Proposition 54K1117

Proposition de résolution relative aux données ouvertes au sein du Groupe SNCB.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Roel Deseyn, Jef Van den Bergh, Veli Yüksel
MR Gilles Foret
N-VA Inez De Coninck, Peter Dedecker
Open Vld Sabien Lahaye-Battheu

Submission date

May 28, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

consumer information database resolution of parliament access to information information technology applications rail transport

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR VB

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

LE PP

Party dissidents ¶

• 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 8, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteur, Mr. Jean-Jacques Flahaux, refers to this in his written report.

We have a good weather forecast for the coming weekend. That is the ideal time for a day at sea, or in Werchter, but there is not much to do there the coming weekend.

When you search on Google for the fastest way to get to the sea, Google will tell you to take the bus. It has nothing to do with strikes. This simply has to do with the fact that the NMBS still does not make its schedules available to third parties to incorporate them into, for example, integrated mobility services.

As for strikes, this morning there was a meeting of the ASTB and the NMBS. Next Friday, the ASTB will answer the question of whether it will withdraw the strikes. We look forward to this very much. I would like to appeal here that strikes on Saturdays during the summer are not a good idea.

Back to the topic of the day: Open Data. Open data is a concept that was included by the majority in the government agreement as a major goal. In this proposal for a resolution, we would like to point out that this theme should be explicitly included in the management contracts of the NMBS and Infrabel. Train passengers can now only use the NMBS app. Following the removal of Railtime, the former Infrabel app, there have been a lot of complaints about the NMBS app, which would be absolutely insufficiently user-friendly.

There is a demand from ICT developers and companies to be able to develop apps that can capture train traffic. There is therefore interest, only the NMBS must make its data available for that purpose. This does not happen to this day.

Disclosing information to ⁇ , scientists and citizens stimulates innovation, entrepreneurship and the use of trainings. The more train apps, the more websites, search engines and digital tools work with digital rail information, the more well-informed potential travellers there will be.

Open data fits perfectly into the story of multimodality, where different means of transport are used and complement each other. Those who plan an excursion will get through various search engines immediately an overview of the travel time by car, by bicycle, by bus or by train. At least it should be so. It can encourage travellers to leave the car a little longer in the garage and take the train, for example. We need to go for more innovation and less bugs. Open data will only benefit travellers and mobility.

Several governments are already giving a good example. The Flemish government already releases data for use in traffic applications and intelligent transport systems. Abroad, various transport companies release their schedules and real-time information to web and app developers. In its own country, for example, De Lijn already makes its schedule available to the popular search engines. The MIVB and the TEC also decided to make their data available. There is also something moving in the NMBS. In the autumn, the NMBS service schedule would also be included in Google’s applications.

However, for the time being it is still not sufficient. Therefore, we believe that the proposal for a resolution calling for the inclusion of open data in the management contracts remains absolutely necessary. It is time for the NMBS to follow that logic and to allow both its static information, for example about stations, the service schedule or the service in the stations, as well as the dynamic current information, so real-time information about incidents and delays, to be recorded and made available as open data. These objectives should, as mentioned, be included in the new management contracts. The NMBS will have to make its database available so that others can develop their own and more customer-friendly applications with it. If we make more train apps flourish, the training use will only grow. We are convinced of this.

First, I would like to congratulate the initiator of the resolution Jef Van den Bergh. It is undeniable that digital is largely the economic landscape of the 21st century and that it represents one of the important levers for employment and growth for Belgium. The digital sector represents an opportunity for innovative SMEs, as well as for start-ups and young entrepreneurs eager to embark on ethics. The federal government has well understood these issues and the importance of digital as shown by the plan "digital Belgium" and start-up but also the Parliament that last week voted, with a large majority, the protection of the open Internet.

This mindset, this openness are all the more important as they perfectly fit into the European Union’s line of conduct that aims to deal with Belgium, especially to hang up this headscarf of countries that put on the digital economy as a lever of growth. It is also in this perspective that the federal government wants to establish open data, also called open data. Open data is the availability of data, in particular by public authorities, to the whole of society without compromising anyone’s privacy.

This well-exploited data enables better interaction and connectivity between the administration, on the one hand, and citizens and ⁇ , on the other. The intelligent use of this data also enables the massive arrival on the market of new services, new applications bringing a surplus of services in both quality and quantity. These new markets, privileged playgrounds for many start-ups and young SMEs, should also benefit from local employment and economic tissues. While these findings on the opportunities that open data represents are valid for all sectors, this is even more true for our Infrastructure committee, which deals with topics of both mobility and the digital agenda.

The SNCB, with the large mass of data updated instantly to translate its immediate or scheduled service offer, is the typical example of business where open data would be profitable to all stakeholders. Developers could create apps with instant rail traffic information while users could benefit from a more comprehensive and fully personalized service.

