Proposition 54K1023

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 28 décembre 2011 portant des dispositions diverses, en ce qui concerne certains membres du personnel de la police intégrée.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

April 15, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

pension scheme police early retirement

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Ecolo LE ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP VB

Abstained from voting

Vooruit PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB

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 ¶

May 13, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will be very brief on this bill.

The government incorporated the idea of ending the preferential ages in the government agreement, but in the short term, the Constitutional Court’s ruling obviously raised a problem. This is the result of a measure taken by the previous government that has caused a lot of uncertainty among the staff of the police services. The draft law will take the necessary measures to remove this uncertainty. The alternative would, by the way, have been the immediate abolition of the preferential regimes. Doing so in a hurry would not be a wise idea.

As we have said in the committee, like some colleagues from the other majority parties, we believe it is important that the arrangement is taken, but that it is also made clear that it is a provisional arrangement of an exhaustive nature, which is not an advance to the final solution. We assume that the final solution found in this case is consistent with the government agreement. In doing so, we work towards the equalization of systems, with solidarity across generations and across systems, for the development of a generally accepted, sustainable pension system.

My party will approve the bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I have already had the opportunity to present the reluctance of my group with regard to the text we are discussing this morning. In the voting in the committee, we abstained. It will be the same from now on.

Let me explain the reasons.

First, we regret the extreme fragility of this text from a legal point of view. Like you, we want a fair solution for the police officers affected by the Constitutional Court’s decision of July last year. Like the police officers, we want a solid and lasting solution rather than a transitional measure. Like the State Council, which, in its opinion, draws attention to the fact that the preliminary draft disregards Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution, we want an unattainable solution in law. But your project does not bring a lasting solution; more seriously, it does not respond to the objections of the State Council. We cannot therefore support a text which appears to be merely a rustine, a bricolage, a disposition destined to suffer the same fate as that which it seeks to replace.

The second reason is more pragmatic. It concerns the implications on the level of staff. We can only give justice to agents who wish to assert their rights through the window of opportunities that this fragile text offers them. There are about 3,000 police officers, while 3,500 police officers are already missing. How can you compensate for these leaves when your government has so far only provided enough resources to recruit 800 new candidates a year. For a government whose ambition is to put more blue on the streets, the contrast is singular.

Finally, let me give you a reference to the current situation. This text masks another much more important matter, namely that of the overall reform of the police pension system. In the press this morning, the Interior Minister announces a big deal while, as far as I know, a trade union consultation is scheduled only today. According to him, this agreement covers non-activity starting at 59 years old. Since he was able to speak about this in the press, he would have everything to earn by speaking before this parliament, in particular regarding the financing of years of non-activity, the impact on the staff, in particular on the categories of personnel that are not considered to be heavy jobs, or even on the local finances.

Here is the incision.

To summarize the abstinence of my group, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Dear colleagues, despite the concern we share with the majority to find a solution to the problem posed, it is not possible for us to support a text full of unconstitutionality that does not solve the situation of the officers on the ground and does not open a door in regards to the overall settlement of the question of the pensions of the police officers.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister of Pensions, dear colleagues, the bill that is presented today to our parliament concerns several thousand police officers of our country.

In 2001, the policy reform introduced preferential retirement ages for members of the operational framework of the integrated police. These are exceptions, but they were still guaranteed in 2011 by the Public Sector Pension Scheme Act. But, following an appeal brought by a trade union organization, the Constitutional Court made, on 10 July 2014, a decision that is well known to all of us today.

Since the formation of our government, the partners of the majority have taken their responsibilities on the subject. They chose to include this problem, legally unstable for police officers, in the government agreement with the ambition to respond quickly. No subject is simple. This one not more than others! What we can see, Mr. Minister, is that six months later, it is about to be done.

This confirms, if necessary, that this government holds its promises and that it holds them in consultation and listening to trade union representatives and workers. Faced with the ruling of the Constitutional Court, by the voice of the Minister of Pensions, the government heard the representatives of the police. We all listened to them. Some trade unions spoke of a political ruling by the Constitutional Court. Others imagined that the federal government would hide behind this stop to make savings. All these assumptions are now thrown into the forgetting. On the contrary, the project adopted in the Social Affairs Committee a decade ago allows to correct a difficult social and human situation in which several thousand police officers would be found. We are talking about 2,500 people.

