5 Road safety: eCall
| (a)
(35067)
11124/13
COM (13) 316
(b)
(35076)
11159/13
COM (13) 315
|
Draft Regulation concerning type-approval requirements for the deployment of the eCall in-vehicle system and amending Directive 2007/46/EC
Draft Decision on the deployment of the interoperable EU-wide eCall
|
| Legal base | (a) Article 114 TFEU; co-decision; QMV
(b) Article 91 TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
| Documents originated | 13 June 2013
|
| Deposited in Parliament | (a) 20 June 2013
(b) 24 June 2013
|
| Department | (a) Transport
(b) Culture, Media and Sport
|
| Basis of consideration | (a) EM of 3 July 2013
(b) EM of 11 July 2013
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| Discussion in Council | Not known
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
5.1 eCall is a technology designed to send in-vehicle emergency
calls using the EU-wide 112 emergency telephone number (which
defaults to 999 in the UK) either automatically, in the event
of an accident, or when activated manually. In 2011 the Commission
adopted a Recommendation, 2011/750/EU, that mobile network operators
should ensure their networks are capable of carrying eCalls.[18]
The documents
5.2 The draft Regulation, document (a), seeks to create the
type approval requirements for eCall devices and mandate their
fitment to new types of passenger cars and light commercial vehicles
from October 2015. The proposal sets out obligations on manufacturers
and Member States, the requirements for privacy and data protection
for users, the vehicles to which it applies and the date of introduction.
5.3 The provisions of the draft Regulation include
that:
- manufacturers of passenger
cars and light goods vehicles would be subject to a number of
obligations, including ensuring that new types of these vehicles
are manufactured and approved with compliant eCall systems from
October 2015;
- Member States would have to ensure that from
1 October 2015 new types of vehicles covered by the proposed Regulation
and which comply with its requirements, receive European Community
Whole Vehicle Type Approval;
- it would be the responsibility of type approval
authorities to ensure that these vehicles meet the prescribed
standards before issuing a type approval certificate which would
allow the vehicle to be registered and licensed for use on the
roads (the UK's type approval authority is the Department for
Transport's Vehicle Certification Agency);
- manufacturers would have to ensure that eCall
devices do not allow vehicles to be subject to constant tracking
during their normal operation;
- sufficient safeguards against surveillance would
be required and users would have to be provided with information
about how the data used by the system will be processed; and
- powers for the Commission to adopt Delegated
Acts to establish the technical requirements of in-vehicle systems,
to define the requirements in relation to the privacy of users
and, on the basis of a cost/benefit analysis, to exempt certain
classes of passenger cars and light commercial vehicles.
5.4 The Commission's impact assessment accompanying
its 2011 Recommendation,[19]
which recommended this regulatory approach:
- estimates that 2033 will see
full penetration of the technology across the fleet of vehicles
and that this will produce a benefit cost ratio of 1.74;
- recognises that certain Member States with already
good road safety records will benefit less from the mandatory
introduction of eCall; but
- considers that mandating it is the only way of
improving the situation in countries with weaker road safety records.
5.5 The draft Decision, document (b), seeks to
ensure that all emergency call Public Safety Answering Points
(PSAPs), mainly operated by BT in the UK and with small numbers
by Vodafone (Cable & Wireless) and Level 3 Communications,
are mandated to handle eCalls, when they are triggered, either
automatically or when activated manually, in the event of an accident.
The Commission wishes to ensure that by 1 October 2015 that eCalls
are generated, transmitted and handled consistently across the
EU.
The Government's view
5.6 In his Explanatory Memorandum on the draft
Regulation, document (a), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
State, Department for Transport (Stephen Hammond), says that:
- the Government recognises the
road safety benefits of eCall and UK emergency services are already
equipped to handle calls from such third-party systems;
- it recognises that use of eCall across the EU
would benefit those Member States with weaker road safety records
and believes that Member States should be able to mandate it nationally
if they wish to do so;
- mandating eCall across the EU would, however,
not be cost effective for Member States such as the UK which already
have a good road safety record and high standard of emergency
response service;
- the Government is therefore opposed to the proposed
Regulation and the mandatory introduction of eCall; but
- if this legislation cannot be avoided, it will
work to minimise the burdens on consumers and manufacturers.
