THIRD RAIL PACKAGE (7147/04, 7148/04,
7149/04, 7150/04, 7170/04, 7172/04)
Letter from Tom Harris MP, Parliamentary
Under Secretary of State, Department for Transport to the Chairman
I am writing to update you on the progress of
this package of measures, the draft Directive on the development
of the Community's railways, the draft Regulation on passenger
rights, and the draft Directive on certification of train crews.
There has been no significant movement on this package for some
time, however the EP Transport Committee has now voted on the
package on 19 December 2006 with the following results:
— opening up access to the international
passenger market: 30 in favour and 15 against;
— passenger rights: 44 in favour and
1 against; and
— train crew licensing: 46 in favour
and none against.
The package will now go to the EP Plenary on
17 January 2007, and is then almost certain to go to conciliation
under the German Presidency, who have advised that their focus
during their Presidency will be to work with the EP to complete
the package. They had hoped for a deal at 2nd reading, but this
has proved impossible.
The UK fully supported the Common Position,
and the text which will go to the January Plenary diverges from
it in some ways. For the most part these relate to extension of
scope from the original text. In the case of market opening,
although the original intention was to open up only the international
passenger market, the EP have voted for domestic application too,
over a longer time-scale. This does not present a problem for
the UK, provided that market opening is done in a transparent
fashion. The passenger rights meausre widens the original
proposal in several way, including application to all, not just
international, passengers, extension the definition of persons
with reduced mobility, and more stringent requirements on accessibility
of stations and services. The train crew licensing measure
is widened to include non-driving crew who perform safety-related
tasks; Member States will have some flexibility in identifying
such crew.
A realistic assessment of what, if any, financial
implications there might be will not be practicable until the
final form of the package has been decided. It is, however, unlikely
that there will be significant additional requirements arising
in the short-term.
I will, of course, keep you informed of further
progress with this proposal following the EP Plenary and the expected
conciliation.
17 January 2007
Letter from the Chairman to Tom Harris
MP
Thank you for your letter of 17 January 2007,
providing an update on the Third Rail Package. Sub-Committee B
considered your letter at its meeting on 19 February.
We note that it is not yet practicable for you
to provide "a realistic assessment" of the likely financial
implications of the package. We would be grateful to you for such
an assessment as soon as the package is in a finalised form, and
in the meantime would be grateful to you for an update on the
conciliation process.
We will maintain scrutiny on the package at
this stage.
26 February 2007
Letter from Tom Harris MP to the Chairman
Further to my letter of 17 January, I am writing
to update you on the outcome of the European Parliament's (EP)
plenary debate and vote on 17 January.
The result of this debate showed some softening
of the EP's position, but this will almost certainly not be enough
to avoid conciliation. The package was the only item on the agenda
of the Council Working Group on 31 January and 1 February. The
Presidency wanted to gauge Member State flexibility and potential
compromise to inform their subsequent discussion and negotiation
with the Council and EP. The outcome of discussion showed:
— Market Liberalisation, Member
States had some flexibility, but there were some concerns regarding
the levy on railway undertakings providing an international service,
and many were against a report by 2012 on state readiness for
domestic opening (including some in favour of liberalisation who
wanted a proposal before that).
— Train Crew Licensing, Member
States had some flexibility; but wanted to resist extension to
emcompass other on-board safety related crew if possible.
— International Passenger Rights,
Member States had minimal flexibility with the amendments
relating to People with Reduced Mobility (PRM) requirements, and
were vehemently opposed to the EP amendment to extend the scope
to domestic services. Some Member States noted that while the
EP wanted to extend passenger rights domestically, they were not
prepared to give a date for liberalising the market, which was
inconsistent. Others had rejected any connection between the two.
It is expected that the Council will reject
the version of the package which came out of the EP plenary, and
the conciliation would follow. We do not have a date for this
yet.
The issues which remain for the UK are principally
the following:
— On liberalisation, we remain
committed to domestic market opening, and would prefer a date
for domestic liberalisation. However, as all the EP voted for
is a report in 2012 on Member State readiness for domestic opening,
this is effectively no longer under discussion under the third
rail package.
— On train driver licensing,
we are not in favour of extending the provisions to non driving
crew, but could accept the current version which allows Member
States to define which individuals are covered; the other issue
is restrictions on the ability of the competent authority to delegate
some of its tasks.
— On international passenger rights,
we remain opposed to extension to all services and to the imposition
of additional burdens on railway undertakings and train operators,
which we do not see as providing significant benefits; the current
version would, however, set transitional period for implementation
of all these provisions.
I will, of course, keep you informed of further
developments.
19 February 2007
Letter from the Chairman to Tom Harris
MP
Thank you for your letter of 19 February, which
Sub-Committee B considered at its meeting on 5 March.
We were once again grateful to you for your
report of the European Parliament's Plenary vote, and of the Council
Working Groups on the Third Rail Package. We note, and share your
continued opposition to the amendments made by the European Parliament,
and would support your rejection of these amendments in Council.
We will maintain scrutiny of the proposals at
this stage, and would of course be grateful to you if you could
inform us of any developments.
7 March 2007
|
