Proposition 53K2878

Projet de loi instituant la carrière militaire à durée limitée.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

June 12, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

armed forces military personnel

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) abstained from voting.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) abstained from voting.
• Damien Thiéry (MR) 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 ¶

July 16, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

You propose to devote a single general discussion to these two bills of law. (The Assentiment

I would like to propose a general discussion of these two proposals. (The approval

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I often have the habit of referring to the written report as a rapporteur, but I will not do so today, given the extensive, thorough and high-quality debate in the Committee on Land Defense.

What is it about today? There are two draft laws relating to the military status: the draft law establishing a limited military career and the draft law amending the law of 28 February 2007.

The draft law on the limited military career gives young people the opportunity to embark on an eight-year career in Defense. In this way, it responds to the demand to invest in the rejuvenation of the army and ensures a better operational employability of the military personnel.

The second draft law concerning the amendment of the law of 28 February 2007 is mainly concerned with the substantially changed circumstances for Defense since 2007, namely the major change in the staff structure due to the introduction of the bachelor’s level. That level B is divided into two personnel categories. On the one hand, a bachelor is given the opportunity to become an officer, on the other hand, one can also opt for the trajectory of sub-officer, where level B personnel will be deployed as specialists in specific technical tasks.

In addition, the 2007 Act introduces changes regarding competence management, medical suitability, internal recruitment and the extension of certain terms. In any case, it is a very delicate design.

The draft on the limited military career – which has long been discussed in the committee – also addresses the accompanying measures at the end of the career. These are three-part: a number of military personnel can pass through internal recruitment, the transfer to a public employer is also possible, and there are also opportunities to move to the private sector.

We had a lot of debates during the committee meeting. Everyone agreed that the draft is necessary and that reform has been really necessary for some time, mainly – all the factions agreed on it – given the increasing ageing of our armed forces.

The debate focused very heavily on the possibilities of limited-term careers.

Another important topic that has been extensively discussed in the committee is the debate on language skills. In this regard, it was pointed out that the recruitment must take into account the requirements contained in the legislation. In the interventions, it was mainly pointed out that the essential knowledge of the language plays an important role, but that it is imposed by the Act of 1938 on the use of languages in the military.

We have had the pleasure of debating a whole series of amendments in the committee. I will give you a brief overview. Three amendments submitted by colleagues of the majority were approved. One amendment concerned the choice between a reclassification premium and a qualifying claim. The article in question was rewritten so that the military BDL will also be aware of its employability on the labour market and the necessary financial resources will be provided for this purpose.

For certain categories of candidate-professional officers and sub-officials, a second chance, a second reclassification through amendment, has actually been introduced. In addition, it was ensured that a number of problems were solved.

Mr. Van Quickenborne and Mr. Geerts submitted an amendment concerning the political leave for military personnel in voluntary suspension of performance, who remain subject to strict rules on full-time unpaid leave. However, exercising professional activities generally does not pose a problem for military personnel, so it is also logical that it can be for a local or provincial mandate. That amendment was adopted.

Mr Dallemagne submitted an amendment. At first glance, it may seem banal, but it is not at all. Therefore, Mr. Dallemagne would not be expected to do otherwise. The phrase “if applicable” shall be deleted in Article 24(c). This is about the safety advice that can be given and about the fact that not too much space should be left to the accident factor in the search for safety. The amendment was adopted.

A lot of amendments were rejected. There was the amendment of Ms. Ponthier concerning the opinion of the Committee for Language Inspection in the case of the abstinence of a language system from a vacancy. Mr Francken had an amendment on the evaluation committee. Mrs. Ponthier had another amendment to remove the passage over the head of the military house of the King, so that it would not become a four-star general. Mr Francken wanted to replace Article 209. Mrs. Ponthier and Mr. Francken had amendments to incorporate the “deep knowledge” of the other country steel.

Colleagues, the bill establishing the military career of limited duration was approved by the committee, provided that the Ecolo-Groen and Vlaams Belang groups abstained. The draft law amending the law of 28 February 2007 was unanimously approved by the committee.

Mr. Speaker, we have already in the committee with our group a fairly detailed discussion of the current draft laws. So I will keep it a lot more concise here. I would like to thank the rapporteur for the comprehensive and, in my opinion, correct report, which has a lot to read for the fans, I would say. It is a specialty to take with you to a vacation destination.

