What if the SNCF was nationalised after all?
No country in the world attaches greater importance to the principle of public service than France. The concept was incorporated into the European Treaties on a French initiative that sought to protect France’s own public services, both national and local, from normal competition rules. All political parties are united in the defence of public service, which has even become the only subject on which the Left speaks with one voice. Unfortunately for the Left, and fortunately for national consensus, the Right shares the same views on the subject. Our long, historic tradition of absolute confidence in the administering State has been strengthened by successive Republican, Socialist and Christian Democrat philosophies that have led to this enduring feature of French politics.
Law students and those who listen closely to political speeches learn that public service has two key features: continuity of service and equal treatment for all users. For instance, the cost of postage within France is the same throughout the country. Barring any climate catastrophe, Électricité de France (EDF), France’s state-owned electricity generator, is able to guarantee its customers a remarkable continuity of supply. The State, local authorities and the companies involved are investing considerable effort to ensure that the whole country has access to broadband telecommunications and digital terrestrial TV. France’s fire and rescue services have long covered the length and breadth of the country, and our valiant firefighters are the country’s most popular workers.
Why should rail users have to continue putting up with a poor level of public service? There is no doubt that public transport has all the credentials of a public service: in addition to long-standing social factors, there are now environmental requirements. France’s railway operator is able to balance its operating account only after receiving substantial government aid and by transferring its debt to a company which has taken ownership of the network, the Réseau Ferré de France (RFF). The French State is so attuned to the wishes of the national operator that successive governments have consistently asked Brussels to postpone the opening up of the railway to competition for fear that it would disrupt the ‘world’s greatest railway company’. Sadly, the SNCF, which used to have a winning track record for punctuality, is now recognised more for its wide range of failures and especially for the continuity of its strikes. These constant service disruptions affect users to varying degrees, but they have particularly severe consequences for passengers who use the Gare Saint-Lazare, one of Paris’ busiest railway stations. As for freight transport, the bulk of the (should we say ‘public’?) service has, for some considerable time, been provided by road rather than rail, which is seeing its market share decline as the amount of traffic continues to increase.
How is this possible? The State pays, but it has no power. The unions which claim to be ‘revolutionary’, i.e. ultra-Conservative, ensure that every effort to affect any change that gets up their noses is blocked, and do not hesitate to resort to any and all courses of action, including those which fall outside the law. If they are unhappy about a timetable adjustment, that is just too bad for users! If a reform of the freight transport system calls for changes to be made, it is a slap in the face for users! If a railway employee is assaulted, it is users who will bear the consequences! Even if a simple change is made to the rest room at Saint-Lazare, the response is a strike, every time. Instead of using their imagination to find ways of improving the service for users, interested parties try to outdo each other by coming up with forms of strike action that wreak the most havoc on the public transport services whilst causing the least amount of damage to their pay packet (rotating strikes, 59-minute strikes, etc.).
Who suffers the stress and the cost of these public transport disruptions that could come at any time? Not those who have the use of a private car for their daily travel needs or travel by plane for business trips, nor large companies who use logistics services. It is the working poor and small businesses who are taking the rap, those whom nationalisation by the State aims to protect, first and foremost.
It is high time to put an end to the misuse of public service for the benefit of corporatist unions who abuse their power to cause chaos, as was done some years ago in the case of the dock workers, whose antediluvian practices permanently weakened the French ports competing with Rotterdam, Antwerp and Genoa. What if the SNCF really was nationalised? What if the State did take control of the company on behalf of all citizens and in the public interest? Well, why not?
Alain Lamassoure, 15 January 2009