Proposition 53K2893

Projet de loi relatif à la réforme des chemins de fer belges.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

June 20, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

company structure rail transport

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) voted to reject.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) 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 ¶

July 10, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Dear colleagues, this bill constitutes the very first phase of the SNCB Group’s reform, the adoption and implementation of which is necessary for the subsequent approval of the multiannual investment plan and the transport plan.

The reform of the SNCB Group structures is necessary for three reasons. The first is the obligation to comply with EU regulations. Second, the Belgian railway needs stability and evolution. Third, it is urgent to improve the quality of the public service in order to regain the trust of users and staff.

The new structure of the SNCB Group presented in the bill is structured around two autonomous public companies: on the one hand, the railway company that will become the single point of contact for its customers, i.e. having a business-to-customer link, and, on the other hand, the infrastructure manager who will focus on optimizing rail capacity and train traffic, i.e. having a business-to-business link.

This is part of the European Railway Regulation. In addition, through the creation of HR Rail – a new single employer structure – this reform will preserve the uniqueness of social consultation within the National Paritary Commission and the unique status of the railroad carrier.

Given that this highly technical and extensive reform involves a large number of public authorities and third parties, this bill sets out the main axes of the reform and empowers the King to implement it in the most appropriate way within a precise framework.

The discussions in the Infrastructure Committee were intense and very interesting. The bill was approved without amendments.

Allow me, Mr. President, Mr. Minister, Dear colleagues, to conclude my speech by pointing out that my group welcomes the adoption of this bill, which constitutes the first essential step towards an absolutely indispensable reform of the SNCB Group. The current structure has reached its limits. It was crucial to reorganize it in order to put the carrier back at the center of concerns for the SNCB Group’s public service.

More transparency, more efficiency, the SNCB as the only point of contact for the user, all these changes go in the right direction to restore trust between the Group and the carriers.

This reform is only the beginning of a long process of reforming the Group, which will be followed by the adoption of the 2013-2025 PPI.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, from the number of people present here, I can see that the Parliament has already formed an image of the historic decision we stand for here, to replace mistakes made a good ten years ago today with other mistakes.

We will therefore again stand here later – hopefully not in ten years, but probably earlier – to say that the adjustments, the so-called reform of the structures of our national railway company, insofar as they would have changed, do not meet what the traveler and the State need, nor what we can still pay socially; then we will say that we have sat next to it.

In this sense, my explanation will be rather limited. I will focus on three small points. It is really not difficult to go further into it, because with the first sentence is immediately said the last sentence.

Everything that has been said over the past few years about the structures of the national railway company is being taken on the scratch today. We had three entities, where it was not clear to anyone who was responsible for what, except that the appointments at all levels were political and that one was engaged in everything except with the essence of the matter, being people on time, to bring a socially acceptable price and safely from A to B, and in addition to transporting some goods.

There were three entities and we are now going with a historical reform – the word “historical” we will hear so soon again often – which replaces three entities with three entities.

There was the NMBS that was the operator and carried out the transport, there was the infrastructure manager Infrabel and there was the NMBS-Holding, which initially served – of course at the request of the trade unions – to maintain the unity status. Of course, within the railway group, they have a unity status.

In addition, the NMBS-Holding also developed all sorts of activities that have nothing to do with the railways in the distant distance, but it did not in any way prevent itself from interfering everywhere.

There were three structures. What do we get now?

As an operator, the NMBS is the only contact of the traveller. And finally ! Infrabel, or whatever it will be called, because the name is not yet known, will be responsible for the infrastructure and will build a business-to-business relationship with the operators. In addition, there is the “holding light”, which already has a name. It will be called HR Rail. It begins with a H and will soon end with “olding”. We will see how far this will go.

Today they will try to tell you that that HR Rail is a real entity, but read the text on it, and the opposite will become clear to you.

Three entities are replaced by three entities. A great step forward. A few more positions will be created: the parity committee will be expanded, and HR Rail will also need to have some additional managers. In the end, everything remains roughly the same. That explains why the political families in Parliament remained quiet. I remember that the sp.a for the Christmas trip was a great advocate of a unity structure, like Green that is still today and thus testifies of some honesty. I also remember Open Vld, which at the mouth of the nestor of its group submitted a resolution calling for the division of the railway group into two entities. Who am I to doubt former Minister of Transport De Croo? I think he had a clear view of the matter. But today also says Open Vld: “This is the big change we need for the future.”

What is the future for our railways? My opinion is that it will take five to ten years. What will happen in those five to ten years? The same thing happened for the freight transport, although the trade unions are still not convinced that this should be the case. In any case, one day the liberalization of the internal travel market will come.

Now that the current structures are on the lookout, let us look at how we can make them so that societies are best armed to face future challenges. That is where it eventually comes down. This has happened in Belgium in the past. Belgacom has been restructured into a quasi-private company with large dividends for the State. This has also happened with bpost, which has been introduced on the stock exchange and brings large dividends to the State. However, the NMBS costs the State 3 billion a year and remains losing. The NMBS continues to build debt.

But what happens now? Infrabel is indeed responsible for the infrastructure, but the stations are not infrastructure. However, I do not know how to define it otherwise; however, the stations now appear to be at home at the NMBS, at the operator. It is as if, at the time when Sabena was in difficulty and near bankruptcy, one would have given to Sabena also the airport of Zaventem, because it would otherwise succeed for Sabena. Everyone else would be very happy with it and ⁇ the traveler would be served with it. Who can understand that logic?

It is clear that this will lead to decisions that will make it difficult later to effectively liberate the market. This is a socialist choice. I still have respect for this, Mr. Minister. That’s a choice you can make, but it’s not the right choice. They are strangely attached to what has been. In the Committee on Railway Safety we have heard it again clearly: in fact, there is only one problem with railways, namely that the trade unions themselves are no longer in the boards of directors. This is actually the point, according to the testimony given yesterday by the people there.

Thus, the stations are housed at the NMBS. Also the large number of subsidiaries that today belong to the NMBS-Holding will likely end up in the NMBS. We do not know yet. It cannot be a conscience. In any case, you choose today not to prepare our railway manager and our railway operator for the future. We will act differently.

This is what has been and what will come: no change. To carry out that non-change, you need something that allows you to avoid the Parliament’s annoying questions a little. Here you are now, after one and a half years of study work. I remember the government agreement, which stated that there would be a proposal, within six months, for a restructuring of the railway company into fewer entities. Today, after a year and a half, we see three entities again. We should also give all these things out of hand by giving powers to the Minister.

If this restructuring would be as historical as it is claimed, if this would be the big change that would put our railways back on track, and if this would be a great progress, then I would make the choice as a minister to do as much as possible with the Parliament, because every time again you could say: look at how good we are and listen to our good news.

But no, there are obviously things in which Parliament is not involved, there are obviously things that need to be settled. Are we talking about posts or other things? I do not know. In any case, one chooses not too much control and for KBs, in the hope that slightly less attentive people’s representatives can make no point about it. Mr. Minister, I can assure you that I will review every KB with argusogog. I will continue to pursue you.

Mr. Minister, if you take care of a historical fact today, it is because you are registering in the history books with another wrong choice for our railway company.

