Proposition 50K1463

Projet de loi portant assentiment à l'accord de coopération du 11 octobre 2001 entre l'Etat fédéral, les Régions flamande, wallonne et de Bruxelles-Capitale relatif au plan d'investissements pluriannuel 2001-2012 de la SNCB.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

Oct. 23, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

investment rail network rail transport

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V LE VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Richard Fournaux (MR) voted to reject.
• Alfons Borginon (Open Vld) 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 ¶

Oct. 31, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The committee met for the first time on Thursday, October 25. The Minister’s statement opens the session. Ms Durant states the object of the bill, that is, "the ratification of the cooperation agreement relating to the SNCB's multiannual investment plan. It also recalls that the government has considered that the SNCB’s proposal for a ten-year plan meets the government’s strategic options and that this investment plan will be submitted to the regions for voluntary consultation.”

Mrs Durant then talks about the federal character of the SNCB and the principle of the uniqueness of the company. Among other elements, it highlights the creation of the “Executive Committee of Ministers of Mobility”. She also explains the usefulness of this cooperation agreement: “Al ⁇ the SNCB remains a exclusively federal competence, its development inevitably requires cooperation with the regions, given the impacts in terms of territorial planning. The considerable impact of the development of railway infrastructure on the development of a region is in itself a legitimate reason for regional authorities to take care of rail, within their competence.”

I would like to summarize very briefly seven elements developed by the Minister on behalf of the majority.

1) Pre-financing and co-financing mechanisms are mentioned, taking into account the limitation of committed amounts and the relationship with the 60/40 key.

2) Emergency will be requested for work in the field of security: telecommunications, signalling, etc.

3) The state is the major lender of funds. It accounts for 453 billion, more than two-thirds of the needs. This is proportionally more than before and for a much larger overall sum.

4) The SNCB intervenes on own funds, but as a percentage of the investment plan, the participation of the SNCB decreases sharply. As for alternative financing, 97 billion, the delegated administrator confirmed feasibility.

5) The allocation of financial resources. In this regard, the balance of the whole is defended: maintenance of the tool, modernization, capacity extension.

6) Improving service quality involves commitment in different areas: performance, functional improvement, high-speed network, RER.

7) The timetable, in particular with regard to TGV and RER. The RER will be governed by a specific cooperation agreement.

Then came the various interventions.

by Mr. Grafé essentially refers to the coordinated laws on the Council of State. I would like to explain this briefly because Mr. Graphé presented the analysis, which was then repeated by several speakers. by Mr. Graphé specifies that the State Council having clearly indicated that the draft (or preliminary draft) of law exceeds the competence of the Region, the government has the obligation to return this text to the negotiation committee. by Mr. Graphé takes all the elements stated by the State Council, showing that the project exceeds the competence of the State and regions. He proposes that the Chamber possibly itself proceed to this removal. If this request is not met, the speaker indicates that the draft under consideration can only be cancelled by the Arbitration Court.

On the level of the procedure, the speaker declares himself outraged: late distribution of documents, hasty calls. The main danger would be the larvae regionalization of the SNCB due to the parallelism between material and financial skills. Another risk due to confusion of skills: contagion in the field of social security. For Mr. The simultaneity between the two projects is a scam. Therefore, we need a French-speaking resistance. Otherwise, the wealthiest Region will put pressure and the social security will dislocate.

In an incisive, Ms Durant recalls that, for the government, there is no problem of competence.

by Mr. Langendries supports the arguments of Mr. Graphed, however, it expresses very precisely one element: the State Council opinion being deposited, it was not up to the government to estimate whether or not there was an obligation to return the draft to the Coordination Committee. Again, the Minister challenged the argument.

by Mr. Ansoms is involved. He also reiterates the argument concerning the Council of State. He is waiting for the second opinion. He denounces the government’s misdirection, the empty shell of financing, a chronology that shows the unpreparedness. The speaker refers to the resolution of the Flemish Parliament on this matter: the Flemish Parliament will not vote on this draft and, in addition, the means will be lacking due to the slowing growth. In addition to the legal and financial aspects, Ansoms cannot accept the 60-40 key principle.

by Mr. Smets is also involved. He structured his speech into three chapters.

First, the risk of destabilization of the SNCB: it evokes the exclusion of trade unions, the multiplication of committees, the lack of functionality. by

Second, financial risk: the interviewer refers to the level of debt and alternative financing.

Third, the risk of regionalization of the SNCB: Mr. Smets talks about the Flemish sections of lines 161 and 124, the increased presence of national interest investments in Flanders and the role of the Executive Committee of the Ministers of Mobility.

In conclusion, the speaker evokes two elements: the whole of unprogrammed or poorly programmed work in Wallonia and the ideological antagonism within the government, ⁇ between the VLD and the PS regarding the trade union presence.

Mrs. Brepoels intervened in her turn. It denies the fact that there are very few solutions for the future. The opinion of the State Council, requested late, joins its argument. The implementation of a suitable mobility plan involves either the removal of the 60-40 key or more regionalization. The cooperation agreement is an obstacle to this. The federal authority wishes to keep rail transport within its powers but does not intend to provide sufficient resources. The Flemish Parliament, however, will not vote on this draft. Furthermore, the investment plan does not provide any solution for Limburg. by Mr. Philtjens will answer by referring to the possibilities offered by the Eurégio Investment Fund.

by Mr. Mortelmans makes the inventory of the content of the cooperation agreement. It highlights the relevance of the State Council opinion and concludes on the need to revise this agreement. The speaker denounces the scattering of competences and demands the division of the SNCB. He also announced his conviction, anticipating a positive vote in the Flemish parliament despite the adoption of a resolution by that parliament. The issues of the port of Antwerp and the 60-40 key are also mentioned: Flanders are injured and pay more than they owe.

The Minister responds and summarizes his argument once again.

About the investment plan: the regions have made choices, the 60-40 key is the least bad of the systems, a mobility study will be done in the middle of the course.

About the cooperation agreement: the text is no longer questioned, the SNCB is and remains federal and the follow-up will be ensured.

Regarding debt: it is necessary to take into account the historical dimension of this debt and the need to take into account additional income. Regarding alternative financing: the SNCB will have to clearly determine things.

by Mr. Ansoms indicates that any increase in the operating level results in an increase in operating losses. Unless immediate action is taken, the SNCB will go bankrupt.

by Mr. Smets denounces the confusion between intentions and budget estimates.

Finally, at the meeting of 30 October, the committee examines the opinion of the Council of State on Amendment No. 2 of Mr. and Tant. The State Council issued a very reserved opinion. Therefore, the discussion goes back very broadly about the cooperation agreement itself.

by Mr. Ansoms recalls the negative content of the State Council opinion on the cooperation agreement. He indicates that the PS supports a plan that disadvantages Flanders. He also says that tomorrow a neighbor will be able to appeal to the Court of Arbitration.

by Mr. Smets speaks of running forward, legal uncertainty and chaos.

Ms. Brepoels speaks of stubbornness, a disadvantageous agreement for Flanders.

It is the responsibility of the Flemish Parliament. Ms. Cahay deplores the negative content of the debate. It calls for this important project to be supported. In response, the Minister referred to the opinion of the Council of State concerning amendment no. 2, an amendment deemed unnecessary and based on an inadequate justification.

by Mr. Ansoms raises his two questions. The first is: has the Council of Ministers deliberated on the first opinion of the Council of State? Second: has the project been notified to the European Commission? The Minister responds that the federal investment plan should not be submitted to the Commission. Finally, it concludes on federal competences and also evokes the need for coordination between the regions.

The second amendment of Mr. So much is rejected and the whole project is adopted by 10 votes against 5.

I have registered as speakers: Mr Ansoms, Mr Smets, Mrs Brepoels, Mr Annemans and Mr Depreter. For the general discussion, a speech time of 30 minutes applies.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, it has pleased the majority of this Chamber and the chairman of the majority of this Chamber to call us back from this autumn holiday to discuss the bill on the cooperation agreement between the State and the regions. Our group had proposed to discuss quietly next week, but it was apparently not allowed. After all sorts of procedures — with suspensions in suspensions, Conference of Presidents with the normal composition, Conference of Presidents with the majority and again Conference of Presidents with the normal composition, and so on — we can therefore continue today.

Mr. Erdman, we thought we should absolutely give you enough time to reflect on this important bill. Therefore, we have tried to advance the matter by seeking advice from the State Council.

Colleagues, you remember that fourteen days ago we had proposed to approve the first draft here. The majority then started a procedure to deviate from the agenda. We were not in favour of this. We were in favour of discussing and approving the first draft. Mr. Eerdekens, however, then said to the majority: “Nothing, today this draft is not approved. We are going to link it to the next bill" - which was yet to be submitted - "and then we will, preferably in the same minute, press the green button twice to approve them together".

Subsequently, the second draft law was submitted quickly, with a corresponding opinion from the State Council, which caused us to get into the mud here. We have experienced something that I have never experienced in the twenty years that I have been a member of this Parliament. In the meantime, we have gotten out of the deep mud, but now we must not say that it is through the manoeuvres of the opposition that we must meet again today. This is because there is no agreement on this agreement within the government and because the PS has it to say and thus determines what is voted at what time. That is essentially why we must be present here today during this recession.

Mr. Ansoms, many of us today would have been elsewhere if they were not here.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ansoms, I am actually only concerned about one matter. When the famous amendment was submitted last week, I heard Mr. Tant defending it with hand and tooth. I am a little worried now. I wonder if he is aware of the opinion of the State Council. I would consider it a failure of our way if we made a decision here without being convinced that Mr. Tant knows and can agree with the State Council’s opinion.

