Proposition 54K3351

Logo (Chamber of representatives)

Projet de loi concernant l'organisation des services pénitentiaires et le statut du personnel pénitentiaire.

General information

Submitted by
MR Swedish coalition
Submission date
Oct. 31, 2018
Official page
Visit
Status
Adopted
Requirement
Simple
Subjects
penitentiary staff prison administration law relating to prisons staff regulations requisitioning of workers strike penal institution

Voting

Voted to adopt
Groen CD&V Ecolo LE DéFI Open Vld N-VA MR PP
Voted to reject
Vooruit PS | SP PVDA | PTB
Abstained from voting
VB

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.








Bot check: Enter the name of any Belgian province in one of the three Belgian languages:

Discussion

March 14, 2019 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source


President Siegfried Bracke

The rapporteur is Ms. Van Vaerenbergh, of whom I assume that she refers to the written report.


Sophie De Wit N-VA

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, Belgium must gradually be the only country, after Albania, with no minimum or guaranteed service in prisons. With strikes, and there have been a lot in recent years, the whole prison life was flat. Belgium was therefore repeatedly condemned by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment for the poor living conditions for detainees during such a strike. Belgium was also sentenced to compensation.

In addition, when such a strike breaks out, the police take it over to the prison. The police are not as familiar with the course of affairs as the penitentiary officers, and have other and more important tasks to fulfill. Police should be on the streets, not in prisons. And when the police took the blast, we even saw that soldiers were deployed in the prisons. I think this is an unsustainable situation.

Mr. Minister, you know that our group has been dealing with this problem for a very long time. I checked it and noticed that I still asked questions about it to former Minister of Justice De Clerck. So it was a while ago.

During the previous legislature, we submitted a proposal on this subject. Fortunately, we got it registered in the government agreement at the beginning of this legislature.

It will take a long time, Mr. Secretary. You recently tweeted about the slow progress. This has taken a while, but I know you have worked on a negotiated solution. And that is good and important. We know that one does not just stop. You have questions, you have comments, and the working conditions in prisons are also not ideal. Therefore, it is not bad that negotiations have been held, but it has taken a long time.

Today is finally here, Mr. Secretary. We will vote on the minimum or guaranteed service. From now on, there will be a minimum service in the event of a strike. by Oef. Hopefully Belgium will no longer be condemned to pay damages. We can use that money differently and better. The police and the military will no longer have to be involved. Exercise, because they have other tasks to fulfill. And the living and working conditions during a strike will hopefully be better and remain better. And all this in a way that does not affect the right to strike. This has been stated very explicitly by the State Council and that is also an important aspect.

This, of course, does not solve all the problems within the prison system. I think only of the overpopulation and the old infrastructure. We are not there yet, but there is a step forward. It is a step that our group has insisted on for years. We will therefore vote with a lot of pleasure, Mr. Minister.

One thing needs to come from my heart. Contrary to what you tweeted last week to my regret, I think that in this file, as in many others, it is demonstrated that the power of change really works. Our group takes its responsibility for this. He will also do this in this dossier today.


Özlem Özen PS | SP

The right to strike is a fundamental right, as is the right to live a dignified life. Between these two rights, we have always opted for balance. Protocol 351, in permanent negotiation, allowed to maintain this balance that you are breaking today, Mr. Minister.

If everyone closes their eyes on the conditions of life in prison (exiguity, lack of intimacy, the few shower in very poor condition in addition, the endemic prison overpopulation in Belgium, the imprisonment 23 hours a day, rare activities, etc.) today, Mr. Minister, they are put forward to oppose the detainees and the penitentiary officers.

If the prisoners are poorly placed, the prison officers are too. Working conditions are extremely difficult in our prisons. The agents are in the front line against humans, cursed prisoners, housed in ruined buildings in which security is no longer assured and which do not ensure the prisoners a dignified life.

These working conditions and these conditions of detention create tensions between officers and detainees thus adding a dose of physical violence to the violence of the situation. Working conditions are extremely difficult for agents because they are too few. They can’t even take their legal leave days.

Mr. Minister, your bill provides for the training of prison officers, but they are so few that they can not even attend the training that is currently organized.

On the ground, what is the situation? These prisons are new and no new personnel is hired. More than 400 prison officers are currently missing.

As some have pointed out, the measures you propose today are aimed at combating a symptom rather than addressing the profound problems and their causes, yet well-known. Strikes are most often related to living conditions in this unpleasant, or even hostile environment. They are never linked to wage claims. The International Prison Observatory states that strikes have their origins in prison overpopulation, lack of staff and adequate infrastructure.

For the penitentiary personnel, strikes are the only means of making themselves heard, of expressing the profession’s disgrace in the face of the lack of means, the aggression, the lack of secure places, the ill-treatment that the detainee who is deprived of his basic rights suffers daily.

I have had the opportunity to say it to you several times, Mr. Minister: you boast of introducing a minimum service in prisons in the interests of prisoners, while you do so only for organizational and security reasons. That is what I regret.

It may be questioned the risk of a return of the stick that would trigger this measure. Knowing that the demands of staff often coincide with those of prisoners, does this not risk further deteriorating their situation?