5.7 The Minister, noting that the Commission
has a three-pronged approach to the introduction of eCall covering
in-vehicle technology, emergency response call centres and the
telecommunications network and that this proposal would mandate
the in-vehicle technology in all new types of passenger cars and
light goods vehicles from October 2015, continues that:
- although the proposal would
apply to all passenger cars and light goods vehicles, it would
also create delegated powers for the Commission to exclude certain
vehicles from the scope of the Regulation;
- the UK has a disproportionately high number of
low volume vehicle manufacturers (such as Caterham and Morgan)
and the Government believes that low volume manufacturers should
be exempt from any requirement to fit eCall devices;
- if the Commission's proposal is adopted and eCall
mandated the Government will seek to ensure there is such an exemption;
- the proposal applies only to the type approval
of new passenger cars and light goods vehicles and would not impose
a requirement to ensure that eCall be fitted prior to first registration,
which means that existing types of those vehicles can continue
to be manufactured and sold without eCall;
- the Government welcomes the flexibility that
this provides for manufacturers and consumers and will work to
ensure that this remains if the draft Regulation is adopted;
- some manufacturers currently supply their own
third-party eCall systems and the proposal does not seek to prevent
use of these systems;
- the Government believes that manufacturers and
consumers should be able to continue to have the freedom to use
them if they wish and will work to ensure that this Regulation
continues to permit their use;
- to ensure that the benefits of eCall are realised
the Commission intend the device to be functional for the life
of the vehicle;
- the proposal is not explicit on how this will
be ensured, but subsequent technical specifications adopted by
the Commission may have implications for roadworthiness testing
(MoT testing in the UK; and
- the Government would need to understand the cost
implications and practicalities for the UK of any such requirement.
5.8 In regard to the draft Regulation's general
requirements on data protection and privacy for users of vehicles
with eCall, the details of which would be specified in subsequent
Delegated Acts, the Minister says that:
- the Government welcomes the
intention to protect users' privacy;
- it has, however, concerns about the operation
of the system, such as how to obtain the consent of users and
their ability to opt out of it, the proposal's lack of precision
regarding the safeguards and levels of protection and the additional
burdens that it might create on manufacturers; and
- it will continue to work during negotiations
to ensure users' privacy is maintained and potential burdens on
manufacturers are avoided or minimised.
5.9 The Minister recalls that a UK impact assessment
produced by the Transport Research Laboratory in March 2010:
- indicated a best estimate of
2030 for break-even between costs and benefits based on 2009 data;
and
- estimated, were the eCall system to become mandatory,
estimated costs for vehicle owners would be about £156 per
vehicle, equivalent to over £300 million per year for the
UK (based on two million new vehicle registrations per year).[20]
5.10 In his Explanatory Memorandum on the draft
Decision, document (b), the Minister for Culture, Communications
and the Creative Industries, Department for Culture, Media and
Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey) comments first that:
- the Government has opposed
a mandatory pan-EU eCall system not on subsidiarity grounds but
because it felt that the market was best placed to deliver emergency
services of this type, together with other advanced telematics
systems in vehicles;
- several of the largest car
manufacturers (including Ford, Peugeot-Citroen, Mercedes Benz
and BMW) already offer such systems and the global nature of the
automotive industry ensures that these are designed to operate
in different countries;
- the Government accepts the Commission's case
for a pan-EU eCall system, by reason of the improvements in road
safety and the better functioning of the single market resulting
from the increased safety when European citizens and their vehicle
cross borders and its argument that action at an EU level is the
best way to achieve the aims set out in the Decision; and
- due to the trans-national organisation of the
automotive industry, action at a national level would be neither
efficient nor effective.
