Proposition 53K3441

Projet de loi portant confirmation des arrêtés royaux pris en application de la loi du 30 août 2013 relative à la réforme des chemins de fer belges.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

March 12, 2014

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.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) 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 ¶

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

Full source

Mr. Speaker, given the extensive debate that we have held in the committee and which, in my opinion, we should not overdo here again, I would like to refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Colleagues, as I have already said, it is good to occasionally think about what the problem is and how we can solve that problem.

Mr. Minister, I remember the first time we met here in this hemisphere. I then made you notice by way of introduction that it was almost cynical of the government-Di Rupo to empower someone who had been mostly active in health funds and the like more active for the state companies and in particular for the NMBS. Because let us point out, the railway companies in this country still have a little work, we could say that they are a little sick.

There was, therefore, apparently in this government at some point, however, the opinion that there should be structural changes there. You know that a few years ago one thought, especially on the request of those who still really have it to say today, namely the trade unions, to have a division into three companies. In terms of safety, accuracy, or any aspect, we have established over the years – I personally over the last four years – that it was the one between them, namely the Holding, that did not solve problems but primarily created problems.

The government-Di Rupo said in its government statement that it would address the NMBS Group, that it would reduce the number of entities and the number of subsidiaries. A year ago a law was passed, then with your predecessor, who is now your party chairman. I then commented that I found the planning quite ambitious. Despite the fact that we would like to move forward very strongly and quickly with this country, I am still a bit realistic in planning.

Eventually, the following came out of the bus and that was also approved in Parliament. One will reduce those three entities, which are the three-headed dragon, and one will create the NMBS, Infrabel and HR Rail. Today, at the recognition of your royal decrees, so in what we will approve later, we establish that there are again three entities, although HR Rail is in name a subsidiary of Infrabel and the NMBS.

What was actually the problem? The structure was inefficient and the question was how to remedy it. In addition, they wanted to reduce. These were two good analyses. The conclusion was entirely that one would reform in the interest of the traveller. But neither in the bill, nor in any of the royal decrees, can one word be found about the traveller.

So you would reduce. And what do you do? You make three and, if possible, you create a few more instances to arrange here and there something that has not been arranged today.

I will not exaggerate the discussion from the committee, as asked by colleague Van den Bergh. I would like to comment on what I also made in the committee. If it is good, we can say it. We supported the provisions on Traffic Control and on the supervisory bodies in the committee. It is important to agree when we see that it is progressing.

However, we cannot repeat those praiseful words when it comes to HR Rail. After all, for every action at Infrabel or the NMBS in relation to an employee, a formal agreement from HR Rail is first required. If a ticket cutter doesn’t behave and doesn’t show up and his boss wants to scorn him, then it can’t. He couldn’t do it before, he couldn’t do it today, and he won’t do it tomorrow. This problem is not solved, in no way. One did not seize the opportunity to finally get rid of a statute from the 1800s. No work has been made of it. It is incredible and unheard. It is almost as if it is intended to make the reform fail. Well, it will fail, I can assure you. What is stacked here is not a solution to what the railway needs.

Another belief is that it needs to be professionalized. There had to be fewer entities, there had to be rationalized and the regions had to get involved in the light of the sixth state reform. How is this now arranged? The Board of Directors counts ten members, and in order to grant access to the Regions, the number of members is increased from ten to fourteen. A logical man would choose out of the ten members representatives for the Regions, since they are still part of the whole, as your party always defends. But no, you add four members and not even three, one for each Region of Belgium. In the end, it is about: a board of directors for the NMBS with fourteen members, a board of directors of fourteen members for Infrabel and a board of directors with I don’t know how many members for HR Rail, while there were three times ten members in the boards of directors of the NMBS, Infrabel and the Holding, respectively. Today there will be more than thirty. Is this rationalization? Is that a savings? As the government-Di Rupo does now, we thank you for that. We are against!

Mr. Minister, when our party has spoken out against the structure you have proposed and defended, it is obvious that our party, now that you confront the Parliament with the royal decrees on the matter, will repeat its opposition.

I would like to remind you, by the way, that we protested when you came up with the plan to supposedly reform the NMBS by giving special powers to the government and subsequently by royal decrees to come to Parliament. Today we are faced with facts. Mr. Minister, your way of working not only demonstrates a lack of respect for Parliament, but in addition our participation is reduced to a laugh.

