Proposition 54K1857

Projet de loi modifiant la législation en ce qui concerne la définition de directeur de prison.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Sonja Becq, Raf Terwingen, Servais Verherstraeten
N-VA Sophie De Wit
Open Vld Carina Van Cauter

Submission date

May 26, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

management prison administration penal institution

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

PS | SP 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 ¶

Feb. 9, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, if there are no other interventions – I don’t know – I just want to thank the colleagues for their confidence in approving the bill. It provides a practical solution to a number of existing signature issues that are currently required by prison directors, which may now also be possible by deputy officers. I know that Ms. Özen will still take the word. I think I know what she is going to say. I will not anticipate it: I will let her speak, and ⁇ replicate for a moment, if necessary, what I do not immediately expect.

Dear colleagues, this bill obviously aims at changing the definition of prison directors contained, on the one hand, in the Principles Act of 12 January 2005 and, on the other hand, in the Act of 17 May 2006, by enlarging this definition in a completely artificial way to include also level A officials.

I had the opportunity to recall this during the discussions we had in the committee. Of course, my argument will not change today. It is true that, in practice, the attached already perform tasks which are, however, reserved by law to prison directors because there are just not enough officials appointed by royal decree to the post of director. What are we doing to remedy this problem? Amend the law instead of appointing enough officials to the positions of directors.

As I said, this way of proceeding confirms us that this bill is still explained by a will to save. Not enough prison directors are appointed because they prefer to pay cheaper prisoners who will nevertheless fulfill the duties of directors with the responsibilities that arise from them. If legislation confers precisely a specific responsibility and role to the director and to him alone, it is because there are reasons that are objective.

It is in no way about questioning the qualities of the attached who, in practice, already perform certain functions of director but, on the contrary, the bill has the effect of ensuring the existence of low-cost directors, if I can afford. This system also proves its limits when it is known that by allowing people of level A to function as directors, it also risks disguising other services within the prison such as the psychosocial service, in so far as the persons of this service will be changed as directors performing functions.

To conclude, I would say that it is up to the government to take responsibilities and ensure that there are enough prison directors to meet the needs rather than crushing the law.

Mr. Speaker, I think you agree with me that resuming discussions held in the committee can never be intended in the plenary session.

We are not on the same wavelength. This has already been said to Ms. Özen. She was right when she said it was to do certain savings and certain efficiency gains. In the past, indeed, there have been a number of statements in which the deputy directors of prisons had signed documents, just to help the system move forward, which were subsequently destroyed because they did not have the proper legal powers.

Thus we put this into legal order so that the prison directors, the general directors who hold the final authority and the final responsibility everywhere in the prisons, can continue their role but can also use people of level A, of the highest level within their organization, to sign certain documents.

I understand the plea of the PS. They say that all these people should be upgraded and appointed as prison directors, with all the financial consequences of doing so. However, we did not choose this. We are dealing with this pragmatically. We want people with a sense of responsibility and with the necessary diplomas who will continue to take responsibility. By the way, it already happened.

People on the ground also support this bill. I think this is important to know for all other people who will approve of this. They can be confident that this is a good bill. For practical, pragmatic, economic and efficient reasons, we will soon be able to vote on a good proposal.