Proposition 51K2759

Projet de loi fixant le statut des militaires du cadre actif des Forces armées.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Nov. 20, 2006

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

armed forces

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

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 ¶

Jan. 10, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Reporters are Mrs Belhouari and Mr Kelchtermans. I don’t know what you have agreed, Mr. Kelchtermans?

Mr. Speaker, I anticipated that Mrs. Belhouari would report. I received a phone call. I will not intervene in the report. I would join it. I would like to raise some concerns after the report has been proposed.

Would you like to sign up for the discussion?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments from my bank.

The most beautiful girl in the world can only give what she has.

What do I do, Mr. Minister? I need Ms. Belhouari as a rapporteur.

I note that Ms Belhouari de facto refers to her report. Maybe she has a problem being here on time, but she’s not here.

Mrs. Belhouari arrives right away.

Excuse me, I did not see you. by Mr. Kelchtermans had ⁇ to me that you had concluded an agreement according to which you were reporting and you were also intervening. I give you the word for your report.

Mr. Speaker, I refer to the written report, but I would like to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

You have been registered as part of the general discussion.

So I had guessed that Mrs. Belhouari would return to her written report. I think there is some complicity that I should be concerned about.

Participants in the general discussion are: Mrs. Meeus, Mr. Monfils, Sevenhans, Mrs. Wiaux, Mr. De Crem, Mrs. Belhouari and Mr. Kelchtermans. I give the floor to Mr Sevenhans. You have 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I am honored to be the first to speak here. This may also be somewhat logical, because it is thanks to my intervention in the committee that we hold a separate plenary session on this issue today. I am very honored.

The majority parties have made the clear decision to do so on a Wednesday. This is unfortunate because it has a direct impact on the number of participants. It seems to be a continuation of what is happening in the committees. There was also always fighting for sufficient interest, but well, I’ve seen that the protagonists are present.

It has caused some commotion. What is missing in the National Defence Committee? The National Defense Committee is something very different. The neutral observer may have already noticed that the committee has become an extension of the cabinet of Minister Flahaut, of course for the people of the majority. No one will suspect me of speaking on behalf of Minister Flahaut.

I can, of course, understand that the members of the majority would like to support their minister. However, there must be limits to this support. Sometimes it goes a bit far. I will give an example. In September, there was the defense budget. Everyone looked angry at me when I wanted to devote a discussion on this. First, there was no majority, because they were picking up the valises at home to leave with the minister to warmer places. Since I had the bad character to ask for the quorum, they had to come over the neck to the Parliament to come and listen to me.

So they sat with their suitcase next to their seat forced to listen to my presentation, and I was forced to listen to their presentation. Their presentations did not impress me too much, because I actually used the word “paparazzi” there.

In our committee – also this is apparently quite unique and happens quite frequently – there are regular proposals from colleagues Vautmans, Geerts and Belhouari on the agenda. These bills are, of course, just hidden bills. Usually I can even name the name of the military she wrote. These bills have important advantages: no annoying opinions from the State Council, no consultation with the difficult trade unions and so on. It is a strange embodiment of the word “democracy”!

I can understand from some colleagues that they like to be abused by Flahaut. One must, of course, pack a little bit of what one can, and it is always nice to be taken on a good sheet with his minister. However, in the light of the events in the committee, I would like to accuse you that the chairman of the committee goes a little further in that. There have been heavy words in our committee. I think the President has fallen out of his role.

For example, I was very sorry that you, Mr. President of the Commission, started laughing at me because I have a certain accent when I speak a few words in French. I am very sorry that you are trying to make me ridiculous with this, because I thought you were even a Dutch scientist. I thought it was very overwhelming at the time; I feel very sorry.

Mr. Sevenhans, I have never criticized your accent, for a very simple reason: as you say very well, everyone knows that my knowledge of Dutch is very limited. You are lying when you say such things.

In the committee, I have attacked you for other reasons that I will mention in my speech. I will talk about substantive issues, what you did, how you blocked the work of our commission. Our work lasted 11 hours and 1 minute and you used virtually 10 hours and 50 minutes of that time. These are the points that I will discuss soon.

I repeat that I have never criticized the way you speak French. I have always said that you speak French much better than I will never speak Dutch.

I don’t like being told anything. You have the strange habit of showing yourself deeply hurt and transforming the way things happened.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that this statement be ⁇ ined in the annals of this Chamber.

Words are words.

It is a good example to describe the atmosphere in the committee for land defence. It is becoming more and more like a war.

Of course, there is a good contact between the Minister and his members of parliament, and between the Minister and the chairman of the committee. I have the impression that he goes a bit far in that. When I look at other committees, I think that he does not fall out of his role of neutral chairman.

The Minister does not forget his members of parliament, nor does he forget his real employees, namely the officials and the military. Collega De Crem has once put it beautifully: "Whoever enters Flahaut as colonel, goes out as a general." Our defense shines, and then I mean all those stars. Fortunately, there are generals who can do it on their own. Some might be better off doing without that push, because they can do without that push.

Minister Flahaut, through his appointment policy, has yet to have a fairly large influence on defence, and I do not mean only the summit. The present draft law also reinforces the influence of politics on defence in many points. Political influence on defence is normal. However, there is a limit and I think that limit is regularly crossed.

The Chairman has already referred to the discussion in the House Committee on Land Defense, which apparently lasted eleven hours. That is long. On 21 November, we began the discussion of the GLC bill in the Land Defense Committee. The bill has no less than 527 pages. It was delivered to the members of the committee only the same day. It was still warm, coming right from the printing. This occurred, of course, in the same period as the draft program law, the budget law and the law containing various provisions. The fact that the bill was submitted at the most busy time of the parliamentary year was, in my opinion, not a real coincidence, because apparently there should not be too much thought about the bill. The bill comprises 272 articles and may be followed by a hundred KB in the future.

It is, of course, an important bill, as it replaces almost all other statutes. In itself, this is actually a good thing, because the military statute had become a clutter. This, of course, is not proper to the military statute alone. There are still some unclear statutes. It honors the military government that it has chosen a clear statute. The bill is quite difficult to read for a non-military.

That is also admitted, but apparently it is not possible otherwise at this stage. It is thus a difficult to read document, which everyone can experience for themselves, of course by reading it for themselves, but also by asking for the opinion of soldiers that one knows. Ask ten soldiers what they think about it and you will get ten different visions. That there is no more protest around is because most people think it will take a while, in other words, that it is no longer for them. But there will be some who will be surprised as soon as it enters into force. I still clearly hear the then Colonel Husniaux say, I quote him literally: “The new statute will apply immediately, though with transitional measures, and taking into account age and career evolution.” That means, in human language, however, that they are at risk of an internal transition. And a military who, against his will, has to assume a civil status, inevitably finds that a kind of degradation. He also has to work longer.

A civil status is not the end of the world. We must take the place of the military. Military is not for the cents. One must be really motivated to want to be a military. As I said before, it still remains relatively quiet among the military, since the real C4 or dismissal will only apply to the newcomers who will be recruited in the regime. This will happen at the earliest, as I understand, in the year 2008.

However, the word “discharge” is not used in the bill, because that is a ugly word. One word has been found for it: external transition. What exactly is the external transition meant? Well, that is to say that they leave Land Defense, that they let you go. You can also say, you will be fired, after twelve years. In other words, the word “professional military” will disappear from the dictionaries.

I have to admit the following. There are problems with national defense. I am not referring to the minister; there is indeed a separate problem, especially the age problem. That is logical. Anyone who enters the National Defense as a young man or young woman is also one year older. In theory, the average age should remain stable, because every year people retire and young people join. Only if one really wants to lower the average, one must either recruit more young people, or get more older people to leave faster – a nice word for outgoing.

The word professional military will thus disappear. It is replaced by discarded military, military with limited duration or military with expiration date.

How did it get so far? Colleagues, there was once a minister who had a plan, namely the abolition of the duty of service. In itself, this is of course a defensive idea. However, it happened only as an election stunt and our army was therefore with a problem from day to day. That is logical. So we sat with a professional army with its specific problems. That happened overhead. Until today, there is still no real plan that can be used as a magic remedy to address the problem fundamentally. Apparently this GLC status would be the solution. This should be the miracle remedy.

What is the GLC statute? The first big idea hidden behind it is a typical purple solution. We are looking for a solution on paper. That’s good for the books and good for the statistics. Let me clarify for a moment. In the future, Corporaal Geerts will become Mr. Geerts, Adjudant Vautmans will become Mrs. Vautmans and General Somers will become Mr. Somers. In other words, we are going to make a part of the military civilian. The average age of the remaining soldiers then falls automatically. This, of course, only applies if one targets the soldiers with antiquity. Therefore, it should be mainly on the old mikes.

It seems to me defensive to allow civilians to perform non-specific military functions. One could argue that the staff service can be equally well manned by citizens. It is also quite logical at first glance that the function of cook can easily be performed by Mr. Monfils rather than by corporate head or sergeant Monfils. All this seems to be very logical. However, our army is also travelling on foreign missions.

Apart from the steak frites and the mayonnaise that I manage superbly, for the rest, I’m not very brilliant!

I will only give one example. I am not targeting your age.

Today we have a lot of soldiers abroad and the chefs must also be involved. At that moment there is a problem because they are not soldiers. How will we arrange this? At the slightest actual tension, the military will have to protect not only themselves, but also the entire logistics involved. As many civilians as possible will be allowed to work in defence. I do not understand it well. How will we send civilians to a war zone? It is not so obvious to simply leave all jobs to citizens.

Now that I’m talking about risk areas, I have the following. Last week, two wounded soldiers returned from Lebanon. I have seen that Minister Flahaut was very kindly waiting for them at Melsbroek. Did he also tell them that in the future they will belong to category D under the GLC statute? Category D means that they are thanked for their services, but that they are no longer military. I know that one of them – the medical secret, of course, also applies to military personnel – has an injury acid that normally prevents him from functioning and will belong to category D. The medal for merits abroad will really not help him. He will go out.

The whole idea behind the GLC statute is of course: how do we get rid of the older military? Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to call this unaccountable. I will give an example. You know it or you don’t know it, but in my previous life I was working in the port of Antwerp. It has long been established that a young port worker is more productive than an older worker. If one would apply the same reasoning one should also say in the port that one can only work there for 12 years because you must meet certain physical requirements. Fortunately, people are a little more social in the ports. There is a slightly lower threshold for older workers. In practice, they will get adapted work, have to work less hard because their colleagues take over a part of the work, have to perform fewer days, and so on. They are looking for a solution. Of course, they would also like to lose those older port workers, but that would cause a strike. The military should not strike. This has also been taken into account.

The problem of older workers does not only arise in Defence. The problem occurs everywhere. I can also refer, for example, to the construction sector and government companies such as De Post or the NMBS. There is the same problem. I can also give you another example that fits better with the military: the police. A young police officer is better employed on the ground than an elderly. A police officer is not thrown out after 12 years. The example of the police is a good example, because they are recruiting in the same pond as Defense.

Remember, colleagues, there are currently as many officers as there are soldiers. If I am not mistaken, a police officer or policewoman deserves more than a military. Imagine in the place of the 18-year-old jobseeker, who stands before the choice in the security sector between police or defense? Then, I think, his gaze will be directed, in the first place, to the police. One deserves more and one even has a firm relationship. Who can mislead him that he will only come in second instance to see what the military has to offer him?

There have already been some comments on this. I noted one of them and I also read them in the report, on page 9. This is a comment from the Minister. I found it quite strange. The Minister stated the following. I quote: "This bill makes it possible for people to no longer remain military throughout their lives." I’ve been looking at the French version, but it’s even clearer. I translate it a little, because my French is not so good: This bill gives people the opportunity to stop staying military for the rest of their lives. Apparently, the minister thinks that it is an obstacle for certain people to choose a career in Defense if one has a fixed relationship. Fortunately, we are going to abolish that tightness of relationship, so that one can now come massively to Defense. That is a very strange reasoning. I think the discussions about it were at a high level at that time.

I thought, however, that a military could always resign? Why should one incorporate into the law that one gets automatically fired after twelve years? I really don’t understand why it should be said so literally. Some of the discussions were actually rather virtual. You are right in this, Mr. President.

The agenda of the Land Defense Committee originally provided for one full day for the discussion and voting of this very important draft for the future of the military. Every attempt of me to come to a real debate was immediately pared by the minister. He personally prevented the soldiers present from giving explanations. I still have a little more confidence in the military, Mr. Minister, than in you. You will not blame me for that.

The Minister’s communication to the committee that we would be admired by the whole world, that he hoped – maybe it was just a joke – that this would become the statuut-Flahaut and that all problems would be solved, I can still call it an explanation. Indeed, I could hardly accept that in this way our committee was made mouth-dead, and indeed – I honestly admit it – I blocked the functioning of the committee. I confess guilt. I actually stopped the discussion in the committee for three weeks, hoping that there would be a serious debate in the committee about this bill.

Something has happened, among other things...

I never said that this project would be packed in one afternoon! You are the one who said everywhere, "They won't have it in one afternoon!" I never said that! I said that this project would be considered normally: general discussion, amendments, discussion of articles. For all you know, we also thought that this project would probably be voted in the course of January. Again, you are telling things inaccurate at the level of the procedure! And you justify your unqualifiable attitude in committee by the fact that you wanted the debate to be in-depth, which is paradoxical since you helped kill this debate. There was no debate since you spoke for 80% of the time and then you fled, probably hit by a morale blow.

