Proposition 54K3371

Projet de loi modifiant le Code ferroviaire.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Nov. 19, 2018

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive liberalisation of the market carriage of passengers rail network rail transport

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

LE ∉ VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.
• Anne Dedry (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 ¶

Dec. 20, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Anne-Catherine Goffinet is the rapporteur. It refers to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I am pleased that we can discuss this bill here today. The discussion was already on the agenda of the plenary session last week, but was postponed for practical reasons. Meanwhile, the political situation has changed and almost the group that always focuses on sustainability and sustainable mobility has opposed the agenda of the text. I am pleased that an agreement has been reached to schedule its treatment.

What is it about? In the end, it is simply about transposing a European directive. The present draft law is a cautious transposition, no statements were made on the outcome. Mr. Minister, during the committee in which colleague Dedecker spoke on behalf of our group, you have yourself admitted that the concrete development will be something for the next government. However, it is possible that other transport companies will operate for domestic rail transport. There is another blow to the arm held for the new government: it can block access to the railway for a while and keep it with our public operator NMBS. This is also in accordance with the European Directive, which is therefore not a problem.

Another important point of the bill is that it confirms the separation between the infrastructure manager and the operator. That strict separation is a logical choice: thus there is no chance of confusion of interests and we create an equal playing field for all railway operators. Of course, we still need to find a solution for the station infrastructure. We had previously submitted a proposal to the committee to allocate all infrastructure to the infrastructure manager, but there were reservations against it. In our view, however, it is wise to act proactively. In this way, we do not have to keep up with several years of delay following what other parliaments have decided for us.

What matters to us is the traveler. I think we are all on the same line, colleagues. For the traveler, the quality of the service and the customer-friendliness are important, just areas in which we score poorly in our country. We can say that competition will at least lead to a better ratio between quality and price. Hopefully it will also improve the quality.

We can retain the historical player for a while, as I have already noted, provided we impose KPIs or key performance indicators, in other words, increase performance and evaluate them regularly. Performance for us is equal to the quality of service. So who can be against it?

I read in the committee report that some members made some reservations on this subject. I repeat that the N-VA faction is primarily concerned with the importance of the traveller. We will continue to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, this bill was expected and it is not surprising that it faithfully transposes the directive that liberalizes national passenger transport. This is an unreasonable measure for the reality and challenges of a sector that deserves much better.

Who in this assembly can guarantee that this bill will allow to have more trains on time and at better prices across the whole Belgian territory? Who can believe that rail liberalization is the solution to the problems posed by road transport, i.e. the challenges of the 21st century?

The issue is right there. The train is a tool that serves the general interest. It benefits both those who take it and those who watch it pass, both citizens and those who live in the outskirts and rural areas, both today’s shippers and those of future generations. The train is not just a means of travel among others, it is one of the necessary responses to global warming, the health effects of air pollution and congestion in cities. It is because it serves the general interest that its state financing is legitimate and that it should not be borne by its only passengers.

Relying only on the market and on competition will result in private operators abandoning small lines, ticket prices exploding as well as train delays and cancellations. This is neither more nor less than what happened in the United Kingdom, as recognized in a report from the British Parliament last April.

Today, dear colleagues, a "renationalization" of the lines is supported there by an overwhelming majority of the subjects of Her Majesty the Queen. This project – and especially the directive from which it is derived – is the symbol of this Europe and a system that serves the financial interests at the expense of the interests of its citizens. He does not reconcile those who turned his back. It discourages those who still want to believe it. Yet the answer is in a Europe, but a stronger and fairer Europe both socially and fiscally.

So, even if it is an achievement of the European left against the liberal and conservative majority, one will not be consoled with the direct assignment of public service. First, because it is a limited acquisition in time and will expire at the latest in 2033. Second, because it is far from being acquired that the SNCB will benefit from it. This is no secret to anyone. This has already been said here: N-VA and Open Vld will prefer to use bidding rather than direct assignment, the first seeing it as a way to lead to a larved regionalization of the rail, the other to its privatization.

