Select Committee on European Scrutiny Fifth Report


24 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 baseArticle 175(1)EC; co-decision; QMV
DepartmentEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs
Basis of considerationMinister's letter of 6 September 2005
Previous Committee ReportHC 42-xxxiv (2003-04), para 4 (27 October 2004) and HC 34-i (2005-06) para 11 (4 July 2005)
Discussed in Council24 June 2005
Committee's assessmentPolitically important
Committee's decisionCleared

Background

24.1 Although a certain amount of so-called spatial information[73] 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. It therefore put forward in July 2004 this draft Directive aimed at addressing the shortcomings in the availability of information in this area.[74]

24.2 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.

24.3 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. It put the average environmental 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 supported the aspirations behind this proposal, and that, although it would be necessary to find the most appropriate and efficient mechanism to deliver its aims, the initiative was consistent with developments already taking place within the UK. However, since the Government had said that it would be providing the UK's own Regulatory Impact Assessment, they decided on 27 October 2004 to await this before taking a definitive view.

24.4 We considered on 4 July 2005 a supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 26 May from the Minister of State (Environment and Agri-Environment) at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Elliot Morley), enclosing the promised Regulatory Impact Assessment. This indicated that the Government had serious concerns about the proposal, in that the costs within the UK of amending existing data to comply with the proposal would be higher than those suggested by the Commission, and that the proposal stipulated that there should be no financial barriers to the exchange of information between public sector bodies — a condition which was of major concern since it would prejudice the ability of bodies such as the Ordnance Survey to recover costs, and could in turn lead to a decline in the quality of data generated. The Minister added that a sizeable number of other Member States had similar concerns, and that the Government had therefore been seeking in the Council, and with the Commission and the European Parliament, to amend the provision in question.

24.5 However, this information had been supplemented by a letter of 20 June 2005 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. We said that we were concerned about this clear discrepancy between what the Minister had said in his letter and the views he had expressed previously on the merits of the proposal, and that we would like to know to what extent the Government's earlier concerns about the practicality and cost of the proposal had been met. In the meantime, we intended to hold the document under scrutiny.

Minister's letter of 6 September 2005

24.6 We have now received a letter of 6 September 2005 from the Minister, in which he says that, in the period following the submission of his supplementary Explanatory Memorandum, officials had made considerable progress in negotiation over the UK's key concerns, which had been addressed in the political agreement reached by the Environment Council on 24 June. In particular, this had involved ensuring that the proposal was compatible with UK government policy on information trading by public authorities and fully respected intellectual property rights (including those of public authorities themselves); did not compromise public security, national defence, or international relations; was compatible with the existing legal framework;[75] and was built on and complemented Member States' infrastructure, rather than replacing them with a disproportionately expensive harmonised model.

24.7 The Minister adds that, at its first reading on 7 June, the European Parliament had adopted 49 amendments, many of which were intended to improve the clarity of the Commission's proposal. However, the UK was unable to support four of these amendments, which, although intended to secure a first reading agreement with the Council (and acknowledging that public authorities can obtain financial compensation from those using their data), did not cover its concerns sufficiently. He says that it will be necessary to work closely with the Parliament during the second reading, but that it is very unlikely that this will take place under the UK Presidency.

Conclusion

24.8 Whilst it would have been better if the information now supplied by the Minister had been provided in his letter of 20 June, we are content to clear the document on the basis of this explanation.


73   The Commission defines this as any data with direct or indirect reference to a specific location or geographical area.  Back

74   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

75   Including directive 2004/4/EC on public access to environmental information, and Directive 2003/98/EC on the re-use of public sector information, competition and intellectual property law. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 27 October 2005