Proposition 54K2388

Projet de loi réglementant la sécurité privée et particulière.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

March 29, 2017

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

services company public safety

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Open Vld N-VA LDD MR VB

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

∉

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.
• Stéphanie Thoron (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 ¶

June 8, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

This bill reforms the Law on the Regulation of Private and Special Security of 10 April 1990, also known as the Tobacco Act.

The Committee on Internal Affairs, General Affairs and Public Service dedicated five meetings to the discussion of this bill and organized a hearing with speakers from the working field, the academic world, the employer and employee organisations and representatives of the Standing Committee of Local Police and the Council of Mayors, respectively. Three bills were also linked to this bill.

I will mainly refer to the written report, but I think that this bill is important enough to add or remind here some elements from the discussion in our committee.

The explanation of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Security and Home Affairs first showed that it was opted for a highly simplified and legible law, since the current law had become a complex by repeated – 20 – amendments and the like.

Although the new law is rather a framework law that still requires a large number of royal and ministerial decrees, several aspects were still dealt with in detail in this draft, including those that define the specific powers of the private sector.

This new law recognizes the specific expertise that the private sector has developed over the years and can contribute to integral security. Although the private security sector will receive a number of new tasks and powers, divided into generic, activity-related and situation-related powers, the exercise of coercion and violence remains, in principle, reserved for the police in this draft, which is for voting.

Two new operations that were included in the new law are sweepings and delivery of technical safety equipment with operators. It should be emphasized that, as regards the weapons carrying power, nothing was changed in the generic powers, but only in the situational with regard to military sites or at certain international institutions and embassies.

In the case of surveillance undertakings, the licensing system is ⁇ ined, as is the principle of speciality.

Finally, the controls of persons and enterprises operating in the private safety sector will also be tightened on a number of points.

During the general discussion, many general and specific questions were first asked to the Minister, which the meeting subsequently answered extensively. In the general discussion, it was further emphasized that the law of 1990, as it exists today, indeed needed to be modernised, simplified and clarified, and the importance of a thorough control by multiple speakers was cited as a focus. Several speakers recalled that this bill is indisputably linked to the debate on the core tasks of the police, that the safety of citizens remains a core task of the government and that a balance between tasks reserved for the police and tasks that can be exercised by the private sector is important.

However, the members of the committee clearly diverged on where that balance should be and which tasks should be reserved for the government, respectively, can also be exercised by the private surveillance services. However, the fact that some of these tasks can only be exercised by the private sector under the supervision of the police services proved to be a reassurance for many, although several speakers nevertheless continued to wonder where the limits lie for the so-called outsourcing of security tasks. Whereas some groups stated that they could find themselves in an even more extensive delimitation of tasks for the private security sector, others showed themselves rather partially or a cool lover or even opponent of the bill. Opponents, for example, raised questions regarding the extension of the powers of the private sector, the effectiveness of the licensing system or the budgetary implications of the bill, including for local governments. Some speakers dared to threaten a two-speed security policy, which was denied by the Deputy Prime Minister. Finally, a few specific sectors were cited, including those of the starting environment.

During the article-by-article discussion, a large number of punctual questions were asked. Three amendments were also submitted by a majority, which were approved by the committee. One of those amendments concerns the introduction of an annual report for the House of Representatives on the work of the inspection services, the violations identified and any advice to improve the law.

Subsequently, the amended text was approved by the committee, so that this amended text of the proposal can now be submitted to the plenary session for discussion and vote.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the Government Agreement of October 2014 provided in the first place for an evaluation of the law of 10 April 1990 on the regulation of private and special security. Further in the text will be talked about the law-Tobback. The government statement said: “The regulation of private security will be evaluated. On the basis of this review, new and simplified legislation will be developed that allows certain tasks that are not part of the police’s core tasks to be carried out by private security services. The initiative will take into account the core task debate of the police services.”

The evaluation actually took place, in the summer of 2015. After that, the work could be continued in the form of drafting a bill. This bill was discussed in the committee and is presented today in the plenary session. It is an update of a law that is almost 30 years old and has been encrypted as many as 20 times. The result was, as the evaluation also showed, that the whole was quite opaque and difficult to read and that a major update was needed. This is now happening, through a completely reworked replacement of the law of 1990. The new law, of course, builds on the existing texts and on the practical experience, which is logical. But the new law also provides for more clarity, more transparency, a better structure. A number of concepts that were unclear are now being better defined or clarified.

Of course, the world has changed a lot compared to the world of 1990. There are clear social changes. There is, on the one hand, greater tolerance for some things. On the other hand, we see an increase in aggressive behavior. There are more mass events, there are larger shopping centers, there are more internationally organized criminal gangs, there is more digitalization, there is wireless communication, there is internet, there are drones. Many things have changed compared to the situation in 1990.

As we look at an increase in security, we are also increasingly looking at technological resources in surveillance and security tasks. I think of camera surveillance but also of camera surveillance with face recognition.

I am not talking about the increased need for more integrated security in response to the terrorist threat, which we now know for several years.

During the discussion, which the rapporteur subsequently referred to, there were also a number of hearings on not only the bill but also on the linked priority legislative proposals in the committee, specifically on the proposal of the Open Vld Group. We were then given the opportunity to hold numerous hearings, in which a wide range of views from a wide range of organizations were discussed: police, trade unions, providers, professional organisations, customers and the academic world. We have, of course, also had disagreements during the discussions in the committee or during the hearings, sometimes with the speakers, sometimes with colleagues, sometimes in the committee but also sometimes outside. The differences were sometimes about the scope of the draft law or the draft law and sometimes about the procedure or the texts.

While private security has now become a trusted part of events and certain locations, and although private surveillance companies have approximately 14 000 surveillance agents on the ground and there are also internal surveillance services, there are still some parties who believe that security policy should be carried out solely by the government or the police services.

Our party, of course, has a different view on this. It makes sense for us that the private sector, which has been known in the field for years and does good work, is an important partner and will remain in an integrated security policy.

Most of the interlocutors we have had during the hearings have been positive about the current arrangement that is now ahead. I am therefore pleased to hear that the representative of the local police also noted during the hearings that the private partners have an added value, allowing the police to focus even more on its core tasks.