My group and myself – you see how many socialist colleagues are because they are defending precisely this very important position in terms of mobility and public service in our country – will therefore vote against this bill, about which the minister himself expressed his doubts in a committee regarding its possible effects on the Belgian market, because only the public refinancing of the railway, and not the 3 billion savings imposed on it, will place the railway sector at the heart of sustainable mobility.

I thank you for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, there is enormous pressure to succeed Mr. Devin, who has managed to bring all the Socialists of the Left together on a very important topic. Mr. Minister, you are here a bit of the notary since you must incorporate a European directive into Belgian law. It is true that, as other colleagues have emphasized each in their own way, the challenge is whether, concretely, in 2023, Belgium will make the choice to designate the historic operator, namely the SNCB, as the operator who will receive a rail public service contract for ten years.

This is the challenge that your successor, Mr. Bellot, will face. Someone will have to, on the basis of clear results, allow this choice. This is what we want.

To be clear, we will not vote for your reform of the Railway Code. We will oppose it in the right line of what we also want at the European level. Indeed, the model that has been chosen is to open up a sector as fundamental and strategic as rail, in particular the so-called Fourth Railway Package, which relates to domestic travellers, to a liberalization that is not controlled. International travel or freight transportation has already been liberalized as part of the other stages of EU directives.

Mrs. De Coninck, we could not argue in commission, which I regretted. I had the opportunity to do so with Mr. Dedecker, who perfectly defended the sovereignist theses of the N-VA. When Europe is interested in it, it supports it but, in general, it does not support it. This is a summary that I think is quite clear. That said, even though he defended his position with talent, he still had trouble offering us a clear model of what the rail could be from the N-VA perspective. The question arises whether there will be interconnection with other countries – I think it will be difficult! But most importantly, what will be the defended model.

There has been a lot of talk about the English model and the privatization of Thatcher. Is the N-VA a neo-Thatcher party? As far as I am concerned, I think, Mr. Jambon, that he is post-Thatcher.

The [...]

Mr. Jambon, I would like to tell you that it is a real joy to see you sitting on the banks in the back.

Mr Jambon wants to make his maiden speech.

Dear colleague, how would you spend your Thursday afternoon if the N-VA wasn’t here? Approximately half of all interventions concern the N-VA. In any case, it would significantly reduce the time.

Mr. Speaker, I will therefore continue the reasoning because with Mr. Dedecker, I had a genuine intellectual reasoning on the subject.

It was about whether the model proposed here was a good model for the future. The key question is, first of all, whether a rail transport is intended as part of a modal shift. I think we have all checked that for the climate, for the economy, for many reasons, for the health of people, it was better to use a little more the train than the car. In this regard, I think we agree.

The question is how this can be achieved. We are convinced that the model of openness to excessive liberalization and therefore competition as it has produced its results in countries that have applied it is not the right model. Beyond that, dear colleagues, we must therefore say that this directive will be applied, regardless of the work we will do here to ensure that the Railway Code is not amended as you wish, Mr. Minister. In fact, you are somehow the notary who translates this directive.

As for the challenge, when the choice must be made in 2023, very strong and very strict conditions will be required. The SNCB will also need to meet the conditions of efficiency that are not met today. If one had to find a thermometer of the temperature of the railway today, of the passenger transport, it would obviously be that of the punctuality and comfort of the shippers. Today, and we see this in almost every debate on the SNCB, this is not the case. Will we get there tomorrow? Will we be able to have equipment tomorrow that is not largely broken or unavailable? Will we avoid the removed trains? Will we avoid the problems posed by the absence or impossibility of having correspondences? Above all, dear colleagues, Mr. Minister and all those who will one day have to take care of the rail, will we have a SNCB capable, because it has demonstrated it, to be in efficiency and above all to meet the needs of an alternative mode of movement and a real modal shift?

