Proposition 54K3608

Projet de loi modifiant diverses dispositions relatives au statut des militaires.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Hendrik Bogaert, Veli Yüksel
MR Damien Thiéry
Open Vld Tim Vandenput

Submission date

Feb. 27, 2019

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

administrative competition recruitment armed forces military personnel staff regulations

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ Open Vld N-VA MR PVDA | PTB PP VB

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 ¶

April 4, 2019 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Ms. Waterschoot is the rapporteur but this proposal comes back from the Defence Committee. Mrs Bellens is appointed as a reporter of these committee activities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I refer to the written report that is coming.

Mr. Stirling, you have the word in the general discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I admire the concisity of my colleague N-VA who has been appointed rapporteur for an oral report in this committee.

Let me make a comment.

Overall, we support this bill, even though it has become a fork-all. We totally regret the method and the mismanagement of our government in this case, which this proposal hides wrong. Indeed, the goal is noble: to support the work of our Defence. The provisions of this proposal have been consulted with the social partners and are aimed at creating better working conditions. We will therefore support them.

This project pursues four objectives. The first is to organize practical tests as part of the selection processes. Second, it is about promoting a better balance between the private and professional life of our military. The third goal is to manage the Brexit issue within the Defence and the fourth is to organize an insurance system for our military during operations in Belgium.

Let me comment on three of these objectives, starting with the first. We, of course, support the organization of a practical test to ensure that candidates for a position have the necessary skills. On the other hand, the proposal on the table limits the number of candidates who will be able to participate in these practical tests, for organizational reasons. We understand this.

But in the committee, the competent minister was absent. Therefore, he could not reassure us that the candidates selected to have access to this practical test would do so on the basis of objective and not arbitrary criteria.

I would therefore like to make a recommendation: it will be necessary, in the context of the implementation of this bill, to be very careful and not to create discrimination and arbitrary. Thus, if one hundred people are presented to a test and only twenty can actually pass it, it will be necessary to define the criteria, how those twenty candidates will be selected and to inform them in advance. This is my first comment on this law.

My second comment is about Brexit. The text anticipates the difficulties that could arise for a very limited number – this concerns two people – of our military personnel who have British citizenship and who have submitted a request for Belgian citizenship. In my opinion, it was quite appropriate to anticipate the difficulties that public servants might encounter following Brexit. However, let’s take care not to create discrimination in the process against private professionals who might find themselves in the same situation. The rules of law are very different, but I encourage the government to be careful. If we support members of the public service, we must ensure that persons working in the private sector can also, where appropriate, benefit from facilities in terms of access to Belgian citizenship.

Finally, the latest amendment introduced recently in the commission aims to secure our military when they are in special operation on the street. I am surprised that the government discovered in 2016 that the military operating in Belgium, on the streets since 2015, following the attacks, were not insured. We are at the end of the legislature and we must urgently wait for an amendment to resolve this problem. It seems to me that it is quite far from the "goed bestuur" that the government has claimed to implement.

We will, of course, support this amendment, but this does not prevent me from repeating that, for my group, the operational presence of the military on the street is not a defence mission. The police should be in charge of this task. The saturation strategy implemented with the military occupying our streets can only work if it is temporary and exceptional.

Mr. Speaker, it is not common for a former minister to ask for the word about one of his previous powers, but Mrs. Waterschoot is not fully informed.

She should be aware that the amendment that was subsequently discussed in the committee meeting was put on the government table for the first time in 2016.

Apparently, she would like to speak to the Minister, who today represents the Minister of Defence, but in fact she is best directed to the friends who are sitting here in the plenary session next to our group.

For the sake of completeness, I would like to add that everyone who works at Defence is naturally insured. The question is whether all soldiers in operation are insured in the same way. That was, until now, not the case, and that is not fair.

Everyone should have their own idea about the deployment of our soldiers on the streets in response to the increased threat. I ask her what she says to the people who on 22 March 2016 in Zaventem owed their lives to the first aid they received from the soldiers present there.

Mr. Vandeput, I am delighted to meet you at this plenary session.

At the time in the committee, the minister could not give me the information you are giving me now.

That being, if the amendment was examined in 2016, why is it happening only today on the table? The N-VA left the government on December 6, the day I took the oath, an hour later. You could have acted between 2016 and December 6, 2018. Meanwhile, the soldiers on the street were not protected in the same way as they are abroad. This is why my group supports this amendment, but it hides the mismanagement of the previous government in which you participated.