Proposition 54K1990

Proposition de résolution visant à préserver la mobilité multimodale en région rurale.

General information ¶

Authors

MR Emmanuel Burton, David Clarinval, Jean-Jacques Flahaux, Gilles Foret, Kattrin Jadin, Benoît Piedboeuf
Open Vld Sabien Lahaye-Battheu, Nele Lijnen

Submission date

July 18, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

combined transport resolution of parliament rural region public service rail transport

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

∉ PP VB

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 ¶

April 27, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I would like to give a brief oral explanation to the written report that the services have prepared very well.

However, there is a problem – I look immediately at Mr Foret – in the context of the title of this resolution, because at the beginning of the vote it was decided to change the name of this resolution. However, the old name is still on the agenda. I will discuss the new name of the resolution later in my personal presentation, but as a rapporteur I must not forget that we are actually discussing today the resolution on the preservation of multimodal mobility in rural areas.

The committee discussed the text, initially with the projected title, on 16 November last year and on 28 March this year. Collega Foret gave in his presentation an explanation of his initiative and lightened the various requesting and available sections. I assume that this will happen again shortly.

Amendments were submitted by several colleagues. The first amendments were made by Ms. Poncelet. She requested that at least one train per hour be organized in the different directions.

Subsequently, amendments were submitted by Mr Foret himself and a number of other colleagues of the majority, including changing the title of this resolution, as I have stated later, and removing some articles on the one hand and adding some articles on the other. This was also confirmed by colleague Raskin.

I myself took the floor to re-submit amendments to the matters that were removed by the majority and also amendments to improve the train offer during the weekend. Colleague Cheron found this an excellent and wise initiative of the signatories and supported me in his presentation, which I could fully understand. I assume that this aspect will also be explained here.

Mr Cheron said a new word during the discussion. Without wanting to raise a personal fact, colleague Foret. He spoke of a “defore(s)tation” of the text. A new and remarkable parliamentary word. Sorry, you brought it up yourself. It is ⁇ worth mentioning.

Finally, Mr Grovonius defended a number of amendments. I assume that they will defend again, since those amendments have been submitted again. Then there was a suspension because the quorum was not reached, after which there was a vote. The various amendments of the majority were adopted by nine against four votes. The opposition’s amendments were rejected with the opposite result. The text was adopted with nine votes against four.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, what was our pleasant impression of reading the resolution proposal as originally drafted by our colleague, Mr. Foret.

Mr. Foret, a bold proposal as it seized hands-on a real social, economic and environmental issue: mobility in our rural areas. We could almost talk of a frightening spirit in your boss, Mr. Foret. Demanding the maintenance or even improvement of the quality of railway service in our rural areas was bold. Should I recall that the Minister of Mobility imposes savings of three billion euros on the railway and that, from Infrabel’s own confession, it is the Walloon secondary network that will be the first impacted by these savings?

But far from fixed budgetary and ideological conceptions, Mr. Foret proposed, with courage, a dynamic and voluntary approach to mobility. He seemed to have understood that if you want people to stop using their cars, you need to offer them enough trains, that the investment of the community will have a return effect not only for the users of the trains but also for the whole country. He seemed to have understood that the role of a state is to propose solutions to the isolation of villagers. In other words, Mr. Foret’s initial resolution took the side to defend neither more nor less the public service. Bravo to! (The applause)

And in fulfilling these tasks, Mr. Foret did not escape his responsibilities. At that moment! Isn’t that Mr. Cheron? It is the SNCB and Infrabel, federal companies, who are best placed to provide a sustainable transport offer in rural areas, while ensuring coherence between the different territories of the country.

But all this, my dear colleagues, was before the MR was recalled to order by its majority colleagues of the N-VA. Once again, it happened in the Infrastructure Committee what has been happening systematically since the beginning of this legislature: the MR bowed to the requirements of the N-VA in exchange for support on a text now totally hollow and soft.

The majority amendments completely distorted the text. While the initial proposal affirmed the key role of the SNCB in rural transport, the final text proposes an inverse approach. This text not only justifies savings and disclaims the federal government, but also transfers the burden of these economies to the Regions.

