No C 191/2 Official Journal of the European Communities 22. 7. 91 
1.8. Lastly, the Committee would point out that each 
Community institution must adopt its own rules of procedure, taking account of its specific needs and 
facilitating consolidation of accounts. 
Done at Brussels, 29 May 1991. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on minimum requirements to improve the 
mobility and the safe transport to work of workers with reduced mobility (*) 
(91/C 191/02) 
On 14 March 1991 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 118A of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Social, Family, Educational and Cultural Affairs, which was responsible for 
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 13 May 1991. The 
Rapporteur was Mrs Cassina. 
At its 287th plenary session on 29 and 30 May 1991 (meeting of 29 May), the Economic and 
Social Committee adopted the following Opinion unanimously. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The Committee welcomes the proposal, which 
comes under the Commission action programme 
implementing the Social Charter and reflects a renewed 
Community interest in integrating the handicapped into 
society and the employment market. The third phase 
of the Helios programme should have taken shape by 
the end of this year, following the implementation of 
the first two stages. The European Council of 12 June 
1989 emphasized the need to promote employment of 
the disabled. The Council Decision of 18 December 
1989 sought to promote the subsequent development of 
the Handynet system within the framework of the Helios programme. On 18 July 1990, the Commission 
adopted the Horizon initiative setting up vocational 
training pilot projects, supported by the European 
Social Fund. 
1.2. The draft Directive seeks to make journeys: to 
and from work easier and safer for workers with 
reduced mobility, by requiring Member States to pro­
vide safe, accessible means of transport or to adop.. 
other measures of similar scope. 
2. General comments 
(J) OJ No C 68, 16.3.1991, p. 7. 2.1. Workers with reduced mobility are a minority 
group within society—on the basis of World Health 
Organization (WHO) data, the Commission s uggests a 
figure of some four million for the EC. However, the 
Committee considers it beneficial to society and the 
economy in general—as well as being a basic human 
22. 7. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 191/3 
and civil right—for these people to play a fully inte­
grated part in social and working life. 
2.2. The decision to use Article 118A as the legal 
basis is fully justified. For workers with reduced 
mobility, work provides an important opportunity for 
social integration; the problems and dangers which they 
face on the journey to and from work can seriously 
jeopardize their employment possibilities. These jour­
neys therefore form an even more essential part of the 
working environment than for the able-bodied, with all 
the resulting implications for any accidents which may 
occur. 
The Committee welcomes both the inclusion of this 
directive in the Article 118A procedure, and the Com­
mission's intention to lay down specific provisions 
regarding workers with reduced mobility in its pro­
posals for directives on the health and safety of workers. 
2.3. The definition of 'workers with reduced 
mobility' (Art. 2) is broad. In the Committee's view, it 
covers not only those in active employment, but anyone 
suffering a physical, mental or sensory handicap which 
makes work-related travel difficult. The term should 
therefore embrace the unemployed, students, pen­
sioners, workers on minimum guaranteed income, shel­
tered workers and self-employed persons with reduced 
mobility. 
This would be consistent with the Commission's stated 
aim that the Directive should encourage efforts to make 
public transport more easily accessible. 
Adapting vehicles and infrastructures to make them 
accessible to all clearly covers a far broader swathe of 
society—with a consequent reduction in marginal costs, 
due to the wider spread. 
2.4. Under the proposal, only vehicles actually need­
ed to transport the workers concerned will have to be 
specially equipped (either externally or internally). 
The Committee endorses the need for flexibility but 
points out that the location of the work places and 
housing of the people concerned may mean that, in 
cities for example, the entire transport system has to 
be geared to the needs of people with reduced mobility. 
The best solution would therefore be general adaptation 
of vehicles and infrastructure, although this should be 
phased in. This would avoid duplication and segmen­
tation of transport systems. Particularly difficult cases could be catered for by setting up limited parallel sys­
tems to complement public transport and that provided 
by employers. The Committee consequently endorses 
the Commission's view that special attention must be 
given to the problems of the most seriously disabled 
workers. 
Lastly, the Committee would stress that needs must be 
assessed according to similar criteria, so that when 
measures are taken on the basis of the subsidiarity 
principle (with due regard for the fact that, in a number 
of Member States, public transport systems are often 
run by local authorities, either directly or via transport 
associations), transport systems still remain mutually 
compatible throughout the Community. 
2.5. The Commission suggests three options for safe 
access: technical aids incorporated into the vehicle, 
external technical aids, and personal assistance. 
The three options differ in terms of technical detail, the 
preferences of the workers concerned, and cost. The 
first option would involve major expenditure, but is 
less vulnerable to wear and tear and improper use. It 
offers the person concerned the best opportunity to be 
a fully independent member of the workforce. The 
second would probably be cheaper, but its efficiency or 
safety is liable to be impaired by external factors (wear 
and tear, weather, damage, temporary obstacles, etc.). 
The third would best meet the needs of the workers 
concerned, but denies them the opportunity to travel 
independently, and is also, in general termer, very 
costly. The Committee does not therefore consider these 
to be true alternatives, but rather variants which are not 
necessarily mutually exclusive within a single system. 
