Proposition 54K2869

Projet de loi sur la police des chemins de fer.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Feb. 1, 2018

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

administrative sanction public safety police criminal law rail transport

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ 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 ¶

March 29, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr Marcel Cheron, rapporteur, apologises and refers to his written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, we finally discuss the draft law on the railway police, regarding the administrative fines.

Our railways have been struggling with problems for years in terms of enforcing all kinds of infringements. Just think of the black driving by travellers, the non-compliance of all kinds of transport conditions, the unnecessary use of the emergency brake and so on. For example, due to black riding, the NMBS loses a lot of income, but it also affects the sense of justice of travellers who buy a ticket correctly. Black riding is by far the most committed infringement but there are other disturbing infringements that cause problems. Think only of persons who do not comply with all kinds of transport conditions or who commit violations that harm the comfort, or even safety, of other travellers.

The prosecution of such infringements often follows only a long time after the facts. This, of course, undermines the recidivist effect of the punishment. Some multipliers accumulate dozens of violations. The current system of punishment does not or barely scares them. In a minority of cases, the procedure results in effective prosecution. The immense size of the number of infringements means a huge burden for the courts.

The general conclusion, on which, by the way, there was consensus in the committee, is that punishment should be faster, better and simpler. This is possible thanks to this bill.

The idea of introducing administrative fines to combat minor offenses in public transport has been around for many years. Our colleagues in the Flemish Parliament already decided in 2004 to introduce administrative fines for De Lijn. The MIVB and the TEC have also applied such principles for years.

The idea to introduce this in the NMBS has been circulating behind the scenes of the railway group for several years. By introducing these administrative sanctions, the railways are given the means to play shorter on the ball. It was an important starting point of the design to be able to play shorter on the ball.

This matter was first read in Parliament following the bill of mine and colleague Raskin, which wanted to introduce administrative fines in the railway sector. We then relied on the sanctions applicable to De Lijn, as well as the municipal administrative sanctions that have proven useful in Flanders for several years.

Apart from these administrative sanctions in itself, that exercise has also shown that it would be useful to thoroughly revise the entire law on railway police, since the basic text of this still in force law dates from 1891, an era in which both the railway and the law enforcement looked very different from today. Therefore, after the submission of our own N-VA bill, we have waited for the initiative of the Minister of Mobility, Mr. Bellot. He promised to immediately work on a wider modernization of the law enforcement in and around the stations and trains and to thoroughly update the law of 1891.

The result is the current bill. Administrative fines may be introduced for a selection of violations in trains and stations. It distinguishes three categories of crimes, namely serious crimes that will still be prosecuted, crimes that can be prosecuted administratively and crimes that can be punished mixed.

The need remains to ensure a stronger maintenance of security in and around the stations. That is the starting point of this bill.

During the discussion in the committee, we learned that 363 000 irregularities are detected annually. Of these, approximately 125 000 are heavy enough to bring before the court, but this happens only in 4 000 cases. The majority of the offenders are now free. This creates a sense of impunity. The current system of administrative fines should help the world address this problem by responding quickly and effectively.

We discussed this project extensively in the Infrastructure Committee. It has been discussed in two lectures, with the second reading even lasting longer than the first. During these lectures, we also approved several amendments from various parties. Thus, we have extended the planned professional term by amendment. There was also an adjustment of the unbuilt distance to the tracks. In addition, the scope of the sanctions was amended by amendment. There was also an amendment for the placement of windmills along the rail lines.

For all these reasons, my group will fully approve this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I would like to first, even though this is not quite the topic of the day, congratulate the Minister for the restart of the RER construction site that began yesterday. I am very pleased and I know that too.

Today we are preparing to vote on an important text on railway police. Presented by our Minister of Mobility, François Bellot, the text aims to introduce the principle of administrative fines in the arsenal of sanctions for conduct contrary to the obligations regarding the use of the train but also to the safety of the railway infrastructure.

You should know, dear colleagues, that at present, the continuation of the irregularities that are targeted by the project systematically involves a heavy, long, costly procedure and I add largely ineffective. As an example and as an explanation in the explanation of the reasons for this project, each year, after a first internal amicable phase, the SNCB entrusts an average of 180 000 irregularities for amicable recovery to the judiciary to its external service providers, which represents for it a cost of approximately EUR 2 750 000. That is obviously too much. This is why the implementation of an administrative penalty mechanism is fundamental.

First, the fine responds directly to the offence committed and avoids the sense of impunity of the perpetrator. Then we will save money unnecessarily spent. I imagine that no one, in the hemicicle, can consider that one can spend money unnecessarily. I am not targeting anyone.