If you didn’t have this attitude, the debate would have taken place quite normally, as with every bill. There was no hidden agenda, there was no other limit than that set by the government that did not want to stay a year on this subject.

Again, you are telling inaccurate things. You will not find, in my chef, a single statement about the fact that everything had to be settled in one afternoon or in one day!

We had told ourselves that if this project did not pass into commission before the holidays, there would be committee meetings after the holidays, final point! We still had time, before the dissolution of the Chambers that will intervene, of the opinion of all, at the earliest in May. We still had a lot of time to resolve the problem.

You will not intervene on the bottom of your attitude, because it is your problem and that you respect all the world, but tell things that are inaccurate, cela ne va pas! Too much is too much!

Mr. Speaker, I have asked exorcists to get the same information that was given to the units. I asked for this information until the last moment. She was rejected until the last moment.

Your information is unilateral. I admit that I may also be somewhat one-sided.

Mr. Sevenhans, a little serious! You are a member who knows his files well, I recognize it. The tables given by the minister that were presented to the units are somehow the illustration of the text itself. This was also done.

I add that even after you fled – because you fled, Mr. Sevenhans! – you left on the office of the Presidency – I, in this case – 15 questions to which the ministry’s services have answered! The answers are attached to the report. So it is you who have caviared the session and it is ⁇ not to the majority, to the government or to the presidency that responsibility must be attributed to this state of things which I consider perfectly condemned.

Per ⁇ it is thanks to you. I received an explanation at home. However, I did not receive the explanation in the committee. I got them after the bill was approved. Only then was the explanation sent home.

When you left, we communicated the questions. For being present, I can say that the minister said, "We will answer you." This was obviously done as part of the general discussion or Article 1 as it is used. The answers were given normally; I also read them in the report. You may not agree on the substance of the answers, but I must admit that they are very well supported from a governmental point of view. And it cannot be said that they were blown. They are all seriously drafted and, of course, reflect the Minister’s position in these circumstances.

We would have answered your questions! Naturally, if you speak of the form of the flag of 1830 for six hours, suffer that the colleagues and colleagues are upset, leave the commission and accelerate the work from the moment you are upset! C is normal!

Mr. Speaker, I asked you these questions because I was told that I should clearly state where my problem was. I put it on paper and wanted to have a debate about it, but you also know the Southern temperament of the minister. Then there was another word that was heavy on my stomach. I can also get angry at times and should not always try to stay calm. I went on because I thought it would be a shell game again and I didn’t want it anymore. It is also not good for the image of our commission that we raise circus numbers there. I honestly admit that I also participated in it in part, but it was my last remedy: I had nothing else and wanted a discussion on the ground.

Those seventeen questions were indeed answered to my surprise and some even very extensive, for which I thank you, though I do not know who answered them. Some points were indeed enlightening, that I honestly admit. It is unfortunate that this could not happen in another context. I have already mentioned that with this bill we are in a bit of a stake war.

For technical reasons, members were invited to ask precise questions in order to receive equally precise answers instead of asking questions as part of a debate, questions that are forgotten in the meantime by the Minister. The aim was to have concrete elements to answer. The answer was given the next day. I was able to see that, while the majority examined the articles, a number of ministerial collaborators were already beginning to answer the questions that had been asked. The Minister cannot answer questions before they are submitted to him. I repeat that the employees immediately began to respond.

But you didn’t want, for I don’t know why, that this project be voted in the committee before January. These were probably symbolic, strategic, childish reasons. It does not matter! This is your problem! This is why our work has been disrupted. Otherwise on the part of the majority, nothing was hidden and all questions were answered.

Obviously, no one can replace you if you are absent to defend your amendments. And thank God!

I will do my job, that is not the problem at all. I actually got an answer to my questions, that’s true. I want to point out something, Mr. Speaker. You are always present in the committee.

Can I interrupt you by Mr. Goris?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask that in this debate the opportunity be given to Mr. Sevenhans to return to his presentation. In any case, I would like to agree with what President Monfils has just said. I would like to emphasize that in the Committee on Land Defense on behalf of the VLD group three commissioners spoke, the debate began, and that the debate had actually started well on a very important proposal that I think is a historic milestone on the social level for our military. Everyone has been looking forward to this for a very long time and it has known an intense preparation by the Human Resources service and the trade unions that were all represented. Our allies also looked at how we would ensure the necessary rejuvenation of our armed forces.

First and foremost, I would like to ask colleague Sevenhans what his alternative to the GLC is. This is a hard work that has been worked hard on and that gets the approval of almost everyone on the ground. Does he have an alternative? I find it somewhat inexpensive how he breaks down this today and makes comparisons that I think are not relevant. Finally, I regret once again – I have also said it at committee meetings – that we in the committee were not able to start the debate more thoroughly, especially because of Mr Sevenhans’s philibuster.

I also think, along with you, colleague Sevenhans, and with most colleagues in the committee, I think that this debate deserved much more debate and should have gotten in the committee for the Land Defense. However, you have begun to quote from all possible historical works that were not at all relevant. Unfortunately, you have distracted the attention from the actual discussion. I regret that because it is a very important proposal that has an impact on all the military.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a little bit to that, so that there would be no misunderstanding and this also following what is ultimately also said by the VLD Commissioners.

As to the content of this draft, we agree with our group that this is a very important project that deserves the attention we asked, but which, unfortunately, has not been received in the committee. You refer to it yourself: we would also have preferred to pay more attention to it and have explicitly requested that. Col. Sevenhans has used the remedy for this, in part also in response to his frustration that his questions were not sufficiently answered, I think. We did not use that means and would not have done it, but I understand the frustration. We also felt that frustration: we have asked many questions to the minister that we have not been answered.

We have made suggestions – Mr. Speaker, you will know that – by referring to the possibilities we have with the many references to KBs that all have yet to be made. It almost gives the impression that it is here a law of authority that we can get feedback about afterwards and conduct another debate, although after the decision has been made. I refer to previous law enforcement laws that have done the same in Parliament and in the committee. All this was rejected. We have had critical concerns with the Financial Inspectorate where one ends up saying that it is actually a theoretical model, but that we will learn by doing. That is where it actually comes down.

Supposing that we disagree with the content, the project and the vision is not correct. The military deserves a penny for putting such a project on track, though with the many doubts that remain, as stressed by the Financial Inspectorate. We were won for this project. However, we have been given the opportunity to save time by a thorough discussion in the committee. No one knows in what direction the many questions and royal decisions will go. It would have helped the minister to quickly make a number of decisions and royal decrees based on that discussion. Now that is almost impossible.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the two presentations, also for yours, Mr. Goris.

I know very well that there is a problem. That is right. Is this necessary? Yes, this is necessary. As colleague Kelchtermans says, it is more a kind of law of authority. What do we actually decide? We do not know. I have also held talks with the designers of the bill. They tell me that I should trust them a little because they will not undermine their own statute. They admit that there are still many questions. This will be arranged. If everything goes so fast, it can still be adjusted.

You understand that I am a little worried. I was not really involved in this discussion from the beginning. It is difficult for me to give a mandate to Minister Flahaut. Maybe I would like to do it once, but not for this. This is just something too important to simply give a mandate.

Colleague Sevenhans, it is true that a number of measures must be completed through a royal decree. That is correct. The history of what is now ahead and the interaction with trade unions, all mixed together, demonstrate, in my opinion, sufficiently that there will be the same interaction with those involved in the field, even before the fulfillment of the royal decrees. This government and this minister have demonstrated sufficient respect for the trade unions and the people in the field, compared with the past. I am launching a call to do so in the future, when the royal decrees will be fulfilled.

This is a very important adjustment and modification of the evolution of the entire human resource framework of the personnel structure of the Belgian Armed Forces. Let us first do work of drawing the cricket lines. I think this is the only possible way. This is also understood in the field. Let us fill this first. Then we can concrete a few things. I advocate for good cooperation, as in the genesis of this work, with regard to the fulfillment of the royal decrees. I think that will ⁇ and surely happen.

Mr. Sevenhans, I have not counted the minutes of speaking time of the other speakers. Can you make a decision?

Have I been working for so long?

You have been working for 33 minutes. Of course, I took a few minutes away.

This is of course a graceful movement. You are not registered.

Mr. Goris, I would like to reply to your comment on the trade unions. That was the first sign from which I could conclude that there was a deafman conversation going on. You say the trade unions are satisfied. I answered you immediately. I think it was you who started it. I have submitted the views of the trade unions. The union, which is colored blue, had a few comments, not a lot. However, there are other trade unions than the liberal trade union. You have to listen to the other trade unions. I have done that too. They had washing lists with comments. Where or not? There is, therefore, a clear difference in vision but also in reading texts. I would like to send you the comments of the three other trade unions, leaving the liberal trade union out of consideration for a moment. Then you will have a completely different vision.

It is at most yes, but. The trade unions may all have been a little confused with your statements that in the long run everything can still be corrected and the promise that they will be involved in it, if it turns out that it can go wrong.

Well, I am not representing the trade union, I am here in Parliament. I have to vote for or against tomorrow or abstain based on a text that I actually do not know where it will go. Who will fill out this text? Could that be another minister who has a different vision? Can this be done with this bill or is everything already well drawn out? I haven’t counted them, but the rumor goes around that there should be at least a hundred implementation decisions. I really don’t know what I’m approving.

Mr. Goris, you have full confidence in Minister Flahaut, I know. You stand behind the minister. That cheers you. However, this does not apply to me, and that is of course not my job. If he is right, he is right. Sometimes I can congratulate him. This has already happened, but not too often. He also sometimes makes correct comments. That is all right.

In this case, however, I have the feeling that we should never have the real debate. Why Why ? It is probably too sensitive. It is sensitive and it had to go ahead quickly, should there not be too much discussion about it. After all, the longer the GLC statute runs around here in Parliament, the more the military begins to wonder what is actually going on with that GLC statute. Per ⁇ it is not so beautiful?

I have seen the slides that are rounded up in the different units. It was said that some things were not applicable and that others were for later. It would take their time. These are also the arguments that have taken part in the whole decision. It will take your time, don’t worry too much. Like Mr. Kelchtermans, I felt that there was no real debate about this.

Mr. Speaker, can we now hear the alternative of the Flemish Interest in connection with the healing of the age pyramid of our Belgian military force? I would like to hear now from Mr. Sevenhans how he would address this.

First of all, it is not my job to conduct policy. You don’t know it, the minister doesn’t know it either.

A concrete proposal.

Mr. Goris, in twelve years we will see if the statute works. This is evident at the earliest within twelve years, in practice within fourteen years.

I know that there is indeed a problem with the age pyramid in Land Defense. How was this problem caused? I have explained that too. How do we solve it? I don’t want to invent hot water, but I think there are still countries with a military force. How do these countries solve it? They also have a lot of the same problem. How do they solve it? It would have been nice if we had a discussion about this. The discussions began with the Minister’s remarks that this is the best thing that can happen to us; that everything was searched out and that this is the solution, and to the question of who dared to doubt it.

Well, I dare to doubt that solution. I learned from the discussion that we have too few civilians in relation to the military. What is done about it? One will simply make sure that some soldiers get a different status, but with that the problem has not yet been solved. The military pulls out his uniform and you think the problem is solved with it. Nor does it work that way.

Per ⁇ one should hasten people to go through a kind of bridge pension. How is it done in industry? I have just given the example of the port of Antwerp. A solution has also been found. You can leave there from the age of 55 and then you are offered a kind of bridge pension or a transitional measure. A 58-year-old port worker is not productive. It is also known. Per ⁇ he is productive in a different way and can be employed in a different status. These are all possibilities.

Now one will say: you can become a military for 12 years. That is the essence of the problem, Mr. Goris. If I were 18 years old, going to military school and dedicating the best years of my life to Land Defense, then 12 years later I am only 30 years old and then I have a problem, because at that moment I may no longer fit in the right profile. I think this is an associal proposal.

I listen to your proposal with great attention. You just said that we might better let all military retire at 55 years. Mr Annemans, your group leader, is also present here. I take note that the proposal of the Flemish Interest is that you want all soldiers to retire at the age of 55. Is that your position? It was just said by you on the speech floor.

It is not a position. It is a thinking exercise. I have said where the problem arose: in the abolition of the duty of service, as an electoral stunt.

A thinking exercise? Then please give me some elements of your alternative and your proposal to solve this pressing problem.

Not by throwing those involved out, Mr. Goris!

Sectoral consultation with the trade unions. It hurts our good comrade Goris that an opposition member with knowledge of matters climbs the speaker’s floor to establish that the plan leaks through all sides and that the social consultation has not led to a large consensus within the army. That is what he says.

We have not yet heard of any alternative.

I note that the committee has not lasted long enough, because there is still much to say.

This is not his job. This is typical purple. The problem is addressed. It is either the fault of the CVP, which at the time has ruined it, or it is the fault of the Flemish Interest, which has no alternative. It is always someone else’s fault. However, there are problems and purple never solves them.

That is purple.

It is not the job of colleague Sevenhans to develop an alternative plan-Flahaut here. I would then immediately wire his mouth, ask if he has gone crazy, and say that he should let Flahaut do it himself.

My only constructive proposal is to reduce the construction burden of the naval force and, if necessary, as far as I have heard, also on that of the land force.

The sperm period has not yet begun.

I would absolutely contradict this. This government has had the courage to finally address a problem that has been raging for years. We have found a solution in consultation with the people on the ground. It is now in place and can count on a broad consensus.

