Proposition 54K2650

Projet de loi relatif à la continuité du service de transport ferroviaire de personnes en cas de grève.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Aug. 25, 2017

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

public service strike right to strike

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

LE ∉ PP VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) 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 ¶

Nov. 16, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mrs Lijnen, rapporteur, refers to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, finally – I say that not only because of the late hour of today – we are here to discuss and approve the bill on services in the hemisphere. It was a long and difficult journey. For us, this represents an important step forward in ensuring our public service. It’s extremely important for the travellers, as they got exceedingly frustrated at every train stop.

I will not repeat the statements made in the committee. We have already debated the topic extensively and actually the debate on it has not begun with the discussion of the present bill, but rather with the entry of the government. For the opposition and the trade unions, the idea alone, the mention in the government agreement to work on it through social consultation, was a bridge too far. As a response, we got one strike after another. We can argue that the rail trade unions have thus themselves only increased the level of support for the legislation and reduced their own image. The result of the strikes were many questions in our committee and in the plenary session, media debates and now finally the discussion and later the vote.

Why is the design so important for the N-VA?

Actually, I ⁇ ’t have to explain that. It is the evidence itself that a public service is guaranteed even on strike days. Public transport by train plays an important role in our mobility policy. Every day, about 870 000 passengers travel by train. A strike of railway staff, in which, as in the past, almost all railway traffic is disrupted, is therefore completely disproportionate. The importance of a few hundred versus the obstacle for hundreds of thousands is disproportionate. The consequences are enormous: longer routes, frustrated travellers, imagery damage to our railway companies, declining customer satisfaction and, of course, also economic consequences. The N-VA says resolutely that a public service that is not guaranteed is not worthy of the name public service. If one is convinced of the importance of public transport, one can only support the bill.

For information and to refresh the memory, in 2014 we had a total of 18 strike days: 10 announced and 8 wild strikes. During those strike days was confirmed by then Minister Galant, the predecessor of Minister Bellot, that sign houses and tracks were occupied and then by people who were not working on the railway or were no longer in active service with our railway companies. I wonder then, and I hope you all, why those persons occupy the tracks.

Everyone can go on strike, including with the current bill. It only needs to be ⁇ in order to organize the strike. There is not a single employee who will not have the right to strike. There will only be a few rules to be followed.

Thanks to the new law, the working-willing train staff, which I note bene greatly value, will no longer be used, or rather abused, will be able to hold political strikes against the government. The many strikes that have taken place have been purely political strikes.

During the discussion in our committee, the opposition colleagues called the file windowdressing. Several colleagues argued that the travellers would be the asshole. Have those colleagues ever taken the train before or after a strike day? What was their response to the travellers? Do they really think that there is someone else who understands the many railway strikes with great consequences, where the whole train network is just platligt? Collega Geerts called the file the trophy of the government and of the N-VA. Well, in that, I follow my value colleague. The introduction of a minimum service on strike days is extremely important for the government. That we finally realize that after today, or after tomorrow morning, this is finally definitely policy, is for us surely and surely a trophy. It is a trophy of the government and it is primarily a trophy of and for the traveler.

Many colleagues also laid out the link between the present bill and the savings imposed on the railway companies. I never understood that link. Did they mean that not driving trains is a savings in itself? I do not understand that. Maybe I will hear in their speech what they actually meant.

The united opposition also argued that a guaranteed service would not work, that there would be chaos on the rail. However, the numerous figures in response to parliamentary questions show that the strike readiness is relatively low. In addition, up to 20% of the employees of our railway companies take leave on a strike day. Is it mandatory or necessary? I do not know. It is indeed a huge number. On 31 May 2016, the railway undertakings confirmed that the proposed scenarios are perfectly applicable on the strike days preceding the hearing. The strikes of May 2016 also teach us that the strike readiness on the Flemish side is always much lower than on the Wallish side and that a nice train offer in Flanders is possible – we could see that on the screenshot I had made of the train offer on those days.

The fact that the bill would create unsafe situations is another riddle of the opposition. The then director, Mr. De Ganck, and Mrs. Billiau of Infrabel, however, said very explicitly that no train would depart without the safety being guaranteed. That those who are so committed to security on strike days, so far have failed to block the occupation of tracks and signal houses, really does not matter to me. Colleagues, if there is something unsafe now, it may be the occupation of tracks and signal houses or the laying of iron bars between the tracks. I have not yet heard any condemnation of these practices from the left side.

Ms. De Coninck, you know that this can already be punished today through the Criminal Code, in particular through Article 406. You say we haven’t said anything about it, but just follow the Criminal Code.

I have never heard you publicly condemn such practices. On the contrary, if Infrabel submits unilateral petitions to the court before those strikes, you condemn that Infrabel dares to do so.

Indeed, this is because unilateral petitions in a procedure in which mediation is required do not lead to mediation. You must correctly represent what I said then.

Unilateral petitions are submitted if there is already a strike notice. That mediation is actually something for social consultation, I think.

I have another consideration for everyone here.

In my opinion, the measure in the bill removes precisely the perverse effect of a strike. The disproportionate impact on society against the importance of a few who strike, is exactly countered, and in this way, in my opinion, it is just ensuring that the social consultation can be more successful. We all agree that the best solution against strikes is not strike. Through social consultation, an agreement must be reached that is acceptable both for the trade unions and for the companies and that is based on securing the future of our railway companies, and thus also of their train staff.

Colleagues, after years of thalm and thickness, the minimum service is now almost ⁇ policy. The sharpest sides of a rail strike are beautifully folded. For N-VA, this is a logical and first step towards a better arrangement of railway contracts. Many countries, including our neighbors, have already gone ahead of us and have some form of minimum service in case of strike days.

You all know, colleagues, that our proposal, which we submitted in October 2015, went much further. We are pleased with this first step. I think this is a very reasonable proposal. The right to strike is not restricted. Every employee retains his or her right – strike is an individual right – to be allowed to strike. However, he or she will have to follow a number of rules. Employees falling within the categories concerned will simply have to declare whether or not they will participate in the strike. In this way, the NMBS and Infrabel can still drive trains. They will be based on the volunteer employee. The day before the strike, the NMBS will then communicate with its travellers about which trains are running and which are not. In any company, this is the most normal thing in the world. Why shouldn’t this be the case with our railway companies?

The communication to the passengers included in the system is positive. This distinguishes us from the system applied in France during strike days. This communication is a very important thing for the traveler. I therefore hope that the company will use all means to adequately inform the traveller of the transport offer on the day of the strike, and that the service schedule is communicated clearly and clearly. As a traveler, you want to know which train you will be able to take and which not. Since the new CEO in our committee recently emphasized the importance of good communication, I feel good about it.

The rail trade unions have sabotaged the file for years by disturbing and slowing down. I remember a statement by Mr. Goossens who, after months of negotiation, said that he had no mandate to negotiate the guaranteed service. The question now is how the trade unions will react to it. Will they submit to the measure, or will they still put sticks in the wheels through all sorts of roads? They are strongly opposed because the proposal undermines their dominant position within the railways.

Unfortunately, no law, including the current draft on the minimum service provision, provides a remedy against railway strikers or other sabotage actions by radical trade union militants. In doing so, we can only welcome the kordate action of our police services and a sanction by the railway companies themselves, in order to avoid such misfortunes in the future. Hopefully, however, it does not have to come so far.

Colleagues, I will no longer extend my presentation, given the advanced hour.

I would like to conclude my presentation with a word of gratitude to the staff who contributed to the dossier, to the members of the majority and to former Minister Galant. Maybe someone from her group can pass my thanks to her. I also thank Minister Bellot for taking over the file and finally presenting his draft law here and voting on it.

Last but not least, I would like to thank the train staff. After all, I am extremely grateful to the work-willing train staff who have tried to provide a train offer in the last days of strike. That staff remained friendly when travellers expressed their dissatisfaction with the many strikes. It is committed daily and with great enthusiasm to our mobility. I am convinced that the present law is also for them a law on which they can be proud. From now on, they will no longer be exhausted in strikes and there will hopefully be more understanding and respect for those who work on strike days, but also for those who, according to the rules of the present law, wish to strike.

Finally, since the committee expressly stated that it would be a symbol file and a trophy, I have a trophy with me, which I will hand over to the Minister. It is for us the trophy of the train passengers.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, this bill is a bit like this government, namely: antisocial and ineffective. This government is working on smoke screens to hide its austerity measures in the case that we are concerned with: 3 billion savings, 6,000 trains fewer by 2020, 800 kilometers of rural lines fewer, 33 stores that will be closed, catastrophic punctuality figures. I go, and the best.

This government, like this bill, is disconnected from the realities, to the point that moreover, it does not want to hear them. So when we asked for committee hearings on this bill, they were simply rejected. Obviously, there is no desire to be confronted with the realities of shippers, or those of workers and trade union representatives.

Disconnected from the realities of the shippers, first of all. Don’t be fooled, shippers are not fools. After all, when you say you listen to them, do you really listen to them? Are we listening to you as shippers? As far as I am concerned, this is the case. I will try to be the relay tonight.

Let us take the association Navetteurs.be, to name only her, and her opinion regarding this bill. What does Navetteurs.be say? First and foremost, and I agree with them, that we should try to avoid strikes. The best strike is the one that doesn’t happen. But navetteurs.be also said all its concerns regarding safety and comfort in the face of this bill.

He also points to the decrease in the manoeuvre margin that railroads will have, in the future, in relation to their employer.

Finally, – we must also emphasize this point – just like Navetteurs.be, we demand that the government focus on real priorities.

What are these real priorities? The presentation here in Parliament of a management contract which we will be able to discuss. The deposit on our banks of a multiannual investment plan which we will also be able to discuss. But it is obviously preferable to leave all this aside to come up with bills that are not favorable to the users, nor to the railroads, but that are purely and simply ideological projects. It must be said that this project responds to a long-standing request from the FEB. It was therefore formulated only to please the employer and one of the partners of the majority who is none other than the N-VA.

As I just said, this project was long sought by the FEB not to facilitate mobility in our country, not to improve railway traffic in any way, but to weaken the right to strike. In fact, from an ideological point of view, for the employers, the right to strike is something too much.

But let’s get to the bottom of the bill to be examined! Navetteurs.be and the hearings of representatives of the company SNCB showed us how impractical this project was ultimately. In the best of cases, 85 to 100 percent of the staff will need to be mobilised for certain yet necessary functions, such as security functions. How can we ensure the respect of the right to strike while ensuring a so-called minimum service?

I come to the safety issues raised by the shippers, the railroads.

