---

European Global Navigation Satellite System

The answer to that question posed by my parliamentary neighbour from Montgomeryshire is that we have GPS now and it will be enhanced by Block III. The answer is to use the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service and to get them integrated. Fears about continuity of service are totally bogus. The President of the US said in December 2004 that providing uninterrupted access to the system and the provision of services on a continuous, worldwide basis for civil use, free of direct user fees for civil, commercial, and scientific uses was their clear policy. The US is also committed to providing GPS to NATO—a point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) touched—where it is used not only for navigation but for command and control systems, weapons delivery and, crucially, for the prevention of friendly fire. That is the so-called blue-force tracker system. So central are satellite navigation systems to the military that, during the height of the Iraq war in 2004, the United States did not close down the system in the region even after it found out that Iraqi forces were using it against the US. Additionally, the Federal Aviation Service approves Navstar as a navigational device in aircraft and, as can readily be seen from the 2001 federal radio-navigation plan, continuity of service is a key element in the provision of the service, without which the system simply could not be approved. As I thought that some of these questions might come up in the debate, I spoke yesterday to Brigadier General Simon P. Worden USAF, retired, who was responsible for bringing GPS into fruition in 1995. He is now the director of NASA’s Ames research centre. Speaking to me in a private capacity, on his own account, he said:"““There is no part of the US economy that does not depend on the continuity of GPS. Any loss of service would have a devastating impact on the US economy.””" According to him, nor could Europe ever be deprived of signals. He went on:"““So many European systems are integrated with US systems that they would all go down if Europe was jammed.””" Where does that leave us? We have a system that offers no advantages whatever over what is freely available elsewhere, yet we are being asked to consider funding to the tune of several billions for what is essentially a European Union vanity project. We are not alone in having reservations. After the conclusion of the Transport Council in Luxembourg on 8 June, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman)—who I see in his place—was quoted by the Financial Times as saying:"““I don’t see a strategic case for it. One of the questions we have never asked is how to make a return from this system.””" He added that the UK would seek cancellation if concerns were not answered. In parliamentary replies to me, he has said that the Government have admitted to spending €142 million on the project through the European Space Agency and, through contributions to the EU budget, approximately 17 per cent. of the estimated €790 million that the Commission has invested in the programme. That amounts to €276 million in the past three years. The Government have also added that there is not an identified UK contribution to the design and development phase of the programme via the EU budget. To continue the negotiations on additional funding would be tantamount to signing a blank cheque. Therefore, we have to say that we are not content with the Government’s approach to discussions on the Commission document. Although the hon. Member for South Thanet was prepared to countenance cancellation of the project outside the Council chamber, it appears that he did not do so inside it. There is, however, a practical alternative, which the hon. Gentleman did not offer to his European colleagues but which he should have pressed. Preceding the development of Galileo is the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service—EGNOS.