|
Matthew Green: Would the hon. Gentleman favour the project more if it involved co-operation with the Americans rather than the Europeans?
Mr. Chope: My views on such issues are based on evidence rather than prejudice. As the Minister knows, I have always been in favour of evidence-based policy making. I was involved in at least two previous Committee sittings in which this matter was discussed in detail and I have learned from my experiences then and from the documentation before the Committee today that things are not getting any better—in fact,
Column Number: 22
they are getting worse. People's worst fears about cost escalation and delay in implementation are now being borne out, as are their worst fears about the emphasis of the project increasingly shifting from civil safety and transport applications to facilitation of Big Brother in the form of the police state.
Rob Marris: Blackberry-isation.
Mr. Chope: I have to say that I thought that the hon. Member for Stevenage blew a raspberry on that one, and I give an undertaking that I will stand alongside the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West in refusing to have a Blackberry, if we are both elected to the next Parliament.
Barbara Follett: I doubt that the hon. Gentleman will have a Blackberry, given his anti-technology slant. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West might choose to discard his.
The hon. Gentleman says he wants to make decisions based on the evidence. Does he know that before Galileo was even started the European Union and the United States held discussions about working together on GPS, which needs to be and is being upgraded, but that the discussion broke down when the United States made it absolutely clear that only US companies would be allowed to get into the supply chain?
Mr. Chope: I am not familiar with the details of that discussion. In terms of value for money, it may well be the case that we—this country or ''Europe''—would be better off investing in other things instead of throwing money into Galileo. When I started discussing this project in Parliament, the basis of the debate was that it would be justified in terms of competition and the open market and that it would not be dependent on public subsidy. If the project can succeed in terms of competition and the open market, I will give it a fair wind, but I am concerned that it might not succeed on competition grounds and that it will only be able to do so with enormous and increasing public subsidy. I do not know what the hon. Lady thinks, but I think that if public resources are going to be invested in projects, there should be a proper cost-benefit analysis and evaluation of whether investment in the project offers the best value when compared with investment in other projects.
The Minister knows—as does the hon. Lady, I am sure—that my party thinks that a heck of a lot of public sector capital projects in this country are crying out for urgent funding. If we had a list of priorities, we would not put contributing £500 million to Galileo at the top of it, because we know that we are not going to use it for our police service at present, we already have military applications through GPS, and maritime use will be minuscule.
Many of my constituents have small or large boats and are very happy with GPS, but they are concerned that they might have to pay an additional levy. That was specifically spelled out as a possibility in some of the earlier memorandums. The Minister has not satisfied me that such a levy will never be imposed, because it appears that an additional income stream
Column Number: 23
for the project could only be found by imposing a levy on all global satellite receivers—it would be open to the European Union to do that, although I do not know how easy it would be to implement and enforce. Are the many small boat owners with limited resources in the UK and in other countries where people at sea rely on GPS going to be penalised by the need to cross-subsidise the Galileo project? I hope not.
I know that the hon. Lady has interests in that great place Antigua—she knows Antigua well. I am disappointed that she is so hostile to the United States, which has invested an enormous amount in Antigua. As soon as people get to Antigua, they see enormous masts and a United States military establishment. On a recent visit there I received no information to the effect that the Antiguans were unhappy with the United States or GPS.
The Chairman: I do not think that arguing over the merits, or otherwise, of American investment in Antigua is pertinent to the matter before the Committee. Stick to the point, Mr. Chope.
Mr. Chope: Yes, Mr. Hancock. In due course it may become possible for members of this Committee to take overseas trips and Antigua may be high on their list, but that is for another Parliament. [Interruption.] Of course, all the people going on those trips would have to pay the full costs.
Mr. McWilliam: Let me say, as Chairman of the Committee of Selection, that that would make my life so much easier.
Mr. Chope: That is an important recommendation, which should be taken further.
Being serious, because we are talking about large sums of public money, we Opposition Members have grave concerns about this project. We are pleased that the Government continue to accept that the system is not done and dusted, but we fear that they are drifting into a position from which they will be unable to pull back, even when it is obvious to them that this system is bad value for money—as we think it is on the evidence before us.
Barbara Follett: I promise, Mr. Hancock, that this is not about Antigua. Does the hon. Gentleman know that the UK has already benefited and received more than it has put into the project? Some 30 per cent. of the companies contracting for Galileo are UK companies.
Mr. Chope: As a member of the all-party group on space, I am well aware of the rules that apply in Europe and how technology in this country has benefited from the available funds. However, that is different from saying that we should throw more public money—taxpayers' money—into the system, when there might not be any UK representation on the winning consortium and a high proportion of the activity of the Galileo project may be related to PRS and the countries that wish to develop relevant systems for
Column Number: 24
surveillance of their own people will probably employ their own contractors to help them with the encryption.