Colleagues, it will probably not surprise you that my group will vote with conviction against this draft.

Mr. Speaker, after today’s yet more acidic intervention, we may have to look at what lies ahead in a different way.

We agree on one thing. After eight years, we must conclude that the current structure of the NMBS Group is inefficient, too expensive and confusing. It is confusing for the passengers and the staff. A few examples show this immediately. Both Infrabel and the NMBS communicate with passengers about train traffic. To do this, they use their own communications services, their own ICT tools and various applications. Train guides covered by the NMBS are not allowed to communicate directly with the people of Traffic Control, causing the flow of information to slow and not run optimally. In the meantime, a few small steps have already been taken in the right direction, but optimally, this is not yet working. The management and operation of the stations and the stops are divided across the Holding, the NMBS and Infrabel, with the result that today we have three types of stations, three brands, discussions about who is responsible for what and there is no unambiguous point of contact for travellers.

Consequences like these are obviously felt on the ground. The accuracy leaves much to be desired. When train traffic is disrupted, communication often turns in the soup. There are doubts about security. Travellers often feel more a necessary evil than welcome customers.

It was therefore evident that a redistribution of activities was imposed. The government agreement therefore provided for a reform of the structures and an organisational simplification of the entire NMBS Group. Mr. Vandeput likes to talk about an evolution from three companies to three companies, but I think he knows in the meantime that the nuance is somewhat different than that.

The contours outlined today by this Authorisation Act are the result of extensive hearings held on this subject in the Infrastructure Committee. As CD&V, we have consciously taken a awaiting stance during those hearings. We wanted to listen, in an objective way, without prejudice and without taboos, to all the speakers, all the institutions that have given their vision and only then form our opinion. After all, if one cannot or does not dare to explore alternatives to such a reform with an open mind, one still stays on the ground.

What have we forgotten from those hearings, the many written opinions and the Court’s report? The first point is that the ideal structure may not exist. Nearly every model has its advantages and disadvantages and ultimately it all depends on how a model is operationalized.

A strong regulator is important. I will come back to that a little later.

A third element is that the European Commission will clearly further the path of a clear separation between the infrastructure manager and the operators. This will happen in steps, in phases, but sooner or later it will go in that direction.

A fourth element is that stability is essential for the success of a structure. Therefore, at least it must be the ambition to form a structure that can last as long as possible.

From all the findings, from the hearings, from those findings, we have distilled a number of conditions that the new structure for CD&V must meet.

First, and that will probably not contradict anyone, the customer must be at the center. Who believes in a structure that goes from the customer, rather than in a structure that goes top-down from the state and the infrastructure manager outlines the railroad landscape...

Mr. Van den Bergh, I listen carefully to you and I agree with you when you say that the customer should be at the center of the whole story. Can you point out where in the legal texts, in addition to the general introduction about the customer that should be central to the whole story, the measures are embedded to effectively put the traveller at the center?

I will get to it immediately, Mr. Vandeput. If you approach the conclusion that the stations come to the railway operator, it is just from that customer-focused vision: one point of contact for the traveller from when he arrives at the station, to go through the station to the train he wants to take. If he has one point of contact for all these steps, we are already a whole step further in the customer-focused approach. This is one of the objectives set out in the agreement.

A second element or second criterion that we had pushed forward is a translation of the customer-oriented vision into a B2B and a B2C concept: a B2B between the infrastructure manager and the railway operators and a B2C between the railway operators and the customer. This is also the customer-focused vision we talked about, Mr. Vandeput.

I come to a third criterion. A new structure will only succeed if the people who operate in it will participate in the story. That is very important. You go over that quite lightly, but if the staff members, the cheminots, do not step in the story of the restructuring, then we are nowhere. Then we are nothing with the structure, because then there will be no trains. It is there ultimately to do.

Fourth, in any field, someone must clearly have the leadership. A overlap of powers such as we know too much today is unacceptable.

Fifth, the structure should be stable.

Sixth, a collaboration between CEOs is crucial for the structure to succeed. To establish that this is not happening optimally today is to enter an open door.

Seventh, the debt, which has so far reached roughly $4 billion, should not put a mortgage on the prospects for the operator in the future, as then the supply would have to shrink sharply.

Eighth, there must be full financial transparency. Debt must be stabilized and the wild growth of branches must be stopped.

Ninth, the regions should have a greater role. Through their presence in the boards of directors, they must have a voice in all decisions on rail mobility in the different regions.

Finally, the role of the regulator should be strengthened. I agree that further steps need to be taken in this regard.

The original plan of more than thirteen months ago, still by then Minister Magnette, did not fully meet the criteria that we had pushed forward and was still far from the customer-focused model. Fortunately, today we can see that the focus has actually shifted from the infrastructure manager then to the operator today, to the one who comes in most contact with the customers. The cricket lines were adjusted and a strong operator was created, which ultimately leads a lot to the new NMBS, as described in the plan-Vervotte of the previous legislature.

That new NMBS will be responsible for all customer service, for the management of the stations and for information and communication. A clear definition of tasks will end paraplupolitics. While in the past it was always the fault of others, in the future each company will have to assume its own responsibility.

This is also a positive evolution for the staff, because despite their commitment, they have too often identified imperfections in the field due to the current structure. The staff also deserves the necessary clarity.

The authorisation law as it now proposes, therefore, meets the criteria as we have put forward. We will approve that law. With that approval we are not there. We still have a lot to do to make the restructuring a stable success.

We would like to give you a few points that deserve the necessary attention in the coming days, weeks and months.

The level of the rideway fees is an element that will need to be thoroughly considered throughout the whole story of the financial flows, of the debt restructuring and the like. The costs will have to be reflected in a realistic way. It is impossible to keep the fees artificially high, leading to the increasing abolition of non-cost-efficient trains. In this way, the public service is compromised.

The CEOs, who are expected to be appointed soon, will play a crucial role in setting up the new structure and will therefore also be a crucial factor in the success of the new structure. They must gain the trust of all parties and can and will cooperate in a constructive way. In that sense, I would therefore like to assist the minister when he stated last week that it might be good to start with a clever lease with regard to the CEOs.

The re-enrollment should not only focus on the structure, but also on the planning of the business units within this structure.

Finally, the integrated transportation offer, which is mentioned in the law, should not remain a dead letter. It is urgent, I refer to the OECD report in this regard, to work on a networked mobility vision that will allow train, bus, tram and subway to be aligned.

Finally, I would point out that a structure alone is not blissful. A structure is only a necessary prerequisite for a good and efficient organization. However, it does not offer any guarantee. We are confident that with the bricks prepared today, a modern and efficient organization can be built; a home where customers and staff feel welcome and that can stand in a competitive environment.

We will therefore approve this authorization law today, so that one can get to work quickly and realize the transition smoothly in the course of the coming weeks and months.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, this bill constitutes a major step in the completion of the reform of the structure of the SNCB Group, a reform called by all the parties confused and inscribed in the government agreement.

First of all, I find it useful to recall why such a reform. Without tracing the entire history of the debates conducted within the Parliament, within the Infrastructure Committee, but also, indirectly, during the work of the Special Committee on Rail Safety, a single conclusion was necessary.