The title of the resolution itself is no longer intended for the SNCB. A new consideration explains that it is normal that the savings imposed on the SNCB are achieved in rail connections and that the demand to expand the offer of trains on weekends disappears. Cherry on the cake, the majority unhappyly reverses the entire initial philosophy of the text, since now the resolution encourages that the supply of trains enter into a commercial logic, in other words, that it be reinforced where the population density is the highest: finally, everywhere, except in rural areas, areas yet so expensive to Mr. Foret and MR.

Mr. Foret, it is hard to see that you have abandoned the struggle for our fellow citizens who live in rural areas. In exchange, you seem to find your account in the relative and ephemeral glory of seeing a hollow text signed by your name and approved by the majority of that assembly.

The resolution filed initially defended the public service. The one that will probably be voted today strengthens, she, a commercial service of the SNCB. It’s your choice, but it’s not that of my group, or mine. This is also not the case for most of my colleagues in the opposition. That is why we decided to re-submit a comprehensive amendment. This, Mr. Foret, is nothing more than your initial proposal, simply. I hope that you will still support your proposal, the one you yourself wrote and filed when we had these exchanges. We have not changed a single verse to this text, on which you had put all your heart, and which was the result of all the work you had provided to deposit it.

I repeat: your first intention was the right one. Public service must be a corrector of inequalities; in the case of railway mobility in rural areas, it is even more. It is a tool that meets the imperatives of public health, environmental and economic development, which everyone will benefit from.

So you will understand that we will not be able to support the proposal in the state. This justifies the downturns and savings imposed on the SNCB Group. I hope that my dear colleague will be able, on the other hand, to support our amendment, which is neither more nor less than its own original text.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Mrs. Grovonius, dear colleagues, the draft resolution that will be submitted to the vote of this Assembly this afternoon is the result of a process of dynamic and voluntary reflections and discussions.

This is how we work in the Infrastructure Committee. I would also like to take the opportunity I am given here to thank my colleagues from both the opposition and the majority for taking part in the very interesting debate on rural transport.

This proposal aims to preserve rail mobility, but also mobility in general. Multimodality, intermodality of means of transport in these low-population regions are, indeed, vital in terms of accessibility and economic development, in terms of social cohesion, in terms of road safety, in terms of the environment.

Let me repeat the phrase that Mr Bellot spoke during his political orientation presentation in May 2016. I quote it: “Organizing a high-quality service in rural areas also creates a tangible link between these often excentric areas and the major centres.”

From this perspective, rail transport contributes to supporting a balanced territorial planning policy and thus contributes to the cohesion of the different parts of the country. A good railway service in rural areas avoids, for many shuttlers, the temptation of staying in their cars until their final destination in the major job poles. The Minister was, of course, part of the Government’s willingness to support the integrated public transport offer in rural areas.

I would like to return to the contents of this resolution. As I explained in the committee, we wanted to change the title of the proposal. In fact, we wanted to emphasize multimodal and intermodal mobility in rural areas. It was this interest that, together with my colleagues, prompted me to change the title. But the content of the proposal still has the original meaning of the resolution proposal I had submitted, but with – it is true – the amendments resulting from our committee debates. Indeed, I have never hidden my desire to have an open discussion, that the dots are not thrown in advance and that we can, all together, find a consensus on the reality of transport in rural areas.

Three aspects of this proposal emerge. The first ensures that SNCB and Infrabel perfectly fulfill their public service mission in all regions of our country, including in rural areas, by optimizing customer service. Particular attention shall be paid to the maintenance and maintenance of the infrastructure and rolling stock and to the development of a sufficient and high-quality rail supply. As you know, after probably attending the various roadshows in the provinces, the new transport plan foresees a 5% improvement.

The second axis of the proposed resolution aims at improving coordination between all actors in rail and mobility, in order to ensure an effective multimodal supply. Mobility should be designed from door to door and not from station to station. The correspondence with regional public transport needs to be improved. It is important to work on intermodality of stations and stops. The 2017 Transport Plan also takes into account this integrated mobility.