I am not convinced that £500 million—and more, because the cheque remains blank—will be good value for money. Even the Government are not yet convinced that the project will provide good value for money, which is why the Minister has been so cautious when talking about whether we are going to sign on the dotted line. He is rightly saying that we must be assured that the system will provide good value for money. On what I term ''good value for money day'', that is an appropriate point on which to draw my remarks to a conclusion.
I shall not vote against the motion, because I do not think that the Minister is so out of tune with Opposition concerns about value for money that it warrants my doing so. Nevertheless, I have expressed our concerns.
3.14 pm
Matthew Green: I am delighted to hear that the Conservative spokesman will not lead his colleagues into voting against the motion, since none of them who can vote have been here for the entire sitting. That is probably a relief to them and he will be pleased. I listened to his contribution. We are talking about satellite positioning systems, but I think that the hon. Gentleman needs a speech positioning system, because he kept on drifting off to Antigua, the relevance of which I am not sure.
I am concerned that the opposition to Galileo in some sections of the press is fuelled by a combination of Euroscepticism and briefing by US companies that think that they will lose out. It is clear that they are getting very worried. Before the Galileo project started, there were talks between the European Union and the Americans about the extended use of GPS; those talks collapsed because the Americans wanted to ensure that American companies kept the right to produce the equipment and would therefore benefit financially. It is quite clear that the Americans are concerned that Galileo will go ahead, because it will benefit businesses in the UK, perhaps to the detriment of American businesses. This Committee should not stand up for American businesses over British ones.
Rob Marris: Did I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that there had been discussions with the Americans? I clearly understood my hon. Friend the Minister to say on two occasions in today's Committee that there had been no such discussions.
Matthew Green: The information that I have, which is from a very reliable source, says that before Galileo started, the EU held talks to develop GPS jointly but pulled out when it became clear that European industry would remain largely locked out of the contracts to supply GPS. I do not want to name that source, but I am sure that the Minister will be able to confirm publicly that that is the case.
Column Number: 25
Mr. McWilliam: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it was Commissioner Kinnock who announced Galileo to the all-party group on space, in this building, and that he confirmed that those discussions had taken place prior to the decision to develop Galileo?
Matthew Green: I am delighted to hear confirmation that those talks took place.
UK companies are currently doing well out of the contracts for Galileo. Their percentage of the contracts is much greater than the percentage of the UK public funds that is going in. UK money accounts for only 17 per cent. of the funding, but we are getting between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. of the contracts. That is good investment for the UK—at the moment. I hope that that continues. Even if the concession ends up not being one with a UK interest, many of the companies that will be able to bid for the work for the concession and develop the spin-off industries will be UK-based. We should think long and hard before rolling back the growth of modern technologies in the UK. Any party that suggested that they were not interested in the growth of modern technologies in the UK—as, I think, the Conservative spokesman was suggesting—would be arguing against a modern and vibrant British economy.
There are a number of benefits to Galileo, particularly in the safety field and in relation to mountain areas and built-up urban areas. With Galileo, there are no canyons, because there are more satellites. Therefore the chances of one's machine being able to ''see'' a satellite are dramatically increased. I used to do a fair bit of mountaineering and rock climbing, although my figure betrays the fact that I do not do so much now, so I know that the safety aspects on the mountains are considerable. It is not much help if someone has fallen down a cliff face and needs to get a signal out to somebody to show where they are located, but cannot do so because the mountain on the other side of the valley is blocking the satellite link. That can quite often happen with GPS at the moment.
In the questioning, we have begun to explore the fact that, potentially, there are quite a number of spin-offs, many of which have not yet been thought of. There are spin-offs connected to mobile phones, which might be the biggest commercial use of Galileo. We have seen the exponential growth of the mobile phone industry and this could be the next stage of it. Galileo might also be used in civil engineering. Because the Americans will not release the codes allowing the use of GPS down to very accurate levels, GPS is not particularly useful in civil engineering. However, my understanding is that Galileo may be much more useful for civil engineering because of its greater accuracy.
There will be a number of benefits. Although it is right that the Committee hold the Government to account on the potential costs, my frustration is that the Government have not analysed and put figures on the huge benefits. I realise that such figures would have to be guesstimates, but without them it is difficult to articulate what I believe will be the huge financial
Column Number: 26
benefits to the UK, in addition to the safety benefits in many situations—at sea, in mountains and in urban areas.
Galileo would allow us to consider road user charging. As one who represents a rural constituency, I would prefer cars to be taxed through such charges than through higher petrol charges, which penalise people in rural areas, who have no choice but to use a car. With road user charging, different rates could be charged for different roads and congested areas could be hit harder than non-congested areas. That would be a much fairer way of discouraging car use where it is not needed, without penalising it in areas where it is. Galileo offers many routes forward that would not be open if we relied on the GPS.
| 
