11 Rights of passengers
| (30255)
16933/08
+ ADDs 1-2
COM(08) 817
| Draft Regulation on the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport 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 |
Minister's letters of 15 and 22 December 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report
| HC 19-v (2008-09), chapter 4 (28 January 2009), HC 19-xxiv (2008-09), chapter 2 (15 July 2009) and HC 5-iii (2009-10), chapter 4 (9 December 2009)
|
| Discussed in Council |
17 December 2009 |
| Committee's assessment |
Politically important |
| Committee's decision |
Cleared |
Background
11.1 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.[37]
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.[38]
In December 2008 the Commission presented a draft Regulation
intended to establish a set of rights for passengers travelling
by sea and inland waterways.[39]
11.2 In December 2008 the Commission also presented
this draft Regulation, intended to establish a set of rights for
passengers using bus and coach services on both domestic and international
routes. The aim of this proposal is to:
- make bus and coach transport
more attractive;
- achieve a level playing field, both between operators
in different Member States and between different modes of transport;
and
- remove potential barriers to disabled people
and people with reduced mobility using buses and coaches by addressing
issues around accessibility and the provision of assistance.
11.3 The draft Regulation has provisions in six chapters
to:
- prevent discrimination on grounds
of nationality or place of residence with regard to conditions
and prices offered to passengers by operators;
- establish standard rules on liability in the
event of death or injury of passengers and loss of or damage to
their luggage and to harmonise these with other modes of transport;
- prevent discrimination on the grounds of disability
or reduced mobility with regard to booking a journey or boarding
a vehicle (unless safety regulations or the size of the vehicle
makes such access impossible);
- give disabled persons and persons with reduced
mobility the right to assistance during their travel, free of
charge;
- oblige companies to provide all passengers with
adequate information throughout their journey, particularly where
services are cancelled or subject to long delays, and with information
about their rights; and
- ensure operators have a complaint handling mechanism,
with each Member State designating a body responsible for the
enforcement of the Regulation.
11.4 When we last considered this proposal, in December
2009, we heard that negotiations were nearing conclusion on a
text which, except in relation to two issues, was meeting the
Government's objectives. The two problem issues were about the
scope of the draft Regulation and provisions on liability. On
the first of these we heard that:
- although the Government had
been successful in securing removal of the public service contract
condition from the exemption from the proposal for urban, suburban
and regional transport, the Presidency was currently proposing
that, whilst Member States would be able to exempt urban, suburban
and regional transport from the majority of the provisions, a
limited number would apply;
- a number of Member States, including the UK,
were still calling for the proposed Regulation to only apply to
long-distance bus services, but some Member States had indicated
that they could support the Presidency's proposal; and
- the Government was still hoping to secure the
ability for Member States to exempt local bus services from all
of the provisions of the proposal, but given some Member States'
changing position this might not be achievable.
11.5 On the second issue we heard of significant
progress in respect of the chapter in the draft Regulation containing
provisions on liability:
- the chapter had been completely
re-written and the provision introducing strict liability removed;
- instead passengers would be entitled to compensation
in the event of an accident in accordance with national law of
the state of the carrier;
- however, any limit in national law on compensation
would not be less than €220,000 (about £200,000) per
passenger and €1,200 (about £1,090) per item of luggage;
and
- carriers would also be required to provide assistance
with regard to the passengers' immediate practical needs following
an accident.
We were told, first, that prior to, and if necessary
during, the Transport Council of 17-18 December 2009 the Government
would be seeking further changes, in particular to clarify that
any assistance would not constitute a recognition of liability
and, secondly, that compared to the original proposal, however,
the burden placed on operators should be reduced.
11.6 We were also told about how the Government now
saw this matter developing:
- it was likely that the scope
of the proposal would only be resolved at the forthcoming Transport
Council itself;
- if, as was expected, a political agreement was
reached at that Council, the Government would continue to lobby
to ensure that the gains it had secured in the first reading of
the proposal would be reflected in the final version of the proposed
Regulation; and
- the European Parliament's second reading of the
proposal had been provisionally scheduled for May 2010.
11.7 We commented that as the important issue of
the scope of the proposal was not wholly resolved and that the,
perhaps lesser, matter of assistance after an accident not constituting
a recognition of liability was also outstanding, we would not
wish the Government to acquiesce in a political agreement on the
present basis. Rather we were keeping the document under scrutiny
pending a further account of an acceptable resolution to these
matters. However, we added that, if such a resolution were to
emerge at the Transport Council of 17 December 2009 the Government
could, in accordance with paragraph (3)(b) of the Scrutiny Reserve
Resolution of 17 November 1998, support a political agreement
at that Council.[40]
The Minister's letters
11.8 The Minister of State, Department for Transport
(Mr Sadiq Khan) in his letter of 15 December 2009 says that since
his last report to us the Government had managed to secure a change
to the requirement for provision of assistance with regard to
passengers' immediate practical needs following an accident, to
make it clear that any assistance would not constitute recognition
of liability. He says this is a significant improvement and the
Government was keen to secure the changes that have been made.
11.9 Turning to the scope of the draft Regulation,
the Minister first reminds us that the Presidency was currently
proposing that, whilst Member States would be able to exempt urban,
suburban and regional transport from the majority of the provisions,
a limited number of them would still apply. He then sets out those
provisions which would apply:
- ticket prices and conditions
to be offered without any discrimination based on nationality
of the customer or the place of establishment of the carrier;
- no discrimination on the grounds of disability
or reduced mobility with regard to booking a journey or boarding
a vehicle — this would not require any adaptations to vehicles
or infrastructure;
- compensation in the event of accidents to be
determined in accordance with national law, but if it is capped
certain minimum limits apply; and
- the provision by carriers of reasonable assistance
to meet passengers' immediate practical needs following an accident.