Mr. Sevenhans, the job of the trade union is always to find points with which he disagrees. That is his job. He must do that too. For that he exists.

However, there is a broad consensus to finally solve this pressing problem. That is for today. I ask you, who have been working on this GLC concept here for half an hour, with all possible falsehoods, what your alternative is. You have none!

Maybe you have one? Apparently this is the statuut-Goris.

Mr. Goris, I was accused in the committee that I registered it for the trade unions. It has come a long way if the Flemish Interest should defend the trade unions. I turned their arguments into mine. I have carried out my parliamentary task on specific points, namely control.

I just have that task – not in politics, if the opposition is going to do politics, we are not doing well, and if the majority is going to oppose, there are usually elections near.

The [...]

Mr. Goris, I do not know how long you have been in Parliament, but I still know you are sitting on the opposition banks. Then I heard you accuse you that you just broke down.

However, it is also your job to defend your minister. You will go far with it. Defend your PS Secretary. Do it, Mr Goris. You will go far with it.

I would like to make any suggestions, but this is not the time. I am not going to do politics. There is a draft law here and it is my job and job to find the weak points in it. You have already said that this is also the task of the trade unions.

Of course, I have an idea of what solutions should come. However, we are not going to have a pleasant babble here. I would like to do that in the committee. Where would I find the wisdom to know better than the Human Resources service?

This bill has been drafted for 10 years. I can’t just shake a few solutions out of my wrist here for a moment. That would only be a disappointment of the work of DHR.

Of course, this is thoughtful, I know that. However, DHR acknowledges itself – one still has some form of self-criticism – that this is not the alpha and the omega of everything. No, this is a start, a beginning, as they say, it will still be able to evolve and be redirected.

If you ask me, as an opposition, to simply have a blind confidence in politics, I say no. You obviously have other information channels. You are closer to the Minister. You are even very close. There are only two rows between. You may be a regular guest at the cabinet so you have more information about it.

However, I have to base myself on what is outlined and on paper. That does not have my confidence. That is right. This is the strange thing about politics. You argue that the trade unions are behind. I claim the opposite. You must then take the phone and call the trade unions, not the liberal trade union, but the other trade unions. There is a washlist of comments. I really don’t understand why I should just approve this.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude, because I do not want to waste my time. For our colleagues who have not yet had the time to go through the fluid document, I will explain why the Flemish Belang is against the present GLC design.

The essence is, of course, that after 12 years of military service, the soldiers are subjected to a “orientation process”, which will result in three options: remain military, become civil officer at Defence or return to civilian life.

In the latter case, the military will assist them in their search for a new job, but without any guarantee that this will succeed. That’s with so many words in one of the answers to my 17 questions: without any guarantee that this will succeed.

I have already cited it: in this respect, the GLC statute appears to be only a decoction of the previous statute, the temporary framework. You know that this was introduced in 1976 but abolished in 1990 because it was thought to be antisocial.

I find some of those points back in the GLC statute. Thus, from now on, we must remove the word professional military from our dictionary. Defence will also contribute to the unemployment rates.

In all that problem – there are still, of course, soldiers – the central question is who remains military. The elected, then it may be busy days on the sitting days with the minister. Because how will we do that? What are the selection criteria?

I have looked at it in the GLC statute. Article 122 is, however, limited to a number of general principles: the wish of the person concerned, the post assessments and the potential estimates. We are never really determined what that will mean in practice. Article 122 can be used in all directions.

I also understood from one of the answers that it refers to the current system of promotion committees. This is also not really reassuring: the functioning of these committees is nevertheless not so transparent and also regularly leads to some controversy.

For the staff members who took advantage of the opportunities of social promotion, the bill was ⁇ unfavorable, and even discriminatory. These personnel will, of course, be subject to an orientation process and will lose the status of military, to which they would have escaped if they had not participated in the social promotion.

This discrimination has already been removed by the majority parties from the GLC statute. I had also submitted an amendment on that, I had read it and really knew what it was about. I said it could not and that was also accepted through a majority amendment. This is how it works. It has been removed from the GLC statute.

Another important note of the Flemish Interest in this dossier is that for the lowest degrees the GLC status does not provide any financial improvement. It has also been answered that it is not really a pecuniary bill, but I do not understand why it may not be able to provide for it. There are so many strange things in that bill. That could have happened to me too.

Particularly the new pension calculation will cause unpleasant surprises. Indeed, the GLC statute stipulates that only 3 benefits are eligible for the calculation of rest and survival pensions, of which the formation allowance, in addition, has a temporary character.

It is only awarded to a group of current sub-officials and will be depleted as they retire.

No matter what remains, what drew my attention was that the GLC statute still unlawfully restricts the political rights of the military.

I give two examples. During the election campaign, military personnel will now be prohibited from carrying stamps or driving a propaganda car, even in civilians and even during their free hours. What do they do in this GOC statute? They can candidate, but they cannot even defend their own candidacy. All this is very clear in it; several less important elements are listed in the details.

It also states that former soldiers will not be allowed to join a non-political trade union, which is also unacceptable for me. Only political trade unions will be allowed to represent them further. Consequently, the end is for the other well-known trade unions: Action and Freedom, the Syndicate of the Military, the ACNP, and so on. A general comment from the various trade unions was that it is a kind of blanco cheque – that word I have even heard in trade union circles – given to the minister, a little with death in the heart. Clearly there is still some confidence, because it has only been signed. However, I have understood that there will be a lot of discussion on this subject in the Land Defence Defence.

Of course, there are good elements in this bill, colleagues. The fact that it was written by the military itself, of course, offers a guarantee. It would also be strange if one undermined his own statute. However, it is very complex. Furthermore, I know that the minister is willing to intervene at all possible levels; I believe it was Mr. De Crem, who has once disrespectfully called him the “minister of details”. I suspect that in this law there have been some details that threaten to turn things down in the long run. With strange things I aim, among other things, at the following. It is stated – and it is nice to know – that the current General Major, the military guard of this Parliament, in the future will even be allowed to become a Lieutenant General. This is discussed in detail. Why can’t the really important things be explained in more detail?

If I want to approve a draft law, I want to know the full scope of it. At present, this is not possible with this bill. As I said, it will ⁇ require a hundred more implementing decisions and therefore I no longer see the forest through the trees in this bill. The opposition was not involved in this draft, but rather excluded. Therefore, I also do not want to take responsibility for approving this document and I will therefore advise my group to vote against this bill.

The word is now to Mr. Monfils and then to Mr. Kelchtermans, Mrs. Belhouari, Mrs. Vautmans and Mrs. Wiaux. Mr Geerts closed the speaker list.

Mr. De Crem, you are also intervening. You had already been cut off. Can I put you “in fine”?

In cauda venenum.

The last will be the first, I read somewhere.

We will see this on June 3.

This will be my 26th election, Mr. De Crem.

The floor is yielded to Mr. Monfils.

Mr. Speaker, I would like first to bring this bill back into the whole military problem by asking a first question, which I think is fundamental. An army, what to do?

This question is ⁇ not childish. In some environments, even governmental ones, we are not in a hurry to consider defence as a priority. The population itself applauds the military during Defence Open Doors Days or as part of humanitarian interventions it provides, but grins teeth when it is presented the bill that amounts to 2.5 billion euros per year.

The soldier is beautiful when he parades on July 21, but joining the show does not automatically lead to awareness of the necessity of Defense and its cost. These questions have often been discussed and answers have been presented.

For us, yes, a state like ours must maintain an internal Defense capable of responding to any threat, including new risks such as terrorism, bacteriological and chemical wars. Yes, a state like ours must participate in efforts to restore or maintain peace in the context of European or international operations. It is ⁇ not at the time when Belgium sits in the UN Security Council and otherwise holds the presidency that this latter element would have less importance.

To carry out these missions, the Belgian army must have well-trained, operational men and women, equipped with appropriate equipment. In terms of equipment, things have advanced well in recent years. The ground component will soon have the necessary equipment (new jeeps, MPPV, AIV) for the missions it is supposed to undertake. The Navy has received more recent frigates. The helicopters, I hope, will soon be replaced by new models; we talked about this this morning in commission.

In terms of internal functioning, the single structure has made progress in terms of economy, but also in terms of efficiency, by bringing together the resources analyzed as indispensable for the proposed action.

The staff remains, and that is not the least of the problems. It has long been known – and many recent events have shown it – that the success of an operation is not directly dependent on the carriage deployed on the ground. Nearly two centuries ago, von Clausewitz, in his course, distinguished between small and large wars and made interesting statements in this regard. To the great disappointment of the nostalgia of the mass wars of the past, it is not by aligning divisions that Belgium can contribute to peacekeeping operations, but rather with a perfectly trained and trained staff for the tasks required.

But the diagnosis has been made for a long time: our army has too many personnel, too old, not sufficiently operational. In terms of political economy, it would seem that the yield is completely insufficient. It is in response to this situation that the concept of mixed careers has long been announced, developed, agreed with the unions, discussed within the majority and finally filed in the form of a bill before the House.

I wanted to speak on this point, but in my two speeches against Mr. Sevenhans, we have already talked about it. I will not return to the incidents that embellished the course of the project in the Defence Committee but I can not help regret and even condemn the attitude of a parliamentary who, instead of debating, criticizing, saying his disagreement with the text, presenting amendments and defending them, blocked the draft. I explained it, I gave numbers: about eleven hours when nothing strictly happened. We heard text readings, not even that of the parliamentary although he accepted what he read, texts on the uniform of the French fighters of 1830 or on the color of the flag.

This was even worse when some deposited texts – not read, I know it well, but still deposited by parliamentarians – presented an astonishing vision of our history in which only two men in Belgium had been collaborators at the time of the war of 1940-45, namely Léon Degrelle and Léopold III. “Onze huidige koning Albert is de zoon van een collaborator, hij is de zoon van de enige Belg behalve Degrelle die Hitler ooit de hand ging schudden – “Wir sind doch eine Deutsche Familie”. This is completely unacceptable.

Mr. Sevenhans, I know that you will answer that you did not approve it. You submitted the text and requested that it be distributed to each of the parliamentarians. You read this text with the exception of half a page: the one I just quoted, as by chance! It is a little too easy!

Mr. Monfils, you asked me to make my working document available to the services so that they could more easily follow, which also seemed fair to me. However, I had a little more to do with it than those texts; I could have taken it for days. However, I have agreed to make this text available. During the discussion, I indicated which pieces of the text were useful to me and which not, and which may or may not be of interest to you. After all, I was working on the article and that must indeed be closely related to the subject, otherwise you could take my word from me, right?

Apparently you got bored and you are beginning to read that text. In that work document you then found something you said it couldn’t. I did not say that, Mr. Speaker. The minister even cried and cried that he challenged me to say that. However, I have said that I would not say it. I remember very well that he said, “What’s on page 22?” I didn’t know, I checked it and I saw that it didn’t apply. You and the Minister have called up to three times and challenged me to say it. However, I do not want to say that. Don’t go back, because then you’re playing an unfair game. I silenced about it.

I can also start with Flash Direct. What do you think of it? I would like to remain on the subject, the GLC statute. I announced through the Conference of Presidents that I am speaking today about the GLC statute. Of course you can return to what has been said in the committee, what we have already done. Keep quiet about it and don’t tell lies here.

Mr. Sevenhans, “A fact is stronger than a Lord Mayor.” Personally, I’m just noticing what I’ve seen and I’m not yet old enough to be rotten. What have I seen? You have distributed the document and you have read the entire text. It wasn’t me who went for it, you can imagine. I am not interested in this kind of literature. You have read all the pages. From time to time, we turned a page; we said to ourselves, “He is on page 8, he is on page 9.” You have skipped this passage.

I just said in my speech that you did not read it. You have distributed a document that you have scrolled through in its entirety, skipping this passage. This has caused a very violent reaction from representatives of the democratic groups and parties of this commission. They thought this was unacceptable. I quote, I make history, if I can say. This happened, if I am not mistaken, in the morning of December 5 last year. I just remind you of a fact that happened. Everyone to conclude.

You can say that you have not approved the text. It is possible! I simply find that the text was distributed to everyone and you did not ask to keep it under the booth in any way whatsoever. You will claim the opposite! This is how things happened! The point! I have nothing else to add about this attitude and what happened during the committee debates.

It is an incident. Mr Sevenhans, keep going!

Everyone seems to have their own truth, but we obviously do not come out of it in this way.

I would like to expressly say the following again. You asked me if I wanted to make this text available to the services. I answered affirmatively. I also know that such actions are detrimental to the staff. I wanted to try to ease the pain as much as possible.

You say I didn’t read it. I haven’t read it, and for the rest, you can only imagine what you want.

Read the report of the meeting and you will find that it is very clear that I have responded. I don’t want it because I never have any intention of insulting anyone because that’s not my job and it’s not in line with my character.

Mr. Sevenhans, you seem very nervous.

You are consciously playing a game, but I can too. I know you are angry with me. That is good. You may be angry with me. I have no problem at all. It is my job to lead opposition and you must play your role as the chairman of the committee. I will continue: you have explicitly asked me to give that text. You have distributed the text. You have asked whether the document should be attached to the report. I answered that this was not the intention because it was a working document, a guidance. I took documents from that document, cited paragraphs and provided clarifications that I thought were relevant.

The conscious passage you refer to, I did not say at all. I would like to draw your attention to the following. History is history. Many books have been written about the kingdom issue, but facts are facts. Per ⁇ it does not exist in the French version. In the Parliament Library there is a lot of information about the role of Leopold III in the Second World War. You must read that. You seem to be in a form of negativism. Facts are facts. I didn’t want to do it because it was too sensitive.

