Proposition 52K2314

Projet de loi instituant l'engagement volontaire militaire et modifiant diverses lois applicables au personnel militaire.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅱ

Submission date

Dec. 7, 2009

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

armed forces military personnel voluntary military service

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA LDD MR FN VB

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo

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. 17, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Mrs Van der Auwera refers to her written report.

Some speakers have been registered for the general discussion, first and foremost Mrs. Van der Auwera herself. Do you want the word?

and no.

and later?

and later.

As the second speaker, Mr Geerts is registered.

Mr. Speaker, we have said in the committee that there is a difference between the voluntary service of collective benefit and the voluntary military service. We remain there.

The second element concerns the recruitment at the expense of social security. We also continue to do this. Social security needs are different. There are waiting lists in healthcare and so on.

We have submitted an amendment regarding the distinction between people who enjoy the living wage, and others. We remain with this amendment. It is up to the majority to vote this way.

We believe that there are other needs than to approve this.

As we have already stated in the Committee for the Defense of the Land, N-VA won for the voluntary military service. I have cited it a few times, Mr. Minister, but yet our group has a point of criticism, in particular the financing of the voluntary military service for the first six months. This system makes a kind of micmak of the income and expenditure of social security, specifically with regard to the unemployment benefits and child allowance, as well as of the income and expenditure of Defence. A budget should clearly reflect the revenue and expenditure of each policy area. This makes control workable.

The mixed financing of the system makes things unnecessarily complex. One of the criticisms of our party, and also of many other parties, is that the living wage and other OCMW categories, which I describe as the Article 60'ers, cannot enter the system of voluntary military service.

It is not because you do not want to, Mr. Minister, because in the committee we noted that you have actually made efforts to realize this, and that you are also willing to continue working on it. However, there were reactions from the OCMW, the VVSG and the administration, which argued that the succession and regulation, including the allocation of powers, would be hopelessly complex.

In the committee, a number of colleagues expressed their concern that with this system two types of military personnel would be trained; a first-class directly passed and a second-class recancer. You have responded to this in the committee. However, I note that there will be different categories of volunteers who will receive the same training and perform the same tasks, but will be rewarded in a different way for the first six months.

Mr. Minister, this is a defensive measure that addresses a number of concerns. There is the current recruitment problem in defense, the age pyramid — which, as you said, has a belly — but there is also the social problem of youth unemployment. In addition, voluntary military service also has a social fulfillment. After the death of Joe van Holsbeeck, attempts have already been made to establish a kind of service of collective benefit to re-educate young people to some values. We find that back here too. We appreciate this.

There is, of course, a major difference with your predecessor’s collective utility service. In particular, your proposal addresses the demand for an activation policy. This system helps young people find a job. In your system of voluntary military service, the volunteers are actually guided to a career at Land Defense, which was not the case with your predecessor’s proposal.

I conclude, the design relating to the voluntary, military service is a valuable design for us. It is primarily intended to help the defense with a recruitment problem. Our group will approve this bill.

Mr. President, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the time is here, the interventions are quite quick but I found it important to take the time to discuss this bill on the voluntary military service.

It is strong about debating this project today as Belgium celebrates the hundredth anniversary of the introduction of compulsory military service, which came into force under a law signed in December 1909 by King Leopold II. This obligation saw millions of militiamen serve under the flags for often fluctuating durations, until its abolition in March 1995 when the armed forces were professionalized.

This law allowed the Belgian army to count some 255,000 men in 1914, at the beginning of the First World War. At that time, the duration of the service varied between 15 and 24 months. It is interesting to note, in the light of the current situation, that each province had to provide a precise number of recruits under a contingent voted annually by Parliament. I say this also to the attention of colleague Denis Ducarme, who is not there, in connection with the discussion on the completion of the transformation of the army.

Over the next 86 years, the duration of the service experienced fluctuations often related to the international situation. In 1920, after the First World War, it was quickly reduced from ten to 13 months, depending on the weapons, to fall to eight months in 1928, for some categories of militias.

In 1936, the period under arms went back to 12 months, or even 18 months for some classes of militias, and to 17 months for reserve-grade candidates.

In February 1947, the militias served for 12 to 15 months.

The post-war international tensions and the conflict in Korea lead to a new extension of the service to 21 months before a gradual reduction.

On 9 February 1995, the Council of Ministers decided to return to their homes, from 1 March following, all the militias still under arms, ending 86 years of military obligation for young people, even if only one in two performs his service then.

I find this little historical point very interesting because it highlights two elements.

On the one hand, whenever international threats increased, the duration of military service also increased and, on the other hand, the duration of military service decreased in peacetime until the day when the obligation was purely and simply abolished. As mentioned on the Defense website, in 1995, some considered the right time to reap the fruits of peace.

