Proposition 53K2020

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 27 mars 2003 relative au recrutement des militaires et au statut des musiciens militaires et modifiant diverses lois applicables au personnel de la Défense.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Jan. 26, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

recruitment armed forces military personnel military training teaching linguistic group

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

VB

Abstained from voting

∉ N-VA LDD

Party dissidents ¶

• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) abstained from voting.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) abstained from voting.
• Damien Thiéry (MR) abstained from voting.
• Stefaan Vercamer (CD&V) abstained from voting.

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 8, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. Minister De Crem said in his general introduction that there are three important elements in the draft law.

First, there is a new way of recruiting. The department hopes to bring in more low-skilled people with the new classification method.

Secondly, the appeal procedure for the recruitment is abolished because it is then without object.

Thirdly, it is now stated in advance that tattoos or piercings that could pose a danger in military operations cannot.

The floor is then given to the members. First, I ask the Minister whether there was a trade union consultation on the bill. The Minister responds affirmatively that the consultation took place at the end of 2009 and adds that the amended recruitment procedure for low-skilled will enable a better influx, which is good news.

Subsequently, Ms. Ponthier makes the following comments. As regards the language system, she considers that the Minister has too much autonomy to recruit outside the language system. The deviations are too broad according to her group. Its group on the nationality requirement for military candidates also submits an amendment.

Then followed a discussion on the provisions of the bill on members of extremist associations. Ms. Ponthier asks what definition is used for this.

Ms. Ponthier submits two amendments. The first amendment concerns the derogation from the language requirements. I think I have understood that the amendment will be submitted again in the plenary session. I suppose Ms. Ponthier will explain it later. The second amendment concerns the conditions of nationality. This is also again under vote and I assume that Mrs. Ponthier will explain it later.

Then Mr Maertens, like Mrs Ponthier, intervenes on the language conditions, and on the fact that candidate volunteers can no longer apply for multiple vacancies. Like Ms. Ponthier, he asks what the definition of “extremist movements” is. He also speaks on the professional committee and on the EU citizens.

The proposed amendments were rejected. The whole bill was adopted unanimously, with the exception of Mrs. Ponthier’s abstinence.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the bill that is being discussed today is actually filled with a number of provisions aimed at improving the recruitment and selection process. Of course, our group also supports all initiatives undertaken to facilitate the recruitment and selection process. Some of the provisions can therefore ⁇ count on our support, such as the provisions relating to applications for a vacancy in the same category of staff or the introduction of the psychometric model as a classification method for the applicant-volunteers.

However, in some provisions our group cannot find itself. I recently mentioned this in the committee. I use this opportunity to give some explanation. A first provision with which our group has a problem is the provision in Article 4 of the draft. The purpose of the article is to be able to deviate from the general rule that binds a recruitment session to a particular language system. It is intended that exceptions may be provided for by opening a vacancy without establishing a language system, where a special recruitment is required to fulfill a very specific need and belonging to a particular language system is subordinate to the technical qualities.

The proposal is as follows: “The Minister may, however, refrain from determining the language system of the vacancies of a special recruitment recruitment session if he considers that the limited number of vacancies of that session justifies it.”Our group may, in principle, support the proposed amendment, given the need for a specific position, but you must still admit, Mr. Minister, that the provision can create precedents that raise questions. You gave in your explanation a number of examples for which the modification could be used, such as a physician-specialist and a musician, but in fact the functions are not delineated at all. In principle, the amendment, according to the legislative text, can be applied to all functions.

Mr. Minister, we would like to give you the advantage of the doubt, but of course you will not remain eternal Minister of National Defense.

Honesty commands us to say that our group has slightly less confidence in a possible French-speaking successor. Here arises the question of what is the criterion on the basis of which a minister judges whether the situation justifies such an exception. This is nowhere defined. The opening of a vacancy without establishing the language system constitutes an exception. This is stated in your explanation, but we do not find that back in the legislation. We therefore submit an amendment in the committee that stipulates that the Minister should, if necessary, justify his opinion in writing and submit for advice to the Standing Committee for Language Surveillance, which is responsible for controlling the use of languages in the military.