The third axis of this resolution proposal aims to make every effort to benefit from European subsidies, in particular for studies and large infrastructure projects on the trans-European transport network (TEN-T). Belgium is, as you know, crossed by three of the nine trans-European corridors (North Baltic Sea, North Mediterranean Sea and Rhine-Alpes). It is therefore important that these corridors can be integrated and supported, as passenger transport will benefit indirectly.

These axes that I had initially integrated are strong. They have in no way been "deforested", denatured by the few amendments that my colleagues of the majority and myself have submitted. I accept these amendments. I signed them. I did not just attend the submission of amendments. I take them perfectly. I regret, of course, the partial and misinterpretation of my proposal by some. But I forgive you because I know that deep within you, the proposal presented today takes into account all of our priorities. Even if you don’t vote today, I know you support me morally. This is the most important thing for me.

I thank those who will support us and vote on the proposal we have submitted, with the positive developments that have been brought there. We strongly and committed to the ambitious vision of integrated and multimodal mobility proposed by our government and our Minister of Mobility, Mr. François Bellot. I would like to thank you, especially for rural areas. My colleagues who signed are behind me, I’m sure.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Foret for further clarifying his text.

As I said in the committee, the original text is, in my opinion, a good text. Most of our colleagues, especially those living in rural areas, can only support the importance of rail mobility and support the possibilities for the preservation and expansion of rail traffic in rural and suburban areas. In fact, when counting rail traffic between the provincial capitals and the capital, one must take into account that those who come to the provincial capitals are led from rural municipalities. From Heist-op-den-Berg, for example, one must go via Aarschot or Leuven, or via Lier and Antwerp. The people who leave from Heist-op-den-Berg are therefore also in Leuven and Antwerp. This is therefore very important, also to avoid congestion in the provincial capitals and in the smaller cities. Your intentions were very good. You also say, Mr Foret, that mobility must be considered door-to-door and that the first and the last mile are more important.

Unfortunately, I have to conclude that your resolution was exhausted. If a member of the majority gets the hint from the government that all this will not be able to be paid, and he is asked to modify his text a little, then I can provide some understanding for that. Given the chronology, I notice that your text was submitted on 18 July 2016. At that time, Minister Bellot, who took the oath on 18 April 2016, was competent. I assume you had contact with the minister of your political party before submitting your text to Parliament. I can hardly imagine you submitting a text in your group without your Minister, who is competent to do so, agreeing. I regret that Minister Bellot is not present today, because he could shed some light on that.

A Minister must include resolutions in the annual discussion of the budget. If a member of Parliament of his political party submits a resolution or recommendation, I assume that that minister is aware of it and has given his fiat about its content.

I understand that you need to make a compromise with the other government parties, but in fact this says a lot about the strength of your minister in this field. If your own minister agreed to submit this text, but was flown back with you by your coalition partners, then I think that your minister in this majority is not strong in his domain of competence.

That is the fundamental problem, Mr. Foret. All colleagues, including from the opposition, supported you initially, but they had a little pity on you, in the sense of: how far should one go to make a compromise possible for a resolution? You can lay the lat low, but how low should you lay them before you have an agreement? Unfortunately, this has happened here. I’m not saying that all the elements in your text are bad, absolutely not. Fundamental is that you make a recommendation in a resolution, but then suddenly at the second discussion everything is taken out. This is, for example, where you talk about the importance of national mobility. You talked about: “... to make the offer more attractive during the weekend, to engage other segments than residential/school and residential/working traffic.”

I can only judge for myself. If I want to go to Antwerp during the weekend, let me take the train, because with the car that is not good, since there is a low-emission zone there. But here it is deleted. It’s actually incomprehensible that you don’t think it matters that it’s invested in the weekend. However, this is fundamental. You will submit another amendment later. My group, like other groups, has a proposal to strengthen the weekend offer. All studies show that there is a potential, that there is a growth margin. The NMBS also made this clear in the explanation of the various transport plans proposed at the regional level. In your initial text there is a huge potential, but you allow it to be deleted. Understand who can understand.

