Mr.
Khan: That is a good question for a different Committee.
We have consulted Intelligent Transport Systems UK and other
stakeholders to ensure that we get the right system. The question
relates to the reassurance that our solution is the right one. We need
local, regional and national solutions to the challenges that we face.
Although the example that the hon. Gentleman gives is not relevant to
that point, it demonstrates the problems that may occur with a uniform
system across Europe in a village in Germany versus Scarborough or
Whitby, for example. One reason why we need to have subsidiarity and
proportionality is to take on board examples like that in the ITS
field.
The
Chairman: Order. One more question at this stage,
Mr. Goodwill, and then you can have a breather and let
others
speak.
Mr.
Goodwill: The proposals could result in cars being fitted
with a black box. According to the proposals, such devices would have
the capability to apply road charges on a pan-European basis, which we
oppose, particularly in relation to the Eurovignette. Does the Minister
agree that the Commission’s argument that the
proposal helps to iron out internal market disparities is simply window
dressing for its wish to grab power and promote its Eurovignette or
road-charging
schemes?
Mr.
Khan: We have no intention of allowing the intelligent
transport system to allow road pricing via the back door. I cannot be
clearer than
that. Mr.
John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): The Minister
accepted that the ITS take-up has been a lot slower than expected. Does
he think that the reason for that is based on cost, or do some of the
member states’ concerns relate to
effectiveness?
Mr.
Khan: That is another important question. I am concerned
that some member states are attracted to the legislative route because
they think that it will lead to money. One of the reasons for the slow
take-up may have been the cost, but the Commission and Europe need to
look into the reasons for that, because there has been no such
research. We can speculate, and the cost could well be a
reason.
Mr.
Leech: Is there not therefore a danger that, unless we go
ahead with the proposal, member states will simply not introduce
it?
Mr.
Khan: Once again, if the hon. Gentleman recalls my
introductory remarks, I am in favour of the principles of ITS; the
issue is how we deliver them. I am not sure that the legislative route
is the best way to do that. I have not seen any evidence that that
route will be quicker, but I have heard concerns about whether there
has been an analysis of the cost benefits. What about those countries
that are moving faster? The UK is one of the leaders in the field, as
are Germany and the Netherlands. There is a concern that some of our
technology may be redundant if we move ahead, because of the investment
that we have already
made.
Mr.
Leech: The Minister says that he is not convinced that
legislation will introduce the proposal faster. Surely, if some member
states are not introducing it at all, legislation is the only way that
it could be
introduced.
Mr.
Khan: We have other levers. The proposal is for the
Transport Council to farm out the provision to the Commission, which
will farm it out to an expert working group to make recommendations.
Some of those may be unpalatable to us and may be used in other parts
of Europe, but not in the UK. They would be rubber stamped by the
European Parliament. A far more attractive option would be for the
Transport Council, which has the expertise and experience, to discuss
the matter with colleagues and try to help them to deliver the
proposal. We need to find out the reasons for the delay and work with
member states to help to improve their systems by using best practice
from the
UK. Sir
Peter Soulsby (Leicester, South) (Lab): Will my right hon.
Friend take us back to the fundamental reasons for the
Government’s resistance to the legislative approach? Are they
arguing that such an approach is unnecessary, or are they arguing that
it would impede progress?
Mr.
Khan: Our concern is one of process, not substance. First,
will there still be issues of proportionality, or will there be
concerns about our influence as a member state if the proposal is
delivered across the board? Secondly, is there a business case for
following the route under discussion? The third concern is that those
countries that have moved further ahead and made more progress will be
penalised by the levelling down rather than the levelling up. The
problem is the process. As such, we agree with the ends and the
principles, but the process of comitology and reliance on experts makes
us nervous because we believe that the proper format is a Transport
Council with the expertise around the table, and co-decision, rather
than the other route, via comitology.