Requests are the opposite of the right to collective bargaining. I cannot solve it. The solution you put on the table is not one. The imposition of a minimum service will not improve the concrete situation of the detainees or only in a very punctual manner. It is the improvement of living conditions and penitentiary infrastructure that will reduce the number of strikes and avoid stumbling on the right to strike.

Mr. Minister, if some are interested in the fate of the detainees, it is primarily the prison officers. They are the ones who face them on a daily basis and they are the only ones who try to improve their concrete situation, with the exception of course of the associations active in prison.

Today, my group and myself reject this false good idea that undermines a fundamental right without ensuring the improvement of the living conditions of the detainees and the working conditions of the prison officers. Therefore, we will vote against this text. I thank you.


Annick Lambrecht Vooruit

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, the present bill aims to reform the statute of the penitentiary staff, but it is primarily the introduction of the minimum service that is regulated very concretely.

When I read the public statement of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, I note, in particular, that for decades, like other European and Belgian institutions, the committee has accused the deplorable state of our prison facilities, where the fundamental rights of detainees are constantly violated and prison staff have to function in understated and often crushing working conditions.

It is now added that when it comes to collective action, these conditions only become more dramatic and a country of the Council of Europe is unworthy. In fact, we are the last of the European class.

The Committee against Torture has been in dialogue with our country over this situation for fifteen years, and in 2016 it was to conclude that the situation in our prisons has still not improved.

Mr. Minister, the prison staff has been conducting this dialogue with the government for at least the same time, if not longer. They are always promised all sorts of things that are almost never fulfilled. Then there remains another means for them to challenge those grieving circumstances, and that is the collective action, their ultimate remedy.

They have never stopped for higher wages, but always for better working conditions in our prisons. This last pressure agent will now also be put on tires.

In fact, you say this: in order to put an end to the cause, especially the terrible conditions in our prisons, we now put an end to the collective actions.

Mr. Minister, before you say that I am making a caricature of this given, I would like to refer to a passage from the hearing of Mrs. Beyens, not the first the best, professor at the VUB and a great advocate of the minimum service.

Mrs. Beyens says: “I also see the difficult material, psychological and emotional conditions in which the prison staff must work today. This must ⁇ not be overlooked and must definitely be worked on and is the most adequate means to prevent strikes. The introduction of the minimum service is only a symptom combat of a much deeper problem, namely the deplorable conditions of our Belgian prisons.”

Mr. Minister, let it be clear, it is for that reason, and only for that reason, that my group is opposed to the introduction of the minimum service in our prisons.

For other matters, such as basic and vocational training of staff, general points are mainly pushed forward, but few concrete matters are outlined.

Our question is, of course, how all this will be financed. How much additional resources will you release, or will everything have to come from the staff package?

If the staff is in training, it is logically not at work. There is already a staff shortage. How will you take care of that? How much additional staff will you provide and how will you ensure that this is also effective?

You may later say that there are many vacancies open for that additional staff, but those vacancies did not get filled because the working conditions are so bad.

There is only one conclusion here. We will not support your bill. We do not support it out of fear that the many provisions on the statute change will remain dead letter and that what is now ahead is only an alibi to get that minimum service through.


Stefaan Van Hecke Groen

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and gentlemen, we are facing a very difficult matter. However, from a legal and political point of view, it is a ⁇ interesting document. I am very pleased with the discussion that we were able to have in the committee, which was very rich and very thorough. The hearings were also very exciting because we heard people from the various positions they hold – employee, academic, prison director or others – shed their light on the situation and on the text before them.

Actually, we are facing a very difficult point. We need to reconcile some things. On the one hand, there is the right to strike, which is a fundamental right. However, on the other hand, there is also the right to humanitarian living conditions, also for detainees, including those deprived of their freedom. At one point in the hearing, it was even stated that it is not about finding a balance between one and the other, because those fundamental rights are just as fundamental that there is no need to seek a balance and that these fundamental rights must always be guaranteed in all circumstances.

The problem in Belgium is huge. Other speakers have already mentioned this in detail. Belgium has already been convicted several times for living conditions in prisons. Then it’s not just about situations in case of strike, but actually about the everyday living conditions in prisons. Furthermore, not only has the Anti-Mobbing Committee commented on this, but also in the annual reports of the Federal Ombudsman’s Service, chapters can be found occasionally that illustrate the situation in which inmates are sometimes in the event of a strike.

Many organizations, many experts and prison managers are in favor of a minimum of services. The unions are opposed, they are not satisfied with this text. We also understand their arguments very well. They also explained why they were against it. If they are discontinued, it is about the rights of employees. They quit because of the difficult working conditions, because of the overpopulation, because they often can’t take leave. This is not, or is not primarily, a matter of wages. The issue is the shortage of personnel.

They also say that even today, in a normal regime, if there is no stop, they cannot guarantee that humane living conditions. They also have a point. They are also right. There is a constant pressure. Even today, these fundamental rights cannot always be guaranteed under normal circumstances.

Therefore, there is a lot of understanding of the difficult situation of the staff. Experts have also said that this law actually deals with symptom control for a profound problem. This also means that, even if the minimum service comes, hard work will need to be done to address those profound problems. This is a very important task for Parliament and Government in the coming years.

