Proposition 54K1276

Proposition de résolution relative à la politique de diversité au sein du Groupe SNCB.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Roel Deseyn, Nahima Lanjri, Jef Van den Bergh, Veli Yüksel
MR Emmanuel Burton, Jean-Jacques Flahaux

Submission date

July 16, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

recruitment foreign national migrant migrant worker resolution of parliament

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

VB

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 ¶

May 4, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr Wouter Raskin, rapporteur, refers to his 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. I am the one and the one that my group has put in. We will support these two texts, but not with the same enthusiasm.

The one of mr. Yüksel is like his party: blurred enough for everyone to find their account and not too ambitious to scare anyone. It avoids neither approximations nor inconsistencies. The main inconsistency is its scope. The second consideration and the introductory explanation correctly recall that all public undertakings have a social role and a role of example. They must therefore pursue a diversified and non-discriminatory policy. However, the requests of the proposal concern only the SNCB Group. Exit therefore Proximus, bpost, Loterie Nationale, Belgocontrol, or even Belfius. Would the fight against discrimination be more urgent for the SNCB or more secondary in other public companies? The question has already been asked and has not received any answer. I may have it today. Our amendments aimed at expanding the scope of the proposal were rejected without explanation.

There is also ambiguity about the objectives to be achieved. Do we want to promote diversity within the SNCB or fight against discrimination? These two questions, in appearance very similar, fall within two different philosophies. Promoting diversity within a company is like engaging a person because they are part of an ethnic group. The person is then defined not according to his own qualities or the difficulties he faces – I am not opposed to diversity as I believe that the encounter of cultures can only enrich society. Fighting discrimination is another thing: it is to pay special attention to certain groups of people because they must face the additional obstacles they face; it is to try to overcome inequalities and to correct social injustice.

Distinction is important because, if one wants to solve a problem, then it is necessary to name it and define it correctly. However, in a committee, my colleague Grovonius pointed out some inconsistencies in your proposal for a resolution, Mr Yüksel, as regards the objectives to be pursued. Demanding representation of people from immigration is a good thing. We need to know what kind of immigration we are talking about. Should we remember that not all people from immigration face the same difficulties, that applying for a job when you are from France or Sweden is not the same as doing it when you are from the African continent?

Let us be honest, the introductory exposition of the text does not completely evade this aspect, since it is a matter of coupling the data relating to the origin with the socio-economic realities. The unemployment rate in Belgium is even mentioned to be abnormally higher than in Germany or the United Kingdom for nationals of countries outside the European Union.

Therefore, I regret in particular the inadequacy of our respective resolution proposals as well as the blur between the objectives set and the clearly established findings. And this, especially since a majority amendment significantly weakened demands to the government. The latter will no longer have to take binding measures unless it decides to set the objectives itself. It is the cat that bites its tail.

It is because of this finding that we have chosen to re-submit to the plenary session our proposal for a resolution which, on the one hand, targets all autonomous public undertakings and, on the other, more objectively outlines the results to be achieved. By paying particular attention to youth unemployment in major cities, we also aim to get out of a vicious circle observed in certain neighborhoods that leads to progressive cultural, social and economic isolation.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, you will therefore understand that our support for the majority text is more about its spirit than its hypothetical implementation. That is why we submit to your vote a more ambitious and clear proposal in its objectives. I thank you for your attention.

Madame Lalieux, I thank you and wish you a happy birthday!

Can I tell you that this is the anniversary of Mrs. Wendy?

I just said this, Mr. Frédéric, and congratulate Mrs. Lalieux.

I was inattentive!

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I would like to begin by saying that the NMBS should not miss the train of diversity. Public companies have a social role and also fulfill a role of example. In our society, it is important that every talent is used. There is no luxury in this area.

In the present resolution, we call for the NMBS Group to cooperate with the federal diversity policy, which is also included in the government agreement. We request that the NMBS include targets in the new management contracts and also prescribe a diversity plan with measurable targets.

