Dear Honourable Members of the European Parliament,

Transcription

1 Dear Mr Chairman, Dear Honourable Members of the European Parliament, Dear ladies and gentlemen, My name is Miiko Peris. I work for the Estonian Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications. I m the Estonian Project Manager of the regionally important railway project the Rail Baltic. My aim today is to share the experts view about the Regulation concerning the new competencies of the European Railway Agency (to which I ll shortly refer to as the Agency). Even though, coming from the Republic of Estonia, I ve deliberately given this speech a wider regional backing and I shall speak for the Baltic States as a whole. It is well known that the railway systems of the Baltic States stand out as slightly different from the rest of the EU. For historic reasons, our railway network is currently not entirely connected to the European railway network. Therefore the Baltic network is often referred to as an isolated railway network. This issue merits special attention, while discussing the new competencies of the Agency. At the same time, I emphasise that nothing in this speech can be interpreted as that we do not want to overcome that bottleneck. On the contrary, the new Rail Baltic line, which is to be built, would fill in that gap in the European TEN T network. Currently, all the Baltic States with Poland and Finland are making joint efforts to realise the Rail Baltic hopefully by the end of

2 Dear ladies and gentlemen, We have every reason to believe that the Commission has tabled a good package of legislation. The 4 th railway package is perceived as crucially important package, since the ordinary citizens and the railway undertakings of the European Union have a lot to gain from the outcomes of the package. It is indeed difficult to argue against the leitmotifs of the package that are, the opening of the railway market, harmonisation of the rules of interoperability and safety, and last but not least, reduction of the red tape in the certification procedures. We believe that all those are certainly welcomed and necessary objectives to be pursued. We believe that as such, the legislative proposals put forward, would truly contribute to the functioning of the European Common Market in general and the Single European Railway Area in particular. I d now focus on the detailed aspects of the proposed draft regulation on the competencies of the European Railway Agency. I shall make three main points and hence single out the possible areas of improvement. Firstly, we would like to call for clearer division of labour between the National Safety Authorities and the Agency. Currently, the package puts forward a somewhat fragmented list of duties for the relevant institutions. Consequently, it is difficult for us to follow what are our obligations and duties to ensure the maximum safety and interoperability of the European railways. We would very much welcome the shared competencies approach between the Agency and the National Safety Authorities. We believe that the legislation should very clearly and literally put forward a comprehensive list of the tasks of those two. Apparently, the aim must be to avoid any duplication and to ensure the well balanced division of labour. As 2

3 part of that division of labour the specific case of the isolated networks can be taken into account. For instance, the division of labour in the field of certification could be based on whether the locomotives are to be used on the EUgauge network (that is fourteen thirty five mm network) or on the isolated network or whether the certification shall be used EU wide or strictly in one Member State. As for putting the vehicles on the market, one possible solution might be that the Agency will play the role of one stop shop coordinating the relevant National Safety Authorities, but for instance if the vehicle is to be used only in one Member State, the applicant may choose between the Agency or the relevant National Safety Authority. The authorisation of the rolling stock which is intended to be used for national or even local operations, the certification may be more effective within the hands of the National Safety Authorities. As a general notion however, it is very much welcomed that the Agency would assume greater role and responsibility in the field of certification and we sympathise with the Commission s objective to harmonise and to speed up the certification procedures EU wide. Secondly, we would like to point out that after having worked out the clear division of labour, the Agency must be granted with clear powers to perform the supervisory role over the National Safety Authorities. We strongly believe that the Agency must have a clear legal basis to intervene, whenever it appears that the National Safety Authorities do not perform their duties accordingly (for instance in case of unnecessary delays, complaints made by the railway undertakings, et cetera). Especially, the Agency s authority over the national safety and interoperability rules must be protected as stipulated already in the draft legislation. We certainly welcome the 3

4 enhanced cooperation between the Agency and the National Safety Authorities. Thirdly, we would propose for consideration that the Agency s competencies are to be increased, based on the gradual approach, to allow for phasing in. The latter has to be done with clear milestones and detailed transitional provisions which should be written into the law. That is owing to the fact that at the beginning the Agency is likely to rely on the work of the National Safety Authorities. And also because of the drafting exercises of the Technical Standards of Interoperability are currently not yet complete. To our mind, it would consequently make the case for an optimal transition period to be set for the Agency s increased competencies to take effect. Furthermore, we would like to say that currently the National Safety Authorities in the Baltics have performed very efficiently time and money wise. That efficiency must be maintained and it must become the Agency s modus operandi when the Agency assumes her new role. As one practical aspect for efficiency, we would propose a comprehensive IT info system to be deployed with the aim of serving all the certification procedures, the national and the EU wide alike. Dear colleagues, I d like to sum up the Baltic point of view on the Regulation on the European Railway Agency. In short, we clearly see the value in the enhanced competencies of the Agency. However, given the vast number of national discrepancies in the procedures, we would advise on the gradual approach in the increase of the Agency s competencies to be adopted. We would also advise on the clear stipulation and wording of the division of labour between the Agency and the National Safety Authorities. As part of that division of labour we call for a proportional division of competencies to be worked out 4

5 for the Member States with the isolated networks. Furthermore, we cannot stress enough the need for the Agency to ensure time and money wise efficient certification procedures in the future. We thank you for the opportunity to speak and we remain at the service of the TRAN committee for further cooperation on the railway and other transport issues. Thank you very much! 5