The Minister comments that:
- industry should already be
complying with the requirements preventing discrimination in terms
of ticket prices and conditions and on the grounds of disability
and reduced mobility;
- the provision on compensation should not have
any immediate impact on the UK as there is currently no national
law specifying a limit on liability for death or personal injury
or damage to luggage; and
- the assistance-following-an-accident provision
would have a cost implication for the industry, however, the Government
has managed to get the text qualified to say "reasonable
assistance", which should make it proportionate in terms
of its application to local bus services.
11.10 The Minister then tells us that:
- he understood that a number
of Member States were still calling for the draft Regulation to
apply to long-distance bus services and that the Government would
continue to seek improvements to the scope;
- however some Member States have indicated that
they could accept the Presidency proposal and there was a risk
that the UK could become isolated, if there were not a sufficient
number of Member States maintaining their position to achieve
a blocking minority;
- whilst the Government was mindful of the need
not to place disproportionate burdens on operators and this had
been one of its key objectives, it also needed to balance the
needs of passengers, particularly in regard to disabled people
and people with reduced mobility;
- bearing in mind the possibility of a lack of
support from other Member States, if a position were to arise
at the Transport Council which the Government felt would bring
benefits for UK passengers without placing a disproportionate
burden on industry it might have no alternative other than to
support an acceptable compromise, if it ensures UK interests are
better served; and
- the Government was taking our position seriously
and would be reluctant to give agreement ahead of scrutiny clearance,
so he wished to write to us to make us aware, ahead of the Council,
of the reasons why the Government might support political agreement.
11.11 In his second letter, of 22 December 2009,
the Minister reports the outcome of negotiations at the Transport
Council. He says that:
- during the debate on the proposed
Regulation, the Government and several other Member States maintained
reservations on the scope, asking for it only to apply to long-distance
national and international services and this meant that at the
outset of the meeting the blocking minority was maintained;
- some other Member States, however, argued strongly
for widening the scope, although they were prepared to accept
the existing text;
- in an attempt to resolve this impasse the Presidency
offered a compromise text, which set out that the only provisions
that Member States would not be able to exempt urban, suburban
and regional services from would be the ones which would provide
that ticket prices and conditions must be offered without any
discrimination based on nationality or the place of establishment
of the carrier and that there must be no discrimination on the
grounds of disability or reduced mobility with regard to booking
a journey or boarding a vehicle (unless safety requirements or
vehicle design make access impossible); and
- the Presidency compromise removed two provisions
from the list of those from which Member States could not exempt
urban, suburban and regional services, being those for compensation
in the event of accidents to be determined in accordance with
national law (but with certain minimum limits if capped) and to
require carriers to provide assistance to meet passengers' immediate
practical needs following an accident.
11.12 The Minister comments that the remaining provisions
that would apply to urban, suburban and regional services would
not need to be tailored to the specific nature of the UK bus market:
- the provision in respect of
non-discrimination against disabled people is already provided
for in domestic legislation (although this right would be extended
to people with temporary mobility difficulties);
- the provision preventing discriminatory ticket
prices and conditions has been clarified to make it clear that
it would not prevent concessionary travel schemes being provided
to local residents; and
- the Presidency's compromise therefore met the
substance of UK concerns about the scope of the proposal.
The Minister continues that the other Member States
that had formed the blocking minority also found this text a satisfactory
compromise and on this basis they and the Government accepted
the text of the political agreement.
11.13 The Minister comments further that:
- it is unfortunate that, as
this compromise only emerged at the Council itself, it was not
possible to inform us of it in advance and complete the scrutiny
process;
- the Government remained mindful of our position
on the draft Regulation and would not have supported a political
agreement if it did not feel assured that it had secured the best
deal that could be achieved given Member States' different positions
on the proposal;
- as the application of these provisions fits,
however, with wider Government policy on supporting equitable
treatment for disabled people and people with reduced mobility
and given the significant improvements that had been secured in
respect of what were the liability provisions, in particular the
removal of strict liability, the Government felt that the compromise
proposal represented a much better balance between the economics
of service provision and the rights of passengers than the original
proposal and was an acceptable resolution that best served UK
interests; and
- the Government felt, in particular, that opposing
or abstaining on this issue would have sent the wrong message
to disabled passengers and their representative groups.
Conclusion
11.14 We are grateful to the Minister for this
account of the outcome of the December 2009 Transport Council
consideration of this draft Regulation. We note the extent to
which the Government was able to secure improved text in relation
to the scope and liability provisions of the measure. We have
no more questions to raise on the substance of the proposal and
now clear the document.
11.15 As for the Government's use of the conditional
permission we had given it, in accordance with paragraph (3)(b)
of the Scrutiny Reserve Resolution of 17 November 1998, to support
a political agreement at that Council, we accept the Minister's
justification for the decision to support the compromise text.
37 (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
38
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, on "establishing common rules
on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event 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
39
(30264) 11990/08 + ADDs 1-2: see HC 19-v (2008-09), chapter 4
(28 January 2009), HC 19-xxiii (2008-09), chapter 3 (8 July 2009),
HC 19-xxvi (2008-09), chapter 2 (10 September 2009) and HC 19-xxvii
(2008-09), chapter 21 (14 October 2009). Back
40
See headnote. Back
|