The second point concerns Article 7. With the relevant article, you want to expand the recruitment field. As a first amendment, you would like to amend Article 8 of the Basic Law, which deals with the status of candidate-military. The wording stating that a candidate military must be Belgian or citizen of a Member State of the European Union would be changed to "Belgian or citizen of another Member State of the European Economic Area or of the Swiss Confederation". In this regard, the Council of State considers that that provision is incompatible with Article 10(2) of the Constitution. Only Belgians are eligible for civil and military service. The Constitution therefore restricts access to the military force to persons with the Belgian nationality. As I have already stated to you, the State Council has already pointed out this in the past, in particular in 2002 and in 2006, following the amendment of the law on the status of the military personnel of the active framework of the military force.

In order to carry out the draft that is now underway, you should in principle first amend the Constitution. But what do you say? You say, “Oh, that Constitution, what is it? We do not follow the Council of State and implement the provisions we want. Therefore, you simply put the opinion of the State Council aside.

Your predecessor, House Speaker Flahaut, did the same in 2007 when amending the law on the status of military personnel. He also rejected the opinion of the State Council. Our group submitted an amendment. We will do it again soon, as in the committee, because we are consistent. What is revealed? Mr. Minister, you also submitted an amendment in 2007 and then followed the Council of State. You submitted the same amendment as the Flemish Interest.

I have it here with me. This is amendment No. 23 of the gentlemen De Crem and Kelchtermans. You then opposed your predecessor, Mr. Flahaut, and you now do exactly the same as he did then. In the committee, you ask to vote against your own amendment. Mr. Minister, that is at least strange and ⁇ not consistent.

As for this provision, we will also submit our amendment again. Again, we ask to remove the words in question. Therefore, we request that only persons with Belgian nationality be admitted to the military force. In this regard, we differ in opinions with the other opposition party, the N-VA.

Last but not least, the provision that includes the possibility to have candidate military personnel screened for their possible membership in so-called extremist movements. This would be done on the advice of the Staff Department Intelligence and Security, on the one hand on the basis of the list of applicants and on the other hand on the basis of the list of members of extremist movements. Such membership would, as you motivate in your design, conflict with the rights and duties of any military. The person concerned shall not engage in any activity contrary to the Constitution and to the laws of the Belgian people.

During the committee, I requested the following additional information on this subject. What are these extremist movements? Is there a list of these? In the past, this has always been denied by the Ministers of Justice or turned around the pot. On a question from our group in a previous legislature, the then Minister of Justice explained how the concept of extremism should be precisely defined. The answer was as follows, and I quote from the questions and answers of February 12, 2001: “The concept of extremism is understood as follows: racist, xenophobic, anarchist, nationalist, authoritarian or totalitarian views or intentions, regardless of whether they are of a political, ideological, confessional or philosophical nature.”

Colleagues, you have heard it right, it is nationalist views regardless of whether they are of a political nature. I then asked if this also concerns membership of a political party that threatens the Belgian regime. You suggested that I ask this question to your colleague, the Minister of Justice, Mrs. Turtelboom. I did this yesterday. She replied that there are indeed lists listing so-called extremist movements. This is a premiere and we are delighted to finally hear this news.

The Minister adds that that list may only be used internally and that it is updated annually by the Minister of Home Affairs, following the advice of the State Security and the Department of Defense. She also replied that this list, under privacy legislation, should not be used in the screening of candidate military personnel.

Our group asks how you respond to such a provision in your bill. What use does it have to take over the provision at all if your own government partner says that you are legally prohibited from implementing the provision?

We want to help you. Recently I heard that everyone has the right to a second chance to come to understanding or to repentance. We submit an amendment asking to clarify this specific provision from the draft. They are superfluous, so you better leave them away.

In our view, your bill is linked with heads and eyes. There is a contradiction with the State Council and it is even illegal in some areas. Therefore, you understand that our group cannot approve this draft.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the present bill is essentially very good. It could provide a solution to the current shortage of candidate volunteers, the soldiers, especially in Flanders. With the draft law, Defence aims to introduce a better and more efficient recruitment specifically for that applicant-volunteer. The so-called psychometric model focuses more on competencies than on the applicant’s pure intellectual potential. That is a good thing. This has also been emphasized by all the political groups in the committee.

