Proposition 54K2125

Proposition de résolution relative à la création de Points Train.

General information ¶

Author

N-VA Inez De Coninck

Submission date

Oct. 26, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

automatic vending machine distributor resolution of parliament ticket retail outlet

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.
• Stefaan Van Hecke (Groen) abstained from voting.

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 ¶

March 9, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I ask for the word at this late hour, however, to try to persuade the colleagues of the opposition to vote for this resolution later, because we believe that it is a good thing, both for the NMBS and for the traveller.

No one likes the closure of a lock in his municipality, but we must admit that the ticket sales through the locks are in a sharp decline. I asked for the figures myself. They show that trend. The importance of station lockets has decreased by almost a third in three years. This, of course, has to do with societal trends, such as an increasing number of digital ticket purchases, which contribute to this. The NMBS has played a role in this, by wagering on ticket automates itself.

The NMBS also announced several lock closures in September 2015. They are often very intrusive. Such lock shutdowns have so far occurred without mitigating measures and without researching a physical alternative, because when a lock shuts – we saw this in September 2015 – that opposition arouses in the local communities or the respective municipalities. They then experience the disadvantages of that intervention. There is no longer a closet or watchroom. Some citizens are also not so skilled with a ticket automate, let alone they like to buy a ticket online.

That is why we want to provide an alternative and a solution with this resolution. Also in case the ticketing machine is defective or if the lock is already closed – in my station the lock is closed in the afternoon – one can use that alternative. As an alternative, we propose to have transport tickets purchased from local merchants in and around the station. I would like to refer to colleague Geerts, who this week in Trends, in an article following the appointment of CEO Dutordoir, says that there is a supermarket in many small Swiss stations. That is positive. If we did this here, the NMBS would be able to earn revenue from commercial activities.

In fact, this resolution with the TrainPoints we want to introduce makes it possible to provide commercial activities in the stations. This is a win-win situation, also for the traveler, because one could also sell tickets there. The station remains open, there is some social control, maintenance and the like.

Let one thing be clear, colleagues: this resolution is in no way a responsibility or a legitimation for closing station locks. No, we really want to address the need for a physical point of sale here in the case of a closure. Those who claim, as we have heard in the committee, that this is a flat savings exercise and a scam to close locks: that is wrong. I would like to refer to the decision of the Board of Directors of the NMBS, which states that no new locks will be closed. In this resolution, on the other hand, we set, if so, conditions to be met in the event of a closure.

Finally, colleagues, this question also comes from travel organisations. They ask themselves. I found an article in the member magazine Mondig Mobiel last summer, August-September 2016, in which TreinTramBus states: “There must be arrangements for people who, for some reason, cannot handle machines. In the Stockholm region and elsewhere, this has been solved in a user-friendly way by allowing local newspaper stores to sell tickets. You can pull a lot on bottles, colleagues, but you can not claim that TreinTramBus wants to break down the service to the traveller.

I would like to conclude that the intention of our resolution is absolutely a positive thing for the traveller. I hope for the approval of the opposition.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I see the smile of Mr. Cheron, Mr. Geerts, Mrs. Poncelet who were present in the committee.

At this late hour, we will not re-enter the whole debate, Mrs. De Coninck. But, even you, in the committee, have doubted the well-foundedness of the resolution proposal in the face of the arguments we have put forward.

Today, you come back refined, reboosted, with press documents telling us that, thanks to this, things will go better.

SNCB is not bpost. These are not the same everyday needs. These are not the same extraordinary needs.

We really wanted to reassure. And you came again to tell us, today, that the board of directors has made known that there will be no additional closure of the boxes. What you say is true until 2020. After that, we do not know.

Mr Cheron presented an amendment to you. You know how insistent he can be. Sometimes he even convinces me. And in this case, that’s what he did. All members of the opposition signed the amendment that allowed the majority to match their words with acts and that guaranteed that there would be no further closure of bars.

You are telling us that fewer and fewer tickets are sold at the stores. This may be explained by the fact that there are fewer and fewer boxes available, fewer and fewer public services available for users who would so much like to regain the full functionality of said services as you strive, day after day, evening after evening – I would like to say – to fight.

No, you didn’t reassure us. No, you did not convince us. That is why the Socialist Group will not vote on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I will be brief.

I can only repeat what I said at the committee meeting, in particular that our group has nothing against additional services.

The problem with this resolution, however, is that there is nowhere to talk about the importance of locks, let alone that there is an effort to preserve them.

During the discussion, I was surprised that, like my colleagues from PS, cdH and Ecolo, I was removed as a conservative. We were the Conservatives because we said that some locks should remain.

There is nothing progressive about abolishing public services. I think that there should be a minimum of services provided by these cabinets and that their task should be fulfilled better. We have also submitted a new proposal for a resolution on the creation of a locket 2.0, which is being considered today.

As Ms. De Coninck said, we must look at how this should be organized. I have said this clearly in the committee. In the text of the majority, bets are only on TrainPunts.

During the debate, a comparison was made with bpost, but the bpost reform at the time made it clear that at least 650 postal offices and at least one in each municipality would remain. These alternative PostPoints were an additional service and are effectively a success.

