(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to apply to reinstate the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to introduce this short debate. I have an interest to declare in that I live in the Isles of Scilly much of the time, to which the only passenger access in the winter is by air. There are a few problems there, which I shall come on to. In my short speech, I shall cover the many safety benefits of EGNOS, the benefits for pilots, the history of it and what happened before and after Brexit. I still see the cancellation of EGNOS at the time of Brexit as a very unwise and, frankly, stupid decision, but I shall come on to that.
I will first introduce what EGNOS is, because it may be that not all noble Lords understand what it is. It is a geostationary navigation overlay service, which enhances the standard GPS signal and provides accuracy, integrity and other improvements. In simple terms, it is a way of being able to land your plane at and take off from a small airport without all the very expensive, but very good, equipment that major airports have around the country and the world. If you do not have EGNOS, you cannot fly. It is not unique; it is used all the way across Europe. I think there are 700 airports using EGNOS-enabled LPV, and in the United States there is a great deal more of it.
Just before Brexit, the UK introduced EGNOS at a handful of airports, including Guernsey, Alderney, Cambridge and others, and many airlines had installed the equipment in planes that would enable it to work. The estimated cost for installation then and, I think, now is about £35 million a year to cover the whole country.
In my many discussions with Ministers—including with some colleagues here—we have always been told that the Civil Aviation Authority was dead against this. It was unsafe, it would not work and it would like to see something else. Last week, I had a very useful meeting with the CAA to hear from the horse’s mouth, if one can call it that, what its view was, which I shall try to summarise. It is a technical necessity, not a political concession. All it needs, I am told, for us to rejoin is a service agreement with the European Commission.
During those discussions, we had many chats about alternatives. Ministers in the previous Government said that we ought to go for something else: a sovereign UK satellite-based augmentation system, or SBAS. We went to see it, and the only problem was that it would require a £1 billion investment over 10 years—assuming that the Government would commit to 10 years’ funding, which is probably rather unlikely—and the operational costs would be even higher than EGNOS. Many people have asked why we should introduce a new system when we can get the whole EGNOS system for £30 million, which is one-third or more of the price of the other one. It is a complete waste of taxpayers’ money. Maybe the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be interested in that after her announcements yesterday.
To summarise the benefits, it is not just a “nice to have”; it is an essential safety and commercial add-on to safe flying. I fly as a passenger to the Isles of Scilly. Other noble Lords have much more experience in this. It is quite clear from talking to many pilots that they cannot fly in unpredictable weather because they cannot navigate properly. There are regional airports on coasts in many places, but if you cannot land and take off safely, your businesses are not going to enjoy it very much. Then we have to think about local communities. We have air ambulances around many parts of the country, including Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, and I know of many cases where they have not been able to fly because there has been no EGNOS. All in all, there are really good reasons for reinstating it.
I shall try to summarise where I think the CAA has got to, which was extremely helpful. It said that it is working closely with the Department for Transport and the UK Space Agency on the operational benefits, airspace modernisation, resilience and future readiness. Basically, from a regulatory point of view, it ticks all the boxes. We all know how good the CAA is at organising safe flights and everything.
It really surprised me that, although it had done all this work in the last two or three years—the reports are available on the website—at the end of 2024 it will hand over responsibility for the next phase of the SBAS initiative, which is EGNOS, from the Department for Transport to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the UK Space Agency. It is jolly nice to have the Minister from the Department for Transport here answering questions, but is that the right department?
I have put down several Written Questions in the last few months, and they were all answered by my noble friend Lord Vallance of Balham. It is worth reading one out: what is the cost of reinstating our membership of EGNOS? The response from my noble friend was:
“The Government is considering options for UK access to a satellite-based augmentation system, following our withdrawal from the EU’s European Geostationary Navigation Overlay (EGNOS) system. This work is ongoing and no decision has yet been made. The Government engages with the European Commission and European Space Agency on space programmes but has not specifically discussed access to EGNOS”.
My question to the Minister is: why have they not discussed this and when will they? People are just sitting there while businesses and transport are suffering. We just seem to be getting nowhere.
A very interesting comment came from one of my colleagues in the other place, the Labour MP Stella Creasy. She said that it made no sense to separate the EU and the UK from an aviation perspective. She is right because, if you look at a map of the different aviation systems around the world—there are all kinds—one for just the UK would very much be the smallest.