In the future, the workforce of the NMBS will have to reflect the diversity of Belgian society. Per ⁇ an add-on is not even needed and can be inserted directly into the new management contracts to be drawn up. You know that the formatting of the new management contracts has been ongoing for a few years. Today, railway companies operate on the basis of management contracts of almost ten years ago.

What are the numbers? In 2009, the influx of other nationalities to the NMBS was 1.8%. In 2013, this was barely increased to 2.5%. However, the 2009 management contract, i.e. the current management contract, stipulated that the influx from those target groups would be 10 %.

So we see in reality that we are constantly achieving positive results, but it goes too slowly. We want to accelerate in this area.

In 2012, 10% of the inhabitants of this country had another nationality. Why do people work based on nationality? Because today it cannot be otherwise. It is waiting for the definition of persons with a migration background, on which the federal government and the minister responsible for Public Affairs work today. You all know that this exercise has already been completed at the Flemish level. Objectives have been formulated in this regard.

Two weeks ago, the European Commission also pointed out a gap with us, namely that the employment participation of people with a migration background from outside the European Union in Belgium is the lowest of all EU Member States, both for the first, second and third generation. Therefore, it is important to change a speeding up in this regard today. We also know that most leverages for this are at the state level, but the federal level must also help where it can.

We see this at the moment as an important opportunity for the NMBS because the NMBS Group is one of the largest employers in our country and within the federal government agencies. This year, 2,200 people will be recruited and in the coming years, 2 000 people will be recruited each. The baby boomers will be retired in the coming years. This is an opportunity for the NMBS Group to ensure that its workforce becomes more a reflection of the diverse society in our country. I hope that all political groups will support this resolution.

I would like to say two words concerning the colleagues of the PS. We have chosen a step-by-step approach and we start with the NMBS Group. It is not excluded that we may later involve other state-owned companies. I would like to reiterate that this ambition is set forth in the government agreement. We will work gradually.

It is not a measure in itself. We want to address certain problems in the labour market. The main focus is on the problem of youth unemployment and this measure will undoubtedly also have a positive effect on youth unemployment. However, I suggest working step by step. The NMBS will take some concrete measures to ⁇ results.

Mr. Yüksel, I ask you for a clarification. I did not follow the discussion in the committee, as I am not a permanent member of that committee on that subject.

You say that you want to work step by step and that the government agreement is implemented with the resolution now presented. In any case, it would be better to make a bill, because a resolution remains only a resolution; you know that very well.

Is the Government Agreement effective that it should be started with the NMBS or that measures should be taken only with the NMBS? You just said that.

No, I have said that this resolution perfectly fits the government’s ambition to implement a diversity policy.

If this is stated in the government agreement, then I do not understand why that measure now only applies to the NMBS. This is a very minimal ambition.

Mrs. Temmerman, I understand that you missed a lot of the debate. I did not see you in the committee meetings. Your colleagues have not made any comments in that regard at any time, even though it does not matter now.

We want to concretize that ambition by including objectives in the management contract of the NMBS. It is a very concrete measure, aimed at achieving very concrete results. The resolution therefore aims to include targets in the management contract of the NMBS Group, thus setting measurable targets.

Sometimes some members are not present in the committee. You were also not there, Mr. Yüksel, when I started my speech. Therefore, it is not very sympathetic to address such reproaches to your colleagues.

I have not heard Mr. Geerts in this regard either.

Of course, this is not logical. We are talking about autonomous public enterprises under the control of the state. We only choose the SNCB while we could apply it to all companies. This is not ambitious. It must be recognized! When you were asked if only the SNCB was targeted, you did not answer. We will vote for it, Mr. Yüksel, but read our one that is much more ambitious than yours!

At the same time, a government amendment seems to go in a direction where the results do not matter and it will be up to the government to determine them itself. Your ambition has decreased. The idea was good, frankly! Deposit this text as well, but I think you should have worked with our resolution to find a global agreement and be more firm with your own majority, because it is your majority that didn’t want it.

