Legal base	(a) — (b) Article 71(1) EC; co-decision; QMV
Documents originated	16 December 2008
Deposited in Parliament	12 January 2009
Department	Transport
Basis of consideration	EMs of 5 February 2009
Previous Committee Report	None
To be discussed in Council	(a) 29-30 April 2009 (b) Possibly 11-12 June 2009
Committee's assessment	Politically important
Committee's decision	(a) Cleared, but relevant to possible debate on (b) (b) Not cleared, further information requested

Background

4.1 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 technology in recent years in areas such as road safety, traffic management and tackling climate change. Examples of Community sponsored uses include development of the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research Programme (SESAR),[8] the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS)[9] and the River Information Services (RIS).[10] Shipping has already introduced SafeSeaNet and Vessel Traffic Monitoring and Information Systems (VTMIS) and is moving on an Automatic Identification System (AIS) and Long-Range Identification and Tracking (LRIT).[11] A number of provisions also exist in road transport, notably Directive 2004/52/EC on electronic toll collection, Regulation (EEC) 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport and Directive 2007/46/EC on a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles.

The documents

4.2 The Commission presents this Communication, document (a), because it is concerned that recent technological developments have been too fragmented and not co-ordinated across Member States, with the potential benefits of new technology not being realised. It calls for a co-ordinated approach to intelligent transport systems across the Community and sets out an 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 covers actions designed to address a wide range of policy areas within three categories:

• cleaner transport;
• improving transport efficiency; and
• improving road safety and security.

4.3 In support of the plan the Commission:

• argues that the deployment of intelligent transport systems must be undertaken on a Community-wide basis for their potential to be realised;
• proposes that the Community should play a major role in creating the right framework for accelerated and co-ordinated implementation of intelligent transport systems, notably the policy priorities, the choice of generic intelligent transport systems components to be shared or re-used and the timetable;
• suggests this action will simplify intelligent transport systems deployment in a complex environment of many different Member States and a wide range of stakeholders and partners; and
• argues that this large-scale approach will make implementation faster, less risky and will support market penetration of technology.

4.4 The Commission says that the action plan draws on a series of ongoing initiatives such as the Freight Transport Logistics Action Plan,[12] the yet-to-be-adopted urban mobility action plan, Galileo deployment,[13] the Greening Transport package,[14] the i2010 initiative on Intelligent Cars,[15] eSafety,[16] the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development,[17] eCall,[18] European Technology Platforms[19] and their strategic research agendas and CARS 21.[20] The action plan identifies 24 actions in six priority areas:

• optimal use of road, traffic and travel data;
• continuity of traffic and freight management intelligent transport systems services on Community transport corridors and in conurbations;
• road safety and security;
• integration of the vehicle into the transport infrastructure;
• data security and protection, and liability issues; and
• Community intelligent transport systems cooperation and coordination. Amongst matters suggested for this area of action is a proposal for a legal framework for Community coordination on the Community-wide deployment of intelligent transport systems — the subject of document (b).

The Commission says:

• the intention is for these actions to complement existing activities at Community and national level, so as to provide a framework for the contribution of intelligent transport systems to the achievement of more sustainable mobility in the Community;
• in the longer term the plan aims at building a long-term vision to define the role of intelligent transport systems in tomorrow's transport system in the Community;
• it will report on the progress of the plan in 2012; and,
• if necessary, it may look to extend the priority areas and the scope of the actions.

4.5 The draft Directive, document (b), is 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 have been too fragmented and not co-ordinated across Member States the Commission considers the use of a framework Directive to be the most appropriate way to address this issue. The Commission bases 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.

4.6 The Commission, believing that the self-regulatory approach pursued so far by industry is not sufficient and that this approach will have the greatest impact, has selected Option B+. The resultant draft Directive would:

• require Member States to take the 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 to intelligent transport systems equipment and software;
• establish a comitology committee[21] 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.

The Government's view

4.7 In his Explanatory Memorandum on the Commission Communication, document (a), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Paul Clark), says by way of introduction that:

• the Government supports the objectives of reducing congestion, tackling environmental issues, providing reliable travel information and improving safety;
• it is not convinced, however, that combining such a broad set of policy areas into one Communication is the most effective approach;
• the document does not consider in sufficient detail the reasons why intelligent transport systems have not yet been implemented faster or more widely;
• it is important to understand this better before pressing ahead with an accelerated deployment of systems, which would involve close liaison and coordination amongst the devolved administrations; and
• the Government wishes to encourage the Commission to prioritise the actions in the plan associated with gathering robust data, evaluation and developing business cases for intelligent transport systems deployment in line with transport policy objectives, before defining proposals designed to generate regulation to accelerate the current pace of intelligent transport systems deployment.

