Proposition 51K2332

Projet de loi portant modification de divers textes relatifs à la police intégrée.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

March 10, 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 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 ¶

May 11, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, in the past several audits have already been conducted in connection with the operation of the federal police. They found that the current structure was not really well aligned with the task assigned to the federal police.

More specifically, the integrated operation appeared to be a pain point due, on the one hand, to the structure of the federal police, and, on the other hand, to the relations of authority within that service. The conclusion was that the Commissioner-General could weigh too little on the integrated operation. The proposed amendments to the Integrated Police Act now concentrate a number of tasks among the services of the Commissioner-General, and in addition there are three additional general directions.

As we have already said in the committee, we can find ourselves globally in the reorganization as included in this draft. However, we would like to point out a few points. I quote from the Bruggeman report on which this design is based: "Problems are not always inherent in structural problems, but also situate in the operation and sometimes also in the individual setting of stakeholders."

Mr. Minister, you must however acknowledge that, especially in the job profiles of the candidates for top positions, precisely those competencies that are important for the integrated operation will need to emerge. We have already pointed out that we have a problem with the fact that you leave the same people in the same places.

We have also clearly pointed out in the committee that we have difficulty with the fact that the number of mandate-term mines granted in a mandate is unlimitedly renewable. We have no problem in itself with the fact that it is unlimited renewable, but with the procedure.

Let me go back to the original intention. Why were restrictions introduced so that only two mandate-term mines were possible? The legislator had clearly intended to bring regular renewal in the corps lines in order to avoid roasting in a particular system.

Now that those mandate deadlines are slowly expiring, we understand that a problem arises for some people in connection with their career planning. There are also questions about people who are doing well now and who want to be kept. It is difficult for people who have come to the end of a no longer renewable mandate to find a good new challenge every time. It is difficult to stay in the same corps and continue to function there under another chief of the corps, over which they had until recently directed themselves. We understand that there can be tensions in this regard.

However, the proposed scheme also shows weaknesses. As already stated, the appointment as a mandate holder is now, in our opinion, almost for life. We wonder if this is desirable. Is anyone motivated in this way? I am sure that in certain zones sometimes one would prefer to have another candidate, but then now one has almost the obligation to give the chief of the corps a negative evaluation and that is ⁇ too far-reaching. Furthermore, such a negative assessment would also be nefast for the further career of the person concerned and also that is not desirable.

The current system provides that holders of category 1 or 2 mandates can apply for a higher category after two mandate periods. We can say that this is actually a possibility for career planning. With the present bill, however, we think that these possibilities will disappear, because there will simply be no open spaces. In practice, therefore, the possibility disappears, because many mandate holders will simply remain, mandate after mandate. People who have expectations and may think they will be able to fulfill a mandate in the future may continue to wait.

Mr. Minister, I would also like to comment on the directive letters. That certificate is required to pass from the degree of Commissioner to the degree of Chief Commissioner, a requirement for the Chief of Corps for higher categories. Now that there are places open here and there, we continue to ask about the KB that should provide that possibility. You have stated that you would come out with the KB, which was being made. I even thought there was a text on this, but we know that KB has not yet been published. Can you give us more information on this?

Finally, we will again submit our two amendments aimed at limiting the mandates to 2. The mandate is renewable once; after the second time the position is automatically declared vacant. The mandate holder can then, of course, candidate himself again, but it is not automatic, which the bill almost provides.

Mr. Minister, you will undoubtedly argue that the bill contains sufficient guarantees, because if one does not have a good assessment, but only a sufficient or insufficient one, the place is declared vacant. We believe that such evaluations will give rise to a lot of controversy and that it may be much easier, more straightforward and more motivating to simply declare the position vacant after two terms of office, where the titularis can compete.

All in all, we can stand behind the main lines of the present design. We have already said this in the committee. We have, however, submitted our amendments again and we ask, Mr. Minister, that you also clearly take the commitment to continue to evaluate a number of things even after this reform.

Mr. Speaker, I can be very brief, because Mrs. Schryvers, knowing what my answers were in the committee, has already more or less announced what I will answer.

We agree that the draft is important for the further development of the federal police. I think it is also an important draft for the mandate system, not only with the federal but also with the local police. These are comments made on several banks. I think it also indicates a new direction for the organization of the financial management of the local police. There was a need for that too.

On the strength lines for the federal police, I will not return. We had to come to a simpler structure with clear responsibility, led by a smaller summit — I emphasize that — headed by a Commissioner-General. He is not only the coordinator, but must also be able to effectively lead. For example, I emphasized the importance of information housing. I think we need to make an effective leap forward in this area.

As regards the mandate system, the draft means a significant simplification, which at the same time also retains the concept of the temporary mandate, coupled with a periodic review. I believe that in this way the quality and commitment of the mandatory holders will be best guaranteed. This is what we discussed at the end of the committee. In the entire evaluation system, the evaluation continues to be ⁇ ined every five years. What you formulate in your two amendments is actually a variation of what the draft means. In my case, there are three possible final evaluations: good, in which one automatically gets the renewal, or insufficient, in which no renewal is possible and the mandate is declared vacant, and sufficient, in which one gets a vacant declaration and the mandate holder can again – and I say yes can – postulate. Of course, they compete with others.

Mrs Schryvers, your proposal — colleague Cortois knikt agreeing — is a variant on that. However, in the committee we have chosen the system that we anticipate. Furthermore, I would like to remember, Mrs. Schryvers — we have not heard the reporter — that the draft was finally approved by unanimous vote.

I appreciate the effort you have made to amend it. A unanimously approved draft, Mr. Speaker, is, in my opinion, an important signal for the direction in which the federal police can and should evolve.