During this legislature, we have long awaited a management contract that never came. This management contract is a priori the most important document that must link an autonomous public enterprise with the Parliament that grants it public allocations. Therefore, we did not have a management contract; this did not prevent you, every year, Mr. Minister, as you will ⁇ tell us today, from having transport plans. Each year, they attempted to respond to the demand. In fact, the number of passengers transported by train increases by more than 3% each year. The progress is strong, but there is, today, no service at the height. It is possible to fear that the SNCB is not at the height.

We are not going to argue for the second time about public subsidies. However, the SNCB does not now have as much money as it had at the beginning of the legislature. There can be controversy over the numbers. What interests me is the future. Will the majorities, during the remaining four months, or during the next legislature, dare to re-invest intelligently in the railway, having in mind that the least public euro invested in the SNCB helps to combat global warming and congestion and foster a modal shift?

This is the issue of this railway code, which is also quite indigest to read. I recognize it and I do not recommend it to you during the holidays. But beyond this Railway Code that may be adopted soon, what is being played is the future and the ability to designate the historical operator to ensure that the mobility problems in our country find a solution favorable to the climate, the economy and above all to the passengers and carriers of this country. The debate on the future of mobility and railway does not take place today, but it is a fundamental issue, either of the legislature that ends – we can all hope – or of the one that will begin once the voters have spoken. I urge you to take this into account in the future.

I do not want to repeat the arguments that we held in the committee here. I just want to explain why our group will vote against this draft.

On the one hand, we recognize the value of the articles that distinguish between the infrastructure manager and the railway undertakings; we can approve them. On the other hand, we continue to have a fundamental and principled problem with the planned liberalization of the railway undertakings and our infrastructure. Hence our opposition.

We had a good debate in the committee. We have said that this is a principled attitude. Today, with the climate challenges and congestion problems, we believe that not all ⁇ are prone to privatization and liberalization. Rail transport is one of those issues. If we are going to liberalize, then the modalities will have to be determined by the Belgian government. The risk is high that then the most profitable lines will be privatized. These will come into the hands of foreign groups where the historical operator of those countries is the driving force. Therefore, we are in principle against this project. Again, some articles may take away our approval and we have also approved them in the committee, but we will vote against the global design.

This bill is intended to transpose Directive 2016/2370 of the European Parliament. This is a new step in the liberalization of rail passenger transport, which reinforces the complete separation between Infrabel and SNCB.

With regard to this first aspect, namely the separation between the manager and the company, we admit that it is necessary to seriously close the eyes on the reality of the Belgian railway in order to vote on such a provision. Indeed, the separation between Infrabel and the SNCB is the source of countless problems. Minister Bellot himself has already, as he will confirm, repeatedly regretted this split. Instead of making the negative balance and making a step back, we are pursuing better in this process that is causing problems.

When it comes to liberalization as such, no one ignores that PTB is opposed to rail liberalization, as well as many other liberalizations. A liberalization which has no other objective than to serve the interests of private shareholders, but which is ineffective, more expensive, which reduces the safety and quality of travel service to travelers and which is detrimental to staff.

Nevertheless, the expansion of the railway network is an important lever for ensuring both the right to mobility and the preservation of our planet and our health. However, in order to ⁇ these goals, we need a successful SNCB, a “21st century SNCB”. A good example in this regard is Switzerland. A study conducted by the Boston Consulting Goup identified the Swiss federal railways, 100% controlled by the state, as the most efficient rail system in Europe, an integrated company that is both railway operator and infrastructure manager. It is also the railway company that is the most state-funded on our continent.

In Belgium, on the other hand, a liberalization has been prepared for years, in particular by de-investing and making the railway not work, cutting budgets, limiting investments, separating Infrabel and SNCB.

Today, preparation for liberalization destroys railway services. Users complain about delayed trains and cancelled trains. The train drivers are alerting us. The lack of resources prevents them from performing their work properly.