I followed him in it, when he attached six conditions to it.

The draft legislation now presented creates legal certainty and opportunities, of course, both for the private sector, which also sought better regulation, and for the public services, including the police.

A number of changes now allow private guards to perform voluntary searches and verify identity at the access of discos, for example. Furthermore, security agents can be deployed for static and situational surveillance, specific perimeter surveillance, surveillance in shopping streets during shopping days. All this must be done in close cooperation with the police and it is only the police, who can use and the monopoly has on coercion.

The bill provides important answers to questions from the industry, for example, about the use of weapons. Obviously nothing has changed in this regard. Weapons can only be used in specific situation surveillance. Then we are talking about nuclear domains, nuclear sites, money transfers.

The bill also provides an easing of a number of tasks for the police services. This was exactly the example that the representative of the Standing Committee of the Local Police also indicated. We think of preventive sweepings in, for example, port areas and airports, major events, surveillance in the perimeter. As a result, inappropriate police tasks, such as static surveillance, can be taken over from the police, thus liberating capacity for the police’s core tasks. In addition, it will be possible for the police to use technological resources and know-how, for example, specialized cameras on drones. Then not every police zone needs to make that investment in expensive equipment itself. They can rely on the equipment that the private sector has, with which they cooperate.

We have natural ideological differences, but we live in a globalization, in a world where the sky is the limit. Boundaries are no longer obstacles, both physically and virtually, and misleading figures can undermine our security through all kinds of indoctrination.

It is important to know that the legislation continues to place autonomy and ultimate competence on the local authorities. This is essential, my colleagues. Each board must carry out the necessary safety analyses and develop a roadmap to ensure the safety of the population. It is now possible to weigh all existing alternatives against each other, both based on capacity and cost.

We are pleased that our bill has also been incorporated into the new law. In particular, it concerns the abolition of the so-called “freeze period” for former police personnel–members.

In terms of control, we see an evolution. It is very important that the employees of the sector are trustworthy. Therefore, the legislation provides for a thorough screening and training, as well as the necessary controls.

We are very pleased that not only will there be an administrative control, as already is done by the FOD Internal Affairs, but that there will also be a political control, so that we can evaluate from Parliament what is happening. From now on, a report on the state of the situation in the field of private security will be submitted to Parliament annually. In this context, it is necessary to examine the extent to which Committee P can be used in the inspections.

Finally, colleagues, we note that the legislation provides an answer to a large number of questions from the sector. Succession is needed. In the future, we will work as practically as possible. I then think of tasks such as store surveillance, output surveillance and catching on the harsh act. So the work is on going.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, much has already been said about this project during the committee discussions, which have been very long. For my group, however, it is important to return to key points during this debate in the hemisphere.

It is not a matter of any matter. It is here about the security of our fellow citizens and above all to give the private sector the keys to the broad operational areas of this security.

Let us not be mistaken, it is not just about framing an existing market, it is about expanding it and, in doing so, bringing the state back into the heart of its royal missions, namely the protection of goods and persons, the security to which every inhabitant of that country has a right.

It is also a matter of delegating to private actors certain capabilities for recourse to violence, of which the state should retain the monopoly.

Finally, it is a project that opens this sector a little more widely to competition by paving the way for automatic recognition of custody companies authorised elsewhere in the European Union, while easing the administrative supervision of the agents and managers of these companies.

As you can see, there are three points that mark the very sensitive character of this project.

With regard to privatization, I want to say that it is not for my group to reject the idea of the framework of a market that exists in fact. This was the meaning of the Tobback Law, which this project is intended to replace. The fact of proceeding to codify a regulation that has become difficult to read because of numerous resolutions and related texts is a rather praiseful intention, it must be acknowledged.

But it is quite different to extend the competence of the private sector to tasks such as the sweeping of buildings, the provision of technical equipment and its operators, to give it the ability to monitor sensitive infrastructures or security perimeter. This is quite another thing because it will be a nice game to repeat that it is not about replacing the police in this area but to offer a private alternative.

The ground reality is this: if it is considered useful to resort to the private in these areas, it is well because the federal police is put into the inability to assume its functions of supporting local areas by this government – government that communicates a lot on exceptional budgets, but which seems unable to ensure structural financing of our integrated, two-level policing.

The use of the private sector also has a cost. Guardianship companies are not philanthropic associations and they seek profit - this is normal. This benefit is incorporated in the invoice that will be presented to the customer, who will in this case often be the police area, and therefore the municipalities. In my opinion, it is once again a transfer of charges from the federal to the municipalities that this bill masks, dear colleagues.

However, for me, the very principle of a two-level police is somewhat undermined. The role of the federal police is to provide the areas with the technical and material support they may need on a timely basis. They should not have to turn to the private to obtain these services. It is the very principle of solidarity between the federal and local that is undermined.

This raises a second question of principle: that of a two-speed security between those who will have the means to use these private security services and those who will not have them. Article 12 of the Declaration of Human Rights of 1789 states: “The guarantee of the rights of man and of the citizen requires a public force. This force is therefore instituted for the benefit of all and not for the particular utility of those to whom it is entrusted."It is enough to say that for this founding text, police and security are essentially the affair of the public.

I continue on the use of force. You tell us, Mr. Minister, that “guard officers will have no more rights in this area than simple citizens.” But a simple citizen, Mr. Minister, does not walk with gloves. He cannot put a person in custody for two hours without police intervention. In this regard, however, it is surprising. You tell us in the committee that these two hours would not count as part of a possible guard. I think we will talk about it again next week. Guardianship begins from the moment the person is deprived of liberty.

In addition, this deadline is fixed at the time when we talk about the possibility of a direct transaction between a merchant and a thief at the draw. In my opinion, this is not innocent.

I add that you define in a very broad way the situational circumstances in which private security agents could resort to a firearm, circumstances that would make a smile if they were not significant of a decline of the state and inconsistencies in its management.

So the soldiers are put on the streets and the barracks are guarded by private security agents who are armed. At the same time, the retirement age of the military is lowered for those who no longer want to be entrusted with non-operational missions. Tomorrow, therefore, we will probably send 60-year-old parades to operations theatres while their barracks will be guarded by private security agents. This philosophy is very curious.