Colleagues, however, we will support this draft, as well as in the committee, for the reasons I have also cited. To deprive detainees of basic rights in the event of a strike, really can not. Then it’s not just about food, about exercise or about the ability to shower, but also about the ability to take medications and many other fundamental things. It is also high time to introduce this, because in fact detainees are in a situation where, by depriving them of their freedom, they are completely dependent on the staff and on the presence of sufficient personnel. The situation is actually comparable to a hospital where there will always be a minimum of services, including on weekends, even at night, but also in the week when there is a strike or social action. Then we find it normal that for people who cannot take care of themselves, there is a minimum presence of staff.

Sometimes it is said that whoever is for this law or approves this law would be against the right to strike. I find that, frankly speaking, quite short by the curve and intellectually unfair. I could also say that whoever votes against this law is against fundamental human rights, if I had a bad character. But I have no bad character and will never use that argument.


Gilles Vanden Burre Ecolo

We are all aware of the very difficult and even catastrophic conditions of detention in some prisons in the country. The establishments are overcrowded and overwhelmed. We are fully aware of the difficulties that arise in these establishments and it is hard to see that the situation is getting worse in the period of strike. Visits and transfers are removed, prisoners remain in cell, without shower, without distribution of meals, with little surveillance, all in disregard of minimum safety rules.

In the event of a strike, it is often police officers who have to take the relay and they themselves ask us to be discharged from this mission, which is not part of their basic tasks and for which they are not trained. In the recent past, it has been observed that outbursts occur when police have to replace prison officers.

Today, Belgium and Albania are the two countries of the Council of Europe that do not have a guaranteed service during strike periods in prison establishments. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (CPT) of the Council of Europe (CPT) has repeatedly since 2015 urged Belgium to establish a guaranteed service in the prison sector. In 2017, Belgium was the subject of a public statement stating that “during its multiple visits to the prison establishments of 47 Member States of the Council of Europe over the past 27 years, the Committee has never observed a similar phenomenon both in terms of the scope of the phenomenon and the risks incurred.”

In the eyes of my group, the right to strike is undoubtedly a fundamental right recognized by international texts and there is absolutely no question of questioning it. However, there are limitations to this right that may be organized when they are expressly provided by law and above all necessary to ensure respect for the rights and freedoms of others, respect for public order, national security, public health or good morals.

With regard to prisons, the right to strike must benefit workers and should be balanced with the fact that in the event of discontinuity of the service, there are vital needs of the prison population that would be compromised and therefore inadmissible violations of the fundamental rights of these detainees. For this reason, we will support this bill.


Christian Brotcorne LE

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, let us not return to the deplorable state of our prisons, to the European and international convictions, to the recent convictions of the Belgian courts that condemn the State to severe fines if the occupation rates are exceeded in some of our prisons (Lantin, Saint-Gilles, Forest). It is clear that the conditions of detention in our country are unworthy of a rule of law that must continue to be as such.

This text that is proposed to us tries – I say well “tent” – to bring solutions. I say "solution" because listening to the speakers who preceded me, one has the feeling that this text is only aimed at the organization of a minimum service in prisons. Of course, this is an important part of this text, but it is not all. This text is more general and seeks to find structural solutions. It is not limited to the minimum service.

It speaks of the creation of a special status of the penitentiary personnel, distinct from that of the traditional state officials, therefore derogatory to the rest of the public function, because it is considered that this derogation is indispensable for the proper functioning of the penitentiary service.

The inspection, the prison council, the training of agents are also interesting solution sketches. The training of officers is one of the urgent and necessary responses for a real and qualitative framework of prisoners to be organized, even though this framework may remain insufficient and if the training may not be satisfactory on its own to settle all the evils we are facing.

Minimum service is a necessary evil. I think it can be described as such. Nobody here rejoices. In any case, I have not heard anyone in the tribune rejoice over the need to establish a minimum service because things are not going right or in accordance with what one is entitled to expect: a minimum of dignity inside prisons when collective strike movements are triggered. It is correct to say that outside these collective strike movements, there are situations that are and remain unworthy of our rule of law, but we are trying to find solutions.

It is known that for years negotiations have taken place in order to evaluate the protocol that settled the issue between the state and trade unions. At some point, it must be observed that it is not possible to find solutions within this agreement protocol. Therefore, we must move on to something else. I quote the CPT, which for more than ten years has recalled "his vivid concerns about the heavy consequences that collective actions of prison officers in Belgium can have. These consequences directly affect, for prolonged periods, the conditions of detention, the health and safety of persons placed under the responsibility of these agents.”

Of course, what is proposed is not the panacea. We all know that we must not hide the reality. The shortage of personnel in prisons, the overpopulation of prisons, the state of deterioration of the buildings of our prisons, the little resources granted to the prison system, the little attention paid to the conditions of detention in order to avoid recurrence, and therefore, from all this, the working conditions of agents, are the real problems that cause social movements. This should not be forgotten, and it should be reminded to this tribune.

Therefore, it is necessary to find sustainable solutions to these enormous problems that make detention conditions intolerable. They are regarded as inhumane and degrading treatment.

Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the minimum service will not remove the causes of the unhappiness in prison. The causes of prison overpopulation are the lengthening of sentences, the difficulty of accessing conditional release and preventive detention: three situations that this majority and this government have aggravated. You should not be afraid to say it. Today, we sometimes have the feeling that the minimum service we are talking about and we want to organize is not even organized or assured on a daily basis at normal times in our prisons.

