Brussels, 17/12/2013 (Agence Europe) - It was with a comfortable majority that the European Parliament gave itself a negotiating brief on rail reform, on Tuesday 17 December. The parliamentary committee on transport (TRAN) adopted all the compromises reached on the reports of the five pieces of legislation relating to the fourth rail package. These largely revisit the initial Commission proposals, with the addition of a dose of flexibility, but keeping to the general spirit of things. The European Parliament now has a sound mandate, putting pressure on the Council which is taking time to determine its own. “Every hour lost in Council is money lost for the rail industry”, said Mathieu Grosch, one of the main rapporteurs and transport spokesman at the EP.
MEPs voted principally along national lines on the political part of the package, asserted Saïd El Khadraoui (S&D, Belgium), who drafted the report on market opening and governance (adopted by 28 votes in favour, 6 abstentions and 11 against). In his view, the Commission's initial proposal was unacceptable as such and “more flexibility is needed”. Although the date for opening domestic passenger markets was kept at 2019, provisions were provided so that the areas covered by public contract services are maintained, and may even benefit from exclusive rights to “avoid cherry-picking”. Also, on the basis of an impact assessment, it is envisaged that a new entrant could be excluded.
On the subject of the governance model, the rapporteur assured that separate holdings (grouping service operator and infrastructure manager) and structures should still exist together, without bringing into question competition on market opening - although it is “clear” that the Commission prefers a separate model, according to El Khadroui. Counting on strong national regulators, he tightened the vice for financial conditions to be respected for conserving an integrated model (separate accounts between entities, no financial flows, etc.) but did away with the “organisational” conditions. The Commission had, in fact, given details of what the organisation of management boards should be or the “cooling down period” for employees going from one entity to the next. Such conditions are now vaguer in the Parliament's mandate and it will be up to the national regulators to issue guidelines on this subject. The Commission may still open up infringement proceedings and member states may still refuse entry onto their markets, if the various conditions are not met. With regard to the social model, MEPs showed their attachment to complying with collective agreements developed at national level.
Flexibility, also, comes on stage in relation to public contracts. The rapporteur on this subject, Mathieu Grosch, wanted to exit the one-size-fits-all reasoning established by the Commission. His report, adopted by 28 votes to 8 with 9 abstentions, maintains the possibility of attributing public contracts directly but not at any condition whatsoever. The public authorities should justify their choices in terms of efficiency, frequency, and punctuality before the regulator. If the latter considers that the criteria have not been met, then a call for offers should be organised. Member states would have until 2022 to come into line with the new way of proceeding. Furthermore, the rapporteur reached a compromise for re-organising competition according to the size of the country in question. The Commission provided for three public service contracts to exist at the same time in each country. The EP mandate now provides one for very small countries (under 20 million train/km), two to three for countries with 20 to 200 million train/km, and four for countries with over 200 million train/km.
Under the technical pillar, the recasting of regulations on interoperability was adopted without difficulty (40-4), and also on security (38-4) and the European Rail Agency (39-5). Gradually, the national certification agencies should transfer their competence to that agency (over four years), unless mutual recognition is established between certain member states - this being different from the ambitions of member states that are opposed to transferring competition, which means that difficult negotiations are in store. (MD/transl.jl)