Skip to main content

Railways: Passengers' Rights

Volume 716: debated on Tuesday 5 January 2010

Question

Asked by

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether United Kingdom legislation contains provisions equivalent to those contained in the European Union regulation on rail passengers' rights and obligations (1371/2007). [HL914]

The core elements of the European Union regulation provide relatively little in the way of new protections which are not already provided by domestic legislation or by regulatory requirements within the rail industry. The non-core elements of the regulation largely provide protections which are ancillary to those in existing domestic legislation.

Asked by

To ask Her Majesty's Government when they expect to have analysed the information gained from the consultation on the non-core provisions of the Rail Passengers' Rights and Obligations (Exemptions) Regulations 2009 (SI 2009/2970); and how that information will be made available to the House of Lords. [HL915]

SI 2009/2970 exempts domestic services from the non-core provisions of the European Union Regulation on Rail Passenger Rights and Obligations. I have given an assurance that the Government will take and implement decisions as early as practicable in 2010 on whether or not to continue with that exemption. These decisions will be based on appropriate assessments of the impacts of the measures on industry and passengers, informed by the responses to the recent consultation.

Asked by

To ask Her Majesty's Government why there was a two-year delay between the adoption of the European Union regulation on rail passengers' rights and obligations (1371/2007) and the public consultation on the cost and benefit data associated with the non-core provisions. [HL916]

The Government invited representatives of the passenger train operators, who have expressed concern about the likely costs of implementation, to provide evidence to support their position. It appears that they found it difficult to assemble the necessary evidence, because it was not forthcoming until April 2009.

We concluded that their figures were not sufficiently substantiated or robust to enable us to take a sound decision about the extent of implementation. We therefore included a question about the costs and benefits in the recent consultation.