Mr. Speaker, in order to save time, I use my intervention to explain the motivation of my group. Mr. Yüksel, first of all, the good news is that our vote will be favorable. The other part of my speech is ⁇ less sympathetic not to you, Mr. Yüksel. I have praised your work since 2015 when you submitted this text. I love marathons and you have done the way.

However, it must be acknowledged that the discussions in the committee and the remarks of the different groups, of Mrs. Lalieux or others, dealt with several fundamental issues. The first is: why only this public company? This is good, but there are others!

The second note concerns some form of approximation in what you ask for from the government. Sure, we are in a resolution, but we know that what is being discussed, especially within the SNCB group, are management contracts. These are somewhat more powerful tools. If we want, in our capacity as parliamentarians, to act and have some influence on the management contracts that are being drafted – they take time – and register something that is truly operational, it is in the management contract.

That’s why you don’t do it! So, it is still a little strange! This is not only your responsibility, but if you really want a strong gesture, you would still need a resolution that specifies it more clearly and asks the government to include this in the management contract. It is the government that negotiates. We have already made this comment in the committee, but I wanted to repeat it here.

Third, it is true that there are a lot of approximations in a number of definitions and criteria. In the definitions, who are we referring to? What is the exact wording? The nationality ? We have already had those discussions. It would have been useful to deepen the definitions. The criteria should have been deepened. It would have been helpful to be a little more explicit and precise about the numbers requested.

Finally, one of the very important issues for the SNCB Group has been sufficiently expressed in the debates we have had, sometimes somewhat alone, in committees, as part of numerous oral questions. Often the president whose birthday is not every day and I take advantage of the opportunity, because I ⁇ ’t want to leave Mr. Frederic the monopoly of the heart.

Mostly anyway.

Do not do two things at the same time, you will not do both.

by [...]

Only women can do that, they say.

The question is the renewal of the staff of the SNCB. You have seen, like me, the pyramid of ages. The latter offers a real opportunity. This is probably the reason why we will support your resolution proposal. Indeed, even if the goal is not very ambitious, even if it is not very defined, you still show a way, Mr. Yüksel. So we’re going to take – if I can say – the train in motion, which allows me to establish a connection with the news.

I would like to speak briefly on behalf of our group.

I hear the members of the opposition begin their speech with the same words every time, namely that they will support the proposal, followed by the entire criticism of the initiative or observations that the proposal is not going far enough, not ambitious enough, or is intended only for the track. That is regrettable.

There is a saying: better one bird in the hand than ten in the air. Well, colleagues, we now have one in our hands. The proposal is in favour and this majority — the cold, hard majority, as the opposition likes to call it — will impose the targets and a diversity plan. Indeed, as Mr Yüksel points out, we start step by step within our railway companies.

Mr Yüksel also pointed out that the Flemish government is already doing that. Furthermore, I would like to point out that the same Flemish government has raised the targets in 2016.

The [...]

Mrs. Temmerman, this is a beginning. You could have set those goals before.

The (...)

The railway companies are unfortunately still a federal matter.

Therefore, I would like to point out that our group will fully support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Cheron for his honest and balanced speech.

Mrs. Lalieux and Mrs. Temmerman, why the NMBS? First, because the NMBS is one of the largest employers in the country. You cannot deny that.

Second, because today the management contracts are drawn up for the NMBS. Now is the time to ask for goals and a diversity plan from the NMBS.

Colleague Lalieux, as I said in the committee, and I do not want to play party-political games: if the PS wants to do this work, why did you not do it in the previous government, when your party delivered the minister of Public Enterprises?

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate Mrs. Lalieux, and I also congratulate her on her birthday. But I would tend to say to her: "Rastreins, valet!" It is a Walloon expression, which she may not know. In order for her to understand ⁇ better, I could also say: "Do what I say and not what I haven't done."In fact, after being in government for 25 years, her party, the PS, complains about the absence of a policy of diversity.