Faced with the positive example of Switzerland, we have ⁇ the most edifying counter-example that is that of Great Britain. After twenty years of rail privatization in England, it is seen that punctuality has declined. The age of the equipment, he, has increased. The number of breakdowns increased as maintenance personnel decreased. Prices have exploded. An analysis shows that the monthly subscription between Luton and London consumes an average of 14% of the salary of a British shuttle carrier, while, for a similar journey, the amount is 3% in Germany and 2% in France. This is the balance of ineffective liberalization: more expensive, less security, less good service. It is to this model that this project leads us.

The PTB strongly opposes this openness to competition. This project will also allow Infrabel to offer individual benefits to railway companies, such as cost reduction, improvement of one part of the network against other parties. This will therefore create a real danger of a two-speed rail service. As is well known, rural lines risk being neglected as a priority because they are the least profitable.

The PTB will not support this project, which helps to go even further in the liberalization of the railway. I am pleased to hear socialist and environmentalist colleagues criticize, too, this process of liberalization. This is not obvious because it is remembered that it is an ecological minister, then in the place of Mr. Bellot, who signed, at the European level, the first railway package. No matter the past, what matters is the future. I take note of this opposition to liberalization and I welcome it.

I conclude, Mr. President, by saying that we will vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the biggest common shareholder here this afternoon may be that we agree on the fact that a precise, high-quality and affordable railway offer is the alternative to the files. I also mean an offer from all corners of our country. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Colleagues, the wild privatization of railways in the United Kingdom of the 1990s is often cited to lubricate any discussion about competition on the rail in the germ. The previous speakers also cited it again. Colleagues, we must admit that not every privatization is the devil’s. Other examples show that in the railroad landscape liberalization really means progress. Look at our northern neighbors. In the Netherlands, it is possible to issue regional concessions for rail and bus transport. Railways that the Dutch Railways found too expensive to operate, suddenly turned out to be ⁇ profitable. A high-quality, material good and customer-focused offer ensured an enormous growth in travelers. In the province of Limburg, this resulted in the Dutch Railways eventually going very far in the urban area on the lines they previously had to close themselves. I can only tell you that we can only dream of this today with us in Limburg.

We are talking about the draft law on the Rail Codex. I can only point out that the draft law is a very important step in the preparation of the liberalization of the market of domestic passenger transport. It is more than just the pure liberation of the market. Good liberalization requires a clear and good railway infrastructure manager, who provides a high-quality network to all players.

That will be the reason why we will approve the bill today. We hope that effective market liberalization is closer than ever.

As I have stated in the committee, this text consists of a transposition of the technical and political pillars of a European directive without making any choice as to the solution to be adopted in 2023.

I will respond to the various interventions. First, it was this government, and in particular two ministers, who contacted the European Commission – together with the Dutch minister, the former Austrian minister and the Luxembourg minister – in order to provide for the direct assignment to the historical society. It was a liberal minister who went to plead in this direction with the European Commission. I want to say it. In other words, in addition to pure competition, the Commission has taken back the possibility of granting direct award.

Then, when I took office, I had clearly stated that my goal was to encourage the SNCB to improve its performance so that it will be armed in 2023 to respond to the criticism of those and those who would refuse a direct assignment. Among the measures adopted is the need to improve productivity. For this purpose, an agreement was reached within the parity committee. I would like to thank all the railroads, because the trade unions have obviously grasped the danger or opportunity represented by opening up to competition. This is the approach we have taken.

I know that punctuality, which has deteriorated over the last two or three years, is one of the performance criteria. I also know that the Infrastructure Commission will soon receive the railway owners, but I also know that, in their analysis, they show how much neutralized punctuality – that is, when third-party facts are removed – is stable, or even improves in terms of certain criteria.

But the SNCB is also the victim, in its field, of a number of social events that cause disturbances in the network.

I would like to point out a third element. When it comes to punctuality, we must be objective. I think Ms. Fonck had asked for a benchmarking. I would like to refer you to a large newspaper that yesterday ⁇ what was happening in Germany. If the same criteria of punctuality as in Belgium are applied, it is now 70 % in Germany, 85-86 % in Belgium.