Are we prepared to sign agreements of 12 years for fish and four years for produce, just taking EU rules without any challenge? Why do not we not sign one for aviation? I do not know whether it would be for four years or 10, but I suspect that it would be much longer, because once people have got used to having EGNOS again, they would struggle to change it.
I hope that, when my noble friend responds, he will say that we are about to start proper negotiations on EGNOS with the European Commission and other agencies in order to produce a service agreement. A service agreement is not a political agreement; it would get us back into the fold and help a large number of people who rely on short-haul or small planes to get around their business in a very sensible way, with minimal delays. I look forward to my noble friend’s response.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I always feel that I learn things by participating in debates with him and following him in debates, but I am also grateful to him for raising this interesting issue.
I wanted to participate in this debate not because I profess to any expertise in aviation matters—I defer to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower in that respect—but because I want to explore the relationship between programmes in which the United Kingdom has participated in the past and those in which it may wish to participate in the future. EGNOS is not the only one of those; there is also, for example, Galileo, which is distinct from the Copernicus project that we rejoined two years ago.
I have an interest as a member, this year, of the UK Engagement with Space Select Committee. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, is also a member. However, I emphasise that any view I express is entirely my own and not that of the committee.
In our discussions, one of the questions we are trying to devil away at is whether some of these programmes are accessible to the United Kingdom if we wish to join them. There are two parts to that. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, says that he thinks we probably do wish to and there is a benefit in doing so. My question is different: is it accessible to us if we want to join? He may say it is a service agreement, but, from the European Commission’s point of view, it may be a political decision, and there are difficulties that may be associated with that. I suppose that part of the issue that I want to explore with the Minister is whether the circumstances and the political circumstances have sufficiently changed that it may now be accessible to us and we should therefore have exactly the debate that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has initiated—and, I would say, about not only that but Galileo.
I will not dwell on Galileo, but EGNOS is a good example. We were involved at the outset. National Air Traffic Services was one of the co-funders of the original design scheme through the European Space Agency. The whole point is that, once it was all set up, it was then operationally transferred to the European Commission. Where it stands at the moment is that, as far as I can see, it is funded and operated by the European Union, so it is not available to us through the European Space Agency. We are members of the European Space Agency and ESA programmes are entirely available to us, but this is not, in that sense, available to us in the same way as the ESA programmes are.
I hesitate, because I know the Minister replies for the Government, and this will definitely be the Space Minister bit, as it were, which is in DSIT, but there is definitely a question here that I want to put. Insofar as EGNOS is a good example, we may have a valid use for it, and there may be alternatives. EGNOS is not fully developed, as I understand it, for all the civil aviation purposes for which it might be developed. There are other issues; for example, the extent to which we could use it with other satellite-based augmentation systems, because it is interoperable with them. We could perhaps use others, although I do not think the coverage in Europe is available for those. We have the two ground stations, as it were, in Swanwick and Glasgow, so we are in this system; the question is whether we can use it. Really, the question is this: it accessible to us? If I can, I attach to this, although it is not EGNOS itself, the question to the Minister of whether Galileo is accessible to us.
From my point of view and, I suspect, the Government’s point of view, there is a bigger issue: GPS. We have access to it and, for military purposes, have access to the military codes for it. None the less, GPS is one system for position, navigation and timing. As I know from a visit I made to NATO headquarters last week and discussions I had, there is always a question of whether there is a genuine security requirement for backup systems, and Europe might see a benefit in having the development of Galileo as a backup system to GPS. Galileo has certain technical advantages, and GPS has certain advantages from the resilience point of view, so there is a trade-off; it is not obvious that we would want to be in Galileo. I am just using this debate, if I may, to ask that question: if we want, now, in changed political circumstances, to examine the practical case for these two programmes—Galileo and EGNOS—and can see that there may be potential advantages in access to these systems, would they be accessible to us? I do not think they form an obvious part of an industrial strategy for space, since the Galileo contracts have pretty much already been given, and I do not see that there is likely to be any chance of any of the EGNOS operational activity being additionally undertaken in this country: it all seems to be in the hands of a French company in Toulouse—which, for those people involved in space matters, is not surprising.