In the best possible scenario, only one in four trains will be able to run. Approximately two out of ten passengers will be able to get on a train. Imagine the cohue on the curtains. Who will decide who will go up or who will not go up? Will tickets be issued at the entrance to those who will actually be able to get on their train? All this seems impractical.

The question of liability in case of accident is, of course, highlighted. Will the train driver be responsible? And since I am talking about the staff, who will ensure their safety when the passengers are going to argue about getting the train? Are we not afraid of an increase in the number of attacks against the SNCB staff who will face these difficulties?

These questions have obviously been asked but have not been answered. Likewise, how will a worker be able to explain to his boss that he has not been able to get to work, once this minimum service is established? The Minister has not answered this question either.

You are disconnected from the realities of shippers and railroads. When we talk about the strike days of 2014, that’s fine. But I will tell you one thing: before this bill was submitted, in the year that preceded, there was not a single day of strike. On the other hand, it is true that the staff were reduced, while the staff was asked to increase productivity, that the status of the railroads was changed, as well as their pensions, that the threats of privatization were frequently pronounced... I pass the best.

What contempt for workers and social dialogue when you come up with such a bill on minimum service!

What are the implications of such a project on social dialogue? First of all, it will weaken the worker individually. The pressure that will be exercised on him in the future will obviously be greater than it is today. Every employee will have to decide whether to go on strike or not. In a context where the number of contractual commitments is increasing, I would like to know what will still be the actual freedom left to the railroads to be able to exercise their right to strike.

Mrs Grovonius, maybe you can clarify which employee you think will no longer have the right to strike?

I am not saying that workers will no longer have the right to strike. I say that they will be put under potential pressure by their boss as they must declare strike individually, which was not the case until now.

They are under pressure to participate in the strike. Therefore, I find it incorrect that you argue that there would be cheminots who no longer have the right to strike. Everyone has the right to strike.

Mrs. Grovonius, do you know that already today Infrabel has lists of people who have participated in a strike in the past? These lists determine whether or not one is eligible for promotion and also form the basis for the coefficient on which additional supplements, the regular bet, additional retirement days, holidays and the like are calculated.

If one says here that participation in a strike has no impact on the further career, then I would like to ask that you, since you are on the speech stand, ask those speakers whether the argument of pressure does not play in the people who are going to strike?

However, I leave it to you to address you to the other speakers.

I also address Mrs. Grovonius, because she may be able to respond to the threat made by Mr. Geerts to Infrabel.

If he says that those lists are there and that they have had an effect on the promotion of some people, then he must be able to prove that. I look forward to evidence of this.

I even asked a parliamentary question on this. In the answer, it was admitted that it had an impact. I will give you the relevant question and answer and the competent minister can also confirm that this was the case.

Another consequence of the weakening of social dialogue is obviously to see an increased risk of strike movements which, in the end, are not framed. When we weaken the social dialogue, when weaken the trade union organizations, we risk seeing workers provoke spontaneous movements, wild strikes. This is what you want to avoid, Mrs. De Coninck. However, this bill does not address this problem. I even think – I’m not the only one to say this – that he will amplify it in a consistent way. This bill does not resolve anything. It will probably even increase the chaos.

As I said, I want to discuss the subject matter. I now come to the question of legality, because, in the end, you have little cited the opinion of the State Council, as if it had been absent. Nevertheless, this opinion contained interesting elements, at least for those who, like me, do not want to do strictly of ideology but want to set up ambitious projects really at the advantage of the shippers and workers of the SNCB.

From a legal point of view, the criticism of the State Council is clear. The State Council stands in relation to existing international treaties and to the principles contained therein, in particular with regard to the right to strike. For the State Council, this is very clear. This bill violates the right to strike and collective action. What the State Council then points out is whether this is really necessary. Does it meet the basic needs of the population? Unfortunately, these needs are not defined in this bill. This allows the State Council to conclude that there is indeed, in this context, a disproportionate infringement on the right to strike and collective action. I know that in the eyes of some, the State Council has no form of importance but, as far as I am concerned, I find that these elements deserve our attention.

I will conclude with these few words. This will not surprise you: my group and I will vote against this bill, rightly. Indeed, this project is much more likely to organize the maximum chaos than to organize a real minimum service. You can laugh, Mrs. De Coninck, but what train users want is to have every day a maximum rail service, which runs 365 days on 365. They want respect for social dialogue, and that you give the means to ensure more punctuality, more security, more comfort, a better welcome for users, and above all to bring improvements to the working conditions. They want a service to the public that is a maximum service, not the minimum service you sell to us. This is what drivers and drivers want. It is time for you to listen to the shippers and railway workers. You should not only listen to them, but finally hear them, because until now you have remained completely deaf to their demands and concerns.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I will first greet, in this advanced hour, the work of the Minister of Mobility but also that of his team, of all those who participated in the drafting of this bill elaborated with wisdom, patience and away from the precipitation that some would want to give it. This bill aims to establish a guaranteed service allowing to organize the continuity of the service of the railway transport of persons in the event of a strike under the required safety conditions. I think it is important to clarify this.

This bill is realistic, pragmatic and balanced. It responds to a social necessity and to the general interest, first of all with regard to the annual investment made by the State but, first of all, by the citizens. I recall that 2.7 billion euros are invested annually by citizens in rail. If one makes a calculation, Mr. Devin, it is 250 euros per person whether she takes the train or not. This investment is not unnecessary, far from that.

In a time when a political renewal is demanded, where the legitimate demands of our fellow citizens for better governance and better allocation of public money are present in all our debates, I think that, in that of rail and guaranteed service, this governance is also invited and must be invited to everyone.

The railway is also a strategic infrastructure. Everyone agrees that the railway is the backbone of today’s and tomorrow’s mobility, that it is necessary to ensure that the railway operates daily, that citizens have confidence in the railway and that they can benefit from alternative modes of transport to the car. That’s why it takes the rail to run 365 days out of 365, although sometimes it can work a little less well because there would be a strike. These two elements show that the guaranteed service meets the general interest.

Then I heard that the guaranteed service was disconnected from reality and that it was ideological. The guaranteed service is pragmatic. It is realistic to your image, Mr. Minister. Why are you so pragmatic, Mr. President? It is very simple. Because the guaranteed service for those who would not have yet understood means that we will develop a transport plan based on the people who wish to work, based on the available staff, drivers, accompanyers.

Mr. Foret, you are talking about political renewal. You participate in it. You talk about security guarantees and you say that among the railway drivers, those who wish can go to work. You say that security must be established. Can you tell us in this tribune in front of your minister how you will determine who and what will take place in the train? Of course, you guarantee us the service but of course, not everyone will work. We will have to make a choice. How will you choose the people who will be able to get on the train in a SNCB for which it is true that everyone contributes, everyone participates even if given the budget savings of your government, we participate less and less?

Mr. Devin, it is very simple! I take the current situation. Today, when there is a strike, we don’t know which train will run. We do not know what capacity will work. With the system, which I hope will be in place very soon, a transport plan will be defined based on the statements of SNCB workers who want to work. Those who do not want to work can exercise their right to strike. All conditions must be guaranteed and there must be enough drivers and accompanying persons to ensure that a transport plan is defined. I can’t tell you today what kind of transport plan it will be. Since there are different scenarios, this will depend on the potential and qualified people who will want to work. Depending on this, a transport plan will be communicated 24 hours in advance.

I suspected that part of the assembly was acquired but I believe that we can really applaud when you answer this question. You talk about the railways and the transport plan. How will you choose the rail users who will pick up their train in the morning? You live in Liège, you take the train to the Liège station. Who will you choose and how, knowing that there will be fewer trains? Instead of three trains per hour, there will be one train per hour. Who will be able to get on the train and who will stay on the road?

Mr. Devin, who are we choosing today? We do not even know which trains will operate. Tomorrow, there will be predictability and therefore an improvement of the current situation in the event of a strike. Today it is chaos. Tomorrow, it will be organized to ensure that as many people as possible can take the train.

They are creating organized chaos.

I explain to you that today, in the event of a strike, it is difficult to know which trains will be available. Tomorrow, with this project, we want to have predictability of the number of trains available. Users will be able to decide whether to take the train or not. There will be predictability. The importance of this project is predictability and being able to organize not chaos but a service as continuous as possible.

Mr. Foret, you do not answer any questions. You don’t answer Mr. Devin’s question, so I’ll ask you another one. What is more predictable than to say "it's a strike day, there's no train running"?

There are two types of chaos: unorganized chaos and organized chaos. Unorganized chaos, I see more or less what it is: you do not know what will happen, there is no organization, it is unorganized. What about organized chaos? There is a good hunter and a bad hunter.

When you do not know which train will arrive, the big difference with the guaranteed continuous service is that with this system, Brussels employers will consider that employees must be at work. Currently, a huge number of workers, among those who take the train, are apologized for not being able to take their train. With your organization of chaos, Mr. Foret, you will force everyone to jump in that train. How would people be able to justify their absence if there was a train indicated? You will organize the general bordel on the quarters of all stations, because everyone will be obliged, under penalty, to take this train.

You cannot compare with the current situation, as this obligation does not yet exist among Brussels employers. Tomorrow, with your system, you will be able to do that. How will you solve the question of who will be able to get on this train when the Guillemins station is full of people? Will it be the one with the strongest elbows, or will it be the biggest, the smallest? Who will decide who will be able to get on this train?

Mr. Speaker, I have a small question regarding the remarks made by Mrs. Grovonius and Mr. Hedebouw.

What will be the choice of our government? Would it be for inactivity? Or will it be to organize in a consistent way the possibility, for all who wish, to go to work? I think that is the choice. I also believe that it is our duty, as political leaders, to ensure the continuity of the public service. What do you think, Mr. Deputy?

I am extremely pleased with what Ms. Grovonius said. At least it was clear. For her, a strike is when there is no transportation at all! This is its purpose and the purpose of its trade union. She said it a few seconds ago.

What is extremely important is that with the new system, people who will board a train will also know when there will be return trains. A shuttler goes to work, but he has to come back from work. With the system that will be set up, he will also know which trains will run to return home at night.

Thank you all for these interventions. We try to pretend that we do not understand.

I will explain again.

What is the reality today? We must stop making us believe that today, strikes are not framed. Protocols exist, pre-notices are submitted. Today, when there is a strike with a strike notice, a communication is made to the population that, potentially at such a date, there will be a strike. The entire population is warned that there will potentially be no train. Nevertheless, there are indeed difficulties. People show up, try to take the train and don’t have their train. All of this actually happens. Today, in this context, we are already unable to correctly communicate to the population, while a priori, the message is rather clear. The question we ask Mr. Foret is also very clear, and we still have no answer.

You don’t let me talk a lot.