This is, within the framework of the SNCB and Infrabel, especially important for the economy of means.

Finally, the mechanism will allow, which I think is at least as important, to disengage the prosecutor’s office and the police services. This bill is therefore named in a context where our government must be a proposal force, pragmatic and effective, as we have been for three and a half years.

I will not go into the technical details of the various infringements mentioned. However, I think that this bill will help combat inappropriate behavior inside and near trains. I also emphasize that the use of administrative sanctions will be applied against intrusions on the roads, which are the cause of too many delays. Therefore, I welcome this project, which has also gathered a large majority in our committee.

In summary, my friends, the time will be shorter between wrongdoing and punishment, which I think is essential. Second, there will be no more impunity. Impunity encourages new incivilities. Its absence prevents subsequent incivilities. Third, let’s say the payment: it will bring more money to repair the incivilities already committed.

Mr. President, Mr. Almost Prime Minister, you are in his place and you invite him to give the blow to reboot the RER. As Mr. Flahaux invites me, I join with him to congratulate you on the resumption of the works that have been stopped for too many years and this due to the lack of investment in the rail.

Mr. Flahaux also invited me to emphasize (and this is true) that money should not be spent unnecessarily. And there, above our heads – Mr. Miller, you see me coming – it’s not an angel passing by but something that ends up with a worry, a fighter plane! I will stay there and I see that even the minister is smiling. But Mr. Flahaux being a colleague of very good company, I did not want to leave him alone with his enthusiasm.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Almost Prime Minister, dear colleagues, the draft on administrative fines in the railway sector can be summarized in one word: Sorry! It is a pity because the government had the opportunity to provide an effective and balanced response to the impunity of dangerous or uncivil behavior in stations, trains and roads. It is a pity, because the government only had to regain the balance that already exists for municipalities or regional transport. A balance that balances between the rights of the justiciable and the need to respect the common rules of life in society.

I had opened myself apart from you, Mr. Minister, telling you that the salt of the text was really appetizing but that there was something missing in relation to our minors and privacy. I was open to you and, unfortunately, we could not convince you during the parliamentary work. It is not a fault to have made amendments and proposals, with my colleagues Mr. Geerts of sp.a and Mrs. Poncelet of the CDH. But here is! We did not have the necessary force of conviction.

I will not return to the unprecedented choice of allowing verifying agents access to the National Register. Both the State Council and the Data Protection Authority (formerly the Privacy Protection Commission) have been moved by such an unprecedented breadth that raises questions in terms of privacy protection.

Let me, however, return to the fate reserved for minors by the bill. This is a perfect illustration of the lack of balance that I was referring to. While the administrative sanctions of the municipalities and those, for example, of the STIB, impose mediation for offenses committed by minors, the government has chosen a counter-current solution of any pedagogical and educational logic.

The minor will be entitled to mediation only after having committed five offences. This solution is so aberrant that we initially believed a shell in printing the project. We could have found the opposite solution. Is a minor still entitled to mediation if he has not adjusted his behavior after the first five offences? The first five mediations? But why let him commit five offences without entering mediation? The reason is simple: it is financial.

Mr. Minister, you assume it: systematically granting mediation to minors would indeed be too expensive. The administrative penalty is a delegation of the royal power. It must be admitted with the utmost caution. It cannot be regarded as a mere formality to fill the boxes of the SNCB and Infrabel. And when the Flemish Commissioner for the Rights of the Child takes the initiative to write a critical opinion on a bill, one cannot ignore it. We do not ignore it. Nevertheless, the majority did not take into account any of the comments made throughout the 12 pages of a circumstantiated opinion.

I will not repeat the debate that took place in the committee. I will only remind you of two principles. The Convention on the Rights of the Child requires that minors who adopt unlawful behavior have the right to adjusted penalties for educational purposes. Then, the fine is not an educational measure for a minor. Nine times out of ten, it is the parents who will pay.

Together with my colleagues from the opposition, we have adopted a constructive position in commission. Twenty amendments were submitted in first and second reading. This proves that we could have supported a text that respects the rights of all, while benefiting railway companies, the safety of workers and users, and the punctuality of trains. But the government wants butter and money from butter and forgets that great power involves great responsibilities.

It is for all these reasons that my group and myself will abstain from a bill that deserved a better fate.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, with this draft, we want to deal with violations on and around the tracks from now on also with an administrative sanction.

There are two obvious main reasons why the bill is needed.

