9. We consider that the following raises questions of political importance.
We make no recommendation for its further consideration, but consider it would be relevant to the
debate we have recommended relating to Community railway policy (16513)10003/95 and
(17448)9654/96[22]:--
Department of Transport
(17562)
10600/96
COM(96)335 |
Draft Regulation concerning the granting of Community financial assistance for actions to
promote combined goods transport. |
| Legal base: |
Article 75; co-operation; qualified majority voting. |
Background
9.1 Combined transport is the transport of goods by different transport modes (for
example road, rail or waterway), using the most competitive method for each part of the journey.
The Commission has long held the view that combined transport would contribute to a reliable and
integrated European transport system and have environmental advantages.
9.2 In 1992, the Commission launched a programme (called PACT: Pilot Actions for
Combined Transport) to demonstrate that combined transport could be competitive, and shift traffic
from road to other means of transport in an economically viable way with benefits for safety and
the environment.
The present proposal
9.3 The 1992 programme is now coming to an end and the present proposal is for a new
PACT programme with a total budget of 35 million ECU (£29.4 million approximately) from 1997
to 2001. The proposed Regulation would give the scheme a proper legal base and widen eligibility
to include certain operating costs and projects which involve inland waterways and maritime
transport.
The Government's views
9.4 In an Explanatory Memorandum dated 7 November, the Minister of State for
Railways, Roads and Local Transport, Department of Transport (Mr Watts) says:
"The UK recognises that targeted grant aid can encourage the switch of traffic from
road to rail, but has never been convinced that the current PACT scheme has been a cost effective
way to secure permanent environmental benefits. It is not at all clear whether services which have
funding has secured adequate environmental returns, or indeed whether the traffic has remained on
rail in the longer term. Equally it may be the case that those schemes which have failed to secure
funding have gone ahead without grants.
"One of the UK's objectives in the wider debate prompted by the European Commission's
White Paper on the Railways (see EM 9654/96) is to secure greater transparency between
infrastructure and operations and to expand that to encompass more transparent accounting practices
within the railway itself; and to remove hidden subsidies. The UK has consistently argued that
while it welcomes EC rules clarifying state aid parameters it should be for Member States to fund
and administer individual schemes. Moreover, to seek to perpetuate PACT would be inconsistent with
the Commission's wider agenda for rationalising railway finances."
Conclusions
9.5 The Commission's Communication accompanying its proposal admits that
weaknesses of combined transport which it identified included:
--the reluctance of potential customers to use it, mainly because of the poor quality
of service and higher price compared with road transport; and
--switching from road transport to combined transport involved investments in specialised
equipment which cannot be re-used in road transport in the event of problems with the railways or
inland waterways.
9.6 If combined transport cannot be made commercially attractive without
significant subsidy, we can understand the misgivings that the Minister has expressed about the
proposals to extend and expand the PACT project.
9.7 We think that this proposal has political importance. It comes forward at
the same time as the Commission's White Paper on the revitalisation of the Community's railways,
on which we have recommended debate, together with the Commission's Communication of July 1995 on
the development of the Community's railways. The present proposal adds another element to the total
picture, we suggest that it would be relevant to that debate.
22. (16513)10003/95; see HC 51-i (1995-96), paragraph 2 (22 November 1995); and
(17448)9654/96; see HC 51-xxix (1995-96), paragraph 6 (16 October 1996).
Back
|
