Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to appear before the joint committee in advance of the Transport Council in Luxemburg on 5 June. I will briefly outline the outcome of the last Transport Council on 14 March in Luxemburg. I will then focus on the agenda for the Transport Council on 5 June and run through the main agenda items and some of the important any other business, AOB, items. I will welcome questions from members.

The first Transport Council under the Greek Presidency was chaired by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Networks, Mr. Michalis Chrisochoidis. Ireland was represented by the deputy permanent representative, Mr. Tom Hanney, and the Secretary General of the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, Mr. Tom O’Mahony. The half-day Council reflected the relatively light agenda and was attended by fewer than half of member state Ministers.

Among the “A” items adopted was a decision confirming the position taken at COREPER not to adopt a Council decision or to proceed with further deliberations on a co-ordinated EU position to be taken at the International Maritime Organization, IMO, in relation to implementation of nitrogen oxide, NOx, maritime emission standards. This amounts to a decision not to exercise shared EU competence in this matter, thereby obviating further proposals by the Commission in the near future.

A general approach was agreed unanimously by member states on the European Railway Agency, ERA, regulation and delegations lifted the remaining reservations. The Commission retained reservations on the final agreement on Articles 21, 22 and 29 regarding the powers of the Commission to act on national rules and findings of national safety authority audits carried out by the ERA; the reduction in the number of Commission representatives on the ERA management board; the procedure for appointment and dismissal of the executive director; and implementing, rather than delegated, powers regarding fees and charges. The Commission declared its intention to manage these reservations during the debate with the European Parliament. An almost full table round of interventions focused mainly on preferred next steps on the fourth railway package. The Presidency’s conclusion was not very clear or emphatic about the next steps. Mr. Chrisochoidis merely noted a “constructive approach towards making progress for future negotiations” and emphasised the general importance to European competitiveness of reducing costs and improving the quality of railway services.

The political position was agreed to on the draft Shift2Rail regulation establishing the joint undertaking for the railway innovation programme under Horizon 2020, without amendments to the final compromise text proposed by the Presidency. Spain, Italy, the United Kingdom and France took the floor to express their general enthusiasm for the measure and indicate final approval for the text regarding the criteria for membership of the joint undertakings. They emphasised that this allowed for the “balanced involvement” of all public and private actors. On the other hand, Austria, Croatia, Slovenia and Ireland did not agree that the participation rules were balanced and, while accepting the final compromise, expressed regret that SMEs, in particular, did not enjoy the same opportunities as others for associate membership. It remains for the European Parliament to adopt a positive opinion on the text of the compromise before it is adopted.

There was a policy debate on the issue of urban mobility which focused on three questions prepared by the Presidency on the basis of a Commission communication on sustainable urban mobility, published in December 2013. In its introduction the Commission stressed the importance of making urban mobility more sustainable in the interests of improving air quality, reducing the numbers of road deaths and injuries and reducing congestion and its attendant costs. A decentralised but co-ordinated and non-prescriptive approach was being advocated which respected subsidiarity and supported local authorities, the exchange of best practice and reinforced EU effort where there was EU added value. An expert group is to be established later this year and the Commission hoped all member states would participate. All of the member states which spoke welcomed the initiative and spoke positively about its non-prescriptive approach. The Commission concluded that the focus for work on urban mobility should be on the exchange of best practice among member states and the soon to be established expert group would have a key role to play in this regard.

Under the heading of AOB, the main items related to the airports package, clean power and the outcome of the EU-ASEAN aviation summit. On the airports package, the Presidency reported on the agreement reached with the European Parliament on the noise regulation aspect of the package. Regarding clean power, the Presidency reported on the ongoing negotiations on the directive on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure. The Commission welcomed progress in the negotiations but regretted the Council’s lack of ambition regarding the deadline for liquefied natural gas, LNG, infrastructure for ports. Italy, Germany, Finland, Denmark, Spain, Belgium and Ireland all intervened to emphasise the importance of reaching agreement on the file as soon as possible, encouraging all actors to assume their responsibilities.

The Commission reported on the EU-ASEAN aviation summit which took place in Singapore on 11 and 12 February, with participation from ten South-East Asian states. The Commission stated the region was a key market with half of the aviation traffic growth in the next decade expected to take place to, from and within the Asia-Pacific region. The summit created good momentum toward a tailored approach to EU-ASEAN relations. The Commission reported that the preparation of a comprehensive air service agreement would commence shortly.

On the Transport Council agenda for 5 June, No. 4 relates to the fourth rail package, an ambitious suite of six EU legislative proposals involving further opening of domestic railway markets to competition, mandatory tendering of public service contracts and updating and streamlining of processes and systems for railway safety and interoperability. The Council is being asked to reach political agreement on three of the proposals contained in the package, namely, the proposals for directives on the interoperability of the European railway system, safety on the Community’s railways and a proposal for a regulation on the ERA. Concerns that Ireland had about the text of the original proposals have been addressed by amendments agreed to at previous Councils. Ireland welcomes the measures contained in the proposals submitted to the Council and can support them.

No. 5 on the Council agenda deals with the proposal to amend Directive 96/53/EC of 25 July 1996 laying down the maximum authorised weights and dimensions in national and international traffic for heavy goods vehicles, HGVs, circulating within the European Union. Ireland fully supports the proposed amendments to allow manufacturers to develop more aerodynamic, fuel-efficient and safer vehicles, which will enhance road safety. The proposals will give drivers a better field of vision, which has the potential to reduce the numbers of collisions involving vulnerable road users.

On this note, Ireland has always stressed the road safety benefits of the proposed revisions to the directive, particularly to Article 9, the profile of HGV cabs, and has consistently argued for a short lead-in period, of the order of five years, on the grounds of road safety. Ireland is also supportive of the proposed increase in weight of one tonne for alternatively fuelled HGVs, to take account of the heavier Euro 6 engines and battery components and an increase of 1.5 tonnes for all buses and coaches to accommodate the increased average weight of passengers and their luggage.

Our concern is the Commission’s proposals amending Article 4, which are less than clear. There are differing interpretations of the impact of the proposals on the article and we will reserve our position until it is clarified, particularly the potential impact on bilateral arrangements we have with the UK.

Agenda item 6 proposes a regulation to open up access to the provision of certain services in ports, such as bunkering, dredging, mooring, port reception facilities, pilotage and towing. The Irish commercial ports sector largely fulfils the spirit of the proposed regulation and Ireland welcomes its objectives.

Agenda item 7 deals with common rules on compensation and assistance for airline passengers. While we are broadly supportive, we have concerns about a particular aspect of the Commission’s proposal, which is that of compensation in the case of missed connections. Under the Commission’s proposals, the first feeder airline will be liable for the full amount of compensation where a connection is missed. This has potential to have serious implications for carriers such as Aer Lingus which feed traffic into many of the European hubs for onward long-haul connections. The industry contends that this has the potential to seriously undermine interlining arrangements among carriers and discourage such arrangements, which, perversely, could be to the detriment of consumers, as it could reduce choice and convenience and likely result in higher costs. Ireland’s views are shared by many other member states in this regard.

Agenda item 8 proposes the adoption of draft Council conclusions on the mid-term review of the EU’s maritime transport policy until 2018 and outlook to 2020. A draft declaration on this was adopted at an informal maritime meeting in Athens on 7 May and Ireland welcomes and supports the Council conclusions. Shipping and the movement of goods by sea is vitally important to the economy, and our continued support for the implementation of EU policy to develop and promote a safe, secure and clean shipping environment is assured.

On AOB item 9(a), the French have concerns about Regulation (EC) No.1071/2009, which establishes common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator. The purpose of the regulation is to achieve greater harmonisation of standards among member states, particularly as regards levels of financial standing required and the standard of professional competence expected; to facilitate the right of establishment in other member states and the mutual recognition of professional status; to improve the overall professional standing and quality of road transport; and to prevent unscrupulous firms from seeking to gain market share by skimping on safety and working conditions. France is concerned that there are many problems within the present framework that result in unfair competition in national markets. The main issues of concern to France are cabotage and "letter box" companies.

Cabotage remains a contentious issue, although the amount of cabotage remains small in the context of the overall EU transport market. Some member states view the further liberalisation of cabotage as unacceptable due to the disparity in labour costs across the EU. They fear that this would result in a race to the bottom in labour standards, which would have a negative impact on society. Ireland recognises the overall benefit of a liberalised market that is equitable and supports any steps taken that will assist with a smooth transition to this.

On AOB item 9(b), Ireland supports the establishment of the joint venture and believes that the output of the shift to rail joint undertaking will have positive benefits for the rail market. The main outputs envisaged from the programme will be a 50% reduction in life cycle costs for the railway transport system; a 100% increase in capacity; a 50% increase in reliability and punctuality of rail services; the removal of technical obstacles to the interoperability of the rail system; and a reduction in noise, emissions and other environmental impacts arising from rail transport.

To date, one Irish company, as part of a larger consortium, has signed a memorandum of understanding with the joint undertaking. It is also understood that a consortium consisting of UCD and Trinity College Dublin is in negotiation on the development of a memorandum of understanding with the joint undertaking. It is also understood that the Rail Procurement Agency and Irish Rail have been exploring possibilities under the initiative.

On AOB item 9(c), I look forward to receiving information from the Commission on tracking of aeroplanes, which is an important safety issue, following on from the Malaysian Airlines incident. I am happy to take questions from members on the agenda.