Proposition 53K2871

Projet de loi modifiant l'article 41 de la loi sur la fonction de police du 5 août 1992, en vue de garantir l'identification des fonctionnaires de police et agents de police tout en améliorant la protection de leur vie privée.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

April 19, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

protection of privacy identity document police

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (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 27, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, the present bill was discussed at committee meetings in July and November 2013 and in January and March 2014. A hearing was also held in the Chamber on 11 February 2014.

The draft law ⁇ ins the general principle of identification of police officers during their activities. It avoids exposure to retaliation by replacing the name sheet with a number sheet in exceptional cases. This is a number with a maximum of four digits, preceded by the code of the police zone or the police service of the federal police. Also in the initial process-verbal, the person’s name will not be mentioned, but the identification number.

In this way, this bill seeks to unite two principles, namely the obligation of police officers to identify as a result of a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, on the one hand, and the principle of protection of the privacy of police officers, on the other.

The replacement of the name sheet with an identification number should remain an exceptional measure, according to the draft law. The draft law makes it impossible for police officers to remain completely anonymous during the exercise of their duties. There is also no denial that more and more police officers feel threatened or pursued after exercising their job.

During the hearing, all representative trade union organisations were given the opportunity to explain their views on this bill. In fact, they all have largely attached themselves to the content of the draft law.

On behalf of my group, I would like to say the following.

It is obvious that we are pleased with the current draft law. It is a small adjustment, but it does not fundamentally solve all problems. After all, there remains one problem. Although a police officer’s name or address was kept confidential by identification with a code, it is still possible to find out that name during the course of the judicial proceedings, if so desired. The anonymity of police officers, who sometimes come into contact with very dangerous criminals and mafia organizations, is therefore not fully guaranteed. That problem still exists and it will be up to the next government to fundamentally resolve it.

Therefore, the present design is a first important step. However, it does not fundamentally solve the problem; that requires deeper legislative work. Together with the Justice Committee, it will be necessary to examine how, including in the proceedings, the anonymity of certain police officers remains guaranteed under certain circumstances.

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, 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, After all, the first concern is the importance and safety of the population. In fact, it is intended to prevent criminals from appearing too easily as police officers. Just think of criminals who register as police officers in order to gain access to homes. By obliging the police officers to legitimize themselves, the citizen can be sure that it is indeed a police officer.

The second concern is guaranteeing the safety and the operability of the police officers. For example, as already outlined by the rapporteur, it may be necessary to replace the identity card with an identification number in order to protect agents from possible retaliation following their actions. We can also find ourselves here.

However, we have some legal misconceptions in the design. This bill also has a special history. It was originally a proposal from the colleagues of the MR, submitted to the Senate, where it was approved a year ago. Then it came to the Chamber, where it soon became clear that the majority was in fact divided. The discussion of this draft has been delayed several times. It was a painful scene when Senator Deprez sat in vain on the podium waiting for the approval of his proposal.

On March 11, it suddenly went very fast. Despite the legalistic delusions, despite the suggestions in the hearings to accept amendments from Ecolo-Groen and the N-VA, this text had to be adopted very quickly. So we can already be sure that further improvements will need to be made in the future. Therefore, we will abstain from voting on this draft.

The European Court of Human Rights, established in 1949, is responsible for ensuring compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights.

In October 2011, the European Court of Human Rights was brought to a judgment on the case of a Bulgarian citizen victim, in his country, of beats and injuries suffered by clawed police officers.

In its Hristovi judgment, in the name of the victim, the Court condemned Bulgaria for violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and held that it should have been that these agents wear a distinctive sign that, while preserving their anonymity, allows subsequent identification as, for example, a registration number.

Making politics is not just considering legislation based on decisions made by supranational bodies. In any case, this is not my vision. Making politics, in my view, is also being in contact with citizens, field actors in order to relay their concerns.

Last year, police protested to express their anger over the violence they are sometimes victims of. They also informed us of the retaliation they suffer, under certain circumstances, which constitutes – let’s say it clearly – a form of harassment.

At that time, the Ministers of the Interior and Justice had committed to combating these facts by advancing a number of proposals. In particular, there was a commitment to guarantee the anonymity, under certain conditions, of police officers in the exercise of their duties.