It is not therefore that we must continue to accept that these conditions persist and that we should not attempt to resolve the issue. It is also the CPT that requires, Mr. Minister, a guaranteed minimum service, which the project tries to implement. He does not ask us, he demands it.

I add that my group has never been insensitive to this question, since my colleague Vanessa Matz and I had already submitted a text attempting to address these difficulties.

However, Mr. Van Hees, are those who are preparing to vote on the minimum service the thieves of the right to strike? I do not accept that such words are held! We frame a right that we recognize as legitimate and fundamental in our democracy and in that rule of law that we want to preserve, keeping in mind the human dignity in our prisons. These are two rights that are equally important to each other: the dignity of detained persons and the quality of the work of prison officers. Both have the right to our consideration. If it is impossible to act otherwise, it is our responsibility and the responsibility of the law to frame the strike movement. We do not prevent it: it is not forbidden; it is framed. As in other sectors of social life, we consider that strike is possible, but that services must continue to be rendered, unfortunately facing insurmountable difficulties.

What is the purpose of the minimum service? We want that during these frameworked strike movements, basic needs are met. I think it should be reminded to all members present in the homicide.

This is primarily about the safety of detained persons, including those subject to an internment measure. In fact, until now, people are interned in a prison establishment. Their medical treatment must then be provided with respect and humanity.

Then there is the continuity of the care provided to interned persons awaiting placement in an appropriate structure, as well as to any other person suffering from psychiatric disorders in detention. I also think of unrestricted access to general and specialized medical care, including in the hospital environment in case of need. It is not because a strike takes place that these services should not be guaranteed.

Similarly, it is necessary to ensure the preparation and distribution of meals at a fixed time each day. Access to at least one hour of daily walking is also essential. In addition, detained persons must be able to maintain good personal hygiene – including through permission to access shower at least twice a week – and keep their cell clean. They must also be able to continue their contacts with people from outside, by telephone or by post, and receive weekly visits, especially those of lawyers.

Mr. Minister, you have agreed, during the discussions, that I may introduce amendments that have extended these basic needs to ensure the transportation of detainees for urgent medical consultations, access to prison under judicial decisions, access to prison of internationally recognized organizations and the possibility – because it is also a reality of strike – for a detainee who is released from being able to leave the prison despite this strike situation.

Furthermore, some have referred to it and I have had the opportunity to experience this experience as mayor of a municipality with a prison on its territory, it is not normal that when the strike movements are thus planned in a penitentiary establishment, the only and only answer is to send there our police officers who are thus detached from their classical and ordinary tasks to go to perform tasks for which they are absolutely not trained. The few mayors still sitting in this assembly should, in my opinion, be sensitive to this evolution.

This is the reason why, Mr. Minister, my group, the CDH, will vote on this text. But I said it to you in the committee and I repeat it to you this afternoon in this tribune: you must not believe that with this, we have solved the problems and questions.

Finally, I would like to resume and make my own the conclusion of the General Directorate Human Rights and the Rule of Law of the Council of Europe, which you consulted as part of your pre-project: "The pre-project has the merit of trying the social dialogue. Beyond this analysis, it is necessary to find that the set of measures (penitentiary counsel, inspection, staff training, guaranteed minimum service), in addition to the set of statutory provisions, constitute just as many circumstantial remedies aimed at combating the symptoms of structural discomfort. If these systematic failures are not remedied, it is permissible to doubt the effectiveness, in practice, of the minimum service that may be bypassed.”

There is there a construction site that remains open, for the next legislature ⁇ , but which is a construction site that has all its importance if we want to give this text, which frames the right to strike by organizing the minimum service, the chances of effectively meeting its objectives.


Marco Van Hees PVDA | PTB

Mr. President, Mr. Minister of Justice, you are attacking the right to strike, under the pretext of improving the fate of the detainees. Mr. Minister, admit it, the prisoners, you have nothing to do with it! If the prisoners were in your concerns, you would have attacked the catastrophic state of prisons. You would have taken real measures. You would have hired enough officers. You would have renovated the prisons, the buildings. You would have taken all these measures that would improve the fate of the prisoners. Mr. Minister, you use the detainees as a pretext to attack your right to strike. You have no less to do prisoners than your friends, the rich, have very little risk of going to prison, since you have taken a law to save the wider criminal transaction that allows the most desperate criminals to escape prison.

I would like to develop four parts.

First of all, I would like to point out that strikes do not worsen the situation of detainees. Strikes, on the contrary, allow them to improve their situation throughout the year.

As the unions have pointed out during the hearings, the fundamental problem is not the strike of prison officers. These strikes are a sign. These are the reasons why they strike who need to find solutions. Public and political authorities have an overwhelming responsibility and the obligation to respect the rights of detainees. This is why Belgium has been reprimanded by the Committee for the Prevention of Torture. The government is completely free of responsibility by not ensuring decent prisons.

We have heard the trade union representatives who have denounced these problems. Prison officers have held several strikes. It was not a question of small personal demands, but rather of solving the serious problems that arise both for them and for the detainees.

You have signed two protocols that you have not complied with. You didn’t even keep your promises, which were already quite low compared to the bets. The problems in prisons are well known. There is overpopulation in prisons. Very little has been done to remedy the unacceptable living conditions of prisoners in overcrowded prisons. Since the hearings, the government has also been condemned again, on 9 January 2019, because of this overpopulation.

