Documents considered by the Committee on 10 June 2009 - European Scrutiny Committee Contents


6 Intelligent transport systems

(a)

(30312)

17563/08

+ ADDs 1-2

COM(08) 886

(b)

(30313)

17564/08

+ ADDs 1-2

COM(08) 887


Commission Communication: Action plan for the deployment of intelligent transport systems in Europe



Draft Directive laying down the framework for the deployment of intelligent transport systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other transport modes

Legal base(a) —

(b) Article 71(1) EC; co-decision; QMV

DepartmentTransport
Basis of considerationMinister's letter of 3 June 2009
Previous Committee ReportHC 19-vii (2008-09), chapter 4 (11 February 2009) and HC 19-xi (2008-09), chapter 6 (18 March 2009)
To be discussed in Council11 June 2009
Committee's assessmentPolitically important
Committee's decision(a) Cleared, but relevant to possible debate on document (b) (Decision reported on 11 February 2009)

(b) Not cleared; further information requested

Background

6.1 Intelligent transport systems are information and communications technologies used to manage traffic and inform travellers. There has been a gradual increase in the use of this technology in recent years in areas such as road safety, traffic management and tackling climate change. In this Communication of December 2008, document (a) the Commission called for a coordinated approach to intelligent transport systems across the Community and set out a 24 point action plan aimed at delivering faster deployment of technology-based systems for road transport (including interfaces with other modes of transport) throughout the Community. The plan covered actions designed to address a wide range of policy areas within three categories:

  • cleaner transport;
  • improving transport efficiency; and
  • improving road safety and security.[19]

6.2 At the same time the Commission presented this draft Directive, document (b) intended to establish a framework for the coordinated deployment and use of intelligent transport systems for road transport (including interfaces with other modes of transport) and to develop the necessary specifications. In the context of its concern that recent technological developments had been too fragmented and not coordinated across Member States, the Commission considered the use of a framework Directive to be the most appropriate way to address this issue. The Commission based its proposal on an impact assessment annexed to both documents. This examined three policy options to support the action plan:

  • Option A — no additional new action;
  • Option B — overcoming problems by concentrating on coordination and synergy measures; and
  • Option B+ — Option B extended with a Directive and comitology procedure.[20]

6.3 The Commission, believing that the self-regulatory approach pursued so far by industry was not sufficient and that this approach would have the greatest impact, selected Option B+. The resultant draft Directive would:

  • require Member States to take measures necessary to ensure the coordinated deployment and use of interoperable intelligent transport systems applications and services within the Community;
  • provide for type approval of road infrastructure related intelligent transport systems equipment and software;
  • establish a comitology committee to assist the Commission in defining procedures and specifications;
  • establish a "European ITS Advisory Group" to which representatives of relevant intelligent transport systems stakeholders would be invited to advise the Commission on business and technical aspects; and
  • require Member States to ensure that processing of personal data be carried out in accordance with Community rules and that these data and records be protected against misuse, alteration or loss.

6.4 We first considered these documents in February 2009. Whilst noting the Government's view that the breadth of the policy areas covered by the Commission Communication was an ineffective approach and that it was urging the Commission to prioritise its proposals for 24 actions in relation to intelligent transport systems, we cleared the document. But we said that it would be relevant to a debate we might be recommending on the draft Directive. As for the draft Directive we were unsure as to what the Government's approach to the proposal would be. On the one hand we had been told why, for subsidiarity and practical reasons, the Government found the proposal for legislation inappropriate. On the other hand we had comments about the details of the proposal that implied that the Government accepted that there would be legislation based on negotiated revisions of the draft Directive. Additionally, while we understood why it was not possible yet to sensibly undertake an impact assessment of the draft Directive, we were surprised that the Government did not seem to intend a consultation on the proposal. So we kept it under scrutiny and asked for clarification as to how the Government intended to handle the draft Directive and on its intentions in regard to consultation.

6.5 We considered the matter again in March 2009 when we heard that there had been no discussion of the draft Directive but that the Transport Council of 30 March 2009 was expected to adopt Conclusions on the action plan set out in the Communication. We were also told, inter alia, that:

  • whilst the Government supported the objectives of the Communication, it thought that, as currently set out, it underplayed the range of intelligent transport systems initiatives that were already being taken forward in a number of Community for a;
  • the work of a number of existing groups was developing a clearer understanding of how intelligent transport systems applications could help to provide traveller information, improve road safety, or reduce congestion and carbon emissions;
  • in the light of this work, the Government was not clear that additional legislative action was needed at this stage;
  • the action plan was wide ranging and the Government did not feel the Commission had yet made a convincing case for taking all these work items forward through legislation, particularly through a framework Directive with extensive use of comitology;
  • rather, the Government supported an approach using coordination and cooperation;
  • early indications were that some other Member States shared the Government's concerns about moving to a regulatory framework, particularly without understanding the potential impacts for Member States;
  • the Commission had yet to carry out a full impact assessment on its proposals —when questioned on the potential implications for Member States it was not able to provide any information; and
  • the Commission had consulted with stakeholders through meetings and on-line during the preparation of the action plan and the Government intended to begin consultation with stakeholders in the coming weeks.

