Proposition 53K2855

Projet de loi portant le Code ferroviaire.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

June 4, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

cross-border transport rail network transport network transport safety rail transport

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo

Abstained from voting

∉ N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) abstained from voting.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) abstained from voting.
• Damien Thiéry (MR) 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 ¶

July 16, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to my written report.

Mr. Speaker, I hope Mr. Wathelet will come because I have one or the other question to ask him.

With regard to this railway code, I would like to mention two or three points. The first point is the interest of having today a series of laws brought together in a single Railway Code, which will improve the readability of a whole series of provisions, old and new, in particular already provided by European directives. This readability should also improve the interoperability of our system with other European systems as well as security.

Nevertheless, I will make a few nuanced remarks on this text, after highlighting the interest that there was to include in the Railway Code a provision that will allow the independent body investigating railway accidents and incidents to make use of administrative sanctions when some will oppose its essential investigative work, alongside any investigations conducted by the infrastructure manager, the railway undertaking and the judicial authority.

This is an additional element in the independence of this administrative authority. On the other hand, at the level of the National Safety Authority, I pointed out that the railway code again contains a provision allowing dispatched persons from the SNCB Group to be placed in the service of the National Safety Authority.

However, the European Parliament clarifies that a complete independence of the staff of the National Safety Authority from the railway group is necessary. The European Union has granted a derogation in this regard. Until a certain date, the involvement of persons from the railway group is still possible within the National Safety Authority.

I regret that the bill does not refer to this measure and does not clearly set the date from which the employment of persons of the railway group is no longer authorized within the National Safety Authority. A royal decree specifying these things obviously exists, but it seemed to me necessary to specify this in the Railway Code, the law being yet superior to the decree.

I also insisted on the infrastructure manager, and would like to return to it after a careful reading of the ad hoc directive. The Railway Code proposes a definition of infrastructure manager in accordance with the definition provided by the Directive, but copying it in its entirety. This opens the door to what should be called a regionalization of the infrastructure manager, a regionalization of the tasks now supported by Infrabel.

The ad hoc article of the Railway Code evokes indeed a possible division of its role between several companies. However, the Directive stipulates that multiple infrastructure managers are a possibility but not an obligation. Among the definitions in the Railway Code, the infrastructure manager may be one or more undertakings.

Of course, the activities of the infrastructure manager are geographically determined. From the moment our territory counts several, we are opening the door to a regionalization of infrastructure. I would like to recall, as I did recently, certain provisions contained in the Commission proposals for directives, which aim to require Member States to benefit from at least three operators in the implementation of public service tasks. Combine the possibility of having several infrastructure managers on our territory and the possibility of having several public railway service operators, there will clearly result a regionalization of the railway.

I would like to return to a ⁇ complex element. Article 9 of the Code relates to access to a whole range of railway services. It should be read in parallel with Article 4 of the Law on Railway Reform that we voted last week. Its first paragraph states: "The social object of the infrastructure manager shall include, in any case for the whole Belgian network, the following elements:

The [...]

the provision to railway undertakings of services to be provided to them in accordance with the law. and [...]”.

I see that the collaborators of the Minister are very attentive... The question arises of the law to which we refer. Is this the Code or the Act of 2006? When you read this excerpt in parallel with Article 9 of the Railway Code, you wonder who, tomorrow, will manage these infrastructure services. The railway undertaking may, on a non-discriminatory basis, claim to all the minimum services referred to in point 1 of Annex 1, as well as to network access to the service infrastructure described in that Annex.

In short, it is a whole range of services, such as access to passenger stations, their buildings and other infrastructures, including the display of travel information and the appropriate locations planned for ticketing services, freight terminals, sorting stations and training stations, including manoeuvre stations, garage paths, maintenance facilities, cleaning and washing facilities, etc., a whole range of services that should be, tomorrow, offered without distinction to any different railway undertakings entering our network.

The reading of both Articles 4 and 9 of the Code, unless reference is made to the Act of 2006, raises the question of who is responsible for providing these services, in particular since Article 9 does not specify this: the historic railway undertaking or the infrastructure manager?

I confess to be perplexed about the parallel reading of the two texts that we have to elaborate. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able, if necessary, in his speech, to provide an answer to this element. I repeat, neither Article 9 nor the Annex specify whether it is the infrastructure manager or the historical undertaking that must provide those services.

Therefore, if tomorrow, it was the interpretation that it is the Railway Code and not the law of 2006 that is the reference in the matter, we would see a whole series of tasks and tasks shift from the historical company to the infrastructure manager that are now assigned to him.

This debate did not take place in the committee. I bring him today to the plenary session, because I thought it was important to have very clear answers from Mr. Wathelet about this element and a few others I have mentioned.

Mr Veys is absent.

Mr. Speaker, he is currently asking a question in the committee, which runs simultaneously with the plenary session. He is on the way to here.

But there is no Infrastructure Committee this afternoon. The President of the Commission is present.

Mr. Van den Bergh replaced me in the committee during the Conference. He informed me that the Infrastructure Committee is currently suspended. One would be on the way to here.

by Mr. Veys is included in the discussion. He is busy in the committee, but he comes.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for my delay.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the Rail Codex, as it is here on the banks today, is a step in the right direction. On the one hand, it is a good thing that many regulations are included in this bill. These are many matters that were determined in the past through KB or through all kinds of regulatory provisions. That unit, that structure, is a very good thing. Mr. Secretary of State, we all knew that we should take the good intentions you had in your policy letter to come to Parliament with this at the beginning of 2013 with a grain. Eventually it was July 2013. However, it is important that the Trail Codex is there.