We have just seen a 70% increase in the number of travellers in 15 years. On the year 2017 alone, there is an increase of 3.5%, and also of 3.5%, since the beginning of 2018. We are in a chariot moment. The SPF Mobility, yesterday, in the presentation of the Monitor survey, also shows that there is a decrease in the number of car travel in our country. This had not happened many years ago.

This may seem paradoxical because it does not correspond to what is measured at the entrance of major cities. But all the tools it has at its disposal, including the famous Car-Pass, which allows to record the number of kilometers travelled by all cars in Belgium, show an increase in the fleet and a decrease in the number of kilometers travelled by cars.

As I said, we are in a difficult time. There is a change in attitude towards mobility, including a decrease in the use of the car, which goes from 65% to 61% in travel.

Another essential element: I often hear about financing, the withdrawal of 3 billion, etc. I recall that the government will pay 13.7 billion euros to the two railway companies in five years, to which one billion must be added for works, including the famous RER.

Mr. Devin, I want to hear that investing is necessary but how should I interpret today the fact that the Multiannual Investment Plan and the Strategic Plan of Public Investments are approved by the Flemish government, by the Wallon government, by the federal government while I have been waiting for now a month and a half for the signing of the RER cooperation agreement by the Brussels Prime Minister-President?

I refuse to receive lessons from those who claim that the mobility problems in Brussels result in particular from the delay of the ERR, when we invest ⁇ 800 million in the ERR on the Brussels Region alone and that we still have no signature. We are currently playing Russian roulette on the RER file in Brussels! If the agreement is not signed or translated into decrees to approve the entire RER assembly, this will be returned to the future government whatever.

I think the resources are lacking. I must then explain how it happens that in 2017, both Infrabel and the SNCB are in bonuses and have generated profits that are re-invested in the rail and that in 2018, Infrabel is heading towards the non-use of funds in investments because all the planned investments have been put on auction.

In addition, Infrabel will reduce debt below the debt compliance profile required by the federal state. The debt will continue to decrease this year by 70 million without the federal government requesting to accentuate the decrease of debt since we have set a profile. I really invite you to ask the railway managers if they do not have enough resources. Ms. Dutordoir indicated before the Infrastructure Committee – I read the minutes – that she did not need additional resources. I am referring to the text.

It seems to me that the SNCB must be prepared for climate challenges. The population issued a signal, but before it was issued, it had already changed its behavior since, statistically, the number of travellers is increasing.

Mr. Cheron, why is the management contract not yet approved? Because I require both companies to translate into a text, in a concrete way, the will to place the customer-traveller at the center of the debate. This and nothing but that must be translated into the texts. You know, through the transport plan that was ambitious: 72 more trains in December 2016 in the Brussels Region, 5.1% increase in 2017, significant investments that cause slowdown on several lines, etc. We cannot say, as you do, that this government has not done enough. We have changed the way we see things. We have developed a number of texts and legal frameworks. Today, it is up to both companies to continue to put the customer at the center of the discussions.

Is the opening of the market interesting? I observe that, for example, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has announced that it has purchased 35 new trains which, on the basis of the transport plan 2021, will serve the south of the province of Luxembourg to Libramont and which will make the junction on line 42 between Luxembourg and Liège.

I would like the SNCB to be able to implement such initiatives as well. Go, for example, to Aix-la-Chapelle or Maastricht. The will of the management of the SNCB today is to say that it will conclude agreements with external partners to operate lines whose crossing, at the cross-border level, is beneficial to our populations. This was also the direction of the Namur-Maubeuge-Paris line. I hope this will come true for the Athus-Mont-Saint-Martin and Hamont-Weert lines. This is the strategy we want to adopt. Of course, and you know it because you knew me in committee, I have never been in favour of a revolutionary approach but rather of a mutation.