Mr. Foret, when you are going to implement this pseudo minimum service, Mr. Devin, Mr. Hedebouw and myself we ask you to tell us how you are going to communicate clearly to the public who will, or will not, take their train. How will you avoid, on the roads, the cohue and the security problems that this will create for both the users and the staff of the SNCB? This is the only question we ask you and you are unable to answer it!

Can I answer?

Go there, Mr Foret.

Thank you for all your questions and comments.

I can understand that an unknown figure is in this project, since it is a novelty in Belgium and that the guaranteed service will finally become a reality. It is therefore normal that you fear that this service may come to light.

In my opinion, the key lies in predictability. It is necessary to trust the management as well as the men of the SNCB and Infrabel to organize, not chaos, Mr. Hedebouw, but the continuity of the service. In this way, the SNCB and Infrabel will be able to run the trains.

Mrs. Grovonius, I explain to you that a procedure will be established, setting rules and deadlines known to all.

Established by whom?

But by the citizens, by the railway workers, by the railway management. Madame Grovonius, the mechanism proposed here allows for such an organization. We will see how this will work. For my part, I am confident in the extent that rules will be established to ensure that this guaranteed service becomes a reality. This works in other European countries. I do not understand why this would not be the case here. I am confident.

I’m sorry, but it is today that chaos hurts, when one wants to take the train during strikes that are not framed, contrary to what you say. Wild strikes are, you are right, but guaranteed service is not a reality at the moment. The user who wishes to take the train cannot be sure that an offer will be offered to him. Tomorrow, in the event of a strike, all trains will not run, as the transport plan will be established according to the staff who will not participate in the strike. Of course, different scenarios will be present. Today, I am unable to tell you which passengers, and how many of them, will be able to take the train. It is as simple as this!

I really don’t know where to start with so many absurdities and counter-truths. You talk frankly about everything and anything and you mix everything!

You say it exists in other countries. very well ! Are the railway networks organized in the same way? Not at all! Do we mean the same thing when we talk about the minimum service in France and when we talk about the one that is presented to us tonight? Not at all!

The minimum service is a guaranteed service.

Stop comparing apples and pears. This has absolutely nothing to do with it! And this can ⁇ not serve as an argument in order to justify this bill that does not look like anything.

How to motivate?

Another point, Mr Foret. You continue on the same path.

We have asked you a very simple question, how this will be organized. You do not seem to worry about it.

Excuse us, Mr. Foret, but as far as we are concerned, we prefer not to buy a cat in a bag. If you prefer to wait tomorrow to see how the rules will work, etc., this is not our case. As far as we are concerned, we want a clear bill and know what we are voting on.

In fact, we do not receive a response. Indeed, you say that we have never tried and that by doing so, we do not know what it will bring. Nothing is planned. But let’s be very concrete and imagine that 25% of trains can run from Liège-Guillemins. You are generous, because with every action you take, anger is terrible. What will we decide about the four trains of the morning? What is the 7:30 that runs? In this case, we will give an appointment, via the website of the SNCB, to all Liègeans at 7:30. So, all the shuttlers who typically took the train from 7:00, 7:30, 8:00, 8:30 will find themselves on the same quai, at the same time. How will we do? Indeed, very many will be those who will find themselves on the quai, because all employers will invite their employees who do not come by car to take the train. What will you do on the quai of Liège-Guillemins station at 7:30? Answer from Mr. Foret in two minutes!

Mr. Hedebouw, since you ask me absolutely to be precise, I will return to the bill. We will return to the discussions we already had in the committee and I will explain again the principle of functioning. There is no worry.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a small question to my colleagues from the Left who are asking and bring some clarification on this subject.

Dear colleagues, a public enterprise receives instructions in accordance with the laws that are passed and the management contract so that its obligations are fulfilled. It will obviously belong to the SNCB, as it has always been the case – you give the impression of discovering it, but ⁇ you have not yet fully understood the difference between a public company and a private company – to fulfill its obligations in accordance with the contract to which it is bound and which provides a guaranteed service.

Thank you, Madame Jadin, for referring to this point. As I said in my speech, we should focus on the real priorities. Come and introduce us to this management contract! It has been outdated for years. Come and present us this multiannual investment plan! We would be very happy to be able to discuss this.

I would like it to be acknowledged in the parliamentary annals the absence of concrete response from the MR. The shippers may know that the MR has no response. People who will read will see that you are patching in the semol. Meet at 7:30 on the Liège-Guillemins shores to try to find a seat in the train! We will have understood!

What also strikes me, to answer my colleagues from the MR, is how convinced we are that the service will continue. You start from the principle that people will no longer dare to strike. It is striking! The title itself no longer allows this choice to strike. The principle is that there will be continuity. You do not know it yet. This depends on the democratic debates that workers will have among themselves. This is obviously a very important weapon against the right to strike and against the force ratio that the workers put in place. This is the ideological goal of this government.

I am surprised by the reaction of Mr. Hedebouw. Indeed, the minister gave us the figures on the latest strike movements that took place at the SNCB. They show that 85% of staff were not on strike. When he says that only 20 or 25 percent of the staff would be at work, he doesn’t know the reality of things.

Ms. Grovonius said about the plan that it was not yet prepared. I recall that the minister in office in 2009, who was of his party, should have started preparing this project that was still not implemented in 2014. Thank you to the successive Socialist ministers!

The former minister was not a socialist. She was very galant.

My PTB colleague thinks he holds the truth to himself alone and I will stick to these words. In addition, I think that we should trust the management for the decisions we make. We are convinced that they are good for our entire society. At the Reform Movement, we want to implement them quickly and consistently.

Thank you, dear colleagues, for your various questions. Mr Hedebouw, you are right. This is a project that we want balanced, respecting the right to strike, indeed. But we also want to make sure that freedom to move and travel to your work or study place is also a reality. This project must respect the users. It is very important to guarantee this continuity of service in strike conditions, with prior notice and declarations. The mechanism that will be set up will be developed by the management with the railway workers. We want this service to be as effective as possible, but we realize, of course, that it will be rendered under special conditions. We hope that strikes will not be too frequent in our country.

Just recently, someone welcomed the fact that there had been no strikes for fifteen months. This is also thanks to the strong social dialogue that takes place within the SNCB, thanks to the management and workers who know that the SNCB and the rail are strategic tools for all those who go to their workplace or study. Through this guaranteed service, through a series of mechanisms set up, we will ensure that the railway works even in the event of a strike, while respecting the right of citizens and workers to strike and while balancing the freedom of movement. It is important that this freedom of movement is guaranteed for our fellow citizens.

Dear colleagues, Mr. President, Mr. Minister, this debate has obviously aroused a lot of emotions. This debate does not only take place on the banks of the Federal Parliament. It also takes place in other assemblies. I think we need to be serene. We must be able to accept that our country must move forward and allow for efficient and effective mobility. This guaranteed service is obviously not an end in itself. Of course, we must continue to invest all our energy so that mobility, Mr. Minister, is integrated mobility, connected mobility, efficient mobility.

I heard that this guaranteed service was a smoke screen. No, Mrs. Grovonius, it is an additional tool that comes to enable the efficiency of public transport, of public transport in our country. I hope that soon, but I do not doubt, we will have the opportunity to vote on this project of guaranteed service to ensure that tomorrow, when management and workers have obviously agreed on the modalities of practical operation within the SNCB and within Infrabel, they will allow the rail to continue to run and that, even in strike circumstances that we hope are the least frequent because, I repeat, social dialogue is well present at the SNCB. It is important to maintain it because the SNCB, it is the women and men who do it, it is the workers who are at the bar and who allow us to run the trains.

I thank you again. I am sorry to have been a bit long. This debate is so. He is emotional.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I had hoped that we could debate a little more quietly at this hour, but look, it is going differently.

This morning in the traffic news was called to take the E40 instead, park at a station and take a train. In fact, it is only a recent fact that in the traffic messages is called to choose an alternative means of transport instead of an alternative route. It is a little painful that just at that moment an incident occurs in the Brussels north-south connection, which also disturbed train traffic, but it shows that we must be able to rely on our railway network, that we must be able to rely on the NMBS to keep us mobile. To do this, we need a performing railway company, permanent service on the rail network and a constructive social climate.

Unfortunately, we have already experienced too often that the train was not an alternative to the car to go to Brussels or elsewhere, but that train users were pushed into the car. Railway strikes continually resulted in a loss of customers for the NMBS and even more car users for residential-working traffic. It is therefore logical that we, as policymakers, as governments, who spend billions annually on railways, are not served by strikes. We are indignant that sometimes, for incomprehensible reasons or for reasons that have nothing to do with the railway staff, the railway network is disrupted. That, mostly justified, outrage has led to the bill we will approve today.

Colleagues, we really hope that we will never have to apply this law, or at least as little as possible. This is not because the proposed approach does not include a good, reasonable legal framework, but because the priority objective should be maximum service provision. This requires a constructive social climate with benevolence on the part of the employees, the chemists, and also on the part of the company management, of Infrabel and the NMBS, and of course also from the government. Meanwhile, I am confident that the new NMBS CEO, Mrs. Dutordoir, is working hard on that constructive social climate, and that we can only welcome.

It also means that unannounced, wild actions, and ⁇ actions that prevent other colleagues from working, are strongly addressed. The basis for this was laid almost ten years ago, on the initiative of then Minister Vervotte, with the protocol between the government, employers and rail union. During the first period of that protocol, the number of wild strikes declined sharply. Subsequently, they went up more and more. The reason for this was that the final part of the Protocol was applied far too little, in particular the use of the sanctions provided for for staff members who laid the Protocol on their hands. Fortunately, since around 2014, the protocol has been applied again consistently, resulting in significantly fewer unannounced actions. It is remarkable how these protocol agreements between the various partners, in a constructive social consultation, have led to effective results, still today, ten years after the conclusion of those protocols. This finding, colleagues, should make us all aware that in the interests of the travellers also for the successful application of the current law on the continuity of the service, a cooperation between all partners is necessary. Therefore, understand this especially as a call, also to the railway unions, to deal constructively with the bill.

Colleagues, as we have already been able to establish in the past years, but also just thereafter, the subject of minimum service, guaranteed service or the continuity of the service has already led to several rather sharp ideological positions. For the one, it means an unacceptable violation of the strike right and a direct step towards chaos on the perrons. Others imagine it as if the strike suffering for the travellers would be helped out of the world and that the trade unions would be put out of play. Both presentations are unilateral and incorrect.

It is a balanced proposal that, on the one hand, does not affect the right to strike and, on the other hand, should create clarity for travellers so that they know which trains they will be able to count on on a strike day or not. There is always a large group, often a majority, of the staff who want to work, even on strike days. I refer, for example, to the most recent strike of the Socialist Trade Union on 10 October last year, when it turned out that a lot of trains have been evacuated. Unfortunately, there were very many trains with empty seats, with relatively few passengers on board, due to the uncertainty in advance about which train would and which train would not ride, and due to the uncertainty whether there would also be a train on the evening to get back home.

