Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-05-Speech-1-164"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050905.22.1-164"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, I will be brief, even though the project is worth discussing further.
Thank you, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, for originating this great project that, we hope, will give the young generation a very positive and dynamic image of Europe. I thank you and I hope that Parliament will support this great project by a large majority.
I would like to thank Parliament for the support it is giving to this great programme. It is true that the financial perspectives will have to be discussed but, in any event, I think that we must give priority to the billion intended for the Galileo programme. The Galileo programme, as Mrs De Veyrac has just said, confirms the European Union’s true independence, and will make possible a number of applications. Clearly, these applications must be within the reach of as many people as possible and will provide our small and medium-sized enterprises with many new opportunities. There is no doubt that we need to focus on providing the human resources to make full use of the new opportunities provided by this programme. I can well understand that Parliament particularly wishes to be involved in this programme.
In conclusion, I would like to thank Mrs Barsi-Pataky for her report to which you have responded. It is a comprehensive and high-quality report. I would also like to thank your Committee on Transport and Tourism and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy for their support for the European Commission’s proposal.
Of course, I support Parliament’s concern to feel fully responsible for the implementation of this project, which will be developed within the framework of a public-private partnership in which businesses will have a full part to play. It has just been said that there were no private businesses involved in the development phase. This is true in the development phase, but during the deployment and commercial operating phases it will be European businesses that, in the context of synergies, will carry this project; and that is the interesting aspect of all this. The Supervisory Authority will, of course, ensure that the objectives pursued by the European Union are achieved.
Mrs Barsi-Pataky’s report goes in the direction wanted by the Commission, which can accept all the amendments proposed by the rapporteur, with the exception of Amendments 13 and 25. I am not going to respond to all the points raised. Most of the amendments significantly improve the text and make a positive contribution to the programme. Amendments 9, 10, 20 and 21 specify that the budgetary authority will be asked to give its approval in cases where financial guarantees or commitments arising from the programme exceed the budgetary allocation provided. I give my approval. I would also remind you that the Commission has promised that the future concession contract will provide for repayment of public financial contributions if the profit earned by the concession holder passes a certain threshold. It therefore accepts Amendments 11 and 22, which provide for a profit-sharing mechanism, while specifying that the Community contribution will not automatically be repayed in full, but that repayment will depend on the profit earned by the concession holder.
With regard to the EUR 1 billion, I would stress that it is the result of a precise assessment of the costs of the programme and of the desire to get strong financial involvement from the private sector. However, the Commission accepts the indicative inclusion of that figure at this stage by means of Amendment 19, while the discussions on the new financial perspectives are underway.
In contrast, the Commission cannot accept Amendments 13 and 25, giving Parliament observer status on the Administrative Board of the Supervisory Authority. It would appear difficult for Parliament, which is the main budgetary control body for the Community as a whole, to both exercise this control and sit, even simply as an observer, on the administrative board of a body over which it has control. I would add that there is currently no precedent for this in the other Community agencies. The experts appointed by Parliament within some of these agencies are simply
experts appointed for their qualifications and do not represent Parliament as an institution. I think that Parliament must retain its power of control and must in no way be linked by its presence, even as an observer, on the administrative board. I can assure you that the Commission is keen to provide the European Parliament with all the necessary information, including, as some have mentioned, with regard to the protection of our patents and of the most sensitive technologies.
That is why I hope that we will clearly confine ourselves to our mutual responsibilities and that Parliament will fully assume its responsibility for control. I think that, for this reason, it is preferable not to retain Amendments 13 and 25, the spirit of which I well understand but which do not seem to follow the spirit of our institutions.
In conclusion, I am delighted at Parliament’s work. I am convinced that the final point, based on a general interinstitutional approach, will in no way diminish the importance of Parliament’s role and will not hinder the rapid and positive progress of the codecision procedure."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples