JOINT COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 20 Apr 2005

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Chairman

We are considering COM (2004) 774, a proposal for a Council decision amending decisions 2001/507/EC and 2001/509/EC with a view to making UNECE Regulations 108 and 109 on retreaded tyres compulsory. Mr. Des Coppins and Mr. Robin McKay, both principal officers at the Department of Transport, are present to assist the committee in dealing with this matter.

I draw witnesses' attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, this privilege does not extend to witnesses appearing before the Committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. The joint committee has directed that, in responding to questions proposed by members, witnesses should ensure that their replies are brief and to the point.

Mr. Des Coppins

I believe the committee has a briefing note. The subject is quite technically complicated but I have tried to simplify it into its political dimensions. The note is essentially a summary and if the Chairman does not object, I will take members through it briefly.

We are talking about two very technical regulations that set down the standards for the remoulding and retreading of tyres on commercial vehicles and passenger cars. They were adopted under a UNECE framework. Although it is a UN Economic Commission for Europe framework, the members of the particular group that oversees the agreement which adopted the regulations are drawn from the motor industry all over the world, including the US, Japan, the Far East and Europe. The provenance of the two regulations is, therefore, fairly broad.

The EU recently became a contracting party to that 1958 UNECE agreement and as a result it has begun the process of adopting a wide range of regulations that the agreement had developed. The two regulations before the committee deal with the tyres and the proposal in front of us is that the Council adopt them and make them compulsory. It has already, to use the technical term, acceded to them, meaning that a country which is a signatory to the 1958 agreement cannot refuse to allow tyres to be sold in its territory if they have been manufactured in accordance with the agreement. In other words, there may be other kinds of tyres that have not been manufactured in accordance with the agreement that it may or may not prohibit as it chooses. If, however, they have been manufactured in accordance with the agreement, it must allow them to be sold. The EU proposal before us moves a step beyond that to say that they may not be sold unless they meet the standard. That is the subtle difference between accession and adoption.

What is not at issue is the technical content of the regulations adopted in Geneva under the UNECE agreement. The principle of accession has already been accepted by the member states of the Union, since they acceded to the agreement in 2001. We are now considering a proposal from the Commission that the regulations be made mandatory. The practical effect of that is that a manufacturer or operator who is remoulding or retreading tyres must have an approval under the regulations to sell them in a member state of the Union. In essence, that is what this proposal involves.

If members wish me to take them through the technical details, I can do so. They are, however, highly technical.

Chairman

I note that this was agreed to on 24 March 1998. It is now 2005. Why did seven years elapse before anyone brought it to light?

Mr. Coppins

This is a Commission proposal, and as we know, it works slowly. When the EU acceded to the agreement, it had agreed to implement, on a mandatory basis, some 70 or 75 regulations. Since then, it has been working through the balance to decide whether to adopt them. It is working its way through a list of previously adopted regulations. One of the things that has probably slowed it down is the fact that the regulation process did not stop with accession. The UNECE agreement is still working, and a group is moving constantly to adopt new regulations. The work is, therefore, on two parallel tracks — adopting new regulations and working on the adoption of existing regulations that it had not accepted on a mandatory basis when it acceded to them.

Chairman

At this stage, do we have any derogations regarding the standard of tyres used in this country?

Mr. Coppins

There is no standard for used tyres, although there is a type approval standard for new tyres, with which all must comply. There is, however, no standard for existing tyres, which is one of the problems.

Chairman

Have we a derogation regarding current standards for new tyres?

Mr. Coppins

No.

Chairman

Why is Ireland now being used as a dumping ground for tyres that do not have the EU quality certificate? I was recently told that. It only came to light by accident last week that Ireland is now being used as a dumping ground for tyres that do not meet the standards expected in other countries across the EU. I am told that the only country, apart from ourselves, that does not have a standard is Greece. I have been told that we have a derogation.

Mr. Coppins

We are not on a derogation, since there is a type approval standard for new tyres for passenger cars. All new tyres sold must meet that standard.

Chairman

I am not talking about new vehicles but about the sale of tyres in general. Are we demanding that all tyres have the EU mark?

Mr. Coppins

No, that is why this is important. In the context of replacement new tyres and retreads, there is currently no mandatory standard in this country. There is an optional EU standard for new tyres but none whatsoever for retreads or remoulds.