As to whether the concerns of the SNCB with regard to its travellers are recent, I invite you to read the letters that President Putin sent to our King during his visit, as well as the letters of King Albert I to his Prime Minister, Mr. Jaspar, in which he complained about a number of difficulties of the SNCB.

Sometimes I have the impression that, by analyzing the situation by listening to you, we have simply changed the dates, but that history reverses the dishes from time to time. Nevertheless, we try to make things evolve with the means we have put at the disposal of both companies, with the efforts of both companies and – I dare to hope – with an evolution of the company in order to prepare it for a direct assignment or another solution if it should not sufficiently modernize itself.

In any case, it is the wish that I express to serve mobility in our country, with motivated railroads, a business set up on the rails and centered on the traveller and beyond any other consideration of urbanism or ambition of large buildings in large cities – this era must, in my opinion, be over. Place to public and effective mobility, that is the sense of the will of all the measures expressed. I dare hope that it is in this will that the transposition of the European Directive will be expressed by 2023.

Mr. Minister, I thank you for your answers.

There is no ambiguity in the various discussions. We amend our Internal Railway Code, (a point on our agenda) and apply the European Directive. We have explained ourselves well on this. I would like to emphasize that the Benelux model, aimed at preserving the ultra-liberalization of domestic passenger transport, is a rather sympathetic model. It tends to allow, in 2023, to designate in Belgium the historical operator for 10 years and provided that it fulfils a number of qualitative conditions. In this regard, we will continue to emphasize the means that are important to implement in the public rail service.

I would like to highlight the work done by the new CEO of the SNCB. Those who follow the rail record have seen in her a real desire to change things. It had impressed the Infrastructure Commission, which is quite rare, and it had helped to nourish some hopes for the future of the SNCB. It must be admitted that the first gestures made are positive.

However, it is also important to emphasize that the railway workers were also at the height. Some have complained a lot for years, but today, we cannot deny the contribution made by all the railway workers in professions that are sometimes very difficult. We have seen it in the field of Infrabel. The danger of this profession was seen with this accident that had occurred. This has also been seen with the very hard work of train escorts, whose role, although increasingly painful and increasingly difficult, is fundamental for the service of passengers.

You draw my attention to the completion of the RER and the famous virtuous billion, which must be translated into a number of texts. If your information is correct as to the fact that today the Brussels Region has not done the necessary work, namely to send to the State Council the cooperation agreement that must be approved by each entity (Flemish Region, Walloon Region, Brussels and at the federal state level), it would be that those who can do so call for guarantees as soon as possible.

Indeed, one day we will have certainty about this matter only when this agreement is ratified in the various Parliaments.

With regard to Brussels, I collected information through answers to parliamentary questions (which I did not ask myself). I read Mr. Smet’s response and his attitude worries me. If he continues to develop this discourse, I think we will even miss the virtuous billion. In the event of future electoral accidents, a problem could arise with the completion of the RER completion!

I really invite colleagues to have the necessary contacts, to organize meetings, to look at texts. I have a good will on this subject and I am free between the parties. There is no problem. But let’s make sure that, in the spirit of Christmas, there is a real advance! Do not blackmail with other documents. I understand that the Brussels are angry on other cases, but using these other files to block the RER cooperation agreement would be quite badly taken by the Wallon Brabant and by the shippers.

I invite each other to have the contacts, the diplomacy needed. Mr. Speaker, you will probably say it at the conclusion of our work: this is the spirit of Christmas. It is important to find a solution, because it is a strategic issue. The RER is really central, but very far away from the current Railway Code. It was time to say it.

Mr. Minister, you have understood what I said and I have heard what you said. You take the word by delivering a sort of testament of your action, as if you worry about still being able to talk about it later and leave a last trace, the time the King allows you to still express yourself as a minister. After that, you will no longer be in this house.

A few numbers are better than a long talk. You wanted to talk about punctuality by saying how good we were...

I said that the punctuality had decreased and that it did not make me happy.

We are not good!

Between “low” and “not good”, there is still one nuance, Mr. Devin! You will have the pleasure to question the CEOs!