Again, colleague Foret, why did you delete that while you know that there is the potential, and the transport needs? Why do you allow it to be said that the weekend is no longer important in the context of mobility, secure and fixed for rural municipalities?

I see that the amendment of Mr Grovonius is being submitted again. I think it can be absolutely supported. I look forward to your vote following this amendment. We can only regret, unless you and your majority would accept the amendment of Mrs. Grovonius, that you are a very good initiative at first... Let us be aware, a resolution has the status of a resolution, but ⁇ in the context of the discussion on the management agreement and the discussions on policy notes and mobility, we find it regrettable that you have so exhausted your text. Therefore, if no changes are made, we will vote against later.

We are in favor of improving mobility, rail mobility and multimodal mobility, also in rural municipalities, but the majority takes us all in the eye and laughs with the inhabitants of rural areas by putting this resolution with that title on the agenda and by delighting those people with a dead mouse.

First of all, I would like to thank Mr Geerts for his excellent report. I would then like to place myself in the wake of Mrs. Grovonius who spoke of gold because she explained well what happened.

We have two Gilles Foret today. We have the Gilles Foret of 18 July 2016, which was more revolutionary than "resolutionary", when it became the chant of railway mobility in rural areas. I suspect he wanted to follow the CDH, which had filed a similar text. It was about compensating for the lack to gain that can be counted at two or three billion of funding to the SNCB, to save the face, by issuing a text of resolution while the government was busy attacking the railway connections in rural areas for months. Mr. Foret, in July 2016, comes as defender of rural areas and deposits an ambitious text, a very good text. And Ms. Grovonius was right in submitting amendments that restore Mr. Foret’s text. It makes useful work by recalling in the text all its elements of ambition.

However, Foret, in order to keep his name on the resolution proposal, had to abandon the title, which went to preserve "railway mobility in the rural region" to preserve "multimodal mobility in the rural region". In other words, the federal state, which is not competent for what is not railroad, is magnificently “resolutionary” from here.

Mr. Foret, when I dared to speak of "deforestation", it was not just for the pleasure to make a good word - without raising the tension, Mr. Miller, sometimes you have to also make pleasure! This is because I recalled the abandonment of the title and, therefore, of the substance of an ambitious text. "Everything must change so that nothing changes," would like Elio Di Rupo, who is a great fan of Marguerite Yourcenar, and he is right ... No, it is Tomasi di Lampedusa, but it could have been written by Marguerite Yourcenar. and laughing)

So it is Tomasi di Lampedusa, author of the book The Guepard.

“Everything must change so that nothing changes.” The amendments that were proposed by the majority partners, especially the N-VA, because I have seen that the limbourgeois branch of CD&V had somewhat revolted, have well shown that the aim was to reverse the principles. Indeed, the two fundamental ideas that were removed from Mr. Foret’s text were very simple. First, it is the main role of the SNCB that has been diminished. Therefore, the work to be carried out on regional transport companies is delayed. Most importantly, dear colleague Foret, the policy that has been imposed on you is a management related to demand and not supply. Therefore, it is a completely different way to conceive the future of railways in rural areas.

We must not be mistaken in what has happened. In July 2016, Mr. Foret attempted to rehabilitate the MR and, in addition, the majority in view of everything that had been destroyed for months, or even the beginning of this legislature, in order to regain somewhat little credibility in terms of railway policy in rural areas. The best proof of Mr. Foret’s reversal – and this is very clear when one sees what has been removed from the texts – is brought by the amendment that Ms. Grovonius and other opposition colleagues have filed.

In a word, dear colleague, it would be enough for this majority to recover. Mr. Foret, I invite you to become a third character. You were the first to make a revolution in the countryside. You were the second who, in campaign race, was forced to accept intolerable amendments. I invite you to take you back and be the third Gilles Foret, the one who will know how to restore and its honor and its original text, in favor of the rail in rural area.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I also wanted to intervene because what we experienced in the Infrastructure Committee was surreal. It can be seen that this surrealism continues in plenary.

