CHAPTER 6: Conclusions and REcommendations
128. We support the liberalisation of international
passenger rail services and believe that the Directive 2007/58/EC
forms a sound basis for ensuring more services and greater competition,
including through the Channel Tunnel. (para 21)
129. We regret the continued fragmentation of
the European rail market. We therefore support the White Paper's
call to overcome all remaining technical, administrative and legal
obstacles that still impede entry to national railway markets
in order to complete the internal market for rail services. This
will result in a better deal for European rail passengers and
freight users. (para 25)
130. Continuing disparities between Member States'
implementation of the Railway Packages create barriers to entry
and discrimination. We reiterate our recommendation that the Commission
should use the powers at its disposal to ensure the full implementation
and enforcement of the First Railway Package, including the full
separation of infrastructure managers from railway undertakings
and the establishment of strong, independent and well-resourced
regulators. (para 30)
131. We regret that a significant number of Member
States have yet to achieve their obligations under the Railway
Packages, which continues to present a significant barrier to
the development of the European rail market with negative consequences
for consumers and railway operators. (para 31)
132. The creation of an EU-level economic regulator
would be premature. Informal cooperation between regulators should
be sufficient to resolve cross-border problems. We welcome the
establishment of the Independent Regulators Group-Rail and urge
independent regulators from the remaining Member States to join
it. We encourage IRG-Rail to produce regular reports on their
progress toward a Single European Railway Area. (para 36)
133. The case has not been made for the expansion
of the European Railway Agency's remit or powers. The ERA should
be more proactive in its approach. The Commission should ensure
that the agency is resourced adequately and support its efforts
to achieve greater harmonisation by enforcing the relevant safety
and technical measures already in place. (para 40)
134. While the terms of the Treaty of Canterbury
may have been adequate at the time the Channel Tunnel was first
conceived, the Treaty has been overtaken by events including the
growth of EU legislation and the liberalisation of the market.
The 25th anniversary of the Treaty provides an opportunity for
the UK and French governments to review the terms of the Treaty,
with reference to the EU legislative and regulatory framework.
(para 45)
135. In the short-term, the UK delegation to
the Intergovernmental Commission should seek to ensure that decision-making
methods are quicker and more transparent and that it complies
with the Railway Packages in full. The delegation should also
seek to ensure fair and open access through the Channel Tunnel.
(para 49)
136. In the long-term, we support direct governance
of the Channel Tunnel by the UK and French national regulators.
This should be considered as part of any review of the Treaty
of Canterbury. Such arrangements would be less cumbersome, would
minimise delays in the provision of new services, and would be
in line with the management of other cross-border rail infrastructure
within the EU. (para 50)
137. EU-wide Technical Standards for Interoperability
(TSIs) set out comprehensive safety standards. We have not been
convinced that the Channel Tunnel is a unique safety case requiring
its own safety standards, and so the TSIs should be applied in
full. The Intergovernmental Commission should respond fully to
the matters raised in the European Railway Agency's technical
opinion as a matter of urgency. Unduly burdensome safety requirements
must not deter new entrants to the market. (para 62)
138. To achieve a fully liberalised and interoperable
rail network, common standards must be applied consistently, with
minimum derogations only when absolutely essential. The Intergovernmental
Commission and Channel Tunnel Safety Authority should work with
other long tunnel managers to exchange best practice and to ensure
consistency across the whole network. (para 63)
139. We welcome the interest from new providers
of international rail services, including Deutsche Bahn's proposed
services from Amsterdam and Frankfurt to London. Authorisation
should be granted without delay. All parties should work together
to ensure that the prospective new international passenger services
are introduced on schedule. (para 71)
140. Access charges set by Eurotunnel and the
United Kingdom and French governments constitute a large part
of the cost of running a service through the Channel Tunnel. However,
we appreciate that Eurotunnel is a private company, and that its
access charges constitute a significant share of its income. It
should be free to set access charges at a market rate subject
to their obligations under EU law. (para 84)
141. New entrants could be deterred from seeking
authorisation to provide services if access charges are not fair,
predictable and available more easily. We recommend that the Intergovernmental
Commission's review of access charges is expedited and any changes,
whether by Eurotunnel or by the United Kingdom or French governments,
are made without delay. We would welcome a reduction of the charges
in the medium-term as a means of encouraging use and increasing
revenue. (para 85)
142. The development of new international services
may render the current system of juxtaposed border controls unsustainable.
We welcome the Government's open-minded approach to this matter,
and would welcome a statement on their proposals. All feasible
solutions should be considered, including the reintroduction of
on-board passport checks. Any revised security policy must be
proportionate and avoid an adverse impact on passenger waiting
times. (para 90)
143. Providing a cross-border rail service will
continue to be expensive as long as rolling stock is required
to meet multiple safety and interoperability standards. TSIs should
be extended in scope wherever possible in order to facilitate
market entry for new operators. We urge the European Rail Agency
to be more proactive in this area. (para 94)
144. We endorse the continued rollout of the
European Rail Traffic Management System, subject to the costs
being controlled adequately. Alongside other interoperability
initiatives, this will be crucial for the future development of
the European rail services market. (para 95)
145. TEN-T funding should be prioritised for
cross-border transport infrastructure projects that contribute
to economic growth by overcoming bottlenecks and helping to achieve
the completion of the Single Market. The decision should not be
prejudiced in favour of either conventional or high-speed rail
projects. It is imperative that the risks should be properly assessed
before funding is allocated. (para 102)
146. If funding is to be provided at EU-level,
projects should advance EU aims to develop a competitive and resource
efficient transport system. Conditions on interoperability and
fair access should be attached to any such funding. (para 103)
147. In the interests of promoting economic growth,
funding for the development of the European rail network should
be a priority during the next financial perspective. We welcome
the inclusion of €31.7bn of "seed capital" in the
next Multiannual Financial Framework to help complete necessary
cross-border links which might not otherwise be built. (para 106)
148. Given the constraints on European public
funding for the foreseeable future, policies should be developed
which seek to maximise contributions from the private sector whilst
ensuring a fair allocation of risk. A more predictable EU regulatory
framework, and the use of innovative financial instruments where
appropriate, should be pursued to facilitate more commercially
viable propositions. (para 107)
149. While the increased provision of inter-regional
services through the Channel Tunnel is desirable, it is ultimately
a commercial decision for the operators. Fixed costs, such as
access charges and train control systems, mean that longer-distance
international services should be more viable. Ways of rendering
such services more sustainable and making stoppages at intermediate
stations more attractive should be examined further. (para 110)
150. Achieving a greater degree of competition
between rail and air transport, in terms of taxation and the application
of the EU Emission Trading System, is necessary before rail travel
will become an attractive alternative to short haul flights. (para
114)
151. In principle, we support the approximation
of passenger rights across all transport modes, as proposed in
the Commission's White Paper. We will look forward to scrutinising
the proposal when it is published. (para 118)
152. The provision of pan-European through-ticketing
is crucial for developing the European rail market and achieving
greater competition. The Commission has a key role to play in
facilitating cooperation between operators, including through
the Telematic Applications for Passenger Services (TAP) Technical
Standard for Interoperability (TSI). We welcome strongly the adoption
of the TAP TSI as a fundamental building block of pan-European
ticketing and support the additional measures contained in the
Transport White Paper. (para 123)
153. We recommend that the Government work with
their partners in the Intergovernmental Organisation for International
Carriage by Rail to clarify the application of the Convention
for the Transportation of Passengers to international rail passenger
journeys in the EU. The definition of a single contract of carriage
should be made clear, to outline what guarantees a passenger can
expect with respect to onward connections. (para 127)
| 
