Proposition 51K2643

Projet de loi relatif à la sécurité d'exploitation ferroviaire.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

July 17, 2006

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive rail network transport safety rail transport

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Nov. 16, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, this second bill, which was adopted in the aftermath of the first, deals with the safety of railway operation and has all the importance of which I spoke in my introduction just recently.

We benefit, in Belgium, from a system that is already highly secure, even though there are sometimes, as everywhere, a few bugs. We are envious of this system abroad. All the speakers agreed that this security system should be preserved and that security should not be blamed in the name of profitability.

The project provides for the establishment of three bodies: a national security body, independent of Infrabel and railway companies; a permanent investigation body, equally independent, which offers guarantees of neutrality and impartiality in case of incidents or accidents; and finally, a training center for board personnel and railway drivers. Each Party is fully responsible for its actions in the framework of its tasks.

All speakers highlighted the importance of a Community harmonisation in order to reach a true European railway space but all also said that it is necessary to be careful not to level downwards in order to maintain a performance safety system.

A member of the Commission, Mr. Deseyn, insisted on the importance of implementing ETCS, the Community Signal System, coupled with GSMR, which we voted in a bill before the holidays, all of which are part of the ERTMS (European Rail Traffic Management System).

Two Commissioners insisted on the fact that beyond the requirement of certification for train drivers, it was important to take into account other safety guidelines, such as the working hours for drivers, taking into account working hours, driving hours and rest hours since this was already the subject of a Community CCT, thus European, a few months ago.

Several amendments have been submitted by your rapporteur, in particular concerning the taking of decisions deemed important in the Council of Ministers. For further clarification, I will refer to my written report.

Finally, your rapporteur submitted an amendment, which was also adopted, on the possible return of employees of SNCB Holding who would have integrated the body of the National Security Authority into their primary function, at their request.

The whole proposal was voted by ten votes and four abstentions.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the transposition of the directives contained in the first and second rail packages, which aim to liberalize the freedom of freight transport by rail, has so far been pursued by Parliament at a fairly high rate, either through the Program Act or this time through the emergency procedure. We find this unfortunate, because we believe that Parliament should be able to debate extensively on an important topic such as the liberalization of rail transport, a liberalization that is absolutely necessary to realize the modal shift from road to rail goods transport. This is in line with the European Commission’s White Paper on Transport to reconcile accessibility and viability.

Our group hopes that the Infrastructure Committee will have an extensive debate on the promising third rail package, which is about passenger transport and which is already ahead of the Council of Ministers.

We also believe that Belgium, as a transit country with the closest rail network, leaves a bad impression by not transposing the European Directive in time before the fixed date of 30 April 2006. The Belgian government should proactively and constructively follow up on the European rail record and not mistakenly give the impression that the European liberalization train can still be stopped. The competent ministers must now jump on the train before it is too late.

Our group also has a pronounced progressive vision on the liberalization of rail freight transport. We would like to emphasize once again the need for railway packages. It is clear to everyone, colleagues, that the railway needs to be much more efficient and dynamic than it is now. The share of the rail in the total freight transport has fallen to a historic low. In 1970, the railway accounted for 28% of the total freight transport. In 2003 that share was still just 11% and since then it has stagnated. This is, in fact, a very regrettable development, especially for a region that, with the port of Antwerp, has a huge potential in the procurement and discharge of containers eligible for rail transport.

However, there are some countries where the railway is successful. In Hamburg, almost 30% of the containers go on the train. In Antwerp, this is only 10%. Therefore, taking into account the forecasts on freight traffic, we can no longer afford to insufficiently use an important means of transport such as the rail. Flanders must render its central location, including on the rail.

The railway packages send a very clear signal to the European Parliament and the Council. The railway needs to work urgently at European level. National railway monopolies no longer have a future.

The railways should maximize their unique assets, namely ensuring reliability and stable long-distance transport. The railway companies must therefore be customer-oriented and proactive in search of new foreign markets. They should primarily work towards better cross-border services.

The draft law on operational safety of railways, which is now put to the vote, suspends the safety guidelines and transposes the second railway package into national law.

A persistent, often cultivated misconception, namely that the liberalization of railways threatens its safety, is finally removed by the directive. Indeed, by incorporating separate safety directives into the second rail package, the European Parliament and the European Council show that railway safety is rightly a major concern and will remain within the liberated railway market. In fact, the Safety Directive aims at a high level of safety, in which the national regulatory authority continues to play an important role.

Specifically, the draft law provides for the establishment of an independent, national safety authority that will be completely separate from the current NMBS structures and will be authorised to issue safety certificates and safety permits to operators and infrastructure managers, respectively.

We support the draft law and would like to call on the competent minister to carefully ensure that non-discriminatory access to the railway market is guaranteed for all railway undertakings that comply with the safety rules.

In this regard, we would like to signal the next troublesome point.

To date, all training facilities for train personnel, in particular for train drivers, remain fully concentrated within the NMBS-Holding. Several private operators have made public their concerns about this. Due to a sharp shortage of train drivers, the above-mentioned operators are unable to further expand their activities, which are, however, profitable.

However, the bill provides for the establishment of an independent training institution. However, much will depend on how the institute will become concrete in the coming months.

In short, we call on the Government to respect, as far as possible, the liberal spirit of the Security Directive in the implementation of the present Framework Law by means of various Royal Decrees.

The conclusion is that the great challenge now lies in implementing liberalization also on the ground and bringing all the noses within the various lines of the railway sector in the same direction. We wish the government a lot of success.

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak, but I would like to join the words of Mr. De Padt regarding the liberalization of railway traffic. Our visions are probably not 100% consistent with each other, but I would still like to jump on the train with the question of bringing the debate to the ground here in Parliament. This has not been the case so far. In the context of the third railway package, this seems to me very meaningful. I would like to support this question from Mr De Padt.

My Lord of the Presidents, a small note. I think that in the openbaar vervoer, in particularheid wat de trein betreft liberalization a method is, but never a goalstelling. De doelstelling van België is te zorgen voor goed openbaar vervoer in dat te vrijwaren. In particular, it is in this time also about a secure public transport.