You have not responded to the problem of the lack of staff. Security situations are terrible due to structural overpopulation, the deplorable state of buildings... the list is endless.

It is already difficult today for prison personnel to obtain better working conditions with, at hand, a receipt from the governor. The Minister, the Government, you and your predecessors, you will no longer feel any need to listen to the problems of prisons.

A second point I wanted to address is the existence of solutions for prisoners during strikes, contrary to what I heard here. So far, during the strikes, solutions were found: the police, the Red Cross, civil protection carried out the tasks of prison officers. As evidence, police areas equipped with a prison received additional personnel due to their existence, demonstrating the link and role of the police in these circumstances.

Of course, this does not arrange the authorities, nor the government, nor the police to have to lend in prisons! I am well aware of this. During the hearings, police officials told us that they reject this work. I understand them and this especially because the budget cuts operated by this government were also made for the police staff.

However, this is not a sufficient reason to violate the right to strike. The purpose of a strike is not to avoid all discomforts! It is even more the opposite. There are solutions. It is not the reform of civil protection that will arrange things, as it is also part of the alternative when strikes in prisons. I heard that the police were not trained for prisons. How does it handle people in administrative detention in the police offices? I heard that there had been ill-treatment by the police during their prison guards. If this is the case, there must be a problem in the head of some police members. This would deserve an investigation, but it is ⁇ not a justification for challenging the right to strike.

It is said that the police are limited to the strict minimum in case of strike in prisons! It’s not because she can’t do more, it’s because she doesn’t want to do more! If they do not want to do more, it is because of a lack of staff. We are therefore back to your austerity policy, but ⁇ not to the guarantee of a fundamental right.

I conclude that solutions are possible for detainees in the event of a strike. The government uses the rights of detainees to attack the right to strike. It’s crazy: the government uses its own shortcomings to attack those who fight them. Breaking the right to strike will further deteriorate the situation of detainees in prisons.

I am quite shocked to hear the position of Ecolo-Groen that supports this attack on the right to strike. I thought it was the right side.


Christian Brotcorne LE

Mr. Van Hees, have you ever had the opportunity to go to a prison?


Marco Van Hees PVDA | PTB

Sorry, I can’t hear you.


Christian Brotcorne LE

Have you ever had the opportunity to go to prisons – not the most modern ones – to check on the spot what is really happening there, especially during strike periods? Are you aware of this?


Marco Van Hees PVDA | PTB

I have a lot of contacts with people who work there.


Christian Brotcorne LE

Yes, but have you ever had the opportunity to go to a prison on these occasions?


Marco Van Hees PVDA | PTB

I have contacts with prison officers. I think they know the situation better than you.


Christian Brotcorne LE

It only engages you, but I can tell you that I know the daily life of prisons because I sometimes put my feet there.


Marco Van Hees PVDA | PTB

I know there is a prison in your municipality, but that doesn’t give you the infused science.

A third element I want to address: a serious step is taken against the right to strike; it concerns the recovery. This government had already attacked the right to strike by imposing the minimum service to the SNCB, while there are no detainees in the trains. This shows that the pretext of the moment is used every time. At the SNCB, it is because travelers are taken hostage. In prisons, the problem of prisoners is invoked. This shows how much it is a pretext.

So here, we take an additional step with regard to the attack on the right to strike in the case of the SNCB by introducing the recovery. If the term is not used in the law, it appears well in the exposition of reasons. The legal arrangement is clear: the governor can recruit prison officers from 48 hours of strike.

The right to strike is not guaranteed.

The right to strike is based on the International Labour Organization Convention No. 87 and the European Social Charter, two texts signed by Belgium. The right to strike is a fundamental and individual right, which can be limited to very rare exceptions. For example, possible exceptions are the army and police. These limitations are clearly defined. I hear Mr Vanden Burre say that there are limitations to the right to strike. Yes, but international texts provide that these limitations are defined. For example, it is necessary to prove that it is impossible to have these services provided by other persons. I have shown that this replacement is possible. If a system of replacement by others is possible in the essential services, it must be established so that the right to strike can be guaranteed.


Catherine Fonck LE

Mr. Van Hees, I listen to you. But when international references are cited, and in this case, the International Labour Organization, of which, as you know, trade unions are part, I like that everything is cited. The ILO is very clear on the possibility of establishing a minimum service, provided that it is in essential services, services that are also listed.

Let me quote them quickly. First of all, the hospital sector, which I know very well. I can tell you that all trade union organizations and all staff have always, in the event of a strike, paid special attention to patients and to the maintenance of care. The hospital sector is a sector where there is a Sunday service, which is a minimum service, and which is recognized as indispensable by the ILO.

The other sectors are: energy supply, water supply, telephone services, police and the armed forces – you just mentioned them, but you forget all the others – fire fighting services, public or private prison services, food supply for school-age students and school cleaning, and air traffic control. This shows you black on white, because when it is quoted, it must be quoted everything, that we can clearly mark a minimum service. This is recognized by the ILO and the trade union representations. Thank you for not breaking the truth.


Marco Van Hees PVDA | PTB

I do not shake the truth in anything.


Gilles Vanden Burre Ecolo

I would like to repeat some of the words you have held when you appealed to me. I will repeat my words as well as those of my colleague Stefaan Van Hecke.