You repeat both issues from the committee.

This is the core of the story and the flash directly from the minister. I was asked if I dared to say it and I didn’t want to say it because I wanted to offend anyone. For me, the incident is now closed.

When I read a text, either I endorse the paternity of it, or I express my disagreement with its content.

I am not changing anything to what I said a moment ago.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is the right and duty of all democratic politicians to combat and eliminate acts in Parliament that undermine parliamentary democracy by all possible means, and moreover, to take action to prevent such things from happening again.

This closed the incident.

Mr. Sevenhans, you will at least acknowledge with me that I have not heard any criticism of the bill—while you have spoken about nine and a half hours over the eleven hours of debate. I do not ask you to change your mind, since it is normal for the opposition to criticize a project, even if it is very good. Still it is that we have heard nothing, whether in positive or negative terms. You simply read several texts in order to prevent the discussion from moving forward. Then you left. I would like to add, and I regret, that CD&V also left the meeting. Otherwise, we would have, of course, discussed the amendments submitted by the latter and we could have also discussed article by article.

If the events have taken place in this way, the majority is not for nothing. Furthermore, if the bad mood had not spread in the ranks of the opposition, without we know too much why, the debate would have taken place normally and serenely. It would ⁇ have experienced some clashes, since we do not agree on everything, but it would in any case have taken place in the rules, as is customary in parliamentary committees.

Now to the content. First of all, I would like to remind you that this reform of the military career must ⁇ four goals.

The first is the reduction of personnel, which will increase to 37,725 people, including 27,725 military and 10,000 civilians by 2015.

The second objective is the rejuvenation of staff. The average age is currently 39 years. What can we do with an army in these conditions? That is why this average should drop to 25-30 years.

A third priority is the reduction of personnel costs. I must admit that I am not sure that we will accomplish this through this reform. We know how this happens in Belgium under many circumstances. However, we will see if this is possible.

Finally, the fourth objective is the simplification of the statutes, most of which are more than fifty years old. When it comes to administrative simplification, this concern is obviously essential.

The text contains about 260 articles; this seems colossal to some. Let us be serious! This text is a coordination of all existing provisions. Many of these are scattered in a series of special statutes. Once again, we need to know what we want! If we had simply chosen the path of amendments to the various statutes, we would have been answered that it was totally unreadable and that the government lacked a global and strategic vision on the military career. Knowing that this criticism was possible, we developed a comprehensive and coherent status draft. And now we are told that it is horrible! However, it is necessary to read this text thoroughly and realize that it is not all new. There are undoubtedly new ideas, but several provisions were already included in the old statute.

Specifically, the mixed career concept means that military personnel will no longer be alive, i.e. for the entire professional career.

After twelve years of initial career, called operational, the military will follow an orientation process that will determine the second part of his career. Either the military will continue his so-called "continued" career, or he will follow an "internal passage" to be a defense official, or he will follow an "external passage" for a second part of his career, private or public, outside the Defense

The orientation process therefore represents a decisive step for the military, since it constitutes the true junction between the first and the second part of his career. In order for this process to lead to the most appropriate orientation, it is planned that the will of the military is fully taken into account. Therefore, during the course of the orientation process, the military will be able to make known his desires, not only at the level of the type of function he wishes to exercise but also at the level of the elements he considers determining in the definition of a better conciliation, for example, between his professional and private life. The orientation will be proposed on the basis of his wishes.

As for saying that we make a regression status for those who would choose the civil career, let’s be serious! This question was asked by Mr. and Sevenhans. You have to choose: the military is not a civil servant like any other. Because he has obligations, that he is operational, that he can go on a mission and that it is sometimes dangerous, he is retired earlier. If he wants to enter a career of civil servant, he must therefore assume his status of civil servant, like everyone else. The retirement age will be delayed. It should also be noted that a whole series of provisions are present in the statute and allow early retirement. I am not going into the details here; we are in a public session and this is not the place to do a pointillistic analysis of the provisions.

It is in no way a question of imposing on the military a new profession or a removal from the family home, since the military actively participates in the orientation of his career. In addition, the military has the right to refuse, three times, a proposal that does not suit him. It is important! This leads to a dialogue with the military, taking into account his wishes as far as possible.

Accompanying measures are planned. The military can benefit from a professional reconversion program in four phases: information, evaluation, training, opportunity for the military to acquire new skills and knowledge for greater attractiveness and finally integration.

Literally accompanied by the choice of the military according to the sector he decides to embrace: either he continues his career as a military, or he begins a civil career, or, under certain circumstances, he finds a job outside the army. This is important, not to mention the introduction of a new assessment system, called “operational categorization”. This is a very bad word, but it often comes back.

Depending on its capacity, the military is placed in one of the four operational categories. It is not definitive. In fact, when the military no longer meets the criteria of physical or medical suitability in category 1, the most operational, he temporarily falls back into a lower category, the time to again meet the required criteria.

The person who no longer meets the criteria of category 1 will continue his benefits in a lower category, the time to meet the required eligibility criteria again. It is important to signal it.

I have observed with interest that while this new status applies to the military in office today, many provisions showing great progress are being taken. This will avoid career difficulties.

Of course, such a fundamental reform cannot be done on 270 articles. Many royal arrests will have to be taken. In response to what has already been said, I would like to recall the remarks made by the Minister. I do not know if the opposition was present. The Minister made it clear that these implementation measures will be discussed with the trade unions within military personnel and that he will keep Parliament informed of the evolution of decision-making under the Statute. No ministers are required to file the execution orders before. I am ⁇ concerned with the gun law. Ms. Onkelinx just took, yesterday, a ruling published in the Moniteur belge. He did not ask the parliamentary authority to do so. We are aware of the arrest. If we feel that it is not correct from a political or judicial point of view, we intervene.

In so far as this is an extremely important reform, the Minister assured us that as the technical and administrative development of the case develops, he sees no objection to give us an explanation on this matter.

During the debate in the committee, I raised two questions, to which the Minister also answered. The first was about whether the military, after the first ten or twelve years, could continue if he desired a career in the army while remaining operational. I was answered that the twelve years were by no means a limit to “operability” but the basis of the triple choice offered to the military. Thus, the military who continues his career while still in good physical condition can obviously continue to be operational, but obviously not until 55 years old, although there are excellent parliamentarians, ministers and military who are still able to perform many things up to 60 years old and even more!

My second question was about career opportunities outside defense. Because this is the fundamentally posed problem: the possibility of leaving the army to pursue a career outside defense. On the one hand, training and professional reconversion programmes are a partial response. On the other hand, agreements have already been reached between the private and public sectors and are yielding good results while guaranteeing further development of these possibilities. Obviously, it is at this level that it will be necessary to move forward, in the coming years, to hope that the offer of foreign careers will be sufficient to meet the desire of all those who wish to leave the military world to embrace a civilian career. Obviously, commitments cannot be made in terms of performance obligations but in terms of means. This is very important. It is impossible to imagine playing with the professional and family situation of 35,000 military personnel. We are all aware of this.

This project is good and imaginative. It is obviously part of a medium-term perspective. It draws the contours of an army even more capable tomorrow than today to meet the missions that are expected of it.

The Minister knows, I have always personally supported the need to respond as widely as possible to requests for participation in external operations, within the framework of political decisions taken by the government, decisions of the opportunity to travel to such a place and not to such another.

I have always felt a shame to hear this consideration that, with its current 45,000 men and women, the army cannot deploy outside more than 1,200 to 1,500 men because the internal situation does not allow it. From now on, the army will be smaller but more operational, it will present a different face far away from the usual stereotypes, it will have a greater capacity for intervention. The operatives will do their job and the civilians of the Defense will do their own: these tasks are different but complementary.

Such an army should be more attractive to young people. The expression “being a soldier” will regain a dynamic meaning it had long lost, let’s admit it.

Mr. Monfils, I have listened to you with great attention. Nevertheless, I have two fundamental questions.

You yourself believe that the new statute will make it easier for us to motivate people to join Land Defense. Do you really believe that? I have heard you admit that the job security is disappearing. After twelve years, there is an uncertain period.

Do you hear the translation of what I say? I will wait. That is no problem. Technology is needed. Blijkbaar is no vertaling hoorbaar. Does it work?

I am not very technical.

In het GLC-statuut zou u category D are. (There is a glow.)

If the right doesn’t work, try the left.

External transition, I fear.

Does it work now? Then we are on the same wavelength, at least in terms of translation.

Mr. Monfils – I always say Mr. President, but now there are two Presidents – or can I say “Mr.” or “Monsignor”? – So you believe that through the new statute, we will be able to motivate people to join Land Defense more easily. That was part of your speech. The statute would solve a number of problems.

Could you explain this further? After all, I can hardly imagine that someone will be more easily motivated by telling him that his situation will be re-examined twelve years later. Whether or not he will be able to stay will be revealed twelve years later. I really do not understand how this can help to make recruitment easier.

However, I am fully aware that it can be a solution to the age structure problem. That is obvious. When after twelve years everyone can be offered an external transition – I will say it politely – and again and again 18-year-olds can be recruited, the age structure will indeed improve.

You say almost in the same sense that although we will go to a smaller army, we will be able to do more. Can you explain how you can do more with a smaller army? In that case, you can do magic.

Mr. Sevenhans, I am not a man of the past. I see that all careers have changed, not just the military career. Who can say you start a career in a company at 25 and get out at 60? I remember when I was young, I was an assistant at the university, then I was an official at the Cultural Council, that is, the ancestor of the Council of Communities, then I was a member of a cabinet. When I arrived at the Cultural Council, the secretary told me that I was an unstable because I had done two professions in five years. Today, things are no longer going that way. We are no longer sure of having a full career.

What do we offer to the military? He is offered an opening according to his wishes. He could continue his military career. He may say that he no longer wants to be operational, that he does not want to go to Lebanon or Kosovo, that he prefers to stay with his wife. He may be a civilian in the army or possibly leave.

You wonder what will be attractive in this formula. Mr. Sevenhans, this is precisely the opportunity for a young man to enter the army and know that, if he really wants to embrace the military career, he will be able to do so and that he will not drag for 20 years to rub the wheels of the tanks in the courtyard of the barracks. Basically, it must be acknowledged that out of 45,000 soldiers, very few are fit to participate in dangerous operations. Even this morning, it was ⁇ that there were two wounded among our remarkable deminers in Lebanon. Many soldiers are not prepared for these missions and some have considered for a number of years that military career was ultimately an administrative career like others. No, military career is not an administrative career like any other! You can open any book; in the field of defense everything changes. And I will end my speech by outlining a problem that has not yet been examined in Defence.

Everything changes: the way the fantassins operate on the field, the digital warfare, that is, the digitalization of the field. This is the concept of the future soldier. This changes completely.

An analysis of the situation of the soldier as it is currently done, who would be a fully computerized soldier, integrated into a whole, from the command structure to the decision, who will be able to inform himself in real time of the situation is not done with a military who entered only because it is a good career and then we leave to Lebanon. This is the best way to get down.

I believe that telling the young man that he will be operational for 12 years, then that if he wants to continue, he can still be, and that if for family or other reasons he thinks that it is too much, he can enter the civil, it is much more important and interesting than telling him that he can enter the army and that he may have a chance, in 15 years, if, of adventure, we go somewhere, to accompany the mission.

You will tell me that it is an act of faith. If I were young, I would be much more interested in this kind of career – we are not going to make Rambos but serious people – than to go back to the Arlon barracks hoping maybe to climb the rank one day to arrive lieutenant or captain in the same place, having done a purely administrative career. This is the choice of some and I respect it. But for young people, actually participating in the operational character of our forces can be a much more exciting choice. And that is why I think it will work.

Of course, we can be mistaken. Per ⁇ the traditional attitude of the Belgian, somewhat afraid of the future, will play, but I don’t believe it. Indeed, everywhere things are going like this, everywhere eternal contracts or 40-year contracts have disappeared, everywhere things are changing. Mobility has become a reality. Various elements currently common were unthinkable when I started my parliamentary career, that is, 25 years ago.

I believe very much in this modernist, dynamic, risky aspect. Yes, I agree: it presents risks. Military career is no longer guaranteed from 18 or 20 years to 52, 53 years or older. It is still possible to stay there up to 58 years, but as a civil servant; this is stated in the statutes. It is true that there are risks that completely change our conceptions of this career. However, do you not believe that in our world, risk can also trigger the enthusiasm of the younger generation?

We’ll see if the recruitment becomes too low in two or three years, when the system starts. I believe, Mr. Sevenhans, that people will not be wrong; if they engage in the military in the operational sector, they know what they will do. There are risks, benefits, and also the pleasure of doing anything other than staying in your neighborhood, city, or country. They know it and will understand that it is exciting. I still reach a certain capacity of enthusiasm for the elements that seem to me bearers of future.

This is my answer. You can believe that I am wrong, that the Belgian population is frightened and that nobody will accept: everybody will rush as part of the civil defence personnel. We will see. When I go abroad, accompanying the minister in some of his travels, I can observe many soldiers very satisfied with being in the operational world.

Some were even dissatisfied with having to go home, asking me if it was possible to find a formula for staying or leaving elsewhere. They had no desire to go home, they were informed of the possibility of leaving for one or another corner and asked me to speak for them. Something that I cannot do. I am optimistic. I have seen very few snorers among the military sent to Kosovo, Lebanon, Congo or elsewhere in Africa; I have not gone to Afghanistan. Overall, they are very happy to be there; some would like to stay there despite returning obligations after four months. Experiences in this area are not negative.