A little historical. In November 2014, the CDH submitted a proposal for a resolution entitled "Proposal for a resolution aimed at preserving railway traffic in rural areas". This resolution has been postponed several times because the majority wants to come up with its own text. This lasted two years. Finally, after that time, we come back with the text and finally discuss these rural areas. In July 2016, Mr. Foret submitted a new text entitled "Proposal for a resolution aimed at preserving railway mobility in rural areas". It is almost a copier-coller. It is exactly the same thing. We find ourselves there completely. Is this a kind of recovery?

We can see that this text largely joins the text submitted two years earlier. It was truly a missed opportunity to see this convergence supported by the unanimity of all the colleagues present in the committee and then also in the plenary session. We missed the opportunity to have unanimous agreement on a text that was entirely in the direction of public service in rural areas.

In March 2017, the proposal returns to the committee and it is there that the majority submits amendments that completely empty the resolution proposal from its substance. My colleagues have said it repeatedly, "empty of its substance, deforestation" no matter the vocabulary. In fact, we no longer have the first sense that had been deposited. This is quite different and there is even a reversal of the principles defended by the first text, therefore by Mr. Foret.

These amendments make it very clear that the N-VA is not concerned with rural areas at all. This view is further reinforced by the idea that one of the amendments dissociates: the frequency of service of a link is logically higher where the demand for local mobility is strongest. Therefore, it is demand that creates supply, not vice versa. But we know very well that a true public service must offer a service of equal quality for all, regardless of the region in which we live. It really encourages a very evil vicious circle. We are far from the expected public service.

Therefore, we will absolutely not support this draft resolution. On the other hand, as has been said, we will fully support the amendment filed by Ms. Grovonius, which is a return to the original text that also joins the first text that the CDH had filed in 2014.

Mr. President, thank you very much. I was waiting for my colleagues to finish their analysis of the discussions that took place in the infrastructure commission. I would like to supplement or modify some of the statements that have been held.

Mrs. Poncelet, you, in fact, submitted a proposal for a resolution two years ago and, in fact, it was part of the preservation of rural transport. You do not have the monopoly on this. But I told you that your proposal was badly engaged to the extent that, in the considerations and developments, you attacked the work of the government. If your goal was to get a consensus, it was wrong. Subsequently, I pledged to come back with a resolution proposal, one of which takes up part of yours. I do not copy and paste using terms contained in the government agreement, which aims to maintain transport capacity in rural areas. This is the very essence of the proposal.

Two other axes did not meet: those of multimodality and intermodality, an important vision for transport in our country. It is important to involve other actors such as the SNCB and Infrabel. We are not defiling in the face of federal responsibilities, we are simply looking for better cooperation between the different levels of power, for efficient and integrated transport.

We must take responsibilities and be pragmatic, like Minister Bellot, looking for alternative sources of financing, including European grants for trans-European networks. These two aspects were not included in your proposal. It is better to put aside a bank proposal at the base to recreate something strong and engaging.

I am false in comparison to the partial and misinterpretation of my colleagues. If you read the proposal, you will find that all the basic elements are there. Indeed, changes have occurred, because the discussion must be evolutionary and progressive and not fixed. There have been additional adjustments. The substance of the resolution remains important for rail transport in rural areas.

You need to read and be objective. I ask you to reiterate your commitment not to vote on this draft resolution. It would be a pity for rural areas that need your support. If you have the opportunity to change your mind, I will accept it with great interest, on behalf of rural and urban regions, as they are obviously complementary.

Mr. Foret, I invite you to listen carefully when we speak. When I talked about copy-paste, I was talking about the title you had chosen for your first text. It was exactly the same words that we used two years ago. When I told you that we were talking about unanimous voting and that your text would have collected it, I was talking about the content of your first text. There, you have completely turned things against you, since you will not reap unanimousness. So you say the things that arrange you and you manipulate the words as it arrange you. Surrealism continues to appear.