Mr. Minister, I think you know more than anyone else that tomorrow we will vote on two very important bills, with a view to modernizing the HR policy in Defense. This had to happen urgently. With this, we bring a number of important improvements to the statute, which is immediately modernized. The introduction of competence management is a good step forward. The introduction of the level bachelor in Defense is also quite new. The available recruitment mechanisms will be expanded and so on. I will not go into this in more detail now. I am convinced of the good intentions and the good goals behind the changes.

We need to talk today especially about something entirely new in this country, namely the introduction of the limited career for military personnel.

In the defence department, the ageing rate is very strong. We must dare to say that. At the same time, Defence is still doing too little today to attract young people and warm up for a job in our army. The core task of our military is, of course, to carry out international operations. That seems obvious to me. For this purpose, an operational army with a lot of young blood is very necessary. In that context, it is obvious that in accordance with the government agreement, you would explore the possibilities to attract more young people to our army. First of all, I think it should be about the image of our army, which is ⁇ suitable for improvement. It also concerns the remuneration and the correct and proper guidance during the recruitment and during the career phase.

What more should contribute, I hope, is the career of limited duration. I hope that this can address the need for rejuvenation and provide a response to the big ageing wave in Defense.

We have great doubts in this regard. An important step is being taken, but if one speaks of the introduction of the short career, then a military must flow out eight years later, either to the professional framework at Defence, or to the private sector, or to other public services or governments. I think that the shoe could be broken. Time will have to show this. I hope for you and for the Defense that the new statute will be a success, but I have doubts about the chances of success with regard to the flow into other sectors.

In the committee, there was no answer to my question why you did not consider introducing the Luxembourg model. After a limited period of service in Defence, young soldiers are given priority for certain functions and specific security-related jobs, for example in the police, customs and penitentiary guard. In Luxembourg it appears that according to the professional literature and according to testimonies to work well. Why was this not considered? I still think this is a missed opportunity.

You are talking about agreements, about agreements, about protocol agreements that you will conclude with other government agencies and with the private sector, but we have yet to see the outcome. I hope you will work hard for this, because it will be necessary. The soldiers receive excellent training and training in Defense to function properly in any job. They should be desirable staff, but today, unfortunately, this does not appear to be the case, or yet insufficient.

I hope you can make good agreements with your colleagues in the government, for example with State Secretary for Public Officers Bogaert, in order to provide for a good flow. I think that is the angel in the whole file. I hope you can get that angel out and hopefully I can congratulate you on the result in the foreseeable time. Again, I have doubts about that.

I would like to address a few points on which I will submit amendments again tomorrow.

The first point concerns the transition from the medical disadvantaged military personnel to civilian personnel. During the committee meeting I was not the only one who spoke about this; also colleagues from the sp.a and from the PS supported this point. The N-VA, the PS and the sp.a then moved on one seat, of course only with regard to one provision in this file.

Almost three years ago I pulled the alarm bell. Military soldiers who are declared medically inappropriate for their job as a military are now required to retire. There are stories of striking conditions of persons under the age of thirty who have to retire forced, who have to sit at home to their great frustration and have to deal with a small amount of pension. There are more enjoyable prospects.

Therefore, it is a good thing that with this statute change you finally give those people the opportunity to flow through to the civil personnel of Defense, for which you are looking for 100 to 130 people each year. We can recruit people from there. I think that is a very good thing. It is also the moral duty of a good employer. It can also only provide advantages for Defence, as it pumps people with experience from the operational army to the civil services that must support Defence. This is a good thing.

However, some people fall out of the boat in this situation. If the persons concerned had an accident during the residential-working movement to the barracks and as a result were declared medically inappropriate, they cannot flow to the civilian staff. This is a very difficult point. I find this discriminatory. I do not know where you should get that distinction from. This was not clear during the committee meeting. Also parties from your majority were, at least during the discussion, in favour of allowing those people to be civilian staff. During the vote on the amendments, we saw a different behavior and I assume that this will happen again tomorrow. However, I still find this a missed opportunity.