6.6 We said that before considering the draft Directive for a third time we wished to hear about the outcome of the consultation the Government was now undertaking and that our further consideration would also take account of the Council Conclusions the Minister had foreshadowed. Meanwhile the document remained under scrutiny.[21]

The Minister's letter

6.7 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Paul Clark), first tells us that the Government remains supportive of the objectives of the action plan, but is concerned that the legislative approach proposed by the Commission is an inappropriate mechanism for deploying intelligent transport systems across Member States.

6.8 The Minister then tells us about the Government's consultations on these matters, saying that:

  • it has worked with ITS (UK), the industry association, to consult UK stakeholders and ITS (UK) has conducted two consultation meetings to canvass industry views on the action plan and draft Directive;
  • the external stakeholders consulted broadly support the objectives of increasing intelligent transport systems deployment and would prioritise among these objectives the implementation of safety-related intelligent transport systems;
  • there is concern, however, that a pan-Community approach to intelligent transport systems fails to appreciate region-specific safety issues, for example, the impact, severity and regularity of snow on the roads;
  • stakeholders share the Government view that the actions in the action plan are wide-ranging, complex and highly ambitious, particularly as the time frames suggested for implementation do not seem realistic; and
  • they commented, moreover, that the recommendations ignore extant intelligent transport systems services in Member States, including in the UK, and therefore disregard existing legacy schemes and operating practices, in particular where delivery involves the private sector.

The Minister comments that the Government will continue to use stakeholder recommendations to inform negotiations in the Council Working Group, will continue to work with ITS (UK) and will consider how best to implement its recommendation to extend the consultation to include freight and automotive sector representative bodies, as well as local authorities.

6.9 Turning to the matter of Council Conclusions and subsequent developments the Minister says that:

  • as predicted, Council Conclusions on the action plan were agreed at the March 2009 Transport Council;[22]
  • the action plan and draft Directive were then discussed at the informal Transport Council in the Czech Republic on 29 April 2009;
  • the Government reiterated the UK position and presented examples of intelligent transport systems in action in the UK, to indicate where cooperation and the sharing of best practice might achieve tangible results, without the disruption of new legislation or the introduction of additional standards; and
  • this position has been maintained in the Council Working Group, at which amendments have been made to the draft Directive.

He continues that Member States have expressed particular concerns about:

  • appropriate levels of implementation for each priority area, that is whether it should be at Community or Member State level;
  • scope of the comitology procedure and obligations resulting from it;
  • priorities for the different actions envisioned;
  • impact of the draft Directive on existing intelligent transport systems and national policies; and
  • financial and administrative implications for Member States.

6.10 The Minister also tells us that:

  • the majority of Member States, including the UK, have asked for a thorough cost-benefit analysis on the impact of intelligent transport systems deployment;
  • the Commission has indicated that it will carry out an impact assessment on the specific measures to which the comitology procedure would apply;
  • subsequently, in the Working Group meeting of 14 May 2009, the Commission placed a general scrutiny reserve on the draft Directive as it believes that, as amended, it no longer represents its intentions or those of the Council Conclusions
  • there will be no further Working Group meetings on the draft Directive during the Czech Presidency, although it will present a progress report at the 11 June 2009 Transport Council; and
  • the Government anticipates that the change in Presidency may bring about a change in approach.

6.11 Finally the Minister says the European Parliament held its first reading of the proposal on 22 April 2009 — MEPs:

  • voted in favour of both the action plan and the draft Directive;
  • are keen to maintain the scope of the proposed measures on road transport and its interfaces with other transport modes; and
  • have, however and like Members States, requested more detail on the targets and deadlines along with an impact assessment prior to their adoption.

Conclusion

6.12 We are grateful to the Minister for this account of where matters stand in relation to policy on intelligent transport systems. We are now clear that it would be appropriate to recommend the draft Directive for debate in European Committee. But we will not take a final decision on that until after the Minister is able to report back to us on how the Commission intends to respond to the amended text of the draft Directive and the Swedish Presidency intends to carry the proposal forward.


19   (30312) 17563/08 + ADDs 1-2: see HC 19-vii (2008-09), chapter 4 (11 February 2009) and HC 19-xi (2008-09), chapter 6 (18 March 2009). Back

20   Comitology is the system of committees which oversees the exercise by the Commission of powers delegated to it by the Council and the European Parliament. Comitology committees are made up of representatives of the Member States and chaired by the Commission. There are three types of procedure (advisory, management and regulatory), an important difference between which is the degree of involvement and power of Member States' representatives. So-called "Regulatory with Scrutiny", introduced in July 2006, gives a scrutiny role to the European Parliament in most applications of comitology. Back

21   See headnote. Back

22   See http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/trans/107025.pdf, pages 9-17. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 19 June 2009