# EUR-Lex - 52014DC0464 - EN

*|*

# 52014DC0464

**GREEN PAPER Safety of Tourism Accommodation Services /* COM/2014/0464 final */**

			*

			*

GREEN PAPER

Safety
of Tourism Accommodation Services

Contents

1.      Introduction.. 4

2.      Scope. 8

3.      Objectives. 9

4.      Questions. 10

4.1.       Existing instruments. 10

4.1.1.        National level 10

4.1.2.        European level 10

4.1.3.        Monitoring and enforcement 11

4.2.       Consistency of national
approaches. 11

4.3.       Impact of the existing regulatory
situation on the Internal Market 12

4.4.       Cross-cutting aspects. 12

4.4.1.        Small and medium-sized
enterprises. 12

4.4.2.        Accessibility and vulnerable
consumers. 13

4.4.3.        Data on injuries and accidents. 14

4.4.4.        Standards. 14

4.4.5.        Skills and training. 15

4.5.       Most appropriate level and
instruments to address safety. 15

4.5.1.        Level 15

4.5.2.        Alternative instruments. 15

4.6.       Final question. 16

5.      Concluding remarks. 16

1. 
Introduction

Europe
is the number 1 tourism destination in the world. In 2013, more than 560
million international travellers arrived in Europe, a result which surpassed
the very good figures of 2012. Growth was particularly strong in Southern and
Central Europe[1].

Our
continent is also the tourism destination preferred by Europeans themselves. In
2013, almost 40% of Europeans spent their holidays in the EU, 5% more than in
2012.

According
to the last Eurobarometer survey[2],
tourists in Europe feel safe and very satisfied.
Respondents expressed a high level of satisfaction with most aspects of their
2013 holiday, in particular with the safety (95%) and the quality (95%) of
their accommodation.

To
maintain and reinforce Europe's leading position in tourism in the world, in
2010 the Commission adopted a Communication laying down a comprehensive
strategy to boost the competitiveness of the sector. The safety of tourism
accommodation features as one of the actions in this Communication. In fact,
adequate and efficient safety levels can enhance consumers’ confidence and
boost growth by creating a favourable environment for enterprises and for
cooperation among Member States and allowing for higher competitiveness of the
tourism sector.

In
2013, the number of nights spent in tourist accommodation establishments in the
EU28 reached a peak of 2.6 billion nights[3]. Further, the
number of nights spent in tourist accommodation establishments by non-residents[4]
(i.e. guests from other countries) grew by 4.8% in the EU28 between 2012 and
2013, reaching in 2013 a 45% of the total nights spent.

Number of nights spent at tourist accommodation establishments in the EU28

Total nights spent || Nights spent by non-residents || Nights spent by residents

In some
countries, like Malta, Cyprus or Croatia, tourism accommodation occupancy
relies almost in its totality on non-residents (96%, 93% and 92% respectively),
whilst in others like Romania (18%), Poland or Germany (in both countries 20%
non-resident occupancy) the situation is exactly the opposite.

Tourists
concerns about safety have been regularly monitored every year since 2008
through Eurobarometer surveys, also with emphasis on hotel safety and fire
safety.  The annual surveys consistently confirmed that safety is never a
concern for European tourists (replies ranked between 0% and 1%). Yet,
accidents can occasionally occur, affecting directly the concerned operators,
but also indirectly the reputation of the relevant destination with additional
negative impacts on other operators. Although the safety of tourism
accommodation services is the competence of Member States, the
presence of such strong cross-border dimension suggests a reflection on the
quality and safety levels of these services across Member States.

This, together
with the indications of the 2003 Commission report on the Safety
of Services for Consumers[5],
which recommended to improve the knowledge base about risks and accident data
and to monitor systematically the policies and measures of the Member States, has
led the Commission to consider the issue of tourism accommodation services
safety at European level in the past years, both by engaging in dialogue with
relevant stakeholders and by undertaking actions aimed at strengthening the
existing knowledge base.

A
series of studies and workshops on methodologies for data collection on
accidents and injuries related to services have provided deeper insight into
this matter (see section 2.1 in Annex 1). The Commission has supported and
facilitated debates around self-regulatory initiatives from the hospitality
sector, and also on views on the best ways forward. (see section 2.2 in Annex 1)
Attempts to identify safety risks and to collate relevant data in the tourism
accommodation sector have recently been made, and have invariably shown the
complexity of the task, due to a mix of factors such as the variety of hotels
within the sector or reputational issues[6].

Although
certain legal requirements on tourism accommodation fire safety stem from the
Constructions Products Directive and EU legislation on occupational safety, no
specific horizontal legislation exists at EU level and no
standard approach with regard to safety of tourism accommodation services is in
place at national level, as shown by a recent consultation to Member States on
the existing regulatory and non-regulatory framework regarding safety in
tourism accommodation, amongst other sectors.

Safety
in tourism accommodation -and in the HORECA sector in general- is also an
important part of Health and Safety at work[7]. Furthermore,
there is a well-established corpus of sector legislation concerning building
environments, lifts, and other products used in the construction sector.

The
existence of different approaches to safety regulations is not an issue per
se, as long as the European consumer using this type of service
across the EU is adequately protected irrespective of his/her choice of
destination.

Consumers
expect to be able to purchase tourism accommodation services with confidence
for their own safety regardless of their choice of accommodation or destination
within the EU. In this context, and on the basic assumption that
European consumers have a right to adequate levels of safety which are implemented
and enforced effectively wherever they go within the EU, the following
questions are relevant:

1/
How is consumer safety in the area of tourism accommodation regulated
and monitored across Member States?

2/
Are tourism accommodation service providers operating across borders subject to
requirements which appropriately ensure the protection of consumers, and for
whom cross-border operation does not imply eluding any such requirements due to
the existence of critical gaps?

3/
Does the diversity in the national systems and in the surveillance and
enforcement methods used throughout the EU have a significant effect on the
provision of accommodation services across borders?

4/
Are certain cross-cutting aspects efficiently being taken into
consideration, such as the impact of the regulatory environment on SMEs and on
vulnerable consumers, or the way in which accessibility issues or the use of
standards for such services is currently integrated in the exiting regulatory
framework?

5/
Are the current levels at which tourism accommodation safety is
regulated the most appropriate and are the most appropriate types of
instruments in place?

It is a fact
that the existence of different approaches to regulating safety makes a
comparison more difficult of the safety protection that European citizens using
tourism accommodation services across the European Union enjoy.

In
answer to the first question regarding the existing regulatory framework
across the European Union, and according to the most recent knowledge available
to the Commission services, there seem to be important differences between
national legislations. The results of a survey carried out in 2013 have shown
that out of 24 responding Member States, 16 have specific sectorial legislation
regarding tourism accommodation services. There also seem to be substantial
differences when it comes to the extent and content in national, sectorial
legislation: as an example, while a majority of these 16 Member States include
in their legislation obligations related to the condition of the premises or
the qualifications of the service provider, only 8 require the establishment of
competent authorities to monitor and take action, and only 5 Member States
include obligations to identify and assess risks.