If I may, my question to the Minister is this: are these programmes accessible to us if, taking the well-argued points by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, we wished to join them?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and learn of his interest in satellites. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for—and, indeed, congratulate him on—gaining time for this debate, as well as for his relentless work in pursuing the issue of EGNOS. I declare my interests as the vice-president of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association UK and as the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Aviation; I am an aviator and have particular interest in this matter. Much of what I want to say has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, but I hope to add some detail to it. I come to this from a general aviation perspective.
The European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service, commonly referred to as EGNOS, is designed to improve the integrity and precision of GPS services. To give it its correct title, it is the EGNOS Safety of Life Service. Those three words—safety of life—are particularly important and significant. In the world of aviation, EGNOS enables users of GPS services to be confident that the information being supplied to them is accurate and precise. It is used when operating into airfields in inclement weather conditions; examples of this include when descending through cloud, foggy or misty conditions. Descending through cloud and relying on the EGNOS system allows the aircraft and the pilot to arrive blindly but safely at the end of the runway. This is of use not only to aviation but to the maritime sector, in avoiding obstacles or perhaps entering a port in fogged-out conditions.
Sadly, as a result of our exiting the European Union, the UK’s participation in the EGNOS programme ended on 25 June 2021. Despite the hundreds of millions of pounds that the UK contributed to the Galileo satellite system, this led to a withdrawal of legal indemnity for the use of EGNOS; it therefore cannot be safely and fully utilised by aircraft any longer. Although the signal remains in place, reliance on it that might end in an accident would undoubtedly invalidate the aircraft’s insurance. The upshot of this is that UK aircraft operators cannot use EGNOS Safety of Life any longer; of course, this extends to all other users, such as agriculture, surveying and maritime, but it particularly affects aviation, which has additional inherent risks.
Perhaps it would be helpful at this point for me to explain that large airports have a sophisticated and expensive-to-maintain instrument landing system, commonly referred to as ILS. This uses two directional radio signals: the localiser, which provides horizontal guidance, and the glideslope, which provides vertical guidance. These signals are ground-generated by radio signals or, in some cases, microwave signals. EGNOS, on the other hand, is Europe’s regional satellite-based augmentation system. It is used primarily by smaller airports as it can be utilised at a vastly reduced cost; the onboard aircraft equipment necessary for its operation is, in the grand scheme of things, relatively cheap to install and operate.
The Brexit negotiations removed Britain’s access to EGNOS, not because of technical necessity but because EGNOS is managed under EU governance structures. Post Brexit, Britain became a third country. Unless specific agreements were made, access ceased. Maintaining EGNOS access would have required around £30 million to £35 million a year—trivial compared to the economic damage of degraded aviation connectivity—but we did not retain access.
In 2022, the APPG for Aviation commissioned a report arguing for the reinstatement of the EGNOS system. An excellent report by Oxera in Oxford also convincingly argued the case for continuing the service; I thoroughly recommend its reading to the Minister. Oxera argues the case for EGNOS for several reasons. First, it enables precision farming, which improves the efficiency of field working, fertiliser and pesticide use; this leads to higher crop yields and lower costs. Secondly, it improves safety and efficiency in the maritime sector, supporting UK trade. Thirdly, it provides greater resilience at airports when, for example, ground systems fail. Fourthly, it provides more reliable services, including aviation approaches, to the Scottish islands and the Isles of Scilly, where there is no other option but to travel by air in winter.
There is also improved flight safety—EGNOS reduces controlled flight into terrain, one of the CAA’s “significant seven” risks, by a factor of four to eight—and improved reliability of search and rescue and helicopter emergency services. EGNOS enables point-to-point technology, allowing helicopters to operate in poor weather. The CAA has stated that a number of HEMS and SAR operations have experienced accidents and incidents due to poor visibility, and EGNOS was required to reduce these risks. There is also improved access to essential services; with EGNOS, those living on UK islands with poorer access to NHS hospitals will miss fewer appointments every year, which tend to be for urgent treatment or diagnosis. The case for EGNOS is overwhelming.
I understand that the current position of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is that the Government are considering options for UK access to a satellite-based augmentation system following its withdrawal from EGNOS and that
“work is ongoing and no decision has yet been made”.