Chairman

Have we opted out of the standards used in other countries regarding new tyres?

Mr. Coppins

No.

Chairman

Why are tyres being dumped from certain parts of the world onto the Irish market? I should say Southern Ireland, since there are regulations in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

Deputy O. Mitchell

I think that I can answer that question, since I read it somewhere. They are not being used for cars but to tie down whatever farmers tie down under black plastic, namely, silage.

Chairman

Those are used tyres.

Deputy O. Mitchell

I understand that they are being imported for that purpose, since it is very difficult to get rid of them in other parts of the country. That is what I read.

Chairman

No, what I am concerned with is that there is a market in this country for tyres that do not meet EU standards. The Deputy is talking about used tyres. They are used by farmers to cover silage.

I want to get to the bottom of this. Have we sought a derogation regarding new tyres, meaning that tyres can be sold in this country without the EU mark?

Mr. Coppins

I will be precise. We have not sought a derogation, since that implies that we are required to do something that we have not done. We are not required to make it mandatory that all new tyres sold in this country must be type-approved. Only tyres fitted to new vehicles must be so approved. There is a directive relating to the type approval of all tyres but it is not mandatory and has not been implemented in this country to date. That is why, if what the Chairman says is true — I am not aware of it — substandard tyres are being sold. If that is so, I would certainly welcome the details so that we can take the matter up.

Chairman

My understanding from people in the tyre trade is that they currently have a problem regarding tyres being brought in and sold as legitimate without carrying the EU mark. They may be made by the same manufacturers but they do not carry the EU stamp. What are we going to do about that? This directive concerns retreads. Everyone understands that a retread is a cheap tyre, but there is a question regarding new tyres. People are buying tyres that are supposed to be new but that do not meet the standard required in other European countries. Such tyres are acceptable only in Greece and Ireland.

Mr. Coppins

As I said, we are not aware that it is a problem and, as such, it has not been drawn to our attention. If there is information available- we would require chapter and verse — then we will be glad to examine it.

Chairman

Is the Department not checking the standard of the tyres being sold? Are there any regulations in place in order that the inspectors may confirm that they conform to maximum standards rather than the minimum?

Mr. Coppins

There is no type approval process in force for new tyres. There are basic equipment regulations for vehicles which provide for construction, tyre depth and the safety of tyres. There is no regulation in force that is concerned with the technical construction of tyres, at the moment — for new tyres, other than those supplied and fitted to new cars.

Chairman

Are there are any proposals to bring them in?

Mr. Coppins

We have not been aware of a problem. That is why I am very concerned at the Chairman's assertion that these types of tyres are coming in. The tyre industry has not told us that substandard tyres are being sold. Neither have we been made aware of this through the NCT or the commercial vehicle checking scheme. If there are, then we need to know about it. If it is necessary, in the event, for the directive to be implemented earlier than anticipated, then the Minister will have to be asked to do that.

Chairman

The reason for my comments is that allegations have been made by certain parties in the tyre trade to the effect that we are allowing substandard tyres, without the basic E-mark, to be sold in this country as new tyres. Many people might not be aware that such tyres do not conform to EC specifications.

Deputy Shortall

I apologise for being late coming in. I am not clear as to the status of this directive. It was said that it is not mandatory. Is that the situation at this point or is it intended that it will become mandatory? What provision is there for the enforcement of this standard and how will it be policed? Are there penalties for failure to meet the required standard?

Mr. Coppins

The proposal now is to make it mandatory. Up to now it has not been mandatory. The Community acceded to the regulation in 2001, but that is as far as it went. Accession means that a contracting country cannot prevent the sale of tyres that meet the standard in the regulation. It is now proposed to move a step further, and actually make compliance with the regulation mandatory. What is being proposed is that six months after the directive is adopted it will become mandatory in every member state. That means that each state will have to transpose it into its own legal system and enforce it, six months after it has been adopted. As far as enforcement is concerned, the regulation is structured very differently to the normal type of approval directive. A national authority is required to approve manufacturing plants that remould or retread these tyres. What we have in mind is that the remit of the National Standards Authority of Ireland should be extended to include an approval role. A manufacturer of these types of tyres would then seek approval from the NSAI. Such approval will only be given if they meet a set of requirements laid down by the regulation. That is how the approval process would work.

