Proposition 53K1690

Proposition de résolution visant à améliorer et coordonner l'information et la communication mises en place par les entreprises du Groupe SNCB envers ses usagers et d'en assurer le financement.

General information ¶

Authors

PS | SP Anthony Dufrane, André Frédéric, Karine Lalieux, Linda Musin

Submission date

July 19, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

transport user information policy resolution of parliament commuting rail transport

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

∉ N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

March 1, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Ms. De Bue returns to her written report.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I would like to complete Mrs. De Bue’s written report and recall the purpose of this proposal.

Beyond the fundamental problem of punctuality, information and communication to rail users is a recurring problem within the Group.

The SNCB Group companies have taken numerous initiatives to strengthen their communication, but problems with the transmission of information persist. The latter results mainly from the fact that these services are not coordinated within the SNCB Group.

Shippers do not care about whether the information they are given comes from Infrabel, the SNCB Group or the SNCB. The most important thing for them is to quickly obtain the most concrete, relevant and accurate information possible.

That is why this resolution calls for, among other things, the creation of a project, a single tool within the SNCB Group that coordinates and gathers all available information for shippers.

As we know, the government, through Minister Magnette, is currently preparing a restructuring of the SNCB Group. This reorganization should bring more coherence and efficiency within the Group. This resolution recalls that safety and punctuality are, of course, absolute priorities. The information and communication provided to the carriers by the SNCB Group are also crucial elements that should benefit from this future reform.

I would like to conclude my speech by asking you to apologize for not being able to be present in a committee to defend this proposed resolution and to thank my colleague André Frédéric for doing this for me. (The applause)

I think he applauded Mr. by Frédéric. Today is the day of compliments.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the present proposal for a resolution was indeed initiated by our colleague in an excellent way. It is about the communication from the NMBS Group.

We must, of course, continue to push forward as an absolute priority that the trains must run accurately. At times when trains do not run accurately, good communication to the travellers is essential.

Today, however, this communication shows a number of shortcomings. There are cost inefficiencies and overlaps between the communications systems of both Infrabel and the NMBS carrier. The proposal calls for the elimination of these overlappings and for more efficient and sound communication.

I am very pleased that we have been able to nuance a provision through an amendment. It is about the free provision of the information. The free provision of information to the traveller seems to be an evidence, but we must be careful that we do not shift additional costs to the transport group. For this reason, we amended the second paragraph of the text in such a way that the NMBS cannot hold any income from it. It is a small nuance, but I think it is a major change, as it also does not incur additional costs on the NMBS Group.

So far, Mr. Speaker, colleagues, my statement, with which we wish to fully support the proposal for the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, it is good that we have reached the most important part of the Van afternoon and that we can discuss a very important proposal for a resolution, in particular on the communication problems with the railway group in Belgium.

I wish I could start like this, but that is not the case. The present proposal addresses a number of problems. One problem is that our trains are not driving accurately. We can agree that if the trains are not running correctly, at least in a decent manner, quickly and accurately, it must be communicated to the passengers, who are already affected by a new discomfort. Therefore, we will not vote against the proposed resolution.

At the same time, we are convinced that the presenters with the text give a signal, in which they implicitly acknowledge something. In the preamble and in the considerations of the motion for a resolution, it is stated that there would be no possibility in the short term to seriously interfere with the delay of our trains.

We do not agree with this. The proposal refers to the different management contracts. Ms. Vervotte knows that we have already exchanged opinions on this issue in committee meetings. She realizes that the text is a missed opportunity to say who is responsible for the communication with the travellers.

We assume that the Railtime and NMBS Mobility systems must in some way be able to exist and interfere simultaneously. It is not so. Ms. Vervotte made it very clear at that time as Minister that the responsibility for communication to the passenger chain lies concretely with the operator and that it is a specific responsibility of the infrastructure manager to provide the operator with the data it needs to be able to communicate correctly with the passengers. This also demonstrates the superfluity of the proposal for a resolution.

The text therefore goes away and does not create any clarity on the subject. The worst, however, is the plea to incorporate a number of provisions into the management contracts. What types of management contracts are we talking about? This is a rhetorical question. Minister Magnette said last week in the committee that we should not all imagine too much of it, that the government would have a plan ready by July and that by 1 January 2013 everything would be okay.

Are we talking about the existing management contracts of the NMBS, Infrabel and NMBS-Holding? Clearly, these management contracts are not being prepared yet. The Group companies have not yet been asked to prepare anything. Are we talking about the contracts with any future entities, which in any case would try to provide the traveller with a better service than they do today?

We will not vote against, but we will unfortunately not support the motion for a resolution. After all, you implicitly admit that not much will change. From the hearing with the Minister last week in the committee, we learned that we should not expect much change in this area in any case.

If we can expect changes, they are not those that the NMBS Group needs.

I would like to reply to the remarks of Mr. Vandeput.

In my view, the proposal for a resolution does not refer in any way to the fact that we are dealing with the poor accuracy scores of the NMBS. I just emphasized that accuracy remains the top priority. It is an illusion to think that 100% of the trains will run on time. Good communication with the travellers will always remain necessary.

Furthermore, it is evident that the current management agreements, which theoretically expire at the end of 2012, will continue until the new structure is in place and that new management agreements will be concluded with the new structure and with the number of entities that will then be in place. Today we are actually giving an advance for that discussion, in terms of communication. Communication should come from one mouth. Furthermore, there is nothing to be sought behind.

It is a shame that on the basis of a number of suspicions and the reading between the lines of one and another, one does not want to approve the draft resolution. This does not really show the willingness to discuss constructively.

