Brussels, 12/07/2001 (Agence Europe) - The decision the Commission took on Wednesday to approve the undertakings by the automobile industry to improve pedestrian safety without for that concluding the planned voluntary agreement (see EUROPE of 12/07/2001, p.13) means real dissension within the College.
The majority of Commissioners indeed came down against the approach recommended by Commissioner Erkki Liikanen, either because they thought the level of undertaking by the industry to be inadequate, or because they believe that a question dealing with the protection of human life should be dealt with through a legislative instrument providing for penalties - a directive in this case - and not a simple voluntary agreement. EUROPE has reason to believe that Messrs. Byrne, Busquin and Kinnock are more in favour of a legislative approach, whereas Messrs. Monti and Patten, as well as Mrs. Schreyer and Reding support the voluntary approach proposed by Mr. Liikanen. European manufacturers had agreed to subject their models to the most stringent collision tests, defined by the EEVC (European Enhanced Safety Vehicle Committee) from 2010 and 2014 at the latest. As for the undertakings of manufacturers to provide vehicles with additioals active safety devices such as electronic receptors, that came without deadlines. Several Commissioners (notably Byrne and Kinnock) whence expressed doubts as to the level of ambitions of these undertakings, some going as far as fearing an unfortunate precedent that could discredit voluntary agreements in general. This fear (on the part of Ms. Wallstom, in particular) is not contradicted by the attitude of the private office of President Prodi where there is as much concern at the inadequate level of safety as at the amount of time being granted to manufacturers, regarded as too long, for implementing the agreements, as well as the lack of possibilities for penalties.
These differences of views will help fuel the arguments of organisations striving for road safety like the ETSC (European Transport Safety Council) which, in a press release published on 10 July, denounced "the poor voluntary package" that the Commission was getting ready to conclude. Pleading in favour of a directive and the adoption of EEVC tests, the ESTC considers that, in its initial stage (until 2010), the voluntary agreement would only allow for half the level of protection that can already be achieved to be secured, and deplores the fact that the second stage does not set definitive requirements. ETSC recalls that the Council voted in favour of a legislative approach in June 2000, and the European Parliament in January 2001.
The automobile industry, through the voice of its European association, ACEA, on the other hand, welcomes the decision taken on Wednesday which, it says, means the Commission's recognition of the quality of undertakings made by the industry. Qualifying its own undertakings as "highly innovative," ACEA declares itself concerned by the postponement of the final decision but confident that Parliament and Council will rally around the Commission's stance on the "value of this undertaking".