Sir
Peter Soulsby: I understand the Minister’s
argument. However, to what extent are the Government concerned that the
adoption of a legislative approach might lead to existing or developing
systems being rendered redundant, which might set things back rather
than promote their
development?
Mr.
Khan: It is exactly that.
Mr.
Goodwill: The lines to Brussels have obviously been
buzzing this morning. I was particularly pleased that the
Minister’s colleague, Brian Simpson, had got this important job,
particularly as he is a fellow steam enthusiast. Philip Bradbourn MEP,
our spokesman for the European Conservatives and Reformists group and
who is more eagle-eyed than I, pointed out to me that the proposal
addresses the transport corridors and conurbations. The Minister will
correct me if I am wrong, but is urban transport not within the
competence of the EU? In his arguments against the proposal, will he
point out to his colleagues in Council that it is beyond the competence
of the EU to talk about urban transport as well as the pan-European
transport routes, which are within the
treaty?
Mr.
Khan: Our reasons for wishing to go down the
non-legislative route are not related to the matter of competence; they
are about pragmatism and what is best for the UK—what is best
for the towns, communities and constituencies that we represent. We
believe that the best option is the non-legislative
route.
Mr.
Goodwill: The Minister referred to the new committee that
will be set up under the comitology procedure. Will it be a qualified
majority voting committee under article 71(1) or will it be an area of
comitology in which there is a veto, as outlined in article 71(2),
affecting important issues such as employment? It would be reassuring
to know that some vetoes will fly around in this matter, rather than
the UK once again being outvoted by
others.
Mr.
Khan: The nub of our concern going down this route is the
qualified majority. That is why I have made the point that, if we can
reach agreement and consensus with our colleagues who have the same
concerns, all is well and good. However, if we cannot, our concern is
illustrated by the hon. Gentleman’s point about a qualified
majority rather than a veto.
Mr.
Goodwill: My final question relates to article 5 of the
proposal. Does the Minister agree that insisting on type-approval in a
variety of applications will be a barrier to new entrants to the
market, limiting competition in a new and innovative field? Does he
agree that self-certification would be better in many cases, except
possibly with the introduction of safety-related innovations or where
data capture can be used in criminal law, which is the case for Home
Office approvals for safety cameras in the
UK?
Mr.
Khan: The hon. Gentleman raises a number of different
issues. We are keen to ensure that we abide by our data protection
rules, and we make sure that we do. Our domestic legislation is strong
on that. His concern relates to how other member states capture data.
He is right to say that a lot of innovation comes from the private
sector and there is concern that going down the legislative route will
hamper
innovation. Raising
the level of new entrants is also a live concern, which is why we
believe that more work needs to be done on co-operating and
co-ordinating with the new arrivals to the EU to see what challenges
face them. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington asked about the
reasons for the delay. That is one of the questions to which we want
the answer.
Mr.
Leech: Six priority areas are planned including the
optimal use of road traffic and travel data, safety and security,
integration of the vehicle into the transport infrastructure, data
security and protection, and co-operation and co-ordination. Which of
those do the Government see as the most
important?
Mr.
Khan: They are all important. One of our concerns regards
the cost-benefit analysis, or the impact assessment, when the draft
regulatory order was drawn up. The Commission claimed that there would
be a 15 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. One reason why
we are keen to have an impact assessment and a cost-benefit analysis
done properly is to see what impact there will be on the specific
issues. One problem is that no impact assessment has been done on those
by the Commission. Going down the comitology route without the evidence
is a concern.
Mr.
Leech: Do the Government accept the studies that suggest
that fatal accidents may be reduced by 42 per cent. if all
vehicles are fitted with non-overriding intelligent speed
adaptation?
Mr.
Khan: I have not seen that particular statistic, but I am
happy to look into it and get back to the hon. Gentleman. I do not want
to mislead the
Committee.
Mr.