What I remember most of all, Mr. Monfils, is your expression: we will see. That’s a bit of the tune: we’ll see how it all turns out.

Mr. Sevenhans, speak a little closer to the microphone. Either your voice is slightly blinded or I have a difficulty, but I understand you poorly.

Okay, I will start again at the beginning then.

You say yourself, Mr. Monfils: we will see, because of course there are still some uncertainties and so on. But you turn very conveniently around the warm bread. I have never heard you say that you are truly convinced that this statute will provide a smoother recruitment. You say yourself that if it does not come to that point and it stops after three years, then measures will have to follow. I think it will be silent. You have to compare what is similar. Anyone who is interested in coming to Defence is also interested in going to the police or the fire department. If I go to police school at the age of 18, I know that I can stay with the police until I retire, if I of course meet all the requirements and develop a good career. This is no longer the case. Why should I, when I am 18 years old, choose Defense?

I think a bit of charm is gone. Indeed, it was a matter of the bloodshed with the buil. I entered as a young soldier. Where can I sell my experience? I am 18 years old, I become artillery and at 30 years old I am thrown out – or I don’t know how it works because I don’t know the selection criteria – and placed at the external transition. What can I do with that experience? Specifically, I shot with a cannon. I don’t think I’ll get that far in civil life. I come into a company where someone has worked on their career for 12 years and gained experience. I come there as a newbie and I start down the ladder. What is the charm, what is the attraction of a military profession? That is a fundamental question.

Mr. Sevenhans, for my part, I bet on the enthusiasm of youth!

You are mistaken when you say that you “throw” people after 12 years. You won’t find it anywhere in the statutes. It is simply said that after 12 years, after many contacts with the interested party, he chooses to continue his career, possibly wishing to be operational in Lebanon, Kosovo or elsewhere – but he is not obliged to do so – or wishing to enter the civil personnel of Defense. It should not be exaggerated. Nothing else in the statutes tells them that now they have 12 years of career and that, from then on, they are putting "the foot in the ass"! This is completely false!

The only uncertainty – and I said it in my speech – is whether enough jobs will be found abroad to meet the desires of those who want to leave Defense. This is the only problem that could arise. The answer is that the system is starting to work well since some agreements have already been made. But it was never said that we would fired 32-year-olds! Nor has it ever been said that when they want to continue up to 40 years old and that they want to take a training, it would automatically be a training to shoot the cannon. The training offered by the army is diverse and will allow them to go elsewhere: truck driver for example.

Mr. Sevenhans, whether it’s a military truck, a new MAN, a new Mercedes or any other brand, it’s a truck. Driving a truck and going from Liège to Brasschaat to carry an electrogen group is the same as entering TNT or elsewhere to take a tractor and take the journeys that must be made in the sector. This was the easiest example we could find. We can find others. There will ⁇ also be opportunities with the police. Again, Mr. Sevenhans, you will never tell me that in the police, the 54-year-old policeman is still chasing offenders! Sometimes at 25 years old, they are not able to catch them!

Conclusion: Let us not exaggerate! They are not “flanked at the door,” they are guarded; they are guided, on their request. They are accompanied at their request. At the end of the day, it is a little too “nounou” this matter. They try to give them what they want, and eventually, if they want to leave the army at some point, they are offered additional training in the hope that they will be strong enough. At the same time, agreements are made with private or public companies – we will see, we have time in the years to come – to give them employment opportunities in the sector in which they wish to work.

I found, for example, that even at the level of Volkswagen Forest, Agoria offered a series of jobs – priority, I understand, in relation to the drama we have experienced – in the metal manufacturing sector for a series of workers who were losing their jobs or who had to leave it under conditions not necessarily positive for them. Such agreements exist.

I believe that the more this progresses, the more things will present themselves in this way. I do not think that your pessimism, Mr. Sevenhans, will overtake my optimism!

In conclusion, Mr. Minister, I would like to draw your attention to a last point: evolution. We talked about the equipment, internal structure and staff. We must now look at the soldier present on the ground.

I was talking to mr. Sevenhans of the expression “soldier of the future”. Like the mr. Sevenhans is a serious parliamentary, he must know that in all major armies, especially in the United States, France, Britain and Germany, one is concerned with evolution and different systems are put in place. It is a kind of "digitalization" of the battlefield, an information system in both directions, continuously, through a whole series of sophisticated equipment, starting with the military's own equipment. This ranges from battery to headphone visualizations, etc. It is essential!

Within ten years, the military will no longer be able to appear on the ground without risk if it is not equipped with this type of equipment. This is a new challenge, an aspect of securing our military.

The Minister thinks so. I have already touched him a word. For my part, I feel that, whatever is done, the sophistication of material equipment, air, naval or terrestrial, will never remove the essential character of the soldier on the ground.

Mr. Minister, the MR group will vote in favour of this project because it is a carrier of future.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, before discussing the contents of the present draft on behalf of our group, I would like to comment on how this draft was discussed in the Committee on Land Defense. On behalf of my whole group, to which we have delivered a report, and on behalf of Mr Kelchtermans, I can communicate our position on this subject.

We thought, on behalf of our group, that given the importance of this draft, a broad, substantial debate could take place. At first, the majority at least gave the impression that they would do this. At least it seemed to be so.

The government called for the highest urgency. The reason for this, of course, lies not in the urgency of the problem, despite the fact that we wanted to be cooperative in the handling of the dossier, but of course in the ambition of the Minister of Land Defense to be able to write the reform of the military statute in his name.

There was therefore a strict timetable in which the draft was to be launched by the Chamber and Senate, preferably without too much debate. For now, we are still in the phase of drawing through the Chamber.

This was also shown in the previous briefing received by the committee. There was no comprehensive road or slideshow with all accessories so that we as members of parliament could still make an overview for ourselves of what this all means. No, there was a verbal explanation of the force lines, without document. It was as if we were like some, namely that we could speak, but unfortunately could not read.

The draft consists of 272 articles. There are so many delegations to the King that without much explanation the scope of the draft cannot be estimated. This is, of course, our most fundamental criticism, which we can and want to make about the present design. After all, everything stands or falls with the concrete output, which will happen mainly by royal decree.

During the last and ⁇ incidental committee meeting, the majority therefore considered it necessary in our absence to approve the draft, without any substantial discussion. Our soldiers will love to hear it! The new statute should not even be discussed in Parliament. That is what happened. I remember the scene vividly.

We had made a powerful gesture to the majority that we wanted to discuss, asked to give us space and said that we gave them time to propose a timetable for themselves. That did not happen. A few minutes later I met a few colleagues in the hallway. They told me the following, I parafrase them: "On the thing was voted." They said not that on the matter was voted or on the design, but on the thing. This is ⁇ unfortunate, of course.

It has, of course, to do with the ambition of the Minister of Land Defense to be able to write the new statute on his name. Mr. Minister of Land Defense, I must tell you that, unfortunately for you, you have little or no merit in the realization of the design. It is the worries of the military about their own future and the great trips through the desert they have had to undertake since 1999 that have prompted the Army to act. That is the truth in this dossier. The future of the Army is in their hands. They are the motor.

Without framework and without instruments, unfortunately, they cannot operate and they lose their reason for existence. That is the crucial debate that still needs to be conducted and that we have not conducted, despite the fact that our capacity was great. I call again on Mr. Kelchtermans to be a witness to this. It cannot be said that in this file the classic majority versus opposition game was played. With so many interests at stake, we have demonstrated a positive attitude, but we have seen that our proposals have fallen on a cold stone.

The crucial debate that we want to conduct, and that will still have to be held after the approval of this new GLC, concerns the future that our military still has, what tasks they will have to assume and with what instruments they will be able to operate.

I always notice, and it is not a sick reflex as it is once said, that for several years the question has been asked coincides with the governments of purple green and purple.

To this is connected the following political question: to what extent has the current government, during these two legislatures, approached the problem of international security and defense? In modern management terms, it would be called the type of approach of this problem.

Minister of Land Defense Flahaut has already served for two legislatures, and given the tumultuous and incident-rich past, it is well understood that he is now taking the opportunity, as the last straw, to put the good work of the military as a plum on his own hat to be able to finish his second mandate in beauty.

The last eight years are those of the general horror, a terrible period, a kind of cataclysm that has been guarded by national defense, not only for the military, but also for the department and for the image of Belgium abroad. We have been able to say it many times and we will repeat it again: it is a very bad and dark passage that stands before us.

You cannot prepare for the future if you do not know the past. I would like to return to that past, Mr. Minister. The first note on the army reform was a realistic and pragmatic approach. It was a kind of metaphor, it was the “guideline” by which one would reconsider Defence and of which we also found that the questioning was important in itself: there were many challenges that had to be addressed. The way that happened, of course, was not our approach. That realistic and pragmatic approach turned out to be so unrealistic, theoretical and doctrinal that it was not realistic at all for your coalition partners. You have been forced to abandon this work. I will not play the movie again. From that realistic and pragmatic approach, signed by Minister Flahaut, nothing has actually come.

Initially, in the different policy options, you were correct about a strength line note 2000-2005 that was to be further concretized with a PMT, a medium-term plan 2000-2015. Our fundamental observation on that plan was that a plan that extends over 15 years and that does not set deadlines within the legislature and does not propose “checks and balances” for the implementation of what is stated in that plan, of course, is not realistic, because the term of a legislature within which we work is four years.

We have said this several times in the committee. You did not take into account the new statute for the military, and also the civil status was not taken into account at that time. I still remember physically the distractive attitude – which is still gently expressed – which you then assumed. We had come into a different logic. The logic of deleting and not deciding was pushed forward as a sort of rule of political action.

I will not make the entire eight-year process of politics. We will be able to do that during the election campaign because it will be a ⁇ important item for us in the federal elections. I briefly remind you of the dossier of the mining fighters, the strategic transport ship and whether or not participating in the dossier Joint Strike Fighter. Most of the proposals that were made always had to be further studied. These were a number of non-binding thought exercises that no one has bound.

Another topic that will surely interest you is the community shift stretching and the tensions resulting from it. This is a logistical and operational fact. With the regularity of a clock, with the regularity of committee meetings in this case, and with the regularity of the interviews given – unfortunately not in the language of the majority of this country – you got a certain idea of stall. I cannot imagine that a Minister of Land Defense, of whatever language role he may be, never appears in the direct actuality magazines, for example of the VRT. This has not happened in the last eight years. In the best case, a senior officer was delegated who was allowed to raise a kind of prefabricated magnetrong. You’ve always taken the idea of stalking that the 60/40 language ratio had to jump. In which direction it was not known. Of course I know in which direction. It is the direction that goes against the position of the Flemish parties across the party borders but also against the representation of the army as the last bond in this country.

There is a constitution in this country. Our group considers itself the guardian of the Constitution. In front of you stands someone who considers himself the integrist of the Constitution. In any case, there is one unwritten constitutional rule that can be read among all other rules, in this case that of the 60/40 language ratio.

The military reform, and the reorganization of the barracks in particular, are a staple of that community shattering that I just mentioned. Mr. Minister, you always argue that your drawing, your drawing, your proposal, is based on federal and regional balances. But, of course, this is in no way compatible with the conclusion that the abolitions and restructuring in Wallonia are less extensive and extensive than in Flanders. The historical division of those implants, for many reasons, is of course dated. We are no longer in the logic of '14-'18, we are no longer in the logic of Eben-Emael, we are no longer in the logic of the post-war tensions between East and West, or vice versa. I think we should be able to talk about it differently now. But that historical event was always a pretext for you to move the operational center of the Belgian armed forces to the south of the country, which also always brought with it an employment component.

Now I must say that we suddenly thought that you would finally share our opinion and draw your conclusions from it, because our criticism became yours too. You will undoubtedly remember your letter to Prime Minister Verhofstadt and Minister of Budget Vande Lanotte, in which you stated – I quote you again – “Lack of resources for personnel, investments and training, with implications for our full employability, for our European and international credibility and commitments, and not least for the motivation and safety of the staff.” Unfortunately, I must conclude that there has been no change.

Mr. Minister, without a doubt, the red thread through your policy is your self-made action in numerous files. I think, for example, of the archives of the almohades or of the leopards. When I see all those files, I can’t let it laugh. I really need to be involved, as I see with other colleagues. I now see all those committee meetings in front of me. The laughter should actually destroy us. What ridiculous displays and what wrong decisions we all have seen come into that committee! That is actually terrible! I stayed with the leopards.

In addition, I mention the Balkan syndrome – very serious –; the heisa around the move or not of the fifteenth Wing; the economic compensations and the ransom. Then there are the military music chapels; the scandal around the National Institute; the service car, the Audi; the fee; the 90-mm cannons – unique in this small kingdom on the North Sea – and then, of course, there is the entire dossier of Neder-over-Heembeek. The latter is, of course, the proof of the idea that an innovative human resources policy will never come out of your hand. The ethical and deontological irresponsible behavior you showed in that file has wrecked all imagination.

We have requested your resignation several times. The indifference with which the majority parties approached the delicate files has always proved to be your salvation. The policy has not only left its traces at home. It has also left its mark on the image of Belgium abroad.

The role played by the Belgian government in the framework of the trans-Atlantic relations was truly disastrous in the first year of the government-Verhofstadt II, with the implacable Louis Michel and you as the companion of Waals-Brabant, as the strongholders of a sometimes pottier diplomatic. The international interest of Belgium was played in the Waals-Brabant electoral district.

