Proposition 53K2862

Proposition de résolution visant à demander à la Cour des comptes une enquête relative à la gestion du dossier FYRA.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Jef Van den Bergh
Ecolo Ronny Balcaen
Groen Stefaan Van Hecke
LE Christophe Bastin
MR Valérie De Bue
N-VA Steven Vandeput
Open Vld Sabien Lahaye-Battheu
PS | SP Linda Musin
Vooruit David Geerts

Submission date

June 5, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

management audit resolution of parliament high-speed transport rail transport

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

VB

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 ¶

June 27, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr Stefaan Vercamer, rapporteur, refers to the written report.

I will briefly explain the proposal. It is, of course, unnecessary to say that the commissioning of the Fyra high-speed train for a regular connection between Belgium and the Netherlands was a fiasco. Meanwhile, it has been almost half a year since the train was taken off the tracks, but he continues to provide the necessary commotion. Everyone is left behind with a lot of questions.

First, we have questions about the procurement. Why was it that a constructor was chosen with questions from the beginning? Why was the speed adjusted during the procedure and why only one manufacturer remained in the course of the tender? These are questions to which we still do not have a clear answer today.

Secondly, we have questions about the deployment. Why has it not been previously established that there were problems with the quality of the work delivered by AnsaldoBreda? It follows the construction of the train.

Third, we have questions about the implementation. Why is it that the train has been able to drive and has received a certificate? DVIS refers to the Dutch company Lloyd’s. The question is whether there is a double game. Couldn’t they have been and shouldn’t have been more alert? In this regard, a number of questions remain open.

Fourth, we have questions about the time the train was driving. Why is it that the problems were not identified earlier and that measures were taken only when the pieces literally fell away?

In the meantime, we have already heard a lot of stakeholders during hearings, but in fact we have not become much wiser about it yet. It seems to have become a sport to put the blame in someone else’s shoes. There is no one who has so far acknowledged any responsibility.

It is even worse. It seems like the Fyradossier is being used or misused to settle outstanding accounts and personally spinning threads. We can only regret that.

The proposal for a resolution, which is put to the vote today, calls on the Court of Auditors to examine the project from A to Z. The text was signed and approved by all democratic parties.

We therefore believe that such an extensive request by the Court of Auditors cannot simply be put aside and that a proper investigation will actually be carried out.

The Fyra Story is a flop from the beginning to the end. We hope that the review of the Court of Auditors will bring something positive out of this huge failure, in particular a thorough lesson for dealing with such projects in the future.

I therefore hope that the broad support we have found for this in the committee will soon be reflected in the vote in the plenary session.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Van den Bergh for his explanations and the rapporteur for his sound report. It is good to be able to go back on that.

My colleagues, we did not approve the present resolution, because we are not blasphemous. We must not turn ourselves face to face. In fact, we already know the outcome of the investigation that will be conducted by the Court of Auditors.

The Court of Auditors will again face a number of closed doors. We have seen that in other files, for example, the file of the train disaster in Buizingen. Also in the Court’s investigation of the security systems, we could literally read that it had not received a response, that it had not been granted access to it, and that it had not received these and other documents. This is always the answer of the Court.

This was also the case very recently, when it came to the financial flows at the NMBS. I talked about the new structure of the NMBS yesterday morning about the web in the NMBS-Holding, which is managed by black widow Jannie Haek, who has built all sorts of small subsidiaries and grandchildren to flow money from the NMBS and the NMBS-Holding to all sorts of political boys.

Furthermore, the Court of Auditors had to conclude that financial data could only be requested up to a certain level. Some questions were not answered and some documents were rejected. The Court of Audit is so strong.

We also always read in the studies of the Court of Auditors: “Given the limited commitment to people, given the time we had, we have only been able to do this research.”

How can you, with this resolution, now succeed in understanding a file that is stacked thick and already attracts from 2004, if we only come to struggle with a modest resolution?

I think the Flemish Interest’s proposal to establish a real investigative committee – a committee that also has the authority to summon people to appear before this committee, to make statements under oath, to make investigative acts – can be the only answer to this Fyradebacle.

Nothing of that. One speaks only of the problems that existed at the launch of the Fyra, which has not gone smoothly. That is literally in it. Further than that, we dare not go into the resolution.

It is obvious that everyone is trying to save a little. Right, because almost all political parties have butter on their heads in the file.

Let’s go back in history, to the fateful year 2004, when the decision for the Fyra was made.