The existing SNCB Group structure was engulfed in its inconsistencies, in its approximations, in its lack of transparency and, above all, in its lack of efficiency. A new structure was therefore needed, a structure bringing greater clarity and transparency, for shippers as well as for employees of the SNCB Group. A simpler structure that would eliminate inconsistencies and duplicates. In short, a structure better prepared for the different challenges of the world or rather of the railway world of today and tomorrow, and this even though we are far from sharing the vision of railway Europe.

Let us not be mistaken. A reform of such an extent is not a simple operation. As we have demonstrated from auditions organized within the Infrastructure Committee, there is no standard model, key on door, that can be transposed in all countries. Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Germany, each country has its own model, its own history and a very specific rail network.

To believe that it would be enough to make a copy-paste of another existing model is a mistake. To believe that this reform is a simple operation is another.

As I pointed out at the beginning of my speech, this project is a major step setting the fundamental principles of the future new SNCB Group, which will consist of two entities: on the one hand, the autonomous public undertaking, railway operator, which will be the only and only point of contact for travellers – you will allow me to use this term rather than that of customers – and, on the other hand, the infrastructure manager who will focus on optimizing railway capacity and train traffic.

For my group, it has always been obvious that the structure chosen must absolutely preserve the uniqueness of social consultation within the national parity commission and the unique status of the railroad. The creation of a new HR Rail structure guarantees what was and will always be an absolute requirement for Socialists.

Another point of this reform, which we have already insisted on during our discussions, Mr. Minister, is the importance of the transport agreement. This agreement, which you have called a “contract” in commission, will be a crucial point of this reform.

Indeed, the best of structures is nothing without the guarantee of seeing entities collaborate with each other in the most efficient of ways.

The role of this transport agreement will therefore be to avoid collaborative breaches that would risk undermining this reform that has required enormous work.

This reform has not yet come to an end. There are still many studies and analyses to be carried out before we can settle, point by point and accurately, the set of effective measures. This project draws the skeleton of the future new SNCB Group, which will be simplified and enhanced for the benefit of travelers and railroads.

All this has required numerous discussions and debates as well as countless working groups. It is through this consultation and these discussions that this reform of the SNCB Group will be effective within the specified timeframe, because such a reform must be made in dialogue and with the active participation of the various actors of the railway world, including railroads and users.

Ms. Musin, I have listened to you carefully, but I have not received a response to this question either in the committee and so I repeat them here. I just hear you say that this is a first step in reform, that there is still a lot of work on the shelf, that it is only about a skeleton.

Can you then give a glimpse of the next steps that will be taken, because the minister does not do it? What reforms can we expect in the near future?

During the discussions we had in the committee, we actually drawn the contours of the reform. That’s why I’m talking about skeleton. Everything is in place here. Of course, the work that will be done afterwards has also been explained in the committee. Everything at its time, I think.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the reform of the structures of the SNCB Group is an important step, which must contribute to improve the situation of the Belgian railway. I will not return to the context in which this reform is indispensable, other colleagues have done it before me.

But I would like to clarify that on the ground, unhappy passengers and minutes of delay are no longer counted. In the public opinion, it must be acknowledged that the image of the railway is catastrophic. The expectations of the population in terms of transport supply, intermodality, punctuality, service quality and safety are huge.

This bill therefore proposes a new organization in two entities with clear competences: B to C for the SNCB and B to B for Infrabel. This seems to us the best approach to evolve in a market that will, whether you like it or not, become increasingly competitive. We are ⁇ pleased with the central place reserved for customers with the railway company as a single interlocutor.

In this reform, which is in line with the European evolution, I highlight two essential elements: the transport agreement concluded between the entities, which will avoid many dysfunctions such as those we have known and improve both internal and external communication; the creation of a joint subsidiary, HR Rail, which will maintain the unique status of railroads and promote a more serene social climate.

This law of empowerment to the government we vote for is important, but it must be acknowledged that the hardest thing remains to be done. Many questions still have to be answered, and many ways remain to be clarified.

Therefore, the issue of debt remains pending. How will it be distributed? This is a crucial problem as the debt continues to increase and could even, according to the latest forecasts, exceed 4 billion by December 31 next year. It is urgent to control the financial situation of the SNCB Group. The same goes for the rationalization of subsidiaries. The Court of Auditors also recommends such a measure. Mr. Minister, you answered that this plan will be the future CEO.

The SNCB should become a leading player in mobility. This implies that it provides a whole range of effective services. I think, for example, of railway stations, parking lots, information. Beyond rail management and transportation, mobility actors must be able to integrate a more comprehensive vision of mobility by integrating all modes of travel, as recommended in the OECD report.

This reform is not an end in itself. Other issues are on the table: the multiannual investment plan, the transport plan – of which we haven’t read any lines at the moment – the management contracts, the continuation of investments in terms of security, as recommended by the Buizingen commission, but also the appointment of members of future boards of directors and, finally, new CEOs who will have to bring this new structure to life and prove its effectiveness.

The MR Group will, of course, support this bill with enthusiasm, but will remain attentive to the urgent and multiple challenges that railway companies and infrastructure managers will face.

Many discussions and hearings were held in the Infrastructure Committee. Even if this is a government-enabled project, we want to continue this work constructively, because the challenges and files are legion.

I thank you for your attention.

Mr. Minister, it was January 2012, when we discussed in the Infrastructure Committee the policy note of your predecessor, Minister Magnette. The idea was then encouraged to allow Parliament to actively participate in the implementation of the government agreement on the restructuring of the NMBS. The government agreement provided for a reduction in the number of entities, a better service to the traveller, a more coherent management and the preservation of the status of the railway staff.

On 8 February 2012 we decided in the committee to organize hearings. They lasted from February to June 2012. Today, members here argue that it has not gone fast enough. I want their answers that the committee organized hearings during the first half of 2012.

The hearings in question were very extensive and thorough. We have heard, among other things, Mr. Kaufmann, Chief Executive Officer of the DG Move of the European Commission. Mr. Vinck also came to the committee. We had representatives of Deutsche Bahn, the NS and many other key speakers on the floor. They have had a significant added value in determining the positions by the various parties. Mr Van den Bergh has already mentioned this. They also helped the government to make the final decision.

Mr. Minister, in June 2012, your predecessor came out with a note choosing the division, as he believed the model with the overlapping holding had failed.

We discussed the note of Minister Magnette in the committee in October 2012. Back in October 2012 there was the Audit Report of the Court of Auditors on the financial flows, also a very important fact in the file, which we then discussed.

Mr. Minister, after the change of ministers at the beginning of this year and the preparation of the texts, we then had the discussion on your bill in the committee in June 2013.

With the timeline I have outlined here, as chairman of the Infrastructure Committee, I would like to emphasize that the committee was strongly involved in the present important dossier and that there was transparency.

Can I ask you immediately to guarantee that involvement and transparency in the future, even if you are currently working with an authorization law? Several speakers have already mentioned it.

