Proposition 53K3113

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses Intérieur.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Nov. 7, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

fire protection civil defence first aid nuclear safety public safety police

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo ∉ N-VA LDD VB

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.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

Dec. 5, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Mr Degroote has the floor at the General Meeting.

The N-VA will abstain from voting on this bill. I would like to give you our motivation for this.

This draft law containing various provisions contains a number of chapters of which we believe are the most important: the protection of the police uniform and the reform of civil security. There is also a small section on the core tasks of the police. I would like to briefly address these three points.

As far as the police uniform is concerned, we believe that the draft law introduces a justified protection. It provides that persons who are not police officers may not wear uniform, regardless of whether it is an original or a good counterfeit. We can find ourselves in it. Only we in the committee, and now still, had questions in the preparation of that arrangement. We have demonstrated that the penal provisions concerning the wear of a police uniform will have little effect in practice, as the judge can invoke Article 65 of the Criminal Code, which speaks of “sequential, continuous execution of the criminal intent”. Then, of course, it will become more difficult. We themselves propose to increase the minimum penalties, which could have more impact.

In addition, we also asked questions about the administrative burden imposed to the detriment of associations. I will give an example. Youth movements are required to apply for certain approvals if they wish to use a police uniform in the framework of their normal activities. Such a rule of law will, in our opinion, never be followed in practice.

With regard to the core tasks of the police, we believe that a correct mechanism is in place, namely that for every rule that introduces new tasks, there must be an opinion from the Federal Police Council.

In the window of your policy note, several speakers have asked to start a debate on what tasks the police still need to perform. Currently, we only have a list. Therefore, we would like to ask you to take this course of affairs seriously. That list of tasks relates to tasks that we know you would rather have the police stop performing them. So we have to do the other exercise and find out what the police still have to do.

Finally, I want to say a few words about civil security. In the committee, my colleague Jan Van Esbroeck regularly spoke on this topic. That matter should be round by 1 January 2015. In order to get this done, several changes are already implemented in various provisions containing the law. We know that not only different municipalities but also different staff members are concerned about this reform. They want to know what happens to them.

The concerns of these cities and municipalities can be partially removed if the federal government finally comes across the bridge with some money. In fact, Article 67 of the relevant law stated for years that the federal government and the municipalities must both bear half of the costs of the firefighters. However, a study by Belfius shows that the ratio is 90 % for the municipalities and 10 % for the federal government.

Mrs. Minister of the Interior, in the committee you announced the arrival of a royal decree that will put an end to this twisted relationship. That royal decree will include which items – income and expenditure – will be eligible to fall under that 50/50 ratio. I hope that Mrs. Minister will quickly work on this KB, because this would help remove the concerns in the various municipal governments.

Furthermore, it would also not be harmful to provide quick clarity on the additional allocation. What will be the criteria? What will be their weight? What are the amounts per zone? The municipalities are also waiting for this. It can’t be that we fall again into a scenario like the situation that occurred recently with the destruction of the KBs by the State Council. If we want the municipalities to do good work and govern well, then they must also get clarity.

As regards the categories of zones, the legislative text remains unclear even after discussion in the committee. How many categories will come out and what is the importance of those categories, apart from the commander’s premium? What other importance do these categories have?

Finally, and ⁇ not insignificant, I would like to draw attention to the situation of the volunteers. In Flanders, about three-quarters of firefighters are volunteer. These people do a lot of unselfish and useful work. I have to say that this morning I may still be suffering from a gas leak in my municipality. These firefighters are committed daily to the safety of our fellow people. It would be good if their voice is heard in this reform. We will ⁇ have to work on that.

I have already asked a number of questions on this issue in the committee. You gave me the answer that you highly appreciate the value of these volunteers and that they must definitely be involved in the further operation and the legislation. I welcome that and I hope that it will not remain in words, but that there will surely be acts.

Mr. Speaker, the present draft finally sets an additional step in the framework of the implementation of the fire department reform. We support the present draft to the extent that it finally provides for the possibility of working on a voluntary basis from 2014 in the municipalities who wish to do so and from 2015 in those fire protection zones.

Mrs. Minister, you heard our interventions in the committee, in which we expressed our concern about the future of the fire services, mainly the volunteer ones. We understand that it is a difficult exercise that must be done in order to realize one statute, while now there are many different statutes in many different corpses with a large geographical spread. In this situation, it is difficult to reach a unified framework. It was precisely on these difficulties that CD&V pointed out to its predecessors at the time, when the fire reform was started.

Mrs. Minister, it is not possible that municipalities or areas in a specific situation, for example very large areas with many small municipalities and many volunteers, would suddenly face greater professionalization and thus also greater costs. We once again urge us to listen closely to the concerns of the various parties in this dossier, namely: the large cities, the small cities, the professionals, the volunteers and civil security. It is best for you to discuss the global fire reform that you are negotiating with all of these parties.