Mr. Ansoms, if you stand on this, you can talk about it extensively this afternoon — I repeat clearly: extensively — with Mr. Tant. You will have the opportunity to debate with him this afternoon, but I don’t know if it would be so wise to do so.

Mr. Ansoms, I share your opinion.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that Mr. Tavernier apparently himself read the State Council’s opinion on Mr. Tant’s amendment. This cannot be said of the very detailed opinion of the State Council on the draft itself. I had the impression that the majority has not spent a minute on it, let alone that they will take it into account. I am therefore very pleased that Mr. Tavernier suddenly attaches great importance to an opinion of the State Council. That promises for the future.

Mrs Brepoels, you will have plenty of time to formulate your comments, because you are registered in the debate. Let Mr. Ansoms calmly develop his argument.

Mr Ansoms, you have the word and I put the clock back to zero.

Ladies and gentlemen, from the fact that, thanks to the majority and the majority chairman, we are discussing the aforementioned bill here today during the session, you could infer that the citizenship and the sense of responsibility of the majority is so great that they sacrifice their holidays for it. The truth, however, is that the leader of the government and European statesman, Mr. Verhofstadt, last week, far from the cameras, showed his true face to the factions and brilliantly forced everyone to approve a draft draft as quickly as possible — preferably last week’s night. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly clear that it is a two-headed dragon and that the government leader wants to have the vote behind as soon as possible to remove the design from the media and wipe it out under the mat. He realizes, of course, himself that the texts put to vote are not to be seen.

I was given the opportunity last week to describe the first head of the dragon; today I describe the second head that will be voted later. The present design shows three characteristics. First, the investment plan will create an unimaginable administrative chaos in the coming months and years. Second, the plan means a financial catastrophe for the NMBS, for its 40,000 employees and ultimately for all users. Finally, the investment plan is a Flemish-enemy plan and leads to a mobility catastrophe in Flanders. These will be the three lines of my speech.

First, I will refer to the administrative chaos that the investment plan will create. Last week Wednesday, we were summoned in the Infrastructure Committee, which Mr. Chabot currently leads as current chairman, to discuss the question of the immediate approval of the cooperation agreement. There was an opinion of the State Council attached to the text, to which I will return later. However, this opinion was not discussed in the Council of Ministers, as it was only submitted on Tuesday evening and was already on the table on Wednesday morning. The fact that the cooperation agreement was not immediately approved is due to the alertness of the opposition, which was able to persuade the majority of its members to demonstrate some sense of respect and to properly discuss the bill.

Can I also remind you, Mrs. Minister, that you have never answered the following objection?

I am convinced that the draft law on the basis of the European Directives 62/403 and 73/403 should be notified to the European institutions, just as you notified the first draft law in August. I look forward to the reaction of the European Commission. The two months, after your registration on August 13, are over. Given some delay, the European institutions may receive comments or negative opinions on the first draft law on Monday.

This second bill should also be submitted to the European Commission. This draft law has implications for the Belgian transport and railway policy, thus it can also have implications for the European transport policy. According to the guidelines, such design must be registered in advance. Yesterday you said in the Infrastructure Committee that you did not do that.

We do not want to create problems. Therefore, the CD&V group did what the minister should have done: we sent a letter to Mrs. de Palacio to inform her that we are being asked today to approve that bill. At least this is followed by the European Directive. I think that notification should precede this discussion or our approval. We did what the Minister left behind. This is a true sense of citizenship and a sense of responsibility.

Last week Tuesday evening, the State Council submitted its opinion. However, the Council of Ministers has not rejected this. Minister Durant simply brought the opinion to the committee on Wednesday morning, where we could read it. I am not talking about the opinion on the amendment of Mr. Tant, but about the first opinion. That advice is devastating and cracks the draft law across the whole line. For the benefit of colleagues who have not been able to read it through the holidays and for the benefit of the Flemish colleagues of the majority, for whom the advice is very painful, I quote some sentences from the opinion of the Council of State.

"Because only the federal government is competent to finance the NMBS, the cooperation agreement as provided for in Article 14 thereof may not authorize the regions to provide for the pre-financing of this company, in so far as there are works or investments related to rail transport. As stated in Article 14, namely that the NMBS takes up a loan which is repaid by the federal state at the end of the procedure, it must be understood as referring only to the exercise of the federal powers, which cannot be carried out with the financial resources of the Regions." In the same way, the State Council speaks about Article 15.

The State Council says: "The decision is therefore that the examined cooperation agreement should be revised in the sense that the provisions in which the Regions agree to arrangements which fall exclusively within the competence of the federal State in rail transport are excluded from it. The co-financing by the Regions of the aspects of the affairs concerned falling within their competence will be better defined."

The draft law or cooperation agreement is therefore entirely in conflict with the special law governing the powers between the federal government and the regions. As an eminent lawyer, I also look at the footnotes. It states that the State Council’s opinion is supported by a whole series of older opinions and even decisions of the Arbitration Court.

It is a well-founded opinion that clearly states that the regions do not have the competence to pre- or co-finance. Nevertheless, without the Council of Ministers having turned over it, the draft is submitted to vote unchanged. I do not understand that such a risk is taken. And it is not just a political risk, it is a real risk, which I will immediately illustrate.

Politically speaking, the VLD, Prime Minister Dewael at the head, still receives a huge blow in the face. Everyone remembers the triumphant way in which Mr. Dewael, assisted by Mr. Van Mechelen, tried to sell this agreement in July as a Flemish victory to the public opinion. After all, Flanders was allowed to pre-finance, which would allow the second railway access to the port of Antwerp to be constructed faster and so much more. That was the great Flemish victory.

Well, the Council of State says very clearly that this cannot be done and that the Flemish Region will not be able to pre-finance. By the way, the CD&V faction has said from the beginning that this is not a Flemish victory. We have always said that Flanders then pays three times. First, we pay the Flemish-unfriendly 60/40 distribution key — which I will return to later — of which we pay the majority, even for that 40 percent. Secondly, we pay 2.5 billion per year from our own budget for the pre-financing for Flemish projects and thirdly, after the nightly deliberation of July, we also pay for the national projects, reminding me of the coupon circuit from Brussels to Luxembourg. It is also paid from Flanders. Paying three times is sold to the Flemish public opinion as a Flemish victory. The pre-financing, intended as a lubricant, is clearly reduced by the State Council.

I will illustrate the consequences using an example. To make Mr Van Campenhout a pleasure, one would start with the construction of a second rail connection to the port of Antwerp. The Flemish budget prefinances, there is a tracé - whether or not in an environmentally friendly slope - in the backyard of many citizens. Maybe some will fight this with all possible means. At some point, Mr. Van Campenhout, with an action committee, will file a litigation before the Arbitration Court because that train comes through his backyard. After all, there is a clear ruling from the Arbitration Court that pre-financing by the Flemish Region cannot be made and Mr. Van Campenhout and his action committee will receive the same from the Arbitration Court after two to three years. But in what poop we have been caught in the meantime! The work is ongoing and pre-financing is cancelled.

What can then happen? Everything comes, of course, at the federal level, but then we are facing a second problem: the 60/40 distribution key that — thanks to the good care of the PS — is encapsulated in this cooperation agreement. In fact, the PS has managed to fix that distribution key until 2012 and per calendar year, as provided for in Article 6. If then the pre-financing goes away, Mr Van Campenhout, what can happen? Then the 29 billion must be found within the 60% for Flanders and this can only be carried out if other projects are not carried out.

So you should go to Limburg to tell you that the curve around Leuven will not be there. In West Flanders, you should be told that the de-doubling of the rail between Bruges and Gent cannot be carried out. That will be the reality. We are forced by this cooperation agreement. Mr. Erdman, our group wants to prevent such scenarios. From a civic sense and a sense of responsibility, our group will file a dispute with the Arbitration Court if this law is approved by the Chamber and the Senate. Then it can be cleared as soon as possible whether the regions can pre-finance or co-finance in order to prevent us from falling into such scenarios within two or three years.

A second feature of this investment plan is that it means a financial catastrophe for the NMBS, for its more than 40,000 employees and ultimately also for the users. In the past year, it has been attempted to present this investment plan in the well-known Verhofstadt style, with a lot of poeha, as if the manna fell from the sky. There would be a railroad paradise in our country. This was approximately suggested. A total of 687 billion francs would be given to the NMBS. However, it is not said that this will happen especially later, in 2010, 2011 and 2012. In this legislature, only 3.7 billion francs are added. Of course, this was not told. This contradicts the effort made by the previous government, the socialists along with the Christian Democrats. In difficult times of savings, in a period when the Maastricht standard had to be reached, the Dehaene Government has managed to increase railway investment as the only item on the budget. During Dehaene I, the investment increased by 25 billion francs and during Dehaene II, 35 billion francs were added. That happened in a government without the Greens, without Ecolo and Agalev. With the limited budgetary capabilities of the time, this government sought to effectively provide more resources to the NMBS. This government has generated 480 billion francs in revenue over the past two years thanks to the high economic conjuncture and the sanitation efforts of the previous government and the population. The NMBS will be given 3.7 billion francs more than the previous government. That is the essence of the case.

Secondly, those 687 billion francs do not come from the government. You are obliged to provide the NMBS, a firm in need, for 247 billion francs. The next governments will provide 440 billion francs over the next 12 years. This perverse mechanism is presented as a system of paradise possibilities. It does not trigger a snowball effect, but a real snow lava. It will lead the NMBS directly to bankruptcy. The NMBS will then be in the same scenario in four or five years as Sabena is today. It is a real shame that this has to happen with the NMBS, with the track, at a time when there were financial possibilities and where the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Transport of this country belongs to the Ecolo family.