Therefore, it is good that by the provisions in the bill, the NMBS and Infrabel will be informed in a timely manner of the number of available staff members. Based on this, an adapted schedule can then be developed, including a clear communication to the travellers. In that clear communication will be the key to success, a clear communication about which trains will and will not drive. With that clear communication, the so-called announced chaos can also be avoided.

Colleagues, we will support this bill because it is a balanced proposal to organize an offer that is known in advance in the event of a strike, but we continue to hope that this law, this method, will need to be applied as little as possible.

Also for Infrabel and the NMBS it will, by the way, be a hassle piece to give this process a concrete shape in a few days time. Let that be an additional incentive for constructive social consultation. The draft law provides for a consultation procedure to reach an agreement and therefore not a strike even after a strike announcement. The real goal is to invest in the maximum service. Let that be the challenge.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, in 2007, ten years ago, Open Vld put the bill on guaranteed services on the table for the first time. We are 10 years ahead.

The legislative work has been a long journey, which has been achieved thanks to the capstone in the government agreement of 2014. “The Government will order both companies, after consultation with the social partners, to draw up a proposal that would provide a guaranteed service in the event of a strike.”

The course was successful, also thanks to the good work carried out in the technical working group, which was established in 2015 in the NMBS and Infrabel, with the task of investigating which trains can drive in the event of a strike.

In May 2016, the Committee on Infrastructure presented the results of that working group. Four scenarios were explained to us in a very clear and detailed manner. I must note that after today’s reactions some colleagues have apparently forgotten that. The four scenarios clearly state that, depending on the number of available staff members of the NMBS and Infrabel, a modified transport plan 1, 2, 3 or 4 can be implemented. It shall also indicate the number of seats, train kilometers, trains and train passengers who can make a go-and-return journey. So a lot of preparatory work has been done, with a very clear and good result.

In the committee, the Minister said at the beginning of his speech that he hopes that the guaranteed service should never be put into practice because this indicates the failure of the social consultation. We share that opinion. The Minister has also said, and I would like to emphasize this here, that the starting point for this bill is the fact that a public service must be guaranteed continuously, regularly and without interruption. Today, this is not the case with our trains.

For Open Vld, this file contains four key strength lines.

This draft eliminates, in the first place, the imbalance between the right to strike, on the one hand, and the right to work, on the other.

This is not a minimum service. Some people use this word incorrectly. No, it is about a maximum offer possible, with the work-willing staff.

Travellers who take the train to work in the morning should also know that they can return home in the evening. The draft clearly stipulates that no later than 24 hours before the start of the strike, information on the transport plan, which will be drawn up by line, will be disseminated through all channels. Passengers will therefore be able to know at least 24 hours in advance which lines are being operated, i.e. which train they can take or which train does not.

A fourth important strength line for us is that with this design it remains a great responsibility for the management of the NMBS and of Infrabel to deploy the work-willing staff as optimally as possible. The maximum use of high-capacity train equipment, such as double roofs, will be discussed.

We have heard here today, as in the committee, the opponents of this design, who repeat that with the guaranteed service there will be chaos, that the ordinary workers will be laid in the heels, that this is a false display, a symbolic file. Well, my answer to this is very short. They apparently do not see the problem. They do not see the chaos that a train strike brings with it today; they do not see the frustration of the many train passengers, as colleague Van den Bergh has said. They do not want us to look for a solution. Again, it is important that the right to strike is guaranteed as well as the right to work, which in this country too often has been stumbled. It is important to restore the balance between the right to strike and the right to work.

Finally, I would like to thank all the workers and persistent persons in this dossier, in particular the Minister for his determination to bring this dossier to an end.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I could say that I will keep it short at this advanced hour, but that I cannot guarantee because, frankly, at this hour I feel at my best.

I have already said that this is a political debate, a substantial debate, and I have added that it is actually a false debate. Why am I saying that? Because you actually make the travellers mindful of something. It is a false debate because people are put in the heels. The factions of the N-VA and the Open Vld sometimes debate to be the most punishable, pour bomber le torse, but in these committee discussions I think it was mainly to be the strongest in selling baked air. Everyone has the right to that, of course.

I said that this is a file to put in the vitrines. Minister Bellot received a cup. Why am I saying that? When I was a year or six, seven and went to football, after a tornooi I was always so proud as a castor that I came home with medals. I hung it in my room. When I later realized that I actually had no football talent, those medals lost their value. Thus I would like to illustrate, Mr. Minister, that afterwards it will appear that the cup, the symbol file you have received, only served to place in a vitrine box, but that nothing will change on the ground. The traveller who now thinks he has been helped with your trophy is subsequently placed double and thick in the heels.

In the committee, I also said that there is an agreement, but that we have not yet seen a management agreement. When discussing the policy note, you said it is coming, but in fact it is more essential for the functioning of your company than this file file.

I still have serious questions about the curve of CD&V in this file. I thought CD&V had some knowledge from the past on this subject. Mr Van den Bergh also referred to this. Minister Vervotte has always said that minimum services would not come because it takes nothing out; she was against it. Per ⁇ you will not now say that Minister Vervotte was on the wrong track ten years ago. By the way, you defended her idea then too and we worked out the protocol together, which today is suddenly wiped out of the table.

Just like in the committee, I would like to quote Mr. Bovy during this plenary session – you know him, I suspect you consider him a capable man who knows some of the tracks. Therefore, you will undoubtedly agree with the following quote of Mr. Bovy: “If the minimum service is there, one will apply it at most once and then never again. This is not a guaranteed service but a guaranteed chaos.” Colleague Foret, it was not a slip of the tongue when you talked about guaranteed chaos. Even railway experts who were active in the company have repeated this this summer. He continues with the question of why 50 reception workers are good for when you don’t have a mechanic. And then comes the most important: “Travellers won’t know if it will go well, don’t know how many people can get on the train and who can get on the train first. I am afraid that this will be applied once and then never again. Furthermore, the regulation will have a reverse effect.” He then refers to France, where there are actually more strike days due to the introduction of this. I assume that you still find Mr. Bovy a very intelligent man, and that these are wise words. Therefore, I can absolutely not understand that the CD&V faction has made a curve in this.

In the committee and also during this discussion, everyone hammered on the importance of public transportation. However, I reiterate again that the right-wing side apparently only considers public transportation important when there is a strike. It is said here that we should not link with savings — I did that in the committee — but ultimately this government has decided to save 2.1 billion, not on the basis of scientific figures but simply because after the government negotiations there was still a gap of 2.1 billion. The then-competent minister did not actually know of those figures and has repeatedly mistaken himself in that. Even Minister Bellot may have to admit today that this figure of 2.1 billion is not realistic. He announced this summer that an additional billion, a virtual billion, additional debt could be made to the railway companies themselves because the imposed savings of 2.1 billion is not realistic. Otherwise, one would not have to take an additional loan of 1 billion to do that service itself.

There is constant argument that a strike costs a lot of money to the economy. I grinded again. According to the VBO, a day of strike costs 40 million euros. Let me reverse the reasoning. If a strike day costs 40 million euros, then we need to have the intellectual honesty to ask ourselves what public transportation costs. That is the same reasoning. If one says that the economic damage for one day is 40 million euros, that means that the other days that 40 million euros is an input in the economy. If you calculate that for 365 days, you will be about 15 billion. Thus, public transport has an added value for the economic life in this country of 15 billion. Collega Foret, you said that the taxpayer’s investment in public transport, in railways, amounts to 2.7 billion. This is a profitable investment in the economy. It is the main task of the government to stimulate the economy in this way.

I return to the absolute right to mobility.

Again, why does the majority only get that through strikes? During the plenary session last week, accuracy figures demonstrated that public transport from Gent to Brussels was at its peak only in 50 % of cases on time. From Hasselt it was even worse. None of the majority emphasized that. If you talk about a right to mobility, then that applies to me for all days of the year. It is a pity that you are not heard. I find it a little paradoxical. Inadequate attention is paid to maximum service, not only for the travellers but also within the context of the economic order, in order to avoid stopping. Last week we held the debate: today 8% of the movements take place by public transport. You have the ambition to increase to 15%, Mr. Minister. That means investing, not saving.

I will return to the strike itself.

I fully agree with you, Mr. Van den Bergh, that a strike must absolutely be avoided by social consultation, because every strike means that the social consultation has failed, which we regret. In the past, we have also made it very clear that wild strikes cannot be for us. We have referred to the Protocol. You have already mentioned the evaluation of the protocol.

However, the present draft is, in our opinion, absolutely not good because it constitutes an infringement of the right to strike, whether one wants to hear it or not, whether I must refer to the lists at Infrabel or not. Just look at the opinions of the IAO and the Committee on Freedom of Association Subcommittee that the way strikes are restricted constitutes a restriction of the right to strike.

For the N-VA, it should have gone much further, you say, Mrs. De Coninck. Then you actually say that in the NMBS and Infrabel actually tout court can no longer strike. That is a legitimate viewpoint, but then you must say it clearly and clearly so that everyone who works with those companies knows what your vision is about their functioning.

Mr Geerts, you know our proposal on the limitation of the strike right sufficiently. In fact, we created a framework to somewhat limit the right to strike. The Social Charter and the ILO teach us that it can be done. As a legislator, one can do so on the basis of motivation, because one considers it a critical infrastructure or because one considers the right to move important. In our proposal, we created a framework that allowed companies to raise employees. That is, therefore, clearly a limitation of the right of strike, but the present bill does not include a limitation of the right of strike.

Again, no worker of the categories that are required to report is denied the right to strike. I would like you to show me who will not have the right to participate in a strike.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. De Coninck, I can only refer to the ILO opinions on the global, otherwise organized minimum service provision in other countries that have requested the opinions. They are consultable.

As regards the legislation at issue, I have clearly pointed out that the call itself – I take the example of Infrabel, where the lists were also made in previous actions – has an impact on the further career of the person concerned. When a 20-year-old or 25-year-old enters the company and participates in a trade union action that has further consequences for the entire career, you cannot deny that those consequences mean a moral pressure on the individual employee.

Mr. President, Mr. Geerts, I challenge you from this to put the evidence on the table. It is quite unfair that you accuse the company of such practices.

Colleague, in the whole debate I am somewhat disturbed by the criticism of the left who always pretends to be committed to the traveller. I have not heard their solution for the traveller on a strike day. Mr. Geerts, I ask you whether you share the opinion of your French-speaking sister party, namely that for the traveller no train is even clearer than ⁇ one train on two trains?