I will not go back on the issue of surveillance cameras, except to point out that in terms of workplaces, the project is also worrying at more than one title. We can only hope that the text will not lead to abuse with regard to the surveillance of workers at their workplace.

Furthermore, article 50 of your project authorizes guarding activities at the site of trade union meetings – this is true outside of conflict periods. It is important to know when there is a conflict. The limit is really very difficult to evaluate. In my opinion, the freedom of association implies that meetings can be held safely from any physical pressure.

I would also like to briefly address the issue of the recognition of companies already authorised in another Member State of the Union. Let me here doubt the excellence of controls and the similarity of expectations in the head of some countries with respect to private care companies. What should one think, for example, of a company licensed by the Hungarian government to control the flow of migrants to its borders? International organizations active in the field have multiplied the alarm signals regarding the behavior of certain companies. It does not seem unnecessary to post them here and to worry about them.

This with all the more vigor as your project seems to ease service control over the moral qualities of field actors. Internal SPF services must now be informed of a potential problem so that people are subject to a deeper screening. In the context we are going through, this is dangerous.

The question remains about the training of these private agents. You consider that the procedures within the framework of training are too administrative. Let’s say that’s the point of view of the private sector, but its lobbying has influenced you very strongly. You also organize a loosening of control over training organizations. This is the meaning of your articles 146 to 151. It should be emphasized that Article 147 poses a real institutional problem arising from your way of putting the private and the public on the same foot. You are considering fixing the content of the formations by royal decree. A consultation with the communities would ⁇ be welcomed. This would have allowed you to realize that this formulation largely impairs their skills. You fix profiles, tags – this is normal; this is also done in medical training, for example – but you also hear fixing the content. As much as this can be healthy in relation to the private, as much it will cause you a problem at the level of the professional seventh, for example.

In short, private security with broader competencies, with less strictly frameworked training, with broader competence to restrict freedoms, controlled less strictly, all at the expense of the federal police. Here is your project. It is contained in this very revealing phrase, already cited in the committee and drawn from your motivation statement: "Private actors can no longer be considered as subsidiary junior partners of the police forces."

My group is of the opinion that the draft under consideration is too good for the private sector, that it shows a costly de-investment in the federal police services, that it refers many important elements to enforcement orders and presents a real risk of infringing on the rights and freedoms of the inhabitants of the country in their daily lives. For these reasons, you doubt, we will vote against your project.

Mr. President, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, this bill, you will have understood in the interventions that preceded mine, is not anodin. At the time of the indispensable professionalization of the security professions and especially in the face of the threats that we face, the entire preventive, deterrent, control and repressive arsenal must be clearly precise and adapted.

The law of 10 April 1990, known as the Tobback Act, responded to a real need for sanitation and professionalization of the security sector. Its legal framework has enabled to meet these needs. But this law has undergone in the last 25 years many changes, retouches too, which eventually made it difficult to understand and apply.

On the form, Mr. Minister, your bill makes a real effort of clarity and I think, in particular, to the clear definition of the private sector competencies through categories: generic competencies, situational competencies and finally, activities-related competencies and all this makes the overall picture much clearer than in the past.

Furthermore, and regardless of the changes that have occurred in the last 25 years, the new requirements for securing our fellow citizens and the new terrorist threats on our territory imposed an evolution in this matter, because in the face of these issues, the priority remains to ensure a police work focused on its tasks of ⁇ ining order and intervention.

It must be reaffirmed that the police services are the only holders of public force and the use of coercion as well as violence. It is a monopoly but a democratic monopoly of the police. With this project, the monopoly is ⁇ ined unambiguously, which, for our group, is essential.

As far as weapons are concerned, Mr. Minister, you have repeated it many times, this project does not expand the possibilities of armed guarding. The question of the protection of private agents has not been avoided; on the contrary, it has been taken care not to cause these agents to take unnecessary risks. In this project, weapons are only allowed for protected transport, protection of persons and property surveillance, static guarding, mobile guarding, intervention after alarm, this in places where no one is supposed to be.

We had a long debate in the committee, as our colleague recalled. The private security sector plays a strictly preventive and deterrent role. This is already a lot, and it is necessary in the organization of our life in society. Private security is an occupation of security among others. He is a useful partner of our police services. We therefore welcome the new and indispensable measures included in this project because they guarantee the effectiveness of a successful overall security system. We will support this project.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, we have not gone ice overnight with this bill. Over the last two years, a lot has been debated. The hearings were ⁇ enriching and enlightening, as the Chairman of the Commission said. At the same time, many questions are raised for the future.

CD&V is satisfied with the present draft and will approve it, as we have done in the committee. In fact, it is a kind of balance between those who wanted a very large extension of powers for the private security services and those who advocated a limitation of those powers. What is also very important for our party is that, as our colleague just said, the exercise of coercion and violence is in principle reserved for the police. It should be emphasized that with regard to weapons and generic powers, nothing is amended in this bill, except in specific situations in relation to military sites or certain international institutions and embassies.

Those who read this draft for the first time, and also afterwards, should ask themselves whether this is not inseparably linked to the core task debate on the role of the police and on how the safety of citizens should be organized. That was also the point of all the discussions.

What has not yet been discussed here is that this is undoubtedly associated with a price label, especially for local governments. Who can oppose more security? Indeed, for a year or two, the world has changed and the population expects much more from local governments, but the budgetary contours are what they are. Everyone who organizes events in our country already uses private security services, but that also has a cost.

It should also be noted that we are very pleased that our amendment regarding the introduction of the annual report, in which the work of the inspection services as well as the violations identified and the proposals for the improvement of the law in the coming years can be evaluated and possibly updated, was unanimously approved in the committee.

Legislation is ultimately a living story, as I always say. One must dare to evaluate and see where it can be directed. Our group will approve this bill with great pleasure.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, colleagues, now more than ten years ago, in 2006, the then Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr. Dewael, issued a message about the administrative discharge of the police.

During the previous legislature, 2010-2014, this topic was also discussed extensively. Hearing was held in Parliament on the possible transfer of police matters to the private sector. After those hearings, Open Vld submitted a bill containing a concrete list of police duties to be paid.