The right to strike is a fundamental right. There is absolutely no question of questioning it. I hope you have been able to follow my introduction and my contextualization: these are the most fundamental human rights. This is why I referred to the convictions against Belgium and the fact that in Europe, Belgium is the only country, along with Albania, that has not put in place a system of guaranteed service in prisons.

I do not suspect you do not know the state of the prisons in Belgium. I think you are aware of their situation. The same goes for me. The problem is the non-respect of fundamental rights. It is only for this reason that we recognize that it is a measure that, only in that context, can address the serious difficulties encountered on the ground.

Moreover, this is actually not a solution for other problems that we denounce such as the prison overpopulation, the prison and prison vision of this government that we denounce in an extremely regular and frontal manner. We are in favor of other alternative solutions: in terms of prison vision, for example, smaller, more humane spaces in which it is possible to accompany more detainees, etc. I refer you to everything that we have defended in the Justice Committee and that we defend very regularly.

But in this case, these are precisely the most fundamental human rights. Indeed, at this stage, we recognize that we must move forward and no longer allow the current situation. There is a whole series of things to be done in order for us to pursue another prison policy in this country. I would like to remind you of all the discussions we have held in the Justice Committee. Ecolo-Groen advocates for another penitentiary system.


Marco Van Hees PVDA | PTB

Mr Vanden Burre, you say that you do not question the right to strike. But all the parties of the right, up to the N-VA, say that too. However, in practice, they apply or vote laws that question the right to strike. That is the problem.

Indeed, as Ms. Fonck said, there are sectors where people cannot be replaced. This is obvious for a hospital. It is difficult to send police to a hospital to replace nurses or doctors. The police themselves are difficult to replace. It is difficult to send nurses to replace the police. But in prisons, it is possible, and I have demonstrated it. And it is just because it is possible that the right to strike should not be questioned. There is no reason, no motivation to do so. This is exactly what the ILO says. The ILO says that if a system of replacement by other people is possible, then it must be put in place so that the right to strike can be guaranteed. I demonstrated that it was possible.


Christian Brotcorne LE

Mr. Speaker, as far as I can reassure Mr. Van Hees, and as far as I can, serious discussions have taken place in the committee. Mr. Van Hecke emphasized this. You have witnessed some of them. Auditions were held and opinions were given. One of these opinions was even to be consulted personally at the service, because it was not likely to be disclosed, namely the opinion of the General Directorate for Human Rights and the Rule of Law, whose headquarters is in Strasbourg.

In addition to the information that Ms Fonck has just provided in relation to the ILO, the first point of this DG opinion indicates that this project complies with Article 6 § 4 of the European Social Charter. This additional element may indicate that the right to strike is not here challenged, but rather that it is the organization of a service that guarantees to those who are detained the fact of being able, on occasion of strike movements, to live with a minimum of dignity.

However, I have already acknowledged that this is not always insured at ordinary times. On this point, I would like to join you. We still have a very large effort to do. By the way, this was the object of my conclusion by citing the same report to which I have just referenced again. A real construction site is open for the next legislature.


Laurette Onkelinx PS | SP

We saw, during beautiful discussions in the committee, that the opinions were shared. In fact, it is a question, on the one hand, of the well-being of prison officers and their right to strike and, on the other hand, of how detention within prison establishments is managed.

What’s wrong with this project is that in the end, one prevents a right of strike that is essentially used because of the lack of personnel. And finally, these strikes due to the lack of investment for prison officers are bridged with this minimum service legislation. It is not OK!

Yes, the situation of prisoners during a strike is unbearable. The Human Rights League is absolutely right. But we should have accompanied this text with a program to reinvest for the benefit of the prison officers. I say it, I repeat it: this is why, most of the time, agents strike.

That is why we will vote against this text. To vote in favour of this text is equivalent to telling the prison officers that they can now say what they want, that they can scream for more personnel, that is completely equal to us, we have the minimum service. I repeat it again, this text is not acceptable in the state!


Marco Van Hees PVDA | PTB

Mrs. Onkelinx, I thank you for this accuracy, which is also found in my speech.

Mr. Brotcorne, we must stop this hypocrisy. You tell us about the fate of the prisoners, but what is your party’s position about the minimum service in public transport? Do you also support the SNCB and the TEC? At one point, the regional government had ...


Christian Brotcorne LE

The [...]


Marco Van Hees PVDA | PTB

It is also used in public transportation. This shows that your concern is not the fate of the prisoners.


Christian Brotcorne LE

The [...]


Marco Van Hees PVDA | PTB

I am talking about your party, whose concern is to attack the right to strike and not to resolve the problem posed by the fate of the detainees.


Christian Brotcorne LE

We are concerned about their fate, as soon as possible, in commission. How many times have we not blamed Mr. Minister for not applying this famous law of principle, which is called "Dupont law"? I also think of the articles relating to the management of detainees and their education in prison in order to avoid recurrence. Whenever we can intervene, we do. This work in the Justice Committee, we do it all the time.


Marco Van Hees PVDA | PTB

Mr. Brotcorne, I mean that you invoke the specificity of the prison to make the minimum service pass.


Christian Brotcorne LE

No to No!


Marco Van Hees PVDA | PTB

You do it by referring to the fate of the prisoners.


Christian Brotcorne LE

The [...]


