3 Road safety
| (a)
(26852)
12383/05
COM(05) 431
(b)
(28122)
15932/06
COM(06) 723
|
Commission Communication: The 2nd eSafety Communication — Bringing eCall to citizens
Commission Communication: Bringing eCall back on track — Action Plan (3rd eSafety Communication)
|
| Legal base | — |
| Document originated | (b) 23 November 2006
|
| Deposited in Parliament | (b) 7 December 2006
|
| Department | Transport |
| Basis of consideration | (a) Minister's letter of 19 December 2006
(b) EM of 19 December 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | (a) HC 34-ix (2005-06), para 6 (9 November 2005)
(b) None
|
| To be discussed in Council | Not known
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
3.1 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"
(the 1st eSafety Communication). 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.[13]
The subject is sometimes referred to as eSafety.
3.2 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.[14]
3.3 In September 2005 the Commission published a
Communication, document (a), in which it made 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 set
this in the context of its intention to launch a flagship initiative,
the Intelligent Car, as part of the i2010 programme. Amongst the
actions the Commission said Member States should undertake in
order to bring forward the introduction of eCall was signing the
European Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for Realisation of
Interoperable In-Vehicle eCall.[15]
Over 50 interested parties had signed the MoU, but this included
only two Member States (Finland and Sweden).
3.4 When we considered this document in November
2005[16] we:
- noted both the justifiable
caution with which the Government was handling the Commission's
proposals for the introduction of eCall and the possibility of
significant benefits to be gained;
- welcomed the Government's intention to study
further possible costs and benefits, to produce a Regulatory Impact
Assessment and to have a consultation process;
- asked to see the outcomes of these before considering
the document further and kept it under scrutiny; and
- asked the Government to tell the Commission of
our view that the language used in its Communication, particularly
as regards project and committee names, for example "The
eSafety partners have agreed on a Road Map for eCall roll-out"
or "The eSafety Forum User Outreach Working Group",
at best obscures meaning and at worst encourages facetiousness
at the expense of what is after all a serious subject.
The new document
3.5 In its new Communication the Commission asserts
that slow progress in the deployment of eCall shown by some Member
States, especially the large ones, who are crucial for keeping
industry committed has endangered the realisation of the already
agreed deployment plan. The purpose of the Communication is to
summarise the background to and rationale for Community action
to support and facilitate progress and to set out Commission actions
"necessary for solving the current deadlock and for bringing
eCall back on track".
3.6 In an introduction the Commission:
- notes a 17% reduction in road
fatalities in 25 Member States since 2001 and says a significant
impact on this positive development was made by the European Road
Safety Action Programme and the eSafety Initiative which are expected
to continue in the medium term to produce further benefits towards
the goal of halving fatalities by 2010;
- makes reference to the 41,600 road fatalities
and 1.7 million injured in the 25 Member States in 2005;
- asserts the potential for eCall to save up to
2500 fatalities annually in the 25 Member States when fully deployed,
to reduce the severity of injuries and to bring significant savings
in healthcare and other costs;
- asserts also that when implemented eCall will
have significant socio-economic benefits; and
- says that the deployment plan, arising from the
Intelligent Car initiative aimed at full deployment of eCall from
2009 onwards, is not on track.
3.7 The Communication continues that "citizens
consider [eCall] as one of the most wanted eSafety systems in
the car" and that a recent Eurobarometer poll shows that
70% of respondents say that they would like to have eCall in their
next car. Having asserted the demand it argues that before the
automotive industry can enter into any production phase of eCall
equipment in vehicles they require, " certainty on the implementation
of the necessary infrastructure " by Member States because
of the long lead times in product development and associated costs.
And similar commitment is needed by other interested parties,
such as the telecommunications industry.
3.8 The Commission suggests action to bring eCall
back on track (for deployment by a revised date of 2010), involving
commitment by Member States by mid-2007 and a negotiated agreement
with industry by the end of 2007. It notes that seven Member States
and two Associated States have signed the eCall MoU, while procedures
for the signature have been started in another thirteen, albeit
with different levels of progress [since publication of this Communication
Iceland has also signed]. The Commission proposes Member States
commit to the implementation of eCall, in particular to a deployment
plan which includes immediate signature of the eCall MoU, roll-out
of the necessary infrastructure by mid-2009 and conduct of field
tests, including assessment of performance, in the time frame
2007-2009. To this end the Commission would like to have Member
States and itself act immediately to solve the remaining legal,
technical and socio-economic issues hindering the signature of
the eCall MoU and have it signed by 15 Member States, including
Germany, France and UK by mid 2007 and by more than 20 Member
States by the end of 2007. It requests particularly that Member
States should continue efforts to implement fully operational
112 and E112 services[17]
by ensuring that location information is automatically to Public
Service Answering Points (PSAPs) by Mobile Network Operators (MNOs),
that 112 calls are properly routed and handled and that the PSAPs
are upgraded to handle location information of E112 and eCalls.
3.9 The Communication also calls for a commitment
to implementation of eCall by industry with a start to development
by mid-2007, the field tests suggested for the period 2007-2009
and introduction of eCall as standard option in all vehicles from
2010 onwards. To this end the Commission proposes to begin, early
in 2007, negotiations with the trade associations ACEA (Association
Constructeurs European d'Automobile), JAMA (Japan Automobile Manufacturers
Association) and KAMA (Korean Automobile Manufacturers Association)
on a voluntary agreement to introduce an eCall in-vehicle device
on all vehicles type-approved from 1st September 2010 onwards.
