Documents considered by the Committee on 9 December 2009 - European Scrutiny Committee Contents


12 Global navigation satellite system

(30514)

6257/09

COM(09) 139

Draft Regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No. 1321/2004 on the establishment of structures for the management of the European satellite radio-navigation programmes

Legal baseArticle 156 EC; co-decision; QMV
DepartmentTransport
Basis of considerationMinister's letter of 3 December 2009
Previous Committee ReportHC 19-xviii (2008-09), chapter 6 (3 June 2009) and HC 19-xxvi (2008-09), chapter 3 (10 September 2009)
To be discussed in Council9 October 2009
Committee's assessmentPolitically important
Committee's decisionCleared

Background

12.1 The Community has a two-phase policy for developing a global navigation satellite system (GNSS). The first phase, GNSS 1, is the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay System (EGNOS) programme. The second phase, GNSS 2, is the programme, named Galileo, to establish a new satellite navigation constellation with appropriate ground infrastructure. Galileo is based on the presumption that Europe ought not to rely indefinitely on the GPS (the US Global Positioning System) and GLONASS (the Russian Global Navigation Satellite System) systems, augmented by EGNOS. Galileo is being carried out in conjunction with the European Space Agency[32] and there are a number of agreements in place or being negotiated with third countries about cooperation in the project. From early in 1999 we and previous Committees have reported to the House on many aspects of the Galileo project, most recently in June 2008.[33] The matter has been debated four times in European Standing Committee, most recently on 26 November 2007,[34] and once on the Floor of the House.[35]

12.2 Council Regulation (EC) No. 1321/2004 created the European GNSS Supervisory Authority (GSA) as an arms-length body, to manage the public interests relating to the Community's satellite navigation programmes — currently EGNOS and Galileo (which are generally referred to together as Galileo). The GSA was intended to be the formal owner of these two systems and act as the regulatory authority to oversee the private sector concessionaire that was expected to deploy and operate them, under the terms of a public private partnership. The Regulation also provided for an Administrative Board to oversee the GSA's operation, which comprised the GSA's Executive Director, the Commission and Member States together with non-voting observers from the European Space Agency, Norway and Switzerland. Regulation 1321/2004 was amended by Council Regulation (EC) No. 1942/2006 to provide for the GSA to also take over the responsibilities of the former Galileo Joint Undertaking (GJU).

12.3 The GJU had been created in 2002 to manage the development of the Galileo programme on behalf of the Community and the European Space Agency. It had been intended that the GJU would be able to see the programme through to the conclusion of Galileo's development phase and therefore it had been created for four years. Delays to the programme meant that the development phase could not be competed in this time frame (it is now expected to last up to the end of 2010). When the GJU was wound up in 2006, it was necessary to ensure continuity of the programme and the smooth transfer of its activities to the GSA. Accordingly Regulation 1942/2006 provided for the GSA to be tasked with taking over the GJU's responsibilities for supervising implementation of the Galileo development phase, finalising technological developments relating to the system, concluding negotiations of the public private partnership concession contract and preparing for the deployment and operation phases.

12.4 Following collapse of the public private partnership negotiations the Transport Council agreed in November 2007 a revised timetable for Galileo, to be completed by 2013, and for the funding to come wholly from the Community budget. The Council agreed a €3.40 billion cap on costs in the Financial Framework to 2013 and confirmed general principles for public sector governance and the procurement strategy for the programme.

12.5 The subsequent Council Regulation (EC) No. 683/2008:

  • foresees the development and validation phase of Galileo now ending in 2010;
  • sets out the strategy for achieving Full Operational Capability — satellite launch and completion of the entire Galileo infrastructure — by 2013, with the commercial operating phase beginning at the end of this period;
  • confirms the new funding arrangements;
  • addresses issues of programme governance (with the Commission identified as programme manager) and the procurement strategy;
  • with the Commission being placed in overall control of the programme, confirms the GSA as a body to provide support to the Commission;
  • provides that, under the direction of the Commission, the GSA's role is now to assist the Commission on any issue related to the execution of the Galileo programme, as required; and
  • provides for the GSA to retain specific responsibility for the technical certification, security accreditation, operation of the Galileo security centre and the market preparation and commercialisation of the Galileo system.

12.6 This draft Regulation would amend Regulation 1321/2004 in order to ensure that the GSA's management structures are appropriately revised to reflect the ending of the public private partnership concept and to ensure that the GSA can perform its tasks, whilst respecting the Commission's role as overall manager of Galileo — in effect it aims to align Regulation 1321/2004 with Regulation 683/2008. The principal amendments proposed are:

  • to change the name of the GSA to "the GNSS Agency";
  • to provide for the authority to be set up as an agency that would be more analogous to an Executive Agency of the EU rather than as a Community Agency;[36]
  • to confirm the specific tasks of the Agency, as previously set out in Regulation 683/2008;
  • to ensure that it should perform these and any other tasks entrusted to it under the overall management of the Commission;
  • to revise the voting structure in the GSA Administrative Board, by providing that in future the Commission's votes would be weighted in such a way that it would equal that of all the Member States put together;
  • to provide for a representative of the European Parliament to have observer status on the Administrative Board; and
  • to set out the terms of reference for a proposed Security Accreditation Committee, which would be chaired by a non-voting member of the Commission and where there would be qualified majority voting.