What is your answer to the following? We read today in Het Laatste Nieuws that the Brussels cabinet employees at the NMBS are threatening with a strike because they will be watched to start the work accurately.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. De Coninck, have you ever heard me defend such matters in the past? I have not done that in the past 14 years here in Parliament.

Our alternative is the following. The debate has been going on for a long time. At that time, I have discussed with the then Minister on the basis of the various bills on the subject. I have stated that the implementation of the protocol that was then negotiated, as well as the effective sanctioning of wild strikes – you can check all my statements on that – should make this possible. If it turns out – which brings me to a second element – that no agreement can be reached, then the protocol must be invoked and then a procedure with a strike should be possible.

However, my second point of criticism is that we have always pledged for, for example, a social mediator to check exactly what is being discussed and stopped.

Mrs. De Coninck, if there is a strike in Catalonia, then your party applauds it, while I think it is still a political strike. However, you react differently if there is a halt in our country, as evidenced by examples from the past. There can still be discussions about whether the strike is justified or not, for example in discussions about premiums or about the non-implementation of wage agreements. In a private company there is also a form of social consultation and then it should be possible.

Mr. Geerts, can I suggest that you ask your colleague, Mrs. De Coninck, if she considers the State Council to be a study office or a branch of the left party. I would like to draw his attention to the fact that it is the State Council that indicates that, within the framework of this project, it is a disproportionate infringement on the right to strike and collective action. I suggest you ask him the question.

I would like to ask that question, but I actually planned it for at the end of my speech. Do you not mind that I make such a decision with a legal consideration?

We will act as if it has not been said yet.

Mr Devin also asked for the floor.

Mr. Geerts, you are at the tribune and it is you that I appeal.

I hear colleague Inez De Coninck talking about these striking railway workers who have continued to prevent some from going to work. I don’t know if you know the numbers. I take you to a burnt-up: how many days have there been strikes since the year at the SNCB?

In the last 14 months there has been an interruption of work.

Miss De Coninck?

Mr Geerts, you referred to the protocol agreement that the trade unions themselves have negotiated and signed, but that they unfortunately do not comply with. This protocol agreement is for wild strikes.

How would you then organize an announced strike in front of the travellers? I have not yet received a response to this. Are you just going to say to the traveler: chaos?

and no.

What happened to the protocol? You should also know between whom the protocol agreement is concluded. It was intended to reach an arrangement with the employer, the companies, and the recognized trade unions on social consultation. It was intended to sit around the table and negotiate with the recognized trade unions, the steering committee, the national and regional paritary committees in which the protocol was included. What happened at a particular moment? You may have more contact with those people than I do. The corporate trade unions at some point felt not involved in the way the consultation was structured, with recognized trade unions or organizations, represented in the NAR. Ultimately, the protocol agreement failed there because the ASTB, the OVS, and so on, did not want to associate. You always talk about traditional trade unions.

Let us see what wild strikes from which trade unions come? Have you already done that analysis? That is exactly my reasoning on how to come up with a false solution. With trade unions you mean socialist trade unions anyway. In this you must be honest. I have close contacts with ACOD, but I also see people from Transcom. I see the Dutch-speaking wings, in this dossier ⁇ even more than Mr. Van den Bergh, because with him there was no agreement. When I see how these organizations make daily efforts to provide a negotiated solution to even smaller conflicts, and prove that they are people of good will, I can not help but conclude that you are targeting the wrong with the text. That’s why I asked you if you were aware that it was the corporate trade unions such as OVS and ASTB, who were responsible for the wild strikes.

Allow me to explain my next reasoning, still in connection with social consultation.

I fear that social consultation will be tortured by legislation like the one proposed here. An announcement of a strike must be submitted eight days in advance and the employer then has three days to initiate a final consultation. Employees have three days to express their willingness to strike. What are we really fixing, including the most recent strike? Although consultations are possible, as now included in the new legislation, Infrabel – against which I have nothing – has not even come to the negotiating table, but immediately submitted a unilateral petition to the court. I do not suck it out of my thumb. Well, the legislator decides to introduce a new consultation moment, but the employer does not go there and moves for a unilateral petition to the court.

My fear is that we will now record more strikes than in the old system, because the consultation modules are being exhausted. That is regrettable. I see that there are amendments concerning social mediators. It is true that, in a regular procedure in accordance with a protocol, mediators must be employed. But do you remember that two years ago, around the Christmas period, the government called on Minister Kris Peeters – you weren’t yet a minister – to mediate? Where is the logic of the whole system? You need to be a little consistent.

My third observation is, therefore, that workers in the workplace are confronted with the question of who will and who will not strike.

Furthermore, the new text does not mean a solution for the traveller. Either the scheme will not work and then it will lead to chaos and unsafe situations. Either it will work like in France and there then drive for example only trains every two hours between Bordeaux and Paris, but not in the urban area. If one looks at the density of our train network, one finds that the radars are completely different. It may work, but there will be more strikes.

Who is the ass of that windowdressing? That’s the 900,000 passengers who take the train every day. Just explain to the employer how everything will be organized, just like to the 32 000 people who work on the rail today. I have made some practical considerations in the committee. Other colleagues have already asked themselves which trains will and which trains will not travel. It is shielded with willingness and the fact that a line manager is appointed. In reality, the big asses will be served. You will get from Antwerp to Brussels if you are lucky, but from Heist-op-den-Berg you will probably not get to Antwerp or Brussels. I think this is a very large form of inequality. Residents of rural areas will not be served here.

Then I come to the responsibility of the train driver.

Today, the railway code stipulates that a train driver must leave his steering post at all times. This will be accomplished by a separate locomotive. However, if a motor set is filled up, these safety requirements are not met today, because that driver does not affect it. Do you remember the incident in Deinze last summer? There were so many people on the train that there were passengers stunned. I asked for the capacity. The answer was that the train supervisor should assess that.

An individual train guide on the ground, not the bosses, who sit in Brussels, will have to decide how many passengers are allowed on the train. We expect that there will be fewer trains. People think that there are still trains going and going to the perron, but there is less capacity. Even today, if a train arrives, for example, in a shortened composition, there is misery. Even in Leuven where there are several trains, a traveller does not touch the train. The responsibility for this is now pushed into the shoes of an individual train assistant. The result may be that that man or woman says that he or she will do it once, but absolutely not a second time. Overcrowded perrons, is it a service to the traveller? What about the safety of the distant word? Do you not expect – I absolutely hope the opposite – more aggression against who then works, when the perron is full and passengers are not allowed on the train?

Mrs Grovonius referred to the legal arguments. I can only read the opinions of the State Council. These opinions are known to all who were present in the committee. They have been discussed and part of them have been addressed in the final design, but not the other part. For example, the State Council has judged – I do not say this – that there is a problem due to a difference in the definition of personnel categories depending on whether or not one is on the list, and by a difference in duration for concerns that one is willing to work or whether or not one stops. Yes, these are the comments of the State Council.

Another legal element is the rail code, which we approved in Parliament, or the law of 30 August 2013 on the requirements for passenger transport to the line knowledge of train drivers and train escorts and regarding the safety management system. It is unfortunate that the safety aspect is not sufficiently highlighted here. As a result of the transposition of the European Directive 402/2013, any change in the train offer must be preceded by a risk analysis. We’ve had all four scenarios, but no one knows which train would drive. In fact, I should now call on Mr. Ducarme and ask whether he, as the competent secretary of state, is aware of the tasks performed by DVIS within the framework of a security management system. I will not do that, I will ask the question in writing so that he can prepare. But that is the essence. It is therefore mandatory to carry out a risk analysis. Will the risk analysis be carried out? Does the majority have a vision of how this will happen? In short, who will take responsibility in case of calamities and incidents?

In my view, this is an effective phony legislation. You do not offer any service to the passengers. You no longer serve the staff. You only think of your own trophy.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, our country records every day that breaks new records in terms of bottlenecks, bottlenecks. And all this at the time of the COP23 discussions on global warming. That is to say whether the debate we have today on rail, which is a fundamental issue of mobility, is a major political issue. It is symptomatic to see that the first text since this legislature, in three years, the first important text concerning the SNCB is not its management contract, nor its multiannual investment plan, nor are they public investment measures, as our prime minister demands, but it is this text on the continuous service of the SNCB. It is quite remarkable to see that this arouses interest, because the SNCB requires a political debate that never takes place. And this political debate, the majority chose to do it on this.

Ms. Inez De Coninck anticipated my speech. I had in mind the idea of a trophy, which had to be removed. Some in other countries use other trophies. This is a paper trophy. What are you going to do about it? Put it in a window next to the Catalan flag? What does this mean for mobility? This text, dear friends of the majority, is a pretext. It is about showing, ideologically, that you have solved the issue. What will happen tomorrow? It is not only the opposition that is concerned. You yourself, if you are honest, are you sure that it will work? I’m sure you’re not going to sleep well. But the questions you’re going to ask yourself don’t matter to you today. You want your trophy, you’re going to show it, broadcast it, maybe sleep with it. Will this save mobility? Will this solve the problems of traffic jams? Will this resolve the political question, which you have not resolved, of mobility in our country, of investments to be made? You will go home and tell yourself that you have done the job: you finally have this basic text for the SNCB.

I congratulate you. This work was not very consistent. This obviously required work from the minister who preceded you, since we are still three years later.

Tomorrow, how will this service called and presented not as a minimum but as a guarantee and whose effectiveness cannot be confirmed today, see its concrete implementation? I thus summarize Mr. Hedebouw’s thought that is a bit sophisticated today; the cameras are gone so it becomes more subtle. It is not evil, never. Just a healthy analysis.

It is well known that the problems will arise at the time of its concrete implementation by HR Rail. Beyond your text, Mr. Minister, they will have fun! It is true, other colleagues have said, that in certain categories of staff at the SNCB, as for signalling cabins, 65% of staff is needed. At the bottom, it doesn’t work. Listen, Mrs. Fonck, these are the signalling cabins! Ms. Vervotte had said in 2008, if I am not mistaken - it's far from the CD&V ministers, it's crazy how quickly it goes! 65% of the staff needed to provide a minimum of services. She did not specify a minimum service.

A whole series of questions will be raised. Will security necessarily be guaranteed against an influx of travellers to whom it will be said that everything is ready, that the government watches and thinks of them by guaranteeing them a train? How will this happen at the station of Guillemins or at other stations? Will there be a Deinze effect? Because there will have been a fantastic day at the North Sea and an influx of travellers will have created a proven chaos on this occasion? You cannot guarantee this! Therefore, it is safety issues, comfort issues, guarantee issues that one can go to work by taking the train. But will there be a train to return? Is it planned or not? There are many questions of this order.