4.8 The Minister then comments on each of the Commission's six priority areas for the action plan, saying that:

Optimal use of road, traffic and travel data

• the UK has experience in the collation of speed limit data and the Government recognises the important role that authorities have to play in ensuring data quality. However, the document lacks clarity over the proposal to guarantee access to safety related data, notably regarding data ownership, copyright and charging arrangements;
• the Department for Transport has successfully implemented 'Transport Direct' — a one-stop-shop travel information and multi-modal journey planning service for the UK. The Government is willing to share its experience in understanding the significant challenges in gathering and presenting all transport options in a consistent and impartial manner;

Continuity of traffic and freight management intelligent transport systems services in European transport corridors and in conurbations

• from a freight perspective the Government believes that industry should be encouraged to make best use of intelligent transport systems where appropriate and it is reasonable for the Community to facilitate, support and encourage deployment where there is a proven business case. The Government thinks that market forces should be allowed to lead and that legislation in this area would slow down innovation and development of applications;
• the Government would prefer to see the less prescriptive term "GNSS [global navigation satellite system] technologies", used in place of the specific "RFID,[22] EGNOS/Galileo based location devices". To avoid system supplier dependence, the Government agrees that open standards and an open architecture have a place in traffic control systems and should be promoted;
• the Government feels that the timescale on the proposal for a European intelligent transport systems framework architecture is too ambitious;

Road safety and security

• the Government shares the Commission's objective of improving road safety and saving lives and wholly supports safety related systems where there is a positive cost benefit case;
• it considers the timescales for promoting the deployment of advanced driver assistance systems (2009-2014) are not in line with ongoing projects in this area — Department for Transport engineers are involved in Community projects which are due to deliver in 2015 for new vehicles;
• it remains concerned over the cost-benefit analysis for eCall in the UK and is seeking further evidence before it would be able to re-consider signing the Memorandum of Understanding and committing to implementing eCall in the UK;
• it agrees with the need for safe on-board Human-Machine-Interface and the integration of nomadic devices. Guidelines for manufacturers, installers and users exist in the form of the European Statement of Principles (ESOP), which has been recently updated to include nomadic devices. The Government believes that the main priority for the near future should be to publicise and encourage the wider application of the ESOP, especially with regard to nomadic devices;
• it is, however, cautious about the development of a regulatory framework for Human-Machine-Interface — this may help standardise the way warnings are provided and the type of controls used, but there is also the risk that laying down specific requirements at this time could inhibit the development of better Human-Machine-Interface solutions in the future. Any regulations should be sufficiently flexible to allow manufacturers to continue to explore innovative solutions;
• it believes priority should be given to the issue of driver overload, for example from multiple warnings and sources of information — this is likely to become an increasing problem as vehicles are fitted with an ever-increasing range of information and warning systems. Identifying how best to prioritise this information and provide it in a timely manner is vital to minimise the level of distraction;

Integration of the vehicle into the transport infrastructure

• while it seems sensible for different intelligent transport systems applications to be delivered from a common piece of equipment, especially where the supporting technologies, for example GNSS, are potentially common, there are risks associated with overcomplicating and overpricing the technical component — especially as not all Member States have the same traffic issues. The ability of any manufacturer to incorporate these different matters into a cost effective piece of in-vehicle equipment remains in some doubt;
• from a freight perspective end user industries have said that they would like a "single black box" solution — for navigation, customs clearances, freight tracking and tolling purposes. However, whilst the prospect of linking a number of applications may be an attractive option, it may create unnecessarily onerous costs and technical burdens on users if a specific device or technology were specified by the Commission;

Data security and protection and liability issues

• the Government believes data security and protection is likely to remain a major factor in the development of transport systems for the foreseeable future and an appropriate balance is needed to manage risks to an acceptable level in a way that does not place unreasonable costs on operators or burdens on the travelling public;
• it welcomes the proposals set out under this heading;