In this legislature, we have submitted this bill again. Hearing was held again, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Chairman of the Commission. During the discussion, it was said that it apparently should go pretty quickly, but in fact, a lot of time has been spent in this debate. A lot of people have heard. Now is the time, that is what we are happy to do, to vote on it and to complete it.

In the draft that is to be voted tonight, many of our proposals were taken over. We are pleased to establish this. I would like to thank you, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, for the cooperation.

During the discussion in our committee, and also today, we have heard a lot of criticism of the draft from our socialist colleagues. I said then and I repeat that they apparently forgot that in the previous government agreement, the government agreement-Di Rupo, on this subject was included the following: “Solutions are sought to free the police from certain administrative, but also operational tasks, so that the police can concentrate on the core tasks.”

In the previous legislature, this point was ultimately not reached. Other steps were taken. Open Vld has then contributed to the sanitation of the sector. Stricter licensing requirements were imposed. There was also a limited system of subcontracting and 25 additional auditors were also hired in the previous legislature. It also provided for a frameworked extension of certain powers of surveillance agents, such as surveillance on industrial sites or systematic controls at airports. This has already been decided in the previous legislature.

Why do we find this design so important?

The starting point is to work together for a safer society at an acceptable cost. Private surveillance is recognized by this text as a full-fledged player in the security policy. Indeed, the awareness has grown that public security as the core task of the government cannot simply be dismissed against private security. For almost 20 years, the concept of integral safety has been applied. This means that the citizen’s demand for security is wider than the action against crime; it also extends to the feeling of insecurity and the inconvenience. A second element within integral safety is the fact that we have a safety chain, which also includes prevention and aftercare. A third element is the fact that public-private cooperation in security must be possible.

A second important concept in this debate is modal safety. This means that not only the government must take care of the safety, but also that business and private actors should be involved. It is a story of outsourcing, in which the government, with the preservation of the management, can move to outsourcing a number of security tasks to the private sector.

This draft creates a clear regulatory framework, which clearly defines the tasks and powers, the detailed rules of implementation, the evaluation capabilities and the revision capabilities.

In the implementation of the law, we will have to keep an eye on the following objectives. Will more security be achieved? Is there a specific cost advantage? Is there greater employment and more flexibility? And, very important to us, is there job creation, integration into the labour market and reduction of workload for police and other government agencies? All this we will be able to measure in the annual report, colleagues of CD&V.

The objective is to strengthen the operational capacity and the presence on the ground of the police. For years, we have been advocating for three tracks in the core task debate for the police: first, the definition of the core tasks; second, an internal reorganization and modernization of the police; third, a transfer of the tasks to third parties, including the private sector.

The private security sector offers a lot of employment. We heard that ten days ago. It is also important that they work very hard on the recruitment of opportunity professions. Figures from the Professional Association for Surveillance Companies show that last year, 2016, one in three were over 45. Often it was also low-skilled people who found a job in the sector. In addition, the sector is also actively investing in new technology in order to be able to target people more.

In summary, this text and the proposals attached to it fit into this government’s vision of reducing public seizure and stimulating private employment where possible. After all, the government needs to modernize and a modern government needs to engage in its core tasks.

We have, in addition to the bill and after the hearings, drafted an amendment. We have added a number of additional tasks. I quote three: the sweepings that are also in the design; the training and deployment of dogs and the use of technical resources for third parties.

For this last point, I would like to refer to an example from my region, namely the pilot project in Nieuwpoort and Ieper at the commemoration of 100 years of World War I. This is a very good example of how successful it can be if the government and the private sector join hands and with high-tech resources monitor a very important event in the interest of our citizens and everyone who was there.

I conclude, Mr President.

The work has not been completed with the approval. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. It is not because the private sector will be able to perform a certain task or power that this will happen in practice. We will need to evaluate to what extent the tasks that are now released can also be carried out by the private sector. Open Vld will in any case strictly follow that and examine whether the law on the police office may also need to be adjusted in the future.

We would also like to look over the wall, to our Dutch colleagues, because there the Council of Chief Commissioners, comparable to our Standing Commission of the Local Police, has an agreement concluded with the Dutch Security Industry, the equal knee of our BVBO. Together, they published a publication on ten steps in public-private security cooperation, a sort of collection of good practices in the cooperation between the police and the private sector. We will explore these pistes further.

Finally, I would like to thank all my colleagues for the good cooperation in the Committee on Home Affairs. The Open Vld group will approve the proposed draft with great enthusiasm.

For the SP, security for everyone is a responsibility of the government. Those who impose the rules must also obey them. Here arises the question of where the boundaries lie for outsourcing that supervision and its enforcement. What can the private sector do and what not? How should the public and private sector relate to each other?

In our view, the answer to all these questions must meet three fundamental principles. First, security must always be guaranteed; second, everyone has the right to equal treatment in security care; third, security care must be organized democratically.

Let me start with the first point, safety.

The question that rises here is the following. Does private surveillance enhance security or the sense of security? The least one can say is that the presence of a uniform with a different color than the current blue can cause confusion. People may wonder who really should do what, or wrongly assume that security guards can do what the police can and can do.

Some time ago there was an article about Securitas. Also there, it is not always clear for people who, for example, should or should not search. We make a new distinction. Surveillance agents are differently trained and screened and will receive a different salary than the salary a police inspector gets. In some cases, it may be about people who have been refused for the job at the government as a police inspector. In addition, private firms will not have the same support power as the police in many tasks. Then the question is whether these tasks will or can be performed with the same efficiency.

Colleagues, for all clarity, we believe that weapons use and the use of force must absolutely remain a monopoly of the police. Fortunately, the design is in agreement with this, but incidents will undoubtedly occur. I cannot read clearly in the proposal how to deal with this. However, this is of great importance.

Our colleague from the Open Vld group has just repeated the proverb: the proof of the pudding is in the eating. In fact, I find this difficult. We do not know what awaits us, we do not play with the safety of people.

I would like to come to my second point, especially equality.