In principle, I would not even intervene today. I was curious to look at the report of the Justice Committee yesterday. Colleague Ponthier has already cited it so I fear for you that I will fall into repetition a little bit. I do it anyway, because the screening of applicants for membership of so-called extremist movements is a very relevant discussion. When we read the bill, at first glance, we see little problems. As a condition that the applicant must meet, the following is stated: "If applicable, no negative safety advice may have been given by the Staff Department of Intelligence and Security, ADIV, delivered on the basis of a safety verification in accordance with the law of 11 December 1998" and so on.

In itself there is therefore not immediately a problem, but in your explanatory memory it is very explicit that Defense for the screening of applicants will place the list of applicants next to the list of existing extremist movements. This already raises a few more questions. We have already talked about this in the committee, and then I asked you what those movements are. I would like to know. You referred then to your colleague of Justice and to Committee I. Of course, we will let our people ask the question there.

In her response to the oral question of colleague Ponthier, Minister Turtelboom says very clearly that those lists exist and that they cannot be used in the screening of candidate-military candidates under the privacy legislation, and that the list is intended only for the purposes of the civil police. I have a lot of questions, Mr. Minister.

I think there are two possibilities. Minister Turtelboom says that what you include in your memorandum of explanation with your bill is illegal. Or you and Defence do not know that this practice, which – let us be honest – has been ongoing for years, is not legal and then the memory of explanation must at least be adapted to the reality and to the legality. Either you and Defence know that what you propose is illegal and then you enter the path of illegality.

Mr. Minister, it is one or the other. I propose that this bill be withdrawn and submitted to the committee for discussion once you have reached agreement in the government on what is and is not legal.

Mijnheer de voorzitter, geachte collega’s, ik wens de heer Geerts te bedanken voor zijn verslag, alsook de heer Maertens en mevrouw Ponthier voor het commentaar bij dit wetsontwerp.

A new classification model is introduced for the volunteer candidate. In this new model, intellectual potential is no longer the decisive criterion. The applicant’s approval will now result from the comparison of the applicant’s skills profile with that required to successfully complete a training cycle.

It is therefore important to point out that the abolition of the appeal procedure against a decision relating to the award of a vacancy in this category of staff is the result of the change in the allocation method in which the aspect of consultation is completely removed. Furthermore, a provision is added that allows to avoid a applicant from applying on the day of his enrollment with tattoos or piercings that pose a danger in the use of military equipment and equipment or that could undermine the honor or dignity of the state as a military.

Then there are a number of specific questions raised by Ms. Ponthier and Mr. Maertens. I would like to refer first to the membership of extremist movements, to which Ms. Ponthier and Mr. Maertens have referred. Security, order and discipline remained central to these considerations. You will agree with me that no extremism can be tolerated in the ranks of the Belgian Defense. Ms. Turtelboom, the colleague of Justice, gave several answers on this subject yesterday in the Committee for Justice. Today I will make some additional considerations that accompany this.

There is confusion about lists. For all clarity, Defense will not rely on lists of Homeland Affairs compiled for the purposes of administrative police. On the other hand, intelligence services, within the scope of their tasks, of course, inform themselves about organization, organizing and organizations and about the objectives and activities of extremist groups and their members. That is what it is about here. I have no need to make confusion about this. As regards the access to classified information, I should refer to the existing legal arrangements in this regard. As regards the opinions received, I refer to the parliamentary dossier that we have been able to discuss abundantly in the committee.

The new provision on defence applicants takes into account the opinion of the Law Division of the State Council, which examined the legal basis, competence and formalities to be fulfilled in advance, as well as the protection of privacy as guaranteed in Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and in our national law.

Furthermore, an important guarantee is that even in the implementation of this power by the legislator, the General Intelligence and Security Service will be supervised by the Permanent Committee for Supervision of the Intelligence and Security Services, which, as you know, is accompanied in its tasks by a specific Senate Committee.

Given its specific mandate and the usual meeting mode, this Senate Committee is the appropriate forum to monitor the implementation of this new provision. I refer to the exceptional provisions in the privacy legislation that will not be unknown to you.