12.7 When we first considered this proposal, in June 2009, we commented that, although it was clearly right that Council Regulation (EC) No. 1321/2004 be brought into line with Council Regulation (EC) No. 683/2008, the Government had shown us that there was considerable room for improving the draft Regulation. We said that before considering the matter further we wished to hear about progress in securing such improvement, particularly in relation to the real, as opposed to the formal, status of the proposed successor to the GSA (the GNSS Agency), its independence, the voting structure, the seat of the Agency, a European Parliament observer and security accreditation. Meanwhile the document remained under scrutiny.

12.8 When we considered the matter again, in September 2009, we had a full account of developments in negotiation of the draft Regulation. And we were told that:

  • although issues still remained to be addressed, the Government believed it had already achieved success in having a number of its objectives — particularly on security accreditation — accepted by the Commission and other Member States and represented in amendments to the text of the draft Regulation;
  • it continued to discuss the outstanding issues, but given the desire of all parties to reach an early resolution, the Government believed an agreement would be reached with which the UK could be satisfied;
  • it was therefore likely that the Government would wish to indicate that it was in favour of the emerging text at the October 2009 Transport Council, in order to safeguard the negotiated improvements to the text and to avoid delaying the programme unnecessarily;
  • it would not be possible to give us a definitive report on the outcome of completed negotiations in time for us to consider it ahead of that Council meeting;
  • given the timetable, the Government wished us, however, to have the information available so as to allow us to comment before that Council meeting; and
  • the Government could assure us that the its priority objectives would be met by the terms of this draft Regulation — it would not otherwise be willing to support it.

12.9 We noted the possibility that the Government would wish to support a general approach on the draft Regulation at the October 2009 Transport Council. However, we said we wished to have a definite report of the negotiations of this measure before we considered the proposal again and meanwhile the document remained under scrutiny. Nevertheless we recognised that it might be in the UK interest to support a general agreement at that Council on the lines that appeared to be within reach. So, given the assurance that the Government would not support a text that did not meet its priority objectives — the voting structure of the Administrative Board, the question of an observer role for the European Parliament and the issue of the Security Accreditation Committee, we said that the Government could, if appropriate and in accordance with paragraph (3)(b) of the Scrutiny Reserve Resolution of 17 November 1998, support a general approach at the forthcoming Transport Council.[37]

The Minister's letter

12.10 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Paul Clark) writes now to tell us that:

  • in the event the proposal was not discussed at the October 2009 Transport Council and it will now be considered at the next Transport Council on 17-18 December 2009;
  • no further working group discussions are scheduled ahead of that Council, although it is expected that there will be some further discussion by COREPER in December 2009;
  • the Swedish Presidency remains keen to secure progress on the Galileo programme and will therefore seek to agree a general approach on the proposal at the Council; and
  • it will then fall to the incoming Spanish Presidency to seek political agreement at a later Council and pursue a first reading agreement with the European Parliament (which is currently scheduled to have its plenary first reading of the proposal in April 2010).

12.11 The Minister then says that:

  • since he last wrote to us, in September 2009, there have been some further working group meetings about the text of the proposed Regulation;
  • as we had heard previously, there were a number of areas where the text needed improvement and the Government has continued to work to ensure that the draft Regulation is one with which it can be satisfied;
  • whilst there are still some outstanding details under negotiation it is generally accepted that these are very close to resolution;
  • the Government is hopeful that these can be resolved in COREPER; but
  • it is also possible that some will have to be addressed in discussions at the December 2009 Council itself.

12.12 Turning to the detail the Minister first reminds us that one of the Government's key objectives for Galileo is to ensure an effective governance structure for the programme and that it had major concerns relating to the security accreditation provisions in the draft Regulation. He says that:

  • the Government considered that the Council and the European Parliament must be the ultimate decision making body and that the Commission should not be in a position that would allow it to decide on a proposal that cut across the recommendations of the Security Accreditation Committee — this point was not clear in the original text;
  • it has now been assured that this would be the case and an additional recital will be added to the draft Regulation to make this point explicit;
  • this recital will also make explicit that decisions that might affect existing agreed budgets or that might affect the security of either Member States or the Community could only be taken at the higher level of the Council and the European Parliament;
  • the text is now in accord with these views and all Member States believe that the proposal is substantially improved and more importantly addresses their concerns; and
  • it is the general consensus that, subject to some minor edits, this part of the draft Regulation can be agreed.