Mr. Speaker, I am obliged to respond to this because words are put in my mouth that I have not spoken.

First and foremost, I refer to point D of the considerations attached to the motion for a resolution, and I quote: “Given that a substantial and sustainable improvement in accuracy can only occur in the medium or long term”, it is an implicit recognition that in the short term little or nothing will happen.

Then, Mr. van den Bergh, I have not at any time said that the accuracy problems will be fully resolved once there is a new structure. You know, as I do, also as a result of my interventions in the past in the committee, that a structure must follow the needs, and not vice versa. This resolution again assumes the fact that we have entities, which is also stated in the appendix. Since 2009, both NMBS and Infrabel have come up with ICT solutions. Again, we are out of the structure. However, I advocate turning things around, first looking at the needs, then building a decent structure that can meet our demand, as a society, in relation to our railways. In my opinion, we agree on the function of railways, that is to transport people and goods safely and at an acceptable social cost from A to B.

That is exactly what the resolution aims at, in particular that it is based on the customer, where the communication with respect to that customer is unambiguous and comes only from a communication channel. I think we are perfectly on a line and so you can approve the resolution.

It is always a pleasure to discuss issues in Parliament. In the past we have already addressed the problem of cyclists, who stay too long in front of the red light, and today we are talking about the communication at the NMBS.

What is the problem with many train passengers? This is not so much the delays, the cancelled trains, the overcrowded trains or the train stops, but the communication about these problems. Communication on these issues is a priority for the colleagues who submitted this resolution. I would much rather have seen a resolution calling on the currently absent Minister Magnette and the NMBS-Group to address the problems related to accuracy, security – I think of signal transgressions – occupation, abolition or strike. However, these problems do not appear to be addressed as a priority, but rather the communication about them, as they were addressed in this resolution.

It is a pity, Mr. Speaker, that the rapporteur, Mrs. De Bue, was not present to present her report and is not present at this debate. It is remarkable that when the committee is asked for a rapporteur and a member of the Flemish Interest raises his hand, suddenly almost all the other committee members are candidate. However, when a request is made to report before the plenary session, the member concerned cannot be detected at a distance.

Those who respect themselves a little may be courteous or collegial enough in the future to be present at the debate or at least to present their report, even from respect for the officials who put it on paper. I will mention this on occasion in the committee, with regard to those often absent colleagues.

A second aspect is that the PS has taken the initiative to address the problem of communication of problems through this resolution. The original purpose was a guaranteed free provision of the communication. We must understand below that it is a free communication. We also know that a free initiative for the sake of the socialists is not at all free. It is clear that the original initiative to subscribe to SMS is not free. I am myself a regular customer on the line Gent-Brussel, so I am notified by SMS of delays. Simply put, the initiative is free to receive urgent and important news messages via SMS because of television and newspapers. We pay for it; that’s fine on the bill of our GSM consumption, but no one makes a problem with it.

In the free philosophy, however, the original applicants believed that this information should also be provided free of charge. The NMBS already has trouble linking the ends together for various reasons, but apparently the applicants thought that was important. This also happens at a time when many people no longer only inform themselves by SMS, but often also through a smartphone, BlackBerry, iPhone, which allows one to perfectly browse the internet. Past efforts make it possible to surf on the train, even though the quality may not always be as good. However, there are enough alternatives available, so that no more need to be called for a free SMS service about the problems of the NMBS.

After all, if a train is delayed or cancelled and the traveller sees that information through a paying or even a free SMS, what is the added value of it then? The most important thing is that the trains are running on time, that they are safe, that there are no signals and that there are no stops. Those matters are priority and not so much the communication about the problem, because then it is no longer so urgent. In addition, there are already several communication channels, although if necessary the information can still be centralized, and so, in my opinion, a free SMS can ⁇ not be of priority.

I don’t just want to be negative. I am pleased that, among other things, after the Flemish Interest has pointed out the so-called free of charge, it has been realized that the initiatives should at least only be cost-effective. It is not intended, when one subscribes to a SMS service, that can still be earned. I think it is a good thing that the resolution has been amended in that sense.

I remain in the view that the resolution itself is a wrong signal. A much better resolution had been drafted, addressed to the currently absent Minister Magnette, in which the NMBS is asked to work out all the problems, which may later need to be communicated.

I would like to make one last consideration. In the present resolution I read: “...calls on the Government to take all initiatives to improve the direct and indirect communication between the companies of the NMBS Group and its users.” Colleagues, Minister Magnette has a major plan, in particular the reform of the NMBS; that is the egg of Columbus. Despite the work that Ms. Vervotte has done, it appears that this cannot be realized yet and Minister Magnette has requested a study from the Court of Auditors. The Court of Auditors will only examine financial flows for five months. And we ask here and passing in a resolution to draw the communication between the various parts of the NMBS more smoothly! If the Court of Auditors already needs five months only to know the financial flows, how can the Parliament’s request to improve the communication between the various components be answered?

It demonstrates the absurdity of this resolution. Therefore, we can only abstain from voting.

My group will, of course, support this proposal for a resolution. My group’s priorities remain safety and punctuality. This text also promotes a useful first step towards improving the communication of the SNCB towards its users. And we can only rejoice.

We also co-signed the CD&V amendment to ensure that the services and tools that will be implemented are not free. In fact, it is not the SNCB’s responsibility to bear the costs, which could be replicated in one way or another on the taxpayer.

The resolution is intended to establish a communication that is central, optimal, comprehensive and effective for carriers, which I look forward to.