Leech: There is a danger that we are concentrating on
major inter-urban routes, motorways and trunk roads when introducing
ITS. Is there a danger that we are taking our eye off the ball in terms
of road safety priorities for those places where accidents occur? It is
a fact that the motorways are our safest roads, and yet the measure
will concentrate on the major
routes.
Mr.
Khan: That is an important point. The resources and the
technology may understandably be diverted towards urban centres, where
there are busy hubs, at the expense of other parts of the country, such
as rural
areas, which are less busy but where there are also serious arterial
problems. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are fatalities in
countryside lanes outside his constituency and safety issues. Asking
how an intelligent transport system will help those rural streets may
be one of the options, but there are other things that we need to look
at. We do not want to have all our eggs in the ITS
basket.
The
Chairman: If no more Members wish to ask questions, we
will proceed to the debate on the motion.
Motion
made, and Question proposed,
That the
Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 17564/08, draft
Directive laying down the framework for the accelerated deployment of
intelligent transport systems in the field of road transport and for
interfaces with other transport modes; and endorses the
Government’s cautious approach to discussions on this
document. [24th Report of Session 2008-09, HC-xxii, Chapter
1].—(Mr.
Khan.) 4.57
pm
Mr.
Goodwill: I hope that the Minister’s compelling
arguments about why we should not legislate will prevail upon his
colleagues in the Council. Although intelligent transport systems offer
potential improvements to road safety and can reduce carbon emissions
while ensuring better use of existing networks, the dead hand of the
state, particularly the European superstate, is not the way forward. If
one looks at the suggested alternatives in the Commission’s
report, option A—no new action—seems the most sensible
way forward. If absolutely pushed, option B, which would allow for some
co-ordination but not the strict legislation for which the Commission
and the Swedish presidency seem to be pushing, would be sensible
too. One
of our major concerns is that if we were to implement the directive,
the Commission and its committee of experts might be tempted to pick
winners. We may well end up with the Betamax of intelligent transport
systems or, to pick another example of Government choosing the wrong
technology, the gas-cooled reactor. Also, the Commission may try to
justify further the investment in Galileo by picking that as the
preferred platform for any pan-European
system. It
is good to have systems in place where motorists can get better
information. If I drive back up to Yorkshire via Norwich, as I do from
time to time—I generally take the train—I use the A1.
When that is blocked by an accident, motorists tend to choose a variety
of ways to get around the congestion. One of my concerns is that if
every car received a message that the A19 through Selby town was the
best alternative, we would see knock-on effects in terms of serious
congestion and damage to other road users, including pedestrians. Any
system would need to be fine-tuned so that it did not send everyone
down one alternative route, which would cause
problems. We
are concerned about any proposal to fit all cars with a black box,
which could be a stepping stone to a pan-European road-charging scheme,
such as the proposed Eurovignette scheme, but of course we already have
road-charging schemes for lorries in a number of EU countries,
including Germany and the Czech Republic. The Conservative party is
proposing a similar scheme in the UK, but those countries have already
acted without
a directive, in the same ways as many countries have moved forward with
eCall, the emergency calling system, which sends a message when the
airbags are deployed or when the vehicle is subjected to other forces.
As the Minister knows, and as I mentioned in questions, there is a
proposal from the industry in the UK, which I hope he will look at over
the summer so that we can put this in place. With regard to
the financial crisis, it was often said that there was nothing that
member states were prevented from doing because the Lisbon treaty was
not in place. In the same way, I cannot think of any measures that
member states could not put into force without the need for this
directive. We need the light hand of co-ordination, not the dead hand
of regulation, which might be ignored anyway because some other member
states do not have the same good record of implementing things as the
UK. We need an environment that will foster innovation and invention,
and not force one solution on everyone.
Lastly, will
the Minister represent us in the Council discussions, or will it be
left to officials? I know from experience how good and well-advised
those officials are, but no one has quite the same clout as a Minister
when it comes to getting one’s own way in a Council
discussion.
5.1
pm
| 
