REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION European Disability Card

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
19.7.2023
SEC(2023) 305
REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION
{COM(2023) 512}
{SWD(2023) 290, 291}
European Disability Card
Offentligt
KOM (2023) 0512 - SEK-dokument
Europaudvalget 2023
________________________________
This opinion concerns a draft impact assessment which may differ from the final version.
Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111
regulatory-scrutiny-board@ec.europa.eu
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD
Brussels,
RSB
Opinion
Title: Impact assessment / European Disability Card
Overall opinion: POSITIVE WITH RESERVATIONS
(A) Policy context
The European Disability Card (EDC) aims to facilitate the access to services and
preferential conditions for persons with disabilities when travelling to other Member
States. To achieve this objective two policy areas are explored: facilitating the mutual
recognition of disability status when visiting another Member State and facilitating the use
of the EU disability parking card.
The proposal is expected to contribute to the implementation of several principles of the
European Pillar of Social Rights and of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities.
(B) Summary of findings
The Board notes the additional information provided and commitments to make
changes to the report.
However, the report still contains significant shortcomings. The Board gives a
positive opinion with reservations because it expects the DG to rectify the following
aspects:
(1) The report is not sufficiently clear on Member States’ views and support for the
problems, and the need for EU legislative action. It does not explain on which
issues, and why the views of different categories of stakeholders differ.
(2) The report is not sufficiently clear on the specific part of the ‘travel gap’ that will
be tackled by the options considered. It is not clear on the expected level of the
value added to the market for accessible tourism for each option.
(3) The report is not sufficiently clear on the impacts on public authorities,
institutions and public budgets and on the distributional impacts across Member
States. It does not sufficiently identify and present the quantitative cost and
benefit estimates of all options as part of the effectiveness and efficiency
assessment when comparing options.
2
(C) What to improve
(1) The report should bring out more clearly the views of Member States on essential parts
of this initiative. For example, it should explain to what extent Member States support the
problem analysis, the proportionality and EU value-added of policy options, and the
justification for the selection of the preferred option. It should explain why some parts of
stakeholder groups do not support some options or measures contained therein.
(2) The report should clarify upfront that the initiative is not intended to solve all
problems facing disabled people when traveling but instead is focused on non
discrimination. It should thus clarify the part and the root causes of the indicated ‘travel
gap’ that will be tackled by the options considered in this report and the part of the ‘travel
gap’ that is due to factors outside the scope of the initiative. On that basis, it should
estimate the expected contribution of the options to reduce the total ‘travel gap’ (which
according to the report amounts to EUR 4.5 billion of the total value added of the market
for accessible tourism). It should explain to what extent the effective delivery of the
options depends on the availability of potential complementary measures (such as financial
support, availability of personal assistants, etc) which are outside the scope of this
initiative.
(3) The report should further assess the impacts, costs and benefits for national
administrations and public authorities, including local and regional public institutions,
reflecting differences between Member States as well as those likely to be most affected. It
should assess the potential risk that due to the increased travel intensity of persons with
disabilities, public interest actors may face resources or budgetary challenges (e.g.
investments in additional reserved parking capacity or price increases for subsidised
services). It should discuss more thoroughly the impacts on the transport sector and ensure
consistency of the presented estimates throughout the analysis. It should analyse
distributional impacts across Member States, including potential substitution effects
between domestic and intra-EU travel.
(4) The report should better present and integrate the available cost and benefit estimates
into the efficiency and effectiveness assessment when comparing the options, thereby
allowing a better understanding of the differences of the efficiency scores between options.
(5) The report should revise the One In, One Out section; it should only include costs and
cost savings to citizens and businesses.
(6) Annex 3 should provide the benefits and costs of the preferred option in an integrated
manner so that it is clear what the overall costs and benefits of the preferred combination
of option are. All costs should be presented in total aggregate (EU) values (no cost estimate
per capita, customer, card etc).
(7) The competitiveness check (Annex 5) should be reviewed; it should better explain the
impacts on the affected EU tourism sectors and better justify the scoring on cost and price
and international elements.
The Board notes the estimated costs and benefits of the preferred option in this initiative,
as summarised in the attached quantification tables.
Some more technical comments have been sent directly to the author DG.
3
(D) Conclusion
The DG must revise the report in accordance with the Board’s findings before
launching the interservice consultation.
If there are any changes in the choice or design of the preferred option in the final
version of the report, the DG may need to further adjust the attached quantification
tables to reflect this.