Finally, I am obliged to myself, I want to say something about the use of languages in the military. On that level, you weaken something. You’re replacing “fundamental knowledge” with “essential knowledge”. We will submit a number of amendments again. I suspect a colleague is there too. I hope that you reflect before you allow this vote to take place, and that you support these amendments. It is not without importance. In this professional world, language balance is very sensitive. It has been shown several times in recent years that it is felt as very important by the people on the ground. We should not actually weaken the language requirements that you impose, in order to maintain a good and correct atmosphere at Landsförsvaring.

I would like to speak to you on both bills simultaneously.

Every member of this hemisphere is aware of this: National Defence is an essential player of the Belgian state, both nationally and internationally. In order to respond more specifically to the international challenges that are ours – I think, for example, of the Defence Europe project that is ⁇ important to us –, Defence has an imperative need for a long-term strategic vision, in which professional training focused, among other things, on international operationality and helping the nation will be an essential element.

It is also important to provide a structural response that will put an end in the future to the starting gear which, according to figures released by the ACOD trade union’s Info-Defense, is ⁇ worrying and demonstrates the erosion of personnel within the National Defense. The need for reforms and modern campaigns (I’m not talking about advertising here), directed toward the big pools of employment in our country, is, for my group, an imperative that alone will enable us to maintain tomorrow’s target of 30,000 soldiers.

The analysis of military status bills – including the creation of a new limited-time status, commonly known as BDL – shows that the proposed texts ensure, as a whole, that the combination of the two statutes enables a balance between the operational capacity of the younger soldiers who will participate in the operations and the safeguarding of the experience of the older soldiers who will carry out the support and support tasks.

These two bills, which are part of the continuation of the revision of the military status, initiated by André Flahaut, and aimed at a modernization of the status of military personnel, will be supported by the PS group, and this especially since we have obtained significant amendments and clarifications in the framework of committee work.

That being said, let me start my analysis with the G1 project. It is based on a skills-centric approach, increased flexibility in the management of personnel, the expansion of available recruitment mechanisms, many examples that appear to be added value in the context of a modernised staff status.

However, as my colleague Christophe Lacroix pointed out in the committee, the PS group is not in favour of leaving the current status of certain trade bodies. I think here, among other things, of the medical technical body. For if we understand the need for a specific approach of certain bodies, in order to respond to the enormous shortage they know, let us not forget the advantages that are theirs, especially in terms of liberalism and working time, and let us not create crying inequalities with other military bodies which, in addition, would have significant budgetary consequences! Therefore, the use of this specific approach should be limited.

Beyond this question of the single status, I am pleased that, following the amendment submitted by the majority at the request of my group, the observations of the State Council on the excessive nature of certain authorization of power are taken into account, since a new article of Law G1 states that the authorization granted to the King will expire on 30 April 2014.

Furthermore, I would like to emphasize that the amendment submitted by Georges Dallemagne, which I have co-signed, imposes the systematic screening for all military candidates.

As for the recommendations adopted by our assembly, regarding the linguistic balance within the Defense, the answers seemed satisfactory to us at this stage. However, be assured, Mr. Minister, that we will be vigilant on this subject, especially given the latest figures that confirm a certain imbalance.

Finally, with regard to Article 86 relating to the possibilities of outsourcing assessment tests to the private, which raised serious concerns within my group, I thank you for the clarifications that have been made to us, namely that the outsourcing procedure will only be done under very specific conditions and in priority using the expertise of public services external to Defence.

Let us now go to the BDL statute, which raised many questions and debates in committee.

As we know, this new Staff Status aims to respond to the challenges currently facing Defense through the introduction of a career parallel to that of today.

This bill marks a major change in our national defence policy. That is why my colleague Philippe Blanchart raised in the committee some questions, notably the ratio that will represent this new status. I would also like you, Mr. Minister, to reiterate this today in plenary session.

Indeed, for my group, if the flexibility offered by this new status is important and can be an attraction for a young and motivated audience, this flexibility should not turn into social insecurity or deception. This status should not become a real lemon press followed by a simple ‘goodbye and thank you’ with a starting bonus. In this sense, the commitments made in terms of training, and the opportunities offered in collaboration with the relevant regional bodies, seem to me to be very positive signs.

