European Scrutiny Committee Contents


3 Rights of passengers

(30264) 11990/08 + ADDs 1-2 COM(08) 816 Draft Regulation concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway and amending Regulation (EC) No. 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws

Legal baseArticle 71(1) EC; co-decision; QMV
DepartmentTransport
Basis of considerationMinister's letter of 29 June 2009
Previous Committee ReportHC 19-v (2008-09), chapter 4 (28 January 2009)
To be discussed in CouncilNot known
Committee's assessmentPolitically important
Committee's decisionDo not clear; further information requested

Background

3.1 In its 2001 White Paper "European transport policy for 2010: time to decide" the Commission listed one of its objectives as establishing passenger rights in all modes of transport.[18] Legislation has already been enacted for the aviation sector, covering passenger rights generally and the rights of passengers with reduced mobility in two separate Regulations.[19] In December 2008 the Commission presented a draft Regulation, which is still under scrutiny, intended to establish a set of rights for passengers using bus and coach services on both domestic and international routes.[20]

3.2 In December 2008 the Commission also presented this draft Regulation, intended to establish a set of rights for passengers travelling by sea and inland waterways. The aim of this proposal is to:

  • remove potential barriers to disabled people and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by sea and inland waterways, by addressing issues around the lack of accessibility and the provision of assistance for their needs; and
  • ensure an enhanced level of consumer protection for commercial maritime and inland waterway passengers who experience delays or disruption to their journeys.

3.3 The draft Regulation has five chapters covering general provisions, assistance for passengers with disabilities or reduced mobility, obligations to be imposed on carriers in the event of interrupted travel, information for passengers and handling of complaints and enforcement. The design of vessels to make them accessible to disabled people and persons with reduced mobility is not within the scope of this proposal.[21]

3.4 When we considered this proposal, in January 2009, we reported that the Government:

  • welcomed the benefits the proposal was designed to offer to disabled people and persons with reduced mobility and passengers in general;
  • noting that the proposal was based on the legislation applying to aviation and that this was contained in two separate Regulations, considered that a similar arrangement might be more appropriate for the maritime sector;
  • noted that the proposal applied a "one size fits all" approach to a very diverse industry and considered that this was not proportionate; and
  • had, consequently, a number of concerns with the proposal which it would raise with other Member States and the Commission during negotiations on the proposal.

We also reported a considerable number of the Government's more detailed concerns, its preliminary views on the financial implications of the proposal and its intentions on consultation and preparing an impact assessment.

3.5 We concluded that the aim of the draft Regulation was clearly laudable, but that it was equally clear that there was much to be resolved before the proposal could be brought to a conclusion. So before considering the document further we asked to:

  • hear about significant progress in the negotiations, particularly in relation to the scope of the proposal for the maritime sector — that is questions related to diverse port and ship size and inland waterways;
  • have an account of the outcome of the Government's consultations on the proposals; and
  • see the Government's impact assessment.

Meanwhile the document remained under scrutiny.

The Minister's letter

3.6 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Paul Clark), writes now partially in response to our earlier report and to tell us also of the European Parliament's first reading of the proposal. First, the Minister covers one point emerging from the Government's consultations and the continuing preparation of its own impact assessment. Recalling the Commission's estimate, in its impact assessment, that 12,300-24,600 jobs could be created in the maritime industry by this proposal, the Minister says that:

  • it is clear from consultations with the UK's maritime industry that the proposal is unlikely to lead to any significant increase in the number of jobs in the UK maritime sector;
  • the Commission's estimate, prepared before the recent downturn in the world economies, was based on the premise that enhancing access to the provision of services would result in more people using them, which would lead to greater employment requirements;
  • although it is likely that increased access would lead to more passenger activity on some routes in mainland Europe, and thus create new jobs to service that activity, it is by no means clear that many routes in the UK would see any noticeable increase in passenger throughput;
  • the busiest routes in the UK already deal with many persons with reduced mobility and have done so effectively and efficiently for many years;
  • there might, however, be a few jobs created on the less busy ferry routes because of increasing passenger numbers and the need for ferry operators to provide more assistance to passengers than at present;
  • the proposed complaint handling and national enforcement body requirements would also create the need for some extra posts, but overall the total net increase in employment in the UK is unlikely to be more than 100; and
  • the precise number would be very difficult to determine and would depend on a range of factors, such as the future economic situation, the outcome of the negotiations, the time it would take for new rules to enter into force and the reaction of ferry operators and their customers to the new rules.

The Minister then comments that:

  • the Government is committed, in close cooperation with stakeholders, to ensuring that the proposed Regulation is proportionate and does not create an unnecessarily high administrative and financial burden;
  • its aim is to enhance the services which UK citizens can expect when they travel within the Community; and
  • if this creates more passenger activity and a consequent increase in the overall level of employment in the maritime sector, the Government would, of course, welcome this.

3.7 More generally on Council consideration of the proposal the Minister tells us that:

  • Working Group deliberation began in January 2009, under the Czech Presidency (but with Sweden chairing the discussions);
  • although there have been eight meetings so far, progress has been slow;
  • there is as yet no consensus on the scope of the Regulation, its territorial applicability, the compensation arrangements for delay and or cancellation and how the Regulation should be supervised and enforced;
  • a discussion at the March 2009 Transport Council on the scope and territorial applicability of the proposal did not generate a consensus, but Ministers did accept that there was a need for the proposal; and
  • further discussion is to take place under the Swedish Presidency and it is expected that a common position should be possible by the end of the year.

3.8 On the European Parliament's first reading the Minister tells us that:

  • it supported the need for new rights for all maritime passengers and stressed the importance that persons with reduced mobility should be treated more favourably;
  • whilst welcoming the proposal, it adopted 75 amendments which it considered necessary to refine the text and to minimise some of the burdens to be imposed by the proposal; and
  • the Government welcomes many of these amendments, although there are several which it would not support.

3.9 The Minister then gives the Government's views on the key European Parliament amendments, saying of:

  • an amendment to authorise Member States to exclude urban and suburban transport services from the scope of the Regulation, that although the European Parliament has acknowledged the desirability of minimising the scope for local transport, its amendment would provide Member States with a major opt out and lacks clarity. At the March 2009 Transport Council Ministers agreed that there was a need to minimise the scope, but there was no consensus on how this should be achieved. The Government is continuing to press in the negotiations for the scope to reflect a satisfactory balance between industry and their customers and it is hopeful that this will be achieved;
  • an amendment to delete the definition of RO-PAX (ferries which are principally used and designed to carry cargo), that it is not clear why the European Parliament is seeking this deletion. It may simply be an attempt to tidy up the text, in which case the Government could support the amendment. It, and a number of other Member States, is keen to see the exclusion of such vessels from the scope and it is continuing to press for this;
  • amendments to include force majeure as a defence which an operator can cite in order to avoid the obligation of paying compensation to a customer, that the ferry industry considers these amendments essential, in order to limit their potential to pay compensation for delays over which they have no control, such as the recent dispute involving French trawler men which stopped traffic at Dover for several days. The Government recognises that if ferry operators are to be liable to pay compensation for delays, then the specific operational factors affecting shipping need to be taken into account, and that compensation should only be paid when the operator is at fault. It therefore supports the European Parliament's objective on this, but whether there is a need to include a reference to force majeure will depend on the progress of the negotiations on the compensatory aspects of the proposal;
  • an amendment to provide the carrier with the ability to decline to take onto his vessel a person with reduced mobility on the grounds of safety, operational feasibility, or the dignity of the traveller. The Government welcomes this important clarification which is one of the key concerns of the operators of small passenger craft;
  • amendments to amend "assistance animal" to "assistance dog". The Government welcomes these amendments since it is appropriate that only trained dogs should be included in the Regulation. This is also the view of the disability lobby groups consulted by the Government;
  • an amendment about provisions for training of new employees providing that only new employees who have direct contact with passengers should receive disability-related training. The Government welcomes the acknowledgement of the need to minimise the impact on industry of the disability-related training requirements. The amendment goes some way to reducing the overall burden, but there is a need to ensure that the training needs for existing staff are treated in a similar way; and
  • an amendment to limit the cost to the carrier of accommodation that must be offered to a passenger delayed overnight to a maximum of twice the price of the ticket paid. The amendment would minimise the burden on ferry operators, and so is welcome to the Government, although it is yet to be persuaded that there is any need for an operator to pay for overnight accommodation to a delayed passenger.

Conclusion

3.10 We are grateful for the Minister's account of where matters stand with the Government's and the Council's consideration of this proposal and also of the European Parliament's first reading. However, we note that there is as yet not much significant progress in the negotiations. So before considering the document again we should like to have a further account of the discussions, once the shape of the possible common position becomes more certain. Additionally we would want to have a fuller account of the outcome of the Government's consultations on the draft Regulation and to see its impact assessment. Meanwhile the document remains under scrutiny.





18   (22660) 11932/01: see HC 152-xv (2001-02), chapter 2 (30 January 2002) and Stg Co Debs, European Standing Committee A, 13 March 2002, cols. 3-28. Back

19   Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, on "establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the even of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights" and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006, on "concerning the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air". Back

20   (30255) 16933/08 + ADDs 1-2: see HC 19-v (2008-09), chapter 4 (28 January 2009).  Back

21   This is covered by Directive 2003/24/EC, which amends Council Directive 98/18/EC on safety rules and standards for passenger ships engaged on domestic voyages, and includes specific requirements for disabled people and persons with reduced mobility, in particular access to the ship, signs, message relay systems, alarms and additional requirements, designed to ensure mobility on board ship. Accessibility to new ships for international services has been regulated by the International Maritime Organisation's Recommendation on the Design and Operation of Passenger Ships to Respond to Elderly and Disabled Persons' Needs, IMO MSC /Circ.735. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 15 July 2009