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
|
| Department | Transport |
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 3 June 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 19-vii (2008-09), chapter 4 (11 February 2009) and HC 19-xi (2008-09), chapter 6 (18 March 2009)
|
| To be discussed in Council | 11 June 2009
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically 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
|