I will conclude by saying that, for the PS, Defense must invest in its human resources. Defense, an essential point of state action, must be perceived as an essential actor of knowledge and formation of our society. And in this context, both European and international, I think here, among other things, of the suggestions made by my group regarding the implementation and ad hoc transposition of an Erasmus and a Bologna in the field of military training. For this purpose, it must focus on the training and development of the men and women that make up it, while ensuring the recognition of these training by all the stakeholders of employment in Belgium.

I thank you for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, we have, of course, long debated the two bills in the committee for the Land Defense.

I would like to intervene primarily on the statute of limited duration. Mr. Minister, I would like to express a concern which I think was not sufficiently answered by you in the committee. Your proposal to come to a status of limited duration, the military career of limited duration, has a very long prehistory, a prehistory that for us is actually far too long. We used to have the idea of a mixed career concept. That was still submitted and launched by your predecessor, the man who is now behind me. That concept, the GLC, had a lot of positive elements.

However, we all know how this happened. You were not a supporter of it, for the sake of I know what reasons, and you have stored it in one of the deepest boxes on your cabinet. As a result, for years we have lost opportunities to meet a real need within the Defense, namely the rejuvenation of our army. That rejuvenation of our army implies, by definition, that we offer a limited-term status to military personnel, that we take in people for a limited period of time to then allow them to flow into other branches within our government, administration or the private sector. In other words, it is about valuing people within Defense at the right time and at the right age. The GLC ⁇ had potential in that regard, but your proposal is of course going a bit in the right direction.

We abstained from voting in the committee. Finally, we decided not to support it and we will repeat that behavior this week. In fact, we think you should have gone much further. What are you doing now? You are launching a limited-term status, a limited-term career for military personnel, without giving answers to what happens after that limited-term. All you do is give them an educational leave and a training loan, actually a backpack that allows them to enter the private market or apply within the public sector.

In recent years, however, there have been tracks that have gone much further. There were tough agreements between Defense and departments such as Justice to record the flow. That has not happened.

You are satisfied with a plan B. You have never had talks with other ministers during the discussion in the committee. Last year, however, it was a track that was occasionally put on the table cautiously. For some reason, you decided not to do this. Have you taken initiatives to enforce agreements? Maybe yes, maybe not. Can you say something about it? Per ⁇ there was insufficient willingness within the government to reach tougher agreements?

In any case, for us this is a plan B. This could have been much better, this would have been much better measured, to avoid the risk that later a group of soldiers after a limited military career should be considered lost for the labour market because there were insufficient arrangements between your department and other departments.

Mr. Minister, this is a plan B, and unfortunately we cannot support a plan B, no matter how good the intentions may be.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the discussion of the two draft laws on the introduction of the statute of limited duration and the introduction of the military statute in general was quite broken in the committee because you were urgently removed because of an ackefiet at the Palace, as our committee chairman so beautifully expressed it. Therefore, I would like to take the word briefly here.

My presentation will primarily be about the bill that aims to introduce a new military statute of limited duration.

The new Staff Statute aims to respond to the current challenges for Defence, by making a significant contribution to a healthier age pyramid and ensuring a higher operational employability of military personnel.

Anyone who has good knowledge of Defence in this country knows that the introduction of a specific statute is urgent and necessary. We hope together with you that this will contribute to a real rejuvenation in Defence and that Defence will be a more attractive factor for the youth in this society.

Our group has given little or no criticism to the proposed draft in the committee. It offers interesting new opportunities, mainly in terms of transition and end-to-end work pathways to adequately reintegrate into the labour market.

Nevertheless, it has already been said by several colleagues, we ask ourselves how it is with the interaction with the other government agencies. I think in the past we have seen a few strong staples of a faulty communication. Despite your intentions, the intended goal is not achieved in reality. In this regard, we have some reserves.

I have another question that I expect an answer from you. When will the implementation of this statute be successful for you? What number of recruitments do you prioritize? Hopefully you can give another answer.

I also asked you in the committee when you plan a first evaluation. You have not yet answered this. I hope you will still do this.

I have a third observation that we have already made during the committee discussions. The draft provides a lot of powers to the King. I would like to repeat this during this discussion. This observation was also made by the State Council. In one of the four articles it is stated that the King can set rules, impose conditions, determine structures, and so on. It is true that the law does not prohibit doing so, but it must be done with a sufficiently precise description and it must relate to the implementation of measures in which the essential elements have been fixed by the legislator. This is not the case in this bill. There is a lack of you, Mr. Minister. In fact, you thus narrow the control possibilities of the committee and of the Parliament because we do not in any way control all these additional delegations to the King.