The Minister of Defense of the time, Karel Pinxten, decided to turn the page and released the last militias still under arms from their military duty. In a certain way, we could therefore say, Mr. Minister, that the existence of military service and its duration are related to the existence or not of threats to the country. In other words, ⁇ the minister you are considering strengthening and rejuvenating the state of the troops, because he has a will to strengthen our international commitments.

On the other hand, in 1995, despite the obligation, one in two young people no longer responded to the appeal. Since today military service is nothing more than voluntary, I fear that your hope of seeing 500 young people respond to the call in 2010 is nothing more than a pious wish. The new recruits will only receive a salary of 7 euros per day during the first six months, in addition to family allowances and unemployment.

A trade union official also quickly made known that "the new SVMI was first and foremost a budget economy operation"; I quote it. In fact, at present, the army incorporates in its ranks about 1,300 young people per year, paid 1,250 euros net, so 2,000 euros gross paid by the Defense monthly. Nearly 70% of these young people, according to official statistics, have already abandoned their careers within the first six months after their engagement. By removing 70% of 1,300, there are only 390 young people left, and you expect 500 by 2010. I have fears that we would not be able to do so, especially with the proposed salary of 7 euros per day instead of 1,250 euros net per month.

With the new military service, these months of salary, often paid for nothing, are replaced by a significantly less expensive system for Defense. Unfortunately, this is done on the back of social security.

One might be allowed to say, as you do, that the crisis will hit employment in full this year and that it is therefore important to preserve citizens from losing income. In this sense, the SVMI offers an opportunity and a chance that is often denied to them in the job market. Mr. Minister, I would have really wanted to be able to hold this kind of statement but what annoys me is the inequality in which these young people will be placed already in school or social detachment.

By the way, in a response to my colleague Hellings in the Senate, you emphasize the fact that the military who will enter through the SVMI will undergo the same professional training as the other military in the same category and performing the same function but, in your replica, you do not say that they will be paid 210 euros by Defense while their colleagues will earn 1 250, which is almost five times more.

The minister boasts that he has taken the most social measure of this government since 2007, which is actually an eminently social measure. First of all, if I were another member of the government, I would be shocked because it means – I address the socialist colleagues who remain – that the ministers Onkelinx, Courard, Delizée, Daerden, and even the ministers of the CDH, Ms. Milquet and Mr. Wathelet, together, were not able to take more social measures than that of voluntary military service. It is little to say!

I agree with the need to take the issue of young people dropping out of school or, more broadly, social dropping out, especially since employment is currently the first sector to suffer from the crisis.

But I can’t resolve myself to accept a half measure that will create a sub-statut for citizens that you want to make – I’m sorry to have to say, Mr. Minister – sub-soldiers.

Mr Libert listen carefully because I know that you have very much appreciated the words of the minister; he said that, I quote him: "Young people can integrate into a professional structure while paying attention to authority, discipline, individual responsibility, punctuality, civic sense, group spirit, mutual respect, self-respect, perseverance and work ethics."

This lyrical flight, Mr. Libert, is of no use if, in reality, the Defense personnel are not remunerated fairly and equally. Like the trade unions, one may wonder what authority those officers and sub-officials who have not been admitted on the basis of ordinary recruitment, on military personnel normally recruited may have.

This measure is so social that the Minister considered that RIS beneficiaries could not join the army because it would be too complicated to implement a measure in this area. I cannot resolve this, especially since other initiatives have been taken previously on the same subject and with the same goal, praiseworthy to say, of military service. I also cite the definition of military service that I have, once again, found on the Defence website.

“It wants to bring young people of different social classes and cultures closer together. It gives everyone a chance to discover their capabilities and limits and to understand what the word “solidarity” means.”

In 2003, a bill establishing a voluntary service of collective utility deposited in the House of Representatives was in this direction. As my colleague explained, Mr. Geerts, the 2003 bill resulted from the emotion caused by the murder of Jo Van Holsbeeck. The politicians had thought it was necessary to create a framework for structuring young people and that the Department of Defense was best equipped to offer not only this framework but also training for carpenter, driver, cook, etc. The aim was not to engage them in operations as such, in part due to certain aspects related to social security.

Furthermore, the starting point of the bill was also to render a service to society, a voluntary service of collective utility. Unfortunately, the collective utility service has not entered into force until now, as the law has remained without effect, having not been promulgated. In addition, there is also the possibility to engage in the European Voluntary Service, which is funded and promoted by the European Commission and which offers young people aged 18 to 30 the opportunity to volunteer abroad as part of a project proposed by a local association.

We also addressed this in the Defence Committee; there is the Voluntary Service for Development Cooperation created in 2006 and which allows young Belgians to gain professional experience in the field of development cooperation. To participate, you must be at least 20 years old, have a training with the CTB, pass a selection procedure but they are remunerated much more correctly than the balance of 7 euros per day proposed by the SVMI.

To conclude, I will address directly to the entire government, since the minister has not ceased to mean that he was the humble servant of the government agreement and that he stressed that all social measures were taken in consideration and in concert with all relevant departments and cabinets. In fact, this is a government bill and all opinions are unanimously positive.