We will try to show the public opinion what disaster you are causing with this investment plan. The third feature is that this investment plan is purely Flemish hostile. Using a 60/40 distribution key means that by 2012 of every 100 francs spent, 60 francs will go to Flanders and 40 francs will go to Wallonia. The traffic congestion takes place in this country in the Flemish route Brussels-Leuven-Antwerp-Gent. There are the most slopes, where the railway capacity for passenger and freight transport must be expanded. In Antwerp, the construction of the left bank is currently underway. Hundreds of thousands of containers need to be transported along the railway, but there is no railway infrastructure. There is also the GEN around Brussels that needs to be built, the railway between Gent and Bruges, and so on. The next few years should preferably not be invested in the railway in Wallonia, but the real problems in the Flemish route Brussels-Leuven-Antwerp-Gent should be solved. The problem is that this requires a multi-billion-dollar investment program. That cannot be achieved with the 60/40 distribution key, because for every 60 francs 40 francs must be invested in Wallonia.

You know this very well, Mr. Speaker. In the 1960s and 1970s — you were in different governments — there was the problem of port development in Flanders. The same waffle iron as the current one allowed Wallonia to build a luxurious highway network. We will now experience the same thing: due to the investment need in Flanders, a lot of money will have to go to the railway and one will have to look for certain projects in Wallonia to purchase those 40 francs. It can be seen that new lines are being invented. In an article in La Libre Belgique, a French-speaking observer, by the way, finds the same. Where does the new line Louvain-La-Neuve-Daussoulx-Sart-Bernard come from? Major investments, such as the opening of the port of Antwerp and the better opening of Zeebrugge, will not be realized in 2012 with all the mobility crises resulting, but the new railways will be there in 2012. That is the essence of why the 60/40 split key should be rejected here.

I understand the minister’s reaction: she says it was the least bad of all distribution keys. Indeed, because in Wallonia also in the past investments had to happen. However, the current situation and those of the next ten years will cause a mobility crisis, a traffic infarction in Flanders, while you will finance less important projects - I euphemistically express it - in Wallonia to stay in the slope of the 60/40 distribution key. What was once the least bad distribution key, in the following years becomes an unsustainable distribution key that is very detrimental and unfair for Flanders and ⁇ does not serve the general interest of the country.

The next point is the pre-financing by the regions.

As I just pointed out, we rejected the pre-financing from the beginning. It was not a Flemish victory. On the contrary, it meant that Flanders were allowed to pay three times to realize on Flemish territory legitimate projects that benefited not only the Flemish interest, but also the Brussels and Wallonia interests and served the economy in general. However, it becomes even worse in the sense that pre-financing for Flanders will not be possible if the State Council is at the right end, of which I am convinced. I am also 100% sure, just as Mr. Erdman, by the way, although he will not admit that here today, that this will be confirmed in judgments and judgments of the Arbitration Court. That is the first point.

The second point is that even if my claims are not in line with the truth and everything would be perfectly okay, the State Council would have it at the wrong end and the Arbitration Court would not pass such judgments, the chance that Flanders would switch to pre-financing is very small. In fact, Article 6 of the Cooperation Agreement provides that the 60/40 distribution key must be ⁇ ined year after year. If Flanders want to do a little more in the year 2004 and to switch to pre-financing, then Wallonia should also be asked to provide pre-financing in order to raise the overall amount. Immediately the question arises why Wallonia would switch to pre-financing; they get everything anyway through the federal cash flow according to the 60/40 distribution key. Wallonia will never switch to pre-financing because everything is presented to them on a sheet within the normal distribution key. During the nightly session of July, they even had to quickly invent some projects in order to build a few new lines in order thus to obtain the standards relating to the above-mentioned distribution key.

Thus, Wallonia will never want to proceed to pre-financing and Flanders will never be able to proceed to pre-financing, unless Flanders re-negotiates with the Wallonian friends — they are still friends for two years — to provide pre-financing together and thus raise the total amount a little, in order to realize the second rail access in Antwerp. However, if Wallonia did, this would lead to the situation of what belongs to what and then Flanders would be allowed to pay a fourth time to move to pre-financing. That would indeed be the key of this story.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, our conclusion is clear, in particular that we cannot declare our unlikely agreement with the present bill. I still do not understand that the ministers of the Flemish majority parties approved this document and I would find it even less likely if the members of the Flemish majority parties approved it later.

Mr Ansoms, yesterday you made me curious by invoking the laws of the State Council. Per ⁇ you did that just to arouse my curiosity.

Anyway, this meant that I re-examined the first advice. I did not need to read the second advice. By the way, if Mr. Tant would intervene on the second opinion and if we would dissolve it together, that could be painful for him. You categorically assert that the pre-financing cannot, should not, will not continue and that it will in any case be destroyed by the Arbitration Court. My long experience has taught me never to go ahead of statements. Hopes for certain statements have disappointed me too often. This is equally true in the opposite sense, in particular that certain matters, to my surprise, were accepted.

Let us not anticipate this. In the opinion of the State Council, which you so call destructive, I read on page 17, point 7, the following judgment. You probably did not take that point into your text, but I can assume that you leave that aside. I quote: “The arrangements for pre-financing and co-financing by the regions, provided for in Articles 14 and 15, would only be acceptable if, as part of the initiatives to be taken in federal and regional matters relating to public transport, they would cover activities and investments specifically within the competence of the regions, such as for example the construction of roads or parking spaces at a station or a railway, or even the development of urban or neighborhood transport in collaboration with the railways.” It depends on what is done with that pre-financing. This will need to be verified in practice, when using the resources.

Mr. Speaker, I have read that too, but you should, of course, read the entire advice and not pick up a sentence.

I follow you when you refer to the classical procedure of the State Council when giving an opinion. Let us also emphasize that it is still a advice.

The Council of State, of course, analyzes the mutual powers and the consequent obligations in order to reach a clear construction. The districts cannot replace the federal authorities and they cannot take over the powers of the federal authorities. Therefore, they cannot assume the financial obligations of the federal government.

That is obvious, but this is not the point. Here a modality is developed, of which the State Council itself says it will depend on the use of the financial resources to what extent it falls within the regional competence. In those circumstances, you are quite categorical in crawling victory. Every publicist—those who teach constitutional law are called publicists—will tell you that each one must remain within his own jurisdiction and bear the financial burden within that jurisdiction. That is the logica zelve.

However, you cannot convince me.

I ⁇ did not have that pretense.

I will read another text that gives more commentary on Article 15. I quote: "In the cooperation agreement, the regions cannot be authorized, as is done in Article 15, to participate in the financing of works relating to the major railway investments. Considering the letter, the latter expression gives the impression that it is a work that serves exclusively the railway transport, which, as previously noted, belongs exclusively to the competence of the federal government." Now comes the most important: "The fact that the money comes from the regions, by the way, the regional competence cannot legalize." Even if the money comes from the regions, this cannot yet result in it being a regional competence.

This is another argument, which I have not cited later. I do not have the full opinion, because I would like to focus on pre-financing and co-financing, but somewhere it is even mentioned that the regions cannot speak out and change the investment plan as such. I have not talked about that yet.

This is Article 4. When the federal government went to the regions to establish a cooperation agreement, it itself decided to change the investment plan. That is obvious. Their

I don’t want to convince you, because I can’t. I know that you will continue on the same track in a straight line, until you turn to the Court of Arbitration. You have just read the end of point 6, while I had started with point 7 of the Opinion. You always tell me that I should read the advice in full. Once you have read point 6, you get to point 7, and in it you will find the answer to your concern.

After point 7 comes point 8. It states very clearly: “The decision is therefore that the examined cooperation agreement should be revised.” This is stated in point 8.

The work of this Parliament is interpreted in such a way that we know well what we will vote on here. It is not about point 8, but about point 13 of the agenda, namely the draft legislation.

I followed the same methodology as you: discussion by point of the State Council opinion.

Glad you both read the same text!

I find it a bit annoying that Mr. Erdman does not understand it.

It is not up to me to judge this.

Finally, I will make a small side jump to the first draft law. What I tried to show here is that it is a Flemish-anti-Flemish investment plan, that it is an investment plan that is bad for the NMBS, that it will most likely become a legal curve. These characteristics are further reinforced by the other draft law attached to it. The Flemish Enemy Design must of course be read together with the restructuring of the NMBS. This bill shows that a guard dog of the other language role is given to the delegated driver. This did not exist before. There was a chairman, for example, of the French language role and a Flaming as delegated director. I assume that Mr. Van den Bossche will succeed Mr. Schouppe as Flaming. The chairman of the board of directors is a French speaker — which is stated in the law — and now there is another French speaking deputy who, together with Mr Van den Bossche, will be allowed to sign.

Mr Van den Bossche will not be allowed to sign anything without the French-speaking guard dog's signature. I will only give an example of what a state leads it.

You, of course, assume the principle that those people constantly mistrust each other.If this is so, that is true in both directions. If the Franthly Signatory stops everything that the Flaming would do, then vice versa, that Flaming will do the same. They simply have no benefit from working this way, and they will not do it.

You know better than me how that deputy was included in the bill, because you were in the last negotiations. That was, of course, a requirement of the PS, otherwise there was no agreement. They demanded that there be an adjunct as a guard dog. You know that very well and that was a hard pill to swallow for the Flemish majority parties. The PS demanded that guard dog, otherwise the deal did not go through. That is the truth!

You remember that the Flemish Region blasted high from the tower to get a driver in the board of directors. This was not obtained. Subsequently, the Flemish Region demanded that the distribution be made on the basis of objective criteria. This request was also not accepted. The Flemish Region also stated that the daily schedule should be based on objective criteria. There was no satisfaction in this regard either.

In addition, this Flemish-hostile investment plan is further reinforced by a Flemish-hostile bill concerning the restructuring of the NMBS. In fact, that is the end of the story. For two years, we have failed to reach a conclusion or a real agreement on this important document, which is so important for the citizens of this country and equally important for this society and its employees, which could give the company new opportunities and provide a response to the mobility challenges existing especially in Flanders.

This has not been succeeded. One has managed to make a whole bunch, to confuse everything, to give one and the other something, to pour personal bills into laws texts to get certain people out, to get the trade unions out, to make political appointments and to get the liberal trade union inside. Everything has been done. The essence of the case, in this case this company prepared for the challenges of the future has not been done. The investment plan will not respond to the challenges of the future. That is why the CD&V group has been very strongly opposing these two bills in the last few weeks. Our group will continue to do so because I truly hope that the Senate will show more common sense than this House and that the two bills will never become law.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, "Would the battle of the rail be over?" This is the title taken by a newspaper that specifies that the rail has been the subject of so many files called "kangaroo" during this legislature. I recall that when the minister took office in July 1999, she announced that mobility would be her main concern. by

We have been promised bills for two years, but they are waiting because, Mrs. Minister, you are wrong to put more emphasis on structures rather than on the reason for the railway, namely to render service to the population and to the shippers and to respect the railroads who sometimes work in extremely difficult safety conditions. Furthermore, considerable effort should be made at the level of freight transport.

More than ever, I think of one of my predecessors, responsible for a commune, who said this: “Structures must be at the service of life, not life at the service of structures.” by

Over the next twelve or fifteen years, 687 billion will be committed, 97 billion of which will be provided by the SNCB. Structures have long been debated because behind these structures, of course, there are cocagne masters and people who are lucky enough to be affiliated with one or another political group should be rewarded, while skills should rather be valued.

My presentation will include seven points: - legal uncertainty; - the game of multiplied structures; - the financial risks; - the problem of regionalization, while in my opinion the rail should rather fall within a national and even European framework; - the questionable choices at the level of Brussels and Wallonia; - the complete ignorance in recent years of the problem of freight transport; - the permanent willingness to sell the dream and not address the problems in a concrete way.

I come to my first point: legal insecurity. Mr. Erdman, I am not a lawyer and I humbly acknowledge this. But even today, in "L'Echo" and "Lloyd" - two newspapers that you know well - I learned the opinion issued by the "Vlaams Economisch Verbond" on the legal uncertainty surrounding a package of financial investments provided in the bill deposited by the Minister. The “Vlaams Economisch Verbond” is not satisfied with the cooperation agreement between the federal state and the regions. He reiterates the opinion of the State Council and considers that this agreement will be impractical.

He fears legal uncertainty and evokes in particular the repetition of a scenario such as the one that occurred at the "Deurganckdok", the name of the new basin of the port of Antwerp on the left bank of the Escaut, where the work was interrupted on the decision of the State Council and on request of environmentalists. I am astonished that so much money is invested in a project in the absence of any legal certainty as well as a formal opinion given by the State Council or, possibly, by the Arbitration Court.

I’m excited to see the federal government work in this way. Was it so difficult to ask for a prior opinion from the Chambers of the State Council? I continue to ask for patience for an opinion to be given. But apparently, the House does not want to ask for external opinions.

An ancient and still young politician, Mr. Jean-Pierre Grafé, mentioned a whole series of constitutional elements that make him doubt the legal certainty on which this financial mounting is based. It recalled the basic procedural rules aimed at preventing conflicts of jurisdiction, based in particular on the institutional reforms of August 1980.

It signals at different levels how much this is all based on sand because as long as there is no legal certainty, there will be uncertainty and danger of seeing what happened at the port of Antwerp repeat. In two economic newspapers this morning, it is alluded to the cessation of work on the left bank of the Escaut on the initiative of environmentalists.

We know all the problems around Bierset Airport. It is also necessary to be legally cautious. I would not say like Mr. Erdman that we are wrong but rather that we are uncertain.

You humbly acknowledged that you were uncertain. You have enough experience to know that you never know whom the State Council will give the right. In any case, if I had to invest in a municipality, with the risk of an appeal, I guarantee you that I would first wait for the favorable follow-up of the appeal before daring to invest. You, environmentalists, have also protested against heritage works in Liège. You know that these works have been interrupted and that it is very expensive to the city of Liège. You know other examples elsewhere. We have enough experience in the majorities where we are and where environmentalists are in the opposition, to know that environmentalists never hesitate to use all possible and imaginable remedies to stop work. I give a very concrete example, the future of Bierset Airport. While environmentalists regularly insist on legal certainty, I find it shocking that we are embarking today in a procedure where legal uncertainty plants. This point is emphasized by the Honorary President, Mr. Langendries, who also highlighted the questions he raised on this plan.

I come to the structures. I know that this point has already been discussed before, but as it is again discussed in the bill that we are dealing with today, Mr. President, I allow myself to return to it. I am surprised by the multiplication of committees of all kinds. I have made a summary of what is announced, that is, five committees in total: strategic committee, guidance committee, audit committee, management committee, remuneration committee, with a board of directors headed by them whose unions were excluded. I know that Mrs. Durant got angry at the commission, everything happens, but I continue to demand for all public companies that remuneration appear in budgets and accounts because it is public money. It does not bother me that this obligation was introduced in 1991 because I consider it a mistake to act differently. Everyone who sits in a public authority must have the right to know the budgets and accounts, to analyze them, to verify them and eventually approve them. There would never be a municipal budget that would not be accompanied by the amounts of wages. When I hear the figures cited, whether at the SNCB or La Poste, I find it shocking that a member of the board of directors perceives more than a prime minister.

Let me find this aberrant. If the figures mentioned...

He only touches a little less than the chairman of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I respect your work and will never challenge public remuneration in so far as it is declared openly, as is the case.

Mr Smets, I have already told you in the committee that the government considers the transparency of remuneration as a very important point. And to avoid this transparency being achieved only on a case-by-case basis, Mr. Daems and I will submit a bill on the transparency of remuneration in all autonomous companies. This will not only concern the SNCB. Please be a little bit patient, Mr. Smets.

As I said during the discussion of the previous bill, I will welcome this bill favorably. And, in the presence of our President, I have made the same remarks to Mr. and Reynders.

It is exact. I remember it. This was during the debate two weeks ago.

But I repeat that I find it strange that we should endorse the creation of all kinds of committees, without being able to verify the importance of the remuneration of the members of these committees. We should be able to compare with the expected remuneration for management positions, whether at federal, regional, community, provincial or local level. At the time when we insist on the weight of remuneration in economic life, I would find it normal that this type of control can be exercised. I would like to thank you, again, for this clarification.

I regret the multiplication of structures. I am a strong supporter of the simplification of responsibilities. Because the more structures there are, the easier it is to reject responsibility over others. Maybe it comes from a good feeling. But what interests me is the efficiency and control of the use of public money.

From my first intervention at this tribune, I have followed the advice of ancients who told me: "Who pays, decides" and "Who decides, pays". Consequently, those who make decisions must be able to verify the exercise of a responsibility and the allocation of remuneration. And in the current framework, the simplification of structures would have had the merit of allowing us to understand the actual responsibility of each. by

I now come to the spinal chapter of the trade union delegates, who have been deliberately targeted. I remain convinced of the importance of information, communication and relations between trade unions and the leaders of a company. That said, regardless of each one’s considerations about the presence of trade union delegates in the board of directors of the SNCB, I can only regret the way this all happened. It will not be removed from my mind the idea that it was the Prime Minister’s will to make sure that there is no more representation of the trade unions within the board of directors of the SNCB. The minister has also admitted twice that it is an unnecessary injury to the trade union delegates to do so. by

At least a board of directors could have been set up to give responsibilities to delegates of the corporate federation. In fact, I dream of a board of directors composed of people who have the necessary experience to do so, of new blood — on the technical and political levels — but also of representatives of workers and members of the Federation of Belgian Enterprises.

Because one of the big challenges of tomorrow, and someone interrupted me in commission about the accident of St. Gotthard when I addressed this point, is the transport of people, but also, and in an equivalent way, the transport of goods by rail. It is a fact that at the present moment, if we do not solve this problem, we will have solved nothing in the context of mobility.

I read in the newspaper this morning that this point had been addressed very clearly and that road carriers, at the level of delegates, no longer consider themselves as opponents to the rail but wish that intermodality formulas be analyzed in a sustained way. I gave the example of what happened in the province of Liège, where we managed to create an intermodality system with the highways that harmoniously cross the city of Liège, with the exchange that leads to Bierset, and, of course, with the rail. I think that Liège is a beautiful example of intermodality.

In this context, it is important, at the level of the structures, not to ignore, and it seems to me essential, the contribution that this presence of delegates of the Federation of Enterprises of Belgium could bring. If you start by interested them in a guidance committee, this will be a first step. I personally think it would be worth having a debate in this context, and more specifically in the field of goods trafficking. I don’t know if the figures I have are accurate, but it would seem that there has been a 19% decline in the last two years in goods traffic. I remember that you ⁇ the difficulties of harmonising, on the technical level, this transport of goods, even at the level of neighboring countries. If these figures are accurate, it is tragic. When I find myself between Liège and Aix-la-Chapelle, on this highway that was once relatively loose, I see all these trucks coming from Germany and elsewhere and I think there is an immense effort to be made. And I indicate to you, by correction, that I appreciate that you have decided to renovate the Moresnet viaduct, because I do not mean to say only what is wrong.