Marco Van Hees PVDA | PTB

You only did this during your entire speech: talk about the fate of the prisoners.

But your party also supports the minimum service in other sectors. This proves the existence of a logic opposed to the right to strike.


Christian Brotcorne LE

Especially in hospitals.


Marco Van Hees PVDA | PTB

I’m talking about the SNCB, TEC, etc.

I will finish. The fourth and last aspect I intended to address concerns the relationship existing in many countries, especially in Belgium, between antisocial attacks and antidemocratic offensive.

In social history, there is often a rather close link between antisocial attacks and antidemocratic attacks. An example is the Great Britain of Margaret Thatcher, who had carried out a neoliberal policy severely affecting social rights with attacks on trade unions. I’m not going to say that the Michel government is the Thatcher government, but there’s a bit of that. There is a parallel between these double attacks.

In conclusion, this attack on the right to strike is illegitimate and illegal in the light of international conventions. The right to strike is a fundamental human right that cannot be violated. Requests are a kind of forced labour and are not worthy of the 21st century. In the long run, the violation of the right to strike will further deteriorate the already disastrous situation of prisons for both staff and detainees.


Véronique Caprasse DéFI

I am speaking on behalf of Mr Maingain, who is absent.

Mr. Minister, this bill cannot be regarded otherwise than as a necessary step in a much larger process that must be seen in the long term. This is a delicate subject, opposing fundamental rights. It is essential to ensure that the right to strike and the status of the detainee are respected. This is a questioning that can induce a dangerous imbalance involving our greatest caution. However, it is undeniable that the introduction of a minimum service in prisons is a response to the recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman Treatment. It is high time for the Belgian authorities to provide quick, concrete and effective solutions to the inhumane conditions suffered by detainees, especially during strikes.

Belgium has been convicted on several occasions because of the abominable living conditions in prisons. The working conditions are deplorable. Belgium is the only country in the EU that does not provide a minimum service. The current situation suffered by both prisoners and officers is totally unworthy of our country.

This situation is contrary to our international obligations, but also to our internal legal obligations. The Law of Principles of 12 January 2005 is clear in that it specifies that the execution of the penalty or measure depriving of liberty must be carried out in psychosocial, physical and material conditions that respect human dignity, allow to preserve or increase in the detainee self-respect and requires his sense of personal and social responsibilities.

The interruption of prison services has as a consequence a detention regime that attacks human dignity and constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment, not to mention the non-respect of the confidentiality of medical interviews. Therefore, it is essential to establish a guaranteed service during the period of strike. However, the right of strike of prison officials may be limited only to the condition that it is reasonably justified and proportionate in view of the infringement of the fundamental rights of detainees. It is therefore necessary to question the means to be implemented in order to guarantee this minimum service in compliance with the right to strike.

The draft law mentions the possibility of using volunteer personnel. If it is highly motivated, it is more than likely that the staff, despite this call for volunteer staff, is not sufficient in number to meet the needs of the detainees. In this case, we are talking about taking the necessary measures. What do they imply? The obligation of the staff to appear at their workplace, inducing the disregard for the right to strike? Or the intervention of the police? Applying its services is not a real solution, as long as it has no knowledge of the specific functioning of the prison environment, not to mention that the presence of police officers contributes to tensions among the detainees.

What about the most vulnerable persons detained or accommodated in prisons, namely interned persons, disabled persons or children? It is certain that strikes are only the emerging part of the iceberg, symptoms of a deep problem that should be the subject of a much more systematic approach.

I therefore call for the responsibility of each of us to ensure that, in addition to this minimum service, solutions are also brought up in advance, in order to improve the poor working conditions of prison officers, which are the causes of strikes.

The main risk of this bill remains the application on the ground, the situation outside of the strikes being so distressing that the guaranteed service would be likely to be similar to the usual service, with therefore the sole consequence of preventing personnel from claiming their right to strike.

This right to strike disappears without any parallel benefit being derived from it, thus creating an imbalance and in no case a solution. Therefore, deep collaboration and sustained dialogue with the social partners must be carried out.

It is obvious that this bill, though necessary, will remain ineffective unless the real causes of dissatisfaction are addressed. A first solution is the basic training of prison personnel, for example by creating a specialized training institute.

Prison officers play a central role in the life of prisons. Day and night, they ensure the maintenance of order, prevent riots and escapes, enforce regulations and manage conflicts between prisoners. They also check mail and phone calls from prisoners and thus have enormous power over the privacy and privacy of prisoners.

While they are the main human contact of detainees and play a crucial role in supporting the reintegration of detainees, no higher degree is required. Only the minimum age of 20 years, as well as a criminal record extract and Belgian nationality are required. The only training required is 50 days, delivered by three training centers, and must not be concluded by a certificate or diploma.

Therefore, my group proposes that, like France and its National School of Penitentiary Administration, a Penitentiary Training Institute be established to ensure the basic and continuous training of officers. It will de facto result that the training will be concluded with a certificate evaluating the acquisition of the required skills and conditioning a definitive commitment.

In fact, taking care of imprisoned persons involves developing appropriate behavioral skills as well as special pedagogical requirements. In-depth training and follow-up are crucial in order to contribute to the creation of a viable prison climate and in consideration of the interests of all, thereby preventing the possibility of strike.

