Second warning. The European Commission's latest proposals on rail transport should not be assessed in the light of the various concepts of Services of General Interest (SGIs), or the timetable of its liberalisation. The whens and hows can be fought out later; but the starting point is that which Loyola de Palacio, European Commissioner in charge of the project, summed up in a few words: "'it's the survival of rail that's at stake". Rail as a means of transport is not under discussion; its advantages and potential are obvious. But in the EU, with current management and the burdens it has to bear, it is losing ground apace (especially in France), and before long, the situation will become untenable. Radical change is needed, if this mode of transport, which changed the history of Europe, is to continue playing its role in the European model of society.
This diagnosis is not a new one: as long ago as 1996, the "Vincent report" reached similar conclusions. At the time, the Commission asked an Advisory Group (chaired by Daniel Vincent and made up of representatives of railways, unions, users etc) to draw up a report on "The future of rail transport in Europe". The conclusions were astonishing: rail goods transport could disappear altogether by 2010. The only solution: "change or die". Daniel Vincent said: "it's not enough to run trains, their services must be adapted to the needs of the market". But at the same time, the group was calling for the levelling out of competition conditions between rail and its rival modes of transport, imputing the external costs to each (pollution, noise etc), harmonising the social norms and aligning safety standards.
Since then, quite a bit of water has passed under the bridge with the three "railway packages" drawn up under the aegis of Ms de Palacio. The first is in force; the second stands to be agreed on in the next few days after long and hard negotiations between the Parliament and Council; the third, which relates notably to international passenger transport (see our bulletin of 4 March, pages 9/10) has just been proposed.
Explanations. I get the impression of this latest project that is has sometimes been misunderstood, and I would like to borrow some of the explanations given by Ms de Palacio herself, especially in interviews. Generally speaking, she has stressed that the "staggering" losses (covered by public money) of certain rail companies "are not the result of a biblical curse or unavoidable destiny, but of the mismanagement of certain activities". In the US, rail still has 40% of goods traffic, but this has fallen to 8% in the EU. As for passengers, the proposed liberalisation relates only to international traffic: according to Ms de Palacio, greater competition is vital. The Brussels-Milan line has disappeared, for instance, although at least two operators were interested; they should be able to offer this to users. However, the Commissioner said, "we will not touch national passenger transport [90% of traffic], because there is a strong public service component" (but she does not rule out the possibility of the next European Commissioner for Transport thinking about it).
To define the object of the operation, she prefers to talk about "opening up to competition" than liberalisation, saying: "nobody wants to privatise the network or the national companies, as has been done in Britain. And there is no question of chopping the network up between different private operators, who would be in a position of monopoly in their territory"? In the air sector, the result of opening up to competition has been that "the aeroplane, previously the reserve of the privileged few, is now open to the largest number. And the tax payer no longer has to pay for the user". The same aims should be the goal.
Reactions. The initial reactions of the Member States were cautious, but not negative (except for Luxembourg and, in part, Belgium). Even France said that it was open to it, as long as public service and safety were guaranteed. In the European Parliament, Gilles Savary, French Socialist, called for "an impact study on the economic and social consequences" (as did Pierre Jonckheer, Belgian Green, for all services of general interest, SGIs). The rail companies reiterated the need to harmonise competition conditions (which the Vincent report also called for; see above), which is justified, as long as the railways also do their bit (the average retirement age in the EU is currently 60.4 years, and the forthcoming European Summit will reaffirm the need to raise this; wanting to keep retirement at 55 for one category of workers is incompatible with this guideline).
There is everything to discuss, but not without forgetting the Commission Vice-President's warning: "if nothing changes, rail will disappear".
(F.R.)