Proposition 53K2943

Projet de loi portant création du cadre pour le déploiement de systèmes de transport intelligents et modifiant la loi du 10 avril 1990 réglementant la sécurité privée et particulière.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

July 10, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive security services intelligent transport system new technology emergency aid road transport

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo

Party dissidents ¶

• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) abstained from voting.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) abstained from voting.
• Damien Thiéry (MR) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

July 17, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the Infrastructure Committee discussed this bill at the meeting of 16 July 2013, yesterday, hence an oral report.

In the general explanation, the Secretary of State refers to the late transposition of the Directive in question, but he adds that it is important to provide for eCall a regulatory framework.

Mr Balcaen supports the bill. However, he regrets the late transposition and the lack of time to carefully study the draft. He is concerned about how citizens’ privacy rights will be protected and questions the retroactive principle used in the draft.

I personally assume that I am satisfied that the framework law is finally there, but that it is now the case to come to concrete action. What is the state of affairs with regard to the action plans and cooperation with the Regions in this area? Has the reporting obligation been fulfilled and should this obligation be included in the draft?

Ms. Emmery asks which new maturity periods should be observed, given the late conversion. The speaker would like to know how to report on the priority actions and, where appropriate, how to anticipate the five-year period covered by the directive.

Mr Wollants joins the previous speakers and talks about a partial conversion. He also has questions about the involvement of the regions and the advice given by them.

At the questions asked by Mr Balcaen, the Secretary of State responds that the data are kept anonymous for statistical purposes and that the draft has been adapted so that the retroactivity does not apply to Articles 7 and 9 to 11.

The Secretary of State acknowledges that it is first and foremost to create a regulatory framework. eCall is just one example of the possible actions. A concrete action plan is currently being developed that should be completed by the beginning of the new parliamentary year. The Steering Group of the Mobility and Home Affairs departments is preparing a more detailed report that will be linked to the concrete actions. The State Secretary states that the proposals for a cooperation agreement with the Regions were sent on 7 June 2013.

The entire bill was adopted unchanged with eleven votes in favour and one abstinence.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, since I could not be present in the committee yesterday, I would like to take the opportunity to communicate our position here and to point out to the Secretary of State some aspects of this bill.

As for the framework within which this is happening, here again and again a draft law is being pursued quickly. Less than a month ago, Europe announced that Belgium would have to appear before the Court of Justice because it had still not transposed the directive. The Directive dates from 7 July 2010 and should have been transposed by 27 February 2012. This was not the case and therefore this bill was discussed yesterday in the Infrastructure Committee and submitted to vote here today.

We can find ourselves in the principles themselves of both the directive and the proposed completion, but there are some concerns.

First and foremost, it is, of course, a first step. The eCall system is an example, but if one had so much time, one could have gone much further and with a much more elaborate system to get to Parliament.

The second point. eCall is a system of emergency calling in which one can very quickly call the emergency services from a vehicle involved in an accident. I think there is a need to come to a central emergency room, which is somewhat separate from the eCall system and will ensure that in future accidents can be acted much faster, ⁇ during the spike. That is a pain point, Mr. Secretary of State, which you have already referred to in previous oral questions. eCall must partly address this. With regard to the problem of roofing services that are difficult to reach the site and are not allowed to use the barrel, eCall will only be a first phase. A central alarm chamber will ensure that in the future one will be able to act much more efficiently and faster in traffic accidents, especially during the spits. A few months ago, we could still establish that due to two accidents on the Brussels ring, traffic was blocked almost all morning. If the emergency services could have been deployed faster, it would have been something else.

Another aspect is that road hazard information or systems informing truck drivers about safe parking spaces are not yet included in the bill. Therefore, I think I can say that this draft comes back again to the facts. If we had wasted so much time, then why was no more work done on such matters?

Mr. Secretary of State, I would like to remind you that on 10 October 2012, a number of MEPs, mostly the majority, submitted a resolution to come up with such an intelligent system. Among other things, Ms. Temmerman had taken the initiative to promote that. Despite this resolution, we still had to wait several months for your bill.

So I suspect that in the coming months you will still have to prove that this first step for you means that in the near future, in a short time – so not after three years of waiting, as was the case now – you will go much further. These systems must be operational and they must also prove their usefulness. At present, it remains a big question whether these systems will prove useful or whether the technological development in the field of mobility is not yielding the right results.

As I said before, the bill is a first step.

Mr Veys, you are right that this is a step in the right direction. It was also a necessary step to move forward, for example with regard to the ISA project, because that was what the resolution focused mainly on.

European regulations provide the framework for the treatment of information, respect for privacy, and so on. Now that makes it possible. It is not the end point, but it is an essential and necessary step to continue with other projects.

eCall is the first concrete example of the implementation of the transposition of the Directive. This will also need to be assessed, as it is the first time that we apply such a regulatory way. We will need to evaluate that and it will ⁇ be the subject of various debates. However, it is clearly a step in the right direction, with respect for privacy and the European Directive. It is a step in the right direction, but not the end point.

Mr. Secretary of State, I thank you for your presence to respond and to give the necessary explanations to this bill.