These questions make me know that you want to be friendly in the eyes of travelers by announcing them good news. But personally, this is a false good news for travelers. The problems that may arise will be countless. Behind this, what you are also engaging in is a real social dialogue with the SNCB, which really needs it. Railway drivers and all staff should know that they are included in a collective project aimed at ensuring mobility and resolving politically fundamental issues for all in this country.

This is the real challenge, and this is what you are questioning. True social dialogue is the best antidote to strike. This is how you can ensure a continuity and quality duration in the work provided. This work then has a meaning, it is oriented. This is a sense that can be understood by the entire staff.

This is what Ms. Dutordoir told us. He made a very good speech in the committee. Great ambition: the customer, the traveler at the heart of the SNCB vision. It is new, it is completely new. But are there the means? Is this one of the means? I think no.

In addition to the role of social conciliation in the SNCB, a lot has been discussed in the committee. Ms Fonck has submitted an amendment on the issue, but it has not yet been resolved. Today, in the forms specified by the law, there is a strike notice. The social conciliator can act, it depends on Mr. Kris Peeters. When one of the partners refuses to come to the table, there is no social reconciliation. This is quite extraordinary. We have been a few to speak in the committee to say that this is the first thing to do.

Second element, you will not settle spontaneous or wild strikes. This will not resolve anything. It is often one of the ways to react, it is intuitive. Furthermore, in order to ensure in a more sustainable way the ability to have other modes of action, we have submitted an amendment to the committee that we will re-submit here. This is the possibility of making another form of strike: the payment strike. Travellers are not penalized and workers can choose. Our project ⁇ ins the traditional strike capacity, but there is also this payment strike with the guarantee of protecting – in terms of insurance – all those who go to work, especially those who use the train – and who should be in even greater number.

This is a pretext. You wanted a trophy, you didn’t want to solve the issue of mobility in this country. We will vote positively at least once on our amendment. For the rest, we will reject your text because it is a pretext that guarantees nothing. Apart from the governmental solidarity that, ⁇ , is guaranteed with this text, it will absolutely not guarantee the essential goal of sustainable mobility in this country.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, in this case, my tone will be different from that of the other opposition speakers – even though I will not fully agree with the opinion of the majority.

As you know, since this is not the first time we talk about it, we are in favor of the introduction of a minimum service, but not as a questioning of the right to strike. This is not about any sector. In addition, the tags presented here are expressly and clearly provided by international references. It is true that the right to strike is fundamental, whether through the European Social Charter or the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union or even in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. However, dear colleagues from the opposition, if I say that I do not share your point of view, it is because you are currently claiming that the minimum service clearly challenges the right to strike. This is not an absolute right. and no! And it’s not me who says it; again, I’m not in the majority. So who then? This is the International Labour Organization. This is also reflected in the European Social Charter.

We talked about foreign countries, but the reality is that this minimum service exists here in twelve sectors – and this is not recent. This was first in 1949, and the application of this principle in the branches concerned, unlike your government project, has always been the subject of an agreement between social partners. In addition, it is always included in regulatory texts. I would like to welcome here the sense of responsibility of the trade unions, since this minimum service in force in twelve sectors works well. I know him personally in the hospital world. In the present case, it is necessary to recognize how the sense of responsibility and the professional awareness of the actors concerned truly enable to ⁇ a balance between this right of strike, which is not absolute, and other equally fundamental rights: for example, that of receiving care and having the guarantee of continuity of care. To return to mobility, it is necessary to balance the right to strike and the right to go to work, the right for students to go to school and, more generally, to move.

As you know, I have submitted a bill, attached to the examination of this government draft. This proposal respects all the labels of the European Social Charter and the International Labour Organization and aims to guarantee certain benefits of public interest in the event of a strike in the public sector.

Today I will disagree with my proposal. It will not be voted, but since it targets a wider sector than mobility, I do not despair that we can make further progress.

If I join the government in its desire to establish a minimum service, I cannot, however, support this project. Three main reasons justify my position. The first of them is fundamental: the best strike is a strike avoided. All means must be given. This aspect of things is not addressed in your bill, Mr. Minister. Why not take the opportunity to give yourself another chance to avoid the strike? I have proposed that a mandatory procedure be introduced into the law, which provides for the intervention of a social conciliator from the moment of filing a notice of strike. Interventions of social conciliators are regular in Belgium. Their success rate is 70%. It is huge. However, it is peculiar that at the level of the public sector they are neglected to appeal to them while it is often done in the private sector. It would have been necessary to anticipate this. This is a missed opportunity. Whenever a social conciliator can prevent a strike, it is in the interests of the shippers. What the latter want is, first of all, to avoid the strike and not to ensure a minimum service.

Mr. Minister, in the committee, you tried to explain why you did not want it. You did not convince me, especially since I conducted further checks. In fact, it turns out that it is not fair to say, as you do, that the social conciliator can always intervene. The facts show that any party can refuse the intervention of the social conciliator. If we do not use this additional possibility in the law by making a lever at the disposal of the shuttlers, we have no chance, or at least much less chance, once the notice is deposited, that the strike will be avoided. This is regrettable.

This is the main complaint I have to express about your bill.

The second element that makes me trouble is that in commission, you have been unable to give us guarantees on the effectiveness, for the shippers, of the system you have selected. We have not heard much of you on this issue. The SNCB came to show us its four scenarios.

I am still curious to see, Mr. Minister, who will decide in practice who, among the shuttlers, will be allowed to get on the train or not. In peak hours, most of the major lines are served by at least three trains per hour. With a little luck, you will be able to put one in place with the minimum service. That would already be good.

But in practice, shippers, who will have been warned that there will be trains, are likely to be largely overnumbered. There are limit masses not to be exceeded on trains for safety reasons. You know it perfectly well. We cannot, even pressing them all like sardines, bring them home. First, there will be no space; but in addition, the maximum mass will be exceeded. Many shippers are in danger of staying on the shore.

This is of course your responsibility. It is not the legislator who will provide for the operationalization of a minimum service. This is your ministerial responsibility. We have not heard you about this. I am even more interpelled as the SNCB and Infrabel respond to this question “that we will see the day when there will be a strike.” These companies do not know how this will happen. It is building anyway. This is your full and complete responsibility. We will see how things will be operational if a strike occurs and if you set up a service called “minimum and guaranteed”.

Finally, the third reason why I do not join you in your project is that it provides for some ⁇ aberrant penalties. The best example is that of a worker who declared a strike three days in advance, as the procedure requires. Finally, he comes to work on the day of the strike. He is punished on the basis of his salary. I can hear it, since we obviously could not predict that he would be present and that we will not be able to get him to work at the last minute. He is not paid. I can follow the logic. On the other hand, I find it aberrant to provide for a doubling of the financial penalty by a disciplinary penalty, while after weighing the for and against, he still comes to work. This sanction makes no sense.

This is an example. There are others. But on this point, we did not follow you.

We abstained from this bill. We have resubmitted the amendments, including the one that, in my opinion, is the most important, and which aims to stream into the law the mandatory intervention of the social conciliator once the notice has been deposited. For the rest, in the absence of progress in this matter, we will not be able to support the bill under consideration. We will abstain.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like, like other colleagues, to deplore the forgetting of the day-to-day of the shippers during our discussions. Yet too many are the shuttlers who are mismanaged, especially during peak hours; I mean here the delays, the trains cancelled.

The worst thing about this story is that we have already made many promises. We were told that the situation would improve thanks to the line managers. We were promised that leaps forward would be made in terms of punctuality, especially during peak hours, that fewer trains would be removed, that infrastructure would follow in order to be able to assume the planned offer for shuttle carriers. But those promises were not kept. Every day, too many shippers are in great trouble.

The government has made the choice of ⁇ significant savings with transport plans that did not bring the added value that was promised, which are even sometimes the cause of not negligible downturns especially in the level of transport from the regions to Brussels.

Dear colleagues, we should have, during our discussions, devoted all our energy to advancing the daily life of shippers. But it is this newspaper that is the big forgotten of the debates of tonight. Therefore, you will understand that we will abstain when voting on this bill.

I would not want to intervene too long in a debate that has been quite exciting. I have been trying for more than an hour to understand the exact object of the bill. Having heard several speakers of the majority, there is an agreement. This is not a minimum service. This is not a guaranteed service. Certainly not in the sense of the International Labour Organization.

The title of the bill is "Project of Law concerning the continuity of the service of the railway transport of persons in the event of a strike". Continuity of service. I am referring to the development of the bill on page 11. What does the editor of developments say? Do you believe there is continuity of service? What a baby! "The bill also does not aim to guarantee continuity. But continuity is rather the principle underlying it.” This is the entrance to the tunnel. "Indeed, even if the establishment of a minimum service and the system provided by the bill both pursue the same general and abstract goal, namely the continuity of the public service, an important distinction must be established." It would have been viral. Another is to organize continuity by informing yourself of the staff available in the event of a strike, without any service guarantee being provided. No minimum service. There is no guaranteed service. No continuity of service. No guarantee of service. What remains ultimately? This is a sketch that you deliver to us, Mr. Minister! This is not a bill.

For those who still do not understand, I reiterate another passage of your development which is magnificent, if there is a doubt: "The assimilation with a system of minimum service would also be applied to the system sui generis established standards derived from a regime that is foreign to it, without regard to the specificities of this system sui generis – I dare hope that you follow, Mr. Minister – which, if it does not aim to ensure a minimum service – one begins to understand it – also does not aim to restrict the right to strike beyond a mere declaration of intent." It is wonderful! I believe that Richard Miller should make us an exegesis standing session of this text of a great literature.

I who read the writings of our friend, Richard Miller, Is There Still a European Literature?, excellent book that I recommend to you, I just gave you an excerpt of what is not a train but what is ⁇ a literature at the test. It’s a joke, but frankly, when we’re trying to figure out the object that is submitted to us, there’s something to lose.

Mr. Minister, more seriously now, you know, this bill reminds me of what was announced by the majority: the fight against unemployment. It is scandalous! The home visits. There was a debate of principle. I remember it. We went to see what we were going to see. Finally, we would give ourselves the means to fight against real social fraud. Each year I ask a written parliamentary question to know the outcome. Schnoll almost, if you allow me the expression a little direct and vulgar because it was purely theory. It was pure musculation. This is the same thing.

You are busy making honest citizens believe that there will be a guaranteed minimum service. I am willing to talk about this but let us be clear, there is no guaranteed minimum service only if there is an agreement between social partners. You can try all other experiments, there will never be conclusive results.