First, the current criminal proceedings are lengthy, lengthy and very burdensome and often lead to impunity, which, of course, may not be the intention.

Second, both railway undertakings and parquets are currently putting a lot of money and effort into the procedures, while these lead to ineffective measures.

Such violations can have very serious consequences for safety and for accuracy. Let me give an example, the railroad. We have discussed this in detail in the committee. Travellers may think that walking around the tracks can’t hurt, but every year there are more than eight hundred railway reports, causing an average of more than six hours of delay per day. In addition, last year, seven railroad riders died and another seven people were seriously injured by walking over the tracks. The impact on safety and accuracy is therefore very large.

The example of railways shows that violations on and around the tracks need to be addressed in a different, better way. The additional administrative path is therefore a good thing.

The administrative handling of infringements should be addressed with the due care and caution. The railway undertakings will be both a judge and a party, which requires the necessary control and defence capabilities.

This also explains the large number of opinions received by the Infrastructure Committee following the present bill. These are opinions from travel associations, staff associations, the Ombudsman’s Service for Train Passengers and the Children’s Rights Commissionariat.

My group is of the opinion that with the present draft law a balanced arrangement has been developed. The current list of violations in the regulations of the police on railways is taken over. Some provisions are rather vague. Article 9 for example prohibits – I quote – “to set up any show.”

This seems to be a too broad description. That does not mean that one should not describe too specific situations in the text, so that one can always respond appropriately, which is also the specific situation.

Mr. Yüksel, Mr. Geerts wants to interrupt you.

Mr. Yüksel, I will come to the last element of your speech.

I totally agree with you that Article 9 is too vague. But can I ask you, then, why did you not support our amendment to amend that article?

This is what I am going to say, Mr. Geerts.

We discussed this very extensively in the committee, including with the minister. We are primarily concerned with a pragmatic way of working. For example, when it comes to a matter of transport tickets, one can pay the NMBS after a friendly settlement 75 euros. At that time, the Ombudsman’s office can also play its role. The administrative sanction comes to light only if the traveller does not enter into the amicable settlement.

In addition, the Infrastructure Committee has decided to extend the period of defence from 15 to 30 days. This should provide the traveler concerned with the guarantee that he can set up a solid defense if he considers it necessary.

Additional attention was also paid to the administrative sanction in the case of minors. According to our group, it is correctly imposed in this case. Fortunately, we were able to learn from the system of GAS fines, which, by the way, was used as an example in the drafting of the bill.

In the case of minors, there is always the right to a verbal defence; the mandatory mediation is provided and an appeal to the Youth Court is possible.

I am confident that the railway undertakings will follow up the minor offenders with the necessary attention and reasonability and that in doing so they will distinguish between negligence, forgetfulness and deliberate fraud.

Colleagues, our group believes that today we are taking a step in the right direction to address the impunity of offenses on and around the tracks. We expect the Minister to closely monitor the implementation of the legislation, so that excesses are avoided and the railway companies do not see the administrative fines as an additional source of income, but primarily address them for the sake of increasing safety on and around the tracks.

Mr. Minister, you can expect from my group that we too will follow that secure. Safer and thinner trains, that should be the result of the design, which we will therefore approve.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I will be a little less lyrical than the first two speakers and try to keep it as business as possible.

The Minister had hoped that this bill could have been put to vote in Parliament much faster, but, as Ms. Inez De Coninck just said, the usefulness of the second reading was important because a number of technical and substantial aspects could be changed.

I think that we have had a good debate in the committee and that we have done our duty by taking a critical look at the draft, hoping that our Parliamentary Act can be a guide to any possibility of interpretation in a court.

As I said in the committee, I, together with my group, support administrative sanctions on this subject. Impunity is absolutely impossible, let there be no doubt about it. However, it is true that some municipalities apply administrative sanctions quite harshly. For example, I think of the penalty for eating a sandwich on the stairs of a church. I was afraid that this would be the case with the NMBS.

Hence the following fundamental concerns concerning the administrative sanctions at the NMBS and Infrabel.

First, all legal remedies must be respected. The question is to what extent that principle in this legislation is still in force. I refer to the opinion of the State Council stating that some articles are very vague. I have discussed the obstacle aspect in the committee. What is an obstacle for one and what is an obstacle for the other? Mr Yüksel cited the example of the show. That is why we have included this in an amendment. I am pleased that it is cited today, but it is regrettable that the amendment was not approved in the committee. What one interprets as fun, the other interprets as disturbing. This creates legal uncertainty in the discretion of such legislation.