Thank you, Mrs. Ponthier, for the accurate listing of the work here. With regard to your comments on the Council of State, I think we have found a good solution for this in the committee, together with all colleagues. They are no longer valid today. In the draft that is presented today, it is amended that all those provisions must be ratified by law before the end of this legislature. The complaint you make is thus solved and without object. I would like to say for a moment that I understood your comments before the hearing in the committee, but that after the amendments and the hearing in the committee, they are without object for me.

The timing has indeed been set and its outcome has indeed been amended in a number of respects, but we do not think that is a guarantee for its concrete outcome, and I remain that Parliament’s control power is being evaded in a number of respects. So I remain with our comment.

Finally, I would also like to reiterate that we will re-submit the amendments of our group on the language requirements at the plenary session tomorrow. We regret, of course, that our amendments were not supported, much more because Defence always boasts that raising the language requirements or correctly complying with them is one of its priorities. We spent two and a half years working on the work of the Working Group in charge of the study of language balance in the military. I think that’s one of the conclusions we reached together with all our colleagues. Therefore, I found it a missed opportunity to record those formalities in this bill. We will give our colleagues from the majority and the opposition another chance tomorrow to refine or rectify both bills where necessary.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, my stalk horse is the military readiness and the fitness of the Belgian army. It was a hellish political journey to convince you, your cabinet and especially your faction of the importance of military fitness in the concept of military career.

We are evolving to shorter careers and that is a good thing. However, we also want a career in which our military personnel are physically ready and multi-useable and can operate internationally in a fast manner. This is already happening in many of our combat units. Unfortunately, the figures are clear. Approximately 50% of our soldiers fail or do not participate in the military fitness tests.

Your bill is a step in the right direction. It will again be possible to sanction soldiers if they are physically uncomfortable. However, a long transitional period of eleven years is provided before military personnel can be dismissed. You are sitting with an old army and it is not intended to continue with the rough brush. In the long run, we need a fit army that we can all be proud of. The image of our army must depart from the image of a Xavier Waterslaeghers, it must return to the image of fit soldiers.

This is the path that we must follow. The transition period is long. It is being chosen or shared. As a citizen, you do and eat what you want, but as a military, you are physically well. I know that you yourself are sensitive to this and that you want to build on the image of Defense.

After the PS episode of the last ten years and under your ministry, we take more responsibility in the transatlantic alliance. Our group supports you in this. With this step, you change two things: shorter military careers, fit military personnel, and fast deployable combat units. Thus we fulfill our international duty: defending the alliance, playing our role when we are called, and also effectively doing our work on the field with fit military personnel.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the Reform Movement on whose behalf I speak wishes to welcome these two bills aimed at updating the military status. The word "update" is chosen deliberately: the government had to work under the constraint of facts because it did not have the time or could not unleash the margins of manoeuvre for longer-term reflection.

Now, we must admit that we would have desired a more prospective vision of the soldier of tomorrow and therefore of the status granted to him. We would have liked that in addition to the bad statistics that you may communicate to us from time to time regarding the departure of young people or the aging staff, you could eventually draw longer-term conclusions.

When you dive into these two bills, you may have the impression that a short-term reform has been drafted, a reform for a 2014-2020 legislature, and that inevitably your successors – or yourself if you succeed yourself – will have to look again at that status.

Defence figures clearly demonstrate that military careers are becoming less and less attractive. Indeed, at the federal level, National Defense remains the department where the most recruits are recruited. In 2013, there were 1,830 offices – 1,700 military and 130 civilian. As of 2014, the recruitment will range between 1,500 and 2,000 military personnel depending on the needs.

You must constantly recall the terms of the government agreement: 30,000 military and 2,000 civilians by 2015.

My personal analysis – and the one that others, increasingly, share – is that we are actually advancing, Mr. Minister, towards an army of just 25,000 soldiers at the end of the decade. For the figure that is interesting – more concrete – to know is not the number of soldiers attracted to the armed forces by the limited or unlimited career, but rather the number of recruits who will then decide to remain in service for the eight years of the short career or for an unlimited duration.

