6 Road safety
| (26852)
12383/05
COM(05) 431
| Commission Communication: The 2nd eSafety Communication — Bringing eCall to citizens
|
| Legal base | — |
| Document originated | 14 September 2005
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 21 September 2005
|
| Department | Transport |
| Basis of consideration | EM of 10 October 2005
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | Not known
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; await further information
|
Background
6.1 The Commission's third European Road Safety Action Programme,
for the period 2002-2010, set a target of halving the annual number
of road deaths in the Community by 2010 (that is from about 47,000
to 25,000 annually). In the context of that programme the Commission
published in September 2002 a Communication on "information
and communications technologies for safe and intelligent vehicles".
This suggested that, while much of the development and use of
ICT-enabled vehicles is an industry responsibility, there is a
need for and merit in collaboration between the private and public
sectors. Areas for collaboration highlighted were facilitating
more cooperative intelligent vehicle and intelligent infrastructure
systems and assisting in provision of a business case for widespread
and rapid deployment. The Commission discussed action to promote
intelligent vehicle safety systems, adapt regulatory and standardisation
provisions and remove societal and business obstacles.[25]
The subject is sometimes referred to as eSafety.
6.2 In its Communication "i2010 — a European
Information Society for growth and employment" the Commission
announced its intention to launch "flagship ICT initiatives
on key social challenges" including safe and clean transport.[26]
The document
6.3 In this document the Commission makes proposals
to carry forward one of the suggestions from its earlier Communication
on the use of ICT in road safety: promotion of a pan-European
in-vehicle emergency call service, to be known as eCall. It sets
this in the context of its intention to launch a flagship initiative,
the Intelligent Car, as part of the i2010 programme. The Commission
argues that:
- as travel abroad by car becomes
more and more frequent there is an increasing need for a pan-European
emergency service that can be used by all vehicles regardless
of their make, country of registration or location. An increasing
percentage of the 180 million calls annually to emergency services
originate from mobile phones — currently 60-70%. For an
estimated 15% of these calls the location cannot be accurately
determined, leading to a significant delay in dispatching help
and in some cases preventing help being sent;
- eCall could drastically cut emergency response
times — by about 50% in rural areas and up to 40% in urban
areas, save lives and reduce the severity of injuries;
- when implemented, eCall would have significant
socioeconomic benefits;
- setting-up a full emergency chain for eCall needs
the cooperation of many authorities. This co-operation has been
slow to materialize and in many Member States is absent; and
- without a full commitment from Member States
there will be no investment from the automotive industry, which
it is ready to equip with eCall devices all new models entering
the market after September 2009.
6.4 The Commission then sets out actions it believes
Member States should undertake in order to bring forward the introduction
of eCall:
- signing the European Memorandum
of Understanding (MoU) for Realisation of Interoperable In-Vehicle
eCall[27] and commit
to implementation of eCall. Over 50 interested parties have now
signed the MoU, but this includes only two Member States (Finland
and Sweden). The Commission suggests that lack of signatures,
especially from the Member States, could delay implementation
and weaken the commitment of industry;
- promoting 112 and E112. 112 is the single European
emergency number in use in 24 Member States — in most, including
the UK, in parallel with national numbers. On E112, the system
to provide location information, the Commission suggests the
majority of Member States have been slow in encouraging their
public wireless network operators to provide this information
and should seek to accelerate the introduction of E112;
- upgrading Public Service Answering Points (PSAPs)
to handle location-enhanced E112 calls and eCalls. The Commission
recommends that Member States ensure upgrading of the infrastructure
in PSAPs for processing eCall information originating from vehicles,
to standards being developed by the European Telecommunications
Standards Institute, by the end of 2007 and upgrade PSAPs to
handle location information from E112 calls; and
- providing adequate location-enhanced emergency
services and language support. The Commission recommends that
Member States ensure their PSAPs are adequately trained and equipped
and upgrade their whole emergency service chain (PSAPs, dispatch,
emergency vehicles, and hospital emergency rooms) with adequate
ICT based tools to ensure fast and reliable responses to vehicle
accidents.
6.5 In the document the Commission also discusses
briefly its own actions in relation to:
- eSafety priority topics —
Human Machine Interaction Real-Time Traffic and Travel Information;
- work of the eSafety Forum User Outreach Working
Group on publicising the benefits of eSafety systems;
- work of the High-Level Group for a competitive
EU Car Industry (CARS 21); and
- production in 2005 of a mid-term review of the
Road Safety Action Programme.
The Government's view
6.6 The Minister of State, Department of Transport
(Dr Stephen Ladyman) prefaces his comments on the suggestions
in the document for Member State actions by saying it is a Government
objective to improve road safety. So it supports in principle
any action that would assist in reducing the number of accidents,
deaths and seriously injuries. But any initiative needs to be
considered on its merits and costs and benefits need to be measured.
