Proposition 51K2555

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 7 décembre 1998 organisant un service de police intégré, structuré à deux niveaux, et la loi sur la fonction de police.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

June 15, 2006

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

police

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 ¶

Nov. 23, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to this in my written report.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Minister, colleagues, CD&V abstained from voting on this draft in the committee. This will not surprise you, because we had and have various reasons for this.

First, the draft sets, in our opinion, a fundamental starting point of the Integrated Police Act on the slope, in particular the strict separation between the operational framework and the administrative and logistical framework. The Integrated Police Act clearly states that members of the operational framework that are subdivided into the administrative and logistical framework if it is not fully fulfilled, lose their police powers, both OBP and OGP powers. Now some of the CALog staff will be granted those police powers.

Second, another fundamental principle of the law on the integrated police is, in our opinion, also placed on the slope. The legislature has stated in the context of the police reform that it is detrimental to the functioning of the police services that within the same service employees who have a different status would be employed. Therefore, it was then chosen for a unit status with operational and administrative and logistical personnel on the one hand. The draft now puts that principle again on loose screws, because within judicial labs people from both cadres will perform the same tasks from now on. This is done by employees with different status.

In addition to the CALog level B staff, with limited OGP powers, there will also be chief inspectors of the operational framework, who will also carry out the same tasks. The latter will, of course, have a much better financial status. We are convinced that this cannot benefit the cooperation between staff members. Furthermore, we must not forget that these services will also include basic framework personnel. Depending on their history at the police services, those staff members have or do not have OGP powers. For those people, it is also a thorn in the eye.

Third, there is the way in which that draft on this problem has come about and how it has been attempted to provide a solution. Because the decision to give the CALog staff of the judicial labs limited police powers dates to us about two years ago. Since then, employees have been recruited and vacancies have been issued stating that those people would be given limited police powers. Now, two years later, a legal regulation is being made. We ask ourselves on what basis the people who were working in the meantime worked and what legal framework existed for this.

You also know that now the possibility is provided to write out processes-verbal. This speaks for itself because that is the purpose of this project. What training is provided for these people?

The fourth point concerns the employment of visually impaired persons in the judicial services. The Minister clearly pointed out that 36 visually impaired staff members would be recruited. According to my information, there would be initially, at the moment, but six. The rest is for later. I wonder for when. So far you have not given us any clarity on this, Mr. Minister.

Although we, in principle, of course, have no problem with the fact that visually impaired people can be employed in this way, we have a problem with it that it is shown that this design is specifically intended for these people, while in our opinion rather the other category is fished and measures were wanted to be introduced for that.

In principle, we do not have a problem with the fact that visually impaired people will be employed in this way, but that under this coverage a situation that has existed for two years is corrected, we find it less clean. That is why we will abstain.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the amendments made to the Integrated Police Act and the Police Function Act ⁇ meet two needs: on the one hand, that of equipping our civilian specialists of technical and scientific police with legal prerogatives allowing them to be fully operational and, on the other hand, to broaden the possibilities of recruitment within the police sector, the importance of which has become increasingly preeminent for several years in the resolution of crimes and crimes.

The television series “The Experts” ⁇ highlighted the new face of scientific and technical police. In fact, rudimentary autopsies and simple fingerprints are over. We are now talking about the use of the most sophisticated techniques using high-tech devices.

In this context, the professional qualities of women and men in the technical and scientific police, whether they are police officers or civilians, are primary. It concerns the quality and legal admissibility of the evidence collected through new police techniques.

The draft law aims to create a legal basis allowing civil personnel to make judicial findings without having to be accompanied by an operational member holding the status of judicial police officer. The relevant staff members will now be entitled to record their own technical and scientific findings in a record that, like any other record, can be used as evidence before the courts. This will simplify and speed up procedures. This will also open the police offices to civilians, which will ensure diversification and pluralism within this public service.

During the committee debate, Mr. Minister, you pledged to strengthen the capacity of the scientific and technical police laboratories active within the 27 judicial districts by engaging 91 additional staff members (civil personnel level B+). I am pleased with this because this police sector needs great reinforcements.

However, this bill has another aspect. This is to enable the recruitment of persons who, due to their special hearing skills, due to their blindness or poor vision, will conduct telephone listening in the police service listening rooms and transcribe messages. The bill also aims to grant, within certain limits, the status of an auxiliary public prosecutor of the King, to this particular category of the administrative and logistical framework (CALog).

The objective is to enable the social and professional integration of these people in the police. Their contribution to the quality of police action will be certain. Not only does their blindness give them superior hearing capabilities, but it will also free police officers who will be more present on the street and on the field.

My group will vote in favour of this bill. It remains now to improve the status of the CALog, but that is another issue.

I can refer to what I said in the committee. There was a question from Ms. Schryvers regarding the recruitment of the persons in question. Well, that happens as soon as possible. You also know that it can’t be from today to tomorrow, especially when it comes to those facing disability. The government’s desire is of course to be able to move to these recruitments as soon as possible because I think, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, that we will get a win-win situation here. We can effectively integrate people with such disabilities into the work process. They have special qualities to do this very well. Thus, we release research capacity to re-engage people with police training in the operational police work.

I am pleased that this draft has received a large majority in the committee. Per ⁇ I can persuade Ms. Schryvers today to turn her abstinence into a “yes” vote.

We will see that later.