3.10 The Communication concludes by saying studies
indicate that eCall is one of the most efficient, affordable in-vehicle
safety systems that could be deployed in the short term and that
the European Parliament has given it its full support. It implies
that it follows that it is time for Member States to make the
commitment to eCall and implement the necessary infrastructure,
thereby encouraging industry to work towards deployment in all
vehicles from 2010 onwards.
The Government's view
The Minister's letter about document (a), The
2nd eSafety Communication — Bringing eCall
to citizens
3.11 In relation to our request to see the outcome
of the Government's intended further study of possible costs and
benefits, Regulatory Impact Assessment and consultation process
the Minister of State, Department of Transport (Dr Stephen Ladyman)
now tells us that the research concerned has taken longer than
the Government initially expected, so as to ensure the widest
coverage of stakeholder views. But the researchers have now reported,
the results are being assessed and their findings will help shape
any final recommendations for action. He intends to let us have
a full report on the outcome of the review and an outline of any
further action the Government will be taking.
3.12 He also tells us that he has drawn our comments
on the language used by the Commission in the Communication to
the attention of the Better Regulation Unit and asked them to
take them into account in discussions at Community level.
The Explanatory Memorandum on document (b), Bringing
eCall back on track — Action Plan (3rd eSafety
Communication)
3.13 The Minister reminds us that it is a Government
objective to improve road safety and that therefore it supports
in principle any action that would assist in reducing the number
of accidents, deaths and serious injuries. But he adds again that
each initiative needs to be considered on its merits and the relative
costs and benefits measured.
3.14 As for the actions proposed in the new document
the Minister says of the Commission recommendation that Member
States should sign the eCall MoU that, while the Government supports
the idea of an emergency response system, it agrees with consulted
parties that there are a number of issues needing further consideration.
These include:
- how eCall relates to other
Community level initiatives considering the future shape and functionality
of a universal onboard unit;
- how fiscal incentives might be applied and how
they might be justified;
- whether or not the business case presented is
transferable to the UK situation;
- the likelihood of the claimed benefits being
realised; and
- how the proposed deployment of in-vehicle equipment
in all new vehicles from 2010 would work in relation to European
Whole Vehicle Type Approval.
The Minister says that given these questions his
department has commissioned research to supplement the evidence
base on which an informed opinion could be made in relation to
both signing the MoU, and if appropriate, taking forward any subsequent
implementation plan. As mentioned also in his letter, this research
has now been reported and is under Government consideration. And
he expects to let us have further information on this early in
2007.
3.15 On the call to Member States to take action
immediately to solve together with the Commission the remaining
legal, technical and socio-economic issues hindering signature
of the MoU, the Minister comments that, depending on the decision
to be made as to whether or not the UK should sign the MoU by
mid-2007, which decision is expected to be before the mid-2007
deadline, a dialogue with the Commission is anticipated. The Minister
adds that, in the meantime, Member States and the Commission should
recognise that actions are required by industry to achieve a feasible
eCall system and that industry should be given every encouragement
to achieve this.
3.16 As for the Commission comments on implementation
of fully operational 112 and E112 services the Minister says the
Government has already implemented fully the requirements to provide
the single European emergency number (112) and, in the case of
mobile calls, the MNOs provide location information as required
by E112. (He adds that the service is provided in parallel with
the 999 service.) The Minister also says that the impact of eCalls
on the handling of emergency calls by the MNOs, the Call Handling
Agents and the emergency services will need to be addressed in
any implementation plan which may be agreed for eCall in the UK.
3.17 The Minister also tells us that the Communication
suggests financial implications for the UK:
- the eCall MoU raises the possibility
of fiscal incentives;
- in the UK one of the major costs resulting from
deployment of eCall would be the cost of the in-vehicle equipment,
which would almost certainly fall to consumers; and
- other significant costs would be those to MNOs
and to PSAP operators who would have to fund these costs independently.
He says the financial implications of signing the
MoU and preparing an implementation plan are under review and
will be one of the subjects of the updated information we are
to receive, together with a partial Regulatory Impact Assessment,
early in 2007.
3.18 Finally the Minister says on consultations that
eCall has been and is the subject of discussion between a wide
range of interested parties, that this has underpinned the research
that his department commissioned and that a number of concerns
have been raised by stakeholders. These will need to be addressed
and further discussions will need to be held if the Government
decides to sign the MoU.
Conclusion
3.19 We are grateful to the Minister for the information
he gives us now. However we will not be able to consider these
documents further until we have received the additional information
he promises us — meanwhile the documents remain under scrutiny.
3.20 However we wish to comment now on one issue,
albeit not related directly to the substance of the Communications.
In our previous report we asked the Government to tell the Commission
of our view that the language used in its Communication, document
(a), at best obscures meaning and at worst encourages facetiousness
at the expense of what is after all a serious subject. The Minister
tells us now that he has drawn our comments to the attention
of the Better Regulation Unit and asked it to take them into account
in discussions at Community level. This is not what we expected
— we should like our view to be drawn directly to the attention
of the Commission Directorate-General responsible for the Communication.
13 (24592) 9713/03: see 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
14
(26616) 9758/05 + ADD 1: see 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
15
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
16
See headnote Back
17
112 is the single European emergency number in use in 24 Member
States - in most, including the UK, in parallel with national
numbers. E112 is the system to provide location information. Back
| 
