Proposition 54K1225

Proposition de résolution relative à l'évaluation par la Cour des comptes de la mise en oeuvre des contrats de gestion conclus avec Infrabel et la SNCB.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Jef Van den Bergh
MR Jean-Jacques Flahaux, Gilles Foret
N-VA Inez De Coninck, Peter Dedecker, Wouter Raskin
Open Vld Sabien Lahaye-Battheu, Nele Lijnen

Submission date

July 1, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

audit management audit resolution of parliament

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

July 22, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, our proposal for a resolution deals with the Court of Auditors’ assessment of the implementation of the management contracts that the Belgian State has with the state-owned companies Infrabel and NMBS.

I will outline the framework of our resolution. As you know, the management agreements expired in 2012. They have since been silently extended. Negotiations on new management agreements will begin in the autumn.

In this light, we have drafted this resolution. We want to check whether public funds have been used efficiently and whether both companies have used all the resources to ⁇ the targets imposed on them in the management agreements.

I would like to thank Mr Cheron for his constructive attitude in the committee. He took the initiative for this resolution.

But our proposal for a majority resolution follows a completely different logic. Where his proposal is based on the demand for more money or a critical attitude towards savings, our proposal concerns the evaluation of management contracts, nothing more or nothing less.

In consideration, our proposal goes much further on certain points. We demand a fundamental inspection, not only of compliance with management contracts; we also ask the Court of Auditors in advance whether it is possible to improve internal control procedures to avoid possible deviations.

We also request that we examine the possibilities of strengthening our parliamentary authority to be able to remedy irregularities and deviations from the management contract ex post.

It concerns compliance with management contracts. We have discussed this in detail in the committee. Ecolo-Groen was the initiator and supported our proposal constructively. The most important thing is that this audit and review is carried out by the Court of Audits.

Apparently, it was more difficult for the colleagues of PS and sp.a. to deal with this, but we note that, despite their protest in the committee, they still approved our proposal, after two abstentions on two specific points.

I have addressed the most important part of our resolution. I repeat it again. It is about management contracts, nothing more and nothing less, and we ask the Court of Auditors, in the context of drawing up the new management contracts, to check whether those 3 billion euros of public funds per year have been used efficiently, but not least.

I would like to thank and congratulate the majority. The leaders of the group will not hold me rigorous. There are times when you have to be a great lord. The holidays may come but, above all, the majority had the intelligence to recognize that our text was timely. Not only did she recognize it, but she used a number of elements, about 90 to 95 percent of the text. So that is a good thing. I look forward to the fact that the whole of this chamber gathered can ask the Court of Auditors to carry out an important audit of the management contracts that concern the SNCB, which concern Infrabel, which therefore concern the whole railway group about which the minister presented, last week, its “strategic vision”. I am just quoting it. I will not make any further comments. We already did it, last week. We will come back.

However, we will be pleased that the Court of Auditors can do this work. Mrs. De Coninck had the kindness and intellectual honesty to cite the main authors. There is a beautiful French word called palimpsestes. by Mr. Miller is a specialist not for personal use of palimpsest, but he knows very well that under the palimpsest, you find the original. Therefore, do not look: the environmentalists actually filed, on 17 March 2015, a text requiring this audit to be carried out. Madame De Coninck, thank you and thank you to the majority for having this political intelligence to follow us and to attribute to you the paternity of the text. After all, it is probably normal. But the concession that had to be made by the opposition, that is, us, is great and eternal because the Court of Auditors will carry out the audit. That’s what we’re going to do today and vote tomorrow.

Dear colleagues, what matters with this audit is to take a look at the policies carried out by this railway group on the basis of the management contract which is such a fundamental text that it needs to be reviewed, corrected and reimplanted by the current government. This management contract will find its place, according to the minister, in the first half of 2016, when it was initially announced in early 2015.

It is important to note that this management contract represents a real contract between the public undertakings concerned, the federal state and that parliament when voting on the budget of the allocation. These undertakings benefit from a public allocation which must be justified in relation to public service tasks.

The challenge of the future management contract is fundamental, it touches the future of rail and represents the translation of a willingness to invest sustainably in mobility.

The Court of Auditors must be able to carry out its work effectively.

Madame De Coninck, although the finding may be painful for you, the 5% of the text that have not been approved represents a mere reminder of the fact that this government has, from the beginning, decided to operate drastic budget cuts in the budgets of allocations allocated to the SNCB. Minister Galant herself acknowledges that over the entire legislature, more than three billion euros will not be allocated to public railway policy. Obviously, it was difficult for you to see it written and you removed it from your text.