On the enforcement side, there is a requirement for regular spot checks, in order that the production process is seen to be making tyres that are up to standard. If not, the approval is withdrawn and the company concerned cannot make those tyres, and they cannot be sold in this State.

Deputy Shortall

Who does the spot check?

Mr. Coppins

The approval authority, which will be the National Standards Authority of Ireland. It is the national approval authority under statute, and if it does not do it we will have to put an alternative mechanism in place, because that is what is provided for under the regulation. There is the approval process which must adhere to a set of regulations and the enforcement process, which calls for continuous spot checks on them. If the tyres fail the spot checks, then the vendors lose their approval to sell those tyres.

Deputy Shortall

From the viewpoint of the consumer is it the intention to include a requirement to have the approved tyres checked for density?

Mr. Coppins

Part of the mechanism is that one may not sell a remoulded tyre unless it has been approved to these standards. The regulations provide for a mark to be put on a tyre to show that it has been approved to standards that are similar to those for a new tyre. The regulation provides, in effect, that a tyre may not be sold without this particular mark on it. Obviously, this will extend to the NCT or the commercial vehicle testing scheme. If a tyre is found without that mark, it will fail the test.

Senator Norris

I believe the Chairman may have highlighted an interesting and dangerous gap and I am glad the officials have taken this on board, as regards new tyres. I believe he has made a very valuable point and I am glad it is being investigated. I am also glad that this regulation is being brought to us. I will support it and I believe there will be the strongest support for its implementation without delay. It is a matter of safety for the motorist and for others, including pedestrians. It seems extraordinary that there was a gap for a number of years, if I understand matters correctly, during which we were compelled to allow the sale of tyres over which we had no regulatory capacity in terms of safety standards as regards retreads. This could be seen as exposing citizens to danger. I am old enough to remember when there was serious concern about retreads. There were a number of accidents which it was suggested might have been caused by faulty retreads which caused blow-outs. If, on the one hand, we are being told that we have to accept these for sale and yet we have no standards to monitor them and there is a track record of blow-out occurring because of faulty retreads, then the sooner that gap is closed the better. I encourage the Department or whoever is responsible for implementing these decisions to do so as quickly as possible.

Mr. Coppins

I want to clarify the fact that we were never compelled to accept tyres without a standard. However, since the EU acceded to these regulations we have been compelled to accept tyres that met these particular standards. However, we could still accept tyres that did not meet the standards. That is the situation as it stands.

Senator Norris

The problem is perhaps not as severe as I suggested. However, it is still very regrettable.

Mr. Coppins

It is, and what this initiative proposes is to move beyond that point so that we may only accept tyres that have the quality mark. In terms of safety, there is no reason remoulds or retreaded tyres are less safe than new tyres if they are properly manufactured. In the aviation industry, for example, an enormous proportion of the tyres used on aircraft are retreaded.

Deputy Connaughton

I welcome this legislation. Like Senator Norris, I am old enough to know that we travelled many a mile on remoulds. It struck me when Mr. Coppins was speaking that for many people who buy a new car the first set of tyres is always the best. One somehow always seems to get longer mileage out of the first set of tyres. Is there any danger since, as Mr. Coppins has pointed out, the first set was regulated and the replacements were not, that there may have been a drop in standards — or is that being too simplistic?

Mr. Coppins

It probably is. For the most part the tyre manufacturing is centralised. Car producers buy their tyres in bulk. It is not uncommon for someone to demand different tyres on a particular car due to that person's personal preference or experience. In modern times, tyres are replaced because the new tyres have been manufactured to EU standards. There is no reason not to expect them to be as good as the original tyres. With developments in tyre technology, the life of tyres has been greatly extended.

Deputy Connaughton

It is important to note that if properly manufactured, retreaded tyres are as good as new tyres. This also encourages recycling. In order to have a remoulded tyre, one has to have a tyre. It is extremely important to the industry that the standard of the retreaded tyre is as good as the new tyre. Can Mr. Coppins guarantee that a properly retreaded tyre has the same properties as a new tyre?

Mr. Coppins

It is the intention of the regulations that a retreaded tyre will be as safe as a new tyre and will last as long as new tyre. The rationale behind them covers the environment and cost. They are very important for fleet operators of commercial vehicles. It is very important that they meet the standards. If a company is operating a fleet of trucks on continental haulage, it will want its retreaded tyres to be as good as new tyres.

Deputy Connaughton

Is it true that if one is changing one's tyres at a dealer and the tyres are bald and worn out, then the dealer is required by law to supply new tyres? On several occasions, people want to use the tyres for a bit longer. Many of the dealers state that because of the high standards for tyres, a new tyre must be supplied.

Mr. Coppins

It is not a statutory requirement. A dealer would be very imprudent if he let someone out on the road in a car that was not roadworthy as liability could accrue to him if there was an accident. If someone fails an NCT due to an insufficient tread depth, the testing company does not have the power to impound that car. However, it warns the person that the car is illegal and dangerous. The testing company will advise the person that no liability will attach to it as a result of the person driving that car illegally. Only the Garda can impound the car.

Deputy Connaughton

What is the national standards authority?

Mr. Coppins

There has been much reorganisation since the old industrial research and standards body existed. That has been broken up into Enterprise Ireland, Forfás, the NSAI and so on. The national standards authority is now a subset of the old industrial research and standards institute. Its job is to oversee national and EU standards.

Deputy Connaughton

How many staff has the authority?

Mr. Coppins

I do not know. I can find out for the Deputy. It is a body under the aegis of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

Deputy Connaughton

Mr. Coppins should also let us know how many inspectors it has and so on.

Mr. Coppins

We are in discussions with the authority about broadening the type approval role. If this directive gets adopted, it looks like the national standards authority will be the type approval body. That would imply that the authority would have to acquire the resources necessary to carry out this role.

Senator Dooley

I welcome the issue raised here and I hope the directive gets implemented as soon as possible. Like other Members that travel a lot, I have seen the sides of roads littered with pieces of retread from commercial tyres. This is a worrying development as it is quite hazardous when a piece of rubber comes off a moving truck. I hope the standards to which Mr. Coppins refers will ensure that this does not happen. Why should there be any difference between new tyres and replacement tyres? If the quality of tyres is important for a car owner's first set of tyres, then it should be equally important for a second set. Can we implement our own standards?

What was the background to this regulation? Did pressure come from manufacturers of retreaded tyres in an effort to ensure that individual member states could not prohibit the sale of their products? Was it an effort by countries from central Europe, on behalf of its tyre sellers, to ensure that there was harmonisation across the EU rather than an effort to ensure better standards? Did this regulation have its genesis in large tyre manufacturers seeking to prevent member states from setting their own regulations? What is the difference between tyres that have an EU mark and tyres that do not? The point raised by the Chairman is worrying. It may explain why similar brands of tyres can be bought more cheaply from one tyre fitter than from another. It may also explain why larger companies can undercut smaller companies. We are all familiar with the standard "V" and "W" ratings of tyres. However, we would not be aware of the EU mark. How important is it and does it set a much higher standard than the norm?

Mr. Coppins

I will take the questions one by one. It is often said that tyre material seen on the side of the road is part of a failed retreaded tyre. That is not necessarily the case. It could just as easily be a failed original tyre. The tyres on commercial vehicles such as trucks are subject to horrendous loads. There will be failure in a new tyre just as quickly as a retreaded tyre. If it is under-inflated or if it is overheated or running too fast, then failure can occur. Sometimes, there can be manufacturing problems such as a fault in the casing. Research carried out by the Retread Manufacturers Association, RMA, in Britain indicates it is not necessarily the case that the bits and pieces of tyres one sees on the roadside represent retreaded tyres failures. Such problems are just as likely to occur with new tyres.

There is no difficulty in implementing this standard other than the issue of the continual raft of EU regulations with which we must contend. We are aware of the continuing need for regulatory reform and the importance of implementing such reform in a manner which is slow and logical and minimises costs. There are more serious priorities in the area of type approval which we have had to implement. However, we could implement this standard if we so desired. It was implemented in the United Kingdom last year, for example.

I cannot explain the impetus for the standard but my research indicates there are two drivers. First, a number of major retreaded tyre manufacturers were concerned at the bad publicity they were receiving and at the arguments that retreaded and remoulded tyres were not as safe and economical as new tyres. Second, the movement came from countries in which there were major manufacturing bases. The authorities in the states concerned were urged to lobby UNECE to bring this proposal forward. It has been under consideration for some time.