Colleagues have already commented on this. We believe there is a risk that there will be greater inequality between associations, as larger events as well as ⁇ and citizens will be able to resort to surveillance firms, while in other cases this will not be financially possible. As a mayor, for example, it is impossible to expect a village meeting or a smaller event to be able to cover these costs. There is a risk that such events will disappear.

Safety is a basic right for everyone. We must be careful. On the one hand, we are discussing a nuclear task debate, on the other hand, we want the police to work more efficiently and be closer to the population. This does not fit together. We fear that, for financial reasons, police’s nuclear tasks will be limited to the reactive and repressive part of police work. This would mean that attention to prevention and follow-up care disappears. So the police become a firefighting police and no longer a community-focused police with and between the civilians. However, the community police was introduced in the police reform to strengthen the link between police and the public. It implies that the police are socially well integrated and primarily respond to the needs of the population and cooperate with them.

Furthermore, there is a danger of creating a dual security system. Whoever pays receives private and police care, and whoever does not pay, must deal with a reduced police care, which is also overloaded with the succession of the private security care once they are at the end of their powers.

I come to my third point, colleagues, to organize the security care democratically.

In the case of outsourcing, the government must also keep the ropes in hand. In other words, there must be control. The control of surveillance firms consists mainly in the fact that the minister can withdraw their license and that inspections will follow.

Nevertheless, that control is less direct than the control that a minister can exercise on a public service.

It is important to note that the State Council here correctly notes that Article 101 of the Constitution states that ministers are accountable to the House of Representatives.

Guaranteeing public security and ⁇ ining order are among the essential tasks of the government and therefore also among its main duties.

The responsibility of the Minister shall be mitigated as soon as the security tasks related to the protection of goods and persons no longer fall exclusively within the authorities responsible for the security. As the responsibility of the minister decreases, the democratic control by Parliament will also be weaker than today. The control may still be carried out through the Committee P or the Committee I, but today we already hear urgent calls there because of the lack of people and resources. It has even been indicated that one will never get the control blotted. The question is: how will you solve this? Ultimately, we will reduce control, with all the consequences thereof. But where did I hear today the plea for more control and more transparency?

The proposed amendment to the Annual Report has little to do with this. On the contrary, it actually shows that there is no direct control. In addition, there are already problems with the transmission of information and its collection and tracking. Police services need to work more and more rationally and efficiently, but how can this be achieved if all work and information are fragmented? It is therefore only a question of whether the training of private surveillance agents will be aligned with the collection, processing and reproduction of information. It is fearful that in this way a lot of information will disappear or at least be less up-to-date and complete for the police services.

The next point, colleagues, a point that has also been cited by others, is the financial aspect.

We must be aware of the financial consequences of this exercise. The rejection of certain tasks does not mean that they do not have to be paid or executed. We fear that the core debate and privatization will lead to a shift of costs from the federal government to the states, local governments and police zones, and ⁇ in the long run to associations and citizens. It is therefore only a question of whether the outsourcing of tasks will not simply result in double costs and more, on the one hand, for the private surveillance that makes the findings, on the other hand, for the police that must act thereafter. Thus, it is more likely to come up with higher costs than if you simply let the tasks be carried out by the police.

I would also like to refer to the State Council’s observation that private actors perform their tasks in a competitive market. The pursuit of profit is their ultimate goal, colleagues. Therefore, one will never only perform cost-covering assignments. They will be invoiced at least at the cost price which is anyway higher than that of the service provider.

Finally, colleagues, you have already heard that my group is not in favour of this proposal. I refer to the comments of the State Council. For us, there are still many unresolved questions.

Mr. Top, I do not understand something.

You said later that you point out that people from private surveillance firms will earn less than police officers, while you said later that they will cost more because the cost is higher. I don’t know how to reconcile one with the other. If they earn less than the police officers, then of course it has to do with other training costs.

Where do you actually want to go?

Mr. Vermeulen, you may need to read the report again.

It was your last sentence.

I have not talked about lower wages for the security services. I have said that the surveillance officers will work to the limits of their duties and that, because they have less powers than the police inspectors, at the end of their work they will nevertheless have to pass on the commission to the police inspectors. In some cases, double work can be done.

For us, there are still unsolved questions. How can we guarantee control? An annual report is not enough. How can we address inequalities between local governments, associations, citizens and staff? How can we guarantee that the organization will be more cost-effective than it is today?

Many provisions in the text are regulated by implementing decisions. Of course, we have nothing against innovative technologies, but the question must be asked, Mr. Minister, how you can brake technologies that can pose a danger to citizens through implementing decisions. I refer to an example from a few weeks ago. In the newspaper was then a article about the deployment of robocops in a country in the Middle East. I would like to point out that technological developments can also sometimes go out of hand.

My group, therefore, does not agree with the implementation of the bill. However, I would like to take a constructive look at the proposals made in the committee. Thus, I am in favour of the bill on the lock-making plant submitted by colleague Demon.

To my surprise and that of some colleagues, this text was not retained and amended in the bill. Since we find it a good proposal, we are submitting an amendment inspired by Mr Demon’s proposal aimed at regulating and recognizing lock-makers. We believe it is necessary to include the lock manufacturing in the new private security legislation, as at present many abuses are signaled in the sector, which plays an essential role in the security of citizens and governments.

Mr Top, Mr Thiébaut asks for the word.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that our group found your proposed amendment excellent. I signed it. This amendment was inspired by our colleague Demon’s excellent bill.

We are very surprised that you did not include it in your bill, Mr. Minister, because it is really an excellent proposal, claimed by the service professionals. We will obviously support, like I suppose, the CD&V group, this extremely important amendment proposal for your bill.

As mentioned, anyone today can call himself a lockmaker, even those who are not reliable, have no knowledge of business, or do not take into account confidentiality, privacy, or correct trading practices. Individuals or police inspectors who need a lockmaker should be able to rely on that service provider as a trusted person, working with reliable and skilled personnel, managing correct rates and applying fair trade practices.

A similar sector is that of the alarm installers and they are included in the new law on private security. Recognition rules have been in place for 25 years. It is therefore time to establish the rules for the lock-making industry by means of the present draft law on private security.