Full title Legislative initiative on setting up the European Disability Card
Reference number PLAN/2022/1525
Submitted to RSB on 21 June 2023
Date of RSB meeting 18 July 2023
4
ANNEX: Quantification tables extracted from the draft impact assessment report
The following tables contain information on the costs and benefits of the initiative on
which the Board has given its opinion, as presented above.
If the draft report has been revised in line with the Board’s recommendations, the content
of these tables may be different from those in the final version of the impact assessment
report, as published by the Commission.
Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option A2 and B2
Description Amount Comments
Direct benefits
Improved welfare Increase
in individual and societal
welfare
Enhanced participation in
short term travelsof
persons with disabilities
Increase in the
travel propensity of
persons with
disabilities ranging,
reaching levels
between 70% and
75% by 2030
relative to the 63%
current level and
69% level expected
by 2030 under the
baseline scenario
The reduced uncertainty regarding the
recognition of disability status and the
subsequent provision of preferential
conditions and personalised services to
persons with disabilities travelling for
short-term stays is expected to lead to
an increase in both the share and
number of persons with disabilities
travelling in the EU. While the exact
increase cannot be quantified, it was
estimated, based on existing data on
persons with disabilities and the
evolution of travel patterns in the
general population. This will in turn
have a positive societal impact through
improvements in the culture, social
integration and personal development
of persons with disabilities.
Improved market
efficiency – Cost savings
for persons with
disabilities travelling
Ranging between
EUR 30 and EUR
120 in total for
persons with
disabilities
travelling for stays
of about 4 days,
between EUR 100
and 400 in total for
persons with
disabilities
travelling for about
2 months
Cost savings for persons with
disabilities currently being denied
preferential conditions when travelling
to other MS (or not travelling abroad),
estimated at about 44% according to the
results of the Public Consultations.
These costs savingswere identified
through case studies of individual
travellers journeys. These were
elaborated as the potential direct
monetary savings coming from the
preferential conditions already provided
by service providers, across different
travel scenarios. The process leading to
the elaboration of the journeys and the
sources used are detailed in Section
3.2.2 of Annex III.
Improved market
efficiency – Cost savings
n.a. By reducing the difficulty and the time
cost for service providers to check the
5
and general reduction in
hassle costs for persons
with disabilities and
service providers
different national disability cards, the
EDC would increase efficiency also on
the side of service providers. .
Improved market
efficiency – Improved
information on the
preferential conditions
offered to persons with
disabilities
n.a. Option A2 entails enhanced provision
of information to persons with
disabilities on the types of preferential
conditions offered to them, via as the
set up of national websites and the use
of awareness raising campaigns
(foreseen as non-legislative flanking
measures) The increased awareness on
the preferential conditions available and
on the benefits offered by the EDC
would improve efficiency in the sector
of tourism of persons with disabilities,
by allowing them to plan short term
stays with more information at their
disposal.
Indirect benefits
Wider macroeconomic
benefits – Benefits in the
market for accessible
tourism
At most + EUR
4.5billion per year
of value added in
the market for
accessible tourism
The increased participation in tourism
of persons with disabilities resulting
from option A2 would have positive
indirect benefits in the market for
accessible tourism, whose total
turnover would increase as a result of
the policy. Estimates of the total output
of this sector in 2012 put the total value
added of the sector to the EU economy
at about 62 bllion EUR in 2012, with an
indirect multiplier of 1.84. Considering
the presence of a travel gap, i.e. a
difference in travelling propensity
between the general population and
persons with disability, estimated at
around 6% in the EU, a complete
closure of the gap, which would imply
2 million more persons with disabilities
travelling in the EU, would entail an
increase of EUR 3.72 billion in total
value added of the sector (4.5 if
adjusted for inflation in 2023). This can
be used as an upper bound: the actual
gain is likely to be at a level
significantly below this threshold, as
uncertainty regarding preferential
conditions is not the only driver of the
travel gap between persons with
disabilities and the general population.
6
Other non-monetary
benefits – Protection of
fundamental rights
n.a. Freedom of movement: the removal of
barriers linked to the lack of mutual
recognition of disability status across
Member States would encourage
persons with disabilities to travel,
facilitating free movement.
Integration of persons with
disabilities: increased participation in
tourism of persons with disabilities
would contribute to ensuring a deeper
integration in European society.
Non-discrimination: the removal of
uncertainty surrounding the recognition
of disability status abroad and
subsequent access to preferential
conditions would help ensure equal
access to services for persons with
disabilities and avoid any potential for
discrimination due to only nationals
being able to access these conditions in
their Member State.