In this context, I think that this resolution proposal should be seen as a step forward. I am very pleased to sign it, and I thank Mr. Respect for this initiative. As our colleague Mr. Marcel Cheron, we must greet the road. From time to time, we must be able to show the way. I think that is what we are doing here. The management contract will most ⁇ confirm this positive development.

The House is about to vote today on a text that holds me ⁇ at heart. As you know, the criteria for diversity are multiple: gender, origin, skin color, disability or religion. The subject thus goes beyond the sphere of business, for it is also political, social, media; it concerns the school and the street. Respecting each person and valuing each person to its proper value are essential aspects that we, politicians and we, liberals, will have to carry for the good of the city.

The policy of diversity within the SNCB Group is fundamental for more than one title. I am delighted that Mr. Yüksel took this initiative in the Infrastructure Committee.

As mentioned in the text, any public enterprise must adhere to the federal policy of diversity by establishing numerical targets, in particular regarding the proportion of immigration workers.

Public companies, such as the SNCB, should be examples for all. And the fact, Mrs. Lalieux, that the government has chosen a woman to lead the SNCB is also an extremely positive sign of the diversity we want to implement. It is a pity that this has not been done before.

The skills of people from immigration are more than necessary, which implies that the workplaces must reflect what our society represents. Therefore, Mrs. Lalieux, how can you not doubt for a second — but I see that you are not interested in it — that the federal public enterprises are the good example for the future.

Diversity is inseparable from equality. If the positive actions on which a true policy of diversity is based tend to deconstruct stereotypes or reduce discrimination, then, yes, the cause of equality will grow.

Dear colleagues, I thank you and, too, I look forward to the management contract highlighting the resolution that we will vote in a few minutes.

Work is an important pivot of integration and, by extension, it promotes the exercise of citizenship.

According to the indicators of the integration of immigrants 2015, published jointly by the European Commission and the OECD, Belgium remains one of the countries where the employment rate, among people from immigration, is the lowest, since it is still more than 10% below the employment rate of the nationals.

Problems of integration into the labour market are directly linked to segregation in schools and the lack of numerical targets for the hiring of foreigners. Certainly, the struggle must be carried out in advance, but it appears that a large number of companies and organizations are virtually not investing in the professionalization of their recruitment and selection procedures and even less in a selection procedure that would be part of a diversity policy.

Therefore, a diversity policy needs to be structured to globalize it within the enterprise and not to be reduced to individual behaviors.

We will therefore support this resolution, which proposes improving the indicators and strengthening the binding nature of the targets in order to recruit more foreign nationals to the NCB.

However, it is regrettable that we have to get there. Federal public enterprises should, of course, be an example in diversity. It is not eligible for a company such as the SNCB to fail to comply with the contract, which stipulated a target of 10% of foreign workers in annual recruits from 2009. The progress towards the target is ridiculous: moving from 1.8% in 2009 to 2.47% in 2013 is not the result of a voluntary policy. Therefore, the pressure needs to be increased.

We acknowledge that it is regrettable to have to ask the Federal Government (in paragraph 1 of the resolution) to insist that the SNCB Group adhere to the federal diversity policy. Public enterprises are called to be socially responsible and it is not just a matter of fighting the unemployment of people of foreign origin.

Public enterprises also have an interest in reflecting the audiences they serve, in particular by better understanding the expectations of users for the provision of resources that are similar to them, by fostering contracting and dialogue with all components of the population.

Is it really a coincidence if two resolutions on the agenda of our session go in the same direction: the one for foreigners and the one for young people in big cities? No, I do not think it is a coincidence. It is a reflection of a public enterprise culture that has failed to evolve and no longer reflects our society.

We will vote on this resolution in the hope that it will contribute to the evolution of mentalities and practices.