Written in the right line of government ambition, the project meets two goals: social justice and career and career path reform.

Social justice because the judgment of the Court, ⁇ unwillingly, created a distinction between similar applications for retirement, somehow penalizing police officers who had made the choice to continue their work in the service of public security, a choice that, you will agree, is rather to be respected than to be punished. With this project, police officers are put on an equal footing with regard to their pension rights and thus, while respecting the judgment of the Court, social justice is assured.

The second goal is achieved with the bill; the reform of career goals is consistently encouraged. Police officers who are in the conditions to retire on 10 July 2015 and who have not made the choice to take their pension at the age that was precisely allowed but a little later, in order to continue to work, will be able to continue to benefit from a pension at preferential ages. Reforming justice and coherence.

It is true that the government agreement gave the tone by giving a priority place to security policy. Successfully achieving this priority also requires responding to the particular social situations of police officers. With this project, they were heard, coordinated, and the right decisions were made.

For all these reasons of social justice, respect for workers who have chosen to work longer, this project, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, deserves unanimous support from our Parliament.

I agree with my colleagues.

With the present draft law, we want to remove the concerns arising after the judgment of the Constitutional Court of 10 June 2014. It is important that we do that. It actually means that the existing arrangement is confirmed.

The adoption of the present draft today does not mean that we remove the concerns of the other police officers or the other people who meet the criteria for heavy occupations. At the same time, following the establishment of the National Pension Committee, it was already said that it is important that there is a general regulation for heavy professions and clear criteria, so that everyone who meets the criteria can be treated in a similar way.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the Government has indeed been trying for six months to find a solution to the Constitutional Court’s ruling on pensions.

We learned this morning that there would be a solution for the police officers. As usual, social partners will be consulted only afterwards. I have heard that they will find the solution tonight.

It is good that the government is considering transitional measures. As Ms. Becq just noted, this is good because some people live in great uncertainty. However, the current bill does not remove this uncertainty, because it institutionalizes a new uncertainty. It provides a solution for some people. We agree that there is a transitional measure for them. However, the draft again builds into discrimination. I do not claim that, which the State Council clearly states in its opinion. In fact, the council states very clearly – I have rarely read such a negative opinion – that the present draft legislation again constitutes a major discrimination.

What will you do if you go back to the Constitutional Court? After all, the draft law will also be destroyed again if necessary, which, of course, makes the uncertainty much greater.

What should have happened is, first, that the government had developed a total solution for all police officers and not for a portion of them. In addition, it should have worked on the transitional measures that lead to that total solution. You did not do that again. The social consultation is also completely missing in the file again. Now one is consulted, then again the other. However, there is no global consultation. Also here, no global social consultation has been preceded by the draft.

Mr. Minister, we find it scandalous that, with such an opinion of the State Council, this government again makes such a proposal to Parliament. It really cannot. We are, of course, in favor of transitional measures to remove the uncertainty. With this design, however, you do not remove the uncertainty, on the contrary. In addition, there is only a solution for a fraction of people. There is no solution for the people of the former judicial police, not to mention the people of the local police. For them, the uncertainty remains very large.

Mrs. Becq, I must once again state that you are pondering some things, but that CD&V absorbs what this government proposes and will also approve this draft again. We are also in favour of criteria for heavy occupations that are very clear to every man and woman working in this country, but we do not want one to take out a fraction of it and only increase the uncertainty among other people.

Mr. Minister, since this is a partial and small solution for 2,500 people, we will abstain. We strongly urge a definitive solution for all those who are in this situation.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I will go straight to the goal because the essential difficulty of this bill is obviously pointed to right by the State Council. This project ⁇ ins a distinction that is judged unconstitutional by the State Council in a very clear way. His argumentation is ⁇ strong. There is therefore legal uncertainty. It’s always the same thing when you’re doing bricolage. You never know how long it will last. When will this beautiful legal framework collapse by the weight of a Constitutional Court decision? No one can say it and we can only hope that there will be no recourse.

Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, let us acknowledge that all this does not fit well with the principle of legal certainty. With this in mind, it must be acknowledged – I return to it – that this text also allows to repair what appears to be an injustice for some members of the operational framework of the integrated police, even if it is misguided, as I have just explained, in relation to the opinion of the State Council and the fact that it ⁇ ins a distinction that is considered unconstitutional. On the other hand, as I repeated quite often in the commission, you come up with a solution that is very partial because a whole set of files "police" and everything related to the regime of career purposes and non-activity is still in discussion.

It was possible to have a comprehensive solution since an agreement had already been reached last September. At the time, the Minister of the Interior was Melchior Wathelet.

You are still in negotiation this week, if I am not mistaken, especially on the regime of career goals and on non-activity. We hope and advocate that these negotiations lead to a positive outcome because what is arranged for some members of the integrated police today is not for many other police officers who are still waiting for a solution.

In conclusion, dear colleagues, I would say that you should not throw the baby with the bath water. Despite the many shortcomings I have just mentioned, this text repairs an injustice. We will therefore vote for this text but, if I can afford, waiting for you at the turn, for all the "police" files that are still in negotiation. This is a solution only for some. There are still a lot of situations and questions for which answers need to be found.

I would like to summarize briefly the circumstances that led to this. Basically, it is the decision of the previous government to extend the age of early retirement and pre-retirement with an exception that had actually been granted for certain professions: railmen, military, police.

Then comes this constitutional ruling that breaks this preferential regime for police officers. The bill in question holds on to the transitional regime – according to figures – for about 2,500 officers, i.e. those who meet the conditions as of July 10, 2015, but does not resolve the problem for all those who will no longer be able to benefit from this preferential regime, i.e. 40,000 police officers. I would like you to confirm these figures.

Finally, a small portion of those concerned are held with issues raised by the State Council and distinctions that would be unconstitutional. I suppose you will answer us on this, in addition to the numbers I have submitted to you.

Among all these distinctions, isn’t it better to rethink all the rules on prepensions?

On this level, the PTB has a clear, but rather divergent vision of the majority parties and ⁇ also other opposition parties. Indeed, we believe that it is necessary to be able to liberate the elderly who have worked enough, especially in difficult professions such as those we are talking about today. It is necessary to be able to grant prepension at 58 years for those who wish to do so and at 56 years for those who work in difficult professions. Is a police officer one of them? and yes.

Thus, even the government believes that “the regulation also takes into account the specific nature of the police profession. The circumstances under which police officers must operate are, at all times, potentially dangerous, and even extremely dangerous: psycho-social burden, permanent stress, imposed physical requirements as well as absolute availability day and night, as referred to in Articles 125 and 126 of the Act of 7 December 1998 organising integrated police, etc.” Since you acknowledge the difficulty of this profession, I consider that for all the 40,000 police officers – and not just the 2,500 – it will be necessary to grant a prepension at an age that, in our opinion, must be 56 years old.

I would like to remind you that this is a draft law on pensions. I understand that we want to globalize the whole system, but for my part, I come up with a bill that concerns pensions, and not with a bill that organizes the career of police officers. It depends on the Ministry of the Interior.

As for a solution for the other staff members of the police, consultations with the trade unions are still underway.

As for me, I come up with a project that concerns police officers.

It is true that the State Council opinion has been recalled but we have responded: we aim to eliminate an existing discrimination. Police officers who were able to claim their pension before the court ruling did not; they continued to work and now they lose their rights. This is unacceptable, it is very unfair. Somewhere, the Constitutional Court ruling brought discrimination, it must be acknowledged. We had forgotten all those who could have applied for their pension, with the preferential ages, who did not do so because they wanted to continue working, and who find themselves punished because they are prevented from recovering their conditions. This is the meaning of this text – it is just that – to allow more than 2,000 police officers not to suffer this injustice and to be able to benefit from the old conditions.

For the rest, the social consultation is of course still ongoing and we really need to find an agreement that allows to organize the end of the career for police officers, between 58 and 62 years today and, tomorrow, between 59 and 63 years.

Know that the government actually considers that the specificity of the police profession must be taken into account in order to find the best agreement in this matter.