In reality, we must focus on one simple goal: to keep in the national armed forces the young man who wishes to become a professional military. It must be recognized that, in our current society, working all life for the same employer is no longer the norm. Thus, the loyalty of these young people to the employer has changed. A person needs to find, in his professional life, new perspectives, new motivations. I therefore think that the choice of a standard eight-year period for a limited-term career is appropriate. The same applies to gateways created between the military services and other public services such as the police.

The conditions under which the Defence exercises its tasks have changed. The technological development of defence equipment and the development of multilateral commitments create new challenges. In this regard, the reform under consideration follows the trend observed on the modern job market: end of lifetime career with the same employer, need for mobility within the same entity – here, the federal public service. From the safety of a lifetime employment, one has moved to a work experience corresponding to a phase of life.

Mr. Minister, I would have wanted, on behalf of the Reform Movement, in the context of this update of the status of the military, to add three elements.

First, following the Luxembourg model discussed in the committee, the right granted to the military to be employed by priority in public security services could have been a trail that makes a limited-time career even more attractive.

If new agreements are concluded over the coming years to enable BDL military personnel to pursue their careers in the public sector, we should probably eventually consider introducing a priority clause. We are in favor of the Reform Movement to extend this priority clause to all public service, beyond the stricto sensu security sectors.

If a priority recruitment is not unrealistic, it requires conviction, will and clear agreements. You have been heard saying this in committee, and we may need, going in the direction I have just mentioned, to take care to confirm the words by the deeds.

Second, a real communication policy, in order to make this reform known to potential recruits, is essential. These changes should be notified. If this reform does not echo beyond this parliament and remains in the feathered circles of a few initiates, there will be no concrete consequential effect of this reform.

Third, I would like to comment on the form, Mr. Minister. You have widely consulted the trade unions to write these texts and further consultations are coming during the month of August, if I am not mistaken. About twenty royal arrests have been or are still being negotiated by December 31, 2013. For the Reform Movement, it is clear that the largest number should be submitted to the Council of Ministers. I would like to mention three that seem, Mr. Minister, unavoidable.

The first draft royal decree, which determines the critical positions within the armed forces, does not provide for compensation for persons who, already occupying a critical function, cannot dispose of certain measures favourable to the status.

The second draft royal decree sets out the procedure concerning the statutory measures applicable to the military of the active frame and amends various royal decrees relating to military discipline. We cannot really subscribe to financial sanctions against staff, already often poorly paid, it must be said.

The third draft royal decree, relating to the estimation of military potential, establishes four categories ranging from A to D in the level of physical fitness and provides for the exclusion of the army after two negative professional assessments. At the physical level, this assumes that the military will have all the possibilities and capabilities to train to maintain his physical condition. This will have both a financial cost and an impact on the work of the staff.

Here, Mr. Minister, are royal decrees that are yet to be drafted, on which agreements with the trade unions are yet to be found, and which, in our view, should pass into Council of Ministers. We will be attentive to this.

In conclusion of this speech, Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize the fact that this bill contains a fairly common ambition in recent times, namely to optimize, optimize the functioning of a department of the public sector – in this case, Defence – and do more with the same means, or even fewer means, because the budgets for both Defence and for other departments will still likely be reduced in the future.

I invite my colleagues in the Defence Committee, beyond respecting the line of our respective parties, to fully realize that we cannot continue so inexorably at the level of the Defence Department, or that we will inevitably need, in the years to come, to transform Defence.

The transformation plan that you initiated, Mr. Minister, at the end of the last legislature, has nothing to do with the transformation that will be that of Defense, given the budgets that will inevitably continue to go downward.

So, dear colleagues of the Defence Commission, we will need, at some point, to become aware and accept these facts and ⁇ allow ourselves, depending on the responsibilities we have in relation to the Department of Defence, to send a concrete, realistic and objective signal. We cannot continue to amputate the defence budget, while having the ambition to have the same resources in the field of national defence. I think the legislature that will come after the 2014 elections will not be able to see us economize this debate.

We are aware that all ministerial departments must contribute to this effort to secure public finances, but we cannot continue in that direction.

