Proposition 52K2432

Projet de loi modifiant diverses lois applicables au personnel militaire.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅱ

Submission date

Feb. 12, 2010

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

armed forces military personnel

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

March 24, 2010 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a clarification from my bank. In the committee, Ms. Boulet wanted to obtain some clarifications; answers were provided.

The text was voted unanimously. For the rest, I refer to my written report.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mr. Minister, we are talking here today about a fairly technical bill, which amends several laws applicable to military personnel. In respect for the military community, I would like to go deeper into the five changes that this means for the military.

First, at the request of the parquet, the corpus stitch is reintroduced for less serious facts. Open Vld is satisfied with this I must honestly tell you, Mr. Minister, that the offenders felt that for less serious facts no longer was prosecuted, giving rise to a feeling that they could simply continue with such facts. I would like to thank you, because I think this change is a very good thing.

The second amendment concerns female soldiers. With this legislative amendment, we want to give female soldiers the same rights and protection as those of employees and public servants, especially with regard to maternity protection. I think, Mr. Minister, that this adjustment was absolutely urgently necessary in order to ensure legal certainty for female soldiers as well.

Third, colleagues, the bill clarifies the terms of appointment for the position of Director of Academic Education of the Royal Military School and the vacancies for teaching staff. Those who follow the Department of Defense know that there has been a lot of heisa about the procedure and the terms of appointment. This law finally creates a legal framework and stops the pollution of the good image that education within Defence enjoys.

Fourth, the external mobility. I would like to go a little deeper into this point, Mr. Minister. The draft proposal encourages external mobility. So far, I have been very positive, Mr. Minister, even though you are not always so from me. Now I’m going to make a critical note, so now it’s getting serious. From this tribune I repeat my call that I have already made several times in the committee.

In 2007, Parliament adopted a proposal on mixed careers. You were against that, Mr. Sevenhans, it can be. Parliament and democracy have their rights.

Mr. Minister, I know that you were not in favour of this. Now that you have the position of Minister, you have not yet implemented that law. I have told you many times that you must be honest. If one wants the military to have a future, if one wants to pursue a healthy age pyramid, if one wants to re-evaluate the military profession, one needs that mixed career. Or you have another concept that will have the same effects. However, you do not have that.

I therefore ask you again from this tribune to work on the implementation of that approved draft.

For those who don’t know, a word of explanation. The question is that one is no longer military for life but that one enters into service for a limited period of time in the military force and there also performs all services for the motherland. Then one is revalued and can therefore easily transition to the public office and the private sector. Contracts are concluded with outsourcing agencies. The recognition of diplomas is also much easier. Steps have already been taken in the right direction, but not all of them have yet been removed. Mr. Minister, if we want to make the age pyramid healthy and re-evaluate the military office, we need the implementation of that law. I appreciate the small steps you take because they are good steps but I ask you once again to work on the implementation of the bill approved here.

Finally, the present draft correctly determines the amount of the unemployment benefit and the individualized program of professional conversion. I think this was also needed. With this bill – I look at Mrs. Claes who also followed it in the committee and for the rest I see here on Mr. Sevenhans after few colleagues from the committee for Land Defense – we are carrying out a number of reforms of the status of the military who are absolutely necessary if we want to make it more flexible and make it fit into the modern society.

Mr. Minister, in all these aspects, Open Vld will support the bill tomorrow at the vote. I look forward to your response on when we will work on the implementation of the mixed career status.

Mr. President, Mr. Vautmans, I have listened to your presentation, and I will therefore not repeat what is included in this draft. It has a global and positive approach.

A specific question was asked regarding the GLC, the design of the mixed career concept. In other circumstances, I, along with a number of colleagues, have remembered that GLC, if my memory is correct.

That design of GLC, from mixed career concept, is an important design. I assume that there are no insignificant designs in this Room. It is of course true that since the adoption of this draft the timeline, the general budgetary but also the general context in which Defence is located, have changed fundamentally.

However, I would like to emphasize that a ⁇ important aspect of the GLC has been fulfilled. This has to do with everything that has to do with the pension system. We have already been able to discuss this in the committee.

Regarding a number of other aspects, I believe that many of the options of the GLC have already been realised through the measures put forward by the reform plan. The options are the same, we have to have a smaller military force, we have to have a more performing military force, we have to have a good recruitment, we have to have a guidance path and what I know all.

There is one big point – that discussion we should actually have again in the committee – that I did not like in the GLC design, namely the orientation point. When after a number of proposals one did not intervene, this effectively led to resignation from the military force. Given the new evolution we know, it is no longer appropriate to do so.

A number of things have been realized. The GLC is what it is. It contains some good things, but the time perspective is now different. However, I am willing to talk about this.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, you said that you abstained. It may be, but the Chamber has approved the design. You are the executive power, we are the legislative power. I still assume that the executive will respect the legislature and that you will implement an approved draft, otherwise you will have to propose a legislative amendment. Then you have to say what you want to change to the GLC. I have heard you say for two years that you will take steps in that direction, but that only the orientation point is not. correctly

I am very much in the field with soldiers. It is still hoped that you will still let go of your resistance to the GLC and that you will do so. It was approved by a majority in the House. In my opinion, it is absolutely necessary, especially with the transformation plan regarding the infrastructure you have now implemented, that you take the necessary steps to revaluate the military personnel.

I would like to talk about some details of the draft, but that must also be done in Parliament and then the law needs to be amended. However, simply saying that you are moving in the same direction, without doing anything about it, I can’t agree with that. I plan to come back on this weekly if necessary. I think we need this design.

I asked you gently. I ask something louder. If necessary, I can ask even louder. Work on that, Mr. Minister, because we cannot do without the GLC for the rejuvenation of our age pyramid. I am very serious about this.

You say there is a problem with pensions. That is why it took so long before a draft was made, because at that time we had very long negotiations with the Minister of Pensions. I have participated in all those negotiations. Tell me what the pain points are and come up with a design to solve those pain points. Just leaving a design and not executing it is unacceptable for me.

Mrs. Vautmans, when it comes to the GLC statute, I definitely feel addressed. I’ve managed to stop it alone for two months and I’m still very proud of it. It is your full right to say that you are in favour of the GLC statute, but you must be so honest to say that there are questions about how it came about. You forgot to mention that the largest military trade union was also opposed at the time. You also know that the views of the colour trade unions on this today are more nuanced. You look at it very unilaterally.

I think the Minister acted correctly. Especially the orientation point was a very controversial point. If you are honest, you should also admit that it came down to being thanked after giving the ten best years of his life to the Armed Forces. This is definitely not an argument to motivate anyone to join the Army. As long as that point is not changed, the Minister will justify the GLC statute for what it is.

Mr. Minister, you replicated in globo?

and yes.