Third, financial risks appear to be significant. Based on the analyses we do and on which we ask ourselves more and more questions, when we compare the figures given, whether by the CEO of the company, by the management in general, by the trade unions, or even by the specialized financial journals, we find that the debt is estimated, in the horizon 2005-2006, at best at 300 billion and at worst at 600 billion. The range would indicate at best 300 billion, and at worst 617 billion, but, in any case, 500 billion in the coming years.

There is something to worry about! Personally, I am not convinced that we will find solutions. First, the proposed program does not provide sufficient revenue analysis. Then, the realisation of assets is hypothetical. In the committee, I have recalled a number of elements that I will not repeat here. It is feared that the alternative financing of 97 billion proposed to the SNCB is not possible. For us, there are huge financial risks. When we talk about financial risks, we can’t help but think about the problem of the Sabena and the uncertainty of the future of the railways in Belgium.

I will not return to the legal uncertainty affecting regionalization. It can be done a very concrete analysis of the choices made. Some will say it is a victory of Wallonia, others a victory of Flanders. We can compare the imbalance between the works of national interest identified on the Flemish side for an amount of 18 billion and the works of national interest identified on the Wallon side for only 6 billion. In the meantime, we are attached to this 60/40 distribution key even though it is difficult to verify in a budget framework and in a accounting plan as the years follow quickly.

More importantly, specifically with regard to Wallonia, the choices made seem questionable to us. Among the whole series of elements announced, it seems to me important to know if there is a good domestic service for the transport of people, not only from Wallonia to Brussels but also to Flanders. You know, Mrs. Minister, that I intervened to ensure that Verviers ⁇ ins its international character. I could not tolerate that families in our district could no longer benefit from a regular service every hour at Verviers station, which allows them to take this remarkable line between Verviers, Liège, Louvain, Brussels, Ghent, Bruges and Ostende. I learn that we would like to remove some stops at Verviers, currently guaranteed every hour, to force travelers to win Liège and enjoy the Thalys. It is regrettable! If you still have any influence on the SNCB, Mr. President, it would be interesting that you recall it. I am speaking in the national interest. Contrary to what some might think, I am not a man closed to communities and regions. What interests me is, first of all, the future of our country.

I find it important to carry out the evaluation of a number of work, ⁇ at the local and regional, but also at the international level. That is why, after referring to this line which also goes to Cologne, I feel that it is very important to have an opening to Germany, even from a cultural and economic point of view in the context of exports. You have also published, at least ten years ago, an article on this subject in "The Echo of the Stock Exchange". In this perspective, the improvement of the Brussels/Arlon/Luxembourg/Strasbourg line also seems to us fundamental, inasmuch as it is a second international line of very high quality that has the merit of bringing the European capital Brussels closer to its “filials” in Luxembourg and Strasbourg. We are looking forward to serious work on this line.

I did not read it in the programming, but we also see an improvement in the wallon dorsal between Liège and Namur. I would like to remind you of this, even if it is a security issue.

After our meeting last week, I went to the site to study the line and personally, I am convinced that there are still serious security issues on this line.

Given the final intermodality test, it would be necessary to see to what extent an express network in Liège could not be valued.

With regard to the transport of goods – I will often return to this point in the months and maybe years I will spend here – the service of the Wallon ports should be improved, as was done for Antwerp. As I said last week, we should not systematically oppose the layout of the Moresnet viaduct and the transport between Antwerp and Germany. I think these two elements are complementary. When I was young, I was told that Antwerp was the wealth of Belgium because our country lives from exports. This is true and I acknowledge it. I am grieved, Mr. Erdman, that it is not systematically told to high school students that the real wealth of Belgium is its ability to export finished or semi-finished products, after the processing of raw materials. The trade balance of our country is almost always positive. I am surprised that young people are not allowed to appreciate Belgium’s ability to value its workforce in general and the activity of its companies that process products and sell them abroad. You will never hear me, Mr. Erdman, criticize the slightest economic link of one of our regions to the overseas.

Still in the "goods transport" chapter, one could provide for a freight TGV connection to Bierset airport and of course also the electrification of the Athus freight line.

A number of projects are planned in and around Brussels. If we consider the problem of the French-speaking side — but it is obvious that Brussels must also be open to other communities and to the rest of the world — the Brussels envelope has been reduced by virtually 5.5 billion francs.

The government has also decided to create a high-speed line Ottignies-Rienne-Gosselies, with the establishment of a parking lot in Rienne. The cost would be 11 billion francs. According to the evidence we have, this cost would be more than questionable since users of the Brussels-Luxembourg route have no interest in changing the train to Ottignies to recharge in Rienne. On the other hand, the Daussoulx-Sart Bernard connection would have helped to save a considerable amount of time. In this space of exchanges both to Brussels and to Strasbourg, the saving of time would otherwise be appreciated, I think.

Mr Smets, I have given you a long time to speak.

I will briefly summarize my presentation. I did not know the time of speech. Sometimes I need to remember the rules of the game; I thought I had all the time to express myself. I didn’t know that the speech time was limited to 30 minutes.

In this case, I believe that we have the right to ask questions, especially since the shuttles from Wavre and Louvain-la-Neuve do not benefit from any improvement in their rail service. In fact, they will always have to go to Ottignies before returning to the capital. It is surprising that a direct link between the University of Louvain-la-Neuve and Brussels cannot be foreseen.

Mr. Speaker, I am short on my presentation to respect not only your function but also my colleagues.

In conclusion, beyond these questionable choices, three remarks can be made. This issue has been on the table for two years. Two years ago, the Minister had already stated that it was urgent to find a solution to this problem, and the October 1999 Echo article confirms this. It has been discussed for two years and what is surprising is that it is still likely to be discussed for a long time if the State Council gives a negative opinion and if the Arbitration Court breaks down the financing and co-financing decisions from regions.

Secondly, the way environmentalists present things seems extraordinary to me. They systematically confuse budgets and accounts. Because if you want to know what really happened, it is in the accounts that you have to go and look. Mr. Minister, you present the budgets and you seem to have influenced Mr. Minister. Verhofstadt to make him believe that what is simply budgeted is achieved. You give the impression that what is budgeted in your investment plan will be accomplished tomorrow.

When I am asked when this will be done, I answer "one minister grants subsidies, a second puts a first stone, a third inaugurates." In this case, I am not convinced that by the end of this legislature, much effort will have been made for more mobility. And the opposite! Because the transportation of goods has undoubtedly declined.

Personally, I believe that the whole problem comes from the fact that in the majority, different opinions are formulated at all levels. In this context, the image of the prime minister must be presented as being always very liberal, pure and hard. The image of the Socialist Party seeks to give the impression of coherence in relation to its projects and its strategy of defence of the Wallon interests. I’m not convinced that the strategy defended is the best because I haven’t heard anyone from the majority who took the floor on the funding plan.

I was present at every committee meeting and did not hear anyone discuss this topic. The matter is now closed and I regret that there was no discussion. Everything that is written must be accomplished and contrary to its habits, the Socialist Party has lacked audacity: it is true that Mr. Eerdekens demanded a simultaneous vote on the two bills.

I greeted Mr. Ask who has spoken about the funding plan.

On the other hand, I heard other interventions that had strictly nothing to do with this funding plan, which were just justifying that the battle of the rail is "finished". The battle of the rail is, in fact, only beginning. I do not believe that the six ruling parties will succeed in implementing this plan because, and I am convinced of it, one can say today that “it was” the rainbow!

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, since the beginning of October, about a month ago, the Chamber has been banned from the NMBS. First, we were served with the very important draft for the Greens to amend the law of 1991. I remind you that Mr. Vanoost has repeatedly warned on this tribune and in the committee that the government would be in trouble if the bill amending the law of 1991 was not approved for the summer holiday. The government, in my opinion, does not need the NMBS file to create problems. However, we must note that the final discussion of this draft is scheduled for today, the day before 1 November. This file is yet to go to the Senate. Moreover, Mr. Eerdekens already announced last week that this draft will be approved in the Senate only if all cooperation agreements have been approved by the various parliaments. That can catch up! The committee has already discussed in detail the many problems that the Flemish Parliament will have with this cooperation agreement. The end of the tunnel is not yet in sight.

Fourteen days ago, at the time that this design could be approved, a second file came over water. The PS linked the draft law amending the law of 1991 to the draft law approving the cooperation agreement of 11 October 2001 concerning the multiannual investment plan 20012012 of the NMBS.

Moreover, colleagues, it seems that ultimately a third file will be linked to both files. This can be done by the VLD, which is now shining by its absence. Per ⁇ they are busy preparing the third file and preparing a first, important step in the privatization of ABX. I remind you that last week, during the discussion of the first draft law, Mr. Van Campenhout, on this tribune on behalf of the VLD, regretted that the legal unity of the company was so strongly emphasized by the government. The VLD also regretted that the 60/40 distribution key was not broken.

The VLD also regretted that the Regions were not represented in the NMBS. She also regretted that the European regulation in this draft was not implemented. As a result, we do not have an independent authority in our country, something that many parties have been asking for years.

Finally — this is very important in this file — the VLD regretted that no additional instruments for additional financial control were introduced in this draft. Mr Van Campenhout cited the ABX file as an example.