We do not want excessive regulation in which smaller corpses with the indispensable involvement of volunteers are forced into a slope in which the volunteer work as such is cut to death and must switch to professional personnel.

The financial planning you have proposed in the committee looks very good, but especially if on the ground everything remains as it is now. In other words, if the many volunteers, especially in Flanders, can also continue to function. However, the financial outlook falls into trouble if volunteers subsequently drop, for example because the demands are higher or because they need to be deployed in an environment that is too far from their social living world, or because the combination of work with the family and volunteering work is no longer successful.

Mrs. Minister, you are making a round of the mayors. I hope that mayors of various large cities and small municipalities will grasp you with their problems. I don’t know if you’ve already spoken to volunteers from national corpses, but they’re talking to us. I can assure you that there is still a lot of uncertainty among many and that there is also some fear.

The municipalities are especially concerned about the very high cost of this reform. It is not only about municipalities that in the past were protected municipalities and therefore did not have their own corps, but also about smaller municipalities that in the past have made a lot of investments to expand their corps. They look at the future, and the additional costs, with anxiety.

We must not be blind to that fear and be deaf to the dissatisfaction. A reform must be carried by the base. The disaster that occurred this week on the A19 in the province of West Flanders — a municipality with only volunteers in the fire force — has once again demonstrated that the many volunteers can be deployed in a professional way.

Mrs. Minister, we would like to emphasize once again that during the discussion of the new Labour Act and the various KBs related to it, the status of the volunteer must be reviewed once again so that policy measures can be taken that provide incentives to become volunteer but above all to stay. In the future, everything must remain affordable.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies Ministers, Ladies and Gentlemen, as part of this bill containing various provisions, my intervention will be focused on fire services and elements related to civil security.

Mrs. Minister, I will highlight various advances: thus, the possibility for an area to charge services to neighboring areas, the planned synergies between civil protection and fire services in order to mutualize certain resources, which is never superfluous especially in a situation where fire services seek additional means.

These are also advances when the bill specifies the provisions of the law relating to the SIAMU, i.e. the fire service of the Brussels-Capital Region. It clarifies things, but still leaves this service out of the application of the reform for federal funding and allocation. For us, this remains an incongruity, an anomaly. It is difficult to understand how this whole area of the Brussels-Capital Region seems to be out of the scope of the reform, at least for the part of the financing.

Therefore, Madam Minister, we have submitted an amendment requesting that the SIAMU and the citizens of the Brussels Region benefit from the benefits and benefits of the reform. We recognize that this reform advances in the texts and budgets gradually implemented. This amendment proposes to consider the SIAMU as a rescue zone in the financing arrangement provided for in the law of 15 May 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I can be very brief. The debate on the distribution of the core tasks we will be able to conduct in our committee at the beginning of next year.

Mr Balcaen, I thank you for highlighting the progress. With regard to Brussels, we have greatly increased the application of the provisions of the current law to the Brussels Region. Also, the scope of the reform is much more important for all the positive aspects. Never forget, however, that for firefighters, the status in the capital is far more positive than in the whole country! Therefore, this aspect of things should not be underestimated.

Furthermore, we have added provisions that are of interest to Brussels and the various ministers in charge; in particular, there is the possibility of obtaining compensation in the event of an intervention outside the zone, which was an urgent request of the Brussels Region.

In terms of funding, we have not only stabilised but also strengthened the sustainable funding capacity directly through an allocation for Brussels, which will now be organised at the level of the Interior Administration. These are also advances.

Mr. Minister, indeed, we do not deny these advances, especially those relating to SIAMU. By depositing this amendment, we want to respond once and for all and in a structural way to the request of the Brussels Region that wants to be treated on an equal footing.

I’m not saying there are no worries. The status you mention is an element that must, of course, be taken into account. Nevertheless, I think it is incongruous to see that this area of the Brussels Region cannot play fully within the framework of the civil security reform.

Mr. Balcaen, I met with the people involved. I work in close collaboration with the Minister responsible, Mr. by Doulkeridis. He did not ask for the full implementation of the law at all.

First, the Brussels Region had officially requested not to enter into the law in 2007.

Secondly, his wish was to have an increase in the scope of application. This has been done!

Third, it wanted specific and lasting financing, no longer in the form of subsidies, but a real allocation, to have room for manoeuvre and more resources. It is done!

The last desire was the ability to get the benefits reimbursed. It is done!

So they are delighted. I have not heard any major protests on this subject, which is why I propose not to support your amendment.

We do not have the same channels of information. Again, progress is there and we want to go further and finally give a definitive and structural response to this problem.