We are less good than before. I want to prove that in the eleven months on the Binche-Turnhout line, there were 28 599 minutes of delay for the people who are going to work. We are not good! 357 trains were completely or partially removed in eleven months. Who would accept this?

You said you worked well, especially for the RER. Work was launched last year. This is not your responsibility, it is in the government agreement. Ms. Galant had interrupted all works and investments for the RER for three years. You came with a different mentality, I recognize it. The removal of the Thalys wallon, it is not you! But you could not make sure that we re-created this so important vehicle.

Finally, for Brussels – let us be clear and precise – the agreement that exists speaks of 370 million euros for Flanders, 69 million for Wallonia and 19 million for Brussels.

Of course, we do not dictate the work to be done in Flanders. But for Brussels and the 19 million euros, there is no agreement. For the 370, you do what you hear, for the 19, there is no agreement because you can’t work on certain points.

I ask for a little consideration and a little discussion with the region concerned. This is not what will bring the government down because it has already fallen. There is no longer any concern to have. But, for the 19 million euros, could we not bother to hear a very important Region that sends out wishes and wants to get out of the conflict, which would arrange everyone?

I would like to refer to the members of the Committee on Infrastructure. These figures are inaccurate. I take this as a witness to Mr. Cheron.

For Brussels, between 2014 and 2017, we invested 450 million, and during the next investment period, we are talking about 250 million (48 million for the four major stations, 19 million for the 30 smaller stations and the rest for the RER file). The table has been presented several times before the Infrastructure Committee. He has the 60/40 key. The investment plan, which will be implemented in the next five years for €5.3 billion, includes work in the ERR, work on regional priorities, work in the stations and on the lines. The reading you are reading is inaccurate.

I would like to conclude that I no longer know how to work. We live in a country where mobility is shared. I received, on 19 April 2018, the agreement of the Brussels Government through Minister Smet concerning the entire Belgian investment table, with compliance with the 60/40 key, RER assembly and all other investments. This dossier was passed in July in the Consultation Committee and was approved by all governments. And when the signatories arrive at the ministerial offices, they do not sign them because they have a partial reading of a single table while you have to read 17 tables to get a overview!

We have reached the limits in terms of the possibilities of realizing a project that, in my opinion, is essential for Brussels. The RER is designed for journeys from and to Brussels. Today, 19 million works are being carried out to paint stations and make new toilets, arguing that it might be necessary to hang geraniums on the facades of some stations! I call for the responsibility of one and the other to have the different Parliaments validate the RER hat agreement, otherwise, the entire exercise will have to be restarted by the governments that will set up at the end of the next election.

This is really a work that lasted two years, involving all teams, federal and regional administrations and Ministers of Mobility. Today, we are expecting only one signature out of the ten to be applied, while everything has been validated in the Executive Committee of the Ministers of Mobility, and before the Consultation Committee. I call for the responsibility of one another. My office is available. I have spoken to the Prime Minister many times. I have the SMS here. Since November 12, I have never had a response to try to unlock this situation, even by organizing a meeting to explain things.

From the moment when I am no longer answered, when I am not invited to meetings, I have reached my limits. Let us not play on vital files for the mobility of our fellow citizens, whether in Brussels, in the south or in the north of the country! Thanks, a little courage, and sign, please!

I have heard the responses of both ministers and the Minister’s response. Obviously, this bill that is presented to us today is the strict interpretation of the directive, but it is only the first step towards railway liberalization.

However, for the cdH group, as has already been mentioned several times at the meeting where this Railway Code was discussed, three elements are very important. First, it is about protecting the quality of service for all travellers. Second, the different rural lines should be protected and, finally, the SNCB staff should be protected. These three aspects are very important for the future in the context of liberalization. We really want a signature in the transposition of this Directive to ensure greater mobility for all. We will continue, in the upcoming legislatures, to watch over these three points and to mobilize for them.

Therefore, our group will abstain when voting on this draft.