The E-mark on a tyre indicates it is a new tyre which has been type-approved to EU type approval standards which are very similar to the standards provided for in this regulation. However, this is not to say a tyre without an E-mark is unsafe. For example, one can buy a passenger car that is EU type-approved in this country. The exact same car will be made without EU type approval for Far Eastern markets. There is a cost associated with type approval certification and manufacturers are unlikely to incur this cost unless they are required to do so. It is not necessarily the case, therefore, that a tyre without an E-mark is not as good as another which is so marked. The Chairman has made the point that if tyres are being dumped, we must know about it in order that action can be taken.

Chairman

My information is that Ireland is now being used as a place where tyres without an E-mark can be sold. Ireland and Greece are the only member states in which the E-mark is not mandatory. We would do well to enter into compliance with the rest of the European Union on this matter as soon as possible. I thank Mr. Coppins for his contribution.

We will now consider COM (2005) 47, a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council concerning the rights of persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air.

Mr. Robin McKay

The purpose of this proposal from the Commission is to establish a regulatory framework for providing assistance for persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air, particularly by establishing the relative responsibilities of air carriers and airport authorities for providing assistance.

Persons with reduced mobility include not only disabled people, estimated at around 45 million in the Community or 10% of the population, but also others unable to use air transport without assistance. These are often elderly people who cannot walk long distances around large, modern airports, heavily pregnant women, or otherwise perfectly healthy people who have, for example, a broken leg and are on crutches. It is estimated that 1% of those on scheduled flights and 1.6% of those on leisure services are assisted, amounting to some seven million passengers per year. The proposed regulation contains a wide definition of persons with reduced mobility which covers everyone in these categories.

There are no guidelines about whether the cost of providing assistance for persons with reduced mobility should be borne by air carriers or airport authorities. The regulation proposes the principal responsibility will rest with the airport authorities which may recover their costs from the air carriers in proportion to the total number of passengers carried by each airline. The idea is to eliminate any economic disincentive for airlines to carry persons with reduced mobility. The assistance is to be provided free of charge for the person with reduced mobility.

The proposed regulation prohibits air carriers or tour operators from refusing to carry persons on the grounds of reduced mobility with certain exceptions and derogations, notably for justified safety reasons. The proposal gives persons with reduced mobility the right to a package of assistance at airports specified in annexe I on departure, on arrival and in transit. It also contains provisions on prior notification of the need for this assistance. Under the regulation, the managing bodies of airports will be responsible for providing the assistance free of charge for persons with reduced mobility and will be permitted to levy charges on air carriers to fund it.

The proposal requires that, after proper consultation, the managing body of an airport lay down quality standards for the assistance it provides for persons with reduced mobility. Moreover, it obliges air carriers to provide assistance on aircraft specified in annexe II free of charge for such passengers. The regulation stipulates that air carriers and tour operators will be obliged to make certain arrangements concerning prior notification of the need for assistance and forbids the limitation or waiver of obligations created by the regulation. In addition, the proposal requires member states to designate bodies responsible for enforcement of the regulation and dealing with complaints and to lay down sanctions for infringements. The Commission is obliged to report on the operation and results of the regulation in due course and perhaps make some proposals for amendments.

This is a brief outline of the provisions of the regulation. I will be happy to deal with any questions.

Chairman

Are some airlines imposing charges on persons with reduced mobility for the provision of wheelchairs and so forth?

Mr. McKay

Such charges are imposed in some airports. It is not necessarily the airlines which are responsible for this levy but rather those who provide services such as the provision of wheelchairs. The plan is that this charge should be borne by the airport.

Chairman

Are such charges levied in any Irish airport in respect of the provision of wheelchairs or other facilities?

Mr. McKay

I understand no such charges are levied.

Chairman

When is it proposed that this regulation will come into force?

Mr. McKay

No date has been set but the objective is that it should come into force one year after it is adopted. However, it is only at the beginning of the legislative process and it is difficult to predict a date for its adoption.

Chairman

Does Mr. McKay envisage a timeframe of two or three years?

Mr. McKay

The Council and European Parliament processes alone will take 12 months. Therefore, it may be two years before the regulation is implemented. However, this is a guess on my part.

Chairman

I accept that. However, this is an extremely important issue. The Disability Bill 2004 has just completed Second Stage in the Dáil and it is important that this regulation should be implemented as soon as possible. People with disabilities are entitled to be facilitated to the same level as those with no mobility difficulties.