Also, although you consider that you have taken the most social measure since 2007, I sincerely regret that the re-establishment of the voluntary military service is conceived only with the sole purpose of making savings at the level of the Department of Defense, as the rest of the plan of finalisation elsewhere, at the expense of future volunteers and, above all, without a real willingness to make it a springboard for a decent, sustainable and quality employment.

Mr. Speaker, Open VLD supports the Minister’s draft here, because it actually builds on a liberal idea. A few years ago, the liberal group in the Senate was the first to submit a bill in this sense. During his tenure, the Minister said that he would work on it, and we are therefore pleased that it is finally put to the vote here today.

For us, the bill is very important because it combines two things. First, it will help young people get out of unemployment, and second, it will help attract young people to join the army. The challenge will be, Mr. Minister, to make these young people carry out a meaningful task, to ensure that they remain employed in our military force, and, as I also said in the Commission, it is essential that you link the mixed career status to that.

So I hope that, as you promised during the discussion in the committee, we will conduct that debate in January. It is essential for the success of this bill, which finds its connection with the mixed career concept. I also said in the committee that it is really necessary to provide meaningful tasks, and to ensure that young people can take training that is valued in the private sector and beyond, so that they can also withdraw from the army when they need it, or when the army can no longer use them. I think that is essential for the success of the proposal, but we are absolutely in favor of this bill, Mr. Minister.

Mrs. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I would like to say in advance that it was impossible for me to speak a lot in the committee where this bill was dealt with last Friday morning, precisely at the time when the Social Affairs Committee was also convened. However, I think that from a social and labour market point of view, this measure, which includes food and drink, should also be considered.

In any case it allowed me, Mr. Minister, to ask you a few questions. I read the report with particular curiosity. I had also announced this. The questions I had then remain the questions I have today. A whole series of precise, punctual questions I have asked have not been answered. I want to use this debate to create some clarity.

Colleagues, in the argumentation of the bill we are talking about, of course, there is a lot to say about methods to combat unemployment and youth unemployment in particular. I think everyone is now convinced that it may be the biggest challenge for the coming months and years to tackle the rising youth unemployment. This rising youth unemployment manifests itself at slightly different rates in the different regions. We also see in Flanders, Brussels and Wallonia that the crisis strikes heavily and deprives young people of opportunities and discourages them on the labour market.

Mr. Minister, for that reason, every method is good and we are actually a lot positive about this idea, with the exception of the text itself. I have pointed out to you in the committee a number of technical problems, for example with regard to unemployment regulation. I think that young people should not be pushed into a kind of social mud where they are in trouble. This bill will be voted later as it has acquired the high urgency. The law will enter into force on 1 January. To this day, Mr. Minister, it is completely unclear in what social and labour legal position those young people will be in if they knock on the door of Defence.

Most of us know that job seekers have rights and duties and that young job seekers also have the duty, if they are in the waiting period or are entitled to benefits, to be permanently available to the labour market. They must be callable every day, they must be able to report, also to the RVA, that they are present on invitation from Actiris, VDAB or Forem. Otherwise, they risk their unemployment or guard allowance. If they can’t, they risk a penalty, as we check with the regularity of a clock in the Social Affairs Committee.

Mr. Minister, this is not arranged. You announce that there are a number of solutions regarding child allowance and other branches of social security. Your unemployment decision needs to be adjusted and there is no one at the moment who knows what arrangement is coming. When I question the Minister of Labour about this, she says that she is not working on writing a KB. You know that the unemployment regulation is regulated by KB and you may also know that it is regulated by a KB about which the social partners have their say in the management body of the RVA.

I pulled my ugly shoes and went to the members of the RVA management committee, but they know nothing.

Mr. Minister, if you make a vote on a law that attracts people, that wants to give people opportunities and perspectives to be integrated into Land Defense, first through training and then through employment, then you must also provide the assurance that people once they are engaged in the barracks, do not miss an appointment with an employer, the VDAB or the RVA and that they cannot be suspended as a result. This needs to be clarified urgently. I read in the report everything about the other branches of social security, but my questions regarding the KB on unemployment have not been answered. Nothing is arranged in this area.

Therefore, I fear that the good intentions could also result in bringing young people into a ⁇ vulnerable social position.

Secondly, Mr. Minister, I would like to refer to works that you should also know, namely the laws that all pass here on a drop. It has been in the news quite often. The clash between the Flemish and the federal government was precisely about massive support measures for young people, including low-skilled and middle-educated young people.

If I look at the categories from the KB about which there is so much to do, then I come in terms of description to the categories that you want to get tested at Landsförsvaring.

Why is the government not consistent and does not apply the rules to support youth employment, not to Defence? In that case, they get a contract, heavily supported through RSZ discounts and other support measures. That should ultimately result in a full-fledged employment contract, which costs little to Defence, opens up all social rights and offers longer-term prospects.