Freedom of choice, consumer protection and the development of creativity are therefore intensified. In order to improve the performance of the railways, and consequently the services offered to users, but also to enable the emergence of new services provided by SMEs and innovative Belgian start-ups, MR Group supports this resolution proposal to encourage SNCB and Infrabel to collaborate on the open data strategy.

Thank you again, Jeff, for this proposal.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, when we received the text of this draft resolution in the committee, I was initially quite positive. However, the longer the discussion progressed, the more I began to feel like Waldorf and Statler, absolutely not in terms of appearance, but because those characters initially also say that something is not bad, but in the course of the show find that something fundamental is missing.

Of course, I respect the views of the applicants on some — at least for me — dogmatic approaches. This has resulted in the sp.a not approving this text.

The question is what we have against open data. Open data can be an enrichment. That basic idea is true, but what most disturbs us in the draft resolution and why we will vote against is consideration D, which states that the government should let go of what society or the private sector itself can do. This seems to be a very innocent phrase, but if one thinks about it philosophically, it means that the government must be removed from the whole. This is the red thread that runs through this majority. Everything that is government is de facto bad. If we can knock on officials or public companies, we will do it. In all the texts, that is actually silent, but that is absolutely not in line with our philosophy and we cannot support that.

In terms of content, we support open data, but we cannot support this proposal for a resolution.

I will illustrate this with e-Rail and Railtime. E-Rail was a business of private companies that had developed an app. This is a regrettable story that I also addressed in the previous legislature. The NMBS took measures against e-Rail. I think that was completely unreasonable. One then tried to develop within Infrabel Railtime. At the moment, the project is still.

At that time we submitted an amendment on this subject which we have submitted again now. We want to change consideration D to enable collaboration between government and private app developers and optimize the services provided to travelers. The past has shown that cooperation is possible and that it can only be improved.

The current text requires the government to remove the hands from all this. I also wonder whether it is not the NMBS’ core task to collect and monitor the data. Everything is left to the private sector. This is not a problem in itself, as long as there is a neutral government organization. However, the question arises to what extent, within the framework of the privacy regulation, one as a user will have to disclose certain resources and core data in order, for example, to register on websites, so that one can use government data. If we oppose this resolution, it is primarily related to that fundamental point.

Also in the treatment of other texts, which emit the same attachment to the liberalization of public services, we will adopt this voting position.

Therefore, we have submitted two amendments again, hoping that this majority can still be persuaded to accept that adjustment. The first amendment aims to organize cooperation and to amend recital D. In the second amendment, we urge that adequate attention be paid to privacy, an element that we have also discussed several times with Secretary of State Tommelein.

A number of colleagues who have been sitting here for a long time will bear that during the previous legislature there was hardly any talk about privacy, while nowadays one can no longer open a newspaper or read a discussion about privacy. In our second amendment, we therefore call for respect for the privacy of the users.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, this proposal for a resolution is good in itself, but because of the privatisation content that has been included – or may well be included – and because the privacy amendment was not adopted in the committee, we will not approve it.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Geerts, I think your privacy argument is very fuzzy, because the concept of privacy is explicitly included in the concept of open data. It explicitly refers to the release of non-personal information.

As for the rest of your argument, I find it actually a little strange that, on the one hand, you say that you find it a good proposal, but that, on the other hand, you will still vote against. I would have expected such things from another political party, but apparently this happens in your party as well.

You are hiding behind the fundamental phrase that the government should not do things that the private sector can do. This is true in this particular case for the development of apps. In our view, it is indeed not the core task of the government to develop apps for all possible platforms. This is what the private sector can do. I therefore find it very regrettable that you keep in mind that such things must absolutely be done with tax money. You obviously would like to spend extra tax money. In Greece, they did the same, and see where it ends. This is not our way to go.

I regret your attitude in this regard. Open data is an important theme that provides economic added value. It is a question of economic progress, but also of democratic progress.

The public’s understanding of the functioning of the government is a wonderful thing. It is right in your party program and in that of the Greens. I find it especially unfortunate that today you are playing faint political games and voting against your own party program and that of Green.

Mr. Dedecker, I am pleased with your intervention. It shows how fundamentally different we think about things.

Open data is part of the party’s agenda. I have to say that I am not against open data. Maybe you didn’t listen well. I gave my explanations in the committee. In this plenary session I only said that we have a fundamental problem with point D, where you say that the government should let go of what society or the private sector itself can do. In the Commission, and here again, we offer an alternative. We are much less dogmatic than you in your argument about that. Through a partnership between government and private app developers, we want to optimize the service for travellers. That sounds a nuance, but it’s a world of difference. After all, you remain that everything that has to do with the government is bad. There is no comparison with Greece. The topic of the debate is just a few meters away. You can announce that message there, not here. This is about your dogma. The idea of liberalization should not have been included in this draft resolution. Therefore, we have tried to propose a valid alternative with our sentence section.

