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
| 