I think I already know the answer. Defence wants to recruit, but it must cost the department nothing, excluding the 7 euros. Who will pay those young people? What do they have to pay their rent and their food? It is obvious that the government, and you in particular, with your bill, look again at the new golden vein that the government parties have discovered, in particular social security. Everything can be done with social security. The KB on the activation of young people, which costs 250 million euros, and has been budgeted by the government, is at the expense of social security, just like your recruitment, Mr. Minister.

I will continue to repeat it, also with regard to the colleagues of the PS and ⁇ with regard to the colleagues of CD&V, who in the past showed quite concern about the means of social security. Now, they have proven it. Then it surprises me, however, that one comes up with one after the other bill, in which one draws nothing from the cost price for social security. Also with the present draft, young people are provided with a training in Defense for six months at the expense of social security, in the hope that they can recruit in this way.

By the way, there was a time when CD&V was busy with powers and emphasized that it was good to define what was to be paid with the federal budget and what was to be paid with the budget of the regions. As far as I know, it was her doctrine that everything related to training and vocational training was among the communities with the VDAB and education. Here, however, a training measure comes again at the cap of the social security. The new golden vein has been found and in a few years we will find that our social security system is no longer capable of fulfilling its obligations in the context of poverty reduction. We have had the opportunity to discuss poverty and homelessness with the Prime Minister this afternoon.

I will tell you, Mr. Goutry, what is going on. I invite you to read the thick book of the Court of Auditors, more specifically the section that zooms into the RVA budgets. The Court of Auditors criticizes the fact that it is no longer possible to get the RVA budget under control or only to get sight of it. If you want, I can read the entire page. There is a process going on that makes it impossible to get another picture that matches the truth, because the accounts of the RVA, which was formerly a model administration, are sometimes approved here only years later. This means that we will never see a budgetary carcan again. This flou artistique opens the door to all kinds of measures, such as the aforementioned, for which content may have something to say, but which are financed purely on the cover of the social security.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to emphasize a third point. I think this is the most strange. CD&V did not speak, according to the report. I have read what Mr. Flahaut and Mrs. Arena have said on behalf of the PS, Mr. Versnick and Mr. Ducarme. Well, everyone in the debate emphasized the need to offer that opportunity to the most vulnerable group of young people, namely the young people with a living wage. Everyone is convinced that this should be a necessary addition to the group as it is now defined. I really do not understand why this is not included in the legislation.

I refer to the words of praise of Mr Libert, colleague of MR, for the measure in question. He sees a huge advantage, namely that young people can integrate into a professional structure, focusing on discipline, personal responsibility, punctuality, citizenship, group spirit, mutual respect, self-respect, perseverance and work ethos. I think Mr. Libert is overly right. This is a huge challenge for a large group of young people.

Especially in big cities, we see that we need to work on this. The regional services are doing a good job there and the OCMWs are trying to do the same.

Mr. Minister, I don’t know if you know how many wage extractors there are today in this country, but we are the historical cap of the hundred thousand over. There are almost 113 000 living wage extractors. It is also seen that the number of young people who have to do with a living wage is growing twice as fast as the average. Thus, there is an increase of 20% on an annual basis among young subscribers. Especially in the cities, we can see a poor youth population that, for various reasons, does not have the right to a benefit and which very often faces what Mr. Libert described as a lack of work orientation, work ethos, discipline, and so on. Then I really do not understand that the group of living losers is excluded from your system, Mr. Minister.

There are still members who point out this and who may also be responsible to the OCMW, like Mr Versnick who may also see the problem very closely. They will also notice that there is a possibility there and also urge that this be settled quickly. There are several colleagues from the majority who insist on this. I have noticed that CD&V is missing in this story.

Then you should hear what the Minister of Land Defense proposes. He says that he will try to fix this, but that this is not possible now. The arguments for this are that there are many technical problems, that it is difficult and that there may be laws and decisions in the way. The words of the minister, which I read in the report, are: "The follow-up of that aspect is a task of the specialists in the cabinets and the respective ministers."

It is here that the laws are made. This Parliament decides whether or not subsistence losers are part of it. It is not in the cabinet that this is arranged, Mr. Minister. As a rule, in social legislation, if technical implementation decisions are required, the provision is registered in the law. In this case, for example, living losers should also be given that chance if they are under 26 years of age. These technical aspects are then regulated through KB and whether or not discussed in the Council of Ministers. It is here that decisions are made. It is here, and not in the technical working groups of the cabinets, that one must decide whether living wage workers are included or not.

Mr. Minister, the argument that it is technically difficult is a false argument. It is as if workers cannot be trained today. If you are familiar with the legislation on subsistence pay, you know that such training can even be required for subsistence payers within the framework of the integration obligation. There is also in the living wage law such a thing as living wage for people in training. I searched afterwards. Mr. Minister, at the moment there are 11,823 young people in this country who attend studies with a living wage. Therefore, the Living Wage Act explicitly provides that Living Wage Deprivers can enter training. Every OCMW chairman knows that he can compel living losers to be employed or to undertake training. The Living Wage Act is made for it. This is the result of the spring plan that was drawn up at the time.