European intelligent transport systems cooperation and coordination

• the Government has serious concerns about the proposal for a legal framework for Community coordination of intelligent transport systems deployment (document (b)). It already has a number of intelligent transport systems in place and its successes have been achieved through cooperation and coordination with industry groups and other adopters. The Government believes that a proposal to establish a legal framework may place undue obligations on authorities wishing to implement or update schemes;
• the Government supports taking a more systematic approach to the assessment of intelligent transport systems solutions to support decision-makers in their evaluation of intelligent transport systems tools and deployments — good business cases and well-evidenced cost benefit analyses are key to the successful deployment of intelligent transport systems applications;
• in the UK, the Department for Transport has supported the development of good practice guidance through the operation of the web-based toolkit "Understanding the benefits and costs of Intelligent Transport: A toolkit approach".[23] This provides specific advice on the selection of intelligent transport systems tools to meet policy objectives, the benefits and costs of intelligent transport systems deployment, what others have done to incorporate intelligent transport systems within transport plans and lessons learnt from case study experience; and
• the Government supports the proposal to set up a collaboration platform between Member States, but would need to review the terms of reference to be confident that it was not duplicating the work of other fora.

4.9 In his Explanatory Memorandum on the draft Directive, document (b), the Minister deals with three main issues — aspects of fundamental human rights, subsidiarity and the substance of the proposal. On human rights the Minister says that:

• because the deployment and use of intelligent transport systems applications and services are very likely to entail the processing of personal data, the right to the protection of personal information and the right to respect for private and family life are engaged by the draft Directive — as is recognised in its recitals;
• the Commission considers that concerns about privacy are one of the reasons why intelligent transport systems have not been taken up as quickly as anticipated and the proposal is seen as a way of dealing with those concerns;
• the main relevant article providing for rules on privacy, security and re-use of information seeks to ensure that privacy rights are protected in relation to intelligent transport systems generally;
• the Government believes that the provisions of the draft Directive respect the rights that are engaged; and
• in particular, it considers that the processing of personal data can be done in a way which respects those rights and that the processing of personal data in order to ensure the proper working of intelligent transport systems and obtain the benefits of intelligent transport systems is legitimate and proportionate.

4.10 Turning to subsidiarity the Minister says that:

• the draft Directive does not fall under the exclusive competence of the Community but does address cross-border issues;
• the Commission's view is that the proposal respects the principle of subsidiarity as the issues cannot be regulated satisfactorily by Member States alone and as it believes that if no Community action is taken Member States will continue to develop and implement individual solutions which could hamper the interoperability of systems;
• it recommends a Directive as the most suitable instrument for achieving coordinated deployment of intelligent transport systems applications across the Community;
• the Government recognises the importance of cooperation between Member States and the value of a coherent approach to intelligent transport systems across the Community — as a result of early cooperation there have been successes in the development of existing standards, for example in the provision of traveller information;
• however, the Government has questioned whether a legislative approach is necessary in order to achieve these goals or whether an approach based on discussion and negotiation would be more appropriate; and
• it raised this with the Commission at the consultation stage and will pursue this as discussions of the action plan continue.

4.11 On the substance of the draft Directive the Minister first says that:

• the UK has been an early adopter of intelligent transport systems technologies and there are already a number of successful applications in operation;
• the Government is committed to implementing technology only where it addresses policy requirements, supported by a business case. It is encouraged that the draft Directive recognises this at a high level but it is important that this approach is carried through into implementation;
• the Government believes that the Community should not attempt to specify particular technologies as this could stifle both the commercial market and innovation in the intelligent transport systems arena;
• the Government is very pleased that a comprehensive impact assessment has been carried out by the Commission to support the proposal. Of the three potential policy options offered for future activities the Government's preference is Option B — overcoming problems by concentrating on coordination and synergy measures, rather than legislation and comitology;
• it believes that taking no additional action, as proposed in Option A, would not address slow deployment of intelligent transport systems applications for meeting policy objectives and that cooperation and communication across the Community would not be readily achieved;
• it feels that Option B+ is too open-ended and would provide too much scope for decision making without wide-reaching consultation. There is the potential of conflict, and lack of clarity regarding roles and precedence between the proposed Advisory Group and the comitology committee — if there is to be a group or committee, the Government believes that it would be more productive to have one group comprising stakeholders and Member States;
• it does not support formation of a comitology committee, as it believes that it has to potential to cut across work already underway by a number of groups and committees;
• there is a risk that a comitology committee process may lead to international, legally binding requirements to implement certain intelligent transport systems system that are not relevant for the UK road network; and
• the Government would not be in a position to support the formation of a comitology committee until it understood more about its composition and the implications it would have on the practical implementation of intelligent transport systems and is assured that it would be boosting uptake of intelligent transport systems for the right reasons.