By the way, the facts give us right. We have warned of your restructuring. Now that we see how you fill it concrete, we are once again facing the ivory tower of the NMBS. The way the NMBS will introduce its transport plan in the coming months without much consultation with the traveller or with the political world is shocking. In fact, we are even worse than in the past. In the past, we could occasionally respond to the quarreling CEOs, who, in order to praise each other, pushed a little more in favour of Parliament. Now, however, we find that even the federal Parliament is too small for people like Jo Cornu and Luc Lallemand, who don’t even come here.

The Flemish Parliament has welcomed them with open arms, but they refuse to come here to propose and defend their transport plan.

In any case, I think this is a missed opportunity. What can be done in the Flemish Parliament, could not be done here. Also there you have in no way expressed your approval or disapproval.

It is therefore easy to hear yesterday Mr. Cornu in the Flemish Parliament say that it will be better next time. According to him, lessons will be drawn from the past. Mr. Minister, the stage of taking lessons from the past should have long been over. Mr. Cornu, despite his high age, apparently still lacks some experience in drawing up a plan that is also carried out. In this regard, I think the NMBS deserves the red card. The NMBS did not do what it should have done.

When these KBs are voted here today, I also now record a missed opportunity to correct what has gone wrong in the past. Among other things, I refer to the problem of the three entities. You say about the holding model that it has failed. When we see what you are packing out with, we are again with three entities: NMBS, Infrabel and HR Rail. Again, the pain point of the railways, namely the lack of communication, is embedded in the system. Again a missed opportunity!

Another aspect is the financing of the NMBS. The price tag that Infrabel charges for the use of the tracks is embedded in the KBs. Again, you did not have the courage to address that problem.

If we are talking about the challenges that the NMBS will face in the coming years, maybe there should have been a bell at the time that in January of this year Mr. Cornu in Panorama said that they were not prepared. However, this liberalization does not fall out of the air. The fourth railway package has been discussed for years. Suddenly you shoot in action and stand on the brake. Suddenly you say that Europe should not go so fast. This issue must be considered carefully again, because we should not go ice overnight. The fourth railway package has been discussed for years.

The only reason why you are going to stand on the brake is because your own NMBS is not prepared. Those KBs do not ensure that the instruments are provided to engage in that struggle with competition. You have also failed in this.

I have already mentioned the figures. It is still waiting for the corpse of 225 million euros that Mr. Descheemaecker left in the closet. Apparently you are still searching. How can there suddenly be a hole in the greenhouse of 225 million euros? No one knows where that hole comes from, but it is there. Per ⁇ it is a black hole in which all CEOs in the future will disappear and then, as if reborn, see the light in a book? Suddenly they go into a book and tell them how to do it. They have proven that they could not, but suddenly they know how to do it. I think we pay a very high price for that with 225 million euros. It can count!

I think the staff of the NMBS faced with this, however, would have expected more.

I repeat that this is a missed opportunity, both for you and for the NMBS. Your way of acting is an insult to our Parliament. I am afraid that in the coming years we will also see a Minister of Public Enterprises here, ⁇ not with red glasses, but at least with red cheeks.

For the usual communication?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, everything has already been said at the meeting.

To Mr Vandeput, I would like to say the following. And a joke? The cases involve two companies and a subsidiary, but also two state-owned companies, namely NMBS and Infrabel. It’s a bit like the two panda: so far those panda’s are a little weird, almost human, from time to time. In fact, it is about two companies.

Mr. Vandeput, would you like to comment further?

Mr. Speaker, this will be the last time I can give a response to the Minister, whether he should return to his post, but I have understood other signals in this regard.

Mr. Minister, I would like to open the discussion on the number of companies. I note that it is now assumed that the NMBS and Infrabel each give EUR 10 million annually to make HR Rail work, but the State owns directly 2 % of the shares of HR Rail, although that is an independent company. The State also appoints its President. So I wonder how many companies you actually have.

I regret that a little. At that time, I made a joke referring to the hospital fund. Today, however, I have the feeling that you have worked like you are working in a health fund. It is not about working away the customers, but to keep them and therefore not solve the affairs. I find that very regrettable.