You have said about that authorization law: “The resort to an authorization law is not an attempt to lift a smoke curtain and conceal the plans of the government.” You have added that, given the scale and complexity of such a process, it was impossible to determine from the outset all the operations, modalities and measures required for this purpose. Therefore, you explained that in the present case, an authorisation law is the most appropriate working method. Nevertheless, I urge you to involve the committee in the formulation of the KBs, which you have been questioned about and which you say will be further worked on in the coming months.

Regarding the content of the bill, Open Vld has always fully supported the choice for the two-entity model, without holding. I list a number of reasons for this. Initially, such a model is more efficient and transparent. It is the implementation of the government agreement. It also enables a clear and logical separation of the powers between Infrabel and the NMBS. Also important is the fact that the division, together with the limitation of the number of branches, should make the company financially healthier. There is also the financial aspect, which colleague De Bue has already mentioned. In particular, transparency is needed in relation to the huge debt that the company torments, and the financial flows between the different entities.

A two-entity model should also improve the quality of service. The enhanced cooperation will be mainly through the transport agreement.

Last but not least, it is very important for us that the chosen model offers the necessary sustainability at the European level. The European aspect is very important in the case. In our view, for European sustainability, it was the only possible choice.

Finally, Mr. Minister, I would like to call on you, now that the framework is available – Ms. Musin spoke of skeleton – to quickly work on its completion.

Important here is the appointment of the CEOs and the determination of their salary, so that stability can be achieved in a major public company. Mr. Minister, if that is all over – you promised that it will happen even before the transit – the railway companies will have to prove that in the new structure they can make the trains run more smoothly and provide a better service to the train passenger.

Mr. Minister, the reform of the NMBS is like a route – to stay in train stops – with different stations and stops. To be honest, at one point we asked if the train would still leave the stop, because we thought the reform was complicating and ultimately not being completed. Today’s debate is to answer the question of whether the proposed reform will bring our Belgian railway companies back on the rails. This is a fundamental debate about a framework law. With its implementation, we actually outline the future vision for the railway companies.

Mr Vandeput has already cited that at the beginning of the discussion I was in favour of an integrated structure. I read two weeks ago in the committee the proposal for a resolution from colleague Balkans. It contained a lot of valuable elements in order to come to that integrated structure.

During the committee meetings, we heard for and against an integrated structure. In the previous legislature we had the opportunity to go to Switzerland. Those who attended were undoubtedly impressed by the efficiency with which the Swiss organized their railway company and their public transport. However, I am equally aware that the Swiss model is not simply transportable to our country. Some countries have a holding model, whether or not with branches. Others advocate a strong separation between the railway operator and the infrastructure manager. This model, which the European Commission came here to defend, has been very memorable to me. I have already said, and I repeat it today, that I am very pleased that the Ayatollahs of the free market who live on Schuman Square have not succeeded with the strict separation, because I absolutely do not believe that that separation would be good. Furthermore, we must be careful, because in the discussion on the implementation of the Fourth Railway Package, I have noticed, among other things, that there are again tendencies to introduce it.

What is on the table here today is a compromise that sp.a can ⁇ defend. I remember that on June 15, 2012, when your predecessor proposed a note with a different model and a stricter separation, we were not so happy. I am glad that you are here, fellow Balkans. The sp.a has at that time tried to update that note with arguments and examples. We have succeeded in this. We now have an integrated model in which the traveller is at the center. The traveler is the starting point.

Let’s be honest: holding one, two or three companies is a fetish. The focus should be on the traveller. How will the passenger be best served in the distribution of responsibilities between the railway operator and the infrastructure manager? Others have already said it here and I also see this as a boost to networked mobility, because that will ultimately be one of the challenges in the future. Otherwise we will all stand still.

I would like to clarify a few other aspects, first of all the safety.

Safety should be primary. People who step on a train surrender to a system. They want to be transported safely from point a to point b. If we look at the statistics that the ERA gave us last week, it shows that the train is a very safe means of transport. On the other hand, of course, we must also note that in recent years we have had accidents in Buizingen, Godinne and recently in Wetteren. We must constantly hold the finger at the wrist. We have done the same with the Committee on Railway Safety, so that safety remains high on the political agenda, and not only on it, but also on the investment program of future companies.

The second aspect concerns the accuracy. In a discussion at the beginning of this legislature, some found that accuracy has to do with the organization and with whether or not there is a holding. I think the accuracy has to do with the organization of each company in itself. The committee received a statement by Arthur D. on 15 March 2011. Little, in which 120 actions were pushed forward to improve accuracy.

We are now more than two years later. At the time of the study, I once looked at the accuracy figures for neutralization. In March 2011, the accuracy was 87.7%, in 2012 89%, and now, two years later, after the 120 actions should have already partially produced results, the accuracy is only 85%. We can make a lot of recommendations and order studies, but we must conclude that the accuracy has not gone well. The debate about accuracy has not been sufficiently addressed in recent years, because we only talked about the structure.

Therefore, Mr. Minister, I ask you to put that accuracy on the political agenda, so that the travellers no longer have to wait and no longer miss their connection.

The third aspect is about comfort. In recent years, much has been invested to get more train material on our rails. That is a good decision. I believe that those investments in the future investment programme should ⁇ be retained.

In addition to buying new material, it is essential that the material is also properly ⁇ ined and that this is done in an efficient way.

I go every year to give social promotion to the people who work in the workshop in Mechelen. The stories they tell me there about the organization of those workshops and about the amount of material that is not used to transport passengers, but that is only in the workshops, is hallucinating.

It is said that this has to do with the SAP system. That would only be suitable for installation in automotive assembly systems and not for repair. I have asked this question several times, but it is illogical that 20 % of the rolling stock today cannot be used. How can one then ensure that there are sufficient seats on the trains to the coast when that equipment is in the lead?

The aspect of communication – also cited by Mr Van den Bergh – is a real pain point. Whenever a little snow falls or it is a little too hot, a series of questions follows about the communication between the two organizations.

The reason for this is the collaboration of RDV, the traveler organization, and Traffic Control as two islands. Our committee has therefore made the effort to look at the Netherlands, where there is an enhanced cooperation between the two organizations. I hope this will be considered further with the implementation of these KBs.

I think there is already an incentive. After all, we must at all costs avoid the lack of adequate information to train guides about problems that arise. That only causes aggression towards people who are doing their work at that time.

I come to my fifth element, the staff, the people who are doing their work. This reform will stand or fall with the support of the staff and their representatives.

The government has listened to the trade unions. I find it defensive that HR Rail is created to persuade its staff and trade unions to participate in this reform. Mr. Vandeput will disagree with this, but we must defend this and examine how this can be implemented further. Without the support of the staff, this reform will not succeed.

The last aspect is the guilt. Of course, we can talk a lot about reforms, institutions and institutions, but without financial resources those institutions are nothing.

Ms. De Bue has already said that the debt situation is not brilliant. We must ensure that this reform leads to growth opportunities for those companies. We hope that you will pay attention to this in the coming weeks and months.

