Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 26 September 2006 - Strasbourg

18. GALILEO (debate)

  President. The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission by Mrs Barsi-Pataky and Mr Rübig on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, Mr Glante on behalf of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, Mrs Hall on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and Mr Pirilli on behalf of the Union for Europe of the Nations Group, on taking stock of the Galileo programme (O-0094/2006 – B6-0430/2006).

  Etelka Barsi-Pataky (PPE-DE), author. – (HU) Mr President, Mr Vice-President, a year ago the European Parliament voted here in Strasbourg at first reading on the financing of the GALILEO programme, and on the whole it unanimously supported the programme. A great success of the past year has been the fact that the GIOVE-A satellite went into orbit and occupied its frequency. Our gratitude goes to the European engineers and developers.

Discussions regarding the realisation and operation of the project are under way, and Parliament takes note of the Commission’s communication to the effect that the first result of these talks will be the so-called ‘head of terms’ regarding its financing, which is to come before us before the end of this year. We request the Commission to do everything possible in the interest of fulfilling the common objective of financing the GALILEO programme by a two-thirds/one-third split between private capital and the Commission.

Despite the results, we must express our concerns. The programme is considerably delayed. We realise the significant difficulties which the Commission faces daily. The European legal and regulatory system is difficult to use when it comes to realising a joint project. Furthermore, it is our experience that this is a new and difficult task, as regards financing, risks and operations, for the European space industry selected to carry it out.

We agree that the European GALILEO programme has entered the global sphere and has offered its services worldwide. If, however, cooperation with third countries is also to figure in the overall institutional transformation of the Supervisory Authority, then the European Parliament wishes first to give its opinion on this matter.

We, the various political groups in the European Parliament, consider that what the GALILEO programme now needs is what is known as ‘good governance’. For this reason, I wish to ask the President and Vice-President what the Commission plans to do to ensure that this promising programme, which is one of the vehicles for the Lisbon Strategy, will be realised without further delay. When will the regulations on its uses be ready, allowing European undertakings to prepare in sufficient time for the participation that is the key to the success of the entire programme?

  Fiona Hall (ALDE), author. – Mr President, I, like Mrs Barsi-Pataky, am also particularly concerned about the issue of timing. Delay is absolutely critical, because Galileo’s unique attractiveness to investors is lost once the American GPS 3 system has reached operational capability, which is estimated to be in about 2015. I should be grateful if the Commissioner would spell out to what extent the delay is going to be detrimental to Galileo’s success in the international market for satellite navigation.

I am concerned that the delay undermines Galileo’s business plan in other respects as well. Firstly, with the delay have come increased costs. Indeed, the costs of Galileo have already exceeded the budget by over 40%. Secondly, the delay undermines the potential for revenue. The most important source of revenue is expected to be royalties from intellectual property rights. Receiving manufacturers would pay a licence fee to the Galileo-operating company in order to have their receivers Galileo-enabled. But what manufacturer will want to pay a licence fee for Galileo if it does not offer any added value when compared to an upgraded GPS? Therefore, delay to the Galileo programme is not just unfortunate: it could have really grave consequences for the financial burden which is carried by the public purse. I should be very grateful if the Commissioner could give us some explanation on this.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, first of all I should like to thank Mrs Barsi-Pataky and Mrs Hall, as well as Mr Rübig and Mr Glante, who should be with us soon. I am grateful to them, and particularly to Mrs Barsi-Pataky, for the close attention they have paid to the development of this great Galileo programme.

I will try to provide you with some specific answers, because I should like to put to rest certain fears that, in spite of everything, seem to me to be rather excessive. I would remind you that the Galileo programme was designed in three stages. First, there is a development and validation phase, involving the development of the satellites and terrestrial components of the system and their in-orbit validation. This development phase runs from 2003 to 2009, and is currently being managed by the Galileo joint undertaking. This will be followed, from 2009 to 2010, by the deployment phase, involving the production and launching of the satellites and the full instalment of the terrestrial component. Finally, the operating phase will start in 2010.

The deployment and operation phases will be covered by a concession contract lasting around 20 years. The Supervisory Authority, which is a Community agency, will manage these two phases, and will act as the licensing authority.

Within this schedule, there is one date to which we absolutely must stick – and on this point you are quite right – namely the date from which businesses and citizens will be able to receive accurate and reliable signals from Galileo. That will be at the end of 2010, when the first Galileo satellites will start transmitting their signals.

