EC RAILWAYS
(20794)
13417/99
COM(99) 616
|
Amended draft Directive amending Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's Railways;
Amended draft Directive amending Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings; and
Amended draft Directive relating to the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification.
|
| Legal base: |
Article 71 EC; co-decision; qualified majority voting
|
| |
| Document originated:
| 25 November 1999 |
| Forwarded to the Council:
| 30 November 1999 |
| Deposited in Parliament:
| 20 December 1999 |
| Department: |
Environment, Transport and the Regions
|
| Basis of consideration:
| EM of 6 January 2000 |
| Previous Committee Report:
| None; but see: (19442) 11375/98: HC 155-xxxix
(1997-98), paragraph 4 (4 November 1998) and
HC 34-xvi (1998-99), paragraph 10 (21 April 1999)
|
| To be discussed in Council:
| By end January 2000 |
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| Cleared; request to be informed when Common Position has been reached
|
Background
10.1 On 16 October 1996,[28]
our predecessors reported on the Commission's White Paper, A
Strategy for Revitalising the Community's Railways, which
was debated in European Standing Committee A on 11 December 1996.
10.2 The White Paper pointed to the continuing
decline in the share of the available freight and passenger market
going by rail, which it attributed to dissatisfaction with the
price and quality of rail transport and insulation of railways
from market forces. It proposed that railways should be first
and foremost businesses free to exploit opportunities and organised
so that they were exposed to market forces.
10.3 On 3 June 1998, we reported on a Commission
Communication on the implementation and impact of Directive 91/440/EEC
on the development of the Community's railways and access rights
for freight traffic.[29]
Directive 91/440 contained four principal requirements:
- management independence for railways in Member
States;
- the separation of infrastructure (railtrack)
management and transport operations;
- the improvement of the national railways' financial
situations; and
- access to railway infrastructure for certain
international and freight operations.
10.4 On 4 November 1998, we reported on
the Commission's legislative proposals foreshadowed in its Communication.
These comprised:
- amendments to Directive 91/440/EEC to provide
greater transparency by further separation in accounting between
infrastructure and operations;
- amendments to Directive 95/18/EC on railway licensing
to extend the current EU régime for licensing international
operators to all rail services across the EU, both domestic and
international;
- a Directive relating to the principles which
should govern how infrastructure charges are set and the conditions
which should apply in the allocation of train paths; and a related
Commission Working Paper.
10.5 In our Conclusions, we said that:
"The document presents
important and far reaching proposals for railways to promote the
Community's wider objectives of developing sustainable transport
policies and increasing rail's share of both passenger and freight
travel. The aims of the proposals appear congruent with those
of the Government's White Paper on the future of transport and
development of railways in the UK. However, we note:
"— the Minister's concern that the
Commission's proposal on charges for freight access could have
unwelcome perverse effects;
"— the difficulty at this stage of
providing any regulatory impact assessment or indication of the
likely financial impact; and
"— that consultations with UK rail
and other interests are not yet complete.
"Subject to his caveat about pricing,
the Minister says that he does not foresee difficulty in accommodating
the differences between British practice and the Commission's
proposals where they reflect the fact that nowhere else in the
Community are railways privatised....
"More generally, there are clearly issues of
public and political importance in the proposals. We ask the Minister
to keep us in touch with progress in negotiations not only on
the pricing issue, to which he particularly refers, but also more
generally."
10.6 The proposals were regarded as relevant
to the debate on transport infrastructure charging in European
Standing Committee A on 10 March 1999.
10.7 On 21 April 1999, we reported on the
progress these proposals had made at that stage, noting that the
Minister expected the regulatory impact to be broadly neutral,
provided a solution could be reached on the charging issue.
The document
10.8 The Commission has revised its proposals,
taking account of amendments proposed by the European Parliament.
10.9 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 6
January 2000, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department
of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr Hill) says that:
"The revised proposal
to amend Directive 91/440 would introduce two main changes.
The first would involve complete physical separation of infrastructure
management from train service provision with separate companies
responsible for each. The second change would open up the international
rail freight market and require Member States to open up their
rail networks to all types of international freight service operating
on the Trans-European Rail Freight Network (TERFN). The TERFN
would comprise the rail networks in the Annex and would also include
feeder lines as well as guaranteed access to multi-user terminals
and ports...
"There are no major changes proposed to the
draft amendment to Directive 95/18 on licensing.
"The principal change proposed to the replacement
for Directive 95/19 concerns track access charging principles
for freight traffic. Draft Article 9.1 is amended to allow
market pricing. Securing this amendment has been a high priority
for the UK. However, in another change, and in the absence of
sufficient Council support for its original formulation, the Commission
has proposed to amend the scope of the provision on 'authorised
applicant', the effect of which would be to make permissive the
right for those other than train operators to contract with the
infrastructure manager for access to the network".
The Council's consideration
10.10 The Minister says that political agreement
was reached on a package of proposals at the Transport Council
on 9 and 10 December 1999. He says that the agreement broadly
reflects the changes the Commission proposed and that a Common
Position is expected to be agreed by the end of January 2000.
10.11 As regards the proposal to amend Directive
91/440, the Minister says that the Council could not go along
with the degree of institutional separation proposed by the Commission
"essentially on the grounds that accounting separation and
the establishment of national regulatory bodies provides sufficient
transparency in the parcelling out of state aid". The Council
has, however, accepted the need for separation of balance sheets
(as well as profit and loss accounts). The Minister notes that
the agreement on accounting separation would remove the need,
under the Commission's revised proposal, for Eurotunnel to sell
its shuttle business. The Minister also notes that the Council
has "accepted market access liberalisation for international
services using the TERFN".
10.12 The Minister says that the Council
accepted the proposed amendment to Directive 95/18 on licensing
so as to allow market pricing (as we understand it, as a derogation
from the general rule of charging based on marginal costs). Northern
Ireland is allowed derogations from some of the provisions of
the package for up to five years.
The Government's view
10.13 The Government broadly supported the
Commission's original proposal. It is evident from its EM that
it felt able to support the Council texts at the Transport Council
on 9 and 10 December 1999. The Minister says that consultations
with rail and other interests in the UK showed general contentment.
He says that:
" ... assuming the Council's
position is reflected in the Common Position, the [financial]
effect of the package will be broadly neutral. Within Great Britain,
there will be some modest costs to operators. Northern Ireland
Railways remains in the public sector. Eurotunnel will have to
set up a subsidiary company for its shuttle operations."
Conclusion
10.14 Taken together, this package of
railways measures represents a significant step in promoting the
Community's railways through greater liberalisation and competition.
It is less than satisfactory that we were not able to consider
the Commission's revised proposals before the Transport Council
on 9 and 10 December 1999, at which political agreement was reached
on Council texts. However, we recognise that timing difficulties
effectively rendered this impossible. We are glad to note that
a satisfactory option has been achieved on the charging issue.
We accordingly clear the document. We expect the texts proposed
for adoption at Common Position to be deposited as soon as possible.
We ask the Minister to tell us when the Council has adopted them.
10.15 We are reporting separately on
a related Communication on integrating conventional rail systems
in Europe (see paragraph 9).
28 (17448) 9654/96; see HC 51-xxix (1995-96), paragraph
6 (16 October 1996). Back
29 (19046)
7453/98; see HC 155-xxix (1997-98), paragraph 11 (3 June 1998). Back
| 