In addition to
the existing regulatory framework in the member States, another issue to take
into account is whether and how such framework is being enforced and monitored.
This paper seeks better insight into this aspect as
well.

In
relation to the second question, this paper
seeks to explore whether the existence of different requirements across Member
States might give rise to gaps in safety levels, especially when service
providers operate across borders and might not be adequately captured by the
existing legislation in any Member State.

As
for the third question regarding the provision of the service, it is
designed to ascertain whether this diversity in the national systems impacts
the level playing field in a sector which is critical for the
EU’s economic well-being and its image as a desirable tourist destination,
particularly for certain service categories operating cross border. In
this context, account is also to be taken of industry-developed instruments and
practices[8].

Regarding
the fourth question, it is clear that, for a correct balance between
needs and solutions, impacts on all parties involved must be carefully
considered. Vulnerable consumers, consumers with specific accessibility needs,
smaller premises or large hotels may look at this issue from different perspectives
and therefore different considerations must be taken into account.
In
this context a discussion on the benefits of the use of standardisation
in relation to
tourism accommodation services across the EU would also be relevant.

Finally,
in relation to the fifth question it would remain to be discerned the
level at which safety in this area would be best addressed for the benefit of
both consumers and businesses.

Quantitative
measurements to assess the issues raised above are scarcely available due among
other reasons to the fragmented approach to data collection on accidents and
injuries related to the provision of tourism accommodation services across the
EU (see section 2.1 in Annex 1). In the absence of such quantification, this
paper seeks to gather as much evidence and data as possible.

2. 
Scope

According to
NACE, the
statistical classification of economic activities in the European Community,
tourism accommodation establishments providing as a paid service short-term or
short-stay accommodation services are classified as follows[9]:

(1) 
Hotels and similar accommodation[10]

· 
Hotels (and similar establishments, e.g. operating
under the name 'bed & breakfast');

· 
Resort hotels;

· 
Suite/apartment hotels;

· 
Motels.

This class
excludes the provision of homes and furnished or unfurnished flats or
apartments for more permanent use, typically on a monthly or annual basis[11].

(2) 
Holiday and other short-stay accommodation[12]

· 
Children and other holiday homes;

· 
Visitor flats and bungalows;

· 
Cottages and cabins without housekeeping services;

· 
Youth hostels and mountain refuges.

This class
excludes the provision of homes and furnished or unfurnished flats or
apartments for more permanent use, typically on a monthly or annual basis.

(3) 
Camping grounds, recreational vehicle parks and
trailer parks

· 
Accommodation in campgrounds, trailer parks,
recreational camps and fishing and hunting camps for short stay visitors;

· 
Space and facilities for recreational vehicles.

· 
Protective shelters or plain bivouac facilities for
placing tents and/or sleeping bags.

The
focus of this consultation is on tourism accommodation services in coherence
with the definitions included in the classification above. Such services are
indeed used by consumers on an occasional basis and often abroad, where they
might be less familiar
with the environment, culture, tradition, language and legal system.

The
debate on tourism accommodation safety has revolved until now mainly around
fire safety issues. Indeed, while hotel fires account for only a very small
percentage of fire-related casualties, accidents may potentially have high
impact.

Nonetheless,
different stakeholders argue that tourist accommodation safety is not only
about fire safety. Other safety aspects include the state of the premises
(leisure facilities, balconies, bedrooms, bathrooms, corridors, glass doors,
etc.) or the risks related to carbon monoxide leaks (e.g. from misuses or
fallacies in the heating systems in tourism accommodation), which are sometimes
responsible for a greater number of injuries, illnesses, or fatalities.

Case example

Carbon monoxide in tourist
accommodation

In 2006, two British
children were killed by carbon monoxide poisoning whilst on holiday in a hotel
in Corfu, Greece. A chimney to bring in oxygen and remove carbon monoxide had
not been fitted and was lying on the floor, along with a piece of rock propping
the boiler up. A thermostat designed to cut out the boiler if it began emitting
noxious fumes had been wired out. Carbon monoxide had leaked out of the boiler
room and into the bungalow through holes which had been drilled through the
living room wall for an air conditioning system and not filled in. A fatal
carbon monoxide level built up inside the bungalow within one minute.

3. 
Objectives

The
purpose of this document is to launch a public consultation on the safety of
tourism accommodation services. The objectives are to gather input from all
relevant parties involved in the issue of tourism accommodation services with
an aim to evaluate whether the issues outlined above are sufficiently and
effectively addressed and whether there is evidence of new risks and whether
the existing tools are adequate. This paper furthers asks about the level at
which action would be most effective to usefully contribute to effective levels
of safety for consumers. The paper would also seek help in quantifying these
issues.

Bearing
in mind also that the Commission aims to foster the competitiveness of
the tourism sector by creating a favourable environment for enterprises and for
cooperation among Member States, and that the
sustainability of European tourism relies on the quality of the tourist
experience and by extension on its safety, this paper
intends to identify options for furthering confidence building both for
enterprises and consumers.

4. 
Questions

The questions below aim at evaluating the five
fundamental aspects identified earlier in this paper: whether the existing
instruments and their implementation are adequate and sufficient (1)
by measuring the nature and extent of the safety risks and their link to flaws
or gaps (2) in the current legislative framework, and to what extent
they have an impact on the provision of such services across borders
(3) as well as on SMEs and vulnerable consumers (4), in order to
make a clear distinction of what objectives are best met at which level (5).

Annex
1 gives a detailed description of the current knowledge regarding the aspects
outlined in the previous paragraph, and is intended as reference material when
addressing the questions below.

4.1. 
Existing instruments

The
safety of consumers when using tourism accommodation services must
first of all be evaluated by assessing the existing regulatory environment
across the EU and its implementation.

4.1.1. 
National level

Q
1 – Can you give reference(s) to tourism accommodation safety regulations at
national level in specific country or countries?

Q 2 – Do you consider that the existing
rules at national level are adequately addressing risks and therefore
efficiently ensuring the protection of consumers? Please indicate your reasons
and any evidence to support your position.

4.1.2. 
European level

The
Council Recommendation 86/666/EEC on fire safety in existing hotels is the only
European instrument in the field of tourist accommodation safety. The
Commission has recently taken initiatives to assess whether the current
Recommendation should be reviewed and updated with the view to ensuring the
highest possible level of safety in hotels throughout the EU.

Q 3 – Is the existing 86/666/EEC
Recommendation sufficient to meet the safety requirements in tourism
accommodation safety?

Q 4 - If you have evidence of the
opposite, which are the areas which need improving?

4.1.3. Monitoring
and enforcement

It is relevant
to know whether there are requirements for
market surveillance in tourism accommodation safety-related legislation
in Member States. Such requirements relate to obligations in terms of:

· 
Establishment of authorities responsible for
monitoring service safety and with powers to take appropriate measures,

· 
Procedures for exchange of information on policy
and regulatory developments,

· 
Administrative cooperation between the
authorities,

· 
Systematic collection and assessment of data on
risks of services,

· 
Development of enforcement indicators for
compliance monitoring

Q 5 – How are the existing rules
enforced (by whom, when, how often, etc.)?

