Proposition 53K2323

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 10 avril 1990 réglementant la sécurité privée et particulière et abrogeant l'arrêté royal du 4 avril 2006 relatif à la délimitation des lieux, faisant partie de l'infrastructure exploitée par les sociétés publiques de transports en commun, auxquels s'appliquent les dispositions visées au chapitre IIIbis de la loi du 10 avril 1990 réglementant la sécurité privée en particulier, en vue de renforcer la sécurité dans les transports en commun.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

July 2, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

security services public transport means of public conveyance public safety police checks transport safety

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA LDD MR VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo

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 ¶

July 18, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

by Mr. André Frédéric, rapporteur, is apologized. He returns to his written report.

We will, of course, support this bill. We are pleased with the strengthening of safety in public transport.

However, I have already said in the committee, and I would like to repeat this here again, that I regret that we do not open the debate anymore. These problems do not only arise in public transport. This legislation comes now following an event in public transport. “Flash legislation” is not bad in itself, don’t misunderstand me, but soon there may be things happening elsewhere that we could have provided for today. That is the regrettable thing about this case, but we will of course support this part.

Madonna, you have the word. We are on July 18, 2012 and we are in Parliament!

Mr. Speaker, all my apologies. I was busy with something else.

Dear colleagues, my group fully agrees to give more skills to the security officers of public transport companies. Given the recent incidents in public transport, measures were needed to secure the passengers as well as the staff of the STIB. However, it is necessary to ensure that the prerogatives are strictly framed, as is the case with this bill.

It should be remembered that this text is first and foremost a framework in which royal decrees will be embedded that answer all the important questions. There will also be questions about the use of gloves as well as the cooperation between police and security services. It is therefore very important to insist on the need to negotiate all this in cooperation with public transport companies. As I said in the committee, it should not be the executive who imposes the ad hoc regulations.

My group agrees with this text. While it agrees to give more competencies to the safety officers of transport companies, it is also clear that this extension of competencies must not create a precedent. This shouldn’t give ideas to those who would like to extend security skills to private maintenance companies.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude by pointing out that it is important for my group that the changes, which will occur in the law, be incorporated into the training of security officers because more skills means also more training.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, dear colleagues, the bill that is subject to our vote was drafted following the death of a STIB supervisor in April last year. It responds to the needs expressed by police unions and representatives of public transport to increase the skills of security officers of public transport companies to enable them to act more effectively across a wider and better defined territorial perimeter.

It was essential for us to proceed with caution in this kind of debate, on the one hand, because it is always delicate to react hotly to a tragic current and, on the other hand, because the whole challenge of this project was to expand the competence of the security services, without questioning the philosophy of the current law that strictly frames the services performed by these agents and the distribution of roles between the police and security services.

In fact, like the State Council, we point out that the extension of the perimeter of intervention of security officers established by this bill is accompanied by guarantees in such a way that these measures do not cause difficulties with regard to higher rules. This bill therefore makes a reasonable contribution to enhancing the safety of transport companies. It should also have a positive impact on the feeling of insecurity felt by the population.

For all these reasons, the MR group will support this project. However, it must be accompanied by all guarantees of use with regard to instruction, training and control of these new tasks. We will therefore be very attentive to how the Standing Committee for the Control of Police Services will effectively carry out its monitoring, as well as to the modalities of collaboration between the private custody sector and the police services.

I would also like to emphasize that this project alone cannot provide a response to the uncertainty that is deplored in public transport. It is important that other field actors also see their strengthening power; I think here especially of the police officers. That’s why we look forward to the adoption of another project that allows police officers to use the camera networks installed by public transport companies. While the extension of the powers of private security companies may prove useful and complementary, it is important, above all, to give the police services the means to carry out their tasks.

This is a step in the right direction. The present bill is, in my opinion, an important bill, because the safety of public transport is today a very acute and real problem.

It is evident that security can also be worked further in other areas. I do not believe that all possible and impossible security situations can be solved with one law. Therefore, this is not an example of salami or steak flame policy, it is a necessary legislative framework to guarantee safety on public transport.

I would like to repeat what I said in the committee. It is very important that this law works properly. There must be clear agreements between the police services, on the one hand, and these private surveillance firms, on the other. I am afraid that otherwise it will not work well on the ground.

There are reasonable limitations on what a private firm may or may not do in terms of security, but in order to follow it well, one needs police services that play short on the ball, which therefore also come on the spot and respond to what the private security firms do.

Mrs. Minister, I also asked you during the discussion to work on pushing up the protocols that must be concluded between, on the one hand, police services and public transport companies and, on the other hand, the private surveillance companies. If we do so, this is a real step forward for the safety of citizens using public transport.

I would like to thank the members of the committee for their support. This project was indispensable. It shows the necessary prudence and remains in the philosophy of the law.

As for the first note, I have already said that we will hold a debate in September or October on the core tasks and on the expansion of the powers of the private surveillance firms. We also want to conclude a protocol agreement between the police services, private surveillance firms and public transport companies. It has already existed in some stations, including in Brussels. This reduces the time of police intervention.

Thank you very much to everyone for the support.