On 15 June 2012, Sp.a. was very critical of the note presented here. Today we can support this authorization law. We know that this is a framework law that needs to be supplemented with a number of elements, such as the corporate law framework, the financial measures, the social aspects and an operational division. However, we believe that the summer and the coming months will ⁇ bring time and advice on this subject.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, to kill any suspect from the beginning of this intervention, know, now, that we will vote against your bill because we sincerely think that it is not good for travellers, that it is not good for railroads, that it is not good for sustainable mobility in our country, and that it is not good for the state finances.

How could it be otherwise when your bill does, in reality, only reinforce the shortcomings of the first structural reform of 2004-2005? What flaws are these? As other colleagues have already pointed out, it is the separation of rail trade, the absurd prohibition made to individuals to communicate with each other to solve problems on the ground, the pursuit of separate objectives for increasingly autonomous entities, the competition between Infrabel and SNCB rather than cooperation, the absence of an integrated policy of common objectives for the railway in Belgium, a railway run by public authorities.

Implemented in 2005, the first reform was quickly denounced, prompting one of your predecessors, Ms. Vervotte, to order a first audit on the Group’s malfunctions, available from 2008.

Now, the government chooses to deepen this first reform by verticalizing, making a total separation between Infrabel and the SNCB thus aggravating the 2004 decisions.

Today, we must think of railway workers who can no longer talk to each other because they are part of two separate entities: Infrabel, on the one hand, SNCB, on the other. It is necessary to think about travellers who are shared between various sources of information or faced with escorts who cannot answer their questions because the answer falls within the competence of Infrabel. We must think of travelers who, since 2005, have experienced daily punctuality problems clearly related to the current structure of the Group. I also think of pharaonic investments that were consented because each entity of the Group had to assert its authority and power, without any consideration for the primary needs of the travelers. I still think of the need expressed by the Buizingen Commission to create a common security culture within the Group rather than separate security cultures within each of the autonomous entities.

I will not refocus in detail all the criticisms that are ours. Certainly, a debate was organized in a committee, but you have often shut yourself, Mr. Minister, behind the unadvanced state of the dossier – there is still a lot of work, you said – to bring sometimes summary answers to our questions.

I would like to take advantage of this session to submit to you some more general reflections on the environment and the challenges that are ours today. This project asks us about our relationship to Europe, about the future liberalization of the railway, of which many have spoken in a somewhat resigned way, about the survival of the public service missions and, finally, about how the state drives this mobility policy. Nevertheless, the SNCB Group remains a fundamental tool for sustainable mobility.

With regard to Europe, several colleagues said today that if we vote on this text, it is because Europe wants it. If we vote on this text today, it is not because it is imposed on us by Europe. Mr. Musin, this project is not imposed on us by European texts. by Mr. Magnette has accepted that the European Commission imposes what should be considered an obsession on its part, the vertical separation of historical companies, the separation between the infrastructure manager and the railway companies.

Mr. Minister, I have a little difficulty saying this, but your predecessor has never been left behind when it comes to stigmatizing a certain arbitrary of the European Commission. On January 12, 2012, Mr. Magnette told RTBF: “Today’s Commission is a right-wing Commission, which has an ultra-liberal vision. I see it in the liberalization of the public sector but I see it also in the budget discipline. This Commission must, in the exercise of its powers, which are respected, leave the States the choice of at least the means to ⁇ this goal." he continued, saying: "We must face the European Commission. The major states are in charge of the European Commission. Belgium is not a small country, it is a medium country, it is a country that weighs within the Union and we must also have this critical discourse." This is the Minister, Mr. Magnette, who speaks so about the Commission, but who does not hold his head. At the same time, it agrees to allow itself to impose this unique model of European railways while we could expect states such as Belgium to have the choice of means to ⁇ the objectives set.

Stability was the main argument of Mr. Magnette during the discussions in the committee because it was necessary to avoid any appeal in default of the Commission against our country. It was therefore necessary to accept what he called, in other circumstances, the ukases of the Commission. No, we didn’t stand up to the Commission! However, if one should take a lesson from these weeks of auditions, it is that there is no single model that can be imposed. There is no single model that has proven itself both in terms of rail performance and openness to competition.

Depending on the country-specific network characteristics, the degree of openness to competition, one or the other model more or less integrated or more or less separate may be justified. This is why many actors, including the European Rail Community, are calling for each country to choose how it will implement the objectives of the European Rail Directives.

But Belgium, again, did not dare to choose and she chose, Mrs. Musin, for the key-on-door model. You say there is no key on door model simple to implement, but she has chosen the key on door model, one that, for example, is implemented in England with the results we know. Today, the McNulty Report says: “We need to return to greater regional cooperation between infrastructure managers and railway companies.”

What is annoying is that in the meantime, after the government made the decision of a vertical separation of the SNCB, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled against this Commission obsession and made it clear that there was no single model meaningful shaping the future of railway groups in Europe.

In this regard, it should be recalled that Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of Directive 91/440 requires only an accounting separation between the transport activities carried out by railway undertakings and the activities of management of railway infrastructure. The separation between the activities relating to the provision of transport services by railway undertakings and those relating to the management of railway infrastructure” – Infrabel on the one hand and SNCB on the other in our case – “which can be carried out through separate organic divisions within the same undertaking, as is the case in the context of a holding company.”

You yourself, Mr. Minister, mentioned this tendency of the Commission to want to liberalize everything, especially the railway, the postal sector, while saying that if there is a dominant thought, Europe remains our salvation board. I think, like you, that Europe is our lifeboard, but in railway matters, we did not use this lifeboard, because it would have had to fight at the negotiating table, like France and Germany, and with these two countries and others, impose choices on the Commission. If we had done so, we would not have, today, to approve a project which, I repeat, is not reasonable neither for travellers nor for workers nor for public service missions.

We will all agree that it is necessary to stop criticizing the Commission if we are not ready, in addition, to challenge these options, where they are legitimate, that is, in an arbitrary and unjustified application of European directives, also in the competences related to public enterprises.

Who says Europe says rail liberalization in the near future, whether we like it or not!

Per ⁇ there is a way to work to ensure that this liberalization, in particular the 4th railway package, is the most favourable for our country, and that this 4th package does not challenge the public service tasks, or even the very existence of the SNCB.

We have lived for a few years under the rule of the liberalization of freight transport and we can see the effects. We talked about this again yesterday, if my memories are good, in the Railway Safety Commission.

Under the pretext of rationalization, a whole series of infrastructures were removed across the country and, today, Mr. Minister, what is a comble is that the Walloon companies say they have to wait five days versus two before to send their goods abroad, the fault to the extension of sorting operations. B Logistics will soon be taken over by a major freight operator in Europe, in partnership with Deutsche Bahn, and, like in other sectors such as energy, opening up to competition serves in fact only to create a few dominant operators in Europe, far from pure and perfect competition.

I would like to ask you this question again: what is the attitude of the Belgian government toward the guidelines given by the Commission in the Fourth Railway Package?

We have a lot of personal positions, yours and yours. Wathelet, but what is Belgium’s position today on the liberalization of domestic passenger traffic in 2019?

Many say that, in a grinded and densified country like ours, this liberalization makes no sense. But does the government support the Commission’s proposal, for example, to share public service contracts between three different operators per country, which would de facto mean for Belgium, the regionalization of the rail?