I repeat my suggestions concerning the extremist movements, which I have put forward in the Committee for the Defense of the Land, although I think I can say that they do not constitute an insurmountable problem within the Defense, neither in terms of presence nor in terms of qualification.

A number of questions were asked by colleagues Maertens and Ponthier. The first concerned the prohibition for a candidate to apply in a number of personnel categories. I do not know whether Mr. Maertens wants me to give an explanation on this subject.

I can say something that was not mentioned in the committee. We talked about the psychometric model. I would like to add some points relating to the abolition of the appeal procedure against a decision to allocate a vacancy.

The abolition of the appeal procedure against the decision to allocate a vacancy was motivated by the fact that there are currently sufficient remedies for all tests passed by applicants within the framework of the application process.

It is about revision and re-testing, so that an appeal against the final decision on the allocation of a vacancy is no longer necessary. Appealing to the State Council remains, of course, still a possibility.

The number of appeals filed against the decision to allocate a vacancy is shown by the following figures. In 2008, there were three officers, eleven sub-officials and twenty-seven volunteers. In 2009, there were another officer, six sub-officials and three volunteers.

There are very few professions that have led to a revision of the decision to allocate a vacancy. That was an average of 0.15% over four years. For 2011, for example, no appeal gave rise to this.

This demonstrates that the remedies existing after each trial and established during the recruitment process are full-fledged alternatives.

Finally, I will come to the recruitment and attraction of foreign military personnel. In the committee and today in the plenary session, questions were raised on this subject regarding the numbers. Since 2004, the number of non-Belgian applicants, citizens of the European Union, recruited by category of staff has been on average 3 recruits per 27 applicants for officers, 3 recruits per 28 for sub-officials and 19 recruits per 133 for volunteers. Most non-Belgian applicants, citizens of the European Union, come from neighboring countries such as France, the Netherlands, Germany or the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, followed by Italy, Spain and Portugal. We work here, of course, with the law of small numbers.

The existence of the language tests on the second national language makes the number of recruitments for an officer and sub-officer vacancy very small. Non-Belgians, citizens of the European Union, represent historically 2 to 4 % of applicants. As regards the departure during training, since 2004 an average of 55 % has been established for non-Belgian applicants, while the overall average is 43 %. Since it is a limited population, it is dangerous to draw conclusions or extrapolate from it.

I think, Mr. Speaker and colleagues, that I have here answered questions, comments and possible amendments regarding this draft law.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, here you give a more comprehensive explanation of some of the provisions listed in the draft. I would like to replicate what you say about the lists of extremist movements.

You clearly state here that you do not rely on lists drawn up by Internal Affairs. I heard yesterday from the Minister of Justice that those lists are determined after advice from, among other things, the State Security and the Defence Services. I wonder what you mean. Are you based on other lists? If yes, which one? I know that you, as Minister of Land Defense, cannot give details about the content of those lists. I have to be with your fellow justice officer. However, I would like to know if you are then based on other lists. After all, what you are trying to say now is very unclear.

I learned yesterday that there are lists and that they should not be used to screen candidate-military. I heard this from your colleague.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I thank you for your reply. I naturally agree with you when you say that security should be central and that extremists have no place in the army. and perfect! We fully support this.

Organizations or members of organizations such as Blood & Honour, Sharia4Belgium and the like, do not belong home in the army. However, there are a lot of wild, but also persistent rumors that the list also includes membership of political parties, even to the local department of the Davids Fund. I don’t know if that’s true; I just ask you.

You say yourself that defence own list is used, that defence is not used by the police. Daarbij vraag ik mij af why u zich achter de umbrella verstopilt in why u de lijst met verenigingen die daartoe behoren, niet wilt geven. As it is, however, an internal document of work instrument of Defence is, then it would be dated as a minister of Defence problemless must be able to overhandigen. In de commissievergadering hebt u even gezegd dat u niet kunt bevestigen dat die lijsten zouden bestaan, while u er wel naar verwijst in uw wetsontwerp. Quod is no.

In my opinion, Defence and your bill only benefit from transparency on this matter. I think there is insufficient transparency. There is too much unclear, low-hanging cloud hanging over this bill, over that provision. I deeply regret that. I think this will not improve the quality of your legislative work.