Q 6 – How do you rate the effectiveness
of the existing market surveillance mechanisms?

Q 7 – What are in your view the main
issues related to enforcement of existing legislation? How could the
implementation of existing instrument be improved?

Q 8 –What areas
do you feel could benefit most from more cooperation between Member States in
the area of tourism accommodation safety? What would be the main challenges?

4.2. 
Consistency of national approaches

Any
attempt to identify potential gaps in tourism accommodation safety rules which
might be affecting consumers across the EU must be made from the perspective of
the effectiveness of the extent and content of the existing instruments.

The
actual safety level of a service is determined by the aggregate effects of the
following main components:

· 
Safety of the premises, structures and equipment
used for providing the service;

· 
Safety management (including risk assessment to
evaluate the extent of the risk and take the appropriate safety measures
accordingly);

· 
Qualifications of the service provider;

· 
Staff training;

· 
Availability and quality of the information on
safety aspects of the service provided to the users/consumers;

· 
Availability of evacuation plans, emergency
procedures and equipment to reduce damage in case of accidents;

· 
Notifications to authorities on risks and
accidents;

In particular, for tourism accommodation
services special attention is needed for[13]:

· 
A consistent definition of tourism accommodation
premises (type, age, size, height);

· 
Accessibility aspects;

· 
Specific requirements for vulnerable consumers;

· 
Fire related risks;

· 
Carbon monoxide (CO) related risks.

Q 9 –How is tourism accommodation
defined in your national relevant legislation?

Q 10 – Are the definitions of type,
size, height and age of tourism accommodation establishments present in
existing legislation suitable?

Q 11 – Are the requirements listed above
present in the existing national legislation?

Q 12 – Would the consideration of
requirements regarding CO (carbon monoxide) safety issues be beneficial? Please
indicate the advantages for both consumers and enterprises.

Q 13 – Is risk management integrated in
relevant national legislation?

Q 14 – Is the difference in existing
regulatory frameworks likely to affect the safety of tourists? Is this impact
rather related to the enforcement of such framework? Could you please provide
some concrete examples?

4.3. 
Impact of the existing regulatory
situation on the Internal Market

The
purpose of this paper is to assess the effectiveness of the existing
instruments in the protection of European consumers. However, also the impact
of such framework in the internal market should be quantified in order to
evaluate any potential market distortion due to differing rules.

Q 15 – Are the differences in the
regulatory environments in the EU member States affecting tourism businesses,
especially in their cross-border operations? Is this impact rather related to
enforcement of the existing legal frameworks? Can you please provide concrete
examples?

4.4. 
Cross-cutting aspects
4.4.1. 
Small and medium-sized enterprises

Small or micro
sized tourism enterprises play an indispensable role in European tourism. 90% of
tourism enterprises (including accommodation establishments) in Europe are SMEs and micro-SMEs.

According to the
"Think Small First" principle, the general policy is to exempt micro
enterprises and small businesses fully or partially from administrative burdens
wherever possible[14].
While compliance with safety requirements might indeed be more costly and time
consuming for smaller than for larger companies, the right balance must be
struck between the need for better regulation and the safety of the consumer.

Q 16 - Please quantify the current
administrative burden for tourism enterprises to comply with existing safety
regulations.

Q 17- Please indicate what are the most
burdensome/costly aspects for tourism enterprises to comply with national
legislation on safety.

Q 18- Which are the main concerns of
smaller tourism accommodation providers in relation to compliance with existing
safety rules?

4.4.2. 
Accessibility
and vulnerable consumers

An
ageing population entails challenges and opportunities for the tourism
accommodation sector, both from a growth and a safety angle. Forecasts announce
that the number of persons aged over 65 is expected to reach 20% of the
population in 2020[15].
This population group, consisting of individuals with both purchasing power and
leisure time, represents significant market potential. However, for this
potential to be exploited, key measures should be taken on aspects connected to
their safety and accessibility.

Specific safety measures also for
certain categories of vulnerable consumers have to be assessed, due to possible
accessibility needs. According to some studies[16]
the potential market for accessible tourism has been estimated at around
127 million persons. This figure takes into account travellers with special
access needs (long term/permanent physical impairments, temporary impairments,
elderly, accompanying persons or caregivers or families with young children). Fire
safety measures, as well as evacuation or emergency plans in tourism
accommodation services offered to consumers have to take into account the
special needs of persons with disabilities and reduced mobility.

On different grounds, but still within
the group of vulnerable consumers, safety measures for persons aged under 15
need to receive a special degree of attention.

Q 19 – How can the compatibility best be
ensured of safety measures and rules with accessibility requirements which are
relevant for persons with disabilities and older persons?

Q 20 – Beyond accessibility issues,
which are in your view the aspects regarding safety in tourism accommodation
for ageing population which should be considered?

Q 21– Beyond accessibility issues, which
are in your view the aspects regarding safety in tourism accommodation for
people with disabilities which should be considered?

Q 22 – Which are in your view the
aspects regarding safety in tourism accommodation for persons under 15 which
should be considered?

4.4.3. 
Data on injuries and accidents

Factual information on the safety
situation in the tourism accommodation sector across the European Union is
lacking. This is true across European countries and where data exists, sources
are not harmonised and aggregated for surveillance across Member States, making
it very difficult to produce a systematic overview about injuries and accidents
linked to the provision of tourism accommodation services. Even in the
countries where data are available from a variety of sources like fire
departments, insurance companies, emergency departments in hospitals, the
registrations do not allow for comprehensive and comparative data to be
obtained. Specific studies on data collection for accidents and injuries in
relation to tourism accommodation services consistently mention a difficulty to
obtain data at EU level (see section 2.1 in Annex 1).

Q 23 – Do you have data or quantitative
evidence on injuries and accidents pointing to safety issues in tourism
accommodation? If yes, please provide such data or evidence.

Q 24 – Which are in your view the main
challenges related to the collection of such data and how can they be best addressed?

Q 25- In your view, to what extent does
reluctance to make available data on accidents and injuries due to possible
reputational costs may have an impact on safety issues?

Q 26 – What would in your view be the
most appropriate and effective system to collect minimum harmonized data on
accidents and injuries?

4.4.4. 
Standards

Safety issues are also taken into
account in the field of service standardisation by European Standardisation
Organisations. The expansion of work in the field of service standardisation is
a priority for the Commission, which is assessing the option to include the
safety dimension in upcoming standardisation work requested by the Commission[17].

Q 27 – How would European safety
standards help improve consumer safety in tourism accommodation? What would be
the main drawbacks? Please elaborate your answer both from a national and a
European perspective.

Q 28 – If you have examples of national
standards regarding tourism accommodation safety, do you have evidence that
they have helped improve safety levels for consumers?

4.4.5. 
Skills and training

Safety
awareness, capacity building and training are essential. Vocational and
educational training for staff and managers is instrumental for identifying
risks even before they arise and implement correctly existing regulations. Yet,
tourism training in the Member States differs substantially from one Member State to another. This can potentially lead to differences in the existence and
provision of dedicated training on safety and the presence of the right skills
in the sector.