That is to be applauded, but meanwhile this life-saving facility has ceased to function and places those who rely on it at risk—all for the sake of a sum of money, which, in the grand scheme of things, is peanuts when compared to the lives at stake. Does the Minister agree that development of a new system will be years in the making and that, as an interim measure, access to EGNOS would be a positive and sensible way forward? What of the Civil Aviation Authority, the UK’s aviation regulator, whose core work revolves around safety? What representations has his department had from it on the potential dangers to aviation due to the disappearance of EGNOS?
Martin Robinson, the chief executive officer of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association UK said in a recent article:
“Britain’s aviation future depends on confronting political vanity and embracing real-world cooperation … Restoring access to EGNOS is not just an operational necessity. It is a test of leadership. We rejoined European programmes such as Horizon 2020 … because it was the right thing to do without any political concerns. So why not EGNOS”.
We must act now to restore what is an essential life-saving service to the many sectors that it previously served, in particular aviation. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for tabling this debate and for his comprehensive overview of the service, the issues and the need for this service.
Before today’s Question for Short Debate and my preparation for it, I was not aware of the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service known as EGNOS and the important pan-Europe service it provides as a satellite enhancement navigation system that augments global satellite systems, helping to improve accuracy. As we have heard, it can help enable planes to land in a broader range of circumstances, helping to improve services and reliability. I am sure this will not be the first time I learn something new in my spokesperson role in this place.
EGNOS is a crucial system for safety-critical manoeuvres, such as navigating ships through narrow channels or flying aircraft, particularly for regional airports. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for clarifying that its full title is the EGNOS Safety of Life Service and for the details he has provided on its use.
Last November, when discussing an SI, my noble friend Lady Randerson requested an update on membership of EGNOS, highlighting that smaller airports such as those in Bournemouth and the Isles of Scilly, as we have heard today, are at a disadvantage because they have been unable to operate safely in poor visibility. Leaving EGNOS has been a costly decision for the aviation industry, including causing issues with training for commercial pilots.
Who knew that yet another consequence of leaving the European Union would be that the UK is no longer part of EGNOS? I have to put on record that Brexit has been an absolute disaster in every single way for our country. This is yet another service that we have removed ourselves from, pointlessly in my opinion and with implications for safety, just for a political headline.
Throughout my decades in public life, I have supported innovation where it is needed, but I also strongly support the principle that we do not need to reinvent the wheel and that partnership working is always the best way forward. This is a great example of that. Why should we not be part of this safety-critical system working with our European neighbours? Why would we look to spend money and time creating our own bespoke system at a cost, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, of at least £1 billion just to set it up? It makes no sense.
I will ask the Minister questions similar to those asked by other colleagues. Has rejoining EGNOS featured in any of the discussions about the UK’s future relationship with the EU? The past year has been an important reset moment in our relationship with the EU. I hope it is on the table and is accessible to us, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, asked. If it is not, why not? When will this be on the table? Surely, as we have heard today, this is not controversial. It is a system that we were once part of that helps to improve the accuracy of maritime and aviation navigation. Surely it is an obvious scheme to rejoin. Liberal Democrats strongly believe in scientific collaboration between the UK and the EU, on which I hope this Government would agree. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for securing this important debate on the Government’s plans to reinstate the UK’s membership of EGNOS. We are committed to, and will work with the Government on, upholding the best safety standards for aircraft, pilots and passengers.
As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower said, EGNOS uses a set of geostationary satellites and a network of ground stations to increase the accuracy of GPS. These signals are acquired by ground stations deployed around Europe and are gathered and processed through a central computing system. It is at this stage that differential corrections and integrity messages are calculated and broadcast back to users across Europe via a set of three geostationary satellites. We recognise that EGNOS improves the accuracy of global navigation satellite systems’ positioning information while also providing a crucial integrity message that allows users to get an extremely reliable guarantee on its residual positioning errors, both horizontally and vertically.
As my noble friend said, we have been made aware of the strong opinion of the head of the UK branch of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association about the importance of the UK remaining part of EGNOS to improve safety and resilience for pilots and passengers in the UK. While there is no doubt about the accuracy benefits of EGNOS and its safety-critical functions, it is essential to determine whether the benefits can justify the funding requests made by the European Union. In government, we sought to continue access to EGNOS services through the UK-EU trade negotiations but did not reach an agreement due to significant financial demands from the EU to secure services. The cost to taxpayers would have been £30 million per annum, a cost that the Government at that time could not justify.
