11 Infrastructure for spatial information
in the Community (INSPIRE)
| (25875)
11781/04
COM(04) 516
+ ADD 1
| Draft Directive establishing an infrastructure for spatial information in the Community (INSPIRE)
Commission Staff Working Document relating to a proposed Directive of the European Parliament and Council establishing an infrastructure for spatial information in the Community (INSPIRE)
|
| Legal base | Article 175(1)EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | SEM of 26 May 2005 and Minister's letter of 20 June 2005
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 42-xxxiv (2003-04), para 4 (27 October 2004)
|
| Discussed in Council | 24 June 2005
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
Section 1.74 11.1 Although a certain amount of so-called spatial
information[41] exists
within the Community, the Commission believes that this is not
as useful as it might be to policy makers and others, because
of gaps in the various data held in the different Member States,
a lack of comparability between them, and the difficulties users
encounter in identifying and obtaining access to what is available.
In view of the importance of developing environmental policies,
and the significant role which it sees sound knowledge and informed
participation as playing, it put forward in July 2004 this draft
Directive aimed at addressing the shortcomings in the availability
of information in this area.[42]
Section 1.75 11.2 The proposed Directive would apply essentially
to electronic information held by public authorities, and, whilst
leaving Member States the freedom to tailor the measures in question
to their own situations, it seeks to establish an infrastructure
which would provide consistent Community-wide documentation of
spatial data and data quality; integrated Community-wide services
to find and access this information; and Community-wide rules
relating to access, sharing and use of information.
Section 1.76 11.3 The Commission's proposals were accompanied
by an Extended Impact Assessment, which identified the potential
benefits as including environmental gains, wider social benefits
and gains by the private sector. In the former case, it puts
the average benefit for each Member State at between €27
and 42 million a year, as against an estimated annual average
cost of €3.6
to 5.4 million. Our predecessors were told that the Government
and the private sector in the UK support the aspirations behind
this proposal, and that, although it will be necessary to find
the most appropriate and efficient mechanism to deliver its aims,
the initiative is consistent with developments already taking
place within the UK. However, since the Government is co-ordinating
efforts to provide the UK's own Regulatory Impact Assessment,
our predecessors decided on 27 October 2004 to await this before
taking a definitive view. In the meantime, they noted that, as
the UK is advanced in this field, the Government believed that
the costs of the measure in this country were likely to be at
the lower end of the spectrum for Member States.
Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 26 May
2005
Section 1.77 11.4 We have now received from the
Minister of State (Environment and Agri-Environment) at the Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Elliot Morley) a supplementary
Explanatory Memorandum of 26 May 2005, enclosing the promised
Regulatory Impact Assessment. This indicates that the Government
has serious concerns about the proposal. First, it suggests that,
so far as the UK is concerned, the costs of amending existing
data to comply with the proposal would be higher than those suggested
in the Commission's estimate (though presumably still below the
assumed benefits). However, the Assessment also identifies a major
concern in that the proposal stipulates that there should be no
financial barriers to the exchange of information between public
sector bodies —
a condition which would prejudice the ability of bodies such as
the Ordnance Survey to recover costs, and which could in turn
lead to a decline in the quality of data generated. The Minister
says that a sizeable number of other Member States have similar
concerns, and that the Government has therefore been seeking in
the Council, and with the Commission and the European Parliament,
to amend the provision in question.
Minister's letter of 20 June 2005
Section 1.78 11.5 We have recently received a
letter of 20 June from the Minister, indicating that the Environment
Council was expected to reach political agreement at its meeting
on 24 June, and that, notwithstanding the scrutiny position, the
Government wished to support this. In justifying this course
of action, the Minister described the proposal as "non-contentious",
and made no reference to the concerns he had expressed in his
earlier supplementary Explanatory Memorandum.
Conclusion
Section 1.79 11.6 We understand that, as expected,
the Council reached political agreement on 24 June, presumably
with the UK's support. In that case, we are concerned about the
clear discrepancy between what the Minister has said in his most
recent letter and the views he expressed previously on the merits
of the proposal. In particular, we would like to know to what
extent the Government's earlier concerns about the practicality
and cost of the proposal have been met. In the meantime, we will
continue to hold the document under scrutiny.
41 The Commission defines this as any data with direct
or indirect reference to a specific location or geographical area.
Particular examples of its application are given in footnote 43. Back
42
Though it also points out that any measures taken can be developed
at a later date to cover areas such as transport and agriculture.
Back
|