Respects of elderly rights (art. 25
ECFR): the certainty of having access
to preferential conditions when using
certain services abroad would facilitate
the travelling of the elderlies across the
EU as they will be granted with the
same assistance and support provided
to elderlies with disabilities in the host
Member States
Access to service of general economic
interest (art. 36 ECFR): the
mandatory provisions of preferential
conditions for using certain services
abroad would contribute towards the
social and territorial cohesion of the
Union as EU citizens with disabilities
would be incentivised to travel across
the Member States
Freedom to conduct a business (art.
16 ECFR): in accordance with Union
law and national laws and practices: the
EDC would not oblige service
providers not offering any preferential
conditions to persons with disabilities
to do that, hence the freedom to
conduct a business as established by
Article 16 is recognised.
7
Table 3 – Overview of costs – Preferred option A2
Description Amount Stakeholders Comment
Activity Type of cost One-off Recurren
t
Production
and
delivery of
EDCs
Direct
adjustment
costs
n.a. Between
EUR 1
and EUR
5 per
Card. Cost
are likely
to
decrease
as
production
is scaled
up
Administration
s
The costs of
production and
delivery can be
estimated based
on those incurred
by Member
States
participating in
the pilot project.
These costs are
included here as
fixed costs, but
they are likely to
significantly
decrease once
production is
scaled up as the
number of EDCs
increases.
Awareness
raising
campaigns
Direct
enforcement
costs
Between
EUR
20,800
and EUR
70,400 per
Member
State
n.a. Administration
s
The costs of
carrying out
awareness
raising
campaigns and
setting up
national websites
can be estimated
based on those
incurred by
Member States
participating in
the pilot project.
The total costs
would be
reduced by the
fact that not all
Member States
would
implement these
activities, as they
are non-
legislative
flanking
measures in
National
websites
Direct
adjustment
costs
Between
EUR
7,500 and
EUR
23,000 per
Member
State
Below
EUR
4,700 per
Member
State,
lower in
pilot
Member
States
Administration
s
8
Description Amount Stakeholders Comment
Activity Type of cost One-off Recurren
t
option A2.
Provision
of
preferential
conditions
to persons
with
disabilities
from other
Member
States
Direct
adjustment
cost
n.a. On
average,
below
EUR 30
per
customer
for less
than 1-2%
of
costumers
(assuming
optimistic
convergen
ce in the
travel gap)
In the
transport
sector,
costs are
estimated
to range
between
0.1 and
1.9 EUR
per capita
(0.2 to 3.9
EUR per
capita
including
preferentia
l
conditions
to
personal
assistant)
Service
providers
The majority of
respondents in
the targeted
survey on costs
for service
providers
reported a small
cost of offering
preferential
conditions.
Moreover,
service providers
indicated that
persons with
disabilities from
other Member
States represent
a very small
portion of their
client base
For the transport
sector, where the
most significant
preferential
conditions are
found and being
closely related to
short term stays,
costs are
estimated as
having to offer
preferential
conditions to the
44% of PwD
who has reported
ever being
denied
preferential
conditions when
travelling
abroad. The
actual costs are
likely closer to
9
Description Amount Stakeholders Comment
Activity Type of cost One-off Recurren
t
the lower bound,
due to the
overlap with the
elderly
population.
Informatio
n collection
on the EDC
Direct
administrativ
e costs
Negligible Negligible Administration
s
Collecting
information on
service providers
and number of
cards.
Costs of
providing
information to
service
providers.
Provision
of
information
on
preferential
conditions
Direct
adjustment
costs
n.a. Negligible Service
providers
Service
providers would
only need to
provide
information on
the type of
preferential
conditions that
they offer, an
information
often already
provided
publicly (e.g. on
the website of
the organisation,
as evidenced in
Annex VI).
Furthermore, not
all service
providers would
be mandated to
provide such
information, but
only those that
are mandated by
law to provide
preferential
conditions.
Hence, these
costs are
10
Description Amount Stakeholders Comment
Activity Type of cost One-off Recurren
t
expected to be
negligible, as
those that offer
voluntarily
preferential
conditions would
not be obliged
by this provision
Costs related to the ‘one in, one out’ approach
Total Direct and
indirect
adjustment
costs
n.a. Between
roughly
95,000
PPP EUR
and
530,000
PPP EUR
(as
experience
d by pilot
MS over
the period
2016-
2018)
Administration
s
Based on
information on
total
implementation
cost of the EDC
scheme
(including cost
of production,
national
websites,
awareness
raising
campaigns) in
the pilot project.
