Ugo Bernalicis and Marie Guévenoux, respectively deputies La France Insoumise and Renaissance, chose to close their assessment of the police reorganization project, made public on Tuesday, February 7, with two distinct conclusions, translating two different visions of the institution .
by Abel Mestre
Could it be otherwise? The deputies Ugo Bernalicis (La France Insoumise, Nord) and Marie Guévenoux (Renaissance, Essonne), who wrote the information report on the reform of the judicial police, did not manage to agree. The 137 -page document, made public on Tuesday, February 7, ends with two separate conclusions and partially distinct recommendations. If this is not an exception in terms of parliamentary reports, this illustrates the clearing aspect of the reform carried by Gérald Darmanin, the Minister of the Interior.
The heart of the text provides that a single chief directs the police, instead of a manager by service (judicial police, public security, border police, etc.). The displayed will is to rationalize police action and, with regard to investigative services, to create a “single sector” associating the judicial police (PJ), competent for the most complex crimes, and the departmental security, which depend on public security and are responsible for daily delinquency. Previously, these two entities only responded to their central directions. Placed under the authority of a unique official, the departmental director of the national police, they should work together to reduce in particular the voluminous stock of daily procedures (burglaries, attacks, etc.) which embolizes the investigators of the police stations.
independence “stake”
For several months, this project has aroused concerns and the rejection on the part of a large majority of PJ officials, who fear having to abandon complex materials (international drug trafficking, whitening, etc.) in favor of treatment smaller but suffering files.
Faced with such a complex subject, which in fact involves antagonistic views of the police organization, difficult to find a consensus. The two deputies find logical not to conclude the same thing. “When you are looking for common conclusions, it is always poorer: either you say nothing to find the smallest common denominator; or one of the two comes back,” explains Mr. Bernalicis. “It is not surprising that we have divergences, abounds M me Guévenoux. It is rather reassuring since we do not have the same vision of the police.”
Thus, if some of the 40 recommendations are common to the information mission – for example: the recognition of a status of the head of the PJ sector, the revaluation of bonuses of judicial police officers or the increase in the ratio supervision of the legal sector – others diverge. Ugo Bernalicis thus pleads for the attachment of the PJ to the judicial authority and is opposed to any idea of departmentalization, which is at the heart of the government reform. The Northern deputy, who considers that “police reform is necessary”, sums up in his conclusion: “The government project deliberately undermines the principle of independence of the judicial police by strengthening the prefectural authority, responsible before all of public order, without offering rigorous guarantees. “
You have 37.65% of this article to read. The continuation is reserved for subscribers.