It was the period of the offensive statements addressed to the United States, as in January 2004, when you arranged for a fixed dispute with the United States. You then expressed your preference for the Democrats and spoke about the inefficiency of the U.S. military.

Colleague, do you remember that? That was incredible. Your statement on the ratio between the efficiency levels of the Belgian and US military was one of the better statements. It came down to the fact that we would come to the ground quicker than the Americans. That was one of the best statements we heard at that time.

You also had comments about the U.S. intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we note bene at other levels with the Prime Minister’s approval, to the Americans the signal to do their way. These were, as they said, the best decisions and they let him tell his story.

You were denied in a letter by the Prime Minister. I was almost forgotten. You were scorned by the Prime Minister in a letter, in which he labeled the statements as being inappropriate to an ally. That has much to do with the fact that the Prime Minister received phone calls from a little further in the Hertogstraat and from a number of other people. If the prime minister still wanted to be a foreign player, he had to surround himself with more skilled figures. If that could not be the case, a sort of mutism around the Minister of Land Defense should be created.

A diplomatic dispute with the United States is still involved. It is also remarkable how the regularity of the clock in interviews undermines the commitment of the Government-Verhofstadt in the framework of transatlantic relations. That seems very strange to me. After all, I cannot imagine that your decisions would not be discussed in a Council of Ministers. You are, as part of the college body that is the Council of Ministers, obliged to execute those decisions. However, you cannot allow it to undermine the aforementioned relationships.

Everything goes so fast in these times. In the policy statement of October 2004, the Prime Minister had just broken a lance for Belgium’s active participation – the right word is now missing – in the peace operations of the UN, the European Union and NATO. During an informal NATO summit in Romania, you proposed to gradually withdraw the NATO peacekeeping force from Afghanistan after the last presidential election, and you have already announced a drastic reduction in the number of Belgian soldiers in Afghanistan at a time when that country, according to all international observers, was far from pacified.

This is the situation in which we play. There is a prime minister who organizes our country. Our diplomatic corps is working for this. Of course, we had to clean up our blossoms a little. Our diplomats play a role. Our soldiers play a role. Karel De Gucht plays his role. The European Union, the informal summit. Then Flahaut says that he finds the time it is done: “No. J’en ai marre. It is politics that decides.” We have been experiencing this constantly. Verhofstadt must be furiously angry on Flahaut, I don’t know if you know that. When he sees him appear, he must become red and green and blue, because every time Verhofstadt tries to draw it a little straight, there is with tromper-off little Joe from Bonanza: I say no. That is actually the metaphor of two legislatures, first purple green and then purple. It was not little Joe, but more Hoss who came on the international stage.

You know that North America was also once accused of genocide with 15 million victims that began in 1492 and continues to this day. The response within the majority, an official government statement, was then: “Such fractures put our vital relations with the United States at risk.” Those are the people who must observe the defense of the country and then we must also have confidence in it in order to be able to lead this dossier to a good end. In our opinion, this is really not possible.

In May of last year, 2006, your cabinet chief asked fundamental questions about the Belgian and American engagement in NATO and the Belgian solidarity in NATO. You have to imagine that. The 1949 Brussels Convention: We want to be a small and loyal partner. We know how important this is. This country has retreated after World War II, not because everything went so well, but through huge American investments, and then this happens.

Your colleague of Foreign Affairs has immediately distanced himself from those statements and that is good too. When Rumsfeld resigned in November 2006, after the defeat of the Republicans in the Congressional elections, you declared that the resignation of the American fellow official was an additional victory, in addition to the eclatant victory of the Democrats – adding insult to injury – and you even wondered if the resignation would be enough. I think even McCarthy never brought it so far in his best times. and never. Following the death of Richard Nixon, I have again reviewed the entire American impeachment procedure and the famous commissions that were there. That was a time when the United States stumbled on its foundations, with the impeachment events, with the aye and no. I have never, never, never, ever known anyone so far. Fortunately we have him. He lives in Belgium, he is Minister of Defence. Indeed, we are a rich nation if you did not know.

That is the background against which this new statute has been established or is being established. As I have already stated in the committee, this is the statute-Somers, the statute of General Somers, not that of the future list tracker of the VLD in the electoral district of Antwerp. This statute-Somers does not come too early, at all. It is really a necessity to let this come into effect now. The text that now prevails either creates a legal framework but there are still too many uncertain factors today that can have a big impact on the success of the concept. The evolution in the labour market that will determine the in- and outflow and the budgetary resources provided are some examples that we would like to cite.

Now it is true that this GLC was not only designed to improve the current staff situation, it goes, of course, much deeper. It is a whole new way of thinking about military careers. Thus, in the future, the firmness of relationship disappears. After the initial ten-year career, a two-year orientation phase follows, after which the military concerned can make a choice. Either he chooses for the continued military career, or he chooses for the internal transition to become a state official within Defense, or he chooses for the external transition to the public services or the private sector.

The statutory character is left in the orientation process.

Several trade unions have opposed this because it could create a precedent for other sectors within the public office. In addition, it would also create a kind of uncertainty. Another note is that this uncertainty will also change the employee/employee relationship. Rightly, the question is asked about the willingness of the employee to be flexible and to accept the disadvantages inherent in the military profession, such as the high mobility.

We also asked the question of the feasibility of the 10,000 civil functions. This is indeed undoubtedly one of the biggest uncertainties in the concept. Nevertheless, we believe that the specificity of the job content requires a more specific treatment. The young man or woman who enters the job knows that after the active operational service there are other opportunities. This means that the military concerned will be much more aware of his situation and will be more alert to the career opportunities that emerge, both within and outside defence.

I see that you are insisting. I will finish.

Who am I to keep you in touch, Mr. De Crem? By the way, you know that I do such a thing only when it is necessary.

I do not need incentives.

That is right.

Naturally, when this concept is fully operational, the recruitment of young people will have to be much more intensive. After all, the flow will increase greatly, which will increase the pressure on the inflow. Let us say that we must take this into account. This is one of the issues that I thought we should have been able to discuss in the committee. I think there was a great willingness in majority and opposition to do this. Unfortunately it did not succeed.

The internal transition to the civil status is, in my opinion, one of the elements that is most difficult to estimate. This will depend on the completion of the job content. The choice to continue the military career as a military expert, as an expert, seems to me positive. It must be absolutely avoided that the transition from the military to the civilian would become a rather negative choice.

One of the crucial elements in the whole concept is the orientation phase. It determines in which direction the military will proceed. From the moment the concept is operational, it will take ten years – this is a ⁇ long period – before the first orientation takes place. The defence has thus ten years of time to carefully elaborate the outflow management. I do not want to remind you of our impression that this period is very long. If we go back in time, we are somewhere on January 10, 1997. Let’s be honest: in politics this is a light year. I think this is a ⁇ long period.

It brings me back to an earlier observation that I have already made. There are numerous uncertainties in the draft that will give rise to further discussions. After several years of adjustment, the final result may be different from the original concept.

The Financial Inspectorate makes a number of fundamental remarks to the whole happening. The implementation of the new concept should not give rise to additional resources. Additional costs will have to be compensated internally, possibly by removing other ongoing reforms. The question, of course, is whether that is realistic, even more because, according to the Financial Inspectorate, the training costs for the outplacement are apparently not taken into account, which would come at about 5,000 euros per military.

I would also like to return to some fundamental observations of the State Council, in particular with regard to Article 182 of the Constitution: the law determines how the army is recruited and the rights and obligations of the military. All articles are fundamental, but in this discussion we cannot ignore Article 182.

After comments from the State Council, however, a number of delegations to the King and subdelegations to the Minister of Land Defense were deleted. However, many others remained in the design. For example, the government considers that the draft after the partial adjustment, I quote, “is more consistent with Article 182 of the Constitution”. I would like to categorize this as approximate legalist work. That is approximate legislation: something is more in accordance with the Constitution. I think one thing can only be done: either something is in accordance with the Constitution, or it is not in accordance with the Constitution. I don’t know what to think about the notion of “more in accordance with the Constitution”.

Article 182 of the Constitution is violated. It will give rise to proceedings before the State Council and preliminary questions to the Arbitration Court. I will also not hide you that our group has seriously considered seeking the State Council’s opinion on the draft and on our amendments. Much depends on the Minister’s response regarding the attitude we will take on this. In any case, further clarity should be created with regard to Article 182.

Another violation of the Constitution relates to Article 10 of the Constitution and Article 9, in particular the hiring of non-Belgians. That article sets out the conditions that a applicant must meet in order to acquire the status of military. Article 10(2) of the Belgian Constitution provides that, subject to the exceptions that may be provided for in certain cases by law, only Belgians are eligible for military service.

This possibility of exception is now used to allow the presence of foreigners, I mean, non-Belgians, in the Belgian Armed Forces.

The position of our group is as follows. We are in principle not against this, in so far as this initiative is in the logic held by the European Union. This means that for us it should be candidates who have the nationality or are citizens of a Member State of the European Union. Especially in the movement towards European Defence, this seems obvious to us.

However, the measures that should advance a European defence and the government that should take these measures are not above the Constitution. That is the first problem. The opinion of the State Council is clear. It cannot be clearer. We expect an answer to this.

Article 10 of the Constitution stipulates that only Belgians can be appointed to the civil and military services, subject to the exceptions that may be provided by law for special cases. That constitutional provision restricts access to the Armed Forces, thus to persons with Belgian nationality, although by law this principle can be deviated, but only for special cases.

To say it with the words of Mr. Goris, that is not a constructive proposal that you are formulating? What does CD&V really want? What will you do, for example, with all those PS voters who are not yet Belgian? Make a constructive proposal.

I understand Mr. Flahaut’s concern. He wants to serve all PS voters who are not yet Belgian with this proposal. Mr. De Crem, you must understand that.

I do not want to blame the peace of the beginning of the year in this first public debate with a few things. Everyone knows that the fast-Belgwet served to create French speakers and PS voters. Of this one must convince the majority in this country, not even in French-speaking Belgium, and ⁇ not the MR in Brussels. They know that they were put in the box. They also analyzed the results.

Now there is another issue, especially the model state. This always continues. That is the rendez-vous with history, the path of the old yoke thrown down on June 13, 1999. Avoid the overwhelming government order, organized especially by Christian Democrats. Not only are voters being upgraded, but now another employment machine is being created.

Let’s be honest, that has nothing to do with the great principles of generosity, generosity and participation. It has to do with the following. We first gave them voting rights and maybe we will help them get a job as well.

That is the essence. It has nothing to do with great principles. They may be involved in the election campaign. Then we will definitely ruin the celebration of January. So we will not do that.

One argument that often comes back in the discussion is the situation abroad. It should be noted, of course, that the situation in Spain, France or Germany is very different. On the one hand, a military career in those countries is much more attractive – if the attractiveness is measured based on the course of the career and the salary – on the other hand, we also have to deal with the advantage of a homogeneous language area in other countries.

We are opposed to the opening of the army to foreigners and to the use of it as a lever for integration. This is a wrong approach. I just had the opportunity to put that as sharp. By the way, the opening of the military force to foreigners is not only contrary to the Constitution, it is also contrary to European regulations. Article 39 of the Rome Treaty provides for the free movement of workers within the Union, but it also provides for a derogation in relation to relations in public services. The European Court of Justice has given a restrictive interpretation in several judgments. The derogation relates in particular to relations with the military force, the police, the judiciary and the diplomacy, which therefore do not fall within the scope of the principle of free movement of workers.

The conclusion of the Council of State cannot be clearer: the provisions which open military relations generally to non-Belgians, in particular to EU citizens, must cease. My colleagues of the majority, this is a call. You can’t just lay down the opinions of the State Council next to you? We expect an answer to this during this general discussion.

In fact, the substantial changes in the organization of the military force involve a modification of the Constitution, so that all interpretative conflicts, both with the Constitution and with European law, can be avoided. My group had submitted amendments in this regard in the committee. We submitted them again. I have seen that they are rounded up in the plenary session, but I would like to draw attention to another amendment. Our country still counts about seventy young people between 16 and 18 years of age with a military status, because they study at the military school as candidate-professional special officers. Since Belgium has ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflicts, it has been recorded in our national legislation that minors cannot be deployed in any form of armed operation. However, according to international humanitarian law, they remain military personnel.

This means that in the event of war or an attack on the territory, they are not protected as civilians, but are even legitimate targets of attack. The discussion of the new statute for the military is therefore the ideal opportunity to adapt this Belgian situation to the straight-18 principle. These young people can now be given citizenship status, as they did in Portugal. Another option is to set the minimum age for admission to military schools at 18 years, as Germany, Denmark, Finland and Switzerland have stipulated. This would create a more comfortable position in Belgium, especially when negotiating with countries that are systematically confronted with the problem of child soldiers. Then Belgium will also be able to play a leading role at European level.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, they are good colleagues, but they are with little. I come to my decision.

The design is for our group a significant step in the right direction. It is the merit of the military. We give their net a little more than the benefit of positive doubt. Its political fulfillment and the choices that will inevitably have to be made are, of course, much more difficult. It was clear from the very beginning that Land Defense was not a priority for this government, for the successive governments-Verhofstadt. In every budget formulation or budget control, Defence was the victim. This is the context in which defence policy is taking place today.

