Proposition 54K0984

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 30 août 2013 portant le Code ferroviaire.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

March 25, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive national implementing measure rail transport

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

PVDA | PTB

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 ¶

May 21, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Since this is a rather technical matter, I would like to refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, last week, on Tuesday 12 May, I found myself facing a serious dilemma: would I attend in the afternoon the meeting of the Economic Commission with your colleague Mrs. Marghem or the meeting of the Infrastructure Committee on the Railway Code? Not having the gift of ubiquity, I had to assume my duties as Chairman of the Economy Committee, who, as everyone knows, lives hot times. It was a difficult choice. I felt like I had to choose between numbers and letters. I like the numbers, but I had to choose the letters.

As for the project itself, it has been said, it is quite technical. I have no problem with the general philosophy of the project: it is the transcription of European directives into Belgian law. As far as I know, this project was largely initiated during the previous legislature. Now he comes to his accomplishment.

My question is more specific. It concerns vehicles with a patrimonial, museological and tourist character. This is a very pointed question. Since I did not have the opportunity to put it in the committee last week, I must come now to put it in the plenary session, which in itself does not pose a problem.

Regarding railway tourist lines, Belgium has taken a while before making an interest in this issue. For a very long time, unlike our neighboring countries, our country had no interest in these issues of preservation of our heritage except for the associations of volunteers who, from time to time, saved from the machine gun some quality material of historical value.

Among the associations that circulate, two situations appear. There are associations, such as the ASBL Railway Tourist Heritage (PFT), which use the lines of Infrabel and there are the associations that circulate on clean roads. Until now, the Railway Code excluded vehicles with a patrimonial, historical and tourist character that circulate on the national rail network. Tomorrow, this will no longer be the case, which causes the fear of many volunteers in these associations that work to preserve these unique heritage.

The bill, which is submitted to the House’s approval this afternoon, refers to this exemption and makes the full application of the provisions of the Railway Code compulsory, that is, that it somehow assimilates a venerable steam locomotive with a modern automobile.

Nevertheless, the Code does not apply to property railways, which have their own rail network - this is the notion I wanted to ask you, Mrs. Minister -, including workshops, vehicles and personnel operating only on the said networks and lines. For historic railways, some of which run on metric lines, this is no problem. It is not the same for those who take the “normal” railways.

In my region there is an important railway association: the Trois-Vallées Railway. It should be ensured that the roads on which its users travel are well regarded as a private network within the meaning of the law, i.e. they are exempt. This confirmation is essential for these volunteers because of the work they have done for several decades. This also applies to the Maldegem Stoomtrein. I could give you other examples.

The Three-Vallées Railroad does not run on a clean track, but on a SNCB line discharged, according to a precarious occupation convention. It must therefore assume all the obligations of the owner on the fourteen kilometers of line and is, of course, subject to the law on the safety of the operation of the railway lines and therefore to many rules and controls of all kinds, concerning the personnel, the maintenance of the lanes, etc. – and this is normal – to ensure the safety of users. Among the standards, approvals and controls, there are also very strict medical examinations. All this is in line with the SNCB. However, it should not be that a tightening of standards and conditions makes the activity impossible and leads to the prohibition of movement of this invaluable heritage, while all measures have been taken and certified to guarantee the safety of travellers.

Mrs. Minister, I come to the question that I would have wanted to ask you in commission to soothe the fears of these volunteers regarding the survival of their activity. Are the lines used by these associations well regarded as a clean network, even if they are SNCB routes that have been discharged? Otherwise, this would be a problem.

I will listen to your response carefully.

I also wanted to ask you whether you or your department had opened a dialogue with these associations on the content of this bill and on the question I just asked you.

Mr. Speaker, here is a bill that approves the entire process of liberalization that has been taken back in the first, second and third railway packages. This vote is formal but I think it is still necessary to raise the problems that this vote will pose at different levels.

First, this process has the consequence of privileging private management with private principles that come in contradiction with the logic of public services that for a long time has dominated the railway, even though its history is made of unceasing passages between the private and the public. First of all, this poses a democratic problem. Less and less, politics will decide the future of rail transport. It will be replaced by a private logic, based on the search for profit. In my opinion, there is a confiscation of the issues and the democratic debate in this area.

Then, this will lead and already leads to privatizations. It is already known, for example, that rail freight has been privatized recently since SNCB Logistics was sold for a piece of bread to private retrievers. Twenty million euros, only by selling the 7,000 wagons of the company, we already exceed this amount. Seeing the fate of rail freight, one can ask the question of the future of the SNCB travellers. We know that this is the next step in the liberalization process.

Furthermore, I would like to highlight the consequences of this process in terms of personnel. Liberalization, in the case of rail freight, has resulted in a 30-50% reduction in staff in countries such as Belgium, France and Germany, with other consequences on the quality of work as the number of contractors has increased sharply. They have lost their status. There have been alarming testimonies from staff members about worsening working conditions, including the number of overtime not necessarily paid.

There is also the price aspect. The idea, the fundamental mechanism of this project is to say that the company that manages the infrastructure must make every effort to reduce as much as possible the costs and prices that will be offered to the different railway companies that operate on the network.