At that time there was the unitary NMBS. At that time, the wide web of daughter and granddaughter companies was not yet there. In the board of directors there was, for example, Karel Vinck, of CD&V signature, as you know. He has always served the party. There were also Dominique Offergeld of the MR and Marianne Vergeyle of Groen, Eddy Bruyninckx of CD&V, Antoine Colpaert of sp.a, Mr Dehovre of the PS, Jean-Claude Fontinoy of the MR, Geertje Smet of Open Vld, Magali Verdonck of Ecolo, Melchior Wathelet of cdH, Mrs Alaerts-Van Den Bulcke of the MR.

All those people were there not because of their abilities, but because of their party cards. They approved the fateful decision regarding the Fyra.

We have the Board of Directors, but the Board of Directors is even more important. In 2004 it was chaired by Karel Vinck. In addition, delegate director was Leo Pardon, from sp.a, whom we had recently seen in Terzake and who is now in retirement. There was also Jean Denayer, chief executive officer of Material, CD&V, who is also retired. Tony Van den Berghen, chief staff officer of sp.a. is also retired. Luc Lallemand of the PS, a name that will still come back, was Chief Financial Officer. Marc Descheemaecker was already in charge at the time; he was Chief Executive Officer of Goods. He is from Open Country. Jean-Marie Raviart, Chief Infrastructure Officer, is now retired. Who wanted to count on the government commissioner: that was then Mrs. Christine Servaty, with an Ecolabel. All the people with a party card who were there. Now those same political parties are going to urgently investigate what happened to the Fyra, simply because those people with their party card did not do their job, did not know their dossier, did not watch it, in fact only approved what others have chewed them.

It’s now 2013, but who would think we’re better off now, comes back from a bald journey. If we look again at the structures for the train launched on December 9, have those structures within the NMBS then been able to check whether the Fyra was on the right track? You have asked yourself, Mr. Van den Bergh: how can that happen and what has all gone wrong? I wonder what those people have done in the boards. I give a flower reading of some of the people who are in the boards.

First, the most important is the NMBS. The party card of Mr. Descheemaecker is clear. His ambitions are even more clear, with all the political games wandering.

The board of NMBS, for example, is chaired by Mrs. Laurence Bovy, who holds a party card from the PS. Mrs Laurence Bovy earned €38,500 to attend the 19 meetings of the Board of Directors in 2012. Mrs. Bovy, I wish you congratulations, for not doing your job.

We then move on to Mr. Jean-Claude Fontinoy, also a member of the Board of Directors. He was already a member in 2004 and therefore should have knowledge of matters. He is an expert of the dossier and has a party card from Mr. He earned in 2012 for attending the meetings of the Board of Directors 10 500 euros, again for not doing his job.

Kris Lauwers is also a driver and a member of the CD&V. Mr. Van den Bergh, have you not received phone calls from Kris Lauwers, to report to you what was all so fuzzy in the file? Apparently he did not do his job. Nevertheless, he earned 24,100 euros, which is not badly paid, to come to the meeting nineteen times.

We then come to a PS’er, Mr. Renaud Lorand, driver, who earned 22 900 euros.

There are also Mr Philippe Matthis, director and CDH’er, and Mrs Lieve Schuermans of the Open Vld, who earned 16,100 euros.

Finally, there is Mrs. Angeline Van Den Rijse, driver on behalf of the sp.a, who earned 23 200 euros.

It is again about all people with a party card, who sat in the board of directors on behalf of their party. What they did there, I do not know. In any case, they did not follow the NMBS file.

Whoever would think these drivers may have other talents is right. For example, Mrs. Laurence Bovy is the Director of the Cabinet of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Social Affairs and Public Health. Apparently there are its priorities. They are clearly not in the NMBS and ⁇ not in the Fyra.

Mr Fontinoy is an expert in the Cabinet of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and an expert in the Cabinet of the Minister of Budget. He is an expert in many things, but ⁇ not in the Fyra.

Mr. Lorand is Cabinet Chief of the Vice-Minister-President of the Wallonian Government and Minister of Economy, KMO, Foreign Trade and New Technologies. Speaking of new technologies, I don’t think the Fyra falls under that.

Finally, Mrs. Angeline Van Den Rijse is the secretary of the ABVV, general headquarters of Antwerp-Waasland. I hope that she does more useful work there than in the board of directors of the NMBS.