This is what we are saying today in the public opinion. A social debate on defence is not or barely carried out. It has become a mainly academic debate about European defense, about NATO, or about the new threats. There are major societal challenges, such as healthcare, pensions, employment, education, research and development or technological evolution, which are large and numerous and will cost a handful of money. A modern society tries to find answers to this with the support of the public opinion – which must not fail us. The mission of our society as a good housekeeper is to ensure that all members of the family are not uninsured, but well insured against all possible risks. Belgium as one of the founding fathers of the European Union and NATO has a leading role to play. Defence would therefore continue to play a leading role in Belgian politics.

My group will substantially support the concept of the GLC, but cannot agree with the way the majority has pursued this draft without a deep substantive debate by Parliament. Therefore, the Flemish Christian Democrats will abstain in the vote.

Mr. De Crem, I let you talk for 44 minutes, but it was quiet.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I look forward to the fact that this bill will be submitted to the vote of the plenary session this week, because it participates in the many efforts to modernize our Defense and this modernization is necessary and urgent.

How can we maintain the operational capacity of our Armed Forces, while implementing a staff management not only performing but also social? In an attempt to reconcile these two major concerns, the new military status of the active framework offers a balanced response that seems to us to respect as much as possible the needs of the Defense and those of its personnel.

With this new status, our Armed Forces will remain operational. Indeed, through its mixed career concept, this new military status will allow the Defense to gradually rejuvenate our Armed Forces and maintain over time an adequate age pyramid. It will also allow to maintain the specificity of the military profession, re-value it and make it more attractive for young people who wish to truly engage by vocation.

But this new military status also brings a series of advantages to the military himself: that of being able, in a more transparent context, to pilot his own career; that of being able to acquire new skills during it; or that of being able to benefit from guidance and support in his professional choices.

At the end of an initial military career, the military will therefore be able, within the framework of an individualized orientation process, to review his professional project by claiming in particular his own wishes, because the aspirations of each can evolve over the course of life. He will have the choice: he will be able to pursue his military career as part of the continued military career and then move from a technical function to a role of guidance of young recruits, to orient himself towards a career of State Officer at Defence where he will occupy a supporting position, or to claim his skills outside the Defence with a public or private sector employer.

I would like to make a few remarks on two specific points that I find essential.

The first point concerns the safety of the employment of the military. Just as our colleague Monfils said, I think it is important to insist on the fact that all measures are planned to give the military the maximum chance to pursue a career beyond the military career alone. Whatever his choice after the initial military career, the military will not be left to abandon, but framed and accompanied. Internal and external passages, i.e. within and outside the Defence, are prepared so that the military can find a function that meets his skills and wishes.

The Department of Defense, other departments and the Selor are an integral part of this preparation. The first initiatives developed to make military personnel available to other departments – such as Justice and Interior – are on the right track. Other initiatives with the public or private sector will be implemented soon. Memorandums of Understanding will be concluded with the Department of Employment and Training of the Regions and Communities to ensure that the training provided by the Defense can be applied in other sectors.

Furthermore, it is important to emphasize the specificity of the defence sector, which needs young personnel and increased mobility. This particularity is not found in other sectors.

The second point concerns pensions. It is important to emphasize that the provisions of the new military statute regarding pensions are quite satisfactory. They harmonise military pensions by following the principle that the specificity of the military profession requires special provisions by introducing some innovations that we find interesting. In addition, the new military status will allow the Defense as well as the Pensions to ⁇ no negligible savings.

Finally, I look forward to the consultation that this bill has been the subject of for two years, in particular with the contribution of the Defense staff who expressed themselves directly and through their trade union representatives and whose remarks were taken into account.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the bill that the government asks us to approve has been matured. The new military status it sets must be supported as it will help the Defense to equip itself with smaller, younger, better equipped, more flexible armed forces that can be deployed faster and can fully and effectively fit into the European and transatlantic dimensions. The project must also be supported as it proposes a modernization of our Armed Forces preserving the human component at the heart of the system.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, we have been debating the mixed-track concept throughout the afternoon. For me, the GLC is a milestone in the further evolution of our Belgian military force. It was also already approved by the Belgian government in the Strategic Plan for the Modernization of the Armed Forces and the Stuurplan 2003.

The basis is actually formed by various modern principles. The principle from which everything follows is: the right person in the right place. Therefore, the new career concept is comprehensive. That is, both military and civilian jobs are possible, both within and outside the Defence. The prerequisite for the realization of these principles is the mobility between the different jobs, administrations and statutes. This is realized through lifelong learning.

The VLD has been working for four goals for years, which are clearly reflected in the GLC.

The first goal is to improve the age structure. With the GLC, the government has chosen very clearly, not for a one-off measure but for the structural, courageous decision to revise the concept of career.

The second goal is the upgrading of the military office.

The third goal is the need of the army for a better image.

Finally, there is the optimization of the yield from the individual and the organization.

The red thread is formed by competence management and the distribution between military and civilian, where, of course, the military takes care of the operational tasks and the civilian takes care of the supporting tasks.

Specifically, this means that by 2020, the mixed career status will lead to a military force consisting of 27,725 military personnel and 10,000 civilians. After ten or twelve years of military service, every soldier shall be subject to the choice whether he or she remains in the military or becomes a citizen within the Defence, or enters another public service.

In fact, everything revolves around the age of 35. In the mixed track concept we recognize very clearly the call of Prime Minister Verhofstadt that job security is more important than job security. The working life in countries such as Denmark and other Scandinavian countries has been reoriented to this principle for decades, and the results in labour mobility can be seen in those countries.

As a society, we should not be afraid of change. Determination and fear of change make a society stagnate and throw it back into the past. In addition, the armies in the surrounding countries already have a similar openness, which makes the age structure healthier than that in the Belgian military force.

With us, the average age of the military is about 39 years. In other European countries, this is significantly lower, from the end of 20 to the beginning of 30 years. In the United States, the average age of the military in Iraq is only 23 years.

In the afternoon, it has been said many times how everything will go in his work. After 10 to 12 years of military service, the military, depending on the employability, needs and needs, begins continued military training, or is provided for an internal transition to a civil status. It employs 7,500 employees annually. However, 500 troops will make an external transition, both to the public services and to the private sector. All this should ensure that we have a younger, more mobile, faster deployable and flexible army. In this way, we hope that the image of our military force will also improve a little.

All military personnel will at the same time be subject to the mixed career concept which, however, includes progressive transitional measures for the military personnel recruited under the current statutes. It is important to mention that the reorientation for the military currently in service will take place on a voluntary basis.

The GLC really means a revolution for the armed forces, where until now the firmness of relation existed, as in the other public services. The mixed career concept requires a different way of thinking for each of us. Therefore, good information campaigns are an absolute must. The VLD group therefore urges to inform all stakeholders clearly and in a timely manner. I would also like to hear from the Minister how his information campaign for the military will look concrete? What timeline will he use? This is essential to remove the worry on the ground. Furthermore, I think that the soldiers who are currently joining the military force, the new young recruits, should be informed immediately upon entry into service of the major changes that are about to come.

I am a very strong supporter of the GLC, but there are two challenges to make this concept succeed. First of all, the inflow. We must motivate a sufficient number of young people to enter the military for a period of their lives, to serve our homeland, and to gain experiences that may be useful in their future lives. I think of shipments abroad for young doctors, for dentists or for other professions.

The second challenge with which the success of the GLC stands or falls is the outflow, both to the public services and to the private. In this regard, the VLD is committed to the importance of the equivalence between the diplomas obtained in private and through Landsverding.

The synergies between the military and the private sector largely determine the success of this GLC. That will be the challenge: cooperation with the other public agencies and with the private.

Mr. Minister, I may, however, insist that consultation with the private sector be carried out as soon as possible to point them already to the changes that are ongoing within our military force.

I would like to mention, and thank my colleagues, that the VLD, together with the majority parties, has submitted some amendments in order to protect the soldiers who have done social promotion, as well as to enable the voluntary working arrangement of the four-day week for all soldiers. These amendments were adopted in our committee.

The mixed career concept is crucial for the proper functioning of our military forces in the future. It is absolutely necessary that this concept comes into being. We need young men and women who want to serve the motherland for a number of years and then be rewarded, can easily flow into the private or other public service, and for some of them, by continuing to serve as civilians or as military, in our military force.

Operationality becomes the game of the new career. The military of the future is an operational military who can be deployed at any time and who is ready to participate in operations. The experience they gain will be appreciated in their future career.

I believe that only with this GLC Defense can make its age structure back healthy, ⁇ a greater degree of operationality, and last but not least acquire a better image. For me, this is clearly an example of a brave administration, and it requires the courage of the men to support this operation. Thank you for your attention and support.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, we are debating the bill that sets the status of military personnel of the active framework of the Armed Forces. You told us in the committee that this is an important bill, which required a lot of work and reflection, and is based on many formal and informal meetings, consultations and consultations, including the trade union consultation of course.

This new statute aims to modernise our Armed Forces to meet the needs of an effective, modern army in a constantly changing European and international environment. It is therefore a matter of making our Armed Forces evolve into an army that will be smaller in size but that will need to be more flexible and better equipped and that can be engaged faster. It will only be more credible, among other things, at the international level.

It should be remembered that the current status of Belgian military personnel dates from the post-war period and this even though different statutes have been created over the years to meet the increasingly pressing needs of young military professionals.

This new statute, which introduces a mixed career concept, aims to reduce the total Defense personnel to 38,000 people (28,000 military and 10,000 civilians) by 2015 and to rejuvenate the Armed Forces which are currently disabled by a too high average age. One of the major goals pursued by this new status is the restoration of the age pyramid. But there are others: the revaluation of the military profession, the increase of the attractiveness of the military profession and the optimization of the performance, both in the perspective of the organization but also in the perspective of the individual, therefore of every man and woman, dimension to which we are ⁇ sensitive and vigilant.

I repeat what General Auguste Van Daele said: "From now on, we will no longer be military for life." The mixed career status will apply to military personnel of all personnel categories and will replace all existing military statutes, with the exception of the reserve framework military status. It covers all aspects of the military career, from recruitment to the end of the career. This new status, while allowing the Defense to continue to fulfill its tasks optimally, must find the necessary balance between the aspirations of the individual and those of the organization. This is also a fundamental element in our view.

The new mixed career status provides that future military personnel engage for an initial military career of ten to twelve years during which they are likely to participate in missions abroad.

They will then be offered three orientation possibilities: either continued military career, or an internal transition to a civil employment in the Defense, or external mobility to other employers, whether public or private, with guaranteed accompaniment. It should be stressed that since the mixed career status will replace all existing military statutes, with the exception of the reserve military status, and that it will apply to all categories of personnel, it is important to ensure that all military personnel are recruited for the same initial career limited in time and that they are offered the same opportunities for reorientation at the end of their initial military career.

I would like to speak briefly about the civilians within the department. The 10,000 civilian officials will be tasked with supporting operations conducted by their military counterparts, thanks to their specific knowledge and expertise acquired during their previous military career.

Mr. Minister, I will not come back here on the content of all our work in committee. The report on behalf of the Defence Commission is being searched. It is true that we could have devoted even more time to a really constructive discussion. However, we have had many reflections, critical views, you have answered our many questions, because it was important that this new status would not be made at the expense of the rights, especially social, of members of the Armed Forces.

Among other things, I think of the clarifications made regarding:

- the orientation and evaluation process;

the integration premium;

- the obligation of means, in the context of external mobility, to provide employment within an enterprise;

the use of the mobility pool;

- supplementary protection for staff members who have suffered injuries or contracted diseases or whose diseases have worsened in service or as a result of service;

- pensions, as the new status will have consequences on the retirement age, both for military personnel and for civilians formerly military;

- the importance to be given to training under this new concept, given the consequences that the evolution of military capabilities may have on their future, whether within or outside the department;

- to the transitional measures specified in the bill, on which you reassured us by saying that, during the transition, no one will be excluded.

I would also like to address another aspect. The draft law has been the subject of numerous observations and observations of the State Council. Many of them were met. The preliminary draft included numerous authorizations to the King, as well as a number of subdelegations to the Minister of Defense, whose eligibility was verified by the Council of State in view of the principle of legality enshrined in Article 182 of the Constitution.

This review was carried out in the light of the case-law of the Court of Arbitration.

The Council of State recalls that, in one of its judgments, the Court has in particular considered that, I quote:

“Article 182 of the Constitution relates to the manner of recruitment of the army which is determined by law. It also regulates the advancement, rights and obligations of military personnel.

- The determination of the manner and conditions under which a military can resign from the army falls within the regulation of the rights and obligations of the military and, therefore, within the scope of Article 182 of the Constitution.

By attributing to the legislative power the competence to regulate the rights and obligations of the military, the constituent wanted to avoid that the executive power alone regulates the Armed Forces. Article 182 of the Constitution thus guarantees that this matter will be the subject of decisions taken by a democratically elected deliberative assembly.

It seemed important to me, Mr. Minister, to recall this observation of the State Council.

Thus, in the bill, many delegations to the King, or even to the Minister, were removed or the conditions of these were specified.

However, it is regrettable that the composition of the committees has not been taken back into the project and that only procedural elements have been taken back into the project.

Mr. President, as Mr. Monfils, I heard you say in the committee that the execution measures and the royal decrees would be well coordinated and that you would inform the parliament. If this is not the case, we will take care of it.

Mr. Minister, very succinctly, the CDH proposed already in 2003, in its programme and in this part, to guarantee peace, security and accession with regard to the structure and staff of the Belgian Armed Forces, within the general framework of the PESC and PESD.