That said, I have no intention of glossing over the difficulties. Galileo is not only a technological innovation, but also, at institutional level, a very particular operation. The project now involves eight industrial players, 25 public players and three institutions. In the long term, this multiple patronage will be Galileo's strength, but it is true that all of these players, all of these supporters of Galileo, will really need to adapt in order to make progress on the matter together.

When, in 2005, I observed the problems between the eight members of the future industrial consortium, I appointed Karel van Miert to resolve the problems, which he did with remarkable success. We also needed to deal with the changes in safety and security requirements that necessitated a further delay for technical examination. Be that as it may, the important thing is the result in 2010.

Having said that, we also need to make steady progress in the schedule of intermediate steps, paying close attention to the quality and viability of the project. For example, the industrial activities of the in-orbit validation phase, which are the responsibility of the European Space Agency, began in December 2004. The contract regarding the completion of this phase was signed on 19 January 2006, and the work is currently progressing satisfactorily. The technical feasibility of the project has been proven, and it is now a question of laying the foundations for a true public/private partnership for the next 20 years. It goes without saying that I will inform you of any problems that arise regarding the signing of the concession contract.

I should now like, in response to your second question, to turn to the European Supervisory Authority. This is the authority responsible for supervising the future concessionaire. The Supervisory Authority will have to ensure that the concessionaire complies with the concession contract and the annexed terms and conditions, and it will take all appropriate measures to ensure that services are not interrupted if the concessionaire goes bankrupt. In addition, the Supervisory Authority will also have to monitor all the technical, security and financial aspects of the concession. In this regard, I would say that the wording of the concession contract is obviously very important, because it will be the primary instrument on which the Supervisory Authority's ability to monitor the concessionaire will be based. The concession contract must therefore be worded quite unambiguously, and I will of course inform Parliament of it, as the Commission has made a commitment to inform you of the content of the concession contract before it is signed by the Supervisory Authority.

Two final problems remain to be addressed: first of all, the financial issue. The distribution of financial contributions between the Member States and the industrial players is largely dependent on the risk assessment, but this assessment itself requires the best possible understanding of Galileo's possible applications. That is why, by the end of November, I will publish a communication in the form of a Green Paper on these applications. For that purpose, we have come up with a competition to appeal to the imaginations of the European people regarding the possible applications of Galileo. I am quite sure that we are still underestimating the potential of Galileo, and I would urge you, ladies and gentlemen, to make efforts yourselves to encourage all our European industries to contribute to this discovery of the possible applications of Galileo.

The second problem is that of cooperation with third countries. As you will be aware, the international agreements regarding the Galileo programme are negotiated on the basis of Article 300 of the Treaty. The procedure laid down in that article must always include consultation of Parliament before such agreements are concluded, and I will see to it personally that this takes place. It is quite certain that cooperation with third countries regarding Galileo represents an opportunity, but this opportunity must be managed, and the Commission will send another communication to Parliament and the Council this autumn, setting out the broad outline of this cooperation policy.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I do not want to gloss over the difficulties that go hand in hand with the implementation of a project as ambitious as this one, but at the same time I would draw your attention to the risks involved in giving the impression that this programme will in some way be subject to crucial delays that cast doubt on the viability of the project. That is not the case, and nor will it be, because I personally intend, with your help, with the active support of Parliament, to ensure that this great project can be put into practice in accordance with the schedule that we set to guarantee its viability, because you are quite right that there will be no shortage of competitors. Galileo therefore needs to be put into operation within the timeframe I have set out. I really will keep a close eye on this throughout the procedure, aided and supported by your Parliament.

  Lambert van Nistelrooij, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (NL) Mr President, I am particularly pleased that we are discussing this topic – albeit at this late hour – because it is indeed the case that we need to get our skates on. We must keep the momentum going, not least in view of global competition. Mrs Barsi-Pataky already gave an excellent outline of the framework with regard to the possible delay, the legal framework and so on. I hope you will allow me briefly to dwell on this public-private cooperation this evening.

It is estimated that a future-oriented project such as this can yield 150 000 extra jobs, and I know that industry cannot wait to take part in it. Moreover, there are also regions in Europe – Bavaria and North Netherlands for example – that are prepared to invest money from the structural funds in developing this further. That has also been done before for the LOFAR radio telescope project in North Netherlands.

