Brussels, 17/03/2004 (Agence Europe) - On Tuesday, the European Parliament and the Council came to an agreement in conciliation committee on the second rail package by resolving the last outstanding questions on the date of rail transport liberalisation, the composition of the European Rail Agency's management board and rail transport security. The Council Presidency, the two rapporteurs present (German Christian Democrat Georg Jarzembowski and Belgian Liberal Dirk Sterckx) and Transport Commissioner Loyola de Palacio naturally told the press how pleased they were that such an agreement had been reached two weeks after adoption by the European Commission of its third rail package (see EUROPE of 4 March). In order to allow adoption of this second rail package during the current legislature, the conciliation agreement has still to be officially adopted by the Parliament (probably during the plenary session in Strasbourg in April) and the Council (by qualified majority).
The elements contained in the agreement pertain to:
1) Proposal of directive on the development of Community rail transport: This was certainly the trickiest issue and the agreement reached is a low-key victory for the Parliament, especially for the rapporteur on this dossier, German Christian Democrat Georg Jarzembowski. From the very outset, the Parliament had hoped that international and national rail freight transport would be opened up to competition on 1 January 2006. It had also hoped for the liberalisation of international and national passenger transport on 1 January 2008. The Council (which accepted at second reading the opening up of international freight services on 1 January 2006) had rejected liberalisation of national freight transport until 1 January 2008 and refused liberalisation of passenger rail transport. It proposed a declaration in this connection. The agreement reached provides for the opening up of national freight transport on 1 January 2007 and a "whereas" in which the Parliament and the Council state their agreement to closely examine the proposals contained in the third rail package (Ed.: which contains a proposal of directive aimed at liberalising international passenger transport and cabotage on 1 January 2010). It states that the date of 2010 proposed by the Commission must be considered as an objective allowing operators to make adequate preparations. The agreement also provides for the Commission to report on implementation of the directive on 1 January 2006 and may present new legislative proposals. Ms de Palacio however declared that proposals to fully liberalise national passenger transport was not on the agenda. She also called upon the Council swiftly to adopt the proposal modifying regulation 1191/69 on public service obligations in terrestrial transport, adopted in July 2002, and which provides for the opening to competition of public service contracts, and introducing a partial liberalisation of national rail passenger transport. "Several Presidencies preferred not to discuss it", said Ms de Palacio, warning against the legal uncertainty in the affair (referring to the Altmark ruling, returned on 24 July 2003 by the Court of Justice). Announcing a new modified proposal on the subject, Ms de Palacio hoped that "the Council will have the courage to pronounce on this".
2) Proposed directive on rail safety: on this dossier, the Parliament obtained guarantees on the modalities for introducing new national safety measures, greater than those provided for in the directive. The agreement allows the Commission to check whether the new safety measures the Member States hope to introduce create competition distortion. Concretely, a Member State can bring in higher national safety measures by notifying them to the Commission to that it can examine them. This does not stop the Member State from applying the measures. However, in case of doubt, the Commission can require their immediate suspension. It will have six months to decide, in comitology, whether it will call upon the Member State in question to withdraw or modify the measures. The conciliation agreement also provides for train drivers and other members of staff carrying out crucial safety tasks to master the jurisdiction, vocabulary and language necessary to provide these services on their lines.
3) Proposed regulation creating a European Railway Agency: the stakes of this proposal concerned the composition of the Agency's board. The Council requires one representative per Member State, which the Commission and Parliament feel is too high in an EU (soon) of 25 Member States. The Parliament called for the social partners to be represented in the Agency's board. The agreement finally obtained provides for the board to be made up of one representative per Member State, four from the Commission, and six from the social partners (without voting rights).
Although the Parliament admitted it had accepted the Council's position "begrudgingly", it was pleased it had managed to gain representation of social partners on the Agency's administrative board and in the working groups. Also, in a statement, the Commission stressed that an administrative board of restricted size would ensure the Agency works better in an enlarged EU. It confirmed that it would present a framework proposal at a later date on European Agencies, covering the composition of the management boards in particular.
4) Proposal of directive on interoperability of national rail networks. The Parliament and the Council had already agreed on this proposal which will make the installation of "black boxes" in trains compulsory, as is the case for aircraft and ships.
Rapporteurs' reactions
The agreement was obtained by 8 votes in favour, 1 against and 2 abstentions. German Christian Democrat Georg Jarzembovski states in a press release that he is pleased with the results, and thanks Saint Patrick (17 March being the Irish and US Saint's day: see p.4). In a press release, French Socialist Gilles Savary, rapporteur on the creation of a European Rail Agency, welcomes the "historic" precedent of integrating social partners on the management board of the European Rail Agency and within the working groups set up to prepare the technical standards of interoperability and security. "Europe needs the railway to raise the challenge of a more environmentally-friendly mobility policy (…). With this in view, the European Rail Agency should not mean just more bureaucracy but the common centre for the European world of rail transport, the melting pot for a joint rail culture", Mr Savary commented. On the other hand, he regrets that "the European parliamentary right and the European Commission are speeding up the process of liberalisation and refuse a prior impact assessment on the economic and social consequences and on the public service". He went on to insist: "We need a sincere assessment of the consequences of opening up international freight traffic". Far more negative, was the reaction of French Communist Sylviane Ainardi, Rapporteur on interoperability of high speed rail and conventional rail transport, who voted against the conciliation agreement because of the "new stage of liberalisation contained in the package". Ms Ainardi expressed concern in a press release saying: "The first package is only just beginning to be transposed (…) but we are rushing headlong into greater opening to competition". "Too many examples show us the damage that can be done by such ideological choices", the MEP warns, encouraging users and trade unionists to rally against "the liberalisation decided or planned".