To ensure the operationality of the units by guaranteeing them full staff composed of motivated, well-trained and well-trained young women and men, it was necessary in particular:

adequate human, material and financial resources to participate in the missions;

- take measures aimed at improving the attractiveness of the military profession on the labour market;

- ensure the integration of civil defense personnel into the new structure and maintain a balance between military and civilian personnel;

- ensure continuous training and its enhancement in order to enable mobility between civil and military functions.

The bill we are reviewing and the objectives of the new statute with this mixed career concept correspond to the modern vision of a specialized and efficient army that the CDH also intends to promote. We will support this bill.

Our three female colleagues showed great effectiveness! Is it not, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the bill we are discussing today is an important step in the modernization of the department. After the structural plan, the unification of the bars and other reforms, this is a new reform. Will this be the final phase of the various reforms? I do not think. That in itself is logical and even good.

I fully understand the concerns and questions of the staff involved. I also believe that people need security and stability, but likewise they need a perspective. For those who now work in the Department of Land Defense, the prospect should not be rejuvenated by mass dismissals, but rather an operational, young military force that is deployable and specializes and cooperates with partner countries. It is precisely the merit of this mixed career concept that perspectives are provided to deploy all staff members, both civilians and military, as efficiently as possible. This is the perspective that we must keep in mind.

Does this mean that this project is over? In my opinion not at all. The text contains numerous methods of implementation. As long as it is a concrete introduction of, for example, measures that are carried out elsewhere through COA negotiations, it does not seem to me to contradict Article 182 of the Constitution. Furthermore, it is also important that the implementation of this mixed career concept will be closely monitored by Parliament and by the trade unions and that everyone can fully play their role here. I believe in this, because the trade unions have already been involved in the preparation of the texts of this GLC.

If I then go to the content of the text and focus on the career, I can make a number of findings. First of all. At cross-speed, there will be a significant proportion of young soldiers who will be ready and able to be deployed quickly. New, of course, is that there is no longer any certainty for life, the so-called lifetime employment. It is therefore important that adequate measures are taken to establish sufficient initiatives and programmes as the end of the first phase approaches to guide people to either advance their careers, a civil function in the public service or the private labour market. Therefore, the new perspective should be lifetime employability: people must be employable and must be prepared to include other jobs in the labour market.

Of course, one must make sure that the first phase of the military career is attractive enough, otherwise we risk having no people here. For example, military personnel who have been on a mission for a certain period of time should be able to use the medical services of the department for a lifetime. This would increase the attractiveness.

Second, the creation of the functions of expert and expert is, I think, a good evolution. One thus creates a flat career and is less attached to rigid recruitment criteria and pecuniary provisions for a number of difficulties. Remember last year, when we had the discussion about the officers of the Medical Technical Corps. Together with a number of other people, I have already said at that time that a new form should provide sunshine for clutter professions.

Third, I trust that citizens will have equal opportunities to acquire positions and even more opportunities to flow through to positions that are not available to them today. It is important that the Department of Land Defense works well with both civilians and military as a whole.

Fourth, new in the design is also that people who for some reason did not have the opportunity to obtain a diploma of lower secondary education can still join the military force. In itself, this is a good measure, because it gives everyone a chance to enter the labour market. However, I find it important that after ten years, when it is necessary to decide whether or not they can continue their careers, they are subjected only to practical tests. I think the interpretation of the text should be made clearer there. Everyone has the right to equal perspectives on lifetime employability.

With the amendments I have submitted together with a number of colleagues, I intend to maintain the existing Fourth Fifth Scheme. The then Minister of Defense, Mr. Pinxten, called that in 1995 a SP fantasy. I think he hit the ball completely wrong. In fact, the granting of a fourth-fifth regime to military personnel in their initial career is, in my opinion, not contrary to operationality. In fact, the department may refuse that four-fifth arrangement to persons deemed to be operational.

As regards the amendment to Article 260 relating to social promotion, it appears to be just. This amendment ensures that the continued military career for a significant portion of the military will also be immediately applicable.

Finally, with regard to social promotion, I think that the interpretation of Article 115 should be less restrictive and that the King can determine that there are possibilities for flow. I know that soldiers today can already enjoy an advanced career through the level of expert or expert, which is a step forward.

In addition, I hope that the DGHR can proactively help people to accelerate their career and thus make social promotion. In the past this has already happened.

As regards the work of the committees, I had indeed great concerns about the agenda handled by Mr Sevenhans.

The following should also me from the heart about Mr. De Crem. Unfortunately, he is currently absent. I give him his full role as the leader of the opposition. I respect that. I will give him that role for many years. However, what was stated in the report was not really correct. There was stated that SP.A wants to abolish the military force. In the long run, we want more cooperation with other countries. Sp.a wants the military to specialize, be efficient and cooperate with other countries.

In practice, I can see that is already happening today. Pilot training is conducted together with the French. There are cooperation relationships with the Dutch. There is a joint operation with Luxembourg. There are also current operations in Lebanon. Collaboration is already happening and it seems to me to be more productive than being a single goer.

Mr. Minister and members of the department present here, as well as the trade unions, we believe it is very important that one keeps informing people and will not be too upset to send updates. After all, a project like this will always have to be evaluated, in terms of objective, effectiveness and effectiveness.

First of all, I would like to thank the Chairman of the Commission, the rapporteurs and the various stakeholders for the work that has been done in this parliamentary phase of this fundamental project – everyone agrees on this point – on the mixed career.

I would also like to thank the military and civilian collaborators, General Somers, General Husniaux, Colonel Cuvelier, all the others and those who, at the internal level, have carried out this dossier, not to mention the trade union organizations that have worked for very long months, even years, in the elaboration of this project informally first, formally then.

As some speakers have wanted to point out, this project has been expected for a long time. It has been long negotiated, both informally and formally. As I have said before and repeated again, it will still take a lot of time to get everything done. It will therefore also be necessary to continue the dialogue work that has been initiated, in full transparency, with regard to all staff and the Parliament. I trust the parliamentarians, both the majority and the opposition, to regularly question me about the state of progress of the matter. I will be happy to transmit the information and proceed to communicate the evaluations that will be carried out as implementation progresses.

In reality, this project aims to inscribe a little more the Defense, this important enterprise, in modernity, inscribe it in our society.

I reassure you immediately. We are not talking about disposable soldiers. I have too much respect for every member of the Department of Defense staff! I give him the necessary priority and attention and I want to make sure that every member, wherever he is in the hierarchy, can be integrated into a company that will value him, so that he can receive a training that will allow him to value his knowledge outside and re-convert as best as possible.

We are therefore concerned about the situation of everyone, especially through continued training.

Once again, through this project, we carry out a pioneering work. The question was asked about how the other armies of foreign countries did it, and the answer is simple: as with the single structure, these countries observe Belgium to see how it progresses in this important case. But working as pioneers does not bother us at all.

I will return for a moment to a comment often heard, repeated by Mr. Monfils: Why, with an army of 30,000 men, is it possible to deploy only 1,000 people a year? I would like to make it clear that it is 1,100 people, but in rotation every four months, which already corresponds to 3,300 people; moreover, to each person sent out is attached a back guard that concerns 1.5 or 2 person(s). The calculation is simple; we find that our commissioning rate is good. Furthermore, for social reasons, we decided to allow a year to pass between two operations, which leads to a three-year calculation.

As for the force of attraction that we want to maintain, I believe that it lies mainly in the fact that we allow the young people who join us to specialize, to undergo continued training. In a few days, we will announce the opening of 1,469 seats for the 2007 recruitment year; each time, we see a great enthusiasm for defence professions. Each year, the doors of the Defense Houses are opened to welcome a large number of people.

There is therefore no concern to be made, as you said, Mr. Monfils, regarding the possibility for the military to re-convert into another career. Today, it would even be the opposite phenomenon that occurs: many requests come to us to engage, cumulatively or not, defence personnel in the transport sector, in the guarding sector, in the railways and others.

Our staff is therefore recognized for their high quality, their availability, their professionalism. We must be careful not to separate ourselves from people with remarkable training. Do you believe that people, such as Somers or Husnials, which I have just cited, are not coveted by some international firms for an association, because collaboration with people with such skill in personnel management is interesting?

I think that is the best guarantee.

Sometimes I ask myself. When I intervene in a file, they say that I care about the details, that I take care of everything, that I want to control everything. Believe me, for the preparation of certain operations such as those in Lebanon or Afghanistan, it is better to be present on the ground rather than absent, like some of my predecessors, during the operations in Rwanda.

On the other hand, when I let the military prepare, discuss a text, work it in depth, as is the case here, they say that I miss my task while wanting to appropriate the result. We should know what we want. When it comes to mixed career outcome, whether it’s Flahaut status or Somers status, I really don’t care! The essential thing is the result and, in any case, the result of a conjunction, of a political will relayed by military expertise. To each his specialties, to each his profession! The work done today is tangible! It deserves to be emphasized.

by Mr. De Crem complained by saying that nothing had been undertaken before. Other people were in charge of the department. by Mr. Delcroix and Mr. Pinxten have been at his head for a number of years. Things have not progressed. They could have done it. They did not do it. I invite them to ask why they did not do so at this time.

I also note an intervention saying that this is a major project and at the same time a pail fettu to which one holds to make sure there is something! For some time now, I’ve been struggling to no longer formalize myself with such statements!

I would like to point out that if it is the Somers or Husniaux status, it is because the Somers and Husniaux colonels, who have transited in my surroundings, have become generals and Lieutenants-General and are the proof that I know how to surround myself with competent people. That’s what I think of the Defence Department. This is not about politization.

I heard the inventory of things that went wrong and all this was considerably away from the subject, status, mixed career. The same arguments are repeated continually. I had the impression that this was a manoeuvre of the opposition. Most often, all his plans have been deplorably deflated, which is the demonstration that the opposition can produce a lot of wind without there being anything concrete in what it is advancing. You know, Mr. President, the dogs beat and the caravan passes.

I would like to point out that Europeans can already engage in defence in Belgium. There is no question of opening the Defense to non-European nationals but the Defense now has 21 people coming from the Netherlands, France or Portugal. It seems to me that this is going in the direction of a European army. One cannot at the same time wish for a smaller, interoperable, more efficient, transportable, integrated in the international community, the European community and NATO and divide itself. My conviction is that the single structure achieved in Belgium will have to take place at the European level and that one day we will have to put our logistics and other things together, as we have done for the training of pilots, helicopter pilots, for our Navy. Ultimately, this is the future.

We started doing it with the pilots and the Navy. You know for sure that in the EUFOR operation in the Congo, our logistics served the entire European force.

This is a first. You also know that it is our role 2 hospital that serves the FINUL in Lebanon. Tomorrow, our doctors will leave him to return to Belgium. The hospital will remain on site and will be used by doctors from other nations. Until recently, when teams were leaving, they took over their hospital with them, leaving the next to rebuild another and install their staff there. We start from the principle that the equipment of a hospital - beds, bistours, etc. It should be useful to all doctors. Combined with their expertise, the durability of this material saves time, energy and resources.

Then, I am surprised that I was not told about the bad ranking of Belgium by NATO. Per ⁇ it is a forgetting. I just want to say that today, we spend better than it was in the past. A good Defense is not one that necessarily spends a lot, but a Defense that spends a lot and less; and not a Defense that spends any way, as in a certain time.

I would also like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs. Belhouari.

As for Ms. Vautmans’ intervention, as I said at the end of the committee, the information campaign conducted within the Department of Defense will be followed by an internal and external communication campaign, in particular for the various public and private sectors concerned.

For the equivalence of the degrees issued by the different formations, you know that a cooperation agreement has been signed between the different governments of our country. This goal is obviously very positive.

I would like to thank Ms. Wiaux for her objective analysis of what has been achieved. Per ⁇ she was the one who looked with the most serenity at how our work went. She emphasized the dimension of civil personnel. Indeed, for us, the defence personnel includes both civilians and military personnel. We continue to bring them closer to each other. And this statute goes in that direction.

The implementation measures will be coordinated. We want to prioritize efficiency and it was General Somers who pointed out that when you need to change something in the Department of Defense, very often you need a law. You know, like me, the time it takes for a law or a bill to come into effect. If we want something efficient and efficient, we need to find different methods of work.

Mr. Geerts, I talked about the concern of parliamentary control and the will to act and transparency. Consultations with staff, trade unions and Parliament are indispensable because, ultimately, Defense is indeed an important enterprise in our country. This is a bond of our country, this is the reason why a number of balances must be respected, even when they are not inscribed in a law. The figures are there to prove that this balance is well ⁇ ined.

I think no one wants to abolish the armed forces today. I would like to say that we have entered, including with the sp.a, in a very long-term work, in an important transformation project, which wants to make Defense a modern enterprise, fully integrated into a new world, with new threats, in a permanent international, European and "Otan" context. The Defense must be able to be useful and close to civil society. It is necessary to be able to carry out as many actions as possible in the interest of this civil society, whether inside or outside the country, and the Defense, for this, must have a completely renewed equipment. Decisions have been made, the latter will be made soon with regard to helicopters. The equipment was purchased on shelves. We bought the sufficient minimum – we did not make inventories to make inventories – in an interest of interoperability, with infrastructure brought back to what we really need, leaving the utopia of creating new military quarters. When neighborhoods or domains no longer serve us, we prefer contact with public institutions to make them available to them or to the communes and provinces.

We now have a suitable status for staff as this mixed career project was the element that still needed to be added after infrastructure, equipment, operations. All this has been done in compliance with the budget envelope, with a defense budget that does not increase and in which we can actually work, in a proper way, I think.

I thank you.