If you had held the pen for this sentence, nothing would have prevented you from accepting it. It is assumed that cooperation is essential. My colleagues in the committee tried to convince you. I regret that the dogmatism of this government does not allow it. Therefore, we do not agree with consideration D.

With regard to privacy, I think you are mistaken. I know that data in itself needs to be anonymized, because that’s the aspect of open data, but in the light of ensuring privacy, we need to be careful not to throw everything out. I think that will be the new debate, which has actually begun in this legislature and will be further elaborated in the coming years.

Mr. Dedecker, I hope that I have answered you sufficiently.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, in this fundamental debate for the future of the SNCB Group, we are at the aperitif of the debate that should come next week.

I believe that all groups in this Parliament, especially those of the majority, are waiting for the train of Minister Galant. This train is a little late. Route 5 will be announced by the Infrastructure Commission next week. by Mr. Ducarme does not ignore it.

We are therefore awaiting this important debate on Ms. Galant’s strategic vision, which will be a new challenge for the SNCB. It is known that several challenges await the SNCB Group, among them the financing issues that annoy much the majority when it is reminded of the savings, Mr. Van den Bergh, which were asked to the SNCB Group for this legislature by this majority. I would like to remind you because I see that it hurts you. These economies imposed by the majority draw the context in which the SNCB must evolve, with a strategic vision of the minister.

The Minister and his strategic vision. To meet this expectation, Mr. Frédéric, I come to tell you about the open data of the SNCB and explain how much we want that in future management contracts of the SNCB and Infrabel... Mr. Van den Bergh, this is what it is about, your text (you are the first signatory) aims to give indications regarding the drafting of management contracts.

Like the rest of what Ms. Galant does, these contracts are announced one day, postponed the next day and always awaited the third day. You know it properly! There was the procession of Echternach; now there is the procession of Mrs. Galant. The management contracts that were expected in 2015, Mr. Frédéric, will not be on the appointment. They will be postponed in 2016.

So, before embarking on the discussion of management contracts, the majority comes with a few texts, a few small ammunition. by Mr. Van den Bergh comes with open data, quite interesting topic, exciting about the future of rail but there are two conditions to be met. This is also what my colleague, Mr. Geerts just announced. The context of your text is very unpleasant for the public service. The first element that appears in your text, in the considerations, is this quite unfortunate phrase that says that after all, one can privatize most of the SNCB’s missions. This is a clear call not for murder, but at least for privatization.

There is a phrase that says that some elements could be done by the private. When we tried to get you to correct this in commission, we did not get a satisfactory response. This is the first reason why we will not support this text.

Mr. Ducarme, Mr. Ducarme will need to position itself clearly on this issue because he does not do it! You talk about a lot of other things but you never talk about your real purpose in terms of mobility.

The second aspect concerns the protection of personal data. When we tried to improve the text to say that there were guarantees needed so that there was no commercial use – and therefore derivatives – of this data opening, we had no guarantee. This will obviously be at the heart of the next management contract, no one doubts. We want that in the management contracts of tomorrow, there is a strong element on open data. It is necessary that tomorrow, especially in terms of multimodality, in connection with De Lijn, STIB, TEC, trains, there is an improvement of the service to the benefit of users through the use of open data. This is what is desired.

When you give, by your resolution, a clear message for the conclusion of management contracts, you remove the necessary tags in terms of protection of personal data and you do not give any guarantee. When you were asked, you did not give any answers, which is even more sad. But, above all, you have opened, by your text, a possibility of privatization of the entire file.

We are in favor of a clear text in the management contract, and not only on this file but on a full range of public service objectives. We will oppose your text. We hope that the SNCB will finally become a major stake in the mobility policy of a government that has decided to act through budgetary constraints, without giving perspective.

At the end of the discussion, I would like to submit a few comments.

As for consideration D, which has been discussed several times, we are blamed for dogmas and more. This is a dogmatic reading of the considerations. I understand that consideration as follows: why should we do ourselves what others could do better? One must read the consideration in this way, apart from all dogmatic interpretations that others give it.

The second element is privacy. As colleague Dedecker has already cited, the definition of open data already includes absolute protection of private data. This includes trains, stations and delays. I am not sure what that has to do with privacy. I feel somewhat like one has sought nails on low water on a topic on which there is great consensus – both speakers have also indicated it – in order to raise opposition. The phrase it’s the duty of the opposition to oppose is widely used here.

I am pleased, however, that a large majority will agree with this resolution.

I would like to answer Mr. by Van den Bergh. Not giving him an answer would be considering that what he said does not matter, which is not the case. I would like to point out that the amendments initiated by Mr. Geerts are the best way, and maybe a last gesture. If, indeed, you consider that your considerations are irrelevant and are misinterpreted, or interpreted dogmatically, you have the opportunity, by making a gesture of openness towards these amendments, to have an unanimity. Isn’t that Mr. Geerts? So I return the argument. Who is dogmatic in this case?

This is an open question, Mr Cheron. There is no answer.