2 Road safety: eCall
| (35067)
11124/13
COM(13) 316
| Draft Regulation concerning type-approval requirements for the deployment of the eCall in-vehicle system and amending Directive 2007/46/EC
|
| Legal base | Article 114 TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Transport
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 22 April 2014
|
| Previous Committee Reports | HC 83-xii (2013-14), chapter 5 (17 July 2013) and HC
|
| 83-xxxvi (2013-14), chapter 4 (12 March 2014)
|
| Discussion in Council | Possibly 26 May 2014
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | For debate in European Committee A
|
Background
2.1 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.[9]
2.2 This draft Regulation 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.
2.3 The draft Regulation has been accompanied by
a draft Decision, now adopted, which sought to ensure that all
emergency call Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) are mandated
to handle eCalls, when they are triggered, either automatically
or when activated manually, in the event of an accident. The Commission
wished to ensure that by 1 October 2015 that eCalls would be generated,
transmitted and handled consistently across the EU, but the adopted
Decision substituted the date of 1 October 2017.[10]
2.4 When we first considered these documents, in
July 2013, we said that, whilst we recognised the potential value
of the eCall system, we understood the Government's concern about
obligatory aspects of its development. So, although we presumed
that the Government expected that QMV would not allow it to stymie
the draft Regulation, we asked 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.
2.5 In March, whilst being reminded that the Government
was opposed to the proposed Regulation and the mandatory introduction
of eCall, that it recognised the road safety benefits of eCall
and that UK emergency services are already equipped to handle
calls from third party systems, we heard that:
· the
draft Regulation was being negotiated in technical harmonisation
working groups and little progress had been made so far;
· the
Government would update us on the negotiations when progress had
been made on the concerns identified in its Explanatory Memorandum
on the proposal; and
· the
proposal would not reach the Council until at least 26 May, at
the earliest.
2.6 We said that we would await the promised further
information about developments in negotiation of the proposal
before considering it again. Meanwhile the document continued
under scrutiny.[11]
The Minister's letter of 22 April 2014
2.7 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department
for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill) writes now to update us on
developments in both Council working group and European Parliament
consideration of the draft Regulation. But first he draws our
attention to a report of 12 March for his department by the consultants
Atkins, entitled "eCall UK 2013 Review and Appraisal",
which updates the cost/benefit analysis for the UK of eCall. The
Minister notes that key findings are:
· the
Benefit Cost Ratio for the UK of mandatory eCall would be 0.16
and even applying more optimistic values to the benefits this
would only reach 0.44;
· the
estimated costs for the in-vehicle eCall technology in the UK
are between £320-£445 million for new vehicle purchasers
(annual new vehicle parc (fleet) of over 2.5 million cars and
vans); and
· even
using the best estimates of benefits in terms of reduced casualties
indicates that the UK would not reach break-even point within
the 20 year appraisal period.
2.8 The Minister then, commenting that this analysis
confirms the basis for the Government's opposition to this measure
that the costs to the UK outweigh the benefits, says that:
· the
Government provided copies of the report to officials in other
Member States to help inform the discussions on the proposed Regulation;
· unfortunately
it has, however, become clear that there is very little support
for the UK position and no possibility of blocking this legislation;
· the
Commission has estimated that the eCall system will save 747 lives
each year once roll-out is complete by around 2033, although there
are differences between Member States;
· the
UK has been the only Member State to question these figures or
to share or refer to its own impact analysis;
· in
addition, other aspects of the eCall system are already in place
and many Member States want to make the installation of eCall
compulsory in new vehicle types in order to make the most of the
system;
· for
instance, several Member States have invested in the eCall infrastructure
through pilot schemes and there is the recently agreed Decision
to require Member States to establish the required telecommunications
infrastructure by 1 October 2017; and
· given
the absence of support for blocking the Regulation, the Government
is therefore working with other Member States to minimise the
potential burdens on manufacturers and the potential cost to consumers.
2.9 The Minister says that the Government is having
some success in this, although negotiations are still continuing.