When Ms. Fonck says that there are minimum services guaranteed in a number of public services, there are two ways. It is simple: either it is the agreement between partners, or it is the claim. Everything else, you forget. We need to speak frankly. You should not try to deceive people but say here that you are going to ensure the continuity of a service – finally, we have seen all the entanglement of services – to simply find that eventually, there may not be enough staff.

And we are not talking about what has been said, namely that any train driver cannot be put on any line because he has a proper approval to the lines for which he has followed his training and so on. In other words, before you find employees to take on the service, good luck! The same goes for certain categories of accompanying persons who can’t always change language region, etc. You are thus making you believe in an illusion, a mirage! You are deceiving the public opinion with a measure of the order of the false symbol, not even the honorable symbol, the false symbol!

It remains to be hoped, Mr. Minister, that at least the days of strike, the trains are in the maintenance, so that the days when they must be in operation, they can run without incidents and that a real service is rendered to the citizens and users.

Mr. Speaker, our group is in favor of a minimum service for the railway. As the previous speaker read the relevant passages as a true stand-up comedian, this bill does not provide an insured minimum service at all. For us, this should go further. Train transportation is important, is even of public order. There should be claims to guarantee the minimum service. This, by the way, was stated in the original N-VA proposal, but it is unfortunately not found in the bill. For this, you depend entirely on the voluntary rise of those who have no intention of striking. Whether this will work in practice remains to be seen. The positive is that travellers will be better informed.

I have one question that has not yet been addressed in the talks. That happened in the committee. I read the committee report carefully. Several speakers mentioned the fact that the strike readiness in the south of the country is just slightly greater than on the Flemish side. We have seen many examples of this in the past. In practice, it comes down to the fact that today, in the current situation, the people who want to work are deployed on the lines on which they usually drive. The supply for the Flemish travellers in such strikes is greater than the supply in Wallonia, where in strikes the train transport is almost completely flat. Terecht has noted that it is important to base the offer on the number of volunteers per line or per Region and that it is important not to consider the case from a national perspective.

Can it not be the intention that for the Flemish travellers the situation will be worse by ensuring with this bill that the volunteers who appear must be deployed to ensure a minimum service throughout the country and thus that the Flemish working volunteers must guarantee the Waals train offer? There is a high probability that this will happen in practice.

In order to address this concern, which was addressed both by Ms. De Coninck, Mr. Geerts and Ms. Lahaye-Battheu in the committee, we have drawn up an amendment in that sense, which fully addresses it. After all, if you do not take into account that shattering, this bill remains very community loaded. I thought that there was a community shutdown and that it was not intended to introduce another additional community shutdown.

With our amendment, we aim to eliminate the perverse consequences that the bill may have to the detriment of the Flemish pendlers by entering into the law that the train offer in the event of strikes by the NMBS per Region should be adjusted in proportion to the number of volunteers per language group and per Region. I share the concerns expressed by several parties during the committee discussions and I naturally count on their support for this amendment.

Mr. Minister, you will not be surprised to learn that we are not enthusiastic at all about voting on the law that is proposed to us today. We still do not know how to interpret it. During the work of the commission, you tried to make us understand one thing: it is not a minimum service. You put this phrase on every sauce. And at the State of the Union, the Prime Minister continued to proudly mention the introduction of a minimum service on the railways. This is the only time he has been applauded on the banks of the opposition. We woke up during the Prime Minister’s speech. Whether or not it is a minimum service is not clear to me, but what is clear is that most railroads want maximum service. They live it every day. The minimum service, it is you who organizes it by removing three billion endowments, 700 km of railways, small stations, and by increasingly reducing the opening hours of the stores.

I address those who have highlighted the case of closing railway lines: quote me a single line that we have removed! We removed 100 meters of lines during this legislature. Give me only one line.

As for the three billion, errors in arithmetic interpretation have occurred in the past and have been contagious to many people. You always cite this figure of three billion. Give me the proof too. I have repeated repeatedly that the effort to be provided over this legislature amounted to 1.2 billion in investment and operation. The state decides to borrow a billion to make it available to the SNCB group to invest. Make the calculation! If you can't, I'll send you back to second primary arithmetic books.

Mr. Minister, I suggest that in matters of arithmetic, the MR does not play it too high, because it has months to catch up. If we are mistaken in the numbers, it is not our party.

The deleted lines cover 18 years and this continues. Mr. Miller, you were in the government, right?

The [...]

And secondly, for the three billion, it is easy: you remove billions and then you borrow one billion more. Do you think the subsidy will decrease?

The allocation decreased by 1.2 billion and a billion investment was added. But the 1.2 billion allocation is divided into investment allocation and operating allocation. And I’ll even cut the foot to another duck: the one of the stations. We are constantly listening to the closing of the stations. How many stations have been opened since 2014, Mr. Hedebouw?

The issue here is that you reduce the money of the SNCB. and OK? The closures of railway stations, we live in the Hainaut, we live in Liège. These are closures of boxes. There are no stop points.

Here I agree! But, Mr. Hedebouw, is it reasonable to keep an outlet open in the afternoon in stations where the outlet sells two tickets?

We are at the heart of the debate here on the question of what public service we want. The difference between you and me, Mr. Minister, is that all these shuttlers live day by day the fact that the service is not guaranteed to them, all these people find themselves with that punctuality that is not at the point... Do you see these tables filled with red when you arrive in the morning: 23 minutes, 22 minutes, 15 minutes, 16 minutes? This is because there are not enough investments.

This is the fundamental debate.

I invite you to read the reports prepared by Infrabel and the SNCB on the reasons why trains are not punctual. There are internal responsibilities and I think the Infrastructure Commission has invited the two CEOs to come to explain because, despite the designation of line managers, the situation is not improving. In management contracts, the variable remuneration of these people will be directly linked to punctuality.

In September, external facts accounted for more than 50% of accidents of punctuality. You have seen the incident of today, there were two major ones. There are major incidents every two days. Per ⁇ this is a problem that needs to be addressed at another level.

In the internal facts of the SNCB and Infrabel, how can we accept that 20% of the first morning trains leave late? Do you accept this? Is it normal for the first train to be late? In this business, it is necessary to evolve the business culture oriented towards the traveler. But this will not happen in one day! If punctuality is such today, it is the result of a series of things. I want to establish the foundations of a customer-oriented policy and more towards the rest. It is necessary to get rid of subsidiaries whose business is very far from the SNCB. It is necessary to re-center the company to the heart of its profession, i.e. only the traveler, with the three values: safety, punctuality and communication. Everything else should be on the side.

I meet workers who still work today according to the principles of load circuits established in the 1960s! It’s like you’re working today with a writing machine while everyone is working with a computer.

This company needs to evolve. The representatives of the trade union organizations I meet are very often aware of the need to make it evolve. It is in this logic that we enter. I hear that they say that there is no management contract, no investment plan or transportation! I will emphasize that there is one in 2017, that there are more 5.1% of trains, that the management contract and the investment plan will be presented to you soon. You will consult them. I was asked to negotiate with the regions. This consultation leads me to add four months to the submission of investment projects. (That is brouhaha!)

When you look at the management plan and the investment plan, you’ll find that I didn’t do “copy-paste”! I have produced documents that will serve as a basis to ensure that by 2023, the SNCB will be the company that, by simple protocol, will continue its mission of public service while you know all the temptations that are imposing everywhere in Europe! It was this government that requested with the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Austria to give the faculty to historical companies to retain the execution of their public service mission but with modernized companies. It is in this scheme that I have enrolled myself, it will take time but it is fundamental. These are documents that will refine the SNCB’s policy to prepare it for the deadline of 2023 and thus ensure that, during the next ten years, this public enterprise, which must be modernized, will always remain public in this form and not in another.

For another moment, Mr Hedebouw, Mrs Grovonius would like to intervene.

Mr. Speaker, since Mr. Minister invites us to consult the figures relating to the punctuality and the causes of delays, I will answer that this is what I do. And what do I see on page 18 of the Infrabel report of last July? It is stated that the main cause of delays is not what you mentioned at the moment, Mr. Minister - for example, a person's accident. No no no no! It is the SNCB equipment that is designated: 28.6% of the causes of delay. I will stop there, because we will have the opportunity to discuss it again during the discussion of the General Policy Note, but this should be recalled. Since you invite us to consult the encrypted data, I give it to you.

Mr. Minister, what really struck me is that you spoke for eleven or twelve minutes about your plans for the future of the SNCB. At no time did you mention the railroads. You talked about directive and modernization, but never - in twelve minutes of response - of all those people who make the public service run. This is significant, because the question that moves us is ... (Brouhaha)

We are nervous at Mr. ... And more than we think.

The question of the minimum service that we are dealing with today testifies to an attack on a collective right. In my opinion, the very essence of the law that is presented to us today consists in an individualization of the right to strike. But the acquisition of its collective character is of historical order for strike movements, since it establishes an imbalance in society, in the enterprises. Individuals are faced with a hierarchy - whether it is private or public - but they do not have the same rights as this one. Let us take an example. When political power decides to make public service agents work until the age of 67, what are their rights and means of action to make their disagreement heard?

None of you have been elected with a program that extends labor until the age of 67. No one voted for you to enforce this law. No railroad driver voted for you for early pensions to be abolished. The democratic legitimacy of this pension reform is null. How can a portion of the population express its resistance to these measures, by other means than by the polls? The world of work does so through collective action. Not an individual. It would be a hundred years back. It is the acquisition of the collective to be able to enter into resistance.

I believe that there is a significant danger when we talk about minimum service because the public service of railways is important, like that of hospitals. It is clear that the world of work has a sense of responsibility. Certain areas must of course have a guaranteed service. Hospitals are clear. Even in the private, a high furnace will always turn. Steelworkers know very well that if a high furnace is not ⁇ ined during a strike, it destroys itself. But if we accept that transportation enters this logic, where will it stop? What is the next step? The public services offices? We have a real problem, colleagues, because we want to extend the attack to other sectors. This is worrying.

Specifically, the question of the practical organization of this minimum service raises the question of who will be able to take the train.

It will be announced in advance which trains will travel. For example, of the six trains during the peak hour in Antwerp-Centraal will be decided which two will drive, and so all Antwerpers who want to go to Brussels will jump on those two trains. How do you decide who is allowed to take the train? Are they the strongest or the smallest, who is allowed on that train? That is a very practical question to which we have not been answered, unless one already assumes the logic that no more will be stopped – but that is not possible. In that sense, there is, therefore, a practical contradiction that will cause us to face major security problems.

It is also important for us to say that in the framework of the committee, we did not have the right to hear. Some associations, even shipping companies, are not pleased with this type of measure. But they preferred not to allow them to come and speak in parliament. It is really a pity! This project would have deserved hearing and not only with trade unions. In any case, they could have expanded.