While no decision was made to rejoin the EGNOS programme, we recognised that steps needed to be taken on satellite augmentation. This can be demonstrated through a commitment made in DSIT’s government policy framework for greater position, navigation and timing resilience to a UK precise point positioning satellite-based augmentation system and projects carried out in 2024 that defined a future system and architecture options and trials.
While the current Government have been conducting a wide range of negotiations with the EU, no decisions or details have been set out regarding the UK rejoining EGNOS. The Government recognise the importance of PNT technologies for the UK’s security and prosperity and are implementing the government policy framework for greater PNT resilience.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, mentioned, following discussions with the EU, do the Government have an updated figure for the cost of the UK rejoining EGNOS? Given the financial cost of rejoining it, have they discussed with the aviation sector whether it could cover this cost? With moves towards more sustainable aviation routes, do the Government recognise that EGNOS could improve fuel economy and landing and take-off in the aviation sector? Finally, can the Minister confirm whether the benefits of EGNOS could also be used to improve the integrity of location and the efficiency of our rail sector? I look forward greatly to his response.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on securing this debate. This has been an important discussion, and I welcome the opportunity to respond. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, I was not aware of EGNOS until recently. I am afraid that I have also concluded that it is imperative to use acronyms in this speech because I cannot spell it out every time over 12 minutes, which is a shame. The topic has been amply explained by noble Lords and I do not need to explain it again. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Berkeley for setting out the history of EGNOS, with which I concur. It understandably attracts interest, particularly from the aviation sector and those with an interest in its future success.
I begin by reaffirming this Government’s unwavering commitment to maintaining a safe, modern and innovative aviation system. I welcome the noble Earl’s endorsement of those principles, too. In answer to the question of why this department is here and why I am speaking, the Government recognise the importance of positioning, navigation and timing technologies for our security and prosperity. That goes much wider than EGNOS and aviation, impacting all parts of our lives. DSIT is leading on this wider work with the Government’s framework for greater PNT resilience, but my department is working across government to understand the requirements for transport.
We recognise the value the sector places on services such as EGNOS in supporting aviation safety and reliability, particularly during difficult weather and at smaller aerodromes. Since the UK’s withdrawal from the programme as a result of leaving the EU, as noble Lords have heard, flights have continued to operate safely with no degradation in our overall safety regime. We are carefully examining all available options for supporting the continued operation of safe and reliable flights, which could well include membership of EGNOS. My noble friend Lord Berkeley is right: we are talking to the European Union and a better relationship will enable us to participate if we choose to. That answers the question of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about whether we could join if we so wished, but it depends on whether we choose to or not. He also made a point about Galileo, which I am not equipped to answer, but I will speak to my noble friend the Technology Minister so that he can have an answer in due course.
It is critical that any solution is based on clear operational needs and a strong value-for-money case for both users and taxpayers. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that, if the previous Government had considered paying for the system, they could have done so during their time in office. This Government are continuing this work and we will continue to work closely with industry experts and stakeholders to find the most effective and sustainable solution. If noble Lords have further evidence to contribute to a value-for-money case, my department will be pleased to hear it. I note the suggestion from the noble Earl that we should ask the aviation industry whether it would be prepared to contribute to the costs of joining.
On safety, we must be clear that we have a highly robust safety regime in place in the UK supported by navigation aids and procedures that remain fully compliant with international safety. The Civil Aviation Authority continues to ensure that all procedures are managed appropriately. We recognise that EGNOS or a similar SBAS could have operational benefits for small, regional and general aviation airports. It would provide greater resilience in poor weather and support access but, as the noble Lord Davies, said, ILS is used at larger airports which are not affected and this would not be useful to them.
The Government appreciate the frustration of those facing delays and disruptions to their flights from poor weather as well as the importance of reliable connections, especially for those living in more remote areas of the United Kingdom. Since I took office, I have heard several times from my noble friend Lord Berkeley about the needs of residents of and visitors to the Isles of Scilly, and I respect his continuing advocacy on their behalf. The Government are already taking important steps to support the connectivity of communities, and we are continuing to look closely at this issue to see what more can be done.