The colleague apparently read the report, for which my sincere congratulations. However, you have been here all the time and you will read in the document that it was indeed intended to involve living-loaners in this. I asked myself about that. From the POD I hear that there was indeed a negative opinion from the Federal Advisory Commission for Social Welfare – which also represents the association of OCMWs – to write this here already. So from there it comes. We know all that. The Minister has committed to re-establishing a dialogue in order to engage the survivors in an orderly manner. All guarantees are there. So do not try to do these things here quickly with an amendment in an irresponsible way. It is of course your freedom of speech. You can rest assured to continue and repeat the same thing, but we have thoroughly discussed and discussed this in the committee. There is a formal commitment from the Minister to effectively examine how livelihoods can be involved in this system in a sensible and balanced way in consultation with the association of OCMWs. So I think that there are all guarantees that the goal you claim to pursue will also be achieved.

Thank you, colleague Versnick. I must invoke the report. I could not attend the committee until the end because a different bill was discussed at the same time.

I read what the Minister says. He responds to you and other stakeholders about the need to integrate OCMW-aided youth. He says that, according to the opinion of the experts on social security, this is almost impossible. The fragmentation of powers between the different levels does not make it easier. The Minister announces that he will provide the members with the report of the discussions with the social security experts.

I would like to see that report. I know the nature of this type of report. These are not the technical reports of consultative groups and management committees that must decide what a people’s representation should decide, in particular: who is to be helped forward with this law?

You and I and others advocate for the living wreckers. If the Minister says that he will try to settle that as soon as possible, then you will assume from me that our confidence in this matter is slightly less than yours.

Mr. Versnick, here are choices made. It is here that it is decided whether people are given opportunities or not. If it depends on the technicians, we will never get there.

The idea within Defence may be that they do not want to have too much to do with those problem youths because there is too much work on and it will not lead to additional discipline for the youth, but rather to chaos in our barracks.

That reaction also exists. As a defence expert, you have a better view of it than I do.

We must decide here whether with this law we will give opportunities to the weakest group that we see growing day by day. Subsequently, after the decision of the Parliament, leave the further development to the technicians.

Mr. Versnick, like you, I, as Chairman of OCMW, apply the Living Wage Act. The OCMW legislation is in these cases equally applicable as to an unemployed person. More even, it is easier to send young people with a living wage to an education than a unemployed. The latter is, in fact, at risk if, for example, in the context of this Volunteer Act, he would be unavailable on the labour market. The salary law allows that.

The difficulty is not in the technique. In this Parliament we must make choices. We must resolutely give opportunities to the thousands of young people who are now displaced in the subsistence systems.

Mr. Minister, I repeat that 11 823 young people today receive a living wage and are in training and training. Therefore, the problem cannot lie in this area.

My colleagues, the last point I would like to address is the following. If the government, on the initiative of the Minister of Defence, wants to contribute to the fight against youth unemployment, we can only be pleased. However, there will undoubtedly be young people whom some of you may think there is a corner away, but who would very much like to take an education. They, however, for all sorts of reasons or because of all sorts of principles Defence is not interested.

Mr. Minister, if the government and the masses want to mobilise social security resources to give young people opportunities for training and employment, it must also give them the opportunity to use the same social security resources, for example in the humanitarian aid sector, in the volunteer work – there is a lot of volunteers in our society – or as additional assistance in the healthcare sector. I have read that in order to work in the healthcare sector, one must have a diploma. This is mostly true for certain functions and not for others. We can discuss this for a long time, Mr. Minister.

I once belonged to a small group of young people who did not perform military or civil service, but were exempted for moral reasons. Other members of the Chamber have performed community service or civil service. In other words, even today there are young people who deserve opportunities and who should also be able to resort to the aforementioned, massive funds from the social security. These resources should be complemented by a specific scheme for the regulation of unemployment to be created, so that the target group can also become occupational in other, key segments of society and complete a training with a job.

The minister said he was the first. I read between the lines that there is a course in the government. It is a pity that the aforementioned proposal has not been adopted. It would be good, however, if social integration was also involved. We talked about the homeless people. Aid organizations are needed. Why can’t young people be involved? Why should youth be used solely in defence?

Mr. Minister, I know why. You want to recruit for your Defence in a very cheap way, namely on the cover of the social security. You want to bring young people into a very unclear position today. There is no regulation if a candidate is unemployed. He or she can be sanctioned. If one participates in foreign missions, one risks even tougher sanctions.

Mr. Minister, it would have been better if everything had been arranged in an orderly manner.

It would have been better if the voluntary military deployment had been formulated in accordance with the newly adopted laws, in which young people can get training contracts and later fixed contracts, whether or not supported by regular funds.

