Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-06-Speech-3-340"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020206.15.3-340"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would firstly like to thank Mr Glante for the report he has presented. I would also like to thank Mr Savary and Mr Chichester, the whole of the Sky and Space team and all the MEPs who backed a document supporting the Galileo programme with a view to the European Council at Laeken. Unfortunately, we were not able to achieve it on that particular occasion, but we hope to do so next time. We must not be discouraged and we still have time, although not much, to try finally to move ahead with a project which seems to me absolutely crucial to Europe and which furthermore is going to be a measure of Europe’s real will to have a presence on the international stage.
Article 9 of the Statutes says that, in the proposal we are making, in the field of contracting, the executive committee must act totally independently from the management board in which the companies participating in the Joint Undertaking would be represented, that is to say that the executive committee acts independently of the companies which may participate in tenders. To prevent concerns, there are formulae which may offer greater guarantees.
With regard to the role of the States of the Union, we fully agree with the approach taken in the report by Mr Glante, that is, the creation of a monitoring committee made up of representatives of the Member States, so that those States may closely and continuously monitor the activities of the Joint Undertaking. We have therefore proposed to the Council, and they have approved it, that in the Regulation, not in the statutes of the Joint Undertaking, but in the Regulation, a monitoring council should be established made up of representatives of the States. This council should meet before each meeting of the management board of the Joint Undertaking to offer its opinion on the positions the Commission intends to advocate in relation to the different points on the agenda.
These operating rules seem to us to be the most appropriate for achieving our objective, since they maintain the operating autonomy of the undertaking while allowing the States to control the activities of the Commission, which represents the European Community on the management board of the Joint Undertaking.
With regard to the military dimension, ladies and gentlemen, I will say that Galileo is a system designed for civil purposes, which will have to be managed by civilians and that, furthermore, that is one of its essential differences when compared to the GPS. Having said that, it is true that there is a service reserved for public administrations, which is intended for applications such as fire services and security, which at certain times can be used for other purposes, but at the moment the open GPS is being used for certain applications and for certain military uses. It is inevitable that they will carry equipment which is synchronised with Galileo.
By this, ladies and gentlemen, I mean firstly that this type of system always has a double use. Secondly, as you know, there is a free access signal, which is totally free of charge, and another access signal, pre-paid, with services, codified, but which is also free. And a third signal is reserved for the public sector, but – I insist – is intended not for military uses but for civilian uses such as those I have indicated.
Ladies and gentlemen, in relation to Galileo, all the elements for taking a decision are on the table in the Council of Ministers, and the funding for the whole of the development phase, without any State of the Union having to give a single euro more in order to implement the project. We must make it clear that the current financial perspectives cover the whole of the development phase of Galileo. No State should have to put in another additional euro.
Galileo is essential to European industry, to technological capacity, to European space technology, but also for a series of other factors, such as autonomy, sovereignty and the capacity to offer an alternative service to GPS, which would strengthen the latter, since, as we have often said, Galileo will be and should always be, compatible with the GPS, both should be mutually strengthened, and, in the event of the failure of either of them, the other should serve as an alternative for all users.
It only remains for us to see whether or not there is political will and I believe that this is one of those occasions which will demonstrate whether or not there is political will to move towards a Europe which counts in the world. The ball is in the Ministers’ court and we hope that they decide that there is that will.
I will just focus on three aspects which have been referred to here in relation to the report. We all feel that the participation of the private sector is crucial. Our differences lie in how and from when, if I have understood correctly. I wish to say in this respect – as Mr Savary and Mrs Langenhagen have said – that, regardless of the result of the amendments relating to Mr Glante’s report, I hope that the report, in the form it takes after the amendments or without them, has the greatest possible support, regardless of my preferences for one formula or another.
We believe that the private sector should be incorporated from the outset, not only because of the limited funds which it is going to provide during the development phase of 2002 to 2005, but because in the medium term it falls to that sector to contribute substantially during the following phase, not only in the implementation phase, but also in the operative phase.
The substantial increase in the financial participation of the private sector is an essential condition if we are to achieve, within the framework of the future financial perspectives, the necessary public funding in the latter phases. The participation of the private sector should not be improvised, but rather it should be prepared from now, and that was expressed in the resolution of the Council of Ministers in April of last year.
The Commission’s proposal, which is being presented today, simply puts this principle into practice. It is true that there is a suggestion, raised by Mr Glante, which replaces that direct participation with the creation of a Joint Undertaking, with the creation of a promotion company in parallel with the Joint Undertaking, which does not seem sufficient to us, as I have pointed out.
We believe that participation must take place within the undertaking and furthermore that there is a clear will, not only in the space sector, but also in the applications sector, to go ahead with this phase, with this public or private participation.
I would also like to say that, by participating in the capital of the Joint Undertaking, industry is now beginning to accept a minimal risk, and I think that is appropriate, because it must also participate in the final definitions of the architecture of the whole system.
Some in the Council and in Parliament fear that conflicts of interest may arise. In my opinion, these days, national legislations provide formulae which prevent this type of conflict of interests.
As I have said on previous occasions, we are giving aid and funding programmes, while there is a bank acting as financial adviser on the aid, while, linked to that bank, there is a non-governmental organisation, which carries out the programme and while, also related to that bank, there is a study group which is assessing the reality of the programme. And we say that all of that is correct and that there are sufficient barriers to guarantee that a conflict of interests is not possible. I believe that, in this case, there are even more concrete and clear ways, the famous Great wall of China, which would allow us to prevent this type of problem."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples