Proposition 53K3375

Projet de loi portant mesures d'optimalisation des services de police.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Feb. 17, 2014

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

administrative reform management criminal investigation department information system judicial reform police legal system

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

∉ N-VA VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo LDD

Party dissidents ¶

• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) voted to reject.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.

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 13, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I would like to refer to my written report.

There are four speakers: Mr. by Thiébaut, Mr. Degroote and Mr. Ducarme and Mr. by Veys.

Mr. President, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, from notes of intent to step reports, from discussions to discussions, there was fear that this famous optimization of the federal police would never come to fruition. Yet we are there. This book is finally before us.

I have already had the opportunity to say this in the committee: I think that the method suffered from the fact that you had passed the reform before that important instrument that is the Integrated Security Framework Notice, which you announced to us a year ago and which ultimately never reached our banks. It seems to me that this framework note, to which you also refer in the statement of reasons in the committee, should be the document that sets the general guidelines and that, therefore, the optimization of the federal police should only come in a second time, to fit in the guidelines set rather than vice versa. But either, it will be up to your successors to ensure that the optimization of the federal police frame with what these guidelines should be.

With regard to these guidelines, I can only emphasize the importance, in order to ⁇ results on such diverse fronts as violence against persons, discrimination, incivilities, bullying or even cybercrime, of nearby police, i.e. first of all local police in our integrated two-level structure. In these areas, preventive approaches should be at the heart of any strategy with the least chance of success. That is the role of the local police and that is also the spirit of the government agreement.

In a word, what I want to emphasize once again is the primary role of the proximity agent in a successful security and prevention policy. Let’s understand: unlocking operational capacity is necessary but does not automatically result in this proximity. For my part, I would even go as far as to say that, in order to do well, we must consider the federal police as being at the service of the local police.

In order for this support to be effective, it is necessary to de facto consider how to engage the mayors closely in the decision-making process. The risk was great, in the context of the alignment of the reform of the police with that of the judicial landscape, to see the creation, at the level of the district, a kind of French police prefect disconnected from local realities that the mayors know better than anyone.

I am therefore pleased that the council of mayors will be strengthened by the text we vote today. It will no longer be a consultative body, but a body whose opinion will be mandatory. I hurry to add that we are delighted to finally see the principle of simplification of national structures, especially in a very difficult budgetary context, this in order to transfer the funds thus released to front-line missions with the greater weight as the Private Security Act, which we discussed some time ago, outsources, unfortunately for my group, several missions to the private sector.

This simplification responds, in a way, to the reform of the judicial landscape: fewer arrondissements, thus a significant economics of scale, and a step towards a harmonisation of security and prevention policies.

At the central level, I also see progress in this area. The cross-directional principle will reduce the number of mandates, improve the crucial point of information circulation and strengthen the proper functioning of the chain of command starting from the management committee. This is a major issue of the reform.

It remains to be assured of the proper implementation of this reform. Mr. Minister, my group and the Socialist Party as a whole will be attentive to ensure that it is done in good order and at the service of the citizens.

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.

You can’t read the newspaper in the last few months or you’re faced with disturbing news. Among other things, on 3 February, the Commissioner-General and some of her colleagues sent a letter to the Minister of Home Affairs, in which she clarified the seriousness of the situation.

Let me give you a few quotes. “The failure to grant markets for maintenance and repair led last month to the inability to carry out escortes for money transfers. For various types of staff members, certain clothing or protective items are no longer purchased. Here too, there is a risk that certain interventions, such as escorts following Eurotops, can no longer be carried out, because the personnel are exposed to greater safety risks during the intervention. The security of our own information structure is once again at risk. As a result, we can no longer receive updates of the virus protection since 1 January 2014.”

On the day that the letter leaked, there was a plenary session in the Chamber. Numerous colleagues and ⁇ the majority parties were rightly angry at the situation. I will return to this later.

A few weeks later, it was discovered that the wheels literally fell from the cars while they were driving, that the doors stopped opening and that the engines burned.

Last week, it was revealed that the Federal Computer Crime Unit is working with outdated material. Even a question was asked about this today. The agents are obliged to work with free trial versions of programs they need.

Does the optimization plan we discuss here today provide a solution to the problems? Absolutely not. Would that have been possible? Yes, but in part. After all, in the draft law there is a multi-year plan of the federal police. The purpose of that multiannual plan is to allow the federal police to indicate which resources and investments are considered indispensable in order to ⁇ the objectives of the National Security Plan. This plan, as you know, is intended for the Ministers of Interior and Justice. Together with our group, we have proposed that this plan should be added to the budget talks every time, so that members of Parliament will be aware of what they are approving in the future, or at least not be able to pretend they know nothing. Unfortunately, this was not accepted. Certain members of parliament prefer not to be informed.

In addition to the budgetary aspect, the present bill is primarily about structures.

It would be logical that in the organization of the police also the Constitution would be respected, but that also proved not to be a priority. The State Council also referred to the Constitution in its opinion. Article 184 of the Constitution states: “The organization and competence of the integrated police service, structured on two levels, are regulated by law.” In the draft law, more specifically in Article 13, § 3 we read, however: “For the rest, subject to Articles 100bis to 102, the King determines the organization in directions and services of the commissariat-general and the general directions.” If the minister is confronted with this unconstitutionality, the answer is simply that we already violate the Constitution a little less than before.

In the integrated police service, it would also be logical that the structures are limited as much as possible. One should try to create simplicity, but there is no progress at all in that area. We see that the number of advisory councils is increasing sensitively. Per ⁇ this is a reflection of the working group approach of the ministers in various other areas.

Currently there is the Federal Police Council, the Standing Committee of Local Police and the Advisory Council of Mayors. It now includes Justipol, a management committee and a coordination committee. The latter committee is actually simply the management committee plus the heads of the Standing Committee of the Local Police.

All these bodies, the Federal Police Council, the Standing Committee of Local Police, the Advisory Council of Mayors, Justipol, the Management Committee and the Coordination Committee, give opinions.

Colleagues, Mrs. Minister, would it not be more logical for an integrated police service to receive an integrated advice?

I am referring to criminologist Cyrille Fijnaut, who already likes such advice. In 1999 he wrote about the existence of the Federal Police Council, the Standing Committee of the Local Police and the Advisory Council of Mayors. I quote again: “In order to emphasize the integrated character of the operation of the new police system, one single council would in any case have been more obvious. In addition, two advisory councils, in my view, constitute an unnecessary complication of the decision-making process at the top of the police command. The difference in the formal assignment of the two councils, one for general advice concerning the whole system, the other only for advice concerning regulatory decisions concerning the local police, may at first glance give the impression that the choice of two separate councils is not so crazy, but materially these tasks naturally flow completely together. And for those who take the integrated character of the new system seriously, this must be the case. Decisions that, so to speak, concern only and only local bodies, should also be assessed on their merits for the system as a whole. The construction of this cannot be combined with a separate policy for the local police corps.”

Colleagues, an optimization could have meant, in our opinion, that the structure would be simplified. Therefore, we cannot participate in the creation of additional advisory boards, whose composition also overlaps.

I made a small graphic presentation of this. The central level, as it exists so far, includes the Advisory Council of Mayors, the Federal Police Council and the Standing Committee of Local Police, including the ranks represented in those bodies.

In our proposal it is much simpler. All of this would be integrated into one organ. What did you make of it, Mrs. Minister? If you want to look? That’s what you’ve made of it, something some colleagues in the majority themselves call a waterhead. (The speaker shows a schedule)

Let me say a few words about mandate functions. At the central and arrondissemental level, the number of mandate functions is indeed decreasing. However, we could have gone much further. After all, the functions of DirCo and DirJu, judicial director and director-coordinator are retained. However, there was a very clear advice from the Bruggeman Working Group, who had to prepare this plan. In this working group Bruggeman were not the first of the best. Let me mention the names: Mrs. De Bolle, François Farcy, Olivier Libois, Mr. Van Branteghem, Mr. Bruggeman, Jean-Marie Brabant, Mr. Geert Smet, Monique De Knop, Brice De Ruyver, Christian De Valkeneer, Johan Delmulle, Jean-Claude Leys, John Robert, Frank Van Massenhoven, Luc Cap, Thierry Maurer, Ann Massei, Guy Marchal and Dominique Van Ryckeghem. What does the working group say? I quote: “The entire working group is convinced that this structure, together with an evaluation system based on results, is the best possible response given the general and specific principles. After all, the organisational structure is a strong simplification compared to the existing model and rationalizes the decentralized level: 27 administrative coordination and support directions and 27 judicial directions are integrated into 12 district directions. This implies reducing the number of contact points for the King’s Prosecutor, the Federal Prosecutor, the Governor, the Mayor and the local police.” What is the Minister’s reaction in his plan? We preserve everything. Why Why ? Just for the sake of political balance. of which act. Is this the way we should handle advice and how the advice of those new boards will be handled?

Finally, I come to the protocol agreement that can be concluded between the General Inspection, the AIG, and the Committee P. We have no problem me that both services conclude a protocol agreement if that can improve the cooperation. Everyone can benefit from it. We wonder whether we should go further. Should we not be able to combine the two services in the long run?

Ladies and gentlemen, I also have one concern I would like to share with you. I am concerned about the training of our police officers. From various police schools I get reports that one is in unfavorable financial papers. It is thought of dismissing individuals or selling certain infrastructures. We talked about this in the committee yesterday. I have the impression that you underestimate the problem, Mrs. Minister.

I had hoped that this optimization plan would provide a solution to this. However, a rather cynical attempt has been made: instead of supporting the schools, they are going to punish them. Schools that fail to meet the educational standards due to lack of funds will not be assisted. In this way, there is no step further and it threatens to jeopardize the highly needed recruitment of 1,400 people per year.

In short, Mrs. Minister, this optimization does not simplify the structures. On the contrary, they are made more complex. Colleague Somers spoke about the waterhead of the police. It is ⁇ not an example of a real efficiency exercise. For these reasons, this bill cannot count on our support.

Mr. President, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, even though the birth of this project of police optimization has taken time and caused a number of tensions and turns back, sometimes leaving us questioning about what we would have called our wishes as being an arbitration on this matter – Mrs. Minister, I am not talking here about what concerns you – the Reform Movement obviously cannot share what has just been expressed by the colleague of the N-VA, who began his intervention by a catastrophic analysis of the state of our police today.

He could also have indicated in his statement that, throughout this legislature, we have watched, with this government, the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of the Budget, to see increased – unlike a number of departments and in the same way as it was the case for the Department of Justice – the funds granted to the Department of the Interior.

Nor can we follow the N-VA when it tries to explain to us that this optimization plan would further complicate the situation. We had the time to work with colleagues in the offices to ensure that this police optimization meets what was included in the government agreement and that provided for a simplification of the organization of the integrated police, so that police officers can focus more on their priorities. Being at the service of citizens is fundamental: local police zones for the vicinity and federal police for specialized police missions. For this purpose, the recommendations issued during the assessment of the policy reform carried out by the Federal Police Council will be taken into account.

That was the aim aimed. Given the long-discussed project and presented today, we feel tending towards this goal. For the reformist movement, it was essential.

Together with Antoine Duquesne, we have achieved the reform of the police, the struggle for a police more modern, more efficient, more flexible, more concrete in its action on the ground. This is one of the theses we have been advocating for a long time.

In order to ⁇ this goal, the government and you, Mrs. Minister, are prepared to profoundly reform the organizational structure of the police summit. This is not a second police reform but a structural reform of the summit for more flexibility of operation.

In particular, it is illustrated by the creation of a committee of direction of the federal police, which is similar to those present within our administrations and which will be able to give the police the major strategic directions. The top of the police is endowed with autonomy in terms of logistics, ICT, finance or even budgetary and investment policy. Therefore, the budgetary and investment policy is discarded. In our view, this element is fundamental in this optimization plan.

The organisation scheme of the federal police is simplified with a 63 percent reduction, Mr. Degroote, in the number of mandates and management services, by making the general management direction evolve towards a cross-sectional direction of resources and information. It will consist of 4 departments instead of 12: Personnel, Logistics, ICT - Information and Finance.

What we also welcome as part of this optimization plan is the strengthening of the role and competence of the Commissioner-General in the management of the federal police. He looks like a real manager.

The disconnection between the various directions has given the Commissioner-General more control over the operation of the police; this is essential! We hope that this will be able to bear fruit even though, at this stage, it is true that we cannot predict the results.

As has been stressed in the committee and in the plenary session, we strongly support the creation of the council of mayors. Indeed, the neighborhood police must play an important role, as important as the other levels; it is as such as it is perceived by citizens. It is the safety of the day-to-day that this nearby police brings him. Giving local elected members a power of recommendation in relation to the regulation or legislation relating to local police is an element that can only advocate for an even more concrete police and closer to the insecurity that affects certain localities.

There was another thing that kept us at heart. Mrs. Minister, you were barely at the command of this department that I already emphasized the importance of this aspect: the harmonization of training.

In the future, as part of this optimization plan, we will have police officers who will be trained at the same level. That is why I cannot join Mr. Degroote when he tells us that some will struggle to reach the level and that this optimization plan is ultimately bad for schools. What should remain our priority in the training of police officers is the requirement of a level that we will determine with the Department of the Interior and the schools. We cannot subscribe to a scheme that would see these formations shaken by a leveling downward. For us, this is an essential element. We have talked a lot about this and have had a lot of exchanges about it.

After a year and a half of discussions, we are satisfied, although there are still a number of problems and questions pending.

In committees, the issue of the integrated safety framework note which should have been drafted – and which has not been drafted – has often been addressed. This is one of the points that caused some friction during the discussions. In our opinion, this is a failure. We are somewhat uncertain about some points related to the police missions of the SHAPE, the Royal Palace. Of course, you will agree to clarify some elements on this subject. Then there is also the issue of the appointment of the Deputy Directors. How will this actually happen at the district level? A number of uncertainties remain.

Furthermore, the notion of optimization implies, on the one hand, a rationalization of resources and, on the other hand, a new allocation of resources. The Council of Ministers instructed you to provide it with a budget estimate of the savings expected to result from optimization measures. We did not actually have access to these data, to these clarifications, neither in the framework of committee discussions, nor at the government level, I think.

In the press, you have given a number of information about this. You stated that this reform would generate an increase, at the end of the fiscal year, from 800 to 900 operational jobs, on a multiannual basis. This is an estimate. But if we had this element of information, we would have been even more enthusiastic to vote on this text.

The question also arises of the assessment of the functioning of the federal police, in particular of the effectiveness of the organization of the decentralized administrative and judicial police directions by the Federal Police Council, which will take place in 2018.

A number of questions have been raised in this regard. As far as we are concerned, we consider it reasonable to wait for this time, in order to give time to the police to implement the guidelines and changes resulting from the optimization plan.

Obviously, with regard to MR, and this is what makes a part of our brand, we consider that too heavy structures and hierarchies impede the effectiveness of a number of public services on the ground. In this sense, the part of the government agreement achieved with respect to this optimization plan matches our political concerns on this subject. That is why our group will vote on this project.

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,

The effectiveness of security policy must be enhanced. The judicial reform must be aligned with the basic expectations. The leadership of the federal police should be strengthened.

However, we also believe that the resources you propose in your bill are insufficient and insufficient to ⁇ those objectives.

In this regard, I refer to the statements made in the committee and today, which, however, question the whole draft.

You want to lighten the structure. The number of management positions would be reduced. At the same time, however, you bring a double structure to life, with the well-known DirCo and DirJu. A number of new committees, committees and coordination structures are to emerge: the Integrated Police Coordination Committee, the Justipol consultation platform and the Federal Police Board.

You also announce that five mixed multidisciplinary research teams will be established. How will they all be composed and how will they work? All too much is pushed forward with KBs. That is the classic formula. If you don’t know it, you work with KBs. This shows that your bill was not sufficiently prepared and elaborated. The backup work via KB’s is not really clean.

The State Council has also rightly expressed a lot of criticism. In your design, you do not respond sufficiently to the expressed criticism.

As for the decentralized investigative services, which will be established here and there, you said in the committee at the explanation of this bill that they will be able to count on increased support from specialized police services, such as the Federal Computer Crime Unit. Last weekend, we had to read in a newspaper interview that while the Dutch specialized cyber unit – colleague Degroote has already mentioned – has grown from 30 staff members to a team of 120 people, the Belgian FCCU instead of 34 staff members today has to work with 27 people. Some regional computing units have been strengthened, but globally we work on cybercrime with fewer people than in 2006.

Mr. Minister, that is shocking. Recently, following the 2014 budget, it was said that there will be an additional budget for combating cybercrime. Prime Minister Di Rupo announced at a special joint meeting of the committees for Justice, Home Affairs and Infrastructure with great bravour that numerous additional efforts would be made. If one cannot realize those on the ground, Mrs. Minister, then those announcements are one big bubble.

In view of the upcoming elections, there will be many more balloons loaded, but they will also open up very soon. However, the fight against cybercrime is one of the major priorities and one of the pain points of your policy. You have a huge shortage in it. Neither can justice follow. Additional efforts must be made in this regard, both on the material level and in terms of personnel and resources.

Mrs. Minister, there are pain points that always return, especially too few resources, too few staff. The structural staff shortage was not reduced under your rule. The police are also waiting for additional funds.

I will give you another example. Two weeks ago, the federal police presented the results of the bob campaign here in Parliament.

Also there, in fact, it was admitted that the number of drug tests carried out was earlier limited, not so much because the use of drugs among drivers is quite common, but for budgetary reasons. You only get a certain number of kits with salivary tests. This shows again how nefast the policy is as long as there are not sufficient resources available.

I am closing. This is not an optimization plan for the Flemish Interest, but at most an extension of certain powers and organizational structures. The real work has yet to begin, but you have also repeatedly suggested in the committee that there is probably a lack of political will in the majority. Unfortunately again a missed opportunity, unfortunately again so many years that have been lost. Our group will vote against.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the approval of this bill which, contrary to the classical criticism of the opposition, which fails to get out of its role to see its major advances, truly provides an important response to the police and security problem in our country. In a single bill, we are able to meet different objectives, from strengthening coordination with the judicial authorities, both at the national and local level, to strengthening coordination and partnership, both at the national and decentralized level, with the areas of administrative police, with the establishment of this management and coordination committee as well as with the representatives of the local police and with the agreement protocols that we can carry out with the areas. Only with this enhanced collaboration, we are improving efficiency and bringing the federal police back to its core role, which is the overall support for local police, the strengthening of the presence on the ground and the reinvestment in the operational.

The second important element in the reorganization is to reduce the number of mandates by 65% and to drastically reduce the number of structures by more than 50%. There will no longer be 27 arrondissement structures twice, but only 13 integrated arrondissements, with the judicial and administrative dimension. We merge and federate the different management structures to only have a cross-sectional management structure. There will be only 4 centralized directions instead of 12, which represents enormous simplification, economies of scale and an increase in efficiency and modernity.

The strategic vision, the clarity and efficiency of the management, as well as the role of the Commissioner-General, will be strengthened. This was also an important point of attention.

Furthermore, the draft law takes extensive account of the consequences of the reform of the judiciary and the consequences of the sixth state reform at the level of the ten future districts, while ⁇ ining the distinction between judicial police and administrative police. It was necessary for us.

In addition, the same AIK, a district-specific information intersection, and the same service PLIF – Personnel, Logistics, ICT and Finance – for the entire management and services of the district will contribute to the uniformity, simplification and optimization of the operation and management of the federal police at a decentralized level.

I think this is also a very important part of optimization. The 900 to 1,100 additional police officers I quote will be essentially released, thanks to the merger of management services, from all administrative and management tasks, only in the districts. So optimization, in terms of staff, goes much further.

This will just allow us to limit the overhead, to refute a vision that we should invest as much in supporting structures as in supporting field security; whereas we must, at the police level, re-invest massively in both judicial operational structures and administrative police structures. I think that is a very important element.

The ICT and information policy will be strengthened, which is necessary. The deployment of decentralized operational capabilities will be promoted, among other things, through protocol agreements, both for the administrative and for the judicial police. The so-called first-line services, the road, rail, aviation and shipping police, also play an essential role and will be strengthened, including through the introduction of a draw duty.

In the same logic and within the framework of the subjects Ecofin, tax and social fraud, cybercrime and terrorism, the decentralized research services in the districts will be strengthened and they will be able to count on enhanced support from the CDGEFID and the FCCU.

As I said, the organizational structure of the federal police is being optimized and simplified. The number of mandates will be reduced by 65%.

For example, the new transversal Directorate-General for Resources and Information will contain only four components instead of the current twelve directions, namely personnel, logistics, ICT and information and finance.

Among the many challenges we have to face, one is essential, whether within the police or at the level of governance of our country, it is that of the digital transition.

In my opinion, it is crucial to manage digitalization, information and new technologies in a joint and federated way in a single service at the national level. This will have to be accompanied by major reinvestments and, above all, a real visionary policy in this area.

Here are the main lines of the project that I am looking forward to presenting to you today: a simpler police, more present on the ground, more at the service of the areas, in enhanced collaboration with the judicial and administrative authorities.

I think that was what we needed.