Q 29 – Is dedicated fire
safety/safety training for tourism accommodation services regularly provided in
national curricula or in vocational training? If so, what subjects are covered?

Q 30 – Are there
specific job profiles dedicated to safety in tourism accommodation? If so, 
what subjects are covered?

4.5. 
Most appropriate level
and instruments to address safety
4.5.1. 
Level

At
present Member
States are responsible for the definition, application and modification of
rules regarding safety in tourism accommodation safety.

Q 31 – Do you have evidence against/in
favor of the effectiveness of addressing safety in tourism accommodation at
national/local/European level?

Q 32 – Which would be the advantages of
approaching safety issues at national / local / European level, both from a
consumer and a service provider perspective? Which would be the main
disadvantages?

Q 33 – Which would be the advantages of
European legislation in terms of improved safety levels on tourism
accommodation safety?

Q 34 - Could the same advantages be
achieved by improving enforcement and/or market surveillance of existing
national legislation?

4.5.2. 
Alternative
instruments

The
use of self-regulation as an alternative tool to legislation is also possible for
tourism accommodation service providers and its
effectiveness must also be evaluated.: common voluntary guidelines
(for instance, guidelines for risk assessment) or codes of good practices are
also a way to integrate at European level the relevant safety aspects to fulfil
potential gaps, taking into account the cross-border characteristics of the
safety risks involved.

The
MBS methodology is one example of self-regulatory action. These guidelines for
hotel fire safety with requirements for Management (M), Buildings (B) and Systems
(S) are meant to help hotels of all sizes across Europe adopt a high level of
fire safety, in support of national/regional and local regulations and
standards[18].

Q 35 – What experiences have been gained
by using non-regulatory approaches in your country?

Q 36 - Which would be the practical
advantages of the use of self-regulation at European level?

Q 37 – What would in your view be the
role of the Commission or other EU institutions in the context of
self-regulation?

Q 38 – Could the MBS Methodology be used
as a basis for the compilation of best practices and the identification of
self-regulatory norms, with appropriate adaptations?

Q 39 –Which adaptations to the
self-regulatory instruments currently in place would be necessary to fully
achieve their objectives?

Although the MBS
methodology has already been adopted by many national hospitality associations
in the EU, it remains voluntary and does not include monitoring or performance
reporting.
The effectiveness of non-regulatory measures depends on the support they
receive from industry, authorities and consumers, and at the same time, they
need to be based on adequate monitoring of its performance and outcomes. Safety
guidelines developed by individual organisations can be interesting for others,
on the condition that they are sufficiently shared.

Q 40 – What is the most effective way to
monitor voluntary safety measures?

Q 41 – What are your views on knowledge
sharing regarding voluntary tools across the EU (benefits/drawbacks, potential
difficulties, success stories, etc.)?

4.6. 
Final question

Q 42 - Do you
have any other comments or suggestions regarding tourism accommodation safety?

5. 
Concluding remarks

The purpose of this document is to
collect information on factual aspects and on the position and expectations of
interested parties as well as to stimulate a public debate on the safety of
tourism accommodation services. The European Commission is committed to a
careful consideration of policies, proposals and of every other instrument at
all stages, from the planning to the implementation and the review[19].
Consequently, the Green Paper is designed to acquire appropriate knowledge of
the issues it covers, and it does not imply a pre-determined course of action
–or the need of new measures at the EU level- as a result of the consultation.

The Commission invites all interested
parties to submit their contributions in response to the questions raised in
this document. Contributions do not necessarily need to cover all of the
questions raised in this paper.

Contributions will be published on the
internet, unless the respondent explicitly requests that the submission should
be treated confidentially. It is important to read the specific privacy
statement on how your personal data and contribution will be dealt with.

A report summing up the contributions
will also be published on our website:  http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/dgs_consultations/ca/consultation_20141130_tourism_en.htm

Any further questions can be sent to:

SANCO-GREEN-PAPER-TOURISM-ACCOMM-SAFETY@ec.europa.eu

[1]               UNWTO Tourism Barometer, January 2014 http://media.unwto.org/press-release/2014-01-20/international-tourism-exceeds-expectations-arrivals-52-million-2013

[2]               http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-144_en.htm

[3]               EUROSTAT.
Summary press release of 29/01/2014 at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STAT-14-16_en.htm

[4]               In the
context of this data, a night spent (or overnight stay) is each night a
guest/tourist, non-resident of the country, actually spends in a tourist
accommodation establishment. For a definition of the scope of tourist
accommodation establishments, see Chapter 2 of this Green Paper.

[5]               http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cons_safe/serv_safe/reports/safety_serv_rep_en.pdf

[6]               In
2010 the Commission launched a study with the aim to have a description of the
major safety risks in the hotel sector in the EU and to carry out an inventory
of injuries and accidents occurred in recent years. The variety of
the hotel sector and the lack of availability of accident records relating
specifically to the provision of the service, linked to also reputational
issues, finally did not allow the contractor to collect and analyse the desired
data.

[7]              https://osha.europa.eu/

[8]               These
practices include the MBS Methodology (Management, Buildings and Systems) and
similar instruments, inasmuch as they carry safety-related provisions and
prescriptions.

[9]
              Regulation 692/2011 concerning European statistics on tourism (http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:192:0017:0032:EN:PDF)
defines a tourist accommodation
establishment as a local kind-of-activity unit [...] providing as a paid service
-although the price might be partially
or fully subsidized- short-stay accommodation services as described in groups
55.1 (hotels and similar accommodation), 55.2 (holiday and other short-stay
accommodation) and 55.3 (camping grounds, recreational vehicle parks and
trailer parks) of NACE Rev. 2 (Article 2(1)(l)).

[10]
            This class includes the provision of accommodation, typically on a
daily or weekly basis, principally for short stays by visitors. This includes
the provision of furnished accommodation in guest rooms and suites. Services
include daily cleaning and bed-making. A range of additional services may be
provided such as food and beverage services, parking, laundry services, swimming
pools and exercise rooms, recreational facilities as well as conference and
convention facilities.

[11]
            Rented private holiday accommodations (such as flats or villas -
generally rented for short period rarely exceeding one month) are also
"paid-for" accommodations like hotels, yet they are not subject to
the same legal requirements as hotels which might have to be reflected where
they equally pose safety risks.

[12]
            This class includes the provision of accommodation, typically on a
daily or weekly basis, principally for short stays by visitors, in
self-contained space consisting of complete furnished rooms or areas for
living/dining and sleeping, with cooking facilities or fully equipped kitchens.
This may take the form of apartments or flats in small free-standing
multi-storey buildings or clusters of buildings, or single storey bungalows,
chalets, cottages and cabins. Very minimal complementary services, if any, are
provided

[13]             Food safety issues are
excluded from the scope of this paper as they are specifically covered by
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28
January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law,
establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in
matters of food safety, OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1–24.

