Proposition 53K3491

Projet de loi relatif aux droits et obligations des voyageurs ferroviaires.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

March 27, 2014

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Regulation consumer protection transport user fine carriage of passengers rail transport

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

VB

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

April 23, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, the Secretary of State has very well presented this bill which aims to restructure and codify the current legal and regulatory conditions provided for in the law of 30 December 2009, in the Royal Decree of 14 February 2011 and in the Royal Decree of 7 March 2013 in order to improve its readability.

On the occasion of the drafting of this law, two offences were added and the behaviors constituting offences were divided into three degrees. The criteria used to establish this distribution are the number of travellers concerned and the severity of the damage suffered. The complaint processing mechanism has also been revised. He now perfectly makes the difference between the person who handles the complaint file and the senior official in charge of making the final decision.

During the general discussion, Mr. Steven Vandeput welcomed the fact that by bringing together and tightening the rules introduced by decree, the law creates a clearer framework for both railway companies and passengers. However, everything will depend on how it will be implemented. Many fines are not received. The final article of the project, namely Article 22, consists of the principle of non-retroactivity. Does this mean that pending files concerning offences committed before the entry into force of the law will remain unpunished?

by Mr. Deseyn asks, on the other hand, whether the SNCB and Infrabel already meet the current standards of accessibility to shelters. What is the timetable to be fully at the level? At the local level, this issue concerns, above all, persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility.

The Secretary of State stated that the non-retroactivity of the law was inscribed in all letters in the draft following an observation from the State Council. Since the law tightenes the sanctions, they cannot be applied to acts committed before the entry into force of the law. The pending files will be handled in accordance with the old rules in force at the time of the facts established. In terms of accessibility, it is part of significant investments that extend over several years to end in 2025.

Articles 1 to 22 were adopted unanimously, without any amendments.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, since this bill was dealt with on a draft this afternoon, I would like to take the opportunity to pause a moment on it.

It is true that this draft is addressing a number of gaps in existing legislation. There are also some anomalies in the process.

I think it’s good to talk about the rights and obligations of train passengers.

We all remember the Ombudsman for train passengers faced Babylonian speech confusion in recent years. People who filed a complaint with him about the services of the NMBS received back a sort of complaint letter in which the Ombudsman, not by chance of socialist signature, complained about the functioning of the NMBS. He said he had to complain to the NMBS himself.

I hope that the train passenger in the future will be faced primarily with an effective NMBS. We’ve already heard a lot – hopefully not too often – that with the new structure of the NMBS, the train passenger would be central. Yesterday, however, we were able to find out that the train passenger appears to have no place in the socialist trade union, where it was considered necessary to organize a savage strike with all its consequences. One might say that the obstacle was ⁇ felt in Wallonia. Mr. Secretary of State, as far as I know you are not a candidate in Flanders and you may benefit from it to ensure that in the future train passengers are taken more into account.

The Ombudsman’s Office now falls under the FOD Mobility. We now hope to experience in practice that the curves of the poor understanding between the NMBS and the Ombudsman for train passengers have been smoothed.

Another aspect I would like to address in connection with the interests of train passengers is the User Advisory Committee of the NMBS Group. This committee is the “Test Purchase” of the NMBS. The committee holds the finger at the pulse of the users and the traveler organisations, the advocates of the interests of the train passengers. I would like to point out that the Advisory Committee is still treated as a mother-in-law.

Recently, the annual report for 2013 ended up in our bus. It has become a just complaint. I mean the poor service in terms of accuracy, communication, the use of the equipment and the failing equipment of the NMBS. It is not surprising that the User Advisory Committee of the NMBS Group points out these pain points. The committee also has an advisory role. In this regard, I would like you, as responsible for the FOD Mobility, to point out a number of pain points. Not for nothing, the Advisory Committee of Users of the NMBS Group writes that the committee was placed under the management of the FOD Mobility at the beginning of 2013 and that the transfer did not go well under the star.

Mr. Secretary of State, we had hoped that lessons for the future would be drawn, once the committee would resonate under your competence, and no longer, against European regulation in, under the NMBS. Apparently, however, there are still various pain points in the content support, the secretariat work. There may still be a light point, to know that the Advisory Committee has had staff to provide support for some time. On the other hand, in June, the FOD informed the Advisory Committee that, as a result of a so-called wording error of a legal nature at the beginning of 2011, but only discovered in 2013, the committee no longer has legal personality.

This is also another demonstration of the lack of respect, both of the FOD Mobility and of the NMBS, for taking the interests of the users of the NMBS seriously. Nevertheless, we hope that the reorganization of the committee, which we approved here in Parliament a few months ago, will give a new momentum. That reorganization should have been completed in 2010, but I must, together with the committee, conclude that it has still not been implemented. I quote again the report of the Advisory Committee: “The committee can only regret that the legislature after the legislature is kept on the line and asks that this mallmole stop.” Mr. Secretary of State, of course I do not have a glass ball and I do not know what powers you will possibly use in the future, but I hope in any case that the minister or the state secretary responsible for the FOD Mobility will finally take the Advisory Committee seriously and that he will ensure that the secretariat work is adequately supported. I also hope that the opinions of the Advisory Committee will be effectively followed and that the NMBS will at least justify its decision if the opinions are not followed.

Mr. Secretary of State, we will not approve the bill, not because we are not concerned about the rights and duties of train passengers, but because it is not possible for the train passengers to continue to hang on one leg within the NMBS. It is important that they have all the tools available. This means, on the one hand, a performing committee of users within the NMBS and, on the other hand, a ombudsman’s service that no longer engages in political games but actually defends the interests of train passengers.