12.13 On the role of the GSA the Minister, recalling that the Commission is now placed in overall control of the Galileo programme, that Regulation (EC) No. 683/2008 therefore confirmed that the GSA would henceforward be a body which would provide support to the Commission and that the Commission's original proposal for the proposed successor to the GSA would have meant that the weight of the Commission's votes on the Administrative Board would be equal to that of all the Member States combined, says that:

  • while all Member States support the need to safeguard the Commission's position as programme manager and to ensure it has full control of the Galileo programme, views were divided over the extent to which this control should be exercised;
  • as we had heard previously, a number of Member States supported the Commission's original proposal, whilst others, including the UK, were unwilling to put in place a structure that would be at such variance with that which applies to other EU Agencies and would thereby set an unhelpful precedent;
  • a revised structure has been proposed that would give the vote of the representative of the Commission a weight of 30%;
  • the Government believes that this is still too much, but it is an improvement on the original proposal that gave the Commission 50% of the vote and therefore an 'outright veto';
  • the new proposal does have previous precedent in other Agencies and has considerable support from the Presidency and all other Member States;
  • the Commission is prepared to accept this revision providing that it is able to fulfil its role as project manager by having 'outright veto' on the appointment of the Executive Director, adoption of the work programme each year, duties in relation to the Agency's budget, oversight of the operation of the Galileo Security Centre, the ability to exercise disciplinary authority over the Executive Director, special provisions for the right of access to the documents of the Agency, adoption of the Annual Report and adoption of the rules of procedure;
  • all Member States are opposed to giving the Commission both 30% of the vote and these veto rights;
  • some are prepared to accept one or the other, or to allow the Commission some veto rights;
  • the Government UK strongly opposes the Commission having veto rights, but if it is felt necessary to concede to prevent a more draconian voting structure it is prepared to cede to the Commission the right to veto the adoption of the work programme of the Agency for each year and the right to veto any exercising of disciplinary authority over the Executive Director;
  • the Government has obtained important concessions with regard to the Security Accreditation Committee and the Presidency and the Commission have been receptive to the majority of its revisions to the text; and
  • considering the support of all other Member States and the Presidency, it can therefore accept the compromise on the understanding that it does not undergo any more revisions.

12.14 In relation to the issue of involvement of the European Parliament in the GSA the Minister says that:

  • all Member States were unconvinced of the necessity of a representative of the European Parliament being allowed to sit on the GSA Administrative Board as an observer;
  • the European Parliament argues that the information that it receives from the Galileo Inter-institutional Monitoring Panel is insubstantial;
  • this is a matter that the Government does not expect to be resolved ahead of the forthcoming Transport Council; and
  • as it may not be possible for Ministers to resolve it during that Council, it is likely to remain an issue during the subsequent discussions with the European Parliament.

12.15 The Minister concludes by setting out how the Government expects matters now to develop, saying that:

  • as explained, some issues still remain to be addressed;
  • however, with the exception of the involvement of the European Parliament the Government believes it has achieved success in a number of its objectives;
  • it believes that the majority of outstanding issues are at such a point that an agreement will be reached at COREPER with which the it will be satisfied; and
  • it is therefore likely that the Government will indicate that the it is in favour of the emerging text at the Transport Council of 17-18 December 2009.

Conclusion

12.16 We are grateful to the Minister for this account of the latest developments on this draft Regulation. We note the progress made in relation to the issue of the Security Accreditation Committee, the possible resolution of the issue of the voting structure of the Administrative Board, the likelihood that the question of an observer role for the European Parliament will for the moment remain unresolved and the possibility that the Government will wish to support a general approach on the revised text at the December 2009 Transport Council. But we have no more questions to ask and now clear the document.


32   See http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/About_ESA/SEMW16ARR1F_0.html and http://www.esa.int/esaNA/index.html.  Back

33   (28941) 13113/07: see HC 16-xxiv (2007-08), chapter 10 (18 June 2008). Back

34   See Stg Co Deb, European Standing Committee, cols. 3-40. Back

35   See HC Deb, 2 July 2007, cols. 763-87. Back

36   The EU's agencies are grouped into four different categories - Community Agencies, Common Foreign and Security Policy Agencies, Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters Agencies and Executive Agencies. The Commission describes a Community Agency as a body governed by European public law, which is distinct from the Community Institutions (Council, Parliament, Commission, etc.) and which has its own legal personality. It is set up by an act of secondary legislation in order to accomplish a very specific technical, scientific or managerial task, in the framework of the EU's "first pillar". It says Executive Agencies are organisations established in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 (OJ No. L 11, 16.1.03) with a view to being entrusted with certain tasks relating to the management of one or more Community programmes. These agencies are set up for a fixed period. Their location has to be at the seat of the European Commission (Brussels or Luxembourg). Back

37   See headnote. 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 2009
Prepared 17 December 2009