That is exactly what we advocate. From our pragmatism, which we also want to highlight in this dossier, we strongly urge that we all choose not to exclude young people with a living wage, but to include them.

Mr. Minister, colleague Boulet of Ecolo has already given a very detailed explanation. She has also outlined the historical history of things and demonstrated that your proposal does not fall out of the air, but has a certain past. However, I would like to give a short supplement. I will focus on two specific aspects.

Let me begin by saying that the principle of voluntary military service is not bad. It can be a lever to rejuvenate and dynamize the army and thus it can be a creative solution. There is one but. Even though the principle is good, the effect is much less good. First, in your plans, young people who engage in voluntary military service can be sent on foreign mission after a year of training. You have confirmed this in the committee. As you choose to engage in increasingly high-risk military operations abroad – you have admitted that, because you want to gain the credibility of our country within NATO and therefore want to participate in more military operations – I think that measure is not so sensible.

The safety of those young people may be endangered, given your military policy to engage in increasing numbers of military operations with a yet very high risk. You just decided to send additional troops to Afghanistan to train Afghan army units there. We all know, in the meantime, Hillary Clinton includes, except ⁇ you, who is the only one who does not want to admit, that Belgian soldiers who will train Afghan troops will also fight on the ground.

This is of course accompanied by a certain risk. That is my first point of severe criticism, Mr. Minister. It is also a first reason why our group will not approve the draft. Indeed, it does not benefit the safety of our people, of our soldiers, of the young people who enroll in the voluntary military service.

Second, you want to sell the scheme as a very social measure. Previous speakers have already said that you forget, exclude, an important category, namely young people who are entitled to a living wage.

Mr. Minister, if this really were a social measure, you would provide a broad training for young people who participate in such a voluntary military service. These are young people who are often low-skilled, have no or low degrees, who have difficulties in the labour market and who therefore need to be upgraded and have additional opportunities to enter the labour market.

However, not all young people who will participate in voluntary military service will remain in the army. So if you really mean it with your social mission, with your social mission, then you would give those young people a broad education, such that they could better armed – if I can use that term here – end up on the private labour market. This is not the case here.

Collega Vautmans is no longer in the hall, but she just said that she assumes that these young people will receive a broad education and more. Well, that is not so. Mr. Minister, you have explicitly stated – that is also stated in the document – that these young people will receive the same training as any professional military. That training will therefore be limited to military, which will prevent the young people in question from getting better armed on the private labour market.

There is no social measure. It is a strict military order. Again, there is a wonderful opportunity here to make something out of that voluntary military service, because I repeat, the principle is good, but your effect is that much less. This is also the reason why we will vote against.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, we support your project that continues, in addition to the military objectives to improve recruitment, to palliate the problems of attraction within your department and improve the age pyramid, a goal of bringing young people closer to the life of society in the broadest sense and integrating young people into the world of work. In addition, it proceeds from the same state of mind that led us, a few years ago, to file a bill concerning a voluntary citizen service.

Mr President, very briefly. I would like to request the advice of the State Secretary for Social Integration regarding our amendment aimed at allowing livelihoods in this department as well.

I would like to thank all the speakers.

I will answer several questions asked by several colleagues. I see that the problem of the OCMWs remains. It would indeed have been a good thing if livelihoods could also be eligible for the voluntary military deployment, but this was unfortunately not possible for many reasons. It would be good to read the committee report on this subject again.

In this regard, I will repeat three important elements without excluding that it will not be possible in the future that livelihoods through the OCMWs would also be eligible for voluntary military deployment. I repeat that this is not an additional categorisation of a military status, but an additional gateway for starting a military career.

Collega Bonte and several other colleagues have asked for the contract. You know that in defence there is no contract as it is in the private sector. Neither is one recruited as is the case in the broad branches of the civil service in this ⁇ beautiful country. In the case of defence, a service contract is signed. This is a very special agreement that applies only to military service, including voluntary military service.

Regarding the survivors, the following. It’s not just about the 7 euro soldier in that first six-month period. I know that something is being done narrowly on this. This amount, however, comes on top of it and I think I can say that after a period of six months that 7 euros can still produce a significant sum that works very encouraging. In the margin, I would add that, without the law already being applied, 880 persons — roughly balanced between the different language roles — have registered to join the system of voluntary military deployment.

In this Chamber, therefore, certain persons are apparently putting up greater obstacles than those who are eligible for it, in the various categories.

In short, I made the proposal. Colleague Versnick has referred to this. I do not exclude it, but the issue of pay is not just about soldij, because that soldij is also combined with a number of other benefits, such as free food, housing, transport and a number of other things. They ensure that the soldier is calculated differently than the benefit you receive through the living wage. If we simply gave the living wage workers the opportunity to enter the system, the soldij would even be deducted from the living wage granted to them by their respective OCMW. I did not invent it. I can only assert this from the negotiations conducted with the OCMWs.