More detailed technological/ergonomic research is 
needed, possibly drawing on the TIDE programme, to 
help Member States decide which option to choose 
when they implement the Directive. 
2.6. Article 8 sets a two-stage timetable. By the end 
of 1994, Member States must ensure that workers who 
cannot travel without the help of an accompanying 
No C 191/4 Official Journal of the European Communities 22. 7. 91 
person do not have to pay additional transport costs. 
By the end of 1999, they must have adapted vehicles. 
The Committee welcomes the requirement for Member 
States to submit timetables for implementing both sets 
of measures concurrently with the entry into force of 
the provisions needed to conform with the directive 
(i.e. by 31 December 1992). This will encourage them 
to plan their strategy for adapting vehicles in good 
times, and stagger the costs over a longer period. 
Nevertheless, the Committee feels that both deadlines 
are too lax, and should be tightened. 
It also recommends that incentives for implementation 
be provided by tying Community aid for the creation 
of transport networks and infrastructures to the fulfil­
ment of the targets set out in the directive. 
2.7. The Directive should clearly state that safety 
objectives must also be met by private means of trans­
port (see Art. 2, second indent), and that Member States 
will be responsible for official safety checks on all types 
of transport involved. From this point of view, the 
Directive should also cover personal means of transport 
(private cars). In particular, reserved parking spaces 
should be provided for disabled drivers and disabled 
drivers should receive state financial support (e.g. tax 
exemption) for purchasing specially adapted cars. 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. Article 2(a) 
The Committee would refer to its comment in the first 
paragraph of 2.3 above. 
3.2. Article 2(b) 
The Committee considers that 'public transport' should 
include air, water and underground means of transport. 
3.3. Article 4(b) 
Training provisions should also cover the staff of pri­
vate transport companies. 
3.4. Article 4(c) 
The information provided should be as complete as 
possible. Member States should also launch public 
information campaigns to improve understanding of the problems caused by reduced mobility, so that the 
public are better equipped to help achieve the aims of 
the Directive. The Committee therefore calls for the 
insertion of a point (d) encouraging Member States to 
implement such campaigns. 
3.5. Article 5 
The Article should state explicitly that the 
accompanying person must be able to travel free of 
charge. 
3.6. Articles 6 and 7 
The Committee fully endorses these Articles. 
3.7. Articles 
The Committee considers that the deadlines set in (a) 
and (b) for the entry into force of the laws, regulations 
and administrative provisions (31 December 1992) are 
appropriate, but that the implementation timetables 
under (a) and (b) should be brought forward to 31 
December 1995 and 31 December 1993 respectively. 
3.8. Annex 
Since the Committee is calling for the overall adjust­
ment of means of transport (point 2.4), the Commission 
is asked to amend the Annex accordingly. 
3.8.1. Point I 
The Committee refers back to its comments in the third 
paragraph of 2.4 and in 3.7 above. 
3.8.2. Point II 
Alongside safety of access, reference should also be 
made here to safety during the journey, involving special 
safety arrangements and measures to ensure a high 
standard of vehicle maintenance. The provisions cover­
ing facilities (point III) refer only to adaptations geared 
to the different types of handicap. This is not enough 
to ensure safety during the journey. 
22. 7. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 191/5 
3.8.3. Point IV 
The Committee welcomes the requirement that signs 
must accord with the special needs of workers with 
Done at Brussels, 29 May 1991. 
The Committee agrees in principle with the proposal, 
subject to the following comments. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. According to the Commission, this proposal 
parallels Medspa, a Community action designed to 
address problems of the Mediterranean. Implemen­
tation of Norspa would mean that the entire coastal 
area of the Community (and many other countries) are 
included in such programmes. It is part of a family 
of Community initiatives designed to provide direct 
financial support for environmental conservation. reduced mobility, and highlights the need for transport-
staff training [referred to in Article 4(b)] in this area. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN 
1.2. On 31 January 1991, the Commission published 
a proposal for a Council Regulation establishing a 
financial instrument for the environment (LIFE — Doc. 
COM(91) 28 final). This proposal follows a request on 
26 June 1990 by the European Council to review the 
Community funding available to support actions, vis­
a-vis, the environment. 
1.3. The LIFE initiative is justified on the basis that 
a financial instrument is needed if the Community's 
environmental objectives are to be attained, and the 
budgetary resources available through the Com­
munity's existing financial instruments are insignifi­
cant. It is proposed (p. 14 of the LIFE proposal): Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) on specific action to protect the 
environment in the coastal areas and coastal waters of the Irish Sea, North Sea, Baltic Sea 
and North-East Atlantic Ocean (l) 
(91/C 191/03) 
On 23 January 1991, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article DOS of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which 
was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 
17 May 1991. The Rapporteur was Mr Roseingrave. 
At its 287th plenary session (meeting of 29 May 1991), the Economic and Social Committee 
unanimously adopted the following Opinion. 
(*) OJNoC21, 29. 1. 1991, p. 13. 'Amongst the actions already underway which will 
be included in the new financial instrument are the