4 Global navigation satellite system
| (32068)
14701/10
COM(10) 550
| Draft Decision on the detailed rules for access to the public regulated service offered by the global navigation satellite system established under the Galileo programme
|
| Legal base | Article 172 TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Transport
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 13 January 2011
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 428-viii (2010-11), chapter 5 (17 November 2010)
|
| To be discussed in Council | Not yet known
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information awaited
|
Background
4.1 The EU 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[20]
and there are a number of agreements in place or being negotiated
with third countries about cooperation in the project.
4.2 It is intended that Galileo will allow provision
of five services. These are known as the:
- Open Service (OS), free of
charge at the point of use — a basic service, but it is
expected to potentially offer greater accuracy and coverage than
GPS;
- Commercial Service (CS), offering for a fee added
value for more demanding uses — that is expected to be professional
users who need superior accuracy and guaranteed service;
- Safety of Life Service (SoL), for safety-critical
applications that require high integrity — this will have
the same accuracy as the Open Signal, but with a service guarantee
providing high reliability;
- Search and Rescue Service (SAR), to complement
the current COSPAS-SARSAT system (International Satellite Search
and Rescue System founded by Canada, France, the former USSR and
the USA in 1988 and with 33 countries now participating) —
the service is more advanced than any comparable existing service:
it relays the distress signal and location to the nearest rescue
centre and informs the sender that that signal has been received
and that help is on its way; and
- Public Regulated Service (PRS), a high-performance,
encrypted service for authorised civil government applications
— such as for such as national security, law enforcement
agencies, customs and excise. The potential users will need a
service which is useable, available, reliable and secure. The
main benefit of this service will be its greater resistance to
jamming and interference than the other four services, the fact
that it will remain operational if other services are turned off
or locally denied (jammed) in times of crisis and the ability
to deny signals to specific receivers and user groups.
4.3 From early in 1999 previous Committees have reported
to the House on many aspects of the Galileo project, most recently
in October 2009.[21]
The matter has been debated four times in European Standing Committee,
most recently on 26 November 2007,[22]
and once on the Floor of the House.[23]
We ourselves have reported on a Commission Communication: Action
plan on global navigation satellite system (GNSS) applications.[24]
4.4 Most recently, in October 2010, the Commission
presented this draft Decision relating to the PRS, which will
provide a highly accurate positioning service to specific government-designated
users requiring a high continuity of service and access to which
will be controlled. The draft Decision sets out the proposed high-level
rules governing access to the PRS. Member States will be able
to take their own decisions regarding the use, or not, of the
PRS and the nature of its use. When we considered this document,
in November 2010, we heard that:
- the Government was considering
its approach to the PRS in the light of this proposal, including
the potential user organisations in the UK, the likely costs and
potential charges for the PRS and the most appropriate organisation
to deliver PRS management in the UK;
- the Government would also consider the issue
of security-related use of the PRS — an important
factor in this assessment was the successful joint bid by the
UK and France to host the Galileo Security Monitoring Centre,
referred to in the proposed Decision as the "Security Centre";
and
- the Commission's Explanatory Memorandum noted
that the draft Decision had not been subjected to an impact assessment
and the Government would push for transparency over the assessments
made by the Commission in support of its proposal.
We noted that the Government was considering its
position in relation to the Public Regulated Service and security-related
use of the service and was pressing the Commission for information
which should have been in an impact assessment. So we said that
before considering this draft Decision further we wanted to hear
from the Government about developments on these matters. Meanwhile
the document remained under scrutiny.[25]
The Minister's letter
4.5 The Minister of State, Department for Transport
(Mrs Theresa Villiers) tells us that a progress report on the
draft Directive was given to the December 2010 Transport Council.
She says that:
- the Government referred to
the lack of a Commission impact assessment and expressed disappointment
at the lack of visibility on costs;
- in order for the Government to assess potential
uses of the PRS in the UK, greater clarity is required on the
estimated infrastructure and operational costs as well as an indication
from the Commission on whether it proposes to charge Member States
for access to the PRS; and
- the Commission has undertaken to provide a paper
on costs at the next Transport Council Working Group, scheduled
for 20 January 2011.
The Minister continues that:
- following receipt of the Commission's
paper on costs the Government will seek to identify possible groups
of users of the PRS in the UK;
- in the meantime, it is working closely with the
Commission and the Hungarian Presidency to ensure that the provisions
in the draft Decision relating to the manufacture of PRS receivers
and associated security modules are not overly restrictive;
- UK industry is regarded as an expert in the field
of PRS technology and the Government is keen to facilitate industrial
return; and
- its aim is to negotiate a suitable form of wording
which balances the need for appropriate security controls of manufacturers
against favourable conditions in which a market for PRS receivers
can grow.
Conclusion
4.6 We are grateful to the Minister for this interim
account of where matters stand on this draft Decision. However
we shall continue to hold the document under scrutiny whilst awaiting
further information on the Commission's paper on costs and the
Government's position in relation to the Public Regulated Service
and security-related use of the service.
20 See http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/About_ESA/SEMW16ARR1F_0.html
and http://www.esa.int/esaNA/index.html. Back
21
(30902) 13066/09: see HC 19-xxix (2008-09), chapter 8 (28 October
2009). Back
22
See Gen Co Debs, European Standing Committee, cols. 3-40. Back
23
See HC Deb, 2 July 2007, cols. 763-87. Back
24
(31718) 11137/10 + ADDs 1-2: see HC 428-ii (2010-11), chapter
19 (15 September 2010). Back
25
See headnote. Back
|
