|
(17959)
6391/97
COM(97)72
|
Amended proposal for a Council Regulation laying down the conditions under which non-resident carriers may operate national road passenger transport services within a Member State.
|
|
Legal base:
|
Article 75(1); co-operation; qualified majority voting
|
|
Document originated:
|
26 February 1997
|
|
Original language:
|
French
|
|
Forwarded to the Council:
|
28 February 1997
|
|
Circulated by the Council in the original language:
|
6 March 1997
|
|
Circulated by the Council in English:
|
7 March 1997
|
|
Deposited in Parliament:
|
14 March 1997
|
|
Department:
|
Department of Transport
|
|
Basis of consideration:
|
EM of 13 June 1997
|
|
Previous consideration:
|
None
|
|
Committee's assessment:
|
Politically important
|
|
Committee's decision:
|
Cleared
|
Background
61.1 This is a revised
proposal on the conditions under which non-resident carriers may
operate national road passenger transport services within Member
States (known as cabotage). The original proposal was considered
twice by the previous Committee[160].
It was judged to be of political importance because of its implications
for bus and coach operators in the UK.
The revised proposal
61.2 In her Explanatory
Memorandum dated 13 June 1997, the Parliamentary Under Secretary
of State at the Department of Transport (Baroness Hayman) explains
that:
"The proposed
Regulation will replace and extend Regulation (EEC) 2454/92[161]
which introduced limited passenger cabotage in two stages from
1 January 1993. That Regulation was subsequently annulled by
the European Court[162]
on procedural grounds, although it ruled that its provisions should
remain in force until the Council had adopted new legislation
on the matter. The proposed Regulation seeks to further liberalise
the extent to which coach and bus operators from one Member States
are entitled to operate domestic passengers services entirely
within another Member State (passenger cabotage)."
61.3 The existing Regulation
allows cabotage in domestic bus and coach services except
regular services (defined as those which carry passengers along
specified routes at specified intervals, with pre-determined stops).
The original Commission proposal was to extend cabotage to all
regular services. The Council subsequently adopted a European
Parliament amendment to exclude cabotage on local regular bus
services. The Council decided that cabotage should also be excluded
on long distance coach services. It should only be allowed on
internal sectors of international services, and should be subject
to the host country's regulations. So, for example, on a service
from London to Paris a UK operator would be able to carry passengers
from Calais to Paris - but he would be subject to the full legal
and administrative framework which applies to domestic services
in France.
The Government's view
"While in principle
the amended proposal offers further opportunities for UK companies
to operate services in other Member States, and for foreign operators
to do likewise in this country, they are limited to carrying passengers
on the domestic leg of an international journey. Furthermore,
the conditions under which this is to be allowed are so circumscribed
that few, if any, operators are likely to take advantage of it
in practice. In view of this dilution of the Commission's original
proposal, the UK voted against the amended proposal. Common Position
was, however, reached on the basis of a qualified majority."
61.5 Dealing with the
practicalities of operation, the Minister explains:
"Controls over
vehicle standards of foreign operators in this country would take
place through normal road-side checks. The proposal itself provides
for the host State to impose a temporary ban on cabotage operations
in cases of serious or repeated infringements of national transport
regulations, and to request the Member State of establishment
to impose a penalty on the operator, which may extend to removal
of the licence to operate."
61.6 The Minister tells
us that the Council reached a Common Position on this proposal
on 14 April 1997. The European Parliament now has three months
in which to express a view
Conclusion
61.7 We consider that
the proposal raises matters of political importance, but since
it has been so drastically watered down from the original version
we do not think that it warrants a debate.
160 (16932) 4749/96; see HC 51-xi (1995-96), paragraph
8 (28 February 1996) and HC 51-xxvi (1995-96), paragraph 12 (17
July 1996). Back
161 OJ
No. L 251, 29.8.92, p.1. Back
162 ECJ
388/92. Back
|