I have only mentioned the board of directors of the NMBS. There is also the NMBS-Holding, because also there are a number of political creatures, who apparently only watch over the party-political interests and not the interests of the travellers, not even the financial interests of the NMBS.

I have already mentioned Mr. Jannie Haek. Jean-Claude Fontinoy is also sitting there again on behalf of MR. In addition to his income at the NMBS, he received 67,300 euros on behalf of the NMBS-Holding last year for 14 meetings of the Board of Directors. I wonder what he did.

And now the Court of Audit will suddenly show everything, while those people did not do their job there. I do not need the Court of Auditors to come to that conclusion.

Mr. Eddy Bruyninckx was also present in 2004. He earned thanks to CD&V last year a gross gross of 26 800 euros.

Mr Paul Matthys, on behalf of CD&V, earned 39 175 euros.

Mr. Luc Joris, on behalf of the Socialist Party, earned 27 100 euros for attending the meetings of the Board of Directors of the NMBS-Holding.

Ms. Catherine Gernay, of the MR, earned 26,800 euros last year. Lieve Schuermans, again Open Vld, earned 38,100 euros in 2012. Ms. Magali Verdonck, of Ecolo — despite not having any governmental responsibility and shouting murder and fire in the Fyradossier — earned about €23,600 in that board last year. Mr. Melchior Wathelet, now Secretary of State, served on behalf of the CDH and was still able to attend a number of meetings last year, at which he earned 6 683 euros. Marianne Vergeyle, of Greens — Greens apparently still has a nice representative within the Holding — earned 24 000 euros in 2012.

Ladies and gentlemen, let me talk a little more about Infrabel. In the end, Infrabel will ensure that the trains that arrive on the railroad meet the certification. Ultimately, it is the manager of the railway network. It is also of interest to ensure that a train, a Fyra, a boomerang train or a Benelux train meets the requirements. Mr Luc Lallemand of the PS has already been mentioned. Ms. Christine Vanderveeren, of CD&V, received the sum of 35 500,04 euros for fifteen meetings of the Board of Directors of Infrabel. Mr. Antoon Colpaert, of the sp.a, received 22 199 euros. Ms. Fabienne Gorlier, of CDH, received € 20,399 EUR. Mr. Henry-Jean Gathon, of the MR, received 22 699 euros. Mr. Jan Kerremans, from Open Vld, received 21 899 euros. Ms. Mieke Offeciers — it’s been a long time since we’ve heard that name — from CD&V, received 22 699 euros. Finally, Mr Laurent Vrijdaghs, from the MR, received 22 699 euros.

Again, these are all names of people who earn a lot of money on their party card and on their party loyalty, but apparently they do not perform as much as it is about their job, about evaluating that file.

What are we actually asking? In a resolution, we ask the Court of Auditors to make a “summary” once, to make a cautious attempt, but in any case to ensure that those persons remain out of shoot. They are there for other reasons, for other interests. Well, I think those people did not do their job.

It is then ⁇ hypocritical that those parties – apparently letting the N-VA turn a wheel in this regard – suddenly shout murder and fire and declare that an urgent investigation should be conducted on that Fyra.

As regards the investigation of the Fyra, the Court of Audit itself has already stated that it is not competent to conduct that investigation.

Mr Veys, Mr Vancouver is asking for the word. This will disrupt all this listing of numbers!

I have finished, Mr. President.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Veys, I can greatly appreciate your speech with the listing of the members of the board of directors, but you should be careful to draw conclusions that are not correct at all. You can choose to shoot a mosquito with an elephant today, which, by the way, you will not find any support for.

We want an investigation into whether government money has been misused. That seems to be the core of the research. In the end, the Fyra is a commercial initiative of the NMBS and I would like to point out equally clearly that we, as Members of Parliament, in principle do not have to intervene in it. We will therefore fully support this resolution.

Mr. Vandeput, we will talk again when the Court’s report is ready, but it is already clear that the Court will not be able to show where the responsibilities lie and where the mistake went. We do not let that pass. We therefore call for the establishment of an investigation committee.

I note that you have a crystal ball. I ask you to go step by step. Mr. Veys, we have already been informed in advance that we will have to take further steps if the Court of Auditors fails to give an adequate answer and give us the means to find out what exactly happened.

