Proposition 52K2193

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 2 juin 2006 modifiant l'arrêté royal du 30 mars 2001 portant la position juridique du personnel des services de police (PJPol) en ce qui concerne la nomination dans le grade de commissionnement de certains membres du personnel de la direction générale de la police judiciaire.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅱ

Submission date

Oct. 8, 2009

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

police

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

Dec. 3, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, on 10 November 2009, the members of the Committee on Internal Affairs discussed the present bill.

In its introductory presentation, the Minister stated that the present draft was intended to end the discrimination identified by the Constitutional Court in its judgment 94/2008 of 26 June 2008. The Court found that the appointment of the appointed ex-BOBs was discriminatory in relation to the other appointed members within the judicial directorate who were not appointed.

The Minister also pointed out that the Court can consider the appointment concept, as incorporated in the Act of 2 June 2006, as legitimate in itself. Thus, the design contains four force lines. First, the provisions of the Act of 2 June 2006 on the Special Investigation Brigades remain unchanged, but the method of placing officers is better explained. Second, the draft law provides that in 2013 and 2014 the other appointed persons who are not real BOB's will be appointed to the General Directorate of the Judicial Police after the appointed ex-BOB's. Thirdly, a new provision regulates the appointment of the other members of the integrated police, in order to prevent future appeals against the law on grounds of unequal treatment. Finally, the successful 2D candidates of the former judicial police at the parquet enjoy a faster career course, in order to ⁇ the required balances and maintain social peace within the judicial column of the federal police.

After the presentation, Mr Weyts asked the Minister about the number of officials involved and the financial implications of the draft. The Minister’s response revealed that in total there are about 900 former BOBs, 250 people in the central services and 60 people from the local police.

The amendment on the Committee P concerns 4 persons. Since it is a repair to an existing law, the budgetary impact has already been taken into account.

According to Ms. Jadin, there are still certain elements that indicate inequal treatment in the judicial services. It refers to categories 2A and 2B.

Finally, Mr Doomst can find himself in the proposed amendments, which indeed comply with the judgment of the Constitutional Court. He regrets, however, that a different treatment is still reserved for the former BOBs and the other members of the judicial pillar at the time of enrollment. Mr. Doomst also points out that this would allow for new complaints to be filed with the Constitutional Court.

As previously stated, the amendment submitted to the government bill aims to regulate the appointment of the members of the Committee P. The amended draft was finally unanimously adopted.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, even before the decision 94/2008 of the Constitutional Court, the MR group had already intervened several times on the discrimination that still exists today in our police, in particular following the establishment of the various mechanisms known as "tapis".

As the Court specifies, we also identified that the concept of appointment used in the Act of 2 June 2006, although legal in itself, can be regarded as discriminatory in so far as it has the effect of appointing BSR experts commissioned without doing the same for non-BSR commissioned members within the General Directorate of the Judicial Police of the Federal Police, while this appointment can be regarded as important and as a substantial advantage.

We therefore welcome that the aim of this project is to eliminate this discrimination by providing for a appointment for all commissioned in a higher grade without necessarily using identical modalities, which are reasonably justified. For Mr Mr, this project is going in the right direction. As I had already recalled in a committee and as Ms. Dierick specified in her report, all discrimination is not settled by this draft and the text that is put to the vote today remains imperfect.

I have spoken on this subject several times with you and your predecessors: we continue to worry about the fate of some 270 inspectors of level A, 2A and 2B of the former PJ at the parks, hired since 1991 whose experience and acquisitions have never been valued. These 2A and 2B inspectors were 2+ middle cadres who were inserted into a Level 2 grade. They are academics (for 57% of them) and graduates (for the rest).

Some perform management functions, sometimes in matters such as terrorism. The Federal Judicial Police denies them a commissioning to the upper rank even though they would benefit from it if they were members of another category. The only valuation they have benefited from is baremic: their baremic scale is 9% higher than that of a conventional chief inspector. Apart from this minimal advantage, 2A and 2B no longer have any career prospects.

I had already told you this in the committee: as liberals we must follow the philosophy that officials are also given a perspective for the motivation of the whole staff.

Certainly, we know that arrangements were made in the Council of Ministers on 17 July last and that members of the middle frame of the integrated police holding a university degree will be able to benefit from a reserved quota for access to the frame of officers for the years 2010 and 2011. We also know that the Council of Ministers has ordered an analysis of academic career prospects among non-official staff members. We hope that solutions will soon be found for this category of staff and that graduates will not be left behind. If necessary, then, as I have already recalled in the committee, we will take the necessary parliamentary initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, when examining this law in June 2006, CD&V already pointed out that there should ever be work to avoid the discrimination arising from the appointment of the appointed members of the police services by nominating only the holders of the BOB certificate in their appointed degree.

So today we see the correction of that discrimination, which was also confirmed by the Constitutional Court. In this sense, we give our full support to the present draft. This draft does even more; it is already ahead of any other discrimination by providing for the appointment of all officers within the police services.

However, there is still a distinction between the holders of a BOB certificate and the other members of the police services. In scaling, a different principle is applied, depending on whether one is the holder of this patent or not, and therefore deviates from the general rule.

Furthermore, there are benefits associated with a BOB patent. The holders of this patent are first appointed, after which the current system from 2013 will only run for the appointed within the service for non-BOB’s. A more just system would actually treat them on an equal footing and use antiquity as the basis for that appointment. This is not happening here.

The problem that has been cited in relation to the two A’s and the two B’s deserves, in our opinion, rather a lasting solution to problems that may also arise in the future. In this view, it makes little sense to offer a solution only for these people. More specifically, it concerns police officers with a diploma that gives access to a relationship of level A, but who have been recruited in a lower degree. That is effectively a problem that could also occur in the future and that is why we with CD&V propose a solution that could also be applicable to those cases that could eventually return again in the future.