5.11 The Minister then reminds us of the Government's
data protection and privacy concerns, explaining that:
- there is a need for consistency
with the e-Privacy Directive, Directive 2002/58/EU on privacy
and electronic communications, and the Privacy and Electronic
Communications Regulations 2003 on the use of caller location
information and specifically the requirement for consent;
- General Condition 4 of Ofcom's General Conditions
of Entitlement, however, requires communications providers, to
the extent technically feasible, to make Caller Location Information
for all calls to the emergency call numbers 112 and 999 available
to the emergency organisations handling those calls;[21]
- BT, the national PSAP1 operator in the UK, will
be able to absorb these alternatively generated calls into its
national call handling strategy and capability;
- eCall will automatically generate a call in the
event of an accident, establishing a voice link to the 999
call centre and transmitting data that specifies the vehicle's
details and location much as fixed and mobile calls to the emergency
services do now — for example, an air-bag deploying would
cause the system to generate a call;
- an automatic call on the eCall system could
therefore indicate a significant accident that the emergency
services would be generally notified of in any case; and
- the emergency services do not, therefore, foresee
any particular implications in terms of significant additional
demand from normal activation — operational processes will
be needed to identify and minimise false activations.
5.12 The Minister also refers to the Transport
Research Laboratory's impact assessment, noting that it showed:
- an average of two minute saving
in response time per incident involving eCall;
- a 1% reduction of fatalities; and
- that 0.5% of serious injuries would be reduced
to slight injuries.
5.13 Turning to financial implications the Minister
says that:
- the emergency services do not
see any additional cost in terms of additional normal activation
demand and this should be seen within the context of year on year
reduction in the number of road traffic accidents in the UK;
- there will be a number of calls generated by
non-emergency deployments of air bags — however, these are
likely to be few in number in the context of the large number
of silent emergency calls originated by accidental dialling from
mobile handsets and therefore they will generate little or no
extra cost;
- the Transport Research Laboratory impact assessment
estimated the costs on the PSAPs in two categories — PSAP1,
that is, the sites that receive the initial 999, and PSAP2, that
is, police, ambulance, fire, HM Coastguard and rescue operated
call centres;
- the Transport Research Laboratory looked at the
estimated PSAP costs in the Commission impact assessment, which
were €220,000 (£188,584) investment in the PSAP1 system,
€110,000 (£94,292) in operating the upgraded PSAP system
and no additional costs to the PSAP2 systems; and
- the Transport Research Laboratory concluded that
the additional facilities needed in UK PSAPs are minimal and the
changes could be incorporated into planned upgrades at a much
lower cost than if new systems had to be implemented specifically
for eCall.
Conclusion
5.14 Whilst we recognise the potential value
of the eCall system, we understand the Government's concern about
obligatory aspects of its development. So although we presume
that the Government expects that QMV will not allow it to stymie
the draft Regulation, document (a), we should like to hear about
its attempts during negotiations to mitigate the effects of the
proposal itself, including in relation to data protection and
privacy issues, and to obtain assurances about possible mitigation
in subsequent Delegated Acts. Meanwhile this document remains
under scrutiny.
5.15 As for the draft Decision, document (b),
the Minister does not say whether the Government is as equally
opposed to this measure and given his comment that it accepts
"the Commission's case for a pan-European eCall system ...
and their argument that action at an EU level is the best way
to achieve the aims set out in the Decision" we should be
grateful for clarification. Meanwhile this document also remains
under scrutiny.
- On a procedural point, given that these two
measures are so closely linked, we would have expected to receive
a single Explanatory Memorandum. The fact that there are two Explanatory
Memoranda, from different Departments, has led to repetition and
confusing cross-referencing. So we hope to receive responses to
our queries on these measures from a single source, or at least
in a fully coordinated form.
18 (33146) 14070/11 + ADDs 1-5: see HC 428-xxxvii (2010-12),
chapter 16 (12 October 2011). Back
19
Op cit. Back
20
See http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/reports_publications/trl_reports/cat_intelligent_transport_systems/report_uk_
ecall_impact_assessment.htm. Back
21
See http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ga-scheme/general-conditions/. Back
|