Obviously, the infrastructure that will logically continue to be managed by the public will need to reduce costs and prices to offer more profit opportunities to both private and public companies that will use this network. We can already predict that in the next step, the liberalization of domestic travel traffic will result in a steady increase in prices. This is what is seen in the UK, where the price is set per kilometer and is two to three times more expensive than in other countries.

This liberalization process will also affect CO2 emissions. It will result in a further reduction in the transport of goods by rail in favor of the transport of goods by road. If we take the example of France, between 2000 and 2008, thanks to the liberalization of freight, the SNCF lost 40% of the freight and 10% were taken over by private companies and three-quarters of the transport passed from rail to road. Clearly, this process has an impact on prices, on workers, but also on the environment.

With regard to security, this process results in a reduction in security processes, as the cost reductions imposed on the infrastructure company will have consequences on investment in this area. Furthermore, the multiplication of the number of operators on the network compared to a historical operator will obviously increase the risks, because when there are a multitude of operators on the same network, the risk is obviously increased especially since the text of the bill provides for the possibility of using alternative sections. This will result in a significant multiplication of the security risk.

There is also the ETCS automatic braking system equipment. In this project, it is written that private companies that will act on this network are encouraged to equip trains with ETCS systems. We know from the accidents well-known in the railway history of our country that these systems are important, indispensable to ensure road safety. They are not mandatory for private companies. We will simply encourage them to use them.

We can already announce that this liberalization process will have multiple consequences for travellers, the environment, workers and also safety. Unfortunately, the accidents of Pecrot, Buizingen, etc., may not be the last of a list that we would have hoped ended.

Thank you, Mr Van Hees. Next time, if your intervention is as long as this one, you should do it from here. This will increase your chances of being heard. I ask you all to listen to each other.

Mr. Speaker, I will speak from my place because I will keep it very brief. In the committee, our group abstained because we think Mr. Borsus should have also signed. I am pleased to note that Mr. Borsus is present here. Therefore, our group will approve this later in the vote.

I would like to speak from my bank because I will be ⁇ brief. I was in the committee, we had a debate on this highly technical text relating to the European directives of the third package, waiting or not, of the fourth package. Here, it was about transposing into the Railway Code such technical provisions that the tables were not always clear. The chairman of the committee was able to verify that the simplicity was not at the appointment.

I would like to emphasize that the real issues concerning both infrastructure and the railway operating system and the European issues justify, Mrs. Minister, that we be ⁇ attentive to the development of the work for the Fourth Railway Package. I take advantage of the debate on the Railway Code and this technical text to remind us of our vigilance regarding the evolution of the railway, especially as it is designed at the European level, in the perspective of a passenger transport that remains not only competitive, in the noble sense of the term, but above all that goes in the direction of a special attention for the shippers.

Finally, on the question raised by Mr. Geerts, we learned in the commission that if mr. Borsus was very competent – this is a style formula, Mr. Minister – for the verification of the regulation, it is Mrs. Galant who is responsible for the legislation on regulation. Did I understand correctly? I think this is part of the subtleties of the allocation of powers within a government that, obviously, is concerned with a good evolutionary allocation of powers among ministers.

Dear colleagues, I thank you.

Mr. Delizée, even if you could not participate in the work, if you had read the report, part of your answer appears there on page 10; but I will give you an exhaustive answer.

The railway code excludes from its scope railways with a patrimonial, museological and tourist character that have their own rail network, including workshops, vehicles and personnel operating only on those networks and lines. The draft law amending the Railway Code, which was discussed in the committee, therefore does not question this exclusion. All related to these patrimonial railways fall within the scope of the law of 26 March 2014 concerning the safety of operation of railway lines museums.

In fact, this law applies to railway lines put out of service but not dismantled from the railway infrastructure, whose owner or the holder of a real right on that railway line agrees to use it for a tourist, patrimonial, or museum character. The railway of the Three Vallées thus falls within the scope of the law of 2014 and the provisions of the Railway Code are not applied. I hope you are reassured.

With regard to the thoughts of Mr. Van Hees, we have already had this debate in the committee. I recall that the current government has strictly changed nothing compared to the project that is on the table. It is simply a purely technical European directive that aims to give the internal market a chance to develop.

I would like to emphasize the security process. When things work well in our Railways, things we can be proud of, we must highlight them. When it comes to security, the ETCS system is one of the most efficient in Europe and we can be proud of it!

I would tell Mr. Geerts – who is pleased with the presence of Minister Borsus – and to Mr. Dear that they can count on me in terms of my will to do everything to have a competitive rail transport. I confirm that I am responsible for the legislation and that Mr. Borsus is responsible for its application.

I would like to thank the various speakers for their comments. I would like to confirm the reading that Mr. Cheron has just summed up but obviously, when it comes to the application of a legislation, listening to its definition and its adoption by the Parliament is always useful, hence my presence and my availability.

I would like to answer one point to the Minister. I see and am pleased that it is proud of a system such as the ETCS brake system. If she is so satisfied with this system, I wonder why it doesn’t make it mandatory for all private operators that will run on the network.