[14]             Report
from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament 'Minimizing
regulatory burden for SMEs-Adapting EU regulation to the needs of
micro-enterprises', COM(2011) 803 final

[15]            Source:
Eurostat, Statistics in Focus 43/2012 "Europeans aged 65+ spent a third
more on tourism in 2011 compared with 2006", Figure 11
(http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-12-043/EN/KS-SF-12-043-EN.PDF).

[16]             http://www.accessibletourism.org/resources/enat_igm_3eichhorn.pdf

[17]             The Union’s Work
Programme for standardisation is adopted annually

[18]             Other examples of
self-regulation include the strategic framework for hotel safety
and security of the Intercontinental Hotel group (IHG), a risk management
process to enable and support hotel owners and staff to manage risk
effectively; or the Carlson and Rezidor hotel group's TRIC=S formula for
structuring safety and security (Threat assessment + Risk mitigation + Incident
response + Crisis management, Communication and Continuity = Safe, Secure and Sellable
brands).

[19]             http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/index_en.htm

Contents

1.    Facts and figures. 3

1.1.     Existing
instruments and enforcement 3

1.1.1.      National
level 3

1.1.2.      European
level 3

1.1.3.      Monitoring
and enforcement 4

1.2.     Cross-cutting
issues. 5

1.2.1.      SMEs. 5

1.2.2.      Eurobarometer
surveys. 5

1.2.3.      Standards. 16

1.3.     Level
and instruments. 16

1.3.1.      Alternative
instruments. 16

2.    Specific
actions on Tourism Accommodation Safety by the Commission. 17

2.1.     Earlier
actions (2003-2012) 17

2.2.     Most
recent actions (2012-2013) 19

1. 
Facts and figures

This
section presents the facts and figures which are available in relation to the
issues that the Green Paper addresses. Not all aspects covered in section 4
‘Questions’ in the paper are mirrored in this annex as supporting material does
not necessarily exist for each of them.

1.1. 
Existing instruments and enforcement 
1.1.1. 
National level

In
broad terms, when it comes to tourism accommodation services the type of
policies varies significantly. In 2013 a questionnaire has invited Member
States to describe national rules regarding the safety of tourism accommodation
services (among other services). Of the 24 Member States which submitted information,
21 reported the existence of general legislation covering services as a
category (either general legislation on service safety, or on product safety,
or on consumer protection or on safety at work), while 17 Member States
reporting having detailed sectorial legislation in relation to accommodation
services, complemented by self-regulation in 6 cases. 2 Member States did not
report either horizontal or sectorial policies.

A
screening of the content of the reported sectorial legislation allowed for more
detailed comparison across Member States. Relevant authorities were given a
list of safety-related provisions (see table below) and were asked to indicate
which of them were present in their national legislation. Of the 17 Member
States where sectorial legislation is in place (AT, BE, CY, CZ, DE, EL, ES, ET,
FR, HR, IT, LT, LU, MT, PL, PT, SK), a large majority (13 Member States) include
obligations related to the condition of the premises; a general obligation to
provide only safe services is present in 8 cases and obligations related to the
qualifications of the service provider are required in 10 cases. On the other
hand, only half of those Member States (DE, EL, CZ, HR, LU, MT, PL, PT, SK)
require by law the establishment of authorities to monitor and take action.
Furthermore, just 5 (LU, MT, CZ, PL, EL) include provisions for the
identification and assessment of risks and only in 2 (CZ, PL) there is an
obligation to notify authorities on risks and accidents related to the
provision of the service – an essential tool for comparative purposes across
the EU.

The
graph below illustrates the content of the existing sectorial legislation of
the 17 reporting Member States.

1.1.2. 
European level

The
freedom to provide services is regulated by Articles 56-62 TFEU. More
specifically Directive 2006/123/EC on Services in the Internal Market[1] aims at facilitating
the exercise of the freedom of establishment for service providers and the free
movement of services, making it easier for EU service providers to operate in
any other EU Member State. Safety of services is not specifically the subject
matter of the Directive. However, Article 18 of the Directive allows for
derogations to the freedom to provide services (art 16) under specific conditions
and in particular cases relating to the safety of services. A receiving Member State may under those conditions exceptionally apply its requirements to a
particular incoming service provider with regard to the provision of a specific
service. Under the conditions of article 23 of the directive the Members Sates
may ensure that services providers whose services present direct and particular
risks to the health and safety subscribe to appropriate liability insurance.
Mutual assistance obligation for the member state of establishment covers in
particular information on risk of serious damage to the health or safety (Art.
29.3). Finally, Article 26 provides for a framework of voluntary quality
enhancing measures in relation to certification or assessment of service
provider activities, development of quality charters or labels and charters as
well as the development of voluntary European standards for services.

With
respect to the safety of tourism related services, there is no comprehensive
legislation at EU level. The only instrument regarding safety in tourist
accommodation is the Council Recommendation 86/666 on fire safety in existing
hotels, which defines minimum safety standards for all hotels in the EU (of a
capacity of at least 20 guests) and recommends that Member States take all
appropriate measures to guarantee these safety standards when existing laws are
not sufficient.

In
addition, a number of EU instruments and initiatives in various policy areas
(e.g. REACH, construction products, safety at workplace, professional
qualifications, environment and package travel) may contribute directly or indirectly
to the safety of tourism accommodation services.

As
an example, in the framework of the implementation of the Construction Products
Regulation (EU) 305/2011, the Commission has asked CEN/CENELEC to develop as
soon as possible a harmonised standard on carbon monoxide detectors. The
standard will foresee 3rd party certification for these products and
will ensure appropriate sensitivity and end of life indication.

1.1.3. 
Monitoring and enforcement

The
only existing European instrument regulating fire safety in tourism
accommodation is non-binding by nature and therefore of no compulsory
enforcement. In June 2001, the Commission presented a report on the application
of the recommendation in Member States[2]. The
report concluded that although the recommendation contributed to increase the
level of safety in hotels across the EU, the minimum safety standards
prescribed in the recommendation were not fully achieved.

At
their own initiative, FTO-ABTA (the Federation of Tour Operators merged into
the British Travel Association) carried out in 2009 a study on compliance with
existing rules on fire safety including Recommendation 86/666 by tourist
accommodation providers[3]
applying the UK industry’s own inspection and reporting methods. 2.123
properties covering 10 EU Member States were inspected either by the tour
operators’ own staff (i.e. specially trained resort staff or specialist health
and safety staff) or by external consultants.

The
study presented a summary of the property ratings by country which suggests
large national differences in the standards of fire safety in resort hotels: In
support of the reliability of the resulting data, the study stressed that there
could be no possible motive for the tour operator’s own records (whether
self-generated or consultant’s products) to depict a less satisfactory picture
of a property than the one found.

Member State || Hotel is not fit for use or has major deficiencies || Hotel has serious deficiencies which should be rectified urgently || Hotel has deficiencies which should be rectified as soon as possible || Hotel fire safety is of an acceptable standard – any deficiencies are of a minor nature and easily rectifiable || Total hotels audited

Austria || 43% || 32% || 11% || 15% || 324

Bulgaria || 22% || 32% || 14% || 32% || 76

Cyprus || 10% || 19% || 16% || 55% || 186

France || 31% || 15% || 27% || 28% || 199

Greece || 12% || 19% || 12% || 57% || 292

Italy || 20% || 22% || 11% || 46% || 171

Malta || 16% || 19% || 14% || 52% || 64

Portugal || 11% || 13% || 12% || 64% || 171

Spain || 6% || 19% || 17% || 58% || 640

TOTAL || || || || || 2123

Further,
the study concluded that 38% of the properties audited by the tour operators
and their consultants are likely to be non-compliant with the 86/666
Recommendation on Fire Safety in Existing Hotels.