From this finding arises the sensitive question of financing. What will be the budget impact of these formations and more generally the bill itself? The authorities have no choice anymore. There is an urgent need to invest in prison personnel and in a quality of life that respects the fundamental rights of detainees.

At the moment, we must compensate for these interferences by damages and interests to be paid to them as a result of court convictions. Not only does this in no way compensate for the moral and psychological consequences suffered, but it unnecessarily strikes the state budget. We must now act at the root and in no case dare to limit ourselves to a guaranteed minimum service.

The problem also lies in the overpopulation of prisons and the lack of seats in Belgian prisons. It is necessary to intervene directly at the level of replacement punishments, internment but above all to consider more broadly the use of electronic bracelet, within the framework of preventive detention which alone represents between 30 and 35% of the prison population.

In addition, prison sentences must imperatively be considered as a last resort. In no case should the prison be the solution of facility. A poor management of the life of prisoners in prison has a negative consequence in promoting recurrence as well as crime. We must therefore mitigate, as far as possible, the negative impact of imprisonment by investing in the reintegration of detainees and by enhancing their skills so that they find a new place in society.

Next, we need to address the lack of staff, which is also one of the most damaging causes and the source of strikes. The prison staff lack support and work in deplorable conditions.

The lack of consideration given to them implies a certain accumulation of frustrations and inexorably causes absenteeism. Absenteeism is only a reflection of the de-motivation of prison officers in the lack of recognition for the painfulness of their profession. Every day, agents are confronted, in addition to difficult working conditions, with sometimes traumatic behaviors and events. We need to put them at the heart of our concerns. Psychological support must be provided to prison officers; in order to create a proper working climate, efforts must be made to create a balance between the professional and private life of officers, in particular by granting them a right to legal leave adapted to their expectations. Officers quickly find themselves in a gear, hardly taking their days of leave due to lack of adequate staff. Officers are exhausted both physically and mentally. Workers then take unpaid leave or career interruptions contributing to the shortage of staff, as well as to the absenteeism discussed earlier. This is a vicious circle from which we need to get out.

Therefore, my group proposes to assess personnel needs in prison establishments and to adapt the framework and recruitment campaigns accordingly, as well as to ensure regular psychological follow-up for prison officers.

Finally, it is of the utmost importance to take into account the opinion of the trade unions that have been heard regarding the project’s strengths. Overall, they seem to be in favour of the bill. The hearings also revealed that experts, relevant organizations and prison managers are also generally in favour of the principles of establishing a minimum service.

From these elements, we conclude that we must take care to provide answers to the cause of the strikes and not to their consequences. This is the best way to prevent strikes.

However, taking into account the urgent imperatives related to the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman Treatment, which has made recommendations since 2005, our group supports this bill in order to ensure the safety and continuous treatment of detainees with humanity and respect. We also express hope to begin the first stage of a more substantial investment regarding the conditions of prison officers as well as those of detainees in the Belgian prison environment.

This minimum service involves in parallel the conscription in the Belgian law of the right of strike and its limits, which is currently based only on jurisprudence.

It is necessary to set its limits in accordance with the provisions of the European Social Charter, since, contrary to the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment, the right to strike is not absolute, let alone in an environment where detained persons are entirely dependent on other persons and their tasks, in this case the prison officers. Certainly, such a measure would constitute a restriction of the right to strike, but which is fully justified and proportionate in respect of the rights and freedoms of each.


Minister Koen Geens

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, it is important to realize that the minimum service, which is introduced here, is similar to that of our police officers. In fact, the prison officers participate in a certain way in public authority and exercise authority over persons. This is also why we have registered that they are officials.

As far as the frameworks for our prisons are concerned, we make the utmost effort to complete those frameworks, and that in the amount of 6,825 units. At the moment we are at a staffing rate of 98%. Given the tightness of the labour market in the north of the country, this is not easy at all. This also requires a permanent consultation with the services of Selor.

Protocol 351 was not violated. We have just done everything we can to take it back in a royal decree that will be taken in execution of the law that would be voted today. Do not worry! As far as possible, we will always consult on potential strikes, with long negotiation and waiting periods, so that social peace can be ⁇ ined.

I know that the right to strike is an essential right at the social level, just like the rights of detainees. We tried to reconcile the two during the strike. This is not the end, but the end of the beginning. In fact, I am fully aware that the living conditions in our prisons need to be improved. So far, as Mr. Brotcorne rightly pointed out, we have already tried to ensure that the rights of detainees are better assured, in execution of the Dupont Act. I pledged, Mr. Brotcorne, to fully implement this law. We are well on the way. The last royal arrests are at the State Council for now to do what we promised to the prisoners.

I think there is a misunderstanding about the causes of the strike. I have heard many times that these causes are necessarily related to the overpopulation of our prisons. My humble experience, during my four years in office, taught me that it is not in overcrowded prisons that the social climate is degraded. It often happens that more problems arise in very modern prisons, where population ceilings are inscribed in public contracts DBFM (Design, Build, Finance Maintain). I truly believe that the vicious circle that is constantly drawn is not the only one responsible for the strikes in our prisons.

These were the comments that I allowed myself to make at the end of the debate.

I would like to thank my colleagues from both the opposition and the majority in the Justice Committee for so strongly contributing to the proposed change of our traditions, which was urgently necessary.