Then there was a practical problem. The OCMWs have informed me through their spokesmen and stakeholders that it is impossible for them, taking into account the many tasks they already have, to continue to follow the obligation of succession, which would also apply to a survivor who would be engaged through the voluntary military deployment at Landsförsvaring. It was said that it was material and organizational impossible.

I would like to make a small comment on an important issue. It is not the case that the voluntary military deployment takes place on the back of the social security, for the very simple reason that the entire problemology of the call and of a number of other matters is no longer applicable, because one would be lifted out of the system in which one sits as a survivor, if it were already applicable. Even if one still falls under the system of child allowance or of another benefit, one is pulled out of it and one comes to Landsverding for the first six months and is thus also paid.

Regarding the comments of colleague De Vriendt, I can tell you that the training is twenty-four months and that during that period one is not sent to a military operation abroad. That may not convince you to vote for the draft, but I would like to continue.

You talked about training, the broad education. Well, I know no sector — formerly the spiritual orders and monastery orders were good for it, unfortunately few inhabited in these times — where one receives a full training for twenty-four months and from the first day one begins to the last day of the twenty-fourth month.

If you want all the specifications in this regard, I recommend you read the report. This applies to the three categories, namely the category of candidate-volunteer sailors, the category of sub-officials and the category of officers. This argument is neither side nor shore. Training is ⁇ well balanced during this period.

I would like to thank Mr Wiaux for the support.

I would like to thank our colleague Brigitte Wiaux for her support for the project that we will vote on very soon.

I would also like to return to the proposals and suggestions made by Ms. Boulet. You also mentioned that this was an operation that was carried out on the back of the social security. Of course, this is not the case for the reasons I have just explained. In addition, as shown in the table, this is a voluntary military engagement. So, for all those who registered on Monday morning and get up on Thursday or Friday morning saying that this voluntary system is not suitable for them, three days are enough for them to leave the voluntary military service and return to the system we just left. I will therefore not speak of a forced system, as you have somewhat intended to describe it.

I would also like to thank Mrs. Vautmans and Mr. Versnick for their support for this proposal.

I totally agree with the analysis she made. These must be meaningful tasks. The tasks are described. They must be able to have an employment aspect within Defence, but also outside. It is not dishonest to say that this proposal can be addressed to young people who after 12 or 24 months want to orient themselves for another job in the public or private sector. The point of reciprocity is also ⁇ important.

As I said in the committee, an evaluation of the mixed track concept will take place. That is a law, of which many things have already been realized, but which contains one point for which I personally do not feel so, namely the point of orientation. This is a technical discussion. After two proposals and the rejection of a third proposal, one would automatically be removed from Defense. We can talk about this in January.

Mr. Minister, I think I have answered most of the comments. I hope that as many colleagues as possible will support the project.

I don’t understand how Mr. Verherstraeten and Consortiums applaud so loudly. Mr. Verherstraeten, you are a member of the ACV and you applaud the fact that people are now working for 7 euros soldij per day. You applaud the moment that youth unemployment is a major problem. You applaud the fact that the waiting lists in healthcare, foreign affairs and development cooperation are no longer important. You are now applauding to work for 7 euros in the army.

You just have to do it, to applaud for it. You continue to defend that. That goes beyond my mind.

We have said in the past that there is a difference between this voluntary military deployment and the service for the collective benefit. We wanted to give a social added value, to educate people, to give people a grip.

You will continue to defend this cheap recruitment. Now imagine that tomorrow in our region Janssen Pharmaceutica says that one wants to recruit through an employment program but that one wants to recruit people for seven euros during the first six months. Ladies and gentlemen, I want to see what your answer will be. I am very curious about this. Minister De Crem can realize that, you defend that. Mr. Verherstraeten, I find it scandalous that you applaud this proposal of Mr. De Crem here.

Mr. Minister, you have answered almost all questions, for which we thank you. You say that it is material and organizational impossible to allow living wage workers to the system at this time. You give two arguments, namely that when one gets an additional seven euro soldij this normally should be deducted from the living wage and secondly that the OCMWs find that they have too much work. Therefore, it is materially and organizationally impossible to allow living wreckers. Mr. Minister, if you let yourself disembark with this, I predict that you will never get them in. It is sufficient simply to release the soldij as you exempt the child allowance in the living wage system. People who earn a living wage also get other benefits in addition to that sometimes. This can also be perfect here. It must be legally exempted.

The question of Mr Geerts regarding the advice of the State Secretary of Integration is relevant. If it is indeed the case that the OCMWs today do not know what to do with the work, then this also has to do with the fact that we get a budget here at the same time that is zero euro extra for the OCMWs. As I try to follow the practice of the social workers in my OCMW, I would like to add that the OCMW will find highly motivated employees if they can give young people the perspective that they will receive training with a possible follow-up on employment. That cannot be the argument. There will undoubtedly be those who say they can’t take that along. I tell you, in the belly of the OCMWs, the social assistants who point the way to a difficult group of young people and with very much pleasure will work half an hour or an extra hour a week to guide them.

