Brussels, 31/01/2013 (Agence Europe) - The rail industry greeted the announcement of the fourth railway package by launching a stinging attack on the Commission for its timid approach to governance. Several organisations representing the railway industry attacked the backtracking of the European commissioner for transport in response to Franco-German interests by allowing holding companies to continue to exist. The CER (Community of European Railways), however, welcomed the initiative. The rail unions do not view liberalisation of the domestic passenger traffic market in a good light and believe that public services are under threat.
In the area of governance, the EIM (European Rail Infrastructure Managers) are very satisfied that their independence will be ensured. The Commission is proposing that all essential functions, such as railway network management (investment, timetabling and maintenance) are undertaken by the EIM. The EIM did not mention separation, which is at the heart of the debate and significantly affects infrastructure managers but it did say that strengthening infrastructure managers will help them “to better control their income and expenses”.
Rail freight, represented by the ERFA, “expresses its frustration to the Commission: There is a huge step backwards compared to the previous version of the proposal dating back to just some days ago! It related to the separation and cross-subsidisation between the infrastructure manager and some incumbent operators. Our industry is already complex enough and overregulated. Additional Chinese Walls will never prevent suspicion!” ERFA refers to four criteria of independence required by the Commission before allowing holdings to continue and is not convinced by the complaince code that would restrict holdings' access to the market: “ERFA expresses its scepticism about the reciprocity clause which allows unbundled countries to reject incumbent integrated operators. Most of the market volume is in France and Germany which are integrated or in a process of being integrated”. The European Organisation for Forwarding and Logistics (CLECAT) regrets that the Commission “has clearly considered the political ramifications of its proposals and settled for something which falls far shorter of what we were hoping for, namely, full unbundling in all cases”. On behalf of the British freight industry, Lord Tony Berkeley called a spade a spade: “So here we have two of the largest member states already in breach of railway law, now having succeeded in getting the law changed so that they can carry on as they please.”
The CER stands out for not mentioning such pressure, instead being pleased that the Commission has made a U-turn in not imposing vertical separation as the only structural rail model. It regrets, however, that the Commission “continues attempting to narrow down the options available to member states in such a dramatic manner”. The CER says it “cannot support the disproportionate set of proposed measures regarding separation between infrastructure managers and railway undertakings. The existing legislation already contains substantial safeguards against distortions to competition”.
On the opening up of domestic rail markets (passenger travel), the CER “cannot support the Commission's attempt to impose open tendering as the only mechanism for organising public service obligations”. The European Transport Workers” Federation (ETF), like the CER, says that member states should have sole responsibility for deciding how to organise public rail services
Guy Greivelding, President of the ETF Railway Section, commented: “We criticise in particular that competition in public rail passenger transport will become compulsory for all EU member states, but social conditions and protection of staff will be left to the decision of the local authorities without any obligation”.
The associations that feel jeopardised by the Commission's plans are placing their hopes in the European Parliament and, to a lesser extent, the Council of Ministers, to take action to firm up reform of the railways. Time is of the essence, and as Berkeley explained: “It is now up to the European Parliament and the Council to alter, improve and correct this package and achieve the objectives which business, customers and the industry know is necessary to create the internal market, investment and efficiency that the rail sector needs so badly. They must also achieve this during this coming legislative period before the European elections and new commissioners are appointed, whilst remembering that the monopolists will seek to delay any change for as long as possible!” (MD/transl.fl)