Who knows the real state of the electric park of the Walloon Region? Does the administration know it itself? This can be doubted in light of the exchanges that saw it communicate incorrect numbers and data (the non-structuring network does not have 1700 cabins, but more than 2700) to the current Walloon Minister of Public Works, François Desquesnes (Engaged). Who then repeated them at the stand of the Walloon Parliament, during an interpellation, last February 3rd.
Quite a mysterious cadastre
Also based on information from his administration, the minister also claimed, then, that an “updated cadastre of electrical installations” existed. A cadastre that, he also said, “cannot be shared for security and confidentiality reasons“, but that he could easily submit to consultation in the Parliament’s “data room”.
It turns out, today, that this mysterious cadastre is not really one. Or that it is still only in the drafting stage since it concerned, until a few weeks ago, only the electrical installations of the secondary road network, and not yet those related to the waterways. Namely the most sensitive and dangerous sites of the electric park in question.
Almost 15 years after the implementation of a royal decree imposing new requirements on employers with electrical cabins, and 10 years (!) after the deadline the Region had to comply with, this “delay in lighting up” – to put it euphemistically – raises many questions. Questions that we have asked François Desquesnes.
François Desquesnes, what happened when you answered at the Parliament stand on February 3rd?
Every two weeks, I receive between 60 and 90 parliamentary questions. And of course, I formulate my answers based on the information given by the administration. And yes, when I was questioned about this matter, I was puzzled by the difference between the figures they provided me and those mentioned by the MPs who questioned me. On February 13th, I expressed my surprise to the Director General of the SPW Mobility and Infrastructure (MI) and asked for explanations: he told me that their numbers only concerned roads and not waterways or buildings. I told him that was not sufficient. I then demanded full transparency and to receive all the data.
The time when everyone kept their little notebook with the progress of the projects is over.
Why were you provided with incomplete numbers?
I was told that the management of this file was organized in a decentralized manner. That each territorial direction had its own cadastre, its own tenders, its own methodology for putting things in order, and of course the necessary budgets. And that today, there is not a harmonized view of the overall situation. This is probably a historical legacy of former ministers, but today we live in the 21st century with computers, shared files: the time when everyone kept their little notebook with the progress of the projects is over.
So the cadastre mentioned at the Parliament stand was not complete?
The centralization process of the cadastre is underway, but not completed. So I asked the administration to come to the office every week and give me a report.
Today, there is a table, but it is not yet fully filled because everyone had different databases. But me, I want everything: I want a complete report on the state of affairs with all cabins and electrical stations, whether they are related to buildings, waterways or roads. So we have a complete picture of the situation. On February 13th, I asked for a report by March 15th. And last week, I received a preliminary report showing that the centralization process of the cadastre is underway, but not completed. So I asked the administration to come to the office every week and report on the progress and any difficulties they may encounter within the set objectives.
One still has the feeling that all this is tinged with amateurism, and that this way of doing things is more about risk management than substantive work…
I do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but I expect more precision and I think that the administration has understood this issue today.
As it stands, I cannot endorse your interpretation, because it is not the information that the administration transmits to me. There are still things that have already been well done, especially regarding the structuring network. So I do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But I expect more precision and I think that the administration has understood this issue today: they have realized that this decentralized management approach is not acceptable.
Is 2027 a reasonable target for the compliance of the non-structuring network, according to you?
That’s the information that was initially transmitted to me by the administration, and that I relayed in my response of February 3rd. Now, I am told that as far as roads are concerned, the majority or nearly all – I will not speak nonsense – would be completed by the end of 2027. There will still be installations and elements to check, implying waterways and buildings, until 2029. That’s the information I have now, knowing that a series of elements could also be linked to external contributors, including distribution network managers.
I am not the specialist who will check the 5000 installations. What I expect from my administration is that they manage the situation.
Until then, are you not afraid of a new accident?
The administration tells me that in places where there are elements of danger, precautionary measures are taken. But if people actually go and open boxes despite the warnings that are given… I am not the specialist who will check the 5000 installations. What I expect from my administration is that they manage the situation, manage the risks, and ensure safety.
