The UK’s involvement in the controversial Galileo satellite communications programme came under scrutiny this week after MPs urged the government to halt investment.

The EU plan to develop a rival to the US-owned global positioning system (GPS) has cost the UK taxpayer £97m to date and has been beset by financial and political problems.

The government risked “an orbiting Railtrack” if the project went ahead without a full cost-benefit analysis, said Gwyneth Dunwoody, chairwoman of the influential Transport Select Committee.

“This is an EU vanity project. I don’t see any great campaign growing up anywhere for people to demand an alternative GPS. The one they have works and is free,” said Dunwoody.

Current GPS signals rely on a US military network of 24 satellites which was made freely available in 1983.

But some European countries fear that as Russia and China develop their own GPS networks, Europe may also need its own system in case of international disagreements.

Theoretically the US could cut off international civilian access to its satellites at any time.

But the project has been plagued with problems. After a Galileo funding crisis earlier this year because of lack of commercial interest, the EU made up a €2.4bn (£1.7bn) shortfall by transferring funds from agriculture, administration and research budgets, a move criticised in the Transport Committee’s report on the project, published this week.

“It must be obvious to anybody that if ­ over the whole of Europe ­ they cannot find a commercial partner who thinks this is a good idea, the EU should be asking itself questions,” said Dunwoody.

But the government is not completely to blame, according to Stuart Martin, director of space and satellite communications at LogicaCMG, one of the contractors for the project.

“The public-private partnership [to fund the programme] wasn’t delivered in the way the UK foresaw. If it had been, then Galileo wouldn’t be having the problems it is now,” said Martin.

Private companies have avoided the project because of questions over its commercial
viability.

But if the UK pulls out now, the money already invested will be wasted because the UK will lose influence in Galileo.

“Unless you participate in full, you don’t get what you want out of it. There is so much competition in Europe to gain control of the project that we would be sacrificing many benefits if we pulled out now,” said Martin.

The government has commissioned a cost-benefit analysis of the project from consultancy Esys, which will be completed next month. It will be the first analysis of its kind to be carried out, despite a recommendation by the Transport Committee three years ago.

The committee is urging the government to debate the results of the analysis in parliament before a decision is made at the European level.

So far only one of the projected 30 Galileo satellites has been launched. EU transport ministers meet on 28 November to make a final decision on funding for the programme.

Environmental monitoring from space

Galileo is not the only European satellite initiative. A little-known programme called Global Monitoring for the Environment and Security (GMES) has also received undisclosed funding from the UK government.

Jointly funded by the European Space Agency (ESA) and the European Commission to the tune of billions of euros, GMES aims to provide more accurate data on climate change.

The first of the programme’s five satellites, known as sentinels, is expected to launch in 2011, although the final two may not be needed.

Michael Jack, chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, said the project was of huge importance. “We need to communicate with people what these forces shaping our planet are like, and satellites can help us do this,” he said.

The government has invested in 16 per cent of the EU side of the programme, covering satellite launch and maintenance, but nothing in the ESA research aspects.