Proposition 54K3389

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 28 février 2007 fixant le statut des militaires et candidats militaires du cadre actif des Forces armées.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Nov. 21, 2018

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

vocational training defence policy armed forces military personnel military aircraft staff regulations

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Open Vld N-VA MR PP VB

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB

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 ¶

Jan. 31, 2019 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to my written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. I want to take the opportunity to show you once again the Chart of the Defence Administration, which illustrates how much the MR-N-VA government has conducted a harmful policy for the Defence personnel. I can give it to you, Mr. Flahaux, if it is too far away.

An image is better than a long speech. We see there clearly a crash, during this legislature, in the number of candidates attracted by a military career. The seven-year extension of the military career, the use of outsourcing to all-va and the permanent questioning of the military status achievements are obviously the reasons for this lack of interest in the military career in recent years.

Unfortunately, with this project, unanimously rejected by the four military unions, the new Minister of Defense is in the footsteps of his predecessors N-VA in human resource policy – or should I rather say in a policy of vocation destruction?

This project plans to increase the performance period of two years for pilots who have completed a conversion to a different type of aircraft than the one on which they were initially trained and this in order to try to solve the problem of a significant departure of pilots attracted by better working conditions in the civil – it can be understood.

In our view, the approach developed here again does not address the underlying problems. Instead of setting brakes to stop hemorrhage, the priority must be to establish a voluntary approach to human resources within Defence, bringing structural and positive solutions, such as revaluation or attractive military conditions, including stopping always challenging legitimate achievements of military status.

As you can see, my group will vote against this bill.

Mr. President, Madame Fernandez Fernandez, of course, I will have a different reading than yours. Personally, I am pleased to have been appointed as a rapporteur for this bill. Didier Reynders was appointed Minister of Defense. As the report is complete, I referred to the written version.

That being said, the MR positively judges this bill that aims to carry the performance period of pilots who have undergone a conversion training on a different type of device than the one on which they were first trained. This period goes from four to six years. This extension shall be sufficient to provide a sufficient number of co-pilots, commanders and instructors-pilots for transport aircraft in order to ensure operational availability.

Therefore, the reimbursement of the costs for the targeted training is also scaled over six years.

This amendment does not apply to pilots in office today, as indicated in Article 4 of the bill.

Mr. Minister, the opposition has repeatedly highlighted the human resources shortages in the National Defense, denouncing the attractiveness, the difficulties of recruiting, etc. It is true that these problems exist. But they were on the agenda before the establishment of the government of Michel and Mr. Vandeput. Previous ministers have tried to provide solutions to increase the attractiveness of military careers, through remuneration, employment content, future prospects, career readability, etc. Dear colleagues, like all observers, you yourself judge the results of these measures as insufficient. This is a difficult and important matter.

But it was this Michel government that was able, through the vote and the full implementation of the military programming law, to undoubtedly increase the attractiveness of the department. He was also the one who, by stopping the declining defence budget, demonstrated his willingness to invest in the security sector.

We can therefore hope that these two strong signals will lead to an increase in the number of new arrivals. In any case, this is our hope, our desire and our will with regard to MR. That is why we will vote on this bill. I thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that this government and the previous government announce investments for the future, because the law of military programming provides that not a single euro will be spent during this legislature. It is always easy to spend the money of others without knowing who the others will be!

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind colleague Fernandez Fernandez that orders are being made. I will not list all the files, but I think to recall that there were some opponents regarding some investment files that have already been launched. Not everything is postponed to the next legislature.

With the present bill, which was still signed by Minister Vandeput, we want to counter the outflow at Defence. This is not unimportant, because it is a pain point. What we do here is neither more nor less than extending the repayment period for training costs from four to six years. That is what is proposed.

I am surprised that there are opponents in the PS and, I fear, also in the SP. Just the outflow we want to counter, because we find that a lot of pilots are trained by Defense and then switch to the commercial sector. It is surprising to see that you are so opposed to it.

I will speak only once. Simply, I have not heard the numbers of commitments under this legislature. I repeat, it will be in the next that they will take place.

In addition, for information, the current proposal was rejected by the four military unions. This may be a sign that this provision does not exactly match the military’s expectations.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that my group is also opposed to this bill.

The first reason is that I asked in commission Mr. Minister to obtain figures relating to this problem of attraction. But we did not receive any of them. In other words, we are asked to vote on a bill to resolve a problem about which we have no objective information. We have not been informed about the number of pilots leaving, their difficulties, etc.

Then, when Parliament is to decide on additional coercive measures imposed on military personnel, it needs to refer to the principle of proportionality and whether the provisions are appropriate.

The Minister referred to the strategic vision. However, if you read the description, you will find that, nowhere, there is no mention of the attraction of pilots. That is why I cannot vote for a text that exercises an additional constraint on them, especially since, in order to compensate for it, no revaluation is planned. When I asked the minister about this, he replied that a flight simulator had been purchased. In any case, it’s a bit crazy! Hopefully our pilots are trained to fly! Therefore, this cannot be regarded as a measure of revaluation.

