Railway package sends the wrong signal
by Sabine Wils
23 November 2011
The further privatisation of the European railway system will threaten safety, social cohesion and employees income, argues MEP
The recast of the First Railway Package, voted through by the European Parliament in Strasbourg on November 16, aims to promote more competition in the rail transport market. In other words, more privatisation and fragmentation in the railway sector – which threatens safety, social cohesion and employees' incomes. Public service obligations risk being definitively subordinated to commercial principles.
The European United Left/Nordic Green Left group voted against the report and continues to reiterate its support for the trade unions' request for integrated railway companies to keep railway services as close as possible to all citizens for the safety and reliability of railways.
The only positive outcome of this result in parliament last week was the fact that the clause on a "minimum service" in case of strike action has been deleted from the text. That means that we succeeded in stopping the European Commission from destroying the right to strike first and foremost in the railway sector and, subsequently, more generally for all other sectors.
Concerning all the other points included in the decisions we say: "This is the wrong signal." The commission's real objective on this issue, and that of Debora Serracchiani, transport committee rapporteur from the Socialists and Democrats group, was to open the railway sector up to an even greater extent for the profit and interests of private companies. And this despite past experiences, especially those in the United Kingdom, which have shown that this is the wrong way forward, not only for railway employees but for passenger safety as well.
One of the new points that was settled was the case for an European Union-level regulatory body. This will result in a number of political problems and does not offer anything in terms of safety for rail passengers. Our point of view is quite the opposite to that of the commission and Serracchiani. We consider that we need to maintain integrated railway companies in public ownership and under public control and that this should include every aspect and every branch and sector of the railway business. We should not forget that New Zealand re-nationalised its railway system due to bad experiences with privatisation.
We expect the commission to re-open this file in 2012 to continue to divide up the railway network and rail traffic. We in the GUE/NGL group will continue to reject this and will throw our support behind the railway unions once again. Let me explain why the neo-liberal dogma for privatisation and dividing net and traffic is the wrong way from our point of view.
In a hearing on the recast of the railway package organized by the GUE/NGL on March 3 an expert from the Swedish railway union informed us that throughout its history, the Swedish railway system never had any problems during winter time. As we all know, the Scandinavians have great experience of working in the winter time with snow and ice. But since the Swedish railway company became privatised, they have experienced serious problems described as "winter chaos". This is only one example of the negative experiences with privatisation by railway companies.
The other main neo-liberal dogma sought by the commission and MEPs like Serracchiani is that the railway network and traffic have to be divided. This brings new disadvantages to the railway system as we can currently see in France where, as a result of this dogma, the network and traffic have been divided. Trains and traffic are organized by the SNCF as before, but there is now a new company responsible for the railway network and the re-construction of that network. This company is known as the RFF.
The result of this today is that the SNCF and RFF have not been able to create a timetable for 2012. Some 2,000 meetings between these companies were fruitless. This never happened as long as the SNCF was responsible for traffic and network. The situation is so bad for the French 2012 timetable that both companies have called on the services of an outside mediator. But it is not sure that this procedure will work.
Both these examples are clear indicators that privatisation and the division of network and traffic are the wrong way forward for the future of the European railway system.
Sabine Wils is a German MEP and member of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left group
The recast of the First Railway Package, voted through by the European Parliament in Strasbourg on November 16, aims to promote more competition in the rail transport market. In other words, more privatisation and fragmentation in the railway sector – which threatens safety, social cohesion and employees' incomes. Public service obligations risk being definitively subordinated to commercial principles.
The European United Left/Nordic Green Left group voted against the report and continues to reiterate its support for the trade unions' request for integrated railway companies to keep railway services as close as possible to all citizens for the safety and reliability of railways.
The only positive outcome of this result in parliament last week was the fact that the clause on a "minimum service" in case of strike action has been deleted from the text. That means that we succeeded in stopping the European Commission from destroying the right to strike first and foremost in the railway sector and, subsequently, more generally for all other sectors.
Concerning all the other points included in the decisions we say: "This is the wrong signal." The commission's real objective on this issue, and that of Debora Serracchiani, transport committee rapporteur from the Socialists and Democrats group, was to open the railway sector up to an even greater extent for the profit and interests of private companies. And this despite past experiences, especially those in the United Kingdom, which have shown that this is the wrong way forward, not only for railway employees but for passenger safety as well.
One of the new points that was settled was the case for an European Union-level regulatory body. This will result in a number of political problems and does not offer anything in terms of safety for rail passengers. Our point of view is quite the opposite to that of the commission and Serracchiani. We consider that we need to maintain integrated railway companies in public ownership and under public control and that this should include every aspect and every branch and sector of the railway business. We should not forget that New Zealand re-nationalised its railway system due to bad experiences with privatisation.
We expect the commission to re-open this file in 2012 to continue to divide up the railway network and rail traffic. We in the GUE/NGL group will continue to reject this and will throw our support behind the railway unions once again. Let me explain why the neo-liberal dogma for privatisation and dividing net and traffic is the wrong way from our point of view.
In a hearing on the recast of the railway package organized by the GUE/NGL on March 3 an expert from the Swedish railway union informed us that throughout its history, the Swedish railway system never had any problems during winter time. As we all know, the Scandinavians have great experience of working in the winter time with snow and ice. But since the Swedish railway company became privatised, they have experienced serious problems described as "winter chaos". This is only one example of the negative experiences with privatisation by railway companies.
The other main neo-liberal dogma sought by the commission and MEPs like Serracchiani is that the railway network and traffic have to be divided. This brings new disadvantages to the railway system as we can currently see in France where, as a result of this dogma, the network and traffic have been divided. Trains and traffic are organized by the SNCF as before, but there is now a new company responsible for the railway network and the re-construction of that network. This company is known as the RFF.
The result of this today is that the SNCF and RFF have not been able to create a timetable for 2012. Some 2,000 meetings between these companies were fruitless. This never happened as long as the SNCF was responsible for traffic and network. The situation is so bad for the French 2012 timetable that both companies have called on the services of an outside mediator. But it is not sure that this procedure will work.
Both these examples are clear indicators that privatisation and the division of network and traffic are the wrong way forward for the future of the European railway system.
Sabine Wils is a German MEP and member of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left group
COMMENTS
