I have read with intense interest your article entitled « Quelle filière pour le ferroviaire » (Which way forward for the rail industrial sector) featured in the 23 March 2011 issue of Ville, Rail & Transports.

The tenour of this article, both fundamentally and formally, calls for a number of explanations and comments on my part, as otherwise your readers might be left with a slanted view of the situation. Anyone reading the contents of this article might be tempted into thinking that there simply is no organisation, no coordination, no effective leadership within the railway industrial sector, and that « time had come to do something  about it ».

«Urgent action is called for ». The author of the article is rightly critical of the prevailing situation.

The situation of French manufacturing industry as a whole and not solely in the railway sector is the backdrop against which the French Government in January 2010, at the instigation of the President of the Republic, staged a general conference dedicated to industrial issues during which the different stakeholders openly aired their views.This first crucial stage culminated in the identification of 11 major industrial sectors at national level, including the railway manufacturing industry now recognised as a key sector. The Government went on to put in place a governance mechanism in the form of a strategic committee chaired by the Industry Minister in person, and of which I have the honour of being the vice chairman..

The Railway Industries Association (FIF), as rightly pointed out by Jean-Claude Volot, Mediator for inter-enterprise industrial relations and outsourcing , has really been « pulling-out all the stops” as the saying goes.

The Association, specially conscious of the issues at stake for the railway  manufacturing industry, has worked hard in close coordination with the different sector stakeholders and the relevant Industry Ministry General-Directorate (DGCIS) for configuring the rail sector strategic committee, and the relevant task forces. Hence the definition of five major strategic action areas, again in agreement with the Industry Ministry, the social partners (5 Trade Unions : CGT/CFDT/CFTC/FO/CGC) and the trade organisations members of the  sector :

1. Strategy for the railway industrial sector

2. Sector cohesion and solidarity

3. Optimisation of sector tools for international purposes

4. From innovation to market

5. Which GPEC to serve the sector?

We have also adopted, in conjunction with the different stakeholders, the work schedule for 2011 and the kick-off meetings have already taken place so that conclusions can be submitted to the Industry Minister by end 2011 following some serious and detailed thinking.

Today, thanks to this important piece of work done upstream, the railway sector is unquestionably the one to have recorded most progress in developing the structured and coherent approach willed by the Government.

Moreover, some of the stakeholders make the point that « the sector has evolved around Alstom”, and while no one would dare deny the key role that a major French manufacturing company like Alstom can play within the sector, this statement does not truly reflect the manufacturing realities of the day. Indeed can anyone gloss over the contribution made in France and within the sector by companies such as Bombardier, Siemens, Knorr-Bremse, Thales, Faiveley, Ansaldo, Vossloh-Cogifer, Railtech International, Tata Steel Rail, AFR, among others? For the record these companies, like Alstom, are members of the sector strategic committee and, as such, are directly involved in different task forces covering not only the rolling-stock field but also infrastructure and signalling-related issues. This mobilisation of industrial players confirms the determination and motivation of the major stakeholders to achieve results.

Lastly reference is made in your journal to the « best practice » charter governing relations between user and supplier within the railway industrial sector, signed on 14 December last, as being the « revamp of an earlier best-practice charter”.As matter of fact, although the charter does indeed integrate terms of the so-called « Lagarde » charter, it nevertheless contains a preamble directly derived from the FIF charter for progress between builders and equipment manufacturers. This document is de facto more than just a revamp of the original charter in that the concepts it articulates  are specific to the railway sector. The FIF, in close partnership with the mediator for outsourcing matters, is currently working on its implementation and development within the entire sector. Generally speaking, this development is welcome news to us!

I would conclude my remarks with two observations :

- The hearings will continue, and we need to await the report of the commission, whose work we particularly appreciate as it will shed proper light on the situation of this industrial sector.

- It seems to me highly desirable, leaving aside the criticisms that may appear unfounded to the stakeholders of this emerging industrial sector, and given the postures which are causing unnecessary concern among partners, to prefer a constructive, unifying, non-divisive approach wherein all the partners would join hands and work together, as of the moment  there is genuine resolve to develop the French railway industrial sector.