The military profession is a beautiful profession, we must continue to try to value it. This status reform – the limited career – can help enhance the value of the military profession. The objectives of this career limited to eight years can give us a chance to see an attraction rate that would be lower – one of the highest in Europe – and give us the opportunity to react to a situation that, at the level of the soldier, at the level of national defense, it is true, becomes increasingly worrying.

I would like to thank my colleagues Maertens, Sampaoli, De Vriendt, Ponthier, Francken and Ducarme for their remarks.

Of course, I cannot forget the rapporteur, Mr Waterschoot, who provided an exceptionally good report on the work done in the committee.

If you are right, I would like to answer the questions that have been asked.

I will answer it chronologically. Indeed, many of the questions raised have already been partially addressed in our fruitful discussions within the committee.

First of all, I would like to join with what Mr. Waterschoot has stated.

In response to one of the comments made by Ms. Ponthier, I can say that the comments of the State Council will be remedied by amendment. This will happen at the time when the drafts are submitted for voting.

I will now answer a few specific questions. On these questions, a guiding answer has already been given in the committee. However, they are now being answered more deeply.

I will first answer the questions asked regarding the accompanying measures established for military personnel covered by the limited-term status.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I think that the strength of the BDL status lies in the fact that, for all these military personnel, several tracks are offered after their service in Defense. There are three major aspects from which the interested party can make a choice while being accompanied internally or externally.

Several limited-time military personnel will be able to participate in the internal recruitment to develop a military career. In addition to permanent rejuvenation, Defense also needs staff with expertise in certain functions.

The transfer to a public employer is a second component through which the BDL military can prepare for a new future. The agreements already concluded in terms of transfer of certain military personnel with certain employers have already laid the foundation for this type of partnership. In the coming years, other agreements will be concluded.

In addition to the public sector, there is also the possibility to look towards the private sector. This is also a question that was asked by some colleagues. At the end of a BDL career, we give the person concerned the opportunity to receive service facilities in the form of a training leave and a month of reorientation leave, together with an individual training credit of 1 850 euros. I think it’s a good thing to look for a job outside of the public sector.

On the other questions and suggestions made, among others, by Mr. Sampaoli, when a BDL military leaves Defense, he receives a premium of three to twelve months of treatment, depending on the years of service. He can use this premium as part of his reclassification into the labour market. During this period, under the agreements concluded with the VDAB, the Forem, Actiris and Brussels Formation, interested parties will be able to benefit from a personalised accompaniment program free of charge.

Regarding the questions of whether there are concrete agreements with other FODs to take over military BDL according to a form of priority recruitment at the end of the recruitment, I can say that Defence now has a number of cooperation agreements with certain sectors. We still have a period of up to five years to conclude agreements with other public employers.

My colleague also had a specific question on this. Priority recruitment is not unrealistic, but requires conviction, will and clear agreements. The recruitment of military personnel for the Security Corps or the transition to the police are good examples of this. We had the opportunity to discuss this in the committee. I note that the employers who have gone to sea with Defense in the past to include military personnel in their ranks continue to experience this as a very positive data. It is obvious that we will make the most of these experiences as a framework for building future new projects.

Defence has huge expertise in this area. The context in which the military turned to other public employers in the past was entirely different. As part of the staff reduction, older military personnel were presented as potential employees, while in the future, it will rather be young military personnel. This can only increase the attractiveness of such cooperation agreements for new employers.

In addition, the budgetary aspect is also a non-insignificant factor. Where we previously could make more expensive staff available, the reduction of the age of the available staff will also make the budgetary costs more attractive for the new employer.

Let me now go to some other specific questions asked by the colleagues. In this regard, I come to the questions concerning how the status of professional military and the status of limited duration will be able to function side by side.

The two statutes will work side by side with each other, by interaction in a dynamic way. Internal recruitment serves as a bridge and cement between the two statutes, both for the applicant and for the Defense. We can talk about a win-win situation.

Not all applicants today, Mr. President, colleagues, are looking for a lifelong career. This was also mentioned in the discussion. They are more likely to seek work experience that matches their life phase or the path of building their professional career. Where lifetime employment was an asset in the previous generation, the current generation sometimes perceives it as a burden.

On the other hand, the military authority wants to reduce the average age of the military and wants to have experienced personnel that will ensure stability and continuity within the structure.

The limited-term status and the internal transition from this status to the career framework status will provide a response to both challenges. The applicant may opt for a limited period of engagement and the military authority can count on the passing of the experienced military.