Second, the right of defence and the deadlines. This was adjusted during the discussion. The defence procedure has been extended and this seems to me a good thing. We must be careful with this legislation. The railway undertakings must not, on the one hand, be coulant to themselves and, on the other hand, very rigid to the customer. This is a risk of current legislation.

Third, the Minister said during the discussion that the substantive comments and punishments of acts are not really new, because in the transport agreement already says that one must comply with a number of modalities when buying a ticket. After the second reading and the various discussions, I would like to add that today there is still uncertainty about ticket C170. Often people don’t know why they were punished or tortured. The fear is that even with these administrative sanctions this uncertainty will not be helped out of the world.

The fourth is proportionality. A fundamental question to be asked is whether the amounts of fines are proportionate to the infringements. We have discussed this. I think the penalties are too high, especially with regard to minors. When I read the text of the draft again in preparation for my presentation, I wondered what was the starting point of its authors. Every traveler seems to them a potential incivil. In fact, it is assumed that all passengers may possibly commit an infringement. I give the example of traveling without a valid ticket, the black ride. Well, someone who forgets his subscription or his discount card or someone who took the wrong train; they are all stopped in the same pocket.

Fifth, we miss the aspect of mediation and this is also reflected in the opinion of the Ombudsman’s Office. Per ⁇ in a hearing they could have better expressed their concerns themselves in this bill. In terms of mediation, the Ombudsman’s service was completely out of play several years ago, under then CEO Descheemaecker. Melchior Wathelet attempted to defend the Ombudsman’s service. The present document again misses the opportunity to make mediation once again a central role in the settlement of disputes, ⁇ with regard to young people. The Ombudsman’s Office’s minutes also provide an example of the problems that arise with a thirteen-year-old autistic child. You can argue that this is just one example, but I can argue that the very strict legislation is also based on only a few examples.

This brings me to the age criterion of fourteen years. I think that is a fundamental problem.

For our amendment on this subject, I also hoped to get the support of the N-VA group, since the N-VA in its own bill had also pushed forward the age criterion, in particular sixteen years. We asked for data in the committee. On our question about how many min-eighteen-year-olds it is, the minister replied that it was about 36,432 minors in 2016, if I am not mistaken. In the report, another distinction was made: for young people under fourteen years old it was about 2 784 cases, for young people between fourteen and sixteen years old it was about 9 993 cases and for young people between sixteen and eighteen years old it was about 23 655 cases.

The fundamental question is, how do we deal with young people in our society? The amendment to raise that age to sixteen years is the only amendment we have submitted again today. The fundamental question is with what glasses we look at the young people in our society. The current majority looks with very strict glasses, giving young people very little confidence.

Finally, I would like to put what we are discussing here in a different perspective. In the memorandum of explanation and also in the speech of some colleagues, it was mentioned that there were 391 865 infringements of non-payment in 2016. Nobody will deny that this figure is huge. However, allow me to look at this from a different perspective. According to the annual report of the NMBS, there are 870 000 travellers per working day. In that annual report it is stated that there are 230 million movements by travellers. Well, if one puts those 391,865 violations alongside 230 million displacements, then one results at 0,0017%. There was once a cyclist caught with zero, zero, zero. If you hear the number of 391,865 infringements, it sounds like a huge amount, but please look at it from a different perspective.

We believe that in certain elements of this design, the perspective was not in mind. Therefore, as in the committee, we will abstain from voting.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, to include the offences related to railway safety in the panel of administrative sanctions is important in order to end with a certain culture of impunity. This is good for train accompanyers. This is good for the SNCB. This is good for users. We therefore support this approach.

We regret, however, that mediation is offered to minors who fraud their ticket only at the fifth recurrence. This is insufficient. This leaves aside the opportunity to conduct educational and preventive work in the face of precursor signs of crime. Mediation must be proposed from the first offence. It is necessary to prevent minors from settling in drifts. We continue to think that waiting for the sixth offence is too late, habits are taken.

It is obvious that these mediations represent a consistent work for the SNCB; this has been discussed in the committee. We welcome this work. There are more than 30,000 findings concerning minors aged 14 to 18. The SNCB estimates that 32 full-time equivalents are needed for the processing of all these files. The cost of mediation for minors would nevertheless remain low compared to the revenue generated by these more than 350,000 infringements for non-payment. These offences are committed by adults.

The SNCB can therefore bear this burden and this social responsibility. The SNCB would play a truly educational role and would further contribute to improving society by addressing the problematic situations of these minors from the first offence. That is why we re-submit the amendment we had submitted in the committee. I would like to thank my colleague, Laurent Devin, for signing it.