4.12 The Minister then comments on some details in the draft Directive, saying that:

• in relation to the proposed requirement that Member States take "necessary measures" to ensure the coordinated deployment and use of interoperable intelligent transport systems within the Community, the definition of these measures is not clear and therefore risks becoming a subject of disagreement between the Commission and Member States and will be difficult to implement;
• the Government is seeking clarity over the copyright and commercial arrangements for the supply and use of data referred to in the provision on this requirement;
• it is concerned about the provision that the Commission is to define specifications for the deployment and use of intelligent transport systems as the UK is already using standards developed in Europe to collate and exchange travel data and any changes to these could impact on the delivery of existing services;
• it is seeking clarity on the purpose of the specifications, for example, user requirements, functionality and interface protocols, how they would be adopted and what responsibility Member States would have to enforce their use;
• it considers the type approval for road infrastructure related intelligent transport systems equipment and software provided for is a very onerous process and the Government would like the Commission to provide clarity over the decision making process, who will be responsible for the work and how it will be funded;
• the amendment procedure in the draft Directive suggests that the Commission would be able change the scope of the Directive, seemingly without further consultation. The Government is seeking assurances that, in the interests of sound governance and Member State acceptability, there would be a consultation process;
• the Government believes further clarity is required over the terms of reference for, and the procedure to determine the make up of, the proposed European ITS Advisory Group; and
• it does not believe that the proposed requirement for Member States to report on a national intelligent transport systems strategy and the status of intelligent transport systems deployment will be useful or appropriate. Intelligent transport systems applications are now becoming mainstream technologies and it may not be possible to group them together in this way — the Government would be more inclined to report on how transport technologies are helping it to deliver its policy objectives.

4.13 The Minister describes the consultations the Commission undertook in preparation for the draft Directive (and for the Commission Communication, document (a)). But he does not mention any planned consultation of UK interests by the Government. However, he does say that the proposals in the draft Directive are at an early stage and without further clarity the Government would not be able to complete a separate impact assessment for the UK with a satisfactory degree of accuracy. The Minister continues that, if more specific, defined proposals are brought forward at a later date, they will be subjected to an impact assessment.

Conclusion

4.14 We note that the Government finds the breadth of the policy areas covered by the Commission Communication, document (a), an ineffective approach and that it urges the Commission prioritise its proposals for 24 actions in relation to intelligent transport systems. Whilst, nevertheless, we are clearing this document, we note that it would be relevant to a debate on the draft Directive, document (b), which it is likely we will eventually recommend.

4.15 As for the draft Directive we are unsure as to what the Government's approach to the proposal will be. On the one hand the Minister tells us why, for subsidiarity and practical reasons, the Government finds the proposal for legislation inappropriate. On the other hand the Minister's comments about the details of the proposal implies that the Government accepts that there will be legislation based on negotiated revisions of the draft Directive. So before we consider the document further we should be grateful for clarification as to how the Government intends to handle this proposal.

4.16 Additionally, while we understand why it is not possible yet to sensibly undertake an impact assessment of the draft Directive, we are surprised that the Government does not seem to intend a consultation on the proposal. We should be grateful for clarification on this also.

4.17 As mentioned in relation to the Commission Communication, document (a), it is likely, once we have heard from the Government again, that we will recommend that the draft Directive, document (b), be debated. Meanwhile the document remains under scrutiny.

9   See http://www.ertms.com/.  Back

10   See http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l24239.htm.  Back

11   See https://extranet.emsa.europa.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=96&Itemid=162.  Back

12   (29035) 14266/07 + ADDs 1-2: see HC 16-iv (2007-08), chapter 7 (28 November 2007) and Stg Co Deb, European Standing Committee, 4 February 2008, cols. 3-28. Back

13   http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/galileo. Back

14   (29850) 11851/08 + ADD 1: see HC 16-xxx (2007-08), chapter 15 (8 October 2008). Back

15   (28959) 13922/07: see HC 16-i (2007-08), chapter 12 (7 November 2007). Back

16   www.esafetysupport.org Back

17   http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7 Back

18   (28122) 15932/06: see HC 41-ix (2006-07), chapter 3 (7 February 2007) and HC 16-vi (2007-08), chapter 11 (12 December 2007).  Back

19   http://cordis.europa.eu/technology-platforms. Back

20   (28368) 5746/07 + ADDs 1-2: see HC 41-xviii (2006-07), chapter13 (25 April 2007). Back

21   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

22   (28475) 7544/07 + ADD 1: see HC 41-xxi (2006-07), chapter 10 (9 May 2007). Back

23   See http://www.dft.gov.uk/itstoolkit/.  Back