we submitted the necessary amendments in the discussion in the committee to appoint all appointed in one degree.

The Minister responded to this by stating that extending the application of the proposal to all appointed would mean that one would take courage in the field for which other authorities, in particular the local governments — the municipal governments and local police zones — are competent. This is also not correct. The nominees mentioned in the amendments come from the former local search units of the municipal police, but now belong to the federal judicial pillar. Specifically, in the future, people who were previously appointed but are now appointed will cooperate, while others will remain in their position of appointment. This is still discrimination.

At another question in the committee, the Minister replied that the appointed Chief Commissioners were all appointed without exception. That is a lie, to say it with a not really parliamentary term. Approximately 35 Commissioners appointed in the rank of Chief Commissioner have not yet been appointed in that rank, despite having already been effectively appointed for two years. In fact, the KB on the primary light designations speaks of three years after their appointment, which, therefore, should have happened on 1 April 2004. However, the Minister should know that, because against the absence of those appointments, a trial for interruption was initiated. The statements of the minister in the committee can only strengthen their case.

So we wait impatiently for the Minister who will effectively appoint people. We, of course, remain with our position and complain once again of the discrimination. There is no doubt that a new procedure will be opened in the Court of Arbitration. In this way, the Minister continues to feed the uncertainty and dissatisfaction within the police services.

We will therefore submit our three amendments again. One concerns the appointment of the inspectors appointed as Chief Inspector. There is an amendment governing the appointment of chief inspectors who were appointed as Commissioners. Finally, there is also an amendment that proposes to appoint the Commissioners who were appointed as Chief Commissioners to that position. In addition, we set a number of conditions for these appointments, in particular with regard to training and training. Therefore, we do not want to simply go free of charge to these appointments.

Mr Maene, you are the rapporteur. I like this situation, when the rapporteur intervenes in the discussion. In time – Mr. It will probably be confirmed by us — the rapporteur was sitting next to the minister, Mrs. Vice-Prime Minister. The rapporteur sometimes answered questions regarding the committee debate, which is normal.

I am surprised that the positions have not evolved because the debate was quite open in the committee.

I would like to remind you that this is a parliamentary initiative from colleagues. Contrary to what I’ve heard, it’s not about creating additional discrimination, but eliminating it. I do not understand the rejection, or at least what I hear. We need to move forward and this text comes from our colleagues. I do not understand where we want to go: the text goes in the right direction and ⁇ answers the concerns of one and the other.

Mr Maene, the proposal is going in the right direction, but for a very small category. There are many appointed and for some of them there is now a solution, but that creates a new discrimination: other staff members who have also been appointed, and sometimes for years, do not get the advantage of being able to look forward to a appointment. At the same time, because they can’t get that appointment now, they are also curious about promotion opportunities for other positions.