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 base | Article 156 EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Transport |
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 3 December 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 19-xviii (2008-09), chapter 6 (3 June 2009) and HC 19-xxvi (2008-09), chapter 3 (10 September 2009)
|
| To be discussed in Council | 9 October 2009
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
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
|