However, even if I am tough, I will be right because you have introduced in a complementary way in the text, a possible mission of the Court of Auditors in relation to the management of subsidiaries.

Sometimes we talk too much about the SNCB subsidiaries. On the other hand, if the Court of Auditors can be interested, it will do useful work since internal audits have demonstrated that there is potential, as Mr. said. Cornu, “the suspicion of corruption.” These statements are not secret, Mr. Laaouej, it is only a quote published in the press. Following an audit commissioned by the SNCB, Mr. Cornu mentioned suspicions of corruption during the construction of railway stations. It would be appropriate that the Court of Auditors could refine the methodology of control of the numerous subsidiaries of this public undertaking. That was a first element.

The second element that you have usefully added, Mrs. De Coninck – and you see that I really try to be precise – is to check how the mandatory nature of the execution of management contracts can be strengthened; it will ⁇ be a useful work.

Last thing, in how long, dear colleagues, can this work be done? I looked at what the Court of Auditors had done in July 2008, since that same Court of Auditors had been referred by a resolution of that Chamber on 19 March 2008. It was a request for an audit on the execution of management contracts. I would tell my friends from the PTB ... See how I am very open. I even have friends in the PTB. Today, in the same speech, I praise the majority and I say that I have friends in the PTB. This is really a great moment! It smells of holidays.

So I would tell you, Mr. Van Hees, that your amendment was sympathetic but you are talking about the present, while it is about the past. In fact, we are talking well about the evaluation of management contracts. Even Ms. Galant is convinced that there were no dark cuts in the SNCB budget during the previous legislature.

The Court of Auditors was referred to by a resolution of Parliament on 19 March 2008. The Court of Auditors’ letter of mission is dated 18 April 2008 and, on 18 June 2008, an important date, the draft report is sent to the audit interlocutors, since the Court of Auditors does a first job and then addresses the different interlocutors and this returns to the Chamber of Representatives on 30 July 2008. From March to July, you see that the Court of Auditors can do this work in a few months.

Dear colleagues, what a pleasure that a proposal from a small modest group of the minority can be accepted at 95 percent by the majority. You will understand that this is an almost historical, moving moment, Mr. Borsus. This is probably the case with this parliament. Beyond that, today we will make a major decision with regard to a major public railway company in this country that we rely on for the future. We hope that through this vote, there will then be this specific request to the Court of Auditors, Mr. Speaker – I know that you will be the privileged interlocutor – and that the Court of Auditors can do this work within the important time required. From this work of the Court of Auditors, the text says, the government that is drafting the management contracts will have to take account of this audit to make sure to determine the best possible management contracts for the future.

Mr. De Coninck said in the good report referred to by Ms. Poncelet and in the presentation of Ms. De Coninck that we approved this resolution two weeks ago, because our fundamental point of view is that an examination and audit by the Court of Auditors can provide added value. However, the report shows that this does not mean that we agree or were in agreement with the intention, with the way this majority plays with the feet of the opposition.

I will not exaggerate the debate of an hour ago, but in this completely different dossier this is shown again, now about a substantially good text by colleague Cheron. At a certain point, the committee is asked to wait a moment and instead of amending it, it wants to submit a new text with urgency. Amendments could not be made, because one did not actually dare to say anything fundamental about the savings of 2.1 billion euros. That is the essence of the story, that is what the majority does, but it should not be talked about.

CD&V has the mouth full about mobility, but it saves a lot there. So do not tell employees and students and everyone who uses the train, even in rural municipalities, that you are not responsible for the deletion in the offer. That is the essence of the story. Therefore, the resolution of colleague Cheron should not be discussed. Two weeks ago you thought that the discussion of this resolution was a walk through the park, but unfortunately, despite the fact that we agree to the audit of the Court of Auditors, we have come together as an opposition to make important comments to this text.

The text of the majority speaks about efficiency. It is not always feasible. Last week we got the plan-Galant. The Minister himself spoke of a strategic vision. Excuse me, my colleagues, but I have not been able to distract them from this. The Galant plan was merely strategic communication, probably because there was no agreement within the government and the companies absolutely did not know or know how to realize the savings. Therefore, a PowerPoint presentation was given and it was said that all of this would be returned to the CEOs, then let them report afterwards how they would do everything. Whether this is realistic was a detail.

