Strasbourg, 29/09/2005 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament on 28 September adopted four reports in the first reading on revitalising the railways in Europe. The position of MEPs on the “third railway package” (the Savary, Sterckx and Jarzembowski reports) to improve the competitiveness of Europe's railways comes in the form of harmonisation of train drivers' licences and strengthening the rights and obligations of international and national passengers, whereas stepping up opening up national networks to competition is more controversial. With regard to freight, MEPs are opposed to a system of compensation for missed delivery deadlines (Zile report).
Certification of train crews operating locomotives
The report by the French socialist MEP Gilles Savary, adopted by a large majority (623 in favour, 24 against, 40 abstentions), is in favour of the proposal to gradually harmonise, starting in 2007 and finishing by 2015, the certification of train drivers operating across the whole of the Community's railway network. This certification would contain two levels, but materialise in the form of a single certificate. The first level is the granting of a European licence (“railway driving licence”) by the competent authorities in the Member States , based on harmonised professional, medical and linguistic criteria. The driver would be in possession of this, but the criteria would be checked on a regular basis to ensure maximum passenger safety. The granting of a harmonised complementary certificate (second level) by the railway or infrastructure undertakings would attest to knowledge of the enterprise's lines, materials and safety protocols. The Parliament thinks that this certification should be extended to all train crew with a safety role from 2009 (rather than 2010), based on the proposals from the European Railways Agency and in consultation with staff unions. In the rapporteur's view, Europe would be sending a “strong social message in a sea of liberalisation”, because this proposed directive from the Commission draws most of its inspiration from the collective agreement concluded on 27 January 2004 between employers and unions in the railway sector as part of sectoral social dialogue. The report makes some amendments to the scope of application, the timetable and some definitions, but above all, it proposes the introduction of a safeguard clause for cases of voluntary driver departure, which would allow the railway enterprise to recover the costs of training.
Rights and obligations for international rail passengers
By adopting the report by the Belgian liberal Dirk Sterckx, MEPs are demanding that the scope of application of the proposed regulation be extended to passengers travelling on the national network in the Member States. It would be a source of confusion and injustice if the passengers sat next to one another in a train were subject to different rules depending on whether their journey is national or international, the rapporteur believes. The Commissioner for Transport Jacques Barrot maintained that the Commission “would examine the Parliament proposal to also cover national services”, but that this idea is deemed to be incompatible with the principle of subsidiarity by the Community of European Railway Companies (CER), because 90% of passenger transport is domestic and is already subject to national regulation. Regarding the system of compensation, the Parliament proposes cash compensation , paid within one month of the claim, of 25% of the ticket price for a delay from one hour, of 50% from two hours and of 75% from three hours. The European Parliament declared itself in favour of obligatory compensation from one hour of delay, with the railway enterprises being at liberty to lower this threshold. It is also in favour of a compensation system for season ticket holding passengers who encounter recurrent delays of less than one hour; compensation could be given in the form of free journeys, price reductions or extension of their season ticket. This system already exists in the United Kingdom, and the liberal democrat Sharon Bowles considers this compensation system to be "a victory for passengers, who will receive the service they pay for and the compensation to which they are entitled". The Parliament also wishes to enhance access to stations and trains to people with reduced mobility , by adopting an amendment to oblige railway enterprises to eliminating all obstacles to boarding and leaving the train and to mobility on board (see the CER position in EUROPE 9030). The Parliament is also demanding a simplification of the Commission proposal, saying that many aspects are already covered by the CIV Appendix of the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF), to which all the Member States with the exception of Estonia are party; consequently, additional provisions are only desirable if the CIV has serious shortcomings.
The development of the Community's railways
The adoption of the German Christian democrat MEP Georg Jarzembowski's report came at a narrow majority which cut across the political groups, confirming the differences over the appropriateness and urgency of liberalising international rail transport for passengers in 2008, and for national passenger transport by 2012 (the Commission proposed 2010, and only for international services). Unlike for rail transport of freight, which has already been open to competition since March 2003 for the international sector, passenger transport “does not present the same deficiencies and blockages at borders between the Member States”, said the French and Belgian socialists, who voted against the report. They fear “wild deregulation à la Thatcher” leading to a hike in prices and the abandonment of unprofitable lines, and the “dismemberment” of smaller networks, particularly in the new Member States. The French socialist Gilles Savary declared on French television that the vote, which is only the “aperitif at a big railway party for the big European companies”, is the result of lobbying on the part of Deutsche Bahn. The German social-democrat Ulrich Stockmann, on the other hand, considers that this liberalisation should stimulate the competitiveness of the railways against the roads, improving the quality of services and increasing mobility: “It is absurd that rail transport should still be a segmented market when we have a single market and people travel, live and work in the whole of Europe", he commented in a press release. The Green/ALE group regretted the haste in this matter which, according to French MEP Hélène Flautre, is unacceptable, “or even irresponsible, (…) without a serious assessment” which might demonstrate that this liberalisation really will lead to safer transport which is more economical in terms of energy and space. If such liberalisation, as in the air transport sector before it, opens the door to low cost companies at the expense of working conditions and safety, it would perhaps be more reasonable to respect subsidiarity, leaving it up to the responsibility of the Member States, suggested Dutch Green Joost Lagendijk. With this vote, the European Parliament reaffirmed the position which it defended in October 2003, in the second reading of the second railway package, but the Commission still is not convinced: “Political realism shows us that the liberalisation of international passenger rail transport is feasible for 2010 and no sooner. The Parliament amendment aiming to also open up the national rail service market , on the other hand, is premature and not justified in economic terms”, declared Commissioner Barrot.
Compensation in cases of non-compliance with contractual quality requirements for freight transport
Finally, following the rapporteur Robert Zile (UEN, Latvia), the Parliament rejected a proposed regulation which would have bound railway freight enterprises to pay financial compensation to their clients if they did not comply with the delivery deadlines and their contractual obligations. According to MEPs, this system is not apt to enhance the quality of rail freight because it will increase costs in the sector and distort competition. In addition to this, international regulations in force already imposes very strict rules. The Director of the CER, Johannes Ludewig, welcomed this “important step in favour of the commercial freedom of freight companies, which are already subject to tough competition from the roads and also among themselves, increasingly. The rejection of this proposed regulation is entirely in line with the Commission's commitment to better legislation”. Jacques Barrot indicated that the Commission would examine the best way to improve the quality of rail freight with the rail sector, “if the Parliament and the Council confirm their opposition to a legislative instrument”.
Commissioner Barrot hopes that the Council will make rapid progress on the third railway package, examining at the same time the regulation on the regulation on public passenger transport services by rail and by road.