1.2. 
Cross-cutting issues
1.2.1. 
SMEs

Small
or micro sized tourism enterprises accounted in the past five years for over
97% of all tourism accommodation providers.

Sector I55: Accommodation services || || || || ||

|| 2.008 || 2.009 || 2.010 || 2.011 || 2.012 || 2.013 || 2.014

Micro 0 - 9 || 196.491 || 218.843 || 204.934 || 205.676 || 210.742 || 213.047 || 219.777

Small 10 - 49 || 35.563 || 38.155 || 37.276 || 39.920 || 40.436 || 40.835 || 42.081

Medium 50 - 249 || 5.677 || 6.346 || 5.883 || 6.063 || 6.113 || 6.163 || 6.354

Large 250+ || 614 || 592 || 583 || 624 || 640 || 634 || 656

All SMEs || 237.731 || 263.344 || 248.094 || 251.017 || 256.752 || 259.346 || 267.422

Total || 238.345 || 263.936 || 248.677 || 251.628 || 257.378 || 259.965 || 268.063

|| || || || || || ||

1.2.2. 
Eurobarometer surveys

A
Flash Eurobarometer on service safety released in 2012[4] related to the safety
aspects of certain paid-for service categories including tourism accommodation.

25.524
European citizens aged 15 and above were interviewed between 7 and 10 May 2012
in all 27 European Union Member States. The purpose of the survey was to
investigate Europeans perceptions and experiences with the safety of specific
services including tourism accommodation. More specifically, the aspects
investigated were:

Perceptions
  about the safety of these services.
 The
  proportion using each service and the incidence of accidents causing
  injury.
 The
  experience of safety aspects while using each service (the building
  itself, the room and the equipment, hygiene conditions, fire signs and
  equipment, recreational facilities, pool facilities, heating system and
  security against carbon monoxide leaks).
 The
  perceived causes and the consequences of accidents leading to injury.
 Whether
  consumers complain about accidents, and the reasons they do not complain.

The
main results of the survey were:

- 
In
general terms, reports of accidents causing injury while using services were low

- 
Most
respondents (54%) said that injury causing accidents in paid-for services were
caused by themselves/ the user.

- 
As
far as accommodations are concerned, 98% of the respondents did not report any
accidents while staying in a paid-for accommodation in the last two years.

Question: In the last two years, have you or anyone else from your household used any of the following paid-for services in (OUR COUNTRY)

Answers: Accommodation (hotels, camping sites, etc.) please do not think of food and restaurants

Q3. For each type of paid-for services you or someone else from your household used in the last two years in (OUR COUNTRY), did any of the following happen?

- Accommodation (hotels, camping sites, etc.)

- Beauty and wellness centres (hairdressers, tanning salons, spas, etc.)

- Amusement parks and fairgrounds

- Swimming pools

- Organised outdoor leisure activities (skiing, canoeing, mountain biking, etc.)

Answers:

- None of this happened

- An accident, resulting in physical harm or injury, occurred

- When using the service, you felt it was not safe and you stopped using it

- Don’t know

Basis:
Those who used accommodation in the last 2 years = 12858 Those who used beauty
and wellness centres in the last 2 years = 11749 Those who went to amusement
parks and fairgrounds in the last 2 years = 9677 Those who went to swimming
pools in the last 2 years = 12200 Those who participated to organized leisure
outdoor activities in the last 2 years = 6147

At
least nine out of ten users of paid-for accommodation rated the building and equipment
and hygiene at their accommodation as safe, but they were less certain about
the pool (64% safe) and heating systems (61% safe).

Q4. Thinking about the last time you used paid-for accommodation in (OUR COUNTRY), please tell me how safe you considered the following aspects of the accommodation

- The building itself, the room and the equipment (common areas, balconies, bathrooms, toilets, furniture, electrical appliances, etc.)

- Hygiene conditions (quality of water, cleanliness, etc.)

- Equipment and signs in case of fire

- The recreational facilities (garden, playground, etc.)

- The pool and its surroundings

- The heating system and security against carbon monoxide

Total ‘safe’

Total ‘Not safe’

Not applicable

Don’t know

Basis: Those who used accommodation in the last 2 years
and did not have any accident = 11792

Respondents
are most likely to say that the fire signs and equipment in their accommodation
were unsafe (8%), followed by hygiene conditions (7%). It is worth noting in
the case of hygiene that 91% of respondents rated this aspect of their
accommodation as safe - compared to 78% for fire signs and equipment.

Just
over one in twenty (6%) said that the recreational facilities of their
accommodation were unsafe.

Pool
facilities were also rated as unsafe by 6% of respondents. Of all the aspects
asked about, respondents were most likely to say that their accommodation did
not have a pool (25%) or recreational facilities (17%).

One
in twenty (5%) said that the heating system and security against carbon
monoxide leaks in their accommodation were unsafe. However more than one in
five (22%) were unable to give an opinion on the heating system of their
accommodation.

Of
the 12.585 users of accommodation services across the EU27, 164 reported having
experienced an accident resulting in physical harm or injury. The breakdown by
country from the Eurobarometer report is shown below.

Question: Q3.1 for each type of paid-for services you or someone else from your household used in the last two years in (OUR COUNTRY), did any of the following happen?

Option: Accommodation (hotels, camping sites, etc.)

Answer: An accident, resulting in physical harm or injury, occurred

When
asked about what the accident was related to, the answers of those 164 citizens
indicated the following:

Q10. Was the accident in the accommodation related to any of the following?

- General safety (common areas, bedrooms, balconies, bathroom, public toilets, furniture, electrical appliances, etc.)

- Hygiene (water, chemicals, etc.)

- Pool safety (no lifeguard, poorly maintained, etc.)

- Carbon monoxide leak

- Fire

- Recreational facilities (garden, playground, etc.)

- Other + none (spontaneous)

- Don’t know

Almost
all (92%) said the premises and equipment were in good enough condition, while
82% said safety information was displayed, and 62% said the staff seemed to be
properly qualified in terms of safety precautions. Respondents were most unsure
about the safety qualifications of staff, with 20% saying they could not
remember or were not sure

Q5. Thinking about safety, the last time you used paid-for accommodation in (OUR COUNTRY), please tell me if...

- The premises and/or equipment were in good enough condition

- Information regarding safety was displayed (warning signs about risks, instructions on use, emergency exits, etc.)

- The staff seemed to be properly qualified in terms of safety precautions

Answers

- Yes

- No

- I don’t remember/I’m not sure

- Don’t know

Basis: Those who used accommodation in the last 2 years
and did not have any accident = 11792

In
general, consumers' views on why accidents happen, the consequences of those
accidents and the involvement of children in these accidents were also
collected.