As many have said, when it comes to structures, I think it’s important to know that separating the SNCB into two autonomous entities is preparing for liberalization. I think it is then important to know the government’s project for rail liberalization in Europe and Belgium.

I would also like to talk about how decisions are made in this matter. As many have said, there is, on this matter as well as on others, an expertise from Parliament that wanted to take the hand in this matter. Already in 2009, I remember the hearings on communication and travel information, the hearings on punctuality in 2010 by the Buizingen Commission with the structure issue that was at the heart of our discussions, in particular the difficulty of collaboration between Infrabel and the SNCB, for example regarding the visibility of signals.

On all these issues, there is expertise within Parliament.

On the other hand, the government decides to present a law that you call the law of authorization, which can also be called the framework law or the law of special powers, but the result is there: the parliament is put on the tap for several months, or even a year, for this dossier as fundamental for our citizens, for a dossier as fundamental for the future of mobility in our country.

I will not exaggerate our power, Mr. Minister and Mr. President, but the Buizingen Commission has shown that Parliament can also have an influence on the SNCB. You should have made parliament an ally against the powerful actors you are facing. On the contrary, now we are condemned to see you with the SNCB to try to implement this reform.

One point on the role of the SNCB in this mobility policy; I would like to return to an essential element in my view: the transport agreement.

Your project contains positive points: the unique status of the railroad is preserved, the tasks are made more homogeneous, but the framework law, the one you propose to us, does not exhaustively list the tasks of Infrabel, the tasks of the SNCB. Today, there is still room for some arbitrariness.

But most importantly, while that should have been the heart of this bill, nothing or so little in it relates to the transportation contract.

The government can today say what Infrabel will do, what the SNCB will do, but its bill is unable to present any of the elements explaining future collaboration. No element, no item of this bill presents how Infrabel and SNCB will collaborate to improve punctuality, to improve communication, to ensure that the traveller is treated more comfortably when taking the train, to indicate how Infrabel and SNCB will act together, hand in hand, to bring the RER project to the end in our country.

Do you want to conclude, Mr. Balcaen?

I will finish in three minutes.

by Mr. Mr. Veys requests twenty minutes of intervention. Three and a half minutes. Then we will complete this project.

This is a very important project!

It is one, but it was delayed by a balloon, Mrs ...

We will continue to review this project. We will take this into consideration and vote today. I’m sorry for those to whom I told that we would finish at 19:00, but it won’t be possible.

Regarding the transport agreement, I would like to ask you a real question. How will the common objectives of Infrabel and SNCB be determined? Is it through the transportation agreement, the management contract or another text? How will the federal state, possibly in consultation with the Regions, be able to express what it expects from SNCB and Infrabel for better mobility?

I will not address the issue of debt. I did this in a committee by highlighting the alarming warning of the Court of Auditors in this regard. I would like to say a word about the accompaniment of this reform. This is one of the considerations that have been raised several times by the speakers. Do you have any idea of how future CEOs of SNCB and Infrabel will be shouldered in the implementation of this reform that will take several years?

Others mentioned the problem of financial flows. Hundreds of trains have been removed for years for purely budgetary reasons, because SNCB has been considered by the Group as its milk cow. In fact, it was about ensuring the good health of the financial figures of Infrabel and SNCB Holding. This question is as fundamental, if not more, than that of structures.

I will conclude by repeating that we are against this project. In this crucial moment, for the best or for the worst, Mr. Minister, I nevertheless wish you good luck. Because if you are mistaken, there will be no more pick-up session, neither at the Belgian nor at the European level. This will ⁇ be the end of the Belgian railway in its current structure and mode of operation.

Good luck especially to the SNCB, its users and its workers, because I think the coming months and years will be difficult.

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to apologize to the many Flemish-national colleagues, who may still have obligations on numerous evening 11 July celebrations, but this file should not be dealt with on a draft or on a high-speed train. Moreover, I think that a number of essential arguments for voting against this bill have not been sufficiently addressed.

After hearing the content of the protests of many political parties, namely that they are ready for it, that this is the right choice, and that they have finally understood it, I would like to recommend those who are so positive about the NMBS story and the restructuring to grind in the verbal reports of the committee meetings and of the plenary meetings in 2005. At that time already the restructuring of the NMBS into three entities was called historical. Everyone saw in that restructuring the egg of Columbus. Now, the same parties, those who then approved that restructuring and positioned their own people, say that the NMBS-Holding is poor in terms of accuracy, communication, security and service. What did these parties approve in 2005? What exactly did their political representatives do there?

Mr. Minister, if you can put one plum on your hat, it is for the restructuring. In the end, your predecessor, former Minister Magnette, may have initiated a number of things, but in fact he has realized very little. If we look at the government agreement, he can actually put very few concrete acts and achievements on his palmares.

You have the task of doing this, but the time is very short.

It is now intended to approve that law on a drop-down, and ⁇ not because Minister Labille is yet to go to a July 11 celebration tonight. In the coming months, however, the monkey will come out of the wrist.

Mr. Geerts, I am a little surprised to hear your enthusiasm here. I suspect that you have read the note of ACOD-Spoor, in which it is well-founded and very well-founded — occasionally, apparently, a trade union can also put useful thoughtwork on paper — explaining why that structure will be very nefaste for the organization of the NMBS in the coming years.

I can already assure Mr. Geerts that he will have more clientele in his cafe. Not so much from popularity, but because again we will often be faced with strikes and thus with train passengers who did not get to their work.

Mr Veys, you say first that this is an important debate about the reform of the NMBS, and then you start about the people in my cafe. I think that is below all levels. I will not interrupt you anymore, I will go out. If this is the level you want to conduct the debate, you don’t need 20 minutes and you better stop now.

Mr. Geerts, from me you can rest assured to go to the toogue. It is clear that you do not sell the talk you sold in the committee and that you sell here in the plenary session to your own socialist backbone. We will bear the consequences in the coming months. You say that the traveller is central, but this is clearly not the case with this reform.

I think Mr. Vandeput correctly pointed out that the train passenger should be at the center. I want to do that exercise. However, colleague Van den Bergh, who is now absent, has not been able to demonstrate that the train passenger would suddenly be at the center of these legislative texts.

I was talking about Minister Labille, who had the honor of putting this structure on paper. We will have to wait to see how this will be concretely implemented. We have seen how in 2005 the focus was not so much on the well-being of the train passenger, but above all again on the lucrative mandates within the NMBS Group.

Even now, the ink of the bill is not yet dry, or one is already rolling fighting across the street. Again, the same names are mentioned, from people with an immense long history of ignorance, from manifest unwillingness, from political friends, and from middle-down at the NMBS to numerous daughter and granddaughter companies. Those same people are again pressured into running to crown themselves as the new CEO of the re-born NMBS Group.

Mr. Minister, last week I also summed up in my discussion on which political creatures all sit in those boards of governments and in those executive committees. Someone from another party pointed out to me that this was very funny, but that I had forgotten some names.

In the board of directors of the NMBS-Holding we see Jannie Haek already portrayed. In addition, there are also Sven Audenaert, general director of sp.a, and Michel Bovy of CD&V. Both have a mandate until 2017.

by Mr. I apologize, but last week you already made the listing. Do not repeat the presentation of people.

