1 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 1 July 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 19-vii (2008-09), chapter 4 (11 February 2009), HC 19-xi (2008-09), chapter 6 (18 March 2009) and HC 19-xix (2008-09), chapter 6 (10 June 2009)
|
| To be discussed in Council | Possibly 8-9 October 2009
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | (a) Cleared, but relevant to debate on document (b) (Decision reported on 11 February 2009)
(b) For debate in European Committee
|
Background
1.1 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.[1]
1.2 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.[2]
1.3 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.
1.4 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.
1.5 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 fora;
- 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.
We said that 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.
1.6 We returned to this matter in June 2009 and heard,
inter alia:
- that the Government remained
supportive of the objectives of the action plan, but was concerned
that the legislative approach proposed by the Commission was an
inappropriate mechanism for deploying intelligent transport systems
across Member States;
- about the Government's consultations on these
matters, saying that;
- that the stakeholders shared the Government's
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;
- that the Government would continue to use stakeholder
recommendations to inform negotiations in the Council Working
Group, will continue to work with ITS (UK), the industry association,
and would consider how best to implement its recommendation to
extend the consultation to include freight and automotive sector
representative bodies, as well as local authorities;
- that, as predicted, Council Conclusions on the
action plan were agreed at the March 2009 Transport Council;[3]
- about particular concerns expressed by Member
States;
- that in a Council Working Group meeting of 14
May 2009 the Commission had placed a general scrutiny reserve
on the draft Directive as it believed that, as amended in Working
Group discussions, it no longer represents its intentions or those
of the Council Conclusions;
- there would be no further Working Group meetings
on the draft Directive during the Czech Presidency and the Government
anticipated that the forthcoming change in Presidency might bring
about a change in approach; and
- about the European Parliament's first reading
of the proposal on 22 April 2009.
We said we were now clear that it would be appropriate
to recommend the draft Directive for debate in European Committee.
But we would not take a final decision on that until we had a
report on how the Commission intended to respond to the amended
text of the draft Directive and the Swedish Presidency intended
to carry the proposal forward. Meanwhile the document remained
under scrutiny.[4]
The Minister's letter
1.7 The Minister of State, Department for Transport
(Mr Sadiq Khan), now tells us that the Government understands
that:
- the Commission's general scrutiny
reserve means that the it intends to pursue its original proposal,
namely seeking a regulatory framework that covers the entire action
plan (set out in the Commission Communication, document (a));
and
- the incoming Swedish Presidency will be treating
the draft Directive as a priority and, following Working Group
discussions, scheduled for July and September 2009, it intends
to seek political agreement at the Transport Council on 8-9 October
2009.
The Minister comments that the Presidency has an
ambitious timeframe, but it is possible that it will succeed in
this objective.
Conclusion
1.8 We are grateful to the Minister for this further
information. We now recommend that the draft Directive be debated
in European Committee, before the Transport Council in October
2009. In the debate we suggest that Members will particularly
want to address:
- the inutility of the proposed
legislative approach as a mechanism for deploying intelligent
transport systems across Member States;
- the preferability of an approach to intelligent
transport systems deployment based on coordination and cooperation;
- the need for a thorough cost-benefit analysis
on the impact of intelligent transport systems deployment; and
- the need to take account of existing deployment
of intelligent transport systems and of region-specific safety
issues.
1 (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
2
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
3
See http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/trans/107025.pdf,
pages 9-17. Back
4
See headnote. Back
|
