News
BackThe Council and the European Parliament have already adopted three railway packages on the liberalisation of rail transport in accordance with proposals of the European Commission. With only moderate success, as even the Commission admits. Nevertheless, the Commission remains on liberalisation course and proposes further liberalisation steps in its new Paper on reviewing the 1st Railway Package. In a discussion event, the European trade union representatives are now depicting the consequences of the railway packages and provide information on which further dangers the new proposal of the Commission entails.
Whilst the Deputy Director-General of the European Commission's Directorate General for Energy and Transport, Zoltán Kazatsay only spoke about simplifications and better performance, both of which were necessary in the railway sector, the representatives of the specialist trade unions made it clear, which effect the previous railway packages had:
Alexander Kirchner, President of the German Railway and Transport Union pointed out that Germany’s problem was a lack of capacities. Opening up resp. further liberalisation would not provide sustainable and ecological transport. The separation in the rail sector, which was planned by the Commission, would make it impossible for employees to change jobs within the organisation. In the past, it had been normal for a train driver to become a movements inspector. This would no longer be possible in future.
Gilbert Garrel, President of the French trade union cgt cheminots strongly criticised the Commission: both quality and punctuality of train services would suffer. Unfortunately, one had to say that the infrastructure would also deteriorate; the reason for this was partly caused by maintenance deficiencies. Working conditions would also get worse. Opening up the freight transport had resulted in less freight transport in France. Now, only the profitable markets would be served, said Garrel. Although the use of busses and HGVs would be cheaper, the environment would suffer immensely. Prior to the liberalisation ambitions, the traditionally grown organisations had cooperated very well; however, nowadays there were only competitors attacking each other. It would be a serious mistake to constantly question public services, said the cgt cheminots President at the end of his contribution.
The Managing Director of the Pro-Rail Alliance, Dirk Flege, addressed another problem, which had been caused by the rail liberalisation. In rail transport, everybody had to pay a route utilisation fee. However, this was not mandatory for HGVs. The new noise-dependent train path prices are also only mandatory for the rail sector. Hence, road transport clearly had cost advantages. Flege criticised that the Commission was becoming obsessed by details. The most successful railways such as Switzerland or Japan would not have any such regulations, said the representative of the Pro-Rail Alliance finally.
The SPD member of the German Bundestag, Uwe Beckmayer, criticised the Commission and began by asking whether the Commission would not be better advised to concentrate on fundamental issues. Unfortunately, the Commission does not build the additional routes, which were needed in the railway sector; the costs for those had to be borne by the Member States. However, currently neither the more affluent nor the poorer Member States were able to afford this. Apart from that, Beckmayer urged the Commission not to impose detail problems of a few regions onto the entire EU. The practice of the current liberalisation steps would show that for example in regional transport, competitors would only win tenders through wage dumping. However, those should be winners, who have the better carriages and the better systems.
The Green MEP Michael Cramer voiced a completely different opinion. Railways would be nationalistic strongholds, which would impede each other. Deutsche Bahn should also be able to operate in France, said Cramer. The opening up of rail transport would bring clear advantages. Germany had 360 railway companies and there were hardly any complaints concerning the slots, which could not be said for other countries. Countries that had opened up their railway markets at an early stage, were able to record big increases in transport volume, such as Great Britain, the Netherlands, Poland or Germany. However, in France one could observe a decline because she had opened up her market at the last minute. Apart from that, opening up the networks had created jobs, was Cramer’s opinion. The situation in Switzerland was excellent because she had developed a good system, which also encouraged competition. However, the Green MEP did not divulge what kind of competition the Swiss Railway had.
In the discussion with the audience, the Deputy Secretary General of the European Transport Workers' Federation, Sabine Trier strongly criticised MEP Cramer. No jobs had been created, on the contrary a massive number of jobs had been lost. One new job was created for 10 that had vanished. Apart from that there were no employment perspectives. The Commission was in no position to portray the employment situation in the rail sector, even though it had been obliged to report on it in the 2nd Railway Package.
The Green MEP’s reply to this criticism was noticeably defensive: he was not in favour of the rail sector providing minimum service; he was also against touching the right to strike. In contrast to his first statement, he also conceded that there had been job losses in the rail sector, for example in Germany and Italy.