It is also important to be clear that emergency medical and search-and-rescue operations have continued safely and effectively since our withdrawal from EGNOS. These services have access to a range of procedures and capabilities, such as point-in-space approaches, which greatly assist in increasing the utility of air ambulances and helicopters in poor visibility conditions. SBAS services, such as EGNOS, are not currently widely used across Europe to support operational capabilities. We are determined to ensure that the UK’s aviation safety regime remains world-leading, which is why we are continuing to consider the best option for the United Kingdom. This work is continuing, and no decision has been made.
It is clear that noble Lords who have contributed today, and others, deeply care about having an SBAS such as EGNOS, and we fully recognise that it can have benefits. However, it is also important that every penny of taxpayers’ money, particularly in a time of tight finances, is spent responsibly, efficiently and wisely and that any decision made represents value for both users and taxpayers. We are continuing to consider what an effective, impactful and deliverable solution that works for the UK could look like, and no decision has been made.
The Government recognise the importance of positioning, navigation and timing technologies for our security and prosperity. That is why we are implementing the policy framework for greater PNT resilience and developing proposals for a national timing centre and enhanced long-range navigation systems. The work around UK access to a satellite-based augmentation system is an important part of that, which is why we are continuing to consider the best option for the UK’s specific requirements.
I turn to the future of flight because there are constant developments in emerging technologies—
Lord Lansley (Con)
Before the Minister moves on to another subject, given the particular circumstances in Scotland, which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to, and the many islands, if the Scottish Government wished to make a service agreement with the European Union for this purpose, but the United Kingdom Government had chosen not to, do they have any scope to do so?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. Rather than filibustering for a few minutes while I refer to the knowledgeable officials behind me, I think I had better write to him about that. I can see an answer coming: it says, “Not sure. We’d need to check”. That is very wise.
I turn to the constant developments in technologies, particularly in drones and uncrewed aircraft. This is an important, evolving area, and the full range of requirements are still being mapped out. There may well be applications where SBAS and EGNOS could be useful. As the Government have ambitious plans for the UK to be a global leader in creating a future-of-flight ecosystem fit for the future, ensuring that we can fully realise the social and economic benefits of new and emerging aviation technologies, we must continue to think about this work. It could be said that I am saying that we are just not doing anything, but we are doing something. These rapid developments, particularly in drones used beyond the line of sight, may well provide an increasing case for this technology and for EGNOS in future.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend has given us a very interesting progress report on any discussions taking place with the European Union, the CAA and others, but no decisions have been made. Can he give us any estimate about when the next decision might be achieved?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. It is a good question because developments in drones, particularly drones beyond line of sight, uncrewed aircraft and flying taxis have been much in the news recently. There are many applications way beyond traditional air applications. There is activity for drones beyond line of sight not only on the railway but in better policing. Those things would affect a judgment about an investment in this and whether the continuing cost of it is worth investing in. I urge my noble friend not to ask us to be too peremptory in making a once-and-for-all decision when technology is changing as, because of that, the justification for doing this might increase and we might get to the answer that my noble friend wants.
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their thoughtful and constructive contributions, which reflect the strong interest in maintaining the UK’s continued leadership in aviation safety and innovation. We remain committed to ensuring safety and efficiency. We recognise the real value of systems such as EGNOS, but we must also consider the financial implications and seek solutions that offer the best value for money.
On the contributions of noble Lords about the cost of it, or the cost when it was around £35 million—I cannot confirm whether that might be the current cost or not—if the previous Government could not justify it, in these difficult financial circumstances we have a duty to justify public expenditure. However, noble Lords will have heard me say that we are considering it not only for the benefits from EGNOS for the purposes described in the discussion today but because the future of drone and uncrewed aircraft technology is rapidly developing. I hope noble Lords will appreciate that we are strongly considering it. I am grateful for all that they have said.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister’s response, but what representation has the department had from the CAA on this issue?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The department is in constant discussion with the CAA on this issue. I do not have any evidence that the CAA believes that reimplementing EGNOS is a matter of the greatest concern, but as the noble Lord asked the question, I will go away, find out what the current position with the CAA is and write to him about it.