21 RIGHTS OF PASSENGERS
(30264)
11990/08
+ ADDs 1-2
COM(08) 816
| Draft Regulation on 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 base | Article 71(1) EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Transport
|
| Basis of consideration |
Ministers' letters of 25 September 2009 and 7 October 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report |
HC 19-v (2008-09), chapter 4 (28 January 2009), HC 19-xxiii (2008-09), chapter 3 (8 July 2009) and HC 19-xxvi (2008-09), chapter 2 (10 September 2009)
|
| Discussed in Council | 9 October 2009
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
21.1 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.[84]
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.[85]
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.[86]
21.2 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.
21.3 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.[87]
21.4 When we first 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.
21.5 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.
21.6 When we considered the proposal again, in July
2009, we heard, amongst other points, that:
- in the context of the Commission's
estimate, in its impact assessment, that 12,300-24,600 jobs could
be created in the maritime industry by this proposal, it was clear
from consultations with the UK's maritime industry that the proposal
would be unlikely to lead to any significant increase in the number
of jobs in the UK maritime sector;
- the Government was committed, in close cooperation
with stakeholders, to ensuring that the proposed Regulation would
be proportionate and would not create an unnecessarily high administrative
and financial burden;
- its aim was to enhance the services which UK
citizens could expect when travelling within the Community;
- if this created more passenger activity and a
consequent increase in the overall level of employment in the
maritime sector, the Government would, of course, welcome this;
- although there had been eight meetings of the
Working Group since January 2009, under the Czech Presidency (but
with Sweden chairing the discussions), progress had been slow;
- there was as yet no consensus on the scope of
the draft 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;
- at its first reading the European Parliament
supported the need for new rights for all maritime passengers
and stressed the importance of persons with reduced mobility being
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 welcomed many of these amendments,
although there were several which it would not support.
21.7 We asked then to have, before considering the
document again:
- a further account of the discussions,
once the shape of a possible common position became more certain;
- a fuller account of the outcome of the Government's
consultations on the draft Regulation; and
- its impact assessment.
Meanwhile the document remained under scrutiny.
21.8 We considered a further account of developments
from the Government in September 2009. We reported:
- the Government's confidence
that it would be able to secure significant changes to the draft
Regulation, meeting the concerns of UK operators without watering-down
the advantages in the proposal for passengers, in continuing Working
Group discussions and at the Transport Council of 9 October 2009,
at which the Swedish Presidency hoped to achieve a political agreement;
- timetabling meant that we would not be able to
consider any further developments before that Council meeting,
but it was the Government's overall view that the proposal was
now better balanced and its expectation was that it would wish
to be supportive if it was discussed at that meeting, in order
to secure the improvements already negotiated; and
- on the matter of the Government's impact assessment,
that this was in an advanced stage of preparation, that the Government
expected it to demonstrate the significant positive benefits arising
from the proposed Regulation, because of the increased opportunities
for travel by sea for persons with reduced mobility, and that
the Government expected to provide it to us in September 2009.
21.9 We commented that:
- although we noted that there
had been helpful progress in the negotiations, we did not feel
that the shape of a possible common position was already sufficiently
certain to allow us to clear the document from scrutiny;
- before considering it again, we should like to
have a more certain account of a likely common position;
- amongst matters we wanted to know about were,
on the basis of its comments in its Explanatory Memorandum of
20 January 2009, whether the Government had pursued the options
of limiting the scope of the proposal, so as to exclude ports
with a usage below a ship tonnage or passenger numbers minimum
and to exclude inland waterways, and was content that definitions,
such as that of "ship", were sufficiently compatible
with international and other Community legislation;
- although we have been able to discern some of
the concerns of those consulted, we would want to have a fuller
account of the outcome of the Government's consultations, together
with the impact assessment the Minister was promising us;
- nevertheless, we recognised that Working Group
discussions in September 2009 might result in the Government needing
to secure improvements to the draft Regulation by supporting a
political agreement at the forthcoming Transport Council; and
- if this situation were to arise we expected to
be informed of this, in accordance with the Scrutiny Reserve Resolution
of 17 November 1998, before the Council meeting.[88]
The Ministers' letters
21.10 The Minister of State, Department for Transport
(Sadiq Khan), writes in his letter of 25 September 2009 with a
further account of developments on the proposal, telling us that:
- significant further progress
has been made on issues of concern to the Government (with four
Working Group meetings in September 2009);
- the Swedish Presidency now expected that a political
agreement would be possible at the Transport Council on 9 October
2009; and
- the Government would wish to protect the gains
it had made by supporting such an agreement.
21.11 The Minister then deals with the points raised
in our last report; first, on the limitations achieved on the
scope of the proposal as originally drafted, saying:
- throughout the negotiations
the Government had continually sought to limit the scope to those
operators who run regular passenger services, considering it inappropriate
for the Regulation to apply to services such as day excursion
or sight-seeing trips. The Government had successfully lobbied
for such services to be excluded;
- the Government had sought to exclude as many
as possible of the smaller passenger services on inland waterways,
successfully lobbying for exclusion of all vessels certified to
carry less than 36 passengers and those which operate with only
two crew members onboard; and
- the Government was confident that, although the
precise wording of the scope of the regulation was still being
worked on, the Council would be asked to agree a text that would
be proportionate and which would exclude many small vessels.
The Minister adds that the Government had also lobbied
successfully to:
- minimise some of the requirements
which would be placed on those operators continuing to come within
the scope of the proposal, such as reducing the number of crew
required to undergo the disability-related training requirements,
a reduction in the level of compensation which operators might
have to pay to their passengers, special derogations for cruise
ship operators and exemptions for bad weather and the activities
of third parties;
- obtain some exemptions from parts of the proposal
for very small port operators who only handle less than 100,000
passengers a year;
- develop the text of dealing with complaints and
enforcement; and
- clarify the complaint process for passengers
as well as operators and provide Member States with the maximum
flexibility on how to enforce the Regulation.
The Minister comments that, collectively, these changes
to the original proposal represent a significant rebalancing in
favour of operators and have been welcomed by the UK maritime
industry.
21.12 On the matter of definitions, such as "ship",
the Minister says that the Government is content that the definition
of the ship is now in accordance with other international and
Community legislation, that it is content with changes made to
a number of other definitions and it does not have any outstanding
concerns on the definitions article.
21.13 Describing the Government's consultations the
Minister says that the Department of Transport officials have
met, or have had contact with:
- the ferry and cruise sections
of the Passenger Shipping Association;
- the Chamber of Shipping and
the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee;
- individual companies such as P&O Ferries,
CalMac Ferries, Western Ferries, Orkney Ferries, Carnival, John
Sweeney Cruises;
- organizations such as the European Cruise Council,
the Shetlands Islands Council, the British Ports Association,
the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Consumer Council
for Northern Ireland; and
- the devolved administrations.
He comments that "collectively this represents
a significant amount of effort to understand the concerns of industry
as well as those of passengers and to keep them informed as the
negotiations develop."
21.14 The Minister encloses with his letter the Government's
draft Impact Assessment, much of which is based, as he says, on
qualitative rather than quantitative benefits and costs. He adds
that it is clear, however, that the proposal does provide a positive
benefit to passengers through new compensation arrangements and
better access provisions for persons with reduced mobility and
will offer operators the opportunity to benefit from more passenger
traffic as persons with reduced mobility will be encouraged to
travel more.
21.15 Finally the Minister says that if, as expected,
the text were to be agreed at the October 2009 Transport Council,
the Government will continue to lobby to ensure that the gains
secured will be reflected in the final version of the Regulation.
21.16 With his letter of 7 October 2009 the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Paul Clark)
supplements the letter of 25 September 2009 with some further
detail on the outcome of the Government's consultations since
the recent progress in negotiations. Recalling that since the
Commission presented the draft Regulation the Government has undertaken
a number of informal consultations with interested parties the
Minister outlines the key concerns of various groups and how these
have been addressed.
21.17 The Minister says that the key concern for
ferry operators was the proposal to pay compensation for delays,
explaining that:
- as most delays are caused by
either the weather or the activities of third parties, the operators
felt that it was not appropriate that they should be forced to
pay compensation when the delay was out of their effective control;
- the revised text for the Transport Council provides
for exemptions for bad weather and the activities of third parties
and so this concern of the ferry operators has been met;
- operators were also concerned about the level
of compensation which would be paid when they were at fault;
- the revised text also includes a reduction in
the proposed level of compensation payments and inclusion of a
minimum claim amount; and
- together these improvements have resolved the
concerns of the industry on compensation.
21.18 The Minister tells us that the smaller ferry
operators felt that they should not even come within the scope
of the Regulation and did not like the Commission's proposal treating
all operators in the same way without any consideration of proportionality.
He comments that:
- the scope of the proposal has
been narrowed with many smaller vessel operators being excluded;
and
- some of the requirements for smaller operators
which do fall within the scope of the proposed Regulation have
also been moderated.
21.19 The Minister says that the cruise ship industry
also believed it should not come within the scope of the Regulation,
since they were not operating passenger services. However, once
it became clear that there was strong support from the Member
States to include cruises, the industry began to look for a number
of exemptions from the proposal, such as not being required to
pay compensation for delays or to provide free travel for passengers
accompanying persons with reduced mobility. The text for the Transport
Council resolved both of these concerns.
21.20 As for passenger groups the Minister says that
their main concern was to ensure that the proposal came into force,
noting that these groups:
- welcomed the proposal since
it would provide new rights for all maritime travellers, particularly
those with reduced mobility, and bring the maritime sector into
line with the aviation and rail sectors; and
- recognised, however, that the proposal would
need to take into account the views of industry and that some
of the provisions would be moderated.
21.21 In summary the Minister says that:
- the ferry and cruise ship industry
have welcomed the changes that have been made to the draft Regulation;
- the ferry industry in particular is pleased with
the improvements to the proposal; and
- passenger groups have always supported the proposal
and are pleased that progress is being made with it.
Conclusion
21.22 We are grateful for the Ministers' latest
accounts of where matters stand with consideration of this proposal.
We have no further questions to ask and now clear the document.
21.23 As for the breach of the Scrutiny Reserve
Resolution, we note that, as we requested, the Ministers have
alerted us to the probability of this before the event and we
accept the explanation of the need to support the political agreement
in order to safeguard the improvements to the proposal, which
had been achieved in negotiation.
84 (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
85
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
86
(30255) 16933/08 + ADDs 1-2: see HC 19-v (2008-09), chapter 4
(28 January 2009) and HC 19-xxiv (2008-09), chapter 2 (15 July
2009). Back
87
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
88
See headnote. Back
|
