Proposition 53K1741

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses concernant la mobilité.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅱ

Submission date

Sept. 16, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive mediator cross-border transport charges for use of infrastructure transport and mobility rail network transport network maritime safety transport safety maritime transport rail transport

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

∉ N-VA LDD VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.

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. 20, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Valérie De Bue, rapporteur, refers to her written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, I will not exaggerate the whole discussion we have held on this bill in the committee, but I would like to explain why N-VA will not approve this bill at the vote but will vote against.

The draft law reads as it should. Several issues related to railway safety are regulated. However, there still appear to be a number of adhesives under the grass or it makes us at least raise the question whether this is the best way to manage this.

We have two specific comments.

The first point concerns the creation of the budget fund. In our opinion, the State Secretary has not been able to give an adequate answer in the committee to the question of why a budget fund is selected specifically. In our opinion, the amounts for such a budget fund in relation to the matter are too small.

The question is also what the revenue will be. That is pretty much correct, but we do not yet have a vision of what the expenses will be. So we are setting up a fund in which we still don’t know what we’re going to do and therefore we don’t know what we’re going to spend.

In that sense, it is a difficult decision to put that money into a budget fund, because in doing so we actually withdraw that from the normal rules of the budget.

We also have great concerns about the fact that this budget fund should have been an independent body. As a result, we make it financially dependent on the FOD, while we had chosen to make it independent of the FOD in previous draft laws on the subject.

Therefore, we are convinced that there are better, more transparent and more cost-effective ways to solve this problem. Hence our opposition.

On my second consideration concerning this bill, you will wonder where I get that from.

I will read the article for you. It sounds innocent. In Article 355, paragraph 2, of the Act of 20 July 2006 on various provisions, introduced by law of 23 December 2009, the number 200 is replaced by the number 290.

This is about a construction to give Infrabel a share of the profits...

Remember then our discussion on the financial situation of the NMBS and the difficulties that a foot within the group already has to reach a little budget. Previously, it was already stipulated that they could add 200 million out of balance sheet for budgetary reasons. There was effectively a reduction in investment subsidies and, at the time, a addition of an operational datation of 10 million over 20 years. Today, it is estimated that another 90 million will be made up here.

I asked the Secretary of State in the committee the following question: “Mr. Secretary of State, what do you think would be the consequence if I carried out such an operation in my company?” You answered me, “You would have serious problems, Mr. Vandeput.”

I say today that we are not cooperating in an operation that would cause a normal human to have serious problems. We will not support this bill. We vote against.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, I will not repeat all of the comments that we have made in the committee. I would just like to emphasize the one concerning the financing of the rail sector regulatory body, the supervisory authority. The provisions in the draft stipulate that Infrabel and railway undertakings are required to contribute to the financing of this supervisory authority. I wanted to emphasize that there is an anomaly to not also request the holding company which, you know, manages the largest stations in this country and receives access fees as such. In the operation and in the financing of this supervisory authority, it would therefore have been logical to request it for better solidarity in the distribution of costs, even though, I assure you, it is not a matter of extraordinary amounts.

For this reason, and for others, we will abstain.

Nevertheless, unlike my colleague Vandeput, I am pleased that arrangements have been made for Infrabel to use its profits to maintain its investment level, despite the planned reduction of investment appropriations in Infrabel’s management contract for 2011. Given the current situation, this seems to me to be a quite positive element.

I add that this does not exempt us from a broader reflection on the structure of the group and on financial solidarity between entities. This brings us back to the recent debate about the savings measures taken at the SNCB in recent hours.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, we have had an extensive debate in the committee. Mr. Secretary of State, in my opinion, on the one hand, there are sufficient elements to respond to your request to approve that. Mr. Vandeput has, on the other hand, in the committee and today again pointed out a gap or something that makes our eyebrows crack, the creation of that budget fund.

There is a mentality of confidence that everything goes well and that what goes well must be confirmed. Unfortunately, when we talk about the structures of the NMBS – this is more about Infrabel – we must, however, show the necessary skepticism. You have already given your answer in the committee. Maybe you can motivate these measures today with a little more conviction. If I should only rely on the explanation I have received in the committee – I have in the meantime been a little more informed about the motives and the possible proportions that such a thing can assume – I think I will have to take some gas back in relation to the positive evaluation I have made in the committee. If you fail to convince us today, we will not approve it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clearly and clearly confirm what I have already said in the committee. Following the words we have heard thereafter, after the answer given by Ms. Vervotte to the questions asked about the measures foreseen at the NMBS and the concerns expressed by the Parliament with regard to the railway company, we can only rejoice that the company, in order to keep railway investments at a level during 2011, is willing to use 90 million euros of earnings from previous years for the investment fund. We can only happily boast that such a case is considered.

The increase of the amount from EUR 200 million to EUR 290 million by converting previous gains into capital subsidies can only contribute to improving the quality of the railway infrastructure. We must describe this as a positive matter rather than as a matter that should give rise to negative comments towards the railway company.

Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State gives the same answer as in the commission. We will now be able to get back into a discussion about the number sister or so to read. I note that within the Group there are apparently parts that manage to make profit and others that find it difficult to get around. My question is, therefore, why a part should remain reserved within a certain part of the Group, while that could possibly also be returned to the State and redistributed where it is most needed. But that will be a too difficult operation in this three-headed system.

Per ⁇ a supplement to Mr. Balcain’s comment. It is absolutely right: I think this will be an essential element of the next structural negotiations. It is obvious that when that structure will look different, the donation flows will need to be adjusted to that. Today, 80 % of the costs of the NMBS are actually intra-Group costs, either for Infrabel or for the Holding. Of course, the new drawing will have to look at the historical debt, what costs in relation to the operation to which they will be distributed and the investment costs.

It is an important signal that investments must remain at a level. These are the things that are often the least visible and sometimes it is attractive to touch them. I am glad that we are not doing this now. I agree 100% with your view. If we evolve into a different structure, the donation flows or who gets something will also need to be reviewed. For example, the emphasis can be placed on revenue and expenditure related to the service and to whom it goes. A large part of the cost of the NMBS today is obviously related to infrastructure, which gives Infrabel more money. That provides the advantage that we can indeed make investments, but it is correct that this will need to be re-examined.

As far as I am concerned, I have the same reading as yours.

We just want to let you know that we are all looking forward to moving quickly to action. It would be worth moving towards a more simplified, more homogeneous and more integrated structure; this will be one of the major challenges of this year.

I have one last comment to supplement the report.

I look forward to the day when the government negotiators laughing will announce: “We found 90 million at the Railways.”