8 The Third Railway Package
| (a)
(25436)
7170/04
COM(04) 140
(b)
(25437)
7147/04
COM(04) 139
(c)
(25438)
7172/04
SEC(04) 236
(d)
(25439)
7149/04
COM(04) 143
(e)
(25455)
7148/04
COM(04) 142
(f)
(25456)
7150/04
COM(04) 144
|
Commission Communication: further integration of the European rail system: third railway package
Draft Directive amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways
Commission staff working paper: Draft Directive amending Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways to gradually open up the market for international passenger services by rail
Draft Regulation on international rail passengers' rights and obligations
Draft Directive on the certification of train crews operating locomotives and trains on the Community's rail network
Draft Regulation on compensation in cases of non-compliance with contractual quality requirements for rail freight services
|
| Legal base | (a) and (c) —
(b) and (d) to (f) Article 71 EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Transport
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 24 September 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 42-xxx (2003-04), para 4 (9 September 2004)
|
| To be discussed in Council | 9-10 December 2004 (document (e) only)
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information awaited
|
Background
8.1 The Community's First Railway Package was intended, amongst
other things, to open up more than 50,000 kilometres of the trans
European rail freight network to international goods services
in 2003, with the entire network following in 2008. The Commission's
2001 White Paper, "European Transport Policy for 2010: time
to decide", proposed, amongst other things, construction
of a legally and technically integrated European railway area.
The Second Railway Package was designed to provide for the establishment
of that legally and technically integrated European railway area.
The White Paper and the two packages were all discussed in European
Standing Committee A.[18]
8.2 The present documents are together the Third
Railway Package, which aims to revitalise the international rail
passenger market by extending competition and establishing a harmonised
system of minimum passenger rights, improve the interoperability
of the European rail system and enhance the performance and size
of the Community rail freight market. The package includes four
legislative proposals:
- document (b) is a draft Directive
to amend Directive 91/440/EEC and is concerned with
the liberalisation of international passenger services;
- document (d) is a draft Regulation on
international passengers' rights and obligations;
- document (e) is a draft Directive on train
driver licensing. It would require licensing and certification
of all train drivers and other train staff "with an indirect
role in driving" working for those train operators and infrastructure
managers required to have safety certification or authorisation
under the Safety Directive of the Second Railway Package. It would
apply to virtually all train operators and infrastructure managers
in the UK, with the exception of operations on functionally-separated
infrastructure such as London Underground Ltd's own network.
The proposal sets out detailed requirements for the operation
of the licensing system; and
- document (f) is a draft Regulation on
contractual quality requirements for rail freight services.
8.3 In September 2004 we reported that initial discussions
had shown little support from Member States for treating these
proposals as a single package and that document (e) (train driver
licensing) had been selected to be discussed first. The expectation
was that the Dutch Presidency might seek agreement on a general
approach on this draft Directive at the Transport Council on 7
October 2004. We looked forward to seeing the Regulatory Impact
Assessment and the analysis of the consultation responses on the
train driver licensing proposal and we asked to have an indication
of the Government's negotiating stance.[19]
The Minister's letter
8.4 The Minister of State, Department of Transport
(Mr Tony McNulty) writes now with a draft partial Regulatory Impact
Assessment of the draft Directive on train driver licensing, which
contains a summary of responses to the Department's consultations.
There were 19 substantive responses to the Department's formal
consultation exercise. The principle of train driver licensing
was supported, unequivocally or with some qualifying comments,
by nine respondents. Five opposed the proposal and the remaining
five thought the proposal did not apply to their particular sphere
of operation (but still made comment).
8.5 The Regulatory Impact Assessment considers five
options: the first involving no change, two applying the proposals
only to train drivers and to other train crew involved in safety-critical
tasks operating cross-border traffic and two applying to all train
drivers and to all other train crew involved in safety-critical
tasks. The magnitude of the costs and benefits is uncertain. But
it appears that all of the options for change would incur costs
several times greater than the benefits gained. And limiting the
proposals to drivers and other staff concerned only in cross-border
operations would reduce the cost impact considerably. However
the possible costs of full adoption of the proposals (that is,
application to all train crew involved in safety-critical tasks)
appear to represent less than 0.1% of total industry costs.
8.6 On the Government's negotiating stance the Minister
says:
"The main issues under discussion, and the Government's
position, are as follows:
Scope of the proposal
"The Commission's original proposal provides
for a phased, but automatic, extension of the scope of the proposal
from cross-border drivers, to all drivers plus other train crew
involved in safety-critical tasks (eg guards). Most Member States,
including UK, favour making the extension to 'other train crew'
not automatic but contingent on a Commission decision through
comitology, informed by a report from the European Rail Agency
including a cost benefit assessment. We are arguing that the extension
to 'domestic' drivers - that is, drivers who do not wish to operate
in another Member State - should be subject to the same process,
as is supported by the results of the UK consultation exercise
and the draft partial RIA. To date we have limited support for
that position, possibly because many other Member States already
have a comprehensive driver licensing system in place.
Detail of the competence requirements for licences
and certificates, and frequency of periodic checks
"The discussions to date have demonstrated that
there is a wide variety of current practice on these matters,
and therefore achieving consensus on harmonised provisions is
not straightforward. We are seeking to ensure that the Directive
does not impose significant additional burdens compared with current
UK practice; and have been urging the Council to ensure that the
requirements can be objectively justified in terms of safety risks.
Competence and independence criteria to be met
by issuers of licences and certificates and examiners of train
drivers' competences, and the role of accreditation
"Adequate mechanisms to ensure the independence
and competence of the persons involved in checking the competences
of licence applicants and in issuing those licences are, in our
view, key to achieving any significant benefit from a system of
mutual recognition of those licences. Equally, independence and
competence of the persons involved within an undertaking in examining
the rolling stock- and infrastructure-specific competences of
drivers working for that undertaking is important if the certification
system is to add value in assuring train drivers' competence.
We will therefore seek to ensure that such mechanisms are retained
in the text.
"On the other hand, unduly onerous requirements
either in terms of the independence criteria, or for accreditation
of the independence and competence of the persons involved could
have significant cost implications. We will therefore resist such
requirements. The draft partial RIA, for example, suggests that
removing the requirement for accreditation of the examiners of
competences required for the certificate might reduce the costs
of the Commission's proposals by about 5%. One issue, however,
on which there has been welcome agreement is that it should be
possible for any accreditation tasks to be carried out by an existing
national accreditation body (eg UKAS in the UK), rather than requiring
the safety authority to carry them out. This reduces the potential
implementation costs in the UK."
8.7 The Minister tells us that in the event the Dutch
Presidency decided against seeking a general approach at the October
2004 Transport Council. Instead it will probably seek this at
the Transport Council of 9-10 December 2004.
8.8 The Minister also says that he will send us partial
Regulatory Impact Assessments of the other proposals in the Third
Railway Package, together with a note of the Government's consequent
negotiating stance, following the conclusion of the Department's
formal consultation exercise on these issues on 11 October.
Conclusion
8.9 We are grateful to the Minister for this latest
information and look forward to seeing the promised further information.
We are still minded to recommend a debate at a suitable moment.
Meanwhile we continue not to clear the documents.
18 See Stg Co Deb, European Standing Committee
A, 10 March 1999, cols 1-42, Stg Co Deb, European Standing
Committee A, 13 March 2002, cols 3-28 and Stg Co Deb, European
Standing Committee A, 8 May 2002, cols 3-24. Back
19
See headnote. Back
| 