This is a bill on which we have had a long discussion. I think it’s happy because it’s an important bill that will still change the organization of our fellow citizens’ security quite significantly. It is therefore normal to have had long debates with real differences in view of society – I will return to it –, real differences in approaches to the safety of our fellow citizens.

It can be said that during the debate we had hearings. We had to insist, but we got them. Let’s look at the glass half full. We were able to consult some of the field actors. But we still worked on a charge. We had the hearings on a Tuesday morning and we voted article by article late in the afternoon and the next day. We felt there was a pressure to move forward quickly. It is true that these discussions have been held for a long time in the interior committee, with different texts. The colleague Lahaye-Battheu talked about her bill that goes much further than the bill that is submitted to us today.

When the debate is messy and tinted with amateurism, it is said. Here, there have been real discussions, of course at the charge step, but we are used to it. I regret that we did not really ask ourselves the question in terms of necessity and organization of security at the state level or at the level of private partners, as you call them. We did not really debate. We did not really ask questions about the fundamental aspect of security for our fellow citizens. Should it still be a public, public competence? Can it be estimated that certain pieces must be transferred to private actors, with all the consequences that this can have?

As environmentalists, we are committed to ensuring that this remains regalia skills and that it remains in the public sphere. We have repeated this many times in the committee. This is not your opinion, Mr. Minister, or that of your majority, but we could have gone deeper into this fundamental debate for the organization of security and for the quality of life of the eleven million Belgians.

I would like to return to a few important points for us. First, the security context and the budgetary evolution of recent years. As for the current security context, I will not teach anyone anything by saying that the security context has evolved and that the level of threat is no longer the same. We have lived many weeks at level 4 and we are still at level 3. The terrorist threat exists in our country and in other European countries. This context has an obvious influence on the work of police officers and police officers who are subject to new tasks, new pressures, specific implications in relation to the level of threat.

Most services are overloaded, under heavy pressure. This causes stress, burn-outs, increasingly impossible timetables, a high rate of absenteeism, diseases, which arise from this increased overload of work due to the context we know.

I would also like to recall the context of massive deinvestment that our police services have suffered for years. Between 2010 and 2015, whether under the governments of Leterme, Di Rupo, Michel, budgets have continued to decrease. Overall, police personnel decreased by 10,000 full-time equivalents during this period.

Starting in November 2015, your government has reinvested, increased budgets, but, to date, this is not enough to catch up with the chronic de-investment that services have suffered in previous years. For example, at the level of police cadres, this creates structural deficits. I stressed, as General Commissioner De Bolle did last October, that the structural deficit is now 15%. At the end of last year, it predicted a deficit of 24% by 2019.

We all agree on these findings, but not on the political responses to bring them! Indeed, Ecolo-Groen has always pledged for a greater strengthening of staff, at least to fill these frameworks, as well as for an increase in budgetary resources to ⁇ this goal.

This morning was the presentation of the second interim report of the commission of inquiry on the attacks of March 22. One of the strong recommendations of this committee is to fill the federal police cadres in the years to come and allocate the necessary budgets. We therefore welcome this recommendation, hoping it will be implemented by the government.

That said, the bill that we are dealing with here states another option that is to say that we are actually facing a structural problem, a workload of all the police services on which everyone agrees. Our response is to partially transfer some tasks to the private care sector. It is about this answer to a real problem that we have substantial differences.

Mr. Vermeulen noted that, as part of the hearings, we collected the testimony of a representative of the Permanent Commission of Local Police (CPPL). If I remember right, he said he was happy to work with private sector partners, but because he has no other choice! This is an interesting testimony in that he said he knew that he would not have the reinforcements he would need and that, doing so, working with private partners was a solution.

I don’t know if the terms I use are accurate, but I think that’s what he meant. In any case, this is not in contradiction with what you said, dear colleague. In any case, this reflects the discussions we have had. At one point, the police services said that they would do with what they were offered, but that was not the optimal solution.

I would like to emphasize a second point. As I pointed out in my introduction, this is the principle debate concerning the organization of security within society. But we did not discuss what we wanted as a society.

The State Council raises the same problems and thus questions the relevance of transferring part of the police powers to the private sector.

“It is a priori not doubtful that ensuring the safety of persons and property has always constituted one of the royal functions of the State, within the framework of the social contract by which, through the Constitution and the laws brought under it, the Nation – holding sovereignty – endows itself with institutions for taking care of what the general interest requires.”

Another interesting aspect highlighted by the State Council - and already mentioned - is Article 12 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, the guarantee of which requires a public power, "established for the benefit of all, and not for the particular utility of those to whom it is entrusted".

I find the last point ⁇ relevant. I quote again the State Council: "There is also a difference in approach between a security provided as a simple material executing of decisions made by the competent police authorities and a private security fulfilling tasks with a concrete impact on freedoms." This is exactly what the bill provides. Again, we were unable to discuss these fundamental issues.

You yourself have observed in the committee, and we will have confirmation tonight, that our political conceptions differed on this fundamental aspect.

This is a Pandora’s box. As some have recalled, some skills already transferred to the private sector will be expanded. In a way, it paves the way for further privatizations and other skills transfers for the benefit of private custody companies.

It is notorious that some, in this parliament, have the veil to go much further than this text. For example, your majority colleagues from the Open Vld had submitted a bill listing a whole range of skills, more than the text discussed today which, somewhere, is a smaller evil. Fortunately, we have not progressed on this text.

The practices of other countries were discussed during the hearings. In Sweden, for example, Parliament is currently debating the transfer to private agents of national powers such as the fight against major fraud and terrorism. I’m not saying that it’s in your plans for the coming years, but these are practices that exist in European countries, to which it was referred during the hearings.

Again, where will we stop? Will we not, tomorrow, after tomorrow, go ever further in privatization? This document raises a significant concern in us. For us, this is a first step towards a wider privatization.

I would like to return to another important point: democratic control. The activity of police officers and police officers is democratically controlled by the police councils, which are composed of representatives elected by our fellow citizens. It is also controlled by you, Mr. Minister. You are part of a government from a democratically elected parliament. Democratic control is exercised over police officers. This is normal, and it works. This is by definition not the case for maintenance companies.