In addition, hearing on the problem we are talking about was conducted in the Committee of the Interior, hearing which made clear the demand of police unions to be able to guarantee the anonymity of police officers in the exercise of their functions.

The bill we are invited to vote on is not the work of the government, but of senators from the MR group. Its main force is to make the synthesis between the possibility for citizens to identify the police officers who arrest them while guaranteeing the anonymity of police officers as long as no complaint has been filed against them. In doing so, the project helps to avoid any unnecessary risk of retaliation.

Currently, this problem is dealt with on the basis of royal arrests and circular dispersed in the regulatory arsenal. By voting on this draft, these provisions will finally be gathered in one and the same article of the law, namely Article 41 of the law on the police function.

Furthermore, the project incorporates the principle of identification in the law, which was not yet the case.

Note that the mention of the identification number will not be the usual practice. The nominative plaque remains the rule. However, the use of the identification number will be done in a very specific framework. Indeed, the previous arrangement already allowed to derogate from the obligation to wear the nominal plaque in certain circumstances but without providing for other means of identification. This proposal ends the possibility of total anonymity.

In addition, unless the circumstances do not allow it, police officers who intervene in civilian clothing against a person, or at least one of them, must wear a bracelet indicating, in a visible and legible manner, the intervention number of which they are holding. Currently, these brassards do not mention any information that identifies the police officers who wear them.

Dear colleagues, it seems clear to me that by speaking in favour of this project, we will meet our international obligations, while respecting the will of the field actors.

Finally, I cannot finish my speech – and I am sure that Mrs. Minister will share my speech – without paying tribute to Gérard Deprez, Senator MR, who carried, with all the will that is known to him, this law from the beginning of its legislative course to this day.

Police officers and, more generally, public service providers, especially those who try to guarantee the safety of citizens on a daily basis, are under great pressure. Your bill, which aims to better protect the identity and privacy of the police officer, aims to address this real problem. It is not just about policemen. Your own figures show that, for example, ambulances and shippers are also physically threatened. The families of those people can also be spotted and threatened by all sorts of criminals when the officials are identified. Therefore, a certain amount of anonymity is imperative, ⁇ in risk cases and among risk groups.

First, this bill has become a compromise. You said that in the committee. Certain partners in your own government did not want it to go so far. I have doubts about your bill. This is a compromise in Belgium. There are, of course, a lot of things that are not clear enough for us, and some things are not legally in order. So everything could actually be much better, a comment that we have, by the way, had to make several times in the last months and weeks in the Home Affairs Committee.

During the first meeting, you tried to convince the committees that you take the threat and pressure on police seriously. Therefore, within the framework of the “Violence against police” project, you have set up five working groups. well well . Two of them have already started their work and one has even published a number of recommendations. For the rest, we have heard bitterly little from you about those working groups or those working groups themselves. Do you have a view of the state of affairs?

Secondly, the principle that the police officer must be identifiable was laid down in this bill. The name sheet may, under certain circumstances and to be determined by the chief, be replaced by an intervention number. The term “specific circumstances” has gone far too far for some of us. In any case, on behalf of our group, I must note that, as chief of the corps, one can not always predict in advance in which cases reprisals against police officers can be feared.

Mrs. Minister, I wonder – and the question was also asked by colleagues from other political groups – whether this bill will sufficiently meet the wishes and questions of the police officers. In any case, our fear is that it will not do that enough.

A final note: the special units were not included in your bill. You want to arrange that matter later. Our group really doesn’t understand why, but it’s mainly those special units who, in charge of all kinds of special tasks, become or may become the victims of additional reprisals and physical aggression by criminals. We really do not understand why those special units had necessarily to be kept out of the bill.

In any case, we will not reject this bill, because it has a certain value, but we will make clear with a restraint that some elements are missing and that a number of matters have not been settled that should have been settled in this bill. The Flemish Interest Group will abstain from this bill.

Mr. Speaker, like other colleagues, I would like to welcome the adoption of this project and thank Gérard Deprez for his investment in this matter.

Who is ?

Gérard Deprez, a former party president, a renowned senator.

Is he present? He is a candidate in the European elections.

He was the one who submitted the proposal to the Senate. I gave him a vivid tribute.

It is better to pay tribute when people are still alive.