There is therefore a minimum guarantee of that public company and that I miss in this text. I fear that because of the tendency, especially in small congregations, to reduce the locks, one gets a self-fulfilling prophecy and that there will be less supply to those locks until they are finally closed.

Therefore, I think we can better look at filling those locks meaningfully. There is a public patrimony that can be valued for the company, but above all also for the travellers.

We voted against this resolution in the committee because it abandoned the importance of the lock itself and only invested in additional TrainPoints, without giving guarantees about the essential function of a sale that welcomes the travellers.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, we had this discussion in the committee on the future of the possibility of buying tickets to take the train. It was quickly agreed that the train is the indispensable strategic tool for future mobility, that it is a means of transport of the future. There is no problem here.

When we started the debate on your proposal, Ladies De Coninck and Lahaye-Battheu, all the groups said, "You present your text as an alternative to what? To what is called, today, stations, stations, behind which there are people who are in contact with railway users and who want to travel by train, buy a ticket, inquire at the stake, have that contact that still allows to have indications."

We then immediately drew attention to the fact that the wardrobe as such was therefore called to disappear. This is the danger of the alternative. So we asked the question of public service, railway, stations and stations. It will not escape anyone that, in recent years, stations have been removed. I am referring here to the question of rural areas that have been at the heart of the debate we have developed. You have been noticed that replacing a station or train station, in rural areas, with points called "trains" at services and shops that do not exist, is a bit difficult. Ms. Poncelet has ⁇ emphasized this.

So we wanted to address the question of the guarantee of stopping the disappearance of the stations stores and even the timetable of sales to the stores. Because you know that it is not because there are still stations with stalls that the latter are open permanently. Sometimes it is only a few hours.

Following this discussion, you answered us with an amendment to the considerations. You see the fundamental scope of a considerant in a resolution... It is “resolutionary”. You mentioned a decision of the board of directors of the SNCB stating that nothing will be closed until 2020, understood "living on January 1, 2021".

We submitted an amendment that my colleagues agreed to co-sign, not in the considerations but in the first request to the government. We asked the government to include in the management contract – the contract we have been waiting for for a number of years, Mrs. De Coninck, the contract that gives the public service tasks and the real link between the state, which grants the subsidies, and the SNCB and Infrabel – the fact that there would be no more closures of stores and stations. We formulate this simple request as a guarantee of good faith.

Madame De Coninck, you just have to vote on this amendment, and it is with pleasure that we will have the opportunity to study the text you submitted a little more serene. This would be a good faith clause.

If, indeed, this majority has the ambition to keep the stations, the stalls, those magnificent places where travellers are still allowed to meet railway workers, let it make this gesture and the debate will start on other bases. We will be reassured that this is not a game of fools, which it is for now.

If you do not vote for this amendment, please take care of your phone. We will then regret having to reject your proposal because it would be based on a bad foundation.

I would like to comment on what my colleagues have said. They portray us here as if we were demolishing the public service at the NMBS. I want to formally contradict this. On the contrary, we expand the public service, we make it possible to buy tickets at multiple locations, but also through partnerships with private partners.

My colleagues, this is difficult for you. You would rather leave the traveller in the cold than be open to an alternative through a local entrepreneur, a local merchant. It would also be good to help maintain these beautiful station buildings.

In fact, colleague Lahaye-Battheu called it a conservative attitude in the committee. I’m talking about it and even call it conservative.

I agree with what my colleague has just said. Colleagues from the opposition, I want to thank you for the discussion in the committee and here today. However, I would also like to express my disappointment over the fact that you still do not want to see the added value of the resolution, because in my opinion it is about “not wanting”. What is it about?

Mr. Cheron, this is not an alternative, but a complementary offer.

It is a supplementary sales channel, a supplementary opportunity to purchase products from the NMBS, either from local merchants near a station, or through shopping concessions in station buildings where there is no longer a lock. This is a win-win situation for travellers. I think we should primarily work on that.

I urge everyone to approve this text.

I confess that for one time, I am a little disappointed with my colleague Marcel Cheron whom I have known for forty-five years already. In fact, it is usually less manicure than that. In fact, he tried to trap us by saying it was an alternative. What a baby! This is not an alternative, but a complementary offer.

We all know, everywhere in Flanders and Wallonia, stops, stations, where there is no one, already for a very long time, even under the ministers of the various parties that are now moving. However, often, near these places, you can find shops, shops. We could proceed as we did for the Postal Points, which also caused much concern at the time of their establishment, and which now provide many services, including in the Parliament where we also have a Postal Point.

This is an additional service provided to our citizens. Public service is very important, contrary to what Mr. Devin might think. In this context, we consider this to be a plus. The guarantee that no internal sales system will be removed from the stations until 2020 is a way to make a balance by then of how these new complementary points will develop, and how things will go for the greatest benefit of our population.

I would like to speak on behalf of our group. We are talking about guaranteeing the points of sale until 2020. It is tomorrow. This is not a guarantee. This is a very short deadline. The amendment proposed by Mr. Cheron was a much better guarantee.

Mr Flahaux, you have this yourself, there are sometimes stores or services other than the gares near the gares, but there are places where there is nothing of all. If one ferme the guichet, one creates a desert. Ce n'est pas un service supplémentaire que vous allez créer: on va complètement supprimer le service public. One can not support a proposition like that.