Documents considered by the Committee on 12 March 2014 - European Scrutiny Committee Contents


4 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

Department (a) Transport

(b) Culture, Media and Sport

Basis of consideration Minister's letter of 6 March 2014
Previous Committee Report HC 83-xii (2013-14), chapter 5 (17 July 2013)
Discussion in Council (a) Possibly 26 May 2014

(b) 14 March 2014

Committee's assessment Politically important
Committee's decision (a) Not cleared; further information requested

(b) Cleared

Background

4.1 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]

4.2 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.

4.3 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 eCalls are generated, transmitted and handled consistently across the EU.

4.4 When we 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, document (a), 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. Meanwhile this document remained under scrutiny.

4.5 As for the draft Decision, document (b), we were, given the Government's comment that it accepted "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", unclear as to whether the Government was as equally opposed to this measure and asked for clarification. Meanwhile this document also remained under scrutiny.[10]

The Minister's letter of 6 March 2014

4.6 The Minister for Culture, Communications and the Creative Industries, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey) first says that it is important to recall that the Government commented to us on the draft Regulation, document (a), that it was "opposed to the proposed Regulation and the mandatory introduction of eCall" and that "the Government recognises the road safety benefits of eCall. UK emergency services are already equipped to handle calls from such third party systems".

4.7 The Minister then says that the draft Decision, document (b), would require that a PSAP be identified and be in place in a Member State (almost certainly BT's emergency call handling facilities in the UK) by a revised date of 31 December 2016, with the necessary infrastructure in place to handle eCalls as effectively and speedily as any other emergency call wherever they originate, including (and as the Government would prefer) via more sophisticated private sector and third party options offering eCall products on a voluntary, value-added basis. He continues that:

·  the required infrastructure would be needed to handle voice and non-voice eCalls, either triggered automatically or manually, identify caller location information and provide an ability to liaise directly and simultaneously with front line emergency services;

·  as such the Government supports the draft Decision, not least because it facilitates private organisations becoming involved in eCall;

·  it has recently welcomed Presidency compromise text amendments that allow that "emergency calls may be first received under the responsibility of a public authority or a private organisation recognised by the Member State"; and

·  it continues to recognise the road safety benefits of an eCall system, particularly in those Member States with weaker road safety records.

4.8 The Minister tells us that:

·  Member States agreed Presidency compromise proposals on 28 February, which delay the date of implementation for the draft Decision and recognise private sector and third party involvement — both of which the Government welcomes;

·  the Presidency is beginning trilogues with the European Parliament to finalise the Decision text to conclude ahead of the Transport Council on 14 March;

·  the Presidency will look for agreement on a "partial general approach" at the Council if trilogues are unsuccessful (particularly, for example in relation to the implementation date for the Decision);

·  the draft Decision is, relatively speaking, much more straightforward than the draft Regulation — there are only two main Articles;

·  the Commission is keen for the draft Decision to progress quickly, not least because is making a political link between the two proposals (looking for the PSAP infrastructure to be a driver for the type approval standards), even if there is not a strictly dependent technical link between the dates of implementation of the two.

4.9 Given the differing speeds at which these two proposals are progressing (the draft Regulation remains in negotiation and will not reach the Council until at least 26 May 2014, at the earliest) the Minister asks whether we will clear the draft Decision from scrutiny, so that the Government can support the revised proposal at the Transport Council on 14 March.

4.10 The Minister adds that the draft Regulation is being negotiated separately in technical harmonisation working groups and little progress has been made so far and that the Government will update us on the negotiations when progress has been made on the concerns identified in its Explanatory Memorandum on that proposal.

Conclusion

4.11 Given the improvements in the Presidency's compromise text, concerning postponed implementation and recognition of private sector and third party involvement, we are now content to clear the draft Decision, document (b), from scrutiny.

4.12 As for the draft Regulation, document (a), we will await the promised further information about developments in negotiation of the proposal before considering it again. Meanwhile this document remains under scrutiny.


9   (33146) 14070/11 + ADDs 1-5: see HC 428-xxxvii (2010-12), chapter 16 (12 October 2011). Back

10   See headnote. Back


 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2014
Prepared 26 March 2014