The issue is that we must make the choice here. Do not leave it to the technicians to inventory all kinds of difficulties. Let us resolve them here. The social choice we have to make is whether we open the system to that vulnerable group.

A second question to which neither Minister Milquet nor Minister Onkelinx will answer is how it is with the unemployment regulation that needs to be adjusted. If you do not adjust it, you will chase those 880 people who are now knocking at the door of Land Defense to enter that system, as well as the many tens or hundreds or maybe thousands who will follow, into legal uncertainty. I think no one in this hemisphere has that in mind.

Mr. Minister, I thank you for your answers, but this bill is not only unaccountable for the reasons previously cited by the previous speakers, more specifically colleague Bonte, but also because you admit that you will not give the young people who enter the voluntary military service a wider training than that which the professional soldiers receive. It is a missed opportunity, Mr. Minister, to better arm these young people so that they can start better on the private labour market later than before.

This is a bill that works in no way emancipating. On the contrary, it works narrowing and closing young people into that military career, although it cannot be assumed that all young people who enter voluntary military service also want to stay in the army.

Regarding the period after which young people can be sent to foreign missions, you speak of a period of twenty-four months of training. Well, I note that you contradict yourself, because in the committee you have repeatedly spoken about a year. That was what our criticism focused on. We will of course see what happens. We will evaluate this and closely monitor what is happening in practice.

I would like to join with the question of hearing the opinion of Secretary of State Courard on the fact that survivors are excluded from this policy measure. This bill is not social. The Secretary of State is in the hall. I would like him to answer the questions of the three colleagues and also express his appreciation.

I agree with Minister De Crem’s response. I have nothing to add at this hour.

Mr. Speaker, I will respond briefly. With regard to the OCMWs, I await proposals, as I said during the discussion in the committee. I think it would be a good thing if livelongers were also eligible to enjoy the system, if they possess the physical and other qualities.

Mr. De Vriendt, you also talked about the formation, but I think the formation is complete. You talked about entering, but I don’t think a course of religion should be taught during the twenty-four months of training.

With regard to operationality, this issue will be settled by KB. Also the matters relating to unemployment will be settled by KB, and I can tell you, Mr. Bonte, that the training during the first six months is considered as a formation, with a form C94 being drawn up.

The Government will not support the amendment submitted by colleague Geerts.

Finally, I would like to share that voluntary service is also possible at certain federal departments, including the Department of Development Cooperation.

What you say, Mr. Minister, about the broader education touches neither side nor side. You refer to KBs and you easily get rid of them, but you should not pretend that the decision on a wider education or not has yet to be made. The draft law already states that the training to be provided to the younger will be a military training, which purely corresponds to the training given to professional military personnel. Therefore, please do not be so distracted, and do not hang out the hypocrite here. You do not want to emancipate the young people, but you want to include them in a vocational military training, so that these young people will not increase their opportunities on the private labour market.

I would like to comment on what the Minister said about the extension to livelihoods.

I have a very concrete question for Secretary of State Courard. During the debate, your and other political groups have expressed concern about 11 000 young living-loaners who will be given the opportunity to follow this path. This is my amendment, Mr. Minister. We make a concrete proposal.

Mr. Secretary of State, it is sufficient to amend the royal decree governing the exemption for subsistence losers, to enjoy child allowance in addition to their benefit and to extend that to what is called soldij here. It is, in a way of speaking, half an hour of work. Are you and the government, however, willing to arrange this very quickly in order to make this combination possible, so that those tens of thousands, including many Wallish youth payers, have the prospect of training and employment in the army?

I agree with colleague Bonte. We have jointly submitted an amendment to Article 53. We ask Secretary of State Courard and the government to allow those living losers access to the army through the royal decree.

I ask the Secretary of State to respond positively to our question.

There is no such important debate as this at two o’clock in the morning. We will talk about it in the committee when you want. It is absolutely not serious to start a debate like this. You are not serious!

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out the following, in the first place for the attention of the Secretary of State, but equally with regard to the other members of the Government who find it apparently normal that a member of the Government does not respond to a specific question directly asked to him in Parliament, with the sole reason that it is two o’clock in the morning.

If we are still here today, Mr. Courard and members of the government, at two o’clock in the morning, it is because you have submitted to Parliament a bunch of documents that you want to vote on. If you do not find it necessary to debate it, I do not understand why we should vote on it. If it is not difficult for you to talk about it, I wonder why it would be difficult for us to vote on it.

I assume that Minister De Crem has responded. It happens already in the debate that a member of the government cannot immediately answer a question and that the answer is then communicated in writing.

Mr. Speaker, we are willing — I think I speak on behalf of the whole opposition — to have the meeting suspended until Mr. Courard is willing or able to come up with a response. Then we can vote properly, with the necessary information.