6.7 The Minister tells us that before signing the
MoU the Government wants to see further research. It supports
the idea of an emergency response system but it thinks there are
a number of issues that need to be considered further:
- how eCall relates to other
Community initiatives considering the future shape and functionality
of a universal On-Board Unit;
- how fiscal incentives might be applied and how
they might be justified;
- whether or not the business case is transferable
to the UK situation and the likelihood of claimed benefits being
realised; and
- how deployment of in-vehicle equipment in all
new vehicles from 2009 would work in relation to Whole Vehicle
Type Approval.
He adds that the Government would be keen to work
with the telecommunications industry, where there are genuine
opportunities to use their networks to improve road safety. Equally
the telecommunications and transport industries could work together
commercially without direct Government involvement. With the business
case for eCall unproven, Government support for the scheme is
so far not justified. Given doubt as to the robustness of the
business case the Government intends some urgent research in order
to support an assessment of the likely costs and benefits eCall
might have for the UK.
6.8 As for Member States promoting 112 and E112 the
Minister tells us that 112 has been introduced as a European emergency
number and calls to it in the UK receive the same quality of service
and level of priority as 999 calls. Caller location information
is automatically provided by all network operators in the UK for
all 999/112 calls when they are passed to the call handling agents
(or Stage 1 PSAPs) provided on behalf of the operators by British
Telecommunications, Cable & Wireless and Kingston Communications.
6.9 On upgrading the capability of PSAPs the Minister
says that UK telecommunications operators have been required by
the regulator to provide location information. But implementation
is for each emergency authority on the basis of available resources
and its own priorities. Emergency authority control rooms are
being upgraded to receive location information automatically.
At present more than 23,000 of the 40,000 calls connected daily
by call handling agents are accompanied by this information. It
is expected that by the end of 2007 all control rooms will have
been upgraded, or have the necessary work programmed as part of
wider modernisation plans. The arrangements in place for handling
location information should be capable of adaptation for eCall
purposes. A protocol for the handling of in-vehicle system emergency
calls has been agreed — the proposed eCall arrangements
would satisfy the UK protocol.
6.10 On the recommendation that Member States should
provide adequate location-enhanced emergency services and language
support the Minister tells us that both Stage 1and 2 PSAPs have
personnel trained to handle emergency calls, and training is adapted
to the changing needs of the relevant organisation. Stage 1 PSAPs
provide English and Welsh language support. Stage 2 PSAPs are
able to conference call with organisations providing other language
support.
6.11 In relation to the Commission's own activities
the Minister says the Government is an active participant in the
e-Safety initiative and is keeping a close eye on progress.
6.12 The Minister notes that possible financial implications
arise for the UK as the MoU raises the possibility of fiscal incentives
and that in the UK one of the major costs resulting from deployment
of eCall would be the cost of the in-vehicle equipment —
this would need to be met by either the consumer or the taxpayer.
He also notes once further research has been undertaken to ascertain
the potential impacts on the UK the Government will produce a
Regulatory Impact Assessment to inform subsequent consultation.
Conclusion
6.13 Despite the justifiable caution with which
the Government is handling the Commission's proposals for the
introduction of eCall there is the possibility of significant
benefits to be gained. So we welcome the Government's intention
to study further possible costs and benefits, to produce a Regulatory
Impact Assessment and to have a consultation process. We should
like to see the outcomes of these before considering the document
further. Meanwhile we do not clear the document.
6.14 We have a further comment on the document
which we should like the Government to act on now with the Commission.
As we have said, eCall might hold significant benefits. However
the language in which the Commission's proposals are presented,
particularly as regards project and committee names, at times
almost amounts to self-parody, for example "The eSafety partners
have agreed on a Road Map for eCall roll-out" or "The
eSafety Forum User Outreach Working Group". The Government
should point out that at best such language obscures meaning and
at worst encourages facetiousness at the expense of what is after
all a serious subject.
25 See (24592) 9713/03: HC 63-xxviii (2002-03), para
11 (2 July 2003) and (24897) 12736/03 + ADD 1: HC 63-xxxiv (2002-03),
para 18 (22 October 2003). Back
26
See (26616) 9758/05 + ADD 1: HC 34-ii (2005-06), para 1 (13 July
2005) and Stg Co Deb, European Standing Committee C, 8 November
2005, cols 3-22. Back
27
The MoU "is to secure the realisation of" eCall. It
is not legally binding "rather, it is an expression of the
individual and collective commitment of the signatories to work
in partnership in order to realise a shared objective to the benefit
of everyone". It "creates a framework for the introduction
of in-vehicle emergency call at all levels in the emergency call
chain". See http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activities/esafety/doc/esafety_library/mou/invehicle_ecall_mou.pdf. Back
| 