For all these reasons, we will not be able to approve this bill.

Colleagues, I will supplement what Ms. Fernandez Fernandez said. A good company provides motivated staff. This is what a company does to ⁇ its goal. In the private sector, that is: work efficiently and efficiently to make profit. The same applies in the public sector: working efficiently and efficiently with the scarce resources. This is done with motivated staff and adequate staff.

The staff must be motivated, including by their remuneration and status, but also by good challenges in the position, by future prospects and by respect for the boss, the boss, the employer.

Colleagues, it is well understood that Defense has a big problem in finding enough suitable personnel and retaining it. Based on the proposal now presented, with a view to extending the period of performance of the pilots, the government has clearly not understood that.

If one wants to increase the attractiveness of the job as a military, one must address it globally. The entire organization must be evaluated and updated in various areas. In terms of remuneration, for example, in terms of statute, in terms of development and flow, in terms of labour resources, in terms of organization, and in terms of respect for the military.

Colleagues, what is now predicted is symptom control. Here, the group of pilots is now addressed to keep them "obligatory" at Defense for at least longer, or to at least recover the training costs. The figures of the attrition were not even submitted to us in the committee, as the colleague said earlier. We do not even know if there is a problem.

What is the possible consequence? There may be a reduced influx when the conditions for accession are raised, there is no attention to the appreciation of the military and there will be less motivated personnel, because those who want to leave will have to stay there longer.

Less motivated staff leads to less efficient and efficient work.

The final conclusion of this bill is that the real structural problems in Defence are not addressed. For all these reasons, my group will not approve this bill. I expected more from the Prime Minister in his first bill.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I would like to repeat some comments from the committee in response to Mr. Top’s remarks.

Mr. Top spoke of “a good company”. I think the Minister with this measure wants to align Defence with what is happening in the private.

As an aircraft engineer, I am well placed to know how it happens, for example, with airlines. Pilot training is paid by those airlines. The deadlines that pilots must fly for those airlines are six, seven to eight years. In the Far East, it sometimes takes up to ten years.

With this bill, we bring Defence in line with what happens in the private.

Mr. Top spoke of scarce resources. If a pilot decides to leave Defence, is it our right, as a good company and as a guardian of the tax money, to recover a piece of what the Belgian government has invested in that pilot? That is the essence of running a good company with scarce resources.

When I hear that this measure does not fit into a larger whole, I think that this is completely wrong, Mr. Top. This is really a good measure to match Defense with what has been happening in private for a long time.

Regarding the appreciation, I would like to lose the following. I know a lot of pilots in defense. The appreciation we give them is buying new devices. I’m talking about the A400M or the new F-35s coming. With these devices, pilots can focus on their jobs in a competitive and safe way.

That is appreciation, Mr Top. This is how we see the development of defence. We find this a very good measure and we will ⁇ support it.

Mr Vandenput, I think you did not listen properly. I just said that it must be a set of measures. The problems in defence have existed for a long time. There is too little inflow and the attraction is too large. This includes the remuneration, the status, the challenges and the support of the military in the workplace.

A set of measures is needed. And now comes a bill with one point, namely extending the deadline for pilots. If that extension for the pilots could be presented to the military and trade unions as the last point in a global plan, it might be accepted, because a whole set of frame conditions are linked to it. This is not the case here. One measure has been picked out here and that is, as I said in the committee, a kind of punishment measure. This will not motivate pilots to stay in Defense for longer. And the ultimate result is that one has unmotivated pilots.

These are transport aircraft pilots. It is about increasing the performance period for pilots who have followed a conversion to Defense Expenditures on a different type of aircraft than the one for which they were trained. It is not about taking pilots hostage or punishing them.

By analogy with all military personnel who undergo training at the expense of Defense, there is a period of yield that is imposed, which is normal. This is a conversion on a different type of aircraft than the one for which the interested party was initially trained. This conversion, or complementary training, is clearly linked to attractiveness, contrary to what I have heard, since the interested person acquires complementary qualifications that he can value or make value later.

I think that this measure is necessary – beyond attractiveness – for operability, since civil society recruits military pilots under attractive conditions, but the increase of the two-year yield period avoids jeopardizing the ratio between the number of co-pilots and the number of board commanders and instructors.

Currently, the return period after conversion lasts four years. At the end of the conversion, it takes three years to count to become a ship captain. The yield period is therefore de facto limited to one year. Then becoming a line trainer lasts one year. The pilot can, at that moment, act as an instructor for a few simple tasks and this is an intermediate step towards the qualification of an instructor in the full sense of the term. Then, becoming a pilot instructor takes another year. If you want to do all this in four years, it seems to me extremely difficult. For this reason, a pilot who has been a co-pilot for three years must be able to provide an additional three years as an aircraft commander. This justifies a total yield of six years, necessary to ⁇ the ratio between co-pilots and board commanders.