In the bill, you assign this control function to the P Committee, which will actually have to play this control role, in particular through its inspection service. The same P Committee sent a letter to the members of the committee, in which it asked a series of questions. You have partly responded to this during our exchanges. There are still strong concerns about this control, which will not be democratic. How can we democratically control private care companies? The control mechanisms provided by this text raise questions to the institution itself that will have to ensure this control, i.e. the Committee P.

We supported in a committee an amendment that proposes the presentation of an annual assessment report before parliamentarians, in order to assess the impact of the law. This is a good thing.

Last point regarding this democratic control: the number of complaints from citizens increased between 2015 and 2016 from 100 to 120. There was also an exchange on this. Is it structural? Is this related to the increase in the number of security officers? I had the number of 18,900 active agents. Here too, there remains a great point of question with regard to this democratic control.

The last important point I want to relate to tonight is related to the budget. This is a real question, which also took place during the hearings. This is a concern relayed by the representative of the Mayor’s Conference. I specify that he was a member of the CDH, therefore a member of the opposition to the federal, because I was accused in the commission of using this reference. His testimony was questioning. As previously stated, local authorities will have to finance private sector agents. With what budget? Who will pay the bill? Probably the citizens. There are concerns here and it is not the only mayor to issue them.

It is well-known that the company must, by definition, make a profit. Who will pay this surplus cost? The figures were cited in the committee. I took them back here. The cost of a private agent was estimated to be around 70,000 euros per year, while with a police officer you are situated a little above, between 80 and 100,000 euros, depending on the status, training, etc. Are we talking about equal training? Equal levels of competence. This also raises the question of the budget. Who will pay this extra bill? Not to mention the profits that will have to be generated by private care companies.

Another important issue is public procurement. Appeal procedures for private security officers will be conducted through public procurement calls. We know well that, too often, the market is granted to the one who offers the most advantageous price. In terms of security for our fellow citizens, is this the most appropriate choice? What are the guidelines that will be communicated to agents in local authorities to be warned? It is also the lobby of private guardianship agents that has warned against the practice of public procurement as it is practiced today and that can pose real problems since it is about the safety of all our fellow citizens. The importance of this topic should lead us to integrate more effective shelters than it is today.

I would like to come back briefly to a topic that I have long discussed in the committee. It is important that we question the role of the lobby of the private guardianship sector in this text and in the debates we held, because in the panel of persons heard on Tuesday morning, we realized, during the exchanges, that one of the persons invited by the majority (only academic, criminologist and specialist in the field) was the chairman of the APEG training committee, which is the main lobbying body in the field in question. This is extremely challenging and I have repeatedly pointed out this to the House President. At least, it should have been announced as such.

If, for other cases, we had invited academics related, for example, to energy or nuclear, and we had discovered that he was a member of the Greenpeace training committee, you would have done, in my opinion, a great case and rightly! Here we are in the presence of a very disturbing mix of genres. It is also known that the leadership of the APEG has changed: it is a Director of the Internal SPF who became CEO of the APEG, which in itself is not a problem. The problem lies in the timing and the problems related to this law. This poses question. We might at least ask ourselves what the role of the private guardianship lobby is in the preparation of this text.

In terms of transparency, we can do much, much better. I regret this again in the plenary session.

To conclude, dear colleagues, Mr. Minister, there is a real profound divergence in terms of the vision of society on this text. As I said in the committee, I repeat that we can absolutely not follow you in this vision that is quite different from the one we advocate in terms of security, a priority theme that is dear to us and that, for us, must remain in the hands of the state, in the hands of an effective public service for all our fellow citizens.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, first of all, I would like to welcome the effort of clarification and simplification you have made with this bill.

The problem of transferring security skills and private companies is not new. The law has undergone several successive amendments that gradually expanded the powers of private companies. The principle of transferring certain competences therefore does not pose a problem as such. The development of the private security sector in the sense of professionalism, reliability, quality is a fact. Private security took more and more place and it was necessary to refresh the entire legislative apparatus around this theme.

This development must be in accordance with the interests of the citizen and the State. Private security should be a complementary support rather than a police competitor. The police are not able to properly perform all current tasks and must be able to focus on their own essential tasks. As repeatedly stated, it needs additional financial resources that it would allocate to other tasks than building surveillance or accompanying goods transportation.

However, we insist that this transfer must meet strict conditions, that is to say it must be structured strictly and precisely in compliance with the principle of subsidiarity – the regional competences are not affected.

And in the interest of the citizen, the level of quality and equality of public service must be ⁇ ined. Unfortunately, the proposed plan does not meet all of these criteria. As I said before, the methods of application remain vague. You state intentions, but do not specify how they will be put into practice. We are repeatedly sent back to the royal arrests, which remains unclear. You don’t say anything about how to cooperate with the police. For us, there are still many fears and questions. It would have been more logical to consider this project after the closing of the debate on the key tasks of the police. You indicate, during the debates, that it is not a matter of transferring regional competencies, but of opening opportunities. What is the limit?

We know that some would like to go even further in the transfers. We fear that this project is a Pandora’s box. How can we ensure that local governments will not have to bear additional costs, directly or indirectly, as has already been seen on the ground, through grants and increased applications for grants from local authorities? As the State Council noted, what about the absence of a hierarchical line between the minister and the private sector? How do we deal with the consequences on the level of political responsibility? This is a crucial question to which we have not obtained a satisfactory answer in commission.

In this bill, some areas are absent. Mr. Top recalled this recently by announcing the submission of amendments, which we will also do. In fact, we are thinking of the closure industry. This area was also supported by Mr. Thiébaut.

In fact, locking companies have similar activities to those of alarm systems companies. Did you know that the latter already fall within the scope of the law of 10 April 1990, when this is not the case for lock-in companies? Currently, this sector has no regulation, unlike our neighboring countries. Many abuses have been found, and Mr. Top has recalled them recently.

At the request of the sector, we will therefore also submit an amendment inspired by the proposal of Mr Demon of the CD&V, in order to ensure that the closing activity will be exercised safely within the limits of an authorisation, an authorisation and in accordance with the conditions provided by this project, in particular in terms of training conditions, absence of criminal conviction, age conditions, etc.