However, the Rail Codex is a missed opportunity because it will not apply to the museum railways. I also tried to demonstrate this in the Infrastructure Committee. For the museum railway lines you will come with a separate regulatory framework. However, I have repeatedly pointed out that there is a number of regulatory errors. One does not take it really closely with the certificates, the checks and the inspection of the equipment, sometimes with dramatic consequences. I refer, among other things, to the province of Luik, where in 1991 a museum train crashed with seven deaths. In eastern Flanders, a fatal accident occurred on the Eeklo-Maldegem line several years ago. The discussion involved excessive speed, whether the person driving this museum train had the necessary patents and whether everything had gone according to the booklet. Therefore, the plea is to make the Rail Codex also applicable to the museum railways. It ⁇ would not be a good thing if we were to use a good piece of that Rail Codex to regulate the museum railways. Safety is essential, whether it is a line over which a steam locomotive buffs or a commercially exploited passenger line. We are very interested in taking measures. Every death that falls on the railway is one too many.

Mr. Secretary of State, another aspect is conversion. In your introduction to the committee, you stated that it is not a full transposition of European directives. You also ⁇ that in the future the codex would be encrypted even further.

On the initiative of the majority of the parties, a number of amendments have been submitted, which clearly put a number of things on the spot. However, the question arises to what extent we fully have a Rail Code that complies with the European directives or whether we should also keep the Rail Code in the future.

In this regard, several organisations in the Infrastructure Committee have expressed their grievances over rail regulations during hearings. Especially the constantly changing regulations and adjustments came out then. These organizations therefore demand regulatory certainty and stability.

Until now, the government has not been able to provide that security and stability. Therefore, the question arises whether this will be the case with the Rail Codex.

What guarantees do you therefore have that we will not again face changes, adjustments, completions and modernisations in the coming years, in particular because we would not yet comply with the full transposition of the European directives?

Therefore, I showed some restraint in the committee and abstained in the vote on the present bill. On the one hand, it is a missed opportunity because of the museum railways. On the other hand, the question arises whether we are now talking about a full transposition and also whether we could reach regulatory stability and clarity for the coming years.

I would like to answer the questions asked by Mr. Balcaen and Veys.

Mr. Balcaen, as regards the detachments, the text simply aims to confirm the status of those who have already been detached and who will end their careers in the old regime. As you know, this system no longer exists since January 1, 2013 and therefore there is no longer a possible detachment.

With regard to the infrastructure manager, we have taken back the definition of the European text. You draw attention to the fact that this could give the possibility to introduce multiple infrastructure managers. This is not the case, but we must respect the European definition and it does not seem inappropriate to mention it. I remind you that any designation of infrastructure manager in Belgium must be made by a royal decree deliberated in the Council of Ministers. For now, there is one, Infrabel, and there is no question of opening the door to another. I was very clear on this subject! In addition, I thank you for asking the question so that things are clear: there is indeed a definition at the European level but the only designated is Infrabel.

With regard to the qualifications for the services offered at the station, the Code has provided for a system; royal decrees, which are in preparation, will designate the different operators responsible for the services offered at the station. This must be linked to the reform of the SNCB.

Mr. Veys, I come to your questions about the tourist lines and museum railways. If these trains want to drive on the infrastructure of Infrabel, they must of course respect the Rail Codex. If they drive on their own tourist museum lines, a specific legislation will be provided. In this regard, I will submit a proposal at the beginning of the new parliamentary year.

Mr Secretary of State, thank you for your reply. As for the museum railways, I know that once they run on the rails of Infrabel, the regulations of the Rail Codex will apply. My argument is, in fact, about the safety of railways in own management. There have also been many incidents and accidents in the past. Safety must be sufficiently guaranteed and sufficiently rigorous.

I dispute that the regulations with which you will come to Parliament in September or October will be sufficient to guarantee the security. I refer to the incidents of the past, including in Liège, but also on the Maldegem-Eeklo line. Then many died. Regulations need to be made urgently, including for the railways.

I would like to thank Mr. the Secretary of State for his answers. But let me come back – Mr. the Secretary of State being absent during my speech - on the uniqueness of the infrastructure manager, to whom he seems to hold.

As regards the definition, the Directive stipulates that “any entity or undertaking, in particular responsible for the establishment of the management and maintenance of the railway infrastructure, including the management of traffic and the signalling and control and control system [...] The functions of infrastructure manager on all or part of a network may be assigned to several entities or undertakings”. “They can be,” the directive says.

Therefore, we are not obliged to introduce this possibility in our law. We can get away from it. We can simply define the tasks of one infrastructure manager, without being required to specify that there may be several.

By removing this sentence element from your definition of the infrastructure manager, Mr. Secretary of State, you would, in any case, close a potential door to the regionalization of that infrastructure manager.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to add that this door is closed because any decision in this matter can only be made by a royal decree deliberated in the Council of Ministers.

Today as well as tomorrow, only one manager meets all of the criteria, namely Infrabel. There is no room for manoeuvre in this regard.

I would like to repeat the amendment we submitted in the committee. I would also like to invite the members of the majority who, like you, Mr. Wathelet, are concerned about the uniqueness of this infrastructure manager and to maintain a federal railway policy to examine the said amendment very closely.