Proposition 53K3348

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 21 mars 1991 portant réforme de certaines entreprises publiques économiques en ce qui concerne la constitution du comité d'orientation RER.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Jef Van den Bergh
Ecolo Muriel Gerkens
Groen Stefaan Van Hecke
LE Catherine Fonck
MR Valérie De Bue
Open Vld Sabien Lahaye-Battheu
PS | SP Isabelle Emmery
Vooruit David Geerts

Submission date

Feb. 10, 2014

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Brussels region Flanders (Belgium) Walloon region (Belgium) institutional reform means of public conveyance public sector relations between the State and the regions

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

∉ N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.
• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) abstained from voting.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

March 27, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Ms. Musin, the rapporteur, is on a mission abroad. It refers to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, we have an exemplary law from the government-Di Rupo II, exemplary for the way it deals: it does not really ask what the problem is and then suggests a solution that is not really a solution to the problem.

Where does it actually go down? Within the existing structures, the Regions cannot be represented in the operation of the GEN around Brussels, a network that costs a handful of money in project management and which, without becoming cynical, is a school example of how to get things out of hand and slow down. In the light of the sixth state reform, we want the Regions to be more involved in the matter.

Today there are three consultation bodies between the regions, the federal government, the transport companies and the NMBS. So today it is perfectly possible to exchange thoughts and consult with one another on the issue. But no, you’re going to work like the entire sixth state reform: you’re making it a little harder. I watched Mr. Van den Bergh closely.

In addition to the three ways that already exist to engage in consultations, you are creating a setup on it: with the bill you are setting up the GEN orientation committee and the GEN service. is magnificent.

If one wants to move forward, and if one wants to accelerate things that are slowing up, it never works to organize additional structures as a solution. I’ve learned that in my previous life, business.

If the problem is that the Regions do not participate with regard to the GEN, will that now be improved with the proposed text? That is the question. We must establish that one does work with a bill, but that all the rest is arranged through a KB and thus everything is left to the minister, who must only gather his men. Everything will be fine, they argue.

The orientation committee will consist of seven members, one independent member and three members of the Regions, making the Regions, by the way, again in the minority.

Then comes the blow on the firepile, because the voice that that committee ultimately makes heard, that important committee that is established here today by law, is advisory. The main task of that committee is to prepare a proposal for a five-year plan on the operation of the GEN. The Board of Directors shall accept that proposal, but may, if necessary, decide to submit it.

In that sense, I think the text is exemplary for the work of the government, as I said at the beginning of my presentation. A new structure is created, making the process more difficult and more expensive, but nothing is solved. We do not agree and vote convincedly against it.

Mr. Dimitrov, you also raised your arguments at the meeting. I find it remarkable that the N-VA is opposed to the notion that the Regions are better involved in decisions on the question of mobility. The previous CEO of the NMBS, who recently declared himself a confederalist, was, in my view, a party asking to involve the regions. At the time that there is a text here in that sense, I find it very strange that you do not endorse it.

This is precisely the difference between a party that wants to move forward and a party that does not want to move forward, which prefers to stand still or go backwards.

I think your party is the one of the stall and the delay.

Mr. Speaker, I was giving a response.

Collega Geerts, this is precisely the difference between a party that wants to move forward and a party that actually wants to stop. There are already three committees, and we propose to make the most of them, because this is not the case today. The resources are there, but they are not being used. What is the solution of the government-Di Rupo? Another committee will be created, as if it would work in the future. I mean not.

We have already been able to conduct the debate on this. The essence of the story is not only that there will be an orientation committee, but that there will be practical cooperation in the field of operationality. This is new in the proposal.

I note your comment and I reiterate that consultation is possible today, but that the structures are not being exploited and that it will not happen tomorrow, with the new structure.

I will be brief. This text corresponds in all respects to what was envisaged in the Institutional Agreement of 11 October 2011. It tends to improve the operation of the Regional Express Network.

As regards the representativity of the Regions, it will be settled by royal decree. The Minister was sufficiently clear in the committee, specifying that this royal decree was approved, on 28 February 2014, by the Council of Ministers and returned for opinion to the Council of State, which I think is of efficiency to every test.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, we will not help approve the bill establishing a so-called GEN orientation committee. Not so much because, as the N-VA said, there are already a number of consultation mechanisms, of which I could, by the way, question the feasibility and the feasibility. Neither is this, in fact, part of the perfidious state reform, which was pursued by this Parliament; also in that regard, we have always stood on the barricades and have opposed this state reform. But rather because of the development and consequences of the Western Expressnet.

Mr. Minister, the GEN will, especially in the Flemish Rand, only increase the freezing. It will be the lock from Brussels towards the Flemish Rand, which will increase the friction. This is why we must fight against the genes.

There is also a price mark on that megaloman project. Already in 2013 alone, we are talking about an operating loss estimated at 13 million euros. By 2025, that deficit will reach almost €220 million. However, the NMBS does not look at a red figure more or less. The best stewards are on the shore, especially if the rats have left the sinking ship towards the N-VA or towards Europe.

Mr. Minister, I still think that before we set up an orientation committee here with a lot of show, we must return to the essence of the GEN. Today, the train traveller is already experiencing the consequences, because by implementing numerous investments, without having already done work from the GEN, for example, the train travellers from Antwerp to Brussels must sit on quasi beast wagons without any basic comfort, zero-train settings, the so-called Ryanair train settings.

Our opposition to the Franchising, in fact, to an additional element that will only increase the city flight of the French speakers from Brussels to the Flemish Rand, is principled.

I am somewhat surprised that the N-VA is now opposed to the establishment of the GEN orientation committee, while that party in 2005 in the Flemish Parliament approved the decree on the realization of the GEN. The plea to oppose the GEN and the refraction could also be included by a Flemish party such as the N-VA. That resistance is crucial, not only because of the price mark, not only because it is about committees that need to advise each other, but ⁇ in terms of content.

Mr. Veys, we can of course try to get a little “the felle” out here. I did not hear you in the committee. I have not heard that you have said anything or that you have tried to change anything. You have just been there. Now you come here with something from the past, which happened with the idea of finally making a step forward in terms of mobility. There are indeed interests. I find that the Flemish Interest denies that the Regional Expressnet is effectively of interest to Flanders. Otherwise, we would not have had to try to get any grip on it at the time. The resources were there and I conclude with you that they are not being used. I think it’s a little bit difficult to step up here now.

Mr. Vandeput, I will not step down. The only thing that surprised me somewhat is your protest in the committee. You did not speak at all about the adverse consequences for the Flemish Rand. You are apparently not awake from the fringing of the Flemish Rand. I personally found the plenary session the most suitable forum to challenge the ambiguous attitude of your party. That is a choice I make. I would recommend that you leave that choice to me and therefore do not make them in my place.

Colleagues, we are talking here about the refraction and about that expensive prestige project. When questions arise about why that GEN was still not realized, it is clear that they come from a French-speaking angle. If we, as Flemish parties, want to show ourselves a little more concerned about that Flemish Rand, then there are other mobility needs. The Flemish Rand is not waiting for the GEN. This includes mobility investments that need to be made, including for De Lijn. This needs to be done rather than the Western Expressnet. I think that our opposition here is clearly in place.

I have responded to all the comments in the committee.