The Minister asked the question: is someone’s right to strike threatened? I think yes. The railroad driver who must announce three days before the strike whether it is available or not, what is his right two days before the strike? What is your right a day before the strike? What is your right to go on strike one hour before the strike? and zero! That is the problem!

What happens in a social conflict? Trade unions will file a strike notice for, for example, Monday. From Friday, a political debate begins. Workers will indicate on Friday that they may not want to strike. They sign up to work on Monday. I am writing a fiction script. On Saturday, the political debate about this strike begins. On Saturday, a liberal minister would say: “I totally care about the workers’ demands. I am fucking. A little bit of fiction but not so much, it happens more and more. “I am not listening. All these workers will work two more years.” The same worker, Mr. Minister, on Saturday, will no longer be able to decide to strike. This is a violation of the right to strike. That is the problem. Today, we are putting pressure on all of these workers. We are putting on individual pressure and this expression of the collective strike right is no longer allowed.

You also address the issue of strike piquets.

I want to be very clear about this: there is a 2011 judgment of the European Committee for Social Rights that states that strike pickets can only be banned in the event of violence. At all other times they must be allowed. The present design does not provide this guarantee. That is the problem, because strike pickets are guaranteed by that judgment and it is completely illegal to confront them and attack the strike pickets.

You will therefore have understood, Mr. Minister, that like the workers, my group is not in favour of the implementation of this attack on the right to strike.

This is a good war. You are not the liberal prime minister to do this. At one time in England, Mrs Thatcher had also attacked trade union organizations, especially the public service, because in our de-industrializing society, railways are still one of the strong sectors of the trade union movement, a sector where workers are not individualized, a sector where workers are not afraid of being directly fired as is the case, for example, in SMEs. I have hundreds of testimonies of people who do not dare to go on strike while they are not happy. But they are afraid of having a problem with their boss, of no longer being hired, of not being able to pursue their careers in the company that employs them if they strike.

Therefore, we can see that today there is no democracy in companies. Human rights stop there. Dozens of workers have been sanctioned for strikes. I’m not even talking about the money you lose when you strike. There is no strike for pleasure.

But in large companies, there is still a strength ratio that allows the democratic right to say that you do not agree with the minister and that you decide to stop working. Through the bill under consideration, it is this relationship that you want to individualize by putting pressure and atomizing the social body that is that of the railroads.

This is not the right way to work, Mr. Minister. You would have done much better if you had a real dialogue. Such a dialogue did not take place either within the company or in the Chamber, since it did not even have the right to conduct hearings. You leave a lot of details that fall within the sole decision of the railway management. Who will have to work? How ? And you take the part of rolling only for the employer by forgetting the employees.

Mr. Minister, in order to properly run a company such as the railways, you need to have the confidence of all employees who have incredible schedules. They start working at 2 h, 2 h 30, 3 h. They can finish at 22:00. They need to be very flexible.

I think this bill is not a good thing. I truly hope that, in the coming years, the ratio of social forces will re-establish itself, as has been the case during this last century, to go and look for antisocial laws and get you back.

Maybe not in an hour, in a week, or in a month, but I can guarantee you, dear colleagues of the right, that the workers’ movement will not let go, and that it will regain the democratic strike rights that you have taken from it today.

I would like this law to never work. I have heard here several groups, especially on the left of the hemisphere, talk about workers and their legitimate rights. The right to strike is an individual right and nothing will prevent a recognized trade union organization from filing a strike notice in their collective name. But I also think of the other workers and students. To those 850,000 people who take the train every day to go to work or school and back. These people sometimes cannot take the train because of a strike. Furthermore, the participation rate in strikes, if I refer to May and June 2016, varied from 0.5 to 20%. This represents a number of people between 0.5 percent of the 32,000 workers and 20 percent of them, i.e. 6,000 workers, taking 850,000 other people as hostages during the day. Are those who want to defend the right of workers to go to work and students to go to school aware that by not accepting the principle of continuous service, they take 850,000 people as hostages a day? I would like to draw attention to this point.

Secondly, polls were conducted by the press, that is, not by us. Sometimes there are 10 or 12,000 participants. These demonstrate that the desire for service continuity in the public railway service varies between 62 and 72 %. You can read it in all the newspapers that have conducted such surveys.

The proposal is based on the principle that a public service must be provided continuously, regularly and without interruption. This principle must remain in place in the event of a strike while respecting the right to strike, which is an individual right. This right to strike must remain free and unshakable, without pressure of any kind. This is the principle that is found here.

Mr. Hedebouw mentioned the plea for the continuity of the service. What is the principle we are defending in this bill? It is not to obstruct the strike but to list those who are available on the days of strike and to organize a transport service taking into account the available personnel without deviating in any way from the Railway Code which ensures the principles of safety of railway transport.

This bill will not derogate in any way from the usual safety rules. This bill will allow SNCB and Infrabel to provide a transport plan based on the available workers. If I take the strike of 10 October last year or that of May 2016, there were trains running but without it being announced to the people. It was already known the day before which trains could travel, but it could not be structured. People are therefore in uncertainty: they can leave with a train in the morning but they are not sure that they will be able to get home. This is about adapting a transport plan to the volume of staff that will be available, neither more nor less.

Of course, there is a deviation from the principle of minimum service in the so-called sensitive sectors and recognized by the ILO. Why Why ? In these sectors, the minimum service provides for the recovery and we absolutely do not want to use the recovery. This is not envisaged in the project.

You may have noticed that social dialogue does not work so badly, since, between May-June 2016 and October 2017, there was no half-day strike at the SNCB. According to a newspaper, it had been fifty years since this had happened. And I applaud the fact that there has been no strike for fifteen months, because the SNCB plays a vital role in our country. We cannot afford the luxury of having days of strike, long-term strikes, or even a one-day strike in our country.

The opinions of the Council of State have been addressed. We have discussed this in the committee, and I will not return to it.

Mr. Cheron says this is the first act that is made. But the first act that was made was to validate to the Council of Ministers the transport plan 2017. The opposition is constantly talking to me about restrictions, savings, etc. This prevents that this SNCB transport plan adds 5.1% of railway supply. This has not been done for twenty years.

This has not prevented us from putting 78 additional trains, which Infrabel and SNCB are recruiting ⁇ 2,000 new workers during this year, or from moving this company towards a higher quality of public service. We bought equipment at the end of 2015 for 1.3 billion. But it is true that today, some very foundations of the quality of transport leave much to be desired and that there must be work on it.

You are inciting the payment strike. I explained to you that, legally, one who is not in possession of a transport ticket is not covered by the insurance in case of an accident. You tell me that the law can resolve these things. No, the law cannot do that.

I don’t know why they work in the committee. The amendment itself provides for what you are explaining, i.e. insurance, etc. I explained this in the committee. Some of the people present here can testify to this. I will not bring them to the bar because it is too late. I do not understand why you are making a trial over a topic that has been discussed. I know you can be in good faith. If you do not like the proposal, say in this case that you do not agree. But coming up with bad arguments to which we have already answered is quite unbearable. I say it calmly.

Mr. Cheron, in the current state of law, you cannot derogate from the payment of a title of...

That is why we are proposing to change the law, Mr. Minister, and to make an amendment. That is why we are in parliament.

Mr Fonck, as regards the intervention of the conciliator, our country has basically three systems: the system of public services outside the SNCB; the system of the conciliators of the private sector and, as regards the SNCB, it is Article 136 of the Act of 1926 that regulates the matter. However, whether it is public services or the private sector, the intervention of a conciliator is not mandatory.

However, unlike public services, at the SNCB, the conciliator can be called at the request of one of the parties involved in the conciliation, i.e. HR Rail, the SNCB, the Minister, the Human Resources Coordination Committee and the President or his representative of a trade union organization. Unlike public services, there is no need for unanimity to do so.

I have indicated to you in the committee that there was, in 2015, the intervention of a social conciliator and that the various actors I have just cited no longer want the intervention of the social conciliator. This is stated in the report.

Mr. Minister, it is nice to recall the procedures of social conciliation, but I know them! You repeat the same argument, which demonstrates that you did not listen to me. Since then, I have been turning around a little. What you do not want to acknowledge is that in fact, parties may not accept the intervention of the social conciliator unless it is stipulated in the law. The big difference with the private sector – it is always forgotten – is that in the private sector, the social conciliator always chairs the parity commission.

Finally, there was only one intervention of the Social Conciliator at the SNCB. Politics has been fully involved. This obviously did not work! I can understand that today, we do not want to resume ourselves in such conditions. And to prevent this possibility, let it be written in the law without the intervention of politics by giving yourself this chance, because you forget the essential in the end in regard to the intervention of the social conciliator: avoid the strike!

I believe that the content of Article 136 offers so many possibilities and faculties for the intervention of a conciliator that the parties to the conciliation and the conciliation can appeal. I understand that neither of them wants to appeal to a conciliator.

We will return to the transport plan at another time, because this is not the subject of discussion today.

Mr Maingain, as regards the minimum service, I think your group has assured it in the committee to examine this bill. I think you have not yet understood it. I am sorry about it. I have known you more skilled and brighter in other sectors. In this case, it seems to me that you did not understand the scope of the project. There is no recovery. When you say that rolling stock could be ⁇ ined on strike days, note that the workshops are also striking. If there is a strike, it is for the entire SNCB. I noticed that the strikes often departed from workshops.

Finally, I think the late hour is not suitable for much longer conversations. I like numbers and precision. I take you all as witnesses. Ms. Grovonius, you quote me figures on punctuality. I have the report in front of me. If you want, I’ll give you my computer. In September, 42.3% of delays and 50.5% of deleted trains from the SNCB internal network had external causes.

There are still 50% of internal causes, which we absolutely need to work on. I must tell you that the appointment of line managers is not enough. I expect both railway companies to take strong, sufficient arrangements to improve punctuality compared to the current situation.

We are not going to have a war of numbers. But quoting a figure on a specific month can slightly distort the results. I come with figures relating to a period of one year. Over this one-year period, it is very clear that the reasons considered third-party have decreased. I insist that it is the hardware problems that are the main cause of the lack of punctuality, linked to the lack of investment for the maintenance of this equipment.

Finally, Mr. Minister, I have the impression that you have absolutely not listened to our interventions. We defended the railroads. We have defended the right to strike and collective action. But we also defended railway users.

Indeed, you have been told and repeated, what we want is a maximum service for these users throughout the year and not a minimum service or so-called minimum service for the day of strike that could intervene. When you tell us that your main concern is those students, those workers who want to go to work, I hope you will take this into account when you come to present us the potential tariff increases for these rail users. If this is your priority, we will have discussions in this context. I think, however, that you will have a different speech when you increase ticket prices.