Mr. Speaker, I received criticism that my review was incomplete. I am a bit perfectionist. I do not want these people to be wronged. They may feel discriminated and may wonder why their name was not mentioned.

I mentioned the members of the Board of Directors last week. Now we’re talking about the management committees, and that’s something completely different.

You can also mention the 20,000 railroads.

I also have those lists.

So we are with the name Vincent Bourlard, with a party card of the PS and a mandate until 2017. Then there is Michel Allé of the PS, with a mandate until 2016. There is government commissioner Marc Boeykens, who until recently worked for Vincent Van Quickenborne when he was still minister, and he is also chairman of the Silver Fund.

In the board of directors of Infrabel are Eddy Clement of CD&V, Luc Vansteenkiste of Open Vld, with a mandate until 2017, and Ann Billiau of cdH, with a mandate until 2017.

In the board of directors of the NMBS are headed by Marc Descheemaecker, Sabin S’heeren of sp.a, with a mandate until 2015, Michel Jadot of the PS, with a mandate until 2015 and Richard Gayetot, also of the PS.

It is clear that not only in the boards of directors, but also in the executive committees, poor work is being done, as the NMBS needs to be restructured. Thus, the people with party cards apparently did not do their jobs.

Mr. Minister, I would like to give you one advice that you can do another thing. I would like to recommend that in the appointments for the boards of directors and the committees of directors, we should not consider the socialist party card, but use objective criteria for the appointment of the right people. If you really mean the importance of the train passenger, then the party card should not count in these.

However, the newspapers are full of names that are mentioned again. For example, to lead the NMBS, a certain Michel Van den Broeck is named, the man who, according to the press, played a leading role in the sale of ABX to the British logistics group GLS. It is said that he has done it successfully. He also sponsored the successful basketball club Oostende. The name Oostende falls more, but I will not attach that club to a particular colleague minister. Nevertheless, I would like to point out that in the file-ABX there is still a fine of 20 million euros above the head of the NMBS. Other colleagues have just referred to the debt cuts of the NMBS. Well, that is a small fraction of 1.7 billion euros – in 2005 it was still 1.3 billion euros – and that will increase every year according to the Court of Auditors. So skilled rally pilot Michel Van den Broeck will not be, but he is mentioned in the circles of Minister Vande Lanotte and Jannie Haek, so then we know what we are about.

Now suppose that the whole carousel with appointments ends falliquently for people like Jannie Haek, Luc Lallemand and Marc Descheemaecker and they come out on the streets, then they get a nice savings of just 800 000 euros. This is decided in the various boards of governments, again by the politically appointed representatives. Three of the general directors will also get a fine arrangement, even though their mandate runs for another five years. They currently have a gross monthly salary of approximately EUR 34 000, including management premiums and commercial cars, plus group insurance. For example, a poor seeker such as Jannie Haek earned in 2012 a gross income of 512 103,74 euros. All this can be read in the annual report of the NMBS-Holding; with those revenues, Jannie Haek, by the way, spends the crown as CEO within the NMBS Group.

Apparently, that structure, which does not meet and needs to be heavily restructured, is still not really in proportion to the wage.

If you do this, you will receive carte blanche again. What will happen today? You will be given practically full freedom to re-sign the entire structure, without the Parliament being able to really weigh on it. I would like to hear the Chairman of the Infrastructure Committee say that we have been involved in the draft law through all sorts of hearings. That is true: the committee has buried itself for about six months in numerous hearings, in which reasonably some relevant matters were said. I will refer to it later.

However, if we look at the draft with which you came to Parliament, I think that you have listened very little and raised very little from the hearings, let alone that you have used arguments – which, however, were before the rape – for the new structure.

This brings me to the essence of my argument. We criticize restructuring because we believe there can only be one good structure and that is the integrated structure. Unfortunately, I must conclude that colleague Geerts is no longer present, because we are on the same line as his trade union ACOD-Spoor. I did not need the 37-page note of ACOD-Spoor. There are numerous examples in Europe that demonstrate that the integrated structure is the best guarantee for good communication, good service, good debt management and good internal cooperation. I think this was the great lesson of the hearings.

I am therefore a little surprised at the analysis of Mrs Lahaye-Battheu, who states that we have learned a lot from the hearings and that the present draft is the crown. The opposite is true. The bill you present today to the House is proof that you have listened very little, let alone the committee involved in the designation of the restructuring. You don’t even give the Parliament the opportunity to weigh on the restructuring, because you will mark everything in the coming months through a mandatory law. For example, you want to start with the new NMBS from 1 January 2014.

It is already clear that you will not be there on 1 January 2014. Maybe the males will be appointed, the jobkes will be distributed, but far beyond that it will not go. We already see that the restructuring, as you have drawn it on paper, is full of shortcomings.

I refer, for example, to the conclusion of the hearing that there are still too many communication channels, that they are not cut in, and that there will still be conflicting information applications for the customer.

When we look at the views of renowned research agencies, such as The Boston Consulting Group, Roland Berger Strategy Consultants and EVIS, all these studies show that an integrated model is the best guarantee to come to an efficient NMBS Group.

I have heard from other colleagues that we need to come from Europe. We do not need Europe at all. From Europe, we only need to provide for a separate accounting entity, which guarantees liberalization. This is about. I hear many socialist colleagues make it clear that the disaster with the freight train in Wetteren is the fault of the liberalization of the freight transport. Now those same sp.a and PS are defending your dual model based on the need for liberalization.

Apparently, liberalization is bad once, if it fits into your wardrobe, and good the other time. A little consequence from the socialist side would ⁇ be in place here.

The integration between infrastructure manager and operator is strengthened structurally in the integrated model, as they are both part of the same industrial group. Another advantage is that the management unit is insured, as the branches are strategically and financially managed by a single CEO.

Of course, the comfort of at least two CEOs within that appointment carousel offers many advantages.

Another aspect is that the staff exchanges between different services are improved thanks to the strengthening of the National Joint Commission and the constructive social dialogue. I have already mentioned that both ACV and ACOD currently indicate opposition to this two-part structure.

Despite all your efforts and moments of consultation, Mr. Minister, you have not succeeded in convincing your own socialist trade union, nor the Christian trade union, of your wonderful plan.

I think it is essential to include the staff as well. We all know how “syndicated” the NMBS structure is. I think you have also put yourself in the wheels in that area.

Another aspect, Mr. Minister, is that the proposed scenario of the integrated structure should improve the accuracy and quality of the service, which also addresses the aspirations of the staff. In the end, Mr. Minister, the staff must ⁇ it. It is the train guides and the train drivers who have to endure the miserable service of the NMBS. It is not the gentlemen Haek or Descheemaecker in their car with driver, who suffer from moisturized train passengers who have already missed a connection or are as sardines stacked in a bowl. No, it is precisely the train staff that gets to endure it and it can begin to explain. If they do not already recognize themselves sufficiently in your restructuring, there should still be a light burning in you.

I also believe that debt management can only be carried out centrally by a single board of directors. Also in this regard, we must wait in the eagery for your great plan, which must come through the KBs. How will you deal with that guilt? We have not heard anything about this in the committee.