He tells us that
· it
now looks likely that the proposed Regulation would apply to new
models of vehicle only and not to models already on sale on the
date of application;
· progress
in the negotiations suggests that the Government is likely to
succeed in obtaining an exemption for low volume vehicles;
· there
is support in the Council for the exemptions to be specified in
the Regulation, rather than left to the Commission to adopt through
a delegated act;
· the
Government is still pressing for an exemption for special purpose
vehicles (for example, motor caravans);
· there
is general consensus that the target date of 1 October 2015 for
fitment of eCall systems to new vehicles is too ambitious;
· it
is therefore likely that the date of application will be significantly
later and the Government is pushing for it to be delayed until
at least three years after the adoption of the Regulation;
· there
also appears to be support for the Government's position to permit
the continued provision of third-party (private) eCall;
· with
regard to the rules on privacy and data protection, other Member
States have expressed similar concerns to the Government's, for
example, about the potential for constant tracking of vehicles
via the eCall systems and the need for key provisions to be contained
in the Regulation and not delegated acts prepared by the Commission
— the Government is continuing to work internally to draft
suitable safeguards;
· there
are a number of areas where the Commission is seeking delegated
powers to draft detailed specifications, for example on exemptions,
type approval procedure and detailed privacy specifications;
· there
is not yet a clear conclusion on all of this, although Member
States are moving towards a view that at least some areas will
be spelled out in the Regulation or that they will instead be
dealt with as implementing acts;
· the
Government continues to guard against delegation of powers to
the Commission unless it is absolutely necessary and only where
reliable constraints are in place, to ensure the delegation is
limited and subject to consultation and oversight;
· in
addition, Member States look likely to ensure that powers to adopt
delegated acts are limited to five years rather than an indefinite
period of time; and
· the
Government's experience of delegated acts in the fields of motorcycles
and tractors indicates that it can be cautiously positive that
the Commission does indeed respect the need to consult widely
during preparation of delegated acts in these fields, when required
to do so.
2.10 The Minister also reports that the draft Regulation
has also been under consideration by the European Parliament,
which completed its First Reading on 26 February. He says that
the European Parliament:
· has
accepted that the vehicle owner has the right to use another eCall
system (third party system) as well as the regulated one, as long
as it meets standards, and that there should be exemptions from
compulsory fitment for low volume and special purpose vehicles;
· has
called for eCall systems to comply with Directives 95/46/EC and
2002/58/EC on Privacy and Data Protection and called for manufacturers
to provide transparency about the system to owners, including
the fact that there is no tracking beyond collection of the minimum
set of data that is necessary when reporting an incident —
these objectives are in line with the Government's position and
that of most Member States;
· has
accepted the Commission's proposal for the date of application
to be 1 October 2015, which neither the Government nor other Member
States support;
· would
like regular roadworthiness testing (MOT) of the eCall system,
which has not been discussed by Member States and which the Government
would oppose; and
· called
for the Commission to encourage the voluntary fitment of eCall
(prior to compulsory fit) to increase penetration — this
has not been discussed by Member States and the Government would
not be in favour.
2.11 Finally, the Minister says that:
· he
expects working group discussions to continue during April and
May, with a possible general approach at the Competitiveness Council
on 26 May;
· negotiations
on a possible second reading agreement would then take place with
the new European Parliament; and
· he
will keep us informed of further negotiations ahead of the Competitiveness
Council.
Conclusion
2.12 We have recognised previously that the Government
would not be able to stymie this proposal and we note the improvements
the Government has, to a greater or lesser degree of certainty,
achieved. However, we are not convinced that the text that might
be adopted as a general approach on 26 May is assuredly and sufficiently
improved to warrant us clearing it from scrutiny, so that the
Government might endorse such a general approach.
2.13 So, given the constraints of the Parliamentary
timetable, rather than waiting until the Minister is able to inform
us, as he suggests, of further negotiations ahead of the Competitiveness
Council, we now recommend that the draft Regulation be debated
in European Committee A.
2.14 During that debate Members could hear what
developments have occurred and seek reassurance from the Minister
on assured positive outcomes on application to new vehicles only,
exemptions for low volume and special purpose vehicles, the target
date for fitment of eCall systems, use of third-party eCall, privacy
and data protection and the use of delegated acts.
9 (33146) 14070/11 + ADDs 1-5: see HC 428-xxxvii (2010-12),
chapter 16 (12 October 2011). Back
10
(35076) 11159/13: see HC 83-xii (2013-14), chapter 5 (17 July
2013) and HC 83-xxxvi (2013-14), chapter 4 (12 March 2014). Back
11
See headnote. Back
| 