We hear that this morning the nuclear cabinet met exactly on this matter. You can argue that the government can, of course, study this dossier further. Much more important, however, is that the board of directors of the NMBS on this dossier in the last days even met three times at night. She even came up with a proposal for a decision. You may be wondering what this all has to do with the discussion of the cooperation agreement. I think it has everything to do with it. The draft law amending the law of 21 March 1991 on the reform of certain economic public companies. The uniqueness of the company is very important. We must also vote on the bill approving the Cooperation Agreement of 11 October 2001 between the Federal State, the Flemish, the Wallish and the Brussels Capital Region concerning the NMBS's multiannual investment plan 2001-2012 Article 1 of that draft reaffirms the uniqueness of the company. This is also considered very important by the trade unions. The legal unity must be preserved. Therefore, there cannot be any form of privatization.

We also asked the Minister in the committee to explain the entire internal restructuring of the company. We then pointed out that only in the memory of explanation, and therefore not in the design itself, is spoken of the transformation of the 22 existing business units into 6 business divisions. This is about the third section, in particular the freight transport. It houses both ABX Logistics, B-Cargo and IFB. Now they would be in a separate holding. I repeat that with regard to the ABX file as such I have no problem with any steps towards privatization, self-employment. We have already addressed this very often. However, the minister himself replied to me in the committee of 13 March 2001 that an important inspection by Boston Consulting had taken place within the NMBS. The results of that audit expressly stated that it is important that ABX should operate within the NMBS for at least a few more years. The NMBS has invested a lot in ABX. I think I read the amount of 22 billion francs somewhere. It is logical that any profits of ABX can flow back to the company’s overall envelope.

At the moment when ABX is sold or housed in a holding company, the company should not remain with the losses while the profits in that case are privatized. The minister then said that it could be considered the possibility of discarding ABX in the longer term.

Mrs. Minister, I understand that ABX’s yield is still very negative at this time and that it is even thought to be a loss of 1.5 billion francs this year. For the first time, net profit is expected in 2003, but I wonder what the government is doing now. I wonder which wheel does it turn in front of the eyes of the Parliament and all relevant partners?

Mrs. Minister, if it is true that the NMBS on Monday evening or night made the decision to make ABX a separate holding company creating a single central management for all companies acquired through acquisitions so far, are there plans to resolve your problem and that of the government, in the sense that Mr. Schouppe, the current delegated director, is transferred to that new holding company? In fact, I can imagine that the government does not want to take the risk — after the adoption of the law, after the publication in the Belgian Staatsblad of the vacancies for the directors of the NMBS — that it would again face Mr Schouppe as candidate manager in some assessment procedure. I can imagine that you and the government would have a very difficult time with this. I can imagine that before you proceed to the publication of the call to candidate managers, you want to be solved from that first problem.

A second problem may be solved in a different way. It has already been cited here. There were rumors — and I think I can say that they are no longer rumors — that this one deputy governor, who must disappear because of political ties, would be replaced by a person who himself has political ties and who currently even holds a ministerial position. He has, of course, gained a lot of experience in all kinds of assessment procedures. In this regard, he is a lot ahead of his competitors. However, does he have the experience in the field of mobility that candidate drivers should have and that we have discussed in the committee? Furthermore, the text does not stipulate that candidates must have experience in rail transport. It could also be someone with experience with road transport.

Mrs. Minister, I see that at this moment in the majority banks, consensus is being mocked and mocked. I also see that there is something laughing. Let me take the rumors here. I will not advance the facts. Per ⁇ you can tell us more about this later? After all, it is a public secret – whatever you may claim – that the composition of the NMBS Board of Directors is already largely fixed at this time, even though we still have to pass the law in question today.

In the bill we will vote on today, it is quite extensive about titles, experience and skills that candidates should be able to demonstrate. However, everyone knows that already a lot of people with clear political ties, especially from the Cabinets-Durant, -Picqué and -Reynders, have seats in the board of directors. Well, they will undoubtedly be part of the new board of directors. Since they have been previously tested for their skills, they will surely escape the normal selection procedure. You have been warned — I address, among other things, Mr. Vanoost: we will talk about this again in a few months, Mr. Vanoost.

Mrs. Minister, now that the government is on the same line as the Board of Directors of the NMBS on the ABX issue — again, I have no problem with that — I would like to learn what you think the impact on the NMBS of the establishment of the company ABX Logistics could be given to the difficult acquisitions in Germany and France. Do these new acquisitions not put a mortgage on the viability of the new holding?

Will IFB and B-Cargo, other components charged with freight transport, also be connected to the new holding company?

Over the past few months, we have already made a lot of comments on the ABX dossier, especially following the audit carried out by the Court of Auditors. It showed that there were no irregularities in the accounting of the railway company. Does that, in your opinion as a competent minister, imply that there is now complete clarity about the way in which in the NMBS costs are charged and transferred to, among other things, ABX? Does this accounting be carried out according to the general rules? Does this show the cost structure between the NMBS and the quasi-daughters such as ABX?

If your answer is positive, I would like to know whether the costs charged to ABX for, for example, the use of NMBS infrastructure are market-compliant.

Indeed, it is of the utmost importance that Parliament has a view to any guarantees for the survival of the new holding company in the light of previous acquisitions. It is a pity that the colleagues Van Campenhout and Somers of the VLD group are not present at the moment, because they too are very concerned about it. I am confident that the Chairman, who has connections with both colleagues, will inform them of my presentation.

Mrs. Brepoels, ⁇ they are listening to your argument at a distance.

I sincerely hope that, Mr. Speaker, as I also expressed their concerns. I would like to receive from you, Mrs. Minister, a clear answer to these questions.

I would also like to emphasize a few aspects of the cooperation agreement itself.

First, in the first article of the cooperation agreement, the federal character of the NMBS is clearly stated, with particular respect for the principle of the uniqueness of the enterprise. The Greens are very proud that the NMBS falls under federal jurisdiction and want to preserve the uniqueness of the company for the future. For the government, this axiom primates on the goal of building a powerful and above all functional railway company that fully engages in the mobility policy. It is even better to maintain an insufficient rail supply for Flanders with all possible consequences than to allow the Flemish Region itself to take initiatives on rail policy. My group regrets this greatly because many opportunities are missed for future developments, whether for the NMBS or for a Flemish railway company. Mobility policy is not conducted in this country at any time from a general vision. Everyone knows that in the Flemish territory there are ⁇ large mobility problems, but the NMBS and the federal government are not responding to them.

Second, the cooperation agreement discusses the Executive Committee of the Ministers of Mobility to strengthen the permanent cooperation with the regions. New committees were already established in the first draft law of 1991, which deal with audits, appointments and salaries. In addition to the strategic committee, the orientation committee was also established. I thought that the regional transport companies in that committee could make their contribution. Apparently, this is not the case, given that establishment of the Executive Committee of the Ministers of Mobility, whatever that may mean. That committee does not bring representatives of the regions into the Board of Directors. However, Mr Stevaert, Flemish Minister for Mobility, had expressly demanded this. That committee has nothing to do with it.

Thirdly, the investment plan itself does not address mobility issues in any way. It is a purely political plan. It even contradicts a number of spatial development plans in Flanders.

It ⁇ does not imply a number of mobility problems in Flanders, nor – despite your interesting bill, Mr Schalck – any vision of basic rail mobility. Limburg and a number of other provinces will remain a railway desert of the same size as today for the next twelve years. This is a statement, unfortunately to those who envy it.

To the investment plan is connected the now notorious 60/40 distribution key. This distribution key clearly contradicts what colleagues from the majority parties in the Flemish Parliament demand, in particular a clear objectivation of railway investments. The 60/40 partition key also faces criticism from the VEV — yesterday and today in the press — and the SERV. We know what this means: the legal uncertainty regarding the pre- and co-financing cooperation agreement is highlighted and the mismanagement of the 60/40 distribution key is also highlighted. This also comes with criticism because of the VLD and actually from everyone who has common sense in this country. Their

During the discussion in the committee, I proposed that at least a number of strategic investments for the national — and not only for the Flemish — economy for the trade of goods could have been withdrawn from that 60/40 distribution. This is about the projects to unlock the three maritime ports and the national airport.

Fourth, I would like to talk about the many commitments made between the various parties under the cooperation agreement. Once again, these demonstrate the great distrust between the different levels of government. What else to think about the deadlines in the context of procedures concerning administrative authorisations and applications for authorisations. A period of 18 months is given – ⁇ for all regions, but everyone knows that especially the Flemish and, to a lesser extent, the Brussels Region is fishing – to issue the permit. There is a statement "to process the application for permission", but in a subsequent article a longer period is immediately anticipated at the moment when the Flemish Region must amend the plans for spatial planning in order to fulfill the commitments of the agreement.

Colleagues, as if this is not yet sufficient, an additional clause is provided for the situation where, for any reason whatsoever, the permit cannot be delivered within that scheduled time. Then there should be no use of the candy that has been held before the Flemish government all that time, in particular the co- and pre-financing.

So I come to the last part of this cooperation agreement, the pre- and co-financing. They came only because, first, the federal government does not want to provide sufficient resources to exercise its yet so important federal competence in the field of rail transport; second, because the federal government does not want to touch the 60/40 distribution key and, third, because the federal government does not want to give priority to a number of files that are of tremendous importance to our national economy.