The unified structure will result in numerous costs – I refer to the study carried out by the Court of Auditors – still being incurred in the future. Mr. Minister, I therefore urge that the study of the Court of Auditors, with all its limitations – since many doors have also remained closed in this regard – be thoroughly read and to use the findings to come to an integrated model.

Mr. Minister, if that integrated structure is realized, we will at least reach an efficient structure that benefits the traveller. After all, I have serious questions in the story as if the customer was at the center. You have failed to convince me in the committee. That is why, through a number of amendments, I again call on Parliament to reverse the proposed restructuring and move towards an integrated model. This is the best guarantee for the traveler.

Most of the studies – which Ms. Lahaye-Battheu also mentioned in the hearings – have correctly demonstrated that the conclusion that vertical division is ⁇ detrimental has been reached.

Mr President, I am going around.

My lord of minister, we have ourselves al te lang one rad voor de ogen gedraaid. Dat er politieke motiven zijn, dat u iets moest beslissen in dat u dus maar dit deed, dat is bijzonder nefast. We have no benefit there. It will be the worst, because of structure it will be something for the coming months. You have yourself al you know gegeven dat het het niet uw bedoeling is om next year nog minister you be. U zult hocus pocus met NMBS do. After us are the flies.

It will be up to your successor to answer a number of parliamentary questions here again in the Parliament in the future, such as: Why is the NMBS, with its two-part structure, still struggling with high debt, poor accuracy rates, poor service and poor communication? Your successor will be here again with red cheeks. In any case we will be able to say that we have warned you. Sometimes I feel a little like someone calling in the desert, but even though you do not listen and even though you think it is yours, I have fulfilled my duty. I will continue to hammer on that nail.

Last March, the Court of Justice of the European Union approved the opinion of the Advocate General in the context of the complaint for infringement brought by the European Commission against Austria and Germany.

Without referring to the entire legal evolution of this case, it should be recalled that the Court confirmed that the holding structure, which holds the assumption of the integrated undertaking, was consistent with European law.

The bill submitted to our examination and vote resolutely turns the back to this option without really having analyzed it sufficiently substantiated and having responded to the arguments of those who, ⁇ in trade unions, but not only, advocate the maintenance and strengthening of a more integrated structure.

My colleague, Damien Thiéry, who spoke in the Infrastructure Committee on 26 May last year, also recalled our point of view that privileges the establishment of a unified structure for the reform of the structures of the SNCB.

The enterprise reform provides for the reorganization of the activities of the structures of SNCB-Hoding, Infrabel and SNCB into two autonomous public undertakings in the form of public-right non-profit companies within the meaning of the law of 21 March 1991.

As recalled in the State Council opinion, the aim of the reform is to transform this group comprising a parent company and two subsidiaries into a structure consisting of two companies and a joint subsidiary. Finally, we find ourselves with a trichophal structure. Where is the real value added in terms of efficiency of public administration? We will be answered that these aspects may be included in the transport agreement to be concluded between the two companies. It must be acknowledged that when one seeks to know what the content of this transportation agreement will be, one is very far from having assurances as to a real and effective collaboration while one of the problems found in the management of the SNCB-Holding nebula is precisely the lack of integration in operationality. It is doubtful that, despite a transport agreement, the operational capacity is tomorrow at the appointment.

In this regard, we may also be concerned about the rationalization of the multiple subsidiaries of the SNCB Group. Certainly, you announce that this will be one of the CEO’s tasks, but we are not yet certain of a real will to end the multiplication of the many subsidiaries of the SNCB Group whose complexity, opacity and often poor financial management have been rightly denounced by the Court of Auditors.

As regards debt, which has been recalled here as a cause of concern and whose recent press article was still referring to the worrying evolution, it is just stated that the current debt of the SNCB Group will be distributed between the infrastructure managers and the railway undertaking, respecting the needs of economic viability. It is obviously a bit fair to have some correct assessment of the evolution of this debt and its recovery. Without a doubt, one will know, in the long run, a form of transfer of this debt, either to another public authority, or to a new structure to be set up.

And then there is the fact that this bill is first and foremost a law of entitlement. We are not far from special powers. There are so many authorizations given to the King to implement this framework law that, obviously, Parliament will be deprived of any upstream control over the reform itself. It might have been easier to have the freedom to assume special powers, but then to invite parliament to ratify special powers decrees, so that at least there is a debate about these decrees. It is not even this choice that has been held. Therefore, this is a real deprivation of the parliamentary debate from an important issue.

Finally, I will remind you that FDF parliamentarians have submitted a bill to create a Federal Public Infrastructure Security Committee, a debate that is far from being closed – we know it – and on which we will also see who will eventually assume the real responsibility between the two companies when we are eventually confronted with a tragic case, as has been known in recent years. We would therefore like this debate to be resumed in parallel with the elaboration of other legal and regulatory texts.

For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, the FDF parliamentarians will not be able to support the bill under consideration.

Mr Maingain, I thank you for respecting your speech time.

I will not be too long.

First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteurs and the various stakeholders of this law. I will not try to convince people who do not want to be convinced. We will not waste time with this.

I have three goals. The accuracy is very important, the quality and safety.

Let’s not make an intention trial before the structures are working. I believe that this reform will accomplish these goals. This is the first point.

In response to Mr. This is not a law of special powers. Arrests that will be taken will be revalidated by Parliament within twelve months. This is planned and this has been explained in the committee; I will not resume the debate.

Finally, in parallel with this law, I continued to work towards the appointment of future bosses, whose roadmap will be precise as to what the State expects from them, but also as to the Meerjaren-Investeringsplan. This is very important! I wanted to join the three regions. The last contacts are being made. I think that with this mechanism, we will be able to have an arsenal that will allow – and I agree with the criticism that has been made against the SNCB – to make this company more efficient. That is my most precious wish. Beyond this wish, we will put in place with great strength and vigor the elements I have just mentioned.

I thank you.

Mr. Minister, ⁇ you keep it so short for the sake of the work, but your argument to defend the restructuring as well as the three essential conditions accuracy, quality and safety we have also heard in recent years. We know those concerns. The ministers at the time were always doing something about it. However, I find that after many years the accuracy, quality of service and safety are still problematic. We will have to carry out recovery operations for many more years.

The little news we get about the restructures is mainly about political appointments. Well, then I feel like a kind of Cassandra who should warn that we are still facing very bad times in the coming years with that NMBS. I can only regret that, because again the train passenger will suffer there. If we look at how much money already goes to the NMBS and how much money with the restructuring will go to the NMBS Group, then we are very bad for it.

I think you should have put in a little more courage and courage to choose the integrated structure.

The shortness of Mr. Speech. The government is calling for a reaction.

Mr. Minister, you are demonstrating to us what the debate on the SNCB will be in the coming months and years, that is, an inexistent debate, a debate in which you obviously do not want to answer a series of fundamental questions.

We have been many to ask in committee or here in plenary what would be the modalities of collaboration between the two entities that will now live separately. I think that on the part of the Minister in charge of the SNCB, this issue deserved a minimum investment today!