The trade unionists also received support from Univ. Prof. DDDr. Christian Kirchner, who commented on the economic perspective. The revision of the 1st Railway Package could lead to undesired consequences; one also had to take the high hidden costs into account. A liberalisation of the railways would lose synergies, which would also result in higher costs. The labour market comes under negative influence, said Kirchner in his closing words.
Alexander Kirchner, President of the German Railway and Transport Union pointed out that Germany’s problem was a lack of capacities. Opening up resp. further liberalisation would not provide sustainable and ecological transport. The separation in the rail sector, which was planned by the Commission, would make it impossible for employees to change jobs within the organisation. In the past, it had been normal for a train driver to become a movements inspector. This would no longer be possible in future.
Gilbert Garrel, President of the French trade union cgt cheminots strongly criticised the Commission: both quality and punctuality of train services would suffer. Unfortunately, one had to say that the infrastructure would also deteriorate; the reason for this was partly caused by maintenance deficiencies. Working conditions would also get worse. Opening up the freight transport had resulted in less freight transport in France. Now, only the profitable markets would be served, said Garrel. Although the use of busses and HGVs would be cheaper, the environment would suffer immensely. Prior to the liberalisation ambitions, the traditionally grown organisations had cooperated very well; however, nowadays there were only competitors attacking each other. It would be a serious mistake to constantly question public services, said the cgt cheminots President at the end of his contribution.
The Managing Director of the Pro-Rail Alliance, Dirk Flege, addressed another problem, which had been caused by the rail liberalisation. In rail transport, everybody had to pay a route utilisation fee. However, this was not mandatory for HGVs. The new noise-dependent train path prices are also only mandatory for the rail sector. Hence, road transport clearly had cost advantages. Flege criticised that the Commission was becoming obsessed by details. The most successful railways such as Switzerland or Japan would not have any such regulations, said the representative of the Pro-Rail Alliance finally.
The SPD member of the German Bundestag, Uwe Beckmayer, criticised the Commission and began by asking whether the Commission would not be better advised to concentrate on fundamental issues. Unfortunately, the Commission does not build the additional routes, which were needed in the railway sector; the costs for those had to be borne by the Member States. However, currently neither the more affluent nor the poorer Member States were able to afford this. Apart from that, Beckmayer urged the Commission not to impose detail problems of a few regions onto the entire EU. The practice of the current liberalisation steps would show that for example in regional transport, competitors would only win tenders through wage dumping. However, those should be winners, who have the better carriages and the better systems.
The Green MEP Michael Cramer voiced a completely different opinion. Railways would be nationalistic strongholds, which would impede each other. Deutsche Bahn should also be able to operate in France, said Cramer. The opening up of rail transport would bring clear advantages. Germany had 360 railway companies and there were hardly any complaints concerning the slots, which could not be said for other countries. Countries that had opened up their railway markets at an early stage, were able to record big increases in transport volume, such as Great Britain, the Netherlands, Poland or Germany. However, in France one could observe a decline because she had opened up her market at the last minute. Apart from that, opening up the networks had created jobs, was Cramer’s opinion. The situation in Switzerland was excellent because she had developed a good system, which also encouraged competition. However, the Green MEP did not divulge what kind of competition the Swiss Railway had.
In the discussion with the audience, the Deputy Secretary General of the European Transport Workers' Federation, Sabine Trier strongly criticised MEP Cramer. No jobs had been created, on the contrary a massive number of jobs had been lost. One new job was created for 10 that had vanished. Apart from that there were no employment perspectives. The Commission was in no position to portray the employment situation in the rail sector, even though it had been obliged to report on it in the 2nd Railway Package.
The Green MEP’s reply to this criticism was noticeably defensive: he was not in favour of the rail sector providing minimum service; he was also against touching the right to strike. In contrast to his first statement, he also conceded that there had been job losses in the rail sector, for example in Germany and Italy.
The trade unionists also received support from Univ. Prof. DDDr. Christian Kirchner, who commented on the economic perspective. The revision of the 1st Railway Package could lead to undesired consequences; one also had to take the high hidden costs into account. A liberalisation of the railways would lose synergies, which would also result in higher costs. The labour market comes under negative influence, said Kirchner in his closing words.