It is clear that in the pre-financing the Flemish region does nothing more or less than just playing bank for the federal state. It is still unclear to me and some of my colleagues how the pre-financing will affect the table of the 60/40 split key. The Minister did not answer the questions we have asked about this at numerous times. Mrs. Minister, I make another last attempt to get an answer to this today. Does this mean that when the Flemish region uses the possibility of pre-financing to advance certain dossiers, other dossiers are pushed backwards? Otherwise, I no longer understand the table of the 60/40 split key at all.

I have just mentioned that, according to the VEV, the legal uncertainty should also make the Flemish government think about the special risks it takes in the following years in order to ⁇ not fall into a second Deurganck-dok scenario. Regarding the development around the port of Antwerp, we hear from the Flemish Parliament the reproach that in the past one has apparently not been very selected by skipping a number of laws and opinions. Here one takes a step in the same direction. Colleagues from the Flemish Parliament will surely have a special hassle on this in the coming weeks and months.

The last article of the cooperation agreement again refers to the cooperation agreement for the regional express network. You promised me at the time that Parliament would be given a decision on the agreement concluded in the federal government. Then you withdrew that promise because you had to talk about it with the regions. You let Parliament here today approve a cooperation agreement on the GEN which we currently have no knowledge of. I do not know whether this has already been discussed with the regions and whether the regions have already given advice on this. Do they have other insights about it? I hope you can give us a little more clarity about this today.

Mrs. Brepoels, you have perfectly respected the speech time. Mr. Mortelmans, I am confident that you will do that too.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, we are asked to approve a bill approving the cooperation agreement between the Belgian State and the regions. This cooperation agreement provides for the establishment of an executive committee of the Ministers of Mobility to approve an investment plan 2001-2012, which sets out a number of authorisation procedures and authorisations for the various stakeholders involved, and which should also regulate pre- and co-financing.

This draft was submitted to the State Council on 15 October 2001 with the request to submit an opinion within a maximum period of three days. The opinion states that the cooperation agreement under consideration should be revised in the sense that the provisions in which the regions agree to arrangements which belong exclusively to the competence of the federal state in rail transport are excluded from it and that the co-financing by the regions of those aspects of the relevant matters falling within their competence is better defined. In the supplementary opinion on Mr. Tant’s amendment, it says, “This situation can only be corrected by revising the cooperation agreement itself.” We must conclude that the State Council has made fierce criticism. In the opinion it is stated that, according to the Special Law of 8 August 1980, Article 92bis, it is possible to conclude a cooperation agreement between the federal government and the regions, but that this must not result in the exchange, withdrawal or return of powers. Consequently, the regions cannot be authorized to modify or approve the investment plan of the NMBS. Consequently, the regions cannot be authorized to pre-finance or co-finance the NMBS. They may only finance activities that fall within their direct competence. The financing of regional work cannot even partially be borne by the federal government.

The criticism of the Minister is only received by mentioning it in the memorandum of explanation, but not in the proposal itself. It is clear that this cooperation agreement must and will be pursued through the throat of the Parliament. As is often the case with State Council opinions, this opinion is not taken into account. It was quickly attached to the document and it did not even reach the Council of Ministers. It is clear that an efficient mobility policy with such cooperation agreements is not possible. Mr. Speaker, I fear — I hope I get wrong — that the Flemish Parliament will approve this cooperation agreement, despite the resolution on the Investment Programme 2001-2012 approved by the Flemish Parliament on 22 June 2001, a resolution on the basis of which this cooperation agreement cannot be approved. However, we know from the Lambermont period that it is not the first time that the Flemish Parliament denies its own principles. However, this is a resolution stating, in the first place, that the investment plan does not sufficiently take into account the mobility planning of the Flemish Region, that the Flemish Government has repeatedly urged an objective needs analysis and an operational plan as a basis for railway investments, that there is an imbalance between budgetary resources and the planned investments, that there is no control over the application of the 60/40 distribution key in the investment planning, and so on. That same Flemish Parliament in its resolution calls for a favourable opinion for a period of only two years, which only applies to projects planned in that period in order not to jeopardise the current investment programmes and this on condition that the NMBS restructuring is effectively undertaken so as to enable the NMBS to make a strategic planning as a first step for an objective need analysis. I hope I get wrong, but I fear the worst.

This agreement must and will be implemented in its entirety. In this case, one forgets that it is an investment plan that runs over a 12-year period, amounting to approximately 687 billion. However, there has long been no attention to the fact that the amount is completely insufficient to give the rail the necessary incentives to respond to current and future mobility events. The focus is on the connection with Zaventem, which is removed from the regional distribution, and on the modernization of the so-called coupon network, which we have discussed more often. At the same time, the port of Antwerp disappears into nothing.

The 60/40 distribution key is seamlessly fixed year after year, while the needs, especially in the field of mobility, are situated mainly in Flanders. The need for new railways, adaptations of railways and changes to infrastructure, capacity and the like are in Flanders and not in Wallonia.

As previous speakers have already quoted, Flanders is rolled several times, including through the concrete cutting of the 60/40 partition key. Flanders are allowed to pay — I think of pre-financing and co-financing — not only for projects to which it has long been entitled, but also for so-called national projects. All this is done with the complicity of the Flemish government and the Flemish Parliament, which will once again put themselves out of play.

I must admit that I do not have a good eye on what happened following the Lambermont Agreement and the resolutions of the Flemish Parliament. Mr. Speaker, we can only conclude that the fragmentation of powers cannot lead to a sound mobility policy. In this Belgian framework, on the other hand, an efficient mobility policy cannot be established, as is demonstrated by the present cooperation agreement.

The Flemish Bloc group will not approve this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, this bill approving the Cooperation Agreement is very significantly interpelled by the deputies. In fact, we must refer to fundamental guidelines: mobility, sustainable development, quality management of the public thing, defence of a common heritage and federal solidarity.

We had to work in an emergency and, of course, this is regrettable. But everyone engaged seriously and effectively. An important text is on the table. The cooperation agreement can be implemented. It provides balanced prospects.

Implementation difficulties will arise. Trade unions come to us every day to attract our attention. Their legitimate concerns relate to the financing plan, the difficulty of meeting such ambitious goals and the uniqueness of the company. During the previous sessions, we have long addressed the problem of the functioning of the board of directors and the problem of the removal of trade union organizations. We will not argue about this today, but we must know that this regression deeply marks the socialist group.

In addition, the bill we are discussing today is portable. It provides solutions for each region. We will support a cooperation agreement that will enable the implementation of an indispensable investment plan, which meets our goals and those of the government, including a significant increase in the volume of transport of persons and goods. This will be a significant step forward in providing capacity, safety and comfort for all users.

For our group, the cooperation agreement supported by the federal and regional governments is a priority. It allows the launch of a large-scale railway project.

I would like to highlight the importance of the guarantees obtained in relation to our projects: first, the 60-40 distribution of investments between Flanders and Wallonia until 2012, the agreement concerning the three- and four-way deployment of lines 161 and 124, two projects of capital importance for Wallonia, without forgetting the RER project, second, the procedural deadlines relating to applications for administrative permits and permits required for the deployment of construction sites.

This is a number of positive elements, but we could have added many more.

The cooperation agreement clearly defines the needs and funding. The priorities of each region are integrated. This is a mutual commitment of good will. The formulas in this sense, by the way, emulate the text. Non-key investments are clearly identified and pre-financing and co-financing techniques are clearly outlined. The discussion in the committee enabled to clarify things as to how to implement them.

Elements of mutual control are nevertheless present since compliance with time-limits and pre-financing co-financing techniques are linked.

By reading the first paragraphs of the cooperation agreement, we see the names of ministers who commit themselves for the federal state and the Regions "jointly exercising their own competences". This little phrase leads us to look closer at the opinion of the State Council. It is not very long, it is structured in eight parts and several people have done the analysis of this document just recently.

Let us remove the introduction and the conclusion; there are still six points, six chosen pieces, numbered from 2 to 7, as some colleagues have very well indicated. Three parties will agree with the opposition and the other three will agree with the majority.

As well as mr. Erdman stressed that the opposition took up points 2, 5 and 6 of the State Council opinion to develop its point of view. The majority, in turn, is based on consistent elements: points 3, 4 and mainly point 7. And of course, the arguments cited by the majority are more important.

In paragraph 3, the text refers to "the consultation between the federal authority and the regions, the intensive collaboration between public transport companies, the search for consensus, the cooperation agreement". These are beautiful and kind formulas.

In paragraph 4, it refers to "creation and joint management of common services and institutions", "joint initiatives" and "joint exercise of own competences".

In particular, I would like to emphasize point 7, as Mr. Erdman did it rightly just recently. I cite the passage: "prefinancing and co-financing eligible insofar as they relate to works and investments specifically within the regional competence, such as the arrangement of roads or parking spaces in the vicinity of stations or railways."

However, I would like to remind you that concerns remain. Trade unions rightly maintain the pressure about elements such as the risk of indebtedness by 2012, the increase in traffic volume on a already saturated network, while investments will produce effects late, the compatibility of the company’s legal uniqueness with a subsidiary process.

Furthermore, with regard to the procedure, we have always considered the two projects as a whole: structural reform on the one hand, investment plan on the other. The majority implemented simultaneous management. Everyone now has to take responsibility.

Let us also recall the fact that it is a company of 40,000 workers, a public enterprise at the service of all citizens, an indispensable tool if we want a mobility policy, an institution which we own and which deserves to be defended.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide some questions and give some general comments.

