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 base | Article 175(1)EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 6 September 2005
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 42-xxxiv (2003-04), para 4 (27 October 2004) and HC 34-i (2005-06) para 11 (4 July 2005)
|
| Discussed in Council | 24 June 2005
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
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
|