As you, Mr Barrot, will know, since you have been Commissioner for Regional Policy, structural funds must, more than ever, be invested in technologies and information. Would you be prepared to take over this development of decentralised involvement and funding? You have mentioned a Green Paper. Could that be the bridge that can bring about this acceleration?

I am also mindful of the new rules for state support. Mrs Kroes outlined possibilities for projects of this kind a moment ago. I think that we are under-using the other instruments in this Parliament and in the European Union.

Galileo is still in pole position globally. Europe is still ahead, but Galileo cannot afford to fall flat on its face in the implementation stage. Galileo should not carry on drifting, it must land.

  Teresa Riera Madurell, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (ES) Mr President, I would like to thank the Commission for its explanations; I believe that it has grasped that we are worried about the situation with the Galileo programme − which is similar to what is happening in the case of Airbus, for example. That is the true purpose of the debate. Time planning and compliance with the timetable laid down are crucial to the commercial viability and success of the programme.

A considerable delay is building up in relation to Galileo, in terms of the 2005 forecasts. The tender procedure has been extended, and that is going to have serious repercussions for the programming of the project as a whole. That too is why our question is relevant. We must ensure the continuity of the project and seek the most creative and appropriate solutions in the light of the programme's objectives.

We would urge the Commission to continue with its negotiating efforts and ensure that there are going to be no further delays, so that Galileo, the largest of the European-scale industrial projects, moves forward under the best possible conditions and can play its appropriate role in the achievement of the Lisbon objectives.

We would also ask that the Commission carry out the reforms necessary also to promote the participation of SMEs.

In order to support Galileo, Parliament needs to be kept informed. The commitment is there and you have mentioned it. We must also be informed of the costs and consequences of the delay. I agree that it will be useful for Parliament to monitor the project periodically. To that end, it is important that the supervisory authority, which you have mentioned, also send its reports to Parliament and that the expert appointed by Parliament has the status of observer in the authority’s activities.

In fact, this Parliament has previously expressed its full support for the Galileo programme, taking on legislative and budgetary commitments and clearly acknowledging that Galileo is a strategic project, one of the pillars of the Lisbon Strategy, which in turn offers great opportunities to our small and medium-sized businesses.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, you know, I would be happy to continue this discussion all night, because Galileo is a really exciting project.

Even so, I should like once again to reassure the honourable Members: the first of the two experimental satellites was launched from Baïkonour on 28 December 2005, and it has successfully transmitted all of the signals allowing us to guarantee the use of the frequency bands allocated to the European satellite navigation system. The second satellite, GIOVE-B, will be launched in the course of 2007. It will carry other technologically advanced equipment such as the passive hydrogen MASER atomic clock, which will be the most precise atomic clock ever launched into space. In parallel with this, the industrial activities of the in-orbit validation phase began in December 2004. I have already said, and I will say it again, that the entire contract for the validation phase, amounting to EUR 1 038 million, was signed on 19 January 2006.

We are now entering a new phase, which will involve investigating all the possible applications for Galileo. As I have explained, we have issued a kind of appeal to all small and medium-sized enterprises and engineers able to develop innovations in this field. The Green Paper will in fact aim to ask the right questions, which should enable us to reach a better understanding of all the possible applications. Next, when this has given us an overall vision of the applications, we will be better able to deal with the public/private partnership and to plan how to distribute efforts. The industrial sector also needs to be involved, to the extent that it can benefit from these applications. That will finally allow us to found this concession contract on a reasonable financial basis. There is no reason to think, at this stage, that we will find ourselves in a situation difficult enough to upset the balance of the project.

That being said, I have made a genuine commitment to keeping Parliament informed – Mrs Barsi-Pataky, as rapporteur, is well aware of this, and I should like to thank her once again. I am absolutely committed to coming to Parliament whenever necessary to explain how things stand and how they are developing. You suggested that Parliament should have observer status; we have already explained our position in this regard to the competent committees. It would be difficult for Parliament to try to be an observer at the same time as performing all of its monitoring activities.

In any event, however, Mr President, I should like to reiterate this evening the commitment I have made: I will keep Parliament fully informed of everything that happens, both of the implementation of the concession contract and the public/private partnership and of how we are going to manage the contributions of third countries and their participation in Galileo.

  President. I am much obliged to Commission Vice-President Barrot.

To wind up the debate, a motion for resolution⁽¹⁾ has been tabled under Rule 108(5) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday.

(1) See Minutes.