The answers first. Regarding the pressing question, which very much disturbs some of the members here present, of when the Council of Ministers decided on these documents, I point out that all the documents were transmitted to the committee at the introduction of the file, including the notifications of the Council of Ministers. by

As regards the referral to the negotiation committee, question raised by our colleague Grafé and repeated by Mr. Smets, I would like to remind you that the government has chosen not to file the consultation committee. For, for us, this is a project that is not contrary to the distribution of skills and it allows the famous joint exercise of own skills. Furthermore, the Chamber has no competence to be able to refer this consultation committee.

Furthermore, I recall that Article 1 stipulates, black on white, the inter-federal character of the SNCB and the rail. The investment plan is and remains federal. It has, as in the past, been approved by the federal government. It is simply included in a cooperation agreement. And this dialogue, wanted by the federal government with the regions, has nothing to do with a breach of competence. by

Finally, in terms of co- and pre-financing, I stressed in the committee that tags are planned, in terms of amounts: for pre-financing, it is 20 billion in capital and 2.5 billion in charge of interest.

For the co-financing, it is 8 billion for the Flemish Region and 4 billion for the Walloon Region. If one wants to go beyond, it must be discussed in the Federal State/Regions Consultation Committee.

The second tag is the delimitation of competences in the framework of civil engineering works and infrastructure works related to regional competences. A few examples have been cited on this subject. The railways remain, by definition, federal, in accordance with the distribution of powers.

The third tag concerns aspects related to co-financing and pre-financing. It is within the framework of the ten-year plan, as approved by the federal government, that such pre-financing or co-financing can be considered. They cannot be outside of this framework.

Finally, I also remind Ms. Brepoels, who was concerned about this, that prefinancing has no effect on the 60/40 key.

Regarding the notification to the European Commission, which has been regularly discussed, I would point out that the ten-year plan was never notified to the European Commission because it was not requested by the State Council. He had issued this request as part of the previous bill we discussed last week, namely the structural reform. In this case, a notification has actually been made to the European Commission. But, in the present case, there is no need to make this notification. If, later on, it should take place, no problem would arise in this regard.

Finally, I come to the financing. As Mr. said. Ansoms, the financing of the ten-year plan will rest on the shoulders of the SNCB, which will put it in danger. I would like to remind you first that in terms of railway choices, this will be an unprecedented reinvestment since the projects have doubled. Who can tell me the sectors in which such an investment effort has been made?

It is true that the SNCB will have to support part of this plan, but this has already been the case in the past, with the CVP blessing at the time. The SNCB has always had to assume its share of own funds. This was the case during the financing of the TGV and as part of leasing operations that were organized by the delegated administrator in particular to release "cash". The intervention of the SNCB is therefore not a new element. And, today, this intervention is even smaller than it was in the previous ten-year plan. At the time, the State had invested at the same time 228 million, or 61,5%, the rest being borne by the SNCB. This was in 1996, for the ten-year plan 1996-2005. by

In the current ten-year plan, the State intervenes, either directly or through the RER, at a rate of 453.5 billion. It accounts for more than 66% of the ten-year plan. This means that SNCB’s participation has decreased sharply compared to the previous plan.

Finally, I will address the issue of debt that has been raised by many of you. We talked about an amount ranging from 300 to 600 billion. I clarify here that the SNCB cannot at the same time be autonomous when it comes to making a whole series of expenses and investments, in particular in ABX’s subsidiaries, and ask for money when it comes to financing projects that it can no longer bear due to expenses it has made elsewhere. It would then be a “variable geometry” autonomy. Regarding exactly the ABX investments mentioned by Ms. Brepoels, I point out that I am in favor of the establishment of a holding company “ABX logistic”. The discussion is ongoing within the government. But we still lack strategic guarantees, especially with regard to intermodality between rail and road. I think that intermodality is insufficient. In addition, we do not yet have all the financial guarantees. We do not yet know the impact of ABX investments on public service missions. Therefore, all guarantees must first be obtained, both at the level of rail/road intermodality and at the financial level to ensure the public service tasks. In the future, it will probably be necessary to consider the release of ABX from the SNCB, after having constituted it as a holding.

This does not mean that IFB and B-Cargo are included as they can operate cost-efficiently without being linked to ABX, and the figures prove it. This discharge will probably need to be considered. The whole thing is to know when and in what way so that the SNCB has the guarantee to regain the funds invested in the amount of 25 billion in the last few years in a bet that should have returned but which, at the moment, costs and of which we are told that in 2003 it will return.

We need better guarantees before we get involved again in the ABX adventure if we also want to guarantee proper public service missions.

Mr. Speaker, in her response to Mrs. Brepoels’s question, I heard that the Minister is in favor of the holding structure for ABX and thus the disconnection of ABX. If I am not mistaken, Mrs. Minister, you have not answered the question of whether in this scenario Mr. Schouppe would be transferred to ABX and a minister of the federal government would become the head of the NMBS. By the way, I read today in the newspaper that another federal government minister is thinking of making someone from his cabinet ombudsman of the telecommunications sector. Mrs. Brepoels asked a very precise question. On a number of banks, I’ve seen some eyebrow frills, but you know that this rumor does the round. You could better confirm or deny these messages.

The content is the most important point for me. What strategic guarantees are there for the NMBS public procurement? For me, that is the only question that we need to answer in order to make a decision on the split of the ABX branches. My only question is about its effects on the NMBS public procurement, on the travellers and on the goods. The rest is not on my agenda.

You do not deny it, Mr. Minister.

I told you that we are currently facing a substantial problem. What choices should we make?

I understand that the content is more important to you, but you do not deny this rumor? Not confirming is not denying. Not denying is not denying.

Dutch is a fluent language.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to primarily replicate to the explanation given by the Minister about the way in which she is currently conducting discussions within the Government concerning the splitting of ABX. I find it very strange that it refers to a number of substantive aspects. I have then tried to show something else, but I understand that she is not going to do that at the moment. It is clear that the VLD has been a demanding party for this for years. I have also supported this substantially, but the minister is constantly opposing himself. I referred to her response in the committee on this matter. I do not have any clarity that profits from ABX operations are already being generated at this time. On the contrary, losses are still being planned. It is clear that the entire acquisition of ABX took place with funds from the NMBS. You have stated that you cannot guarantee that no means made available to the passenger transport has been used for this purpose. When you are thinking about a transfer, it seems to me logical that you are looking at how you, as a competent minister, can monitor whether any transfer of assets and liabilities does not disturb the market. Can you also provide clarity and insight into all the financial issues related to the construction of ABX? It is very strange that this happens at the moment when it is stated here — I address the colleague of the PS — that the company constitutes a legal entity. The uniqueness of the company is perceived as very important.

I note, and I understand, that the government at this moment is fully engaged in breaking through that unicity. I am pleased with this, but I would appreciate it if it were confirmed with the same number of words.

I am not talking about ABX here. But I think it is important to see clearly before making choices. And these choices will be aimed at saving the public service missions, to which I am at least as attached as you. It must be avoided at all costs that a bet with unlikely outcomes, i.e. speculation, leads us to situations in which public money would be permanently lost. Because today, the figures show that with ABX, it is more losses than it is gains. So, at best, we could try to close the gaps.

That is why I want sufficient guarantees. It must be shown to me that not only can we stop losses, but also that we can make profits. However, this is far from obvious, despite some elements that have recently been presented in the board of directors. And as long as we do not have these guarantees, it will be necessary to consider disengagement with respect to ABX. This obviously does not mean that IFB and B-Cargo must suffer the same fate because the latter two structures are profitable.

This is the issue that is being discussed in the government. We will return to this very soon in the committee. I do not doubt that there will be legitimate and necessary questions on this subject.

Mr. Speaker, I note that the first step of privatisation is made by entering into the law that other directors can be appointed who can be appointed by shareholders other than the State. This is contrary to the draft law on the structure of the company. The third business department will be the freight transport department of which ABX Logistics is the key part. Currently, this part of the freight transport department is already being illuminated. This is a contradictio in terminis.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to replicate on the pleasant defense of the bill by the Minister. She has done her best to defend the draft investment plan. However, she has not succeeded in this. The Minister knows very well why she cannot succeed in her intention. She pointed out that even in the past, the government did not take all the investments for its account and also requested efforts from the NMBS. That is correct. The fundamental difference is that the two previous governments, led by Mr. Dehaene, encountered a lot of difficulties in implementing the budgetary sanitation and achieving the Maastricht standard. At that time, however, these governments had the courage to release additional funds, 25 and 35 billion francs, for investments in the NMBS. The fact that, despite the 480 billion francs of surplus revenues obtained in the last two years by the sanitation and the high economic conjuncture, the failure to release massive resources to save this business, to give a future and above all to make an important contribution to the mobility crisis is the drama of this government, of the ECOLO minister and for the company. It is primarily the drama for the NMBS, its users and the mobility crisis in which our country is. Mrs. Minister, you have entered this government, young and inexperienced, green in the real sense of the word.

Being young is not a defect.

Mr. Speaker, for some, things would probably go a lot better with old people who fulfill several consecutive mandates, who get used to the task, in short, who are not green!

You have been left behind and have achieved nothing at all. That is the drama and you know it very well. Now you actually have to fulfill an impossible task, the restructuring bill. There you have been pushed in all sorts of ways in directions that you do not want. So there is the question of why the liberal trade union had to play a role. You have been rattled dozens of times. Also with regard to the investments, you did not receive the money that I think you were entitled to. That money was absolutely necessary for the future of the NMBS. That is the core of the case.

Mr. Speaker, I would only like to say to Mr. Ansoms that a lack of experience in politics is sometimes just an advantage. If one has no experience with the old way of doing, one is just open to new methods.