Dear colleagues, understand that we are obviously interested in this text, but we truly regret that the offer of mediation for minors is limited. We will abstain from voting.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I am indeed in favour of the introduction of administrative fines for the offenders, the rescuers. However, I think it would be useful to look at the safety of control agents as well. Because often they are subject to verbal violence, when it is not physical violence, following a positive control.

When I speak of “control agents,” I speak of train escorts as agents of the special control brigades. Train escorts are usually alone, which sometimes puts them in an unmanageable situation. The officers of the control brigade are usually two, but they carry out checks separately in view of the demand for profitability. Their safety is of the utmost importance and I am sure you agree with my opinion.

I am aware that the system of administrative fines can be dissuasive on the preventive aspect. But when the principle is applied and known to all, it could generate an increase in violence.

In view of the amendments submitted by my colleagues, I note that there is a tendency to defend offenders, including minors. I, Mr. Minister, prefer to emphasize the safety of the inspectors. For these reasons, I will abstain.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, after a very interesting debate in the committee, which mainly focused on the rights of defence of minors, I would like to recall all the arrangement that was put in place, especially for minors. We were very attentive to this situation.

First, each finding is sent by office, for young people over 14 years of age, to the King's Prosecutor for the judicial control of the procedure. Then, the minor can still present his defence orally. In other cases, it is in writing.

The lawyer may intervene to designate a lawyer who may assist, together with the parents, the minor with the sanctioning agent. The lawyer or the legal aid office shall designate the lawyer.

The sanctioning agent is always obliged to propose an offer of mediation, except for non-payment of tickets, where it is from the fifth infringement within a period of twelve months. For all other facts, mediation is offered from the first offence.

A whole series of badges were placed in favour of minors, and that, rightly. It is almost a copy-paste of the device for municipal administrative offences and fines.

With regard to data protection, we discussed this issue. It should be noted that the list is limited and closed and does not apply to all observing agents. This is a very closed list that has been validated by the Privacy Protection Commission. These five agents will have access to a number of data. It should also be known that the agents who, today, already make the findings will be the same ones who, tomorrow, will continue to make the findings, that is, the accompanyers, the agents of Securail and of course the police, especially the railway police.

Amendments have been submitted to the committee. The one concerning the deadline and which had been deposited by two parties of the opposition, I carried it and defended it with you so that it would be accepted. We took this period from fifteen to thirty days. A second important amendment was submitted: that of the distances of the constructions between the roads and especially the wind turbines. Following technical and informational discussions, we have therefore incorporated these amendments into the bill.

Two colleagues discussed the problem of violence against SNCB agents. First, there are, of course, findings, but I would like to remind you that for a number of facts, a copy of the findings is systematically sent to the King’s prosecutor who has sixty days to take the matter.

I believe that any act against a public officer, an accompanyer or others is inadmissible. I think the system is balanced. What is planned is, of course, always under the control of justice.

The adoption of the bill will be the starting point for a new way to make effective the application of fines on already established facts. At the head of the SNCB and Infrabel, it is about making an information campaign about the existence of this new process of collecting administrative fines, and I invited them to do so. Thus, it will serve as a prevention against such acts. From now on, all those who commit acts and who, until now, had the impression that impunity reigned, will see this period come to an end.

Many representatives here are community representatives and they know how important this awareness-raising action is. Prevention and awareness must be fostered. Of course, it is necessary to ensure the application of the penalties, and to accompany them with the labels that were indicated in the bill, both for adults and, ⁇ , for minors between 14 and 18.

We look forward to a pragmatic implementation of this bill. I dare count on the wisdom of the MPs who will support this long-awaited project by the two public companies who are eager to get things done quickly. It is not so much about sanctions, but first of all about the preventive effects they will result.

I would like to thank the Minister for his response. I think you bring here elements for the future. I think you are well aware of the difficulties that the text presents.

You talk to us about prevention, you call on the wisdom of the mayor-members and you know how wise they are. They are on the field and they can bring their knowledge of the field. We are fully agreed.

As for the comment, not from you, Mr. Minister, but other colleagues, who may oppose the fact of not paying a ticket to the violence that public officials can suffer, we should not oppose this.

Who can rejoice in violence? Who can rejoice in hatred except those who make it the salt of their political action? My group is not, we will not oppose your text. You didn’t go as far as you wanted; we were able to explain why. You answered us and I thank you. We will abstain.