Most
of the respondents (54%) said it was their own fault, or the fault of the user.
One in five (20%) said the bad state of the premises or equipment was to blame,
while 16% said that the staff were responsible due to insufficient competence.
Around one in ten blamed insufficient supervision (13%), insufficient warnings
about risks (12%) or insufficient instructions on use (8%). One in twenty (5%)
said a lack of or poor emergency procedures was responsible for the accident.
One in ten (10%) mentioned 'other' as a reason.

Q12. In your opinion, was the accident caused by...?

- My own fault/the own fault of the user

- Bad state of the premises/the equipment

- Insufficient competence of service provider/staff responsible

- Insufficient supervision

- Insufficient warning about risks

- Insufficient instructions on use

- Lack of/poor emergency procedures

- Other (SPONTANEOUS)

- Don’t know

Overall
the results of this survey contributed evidence about different aspects of the
accidents experienced and confirmed that the general evaluation of safety
aspects was not negative but nearly 10% of users identified common safety issues
which should be addressed (mainly training and qualification of staff and lack
of information about safety procedures and risks).

Furthermore,
tourists’ concerns about safety have been regularly monitored via the
“Eurobarometer survey on the attitudes of Europeans towards tourism” since 2008[5]. Four subsequent waves
of surveys between 2008 and 2012 confirmed that safety did not have any effect
in discouraging European travellers from going on holidays.

EU citizens’ main reason for not going on holiday – EU27

Q4(2011-2010)/Q5(2009) – What was the main reason why you did not go on holiday in 2010/2009/2008

%, Base: respondents who did not make a holiday trip (and those who had not travelled at all), EU27

- Financial reasons

- Personal/private reasons

- Lack of time

- Prefer to stay at home or with family/friends

- No motivation to take a holiday

- Prefer to only make short-stay trips

- Concerns about safety

- Other

- Don’t Know/Not applicable

Q4. What was the main reason why you did not go on holiday in 2011?

- Financial reasons

- Personal/private reasons

- Preferred to stay at home or with family/friends

- Lack of time

- Problems of accessibility of transport or accommodation

- Concerns about safety

- You did not want to go on holiday in 2011 (DO NOT READ OUT)

- Other (DO NOT READ OUT)

- Don’t Know

Q4. What was the main reason why you did not go on holiday in 2012?

- Financial reasons

- Personal/private reasons

- Preferred to stay at home or with family/friends

- Job/career related reasons * (new item)

- Lack of time

- Problems of accessibility of transport or accommodation

- Concerns about safety of tourism services (e.g. hotel safety, fire safety, transport)

- You did not want to go on holiday in 2012 (DO NOT READ OUT)

- Other (DO NOT READ OUT)

- Don’t Know

The
latest Eurobarometer survey (launched in January 2014)[6] aimed at understanding
whether there were specific concerns towards safety of tourism accommodations.
The results were as follows:

· 
Only a minority of respondents
experienced safety problems with paid accommodation during their 2013 holiday.
Overall, only 4% of respondents who travelled at least once in 2013 registered
a complaint during their trip.

· 
A high proportion of respondents (95%)
were satisfied with the safety of their accommodation. A similar proportion
(95%) were satisfied with the quality of their accommodation.

Q9A. Thinking about your main holiday in 2013, how satisfies were you with...? By ‘main holiday’ we mean the holiday that was the most important for you in 2013.

- The natural features (landscape, weather conditions, etc.)

- The safety of the accommodation * (new item)

- The quality of the accommodation

- The quality of activities/services available (transport, restaurants, leisure activities, etc.)

- The general level of prices

- How tourists are welcomed (e.g. services for children, customer care, “pets-welcome” policy, etc.)

- Accessible facilities for people with special needs (e.g. disabled, elderly, children with prams)

· 
The vast majority of respondents (92%)
did not experience any safety issues when using paid accommodation during their
main holiday in 2013. Of the 6% that did, the most common experience was food
poisoning or sickness (2%), followed by a slip, trip or fall (1%) and swimming
pool incidents (1%).

Q9B – Did you or any of your party experience any of the following safety issues while using paid-accommodation during your main holiday in 2013?

- Food poisoning/sickness outbreak

- Slip/trip/Fall within the accommodation (with serious consequences)

- Swimming pool incident (drowning/near drowning)

- Fire-related emergency situation

- Glass doors/windows incident

- Balcony fall or near fall

- Any other safety incident (DO NOT READ OUT)

- None (DO NOT READ OUT)

- Don’t Know

1.2.3. 
Standards

Regulation
(EU) No 1025/2012[7]
on European Standardisation that became applicable on 1 January 2013
establishes conditions for European standardisation with a clear reference to
the development of standards in the field of services and opens the door to
European standardisation which can support the application of Union legislation
and policies in the domain of service safety. Art 2(4)(c) establishes that the
standards technical specification (requirements) for services refer to their levels
of quality, performance, interoperability, environmental protection, health or
safety[8].
This potentially creates room for discussion on standardisation of the safety
of tourism accommodation services.

1.3. 
Level and
instruments
1.3.1. 
Alternative instruments

In
2008, the Association of Hotels, Restaurants and Cafés in Europe (HOTREC),
maintaining its preference towards industry performance-based rather than
prescriptive, normative approaches, developed a self-regulation initiative,
known as the MBS (Management, Building, Systems) Methodology, aimed at further
enhancing fire safety in all hotels in Europe. The Commission services took
part in a stakeholders’ Consultative Committee which was involved throughout
the development of the Methodology. The MBS contains a set of
performance-oriented recommendations aimed at guiding the Management of the
hotels to make sure that the hotel's Building features and its Systems can
efficiently fulfil the same objectives laid down in Council Recommendation
86/666.

The
principle of an industry-led self-regulatory measure has received wide support.
The 2010 Commission Communication on Tourism[9]
foresees that the Commission will continue to cooperate closely with the member
States, the tourism industry and stakeholders’ organisations in the sector to
improve safety in accommodation structures, particularly with regard to fire
risks[10].

2. 
Specific actions on Tourism Accommodation Safety
by the Commission

Some
actions, outlined below, have been developed by the Commission in recent years
in relation to tourism accommodation services.

2.1. 
Earlier actions (2003-2012)

The
oldest still existing EU level text relevant to tourism accommodation safety is
the above-mentioned Council Recommendation 86/666/EEC on Fire Safety in
Existing Hotels.

When
the EU legislator modernised the rules relating to the safety of consumer
products, it did not include the safety of services in the same initiative.
Article 20 of Directive 2001/95/EC on General Product Safety (GPSD) however
required the Commission to "identify the needs, possibilities and
priorities for Community action on the safety of services and submit to the
European Parliament and the Council, before 1 January 2003, a report,
accompanied by proposals on the subject as appropriate".