Deputy Glennon

I welcome the regulation. I am particularly pleased provision is made for guide dogs. There was an incident recently involving a prohibition on guide dog travel on a particular aircraft. The regulation represents a major step forward in this regard.

I should have started by referring to the second paragraph of the Department's briefing note which is a real indicator of the scale of difficulties encountered by people with a disability. It is estimated that 10% of the population have a disability, yet only 1% of those who travel on scheduled flights and 1.6% on leisure services each year are assisted. It would be reasonable to expect those figures to be much higher in normal circumstances. The information contained in the briefing note is an indicator of the difficulties encountered by people with a disability. I hope this regulation will go some way towards improving conditions.

The definition of a person with a disability is a person with reduced mobility. On long-haul flights there is sometimes a thin line between over-size and lack of mobility. The outcome of the introduction of this regulation will be that airlines will have to make additional space available for people with disabilities in certain parts of the aeroplane. I often hear complaints regarding the lack of space available for ordinary fare passengers. Is there a European standard stating there must be a certain amount of space for each aeroplane seat? I know some of my colleagues have had a similar experience. The space available on chartered aircraft seems to be smaller per seat. There are distinctions on scheduled services between respective classes. Larger-framed people experience difficulties on long-haul flights. The lack of space in economy class seats makes the cost of comfortable air travel prohibitive. While this regulation is not intended to address the issue, are there regulations in place?

Mr. McKay

The Deputy's comment regarding the relative percentages is interesting and useful. Many other factors, apart from complications at an airport or on an aircraft, prohibit people with reduced mobility from flying. The intention is to remove as many barriers as is practical.

With regard to the size and spacing of seats, as I am not an expert on aeroplane design, I am out of my depth. Aircraft are type-approved for a certain number of seats depending on the weight they can carry. The European Aviation Safety Agency and the Federal Aviation Authority in the United States deal with such matters. I cannot say whether there is a minimum number of inches or millimetres between seats.

Chairman

Will Mr. McKay check if there is a minimum standard and return the information to the joint committee? We have all experienced this problem. Some seats appear roomy while others are like a sardine tin.

Deputy Glennon

This is especially true in broad-beamed aircraft.

Mr. McKay

I would be happy to do so. There is also an issue of competition and customer choice. More seats mean lower prices but the customer must strike a balance.

Deputy Connaughton

This regulation is highly recommended and appropriate in this day and age. Matters such as this seem acceptable and necessary to the general public but will there be a tug of war between carriers as to who will fund the measure? The carriers will argue that somebody should pay them if they must make extra space available. Will the cost be apportioned across the general public? Where is it envisaged the cost will be levied?

Mr. McKay

There is no intention in the regulation to require the airlines to create more space; rather they must have facilities to accept people with disabilities, whether blind or in a wheelchair, who may be in need of guidance and assistance carrying their luggage, boarding the aeroplane or finding their seat.

The regulation is intended to address the issue of funding, a matter of contention between the airlines and airport authorities. The intention is that the services provided in the airport will be free to the user but that the airport authority will be entitled to recover the cost from the airline in proportion to the total number of passengers. For example, if two airlines operate in one airport, each carrying half the total passenger through-put, they will share the cost of dealing with people with reduced mobility. As the cost will effectively be passed on to the customer, able-bodied customers, through the payment of a small extra charge, will cover the cost of providing such services for those who need them.

Chairman

Is there any regulation which makes it mandatory for carriers to accept those with a disability? I am returning to Deputy Glennon's point regarding people of large stature. There are unverified reports that people were asked to pay for two seats and the armrest was then lifted. Is this correct? Is there any regulation to prevent this from happening? This attitude is a terrible reflection on carriers.

Mr. McKay

I am not aware of such a regulation. Neither am I sure this regulation will cover such a case.

Chairman

Perhaps Mr. McKay will check for the joint committee. There is not much sense in bringing forward a regulation through which a coach and four can be driven at a later stage by somebody who wishes to refuse to facilitate people with disabilities or other problems.

Mr. McKay

I will see what I can find out. It may not be easy to get a quick answer with regard to the terms of the regulation. However, I will do my best.

Chairman

I accept that. We do not expect to receive an answer tomorrow. We will give Mr. McKay time to conduct research.

I thank Mr. Kay for briefing the joint committee on the proposed regulation. As far as members and the travelling public are concerned, the sooner it is implemented the better.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 4 May 2005.