Mr. Demon, I am giving you a pencil. I hope you will take this opportunity to sign this amendment with us. I am addressing you personally. In short, for all these reasons, Mr. Minister, we are not able to support the reform as you have proposed it.

Mr. Speaker, although this bill does not directly interfere with the police’s task package, the timing actually leaves little to the imagination. In the committee, the minister, by the way, explicitly said that this fits into the so-called nuclear issue debate. The government wants to grant more powers to private security firms, with the aim of privatizing certain police tasks later.

For years, there has been a structural underfinancing of the police. This leads to overworking services, less efficient operations and the false impression that the only solution is to delegate tasks to the private sector. While profits continue to flow to private companies, risks are borne by society. The privatization of public security will also lead to greater inequality. Rich individuals and associations will be able to buy security, the rest will be the asshole.

It would be much more efficient and cheaper to provide the police with sufficient resources according to the revised KUL standard. The police have one purpose, in particular: to ensure public safety. The main concern of companies for private security is making profit. Police officers must be accountable to all citizens, security officers only to their employer.

We are also concerned about the lack of adequate control over these companies. At the police there is quality control, among other things by the Committee P, the General Inspection and internal control services. Under this new law, private security would be controlled primarily by the FOD Internal Affairs. The Minister may withdraw permits and have inspections carried out.

In addition to the two large companies, G4S and Securitas, which hold 80 % of the market, there is also a large number of small ⁇ active. The FOD Internal Affairs currently employs 24 inspectors to inspect an increasing number of surveillance agents. It is only a question of whether there are sufficient resources available to exercise effective control. Licences for surveillance firms that no longer meet the authorisation criteria will not be automatically revoked. Even when applying for permits, the prosecutor or the intelligence services will not automatically give advice, unless there is an adverse indication.

There are problems in this sector. Small steps may have been taken at the end of 2014 and in September 2016, but it remains a sector where bad contracts and social dumping are not unusual. The staff, as well as the rest of the civilian population, becomes thus the asshole of the profit battle of these firms.

Therefore, the PVDA will vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues from the majority and the opposition for all the comments made today, but especially for the debates we have been able to conduct in the committee.

The advantage of conducting long debates in the committee is that it brings little new elements into the plenary session. For the majority of the comments made, I therefore refer to the report of the committee meetings where the majority of matters were dealt with.

This bill highlights the ideological differences present in this parliament. The left-wing ideology wants everything to be settled by the state, by the public sector. Another, more moderate way of viewing is to let the public sector do what it should do, namely to retain the monopoly of the use of violence, and to entrust other tasks, which are not ⁇ related to the responsibilities of police officers, to the private sector. This more moderate view, fortunately, has a majority in this parliament.

I would like to add a few points on the content.

Mr Thiébaut, with regard to foreign companies, it is very clear that they must have a Belgian license and must adapt to Belgian laws. There will be no exceptions for these companies. If they have obtained certificates in their home country, we will check them and evaluate the equivalence of those certificates with our requirements. This will not pose problems: the same quality and the same skills, the same legal framework will be required, as for Belgian companies.

There were many comments on the control. I think that with this bill, there will be even more control over the sector. The inspection services spent most of the time clarifying the uncertainties in the legislative framework, to make them clear to the sector, to take a stand on them. This draft law and all implementing decisions that will follow will only provide greater clarity allowing the inspection services to spend much more time inspecting themselves, for which they were eventually set up.

The inspection services belong to the FOD Internal Affairs. They are under my control. Thus, they can also be controlled by the Parliament. We have also added that the Committee P will be able to exercise control over this.

I would like to thank everyone, especially the services of my own cabinet and the FOD Internal Affairs, who have worked hard on this law. I would also like to thank the colleagues in the committee who have been working on this for hours and hours, Ms. Lahaye-Battheu was right, for many years.

I hope that this law can soon be passed and that even those who have said they have some doubts here and there still use their common sense and put the green light on this law.

Mr. Minister, I have a brief response regarding the control.

You say that the law will clarify this. I agree with this, but ⁇ the observation during the presentation has not been done well in the sense that by outsourcing more tasks to private security, more control will have to happen. All resources that go to control and succession cannot go to security. That is the fundamental comment we make about your design.

This is not entirely the case, in the sense that the police are also controlled.

of course .

Both private companies and the police have control mechanisms. The shift of tasks does not mean an increase in the audit workload. There is control in both environments.

Mr. Minister, I think we should not actually resume the whole debate we have had in committee, as we sometimes do. Each group expresses its point of view. We had the opportunity to do it. You responded briefly and you returned to your responses in the committee. I think this is a wise position.

That being said, one comment anyway.

You speak of a mere ideological positioning, with a leftist view that everything related to security must mostly be entrusted to public authorities and a right-wing view that part of the state security tasks can be entrusted to the private sector. Of course, we can talk about it for two hours without anyone changing their mind.

But I have advanced here and in commission another element: you are impoverishing the federal police. This goes beyond the left/right split. This is a problem related to the policy you are conducting. You are impoverishing the federal police. You told me in the commission that as a mayor, I should be happy to be able to appeal to the private sector, for example to have a command vehicle, surveillance drones or other services that the private can provide. And I answered you that I expect the federal to provide me with these services, without having to pay them to the private sector. This is not a question of left/right split, but a question of impoverishing the federal services.

Mr. Thiébaut, you are right, this goes beyond the ideological debate. Therefore, I want to intervene, because your statements are manifestly incorrect.

We are investing in the federal police: 500 million in the last three years. These are structural amounts, which will therefore be ⁇ ined in the coming years. To say that we are working to impoverish the federal police is not correct. We are doing the opposite!

I would like to take the word briefly.

Since the report of our work of the Committee Terrorist Attacks has become public since this morning, it can be said in the plenary assembly that we made two findings: that of a disinvestment in the first years of the legislature and a second, made unanimously, that it was necessary to invest. You tell us that the government has taken the path of investment. I answer: find in the report of the commission of inquiry – which, I hope, will be voted unanimously – the necessary support to invest even more in a larger and wiser way. We will not be obliged to use the private sector as you program it.