Mr President, Commissioner, ladies, gentlemