A. GENERAL POLICY QUESTIONS
24. PROPOSED DIRECTIVE RELATING TO SPECIAL PROVISIONS
FOR VEHICLES USED FOR THE CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS COMPRISING MORE
THAN EIGHT SEATS IN ADDITION TO THE DRIVER'S SEAT AND AMENDING
DIRECTIVE 70/156/EC (9734/97)
Letter from Lord Tordoff, Chairman of the Committee,
to Baroness Hayman, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department
of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
This proposal was sifted to Sub-Committee B and considered
at their meeting this morning. In addition to your Explanatory
Memorandum of 30 September, the Sub-Committee invited written
evidence from the Disabled Persons' Transport Advisory Committee
(DPTAC) and the Confederation of Passenger Transport (CPT). Copies
of these submissions are included with this letter.
The views of the witnesses can be briefly summarised as follows:
The DPTAC believes that the Commission has made progress
in regarding access for disabled people as an integral part of
their design and construction requirements. They are concerned
to ensure that the proposed Directive would not adversely affect
the implementation of the transport provisions (part 5) of the
Disabilities Discrimination Act 1995.
The CPT raise concerns over the proposed Directive in several
areas. First, they believe that the proposed Directive may have
adverse safety implications arising from an increase in the number
of standing passengers on buses and additional doors which would
reduce control over disembarking. Secondly, the CPT argue that
the proposed Directive would increase prices to passengers (on
coaches) by reducing the seating capacity. They also believe that
the proposed increase in design weight would increase fuel consumption
by some 5-10 per cent.
The CPT also shares the concern expressed in your Explanatory
Memorandum that the safety provisions are neither adequate nor
comprehensive. They believe that the Commission should produce
comprehensive proposals dealing with all aspects of bus safety.
More generally, the CPT are concerned that the proposed Directive
does not recognise the diversity of bus types in Britain. They
note that the UK operates types of buses not found in significant
numbers elsewhere in Europe" and argue that this is because
UK operators had tended to increase service frequencies and reduce
vehicle sizes to better match supply to demand" (paragraph
11).
The Committee endorses most of the concerns raised by the
witnesses. In particular, the Committee supports the view of the
CPT and the Government that the safety requirements are neither
adequate nor comprehensive.
We consider that the DPTAC are right to be concerned that
the proposed Directive could adversely affect the implementation
of the transport provisions of the Disabilities Discrimination
Act 1995. The Committee would therefore appreciate clarification
of any effect the proposed Directive would have on these provisions.
Your Explanatory Memorandum states that this Directive would
be optional unless a change is made to type approval procedures
through amendment by Council of directive 70/156/EEC, to make
whole vehicle type approval mandatory". The Committee would
appreciate clarification of the optional" nature of the proposed
Directive.
The Committee looks forward to receiving clarification on
these issues. In the meantime, this letter maintains the scrutiny
reserve.
27 November 1997
Letter from Baroness Hayman, Parliamentary Under Secretary
of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions,
to Lord Tordoff, Chairman of the Committee
Thank you for your letter of 27 November concerning the proposed
Directive mentioned above. As a result of the sift of the proposal
carried out by the Sub Committee B, you have asked for clarification
on two issues.
You have asked for clarification about the effect the Directive
will have on the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act
1995 (DDA). The purpose of the Directive is to harmonise the construction
standards for the bodywork and interior of vehicles, and we will
be obliged to accept those buses and coaches that meet the requirements
of it. This will be the case even if they do not meet the requirements
of regulations made under the DDA. This is why we are actively
seeking to bring the requirements of the Directive up to a level
such that they are equivalent to requirements made under DDA.
You are also seeking clarification of the optional nature
of the Directive. This is a single market measure which gives
manufacturers a guarantee that if they meet the requirements of
the Directive, they will be able to sell their product in any
Member State without having to undergo additional checks. National
requirements may be operated in parallel with the Directive and
this may mean that local manufacturers have a competitive advantage
if those standards are different to the Directive.
There is a view that if such local variations are permitted
complete harmonisation in a Single Market cannot be achieved until
Whole Vehicle Type Approval is mandated. This extension of mandatory
Whole Vehicle Type Approval would require modification of the
framework Directive 70/156, to encompass all the separate Directives
which are necessary in addition to this one to form a whole vehicle
type approval.
I hope that you find this information is useful to you and
that it clarifies the position for your Committee. If you need
any further assistance on this matter please do not hesitate to
contact me again.
8 December 1997
| 