Meanwhile, there are things that have happened in the branches that are absolutely rejectable. An investigative judge has been appointed in the context of potential corruption and we will have to wait for that investigation. These are absolutely rejectionable things. Whether it is legally criminal, that is a big question. It may be good that this is now being examined by the Court of Auditors, but I wonder to what extent the Court of Auditors is competent to effectively control all branches.

Were these concerns raised by the authors of this resolution? I asked that question in the committee and I received a number of answers, but I did not receive fundamental answers. What do you specifically expect from this audit and what will you do with it afterwards?

My conclusion is the following.

This government saves €2.1 billion from the NMBS and Infrabel. This government will be responsible for ensuring that students, workers and pensioners will soon have to pay much more. This government will be responsible for eliminating the supply of trains in rural areas. Unfortunately it is so. Go just tell it in the Kempen, also the electrification to Mol and Neerpelt is deleted. The MR has the mouth full of la dorsale wallonne: well, that is the first thing that will be removed.

This government then has the courage to save those 2.1 billion and in the meantime ask for an audit. Well, we are for this audit, but then we want to hear from this government a fundamental answer to the question of how to realize those savings. One must stop turning the passengers a wheel in front of their eyes.

I would like to say that this resolution is both welcome and unwelcome. Welcome, because the situation of the SNCB is critical and an analysis of its management can only help to improve things, if such a will exists at the head of a coalition of devotees of privatizations. Malvenue, because it could be hypocritical on the part of a majority to look primarily for the source of problems in poor management, while the primary cause of problems is to look for in budget cuts that have accumulated from year to year and that, with this legislature, still take a new momentum.

The PTB was interested with people on the ground to look for the causes of the malfunctioning of the SNCB, the railway, in particular the delays of trains. What are the causes? A number of reasons, which have a common trunk: the lack of maintenance. I quote: “Damaging rolling stock, infrastructure and signaling are the first causes of delays. Previously, rolling equipment was regularly ⁇ ined. Now, the habit is to maintain the equipment when it has a fault."

Passenger cars, whose heating does not start off due to lack of preventive maintenance, are one of the daily reasons for the removal of trains, which has seen the explosion in the last ten years. A car can run for a week with a door that doesn’t work until a train escort discovers that the second door doesn’t work either, shortly before departure. In this case, it is important to maneuver the car to remove it. Here is an example!

I could also mention the lack of maintenance of the infrastructure, the sharp decrease in rolling personnel, the lack of dispatchers, the decrease in stop times in finished stations and the splitting of the SNCB, that is, not only the lack of resources given to the SNCB and to Infrabel. In fact, a report attests that the punctuality of trains began to deteriorate from the split of the SNCB into several companies. Infrabel figures show the same thing. According to specialists of Swiss federal railways, considered to be the best in the world, the idea of separating the management of the track from the operation of trains is fundamentally wrong.

Ultimately, all these problems can be summarized in two points. First, a structural underinvestment for many years. Therefore, it is not the current government that initiated the savings at the level of railways. However, it must be acknowledged that the bar is very high with more than 3 billion euros accumulated during the legislature.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Van Hees and the previous speakers assume the savings for their critical attitude towards our motion for a resolution. We invite you to read our proposal carefully. Then they will find that this proposal has nothing to do with the budget or the savings that this government has to make. Our proposal is about management contracts, nothing more and nothing less.

We spend 3 billion euros annually on railways. Should we expect a good service? However, there appear to be many problems. We want to see how the resources were used, because the service for the travellers is not optimal.

The savings have nothing to do with the expiration of management contracts. We have to make those savings to clean up the mess of socialist politics, and the NMBS has really made a mess of it.

I do not know the membership of the party from the outside, but I have not seen the name of Mr. Descheemaecker in between.

The [...]

Mr. President, as Mr. Cheron clarifies that I am not a member of the Socialist Party.

If you listened carefully, I denounced the savings that have been made for years on the railways. I added that the government was putting the bar even higher. This means that the problems are likely to be even greater since I try to demonstrate that the fundamental problem with liberalization lies in the cuts that are operated in the dotation granted to the SNCB. Beyond the management problems that we will be able to analyze, I denounce the main causes.

That is why I am proposing an amendment. I blame this proposal for a resolution for referring only to the management aspect and not to the other problems that cause difficulties for railway undertakings in the performance of their public service tasks. My amendment proposes to add a point to the resolution to ask the Court of Auditors to examine, in the analysis of the causes that would cause public service tasks to be not or not sufficiently fulfilled, the share that is due, first, to management problems, second, to the effects of liberalization and, third, to an insufficient federal funding. It is important to know the causes and the relative weight of each of them.