The
Commission therefore launched a consultation and issued a report in 2003 on the
Safety of Services for Consumers[11],
which mentioned specifically that “it would be appropriate to focus on the
sectors most relevant for consumers in a cross-border perspective, for example
mass-accommodation services like hotels, camping or other tourist facilities”.
The Council endorsed the results of the Commission report and adopted in 2003 a
resolution[12]
on safety of services for consumers which called upon the Commission to examine
"the need for concrete Community initiatives and activities in this field,
which might include inter alia the development of a legislative framework with
particular attention to the identified priority areas". It further
prompted the Commission to study, in cooperation with Member States, the scope,
priorities and the most appropriate and effective approaches, methodologies,
and procedures for improving the knowledge on service safety and data
collection, as well as to examine the possible contribution from European
standards to reach a common high level of safety in services.

In
2005 the Commission launched a study[13]
to identify and describe existing methodologies for monitoring accidents and
data collection in relation to consumer services, with a particular focus on
tourism services and related activities, to do a comparative analysis of these
methodologies and to propose options for a future scheme at EU level. The study
remarked that “tourism and leisure-related accidents are very unevenly
distributed between regions (end even between individual towns of tourist
resorts) within each member state. In contrast most product-related accidents
tend to be evenly distributed across resident populations. The data capture
methods best suited to safety needs are therefore significantly different to
those best suited to product safety needs and this limits the potential for any
one database to serve both needs optimally”. The study
concluded that a single central database containing information on all relevant
tourism and leisure services accidents would not be a feasible project in the
medium term. The main recommendation was that in the long term there should be
a common EU mandatory duty on consumer service suppliers to report all serious
incidents involving consumers, pointing to Member
states’ responsibility towards generating national accident estimates for each
tourism and leisure-related sector in a standard format to be easily collated on
a European web site to create comparison tables.

In
2005, the Commission asked the Member States' views on a possible revision of
the Recommendation 86/666. At that moment, for some Member States the existing
requirements at EU and national levels were sufficient, while others would
welcome an update of the fire safety requirements in hotels at EU level, in
particular to improve issues such as fire safety management, safety
instructions, staff training and emergency planning. No consensus emerged at
the time.

Recommendations
from the study on data collection systems were further discussed and elaborated
during an international workshop on “Accident and injury data collection for
non-food products and service risk assessment”, held in Brussels in 2006. In
line with the results of the study, the workshop concluded also that better
access to existing databases and accident information should be provided via
the Internet and that the extension of existing best practices would be the
best approach for the short and medium term.

In
parallel, during 2006, the Commission launched a study[14] into possible
improvements of the European Injury Data Base (IDB) for the purpose of
colleting service-related data. The study concluded that, while it would be
difficult in practice to improve the database to include service-related
injuries, specific follow-up research could be undertaken based on already
available data in the IDB to obtain better insight into service-related
accidents.

As
indicated in the 2007 Commission Communication – Agenda for a sustainable and
competitive European Tourism[15],
ensuring that tourists as well as the local communities where tourism services
are offered are safe and secure is a further challenge and also a basic
condition for a successful development of tourism. Ensuring the safety of
tourists is a key aspect for the tourism sector, in line with the current
momentum where inspiring confidence is vital.

In
2010 the Commission launched an ambitious study to describe the hotel sector by
  Member State, with the objective to identify its major safety risks
(excluding food safety-related risks), and to carry out an inventory of
injuries and accidents occurred in hotels in recent years. However, the study
failed to fulfil its objectives due among other reasons to the variety of the
hotel sector and the lack of availability of accident records relating
specifically to the provision of the service, linked to also reputational
issues. The recommendations of the study were not of the quality expected to
serve as a base for policy decisions and the study was therefore not accepted
by the Commission services.

The
2010 Commission Communication on Tourism mentioned earlier outlines a policy
that aims at supporting this sector of the European economy and proposes
initiatives to promote its competitiveness as well as its sustainable and
quality-based development. It specifically mentions that "the
Commission will continue to cooperate closely with the Member States, the
tourism industry and stakeholders' organisations in the sector to improve
safety in accommodation structures, particularly with regard to fire risks."
The Communication stresses the potential for boosting tourism by improving
safety in the tourism industry.

Finally,
the European Parliament own-initiative report[16]
in response to that Communication "stresses the importance of paying due
attention to the question of safety in various types of accommodation,
particularly in regard to fire safety regulations and carbon monoxide safety
measures”.

2.2. 
Most recent actions (2012-2013)

One
of the possibilities discussed recently by the Commission services was
undertaking a revision of the Recommendation 86/666 on Fire Safety in Existing
Hotels using as a basis the MBS Methodology. A consultative stakeholder
workshop was organised for this purpose in June 2012 to discuss this option.
There was consensus on the general principles of this initiative, especially on
the need to adapt and improve the content of the Recommendation regarding among
other issues its requirements, scope and application at national level. Also, a
majority of stakeholders went one step further and questioned the non-binding
nature of the Recommendation as the most suitable tool to tackle the issue of
fire safety in hotels across Europe, on the grounds of lack of consistent
implementation and enforcement across Member States. However, there was no
consensus among the stakeholders on the further course of action, in particular
regarding the content of the MBS Methodology. A number of suggestions were put
forward regarding aspects that would need to be further considered and which are
included in the scope of the Green Paper.

[1] OJ L
376, 27.12.2006, p.36-68

[2]               COM (2001) 348 final, http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cons_safe/serv_safe/fire_safe/ps06_en.pdf

[3]               An analysis of the implementation of existing
regulations on fire safety in tourist accommodation, an FTO European
tourist accommodation study by Stewart Kidd, 2009

[4]               Flash Eurobarometer 350, Safety of Services,  http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_350_en.pdf

[5] Flash EB 258/2009,
291/2010. 328/2011, 334/2012. 370/2013

[6] http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_392_en.pdf

[7]               OJ L316 ,14.11.2012, p12

[8]               From a safety perspective, it underlines in recital
(3) that standards "may maintain and enhance service quality, provide
information and ensure interoperability and compatibility thereby increasing
the safety and value for consumers".

[9]               Communication from the Commission to the European
parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Region – Europe, the world's No 1 tourist destination – a new
political framework for tourism in Europe, COM(2010)
352 final

[10]             The European Parliament
own-initiative report (2010/2206(INI)) in response to the
Communication refers to self-regulatory tools as it “considers that
incentives should be given for adherence to the MBS (Management, Building and
System) method, without prejudice to national regulations in force in line with
the 1986 Council recommendations, or alternative regulatory actions should be
taken wherever self-regulation fails".

[11]             Report from the Commission to the European Parliament
and the Council on the Safety of Services to Consumers, COM(2003)
313 final

[12]             Council Resolution of 1 December 2003 on Safety of
Services for Consumers (2003/C
299/01)

[13]             “Methodology
for systematic collection of statistics in relation to safety of services”, by
Consumer Risk Ltd, http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cons_safe/serv_safe/datacollect/rep_idb2005_en.pdf

[14]             “Improving the product and service dimension of the IDB
– a feasibility study”, by the Consumer Safety Institute

[15]             COM/2007/0621
final

[16]             (2010/2206(INI))
- Europe, the world's No 1 tourist destination - a new political framework for
tourism in Europe, Committee on Transport and Tourism.