Mr. Vandeput, we are fortunate to have started together in the Chamber and to have done useful work together in the Infrastructure Committee and the Railway Safety Special Committee. You have also witnessed the countless statements of the Court of Auditors. The Court of Auditors has always been knocked on a wall. No crucial information was disclosed. So, you know in advance how limited the research will be. Therefore, only an investigative committee will be able to go to the bottom. That is what we want.

We want to go to 2004 and not limit ourselves to Mr. Descheemaecker’s hypocrisy or the show Mr. Van den Bergh comes here to sell to make public that something needs to be done. We want a real investigation. This can only be done by this Parliament.

I was quoting from what the Court of Auditors itself says about a question to be investigated. I quote the Court of Auditors, in a letter to the Committee on Infrastructure: “International passenger transport does not belong to the tasks of public service subject to the audit of the Court of Auditors. Therefore, the Court of Auditors does not have a legal control power in relation to these activities.’

Mr. Descheemaecker has looked at it very carefully. He submitted the file to the Parliament. There is a judicial investigation. All the doors are closed immediately, because the investigation is secret. That’s where we stand, as parliament, with our resolution that would let us all know. The resolution is an empty box. We already know that, but apparently it’s too hard to admit it and you’d rather join the “democratic parties.” I am disappointed with the N-VA, but we will see when the proposal for the establishment of the investigation committee comes on the committee’s agenda.

Finally, a word on that proposal. I am glad that the president is there too.

Mrs. Speaker, it was noticeable that at the time the resolution was scheduled in the committee, a similar but much more extensive proposal for the establishment of an investigative committee was not scheduled by you. When I answered you about this, you said that you had never received a request for scheduling. I told you that such a request was sent. Mrs. Pas can show you. It seems to me logical that the proposals for an investigation into the Fyra are scheduled at the same time.

We have never had that opportunity, but I hope to be able to work on it in the near future. I repeat that only with a real commission of investigation will we find out what went wrong, who is guilty, which heads should roll, and which pockets are filled.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reply to Mr. Veys’ speech.

First, there is a difference between a request for scheduling and a request for merger. I have not received a request to combine the proposal of the Flemish Interest with the scheduled resolution. That is why the two proposals were not merged. This merger only occurs automatically for designs.

It is not that we have played a “parliament” in this case, as Mr. Veys has said. We have played on the ball in this file from the beginning. The Parliament demands transparency and we have so far obtained that. We started a joint session earlier this year with our colleagues from the Second Chamber under the flag of the Benelux Parliament. Following the decision to terminate the Fyrac Contract, we continued to exchange thoughts with the competent minister Labille, the NMBS, State Secretary Wathelet and the people of DVIS. We are in close contact with our colleagues from the Second Chamber, where we were present last week with a delegation. Everyone was given the opportunity to candidate for that delegation. We attended a round table.

I don’t think it’s about “playing parliament.” We have played on the ball from the beginning and we will continue to do so in this very fateful case. Open Vld has therefore supported this resolution.

I would like to say a few words in support of the proposal. Van den Bergh, and which we have co-signed, aimed at asking the Court of Auditors to analyze the Fyra case which has taken an incredible scale since January of this year and which has been discussed at the highest level by our Prime Minister and the Italian Prime Minister.

This is a case on which we need to ask for more transparency, more information, more analysis. We are not afraid of this transparency. The question is, of course, how this train was able to run one day. How, from the procedures that led to the purchase to the commissioning of the branches of AnsaldoBreda, have we been able to reach such a commercial and industrial fiasco?

Things are not simple. In fact, several states are involved in this case; the President of our commission has stated this. Several railway companies are involved in this fiasco. The hearings that have taken place so far have already allowed us to better understand a series of mechanisms that have been implemented, a series of problems that have arisen. But essential questions remain in suspension, to which we expect clear answers, at a time when, of course, this dossier is the subject of manoeuvres behind the scenes, of a certain war of the tranches, while it is necessary to decide on the names of the new owners of the rail.

This file raises important questions regarding governance and project management with the railway company. Furthermore, we cannot be content with an audit report ordered by one of the actors at stake and which has now been transmitted to the Justice Department. We need an independent, thorough and transparent analysis. This analysis, I am sure the Court of Auditors can provide us with it. She has already helped our commission a lot in rail safety and group structure reform issues. We can trust him to bring us a series of new answers regarding this matter.

Mr Balcan, thank you very much. Indeed, the Court of Auditors is an institution to be used more and more: it has demonstrated its competence in the past.

Somebody ask-t-il yet the word? (Not to)