There were questions about the number of recruits and the distribution between the professional soldiers and the BDL. That distribution is determined on the basis of the needs to retain thirty thousand defence personnel.

The decision-making process, in order to reach the number of recruits carried out, includes a chain of different factors.

The main factor is the government agreement, which stipulates that Defence should be able to have 30,000 troops. Other factors include, for example, the budgetary reality and the formation capacity.

In the coming months, I will fix 2014 recruitments based on the parameters known at that time. It is obvious that the adoption of the two bills currently discussed will be an essential element in the decision-making process.

With regard to Article 209 and the specific questions concerning the exclusion of residential road traffic from internal transition, I will briefly summarize the already existing provisions applicable to an accident or illness incurred in employment and by the fact of the service, including an accident on the way to and from work.

This was a very specific question from, among others, colleague Maertens. For the first time everybody in the military can apply for compensatory pension, the so-called pension de réparation suite à une maladie ou un accident. This is the military counterpart of the civil legislation on occupational accidents and occupational diseases.

In addition, during the absence or temporary dismissal for health reasons, the bet of the military is further paid out.

A third important measure lies in the fact that, in the event of a long-term or permanent temporary disability, the military can obtain a pension for physical disability. As such, the military has the same rights as the civil servants.

The specificity of the military profession, namely the preparation or execution of military operations, has, in many cases, consequences in terms of increased risks. For example, the particular equipment used, the environment, work or even hostile circumstances see hostilities. This higher risk does not exist when travelling between home and workplace.

The introduction of Article 209 therefore aims at a positive measure, in particular a specific treatment for military personnel who have become victims of an accident or illness during the performance of a typical military mission. This compensation consists of the possibility of another, further employment in Defence for the military who is no longer suitable to serve as a military as a result of an accident or illness incurred during the preparation or execution of a military operation.

Mr Francken spoke, among other things, about the problem of physical health. First and foremost, the physical tests are not aimed at making every military a top trainer who can participate in any industry of the Olympic Games. It is intended, however, that the military person ⁇ ins a basic condition throughout his career that depends on the function he exercises. Unless I am mistaken, nobody asks questions about the physical tests taken from applicants who apply for the military position.

Is it not logical, then, that the military can be expected to have a basic condition and that he will retain it throughout his career, and this not only for the motto “mens sana in corpore sano”. An aircraft technician, for example, must also be able to have sufficient endurance during a military operation to be able to perform his job perfectly and to be able, if necessary, to bring himself into safety with the appropriate readiness. That is the essence of physical fitness.

To make this physical fitness a statutory measure, a series of time-consuming adjustments are needed, not only from the military who will be subjected to these tests but also from the Defense. I think for example of the training of sports instructors and the establishment of the necessary infrastructure for this purpose. An article 404 was inserted stipulating: "At the date of entry into force of this provision, every military is presumed to belong to category A in terms of position assessment and physical fitness assessment."

I myself will follow the course and the evolution of the royal decisions in this regard.

With the introduction of the law, everyone starts for five years in the fitness category A, in terms of the assessment of physical fitness.

Physical tests may have statutory consequences from 1 January 2019. Taking into account the procedure described, a military person could reach the D fitness category no earlier than 1 January 2022.

I would then return to a number of questions posed by colleagues Ponthier and Maertens on language legislation, in particular on Article 285 concerning the repeal of a provision in language legislation.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the repeal of this provision does not prejudice the legislature’s concern to anchor the desired knowledge of both national languages for candidate officers. In 2009 and 2010 these provisions were incorporated in a royal decree, namely in Articles 24, 33, 35, 36 and 39 of the KB of 11 September 2003 on the recruitment of military personnel.

For information, I can add that each selection test at Defence has, first, an exclusion threshold, a minimum score below which a candidate failed the selection test and is therefore excluded for the vacancy, and, secondly, a weight, the relative importance of the test in determining the final score for the vacancy. The forks in which this threshold and this weight are situated are determined for all other selection tests in Annex A to the KB of 11 September 2003 on the recruitment of military personnel and thus also for the selection procedure for the first and second land steel.

Colleagues, again, the deletion of this provision is a purely technical adjustment, which does not change the language requirements requested.