Direct and
indirect
adjustment
costs
n.a. Negligible Service
providers
Given that for
most service
providers,
persons with
disabilities from
other Member
States represent
a small portion
(less than 1%) of
their total
customers, the
total cost for
service providers
can be assumed
to be negligible.
Administrati
ve costs (for
offsetting)
Negligible Negligible Administration
s
Total cost
collecting
information on
service providers
and number of
11
Description Amount Stakeholders Comment
Activity Type of cost One-off Recurren
t
cards are
negligible
Administrati
ve costs (for
offsetting)
n.a. Negligible Service
providers
See comment
above on direct
administrative
costs for service
providers.
Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option B2
Description Amount Comments
Direct benefits
Improved
welfare –
Increase in
societal welfare
due to
enhanced
participation in
tourism of
persons with
disabilities
n.a. The reduced uncertainty regarding the full recognition of
EU parking cards for cardholders travelling to other
Member States, resulting from option B2, is expected to
lead to an increase in the number of persons with
disabilities travelling in the EU. While the exact increase
cannot be quantified, it is likely to be small as parking
card holders are a portion of the total population of
persons with disabilities, and travelling by car is one of
the possible means of transport used by persons
participating in tourism. Nevertheless, increased
participation in tourism would have positive
consequences in terms of increased personal
development, social inclusion and culture for the
cardholders involved.
Improved
market
efficiency –
Cost savings
for persons
with disabilities
travelling
Starting
from 4 EUR
per day
Option B2 would increase certainty regarding the
recognition of EU parking cards for persons with
disabilities travelling abroad. As a consequence,
cardholders who may have previously sought for
different parking solutions, for fear their parking card
may not be recognised, would now be more likely to rely
on parking slots reserved to them. These potential savings
are quantified based on the average cost of parking in the
EU, estimated in 2013 by the European Parking
Association. The average cost of parking spots for the
general public use was instead estimated at EUR 800 per
space, per year. Adjusted per inflation and per day
(instead of per year), this cost is estimated to be roughly
4 euro per day, which is certainly a lower bound as
shorter periods tend to be more expensive. Other
estimates calculating the average price of parking in 32
12
European cities have put the number at about EUR 3 per
hour.
Improved
market
efficiency –
Improved
information on
the parking
rights of
cardholders
Savings can
be
quantified as
generally
below EUR
300 in terms
of avoided
parking
fines across
the EU
Option B2 entails enhanced provision of information on
how the EU parking card works and the scope of the
rights associated with the EU parking card. Increased
knowledge on these aspects may reduce improper use of
the Card and, subsequently, fines (in SOLVIT, several
complaints on the parking card concerned fines received
by cardholders who believed that the rights granted by
the EU parking card when travelling to other Member
States were the same as those granted in their country of
origin).
Indirect benefits
Wider
macroeconomic
benefits –
Benefits in the
market for
accessible
tourism
n.a. Similarly to policy option A2, option B2 is expected to
have indirect impacts on the market for tourism through
an increased number of persons with disabilities
travelling. The total magnitude of this indirect impact is,
however, expected to be small due to the smaller number
of cardholders compared to the wider population of
persons with disabilities.
Other non-
monetary
benefits –
Protection of
fundamental
rights
n.a. Freedom of movement: the removal of barriers linked to
the lack of mutual recognition of EU parking cards across
Member States would encourage persons with disabilities
to travel, facilitating free movement.
Integration of persons with disabilities: increased
participation in tourism of persons with disabilities would
contribute to ensuring a deeper integration in European
society.
Non-discrimination: the removal of uncertainty
surrounding the recognition of EU parking card would
help ensure equal access to services for persons with
disabilities and avoid any potential for discrimination due
to only nationals being able to access these conditions.
Overview of costs – Preferred option B2
Description Amount Stakeholders Comment
Activity Type of cost One-off Recurren
t
Update of
security
features
Direct
adjustment
costs
n.a. Negligible Administration
s
These costs
include the costs
of updating
security features
only for the
13
Description Amount Stakeholders Comment
Activity Type of cost One-off Recurren
t
Member States
who have not yet
done so and
would have to
comply with the
new legislation.
Set-up of
national
database of
cardholders
Direct
adjustment
costs
n.a. Negligible Administration
s
Set-up of
websites
with
information
on the
parking
card
Direct
adjustment
costs
Negligible Negligible
Administration
s
As Member
States already
have an EU
parking card
website, the only
costs are
associated with
updating the
information
Electronically signed on 19/07/2023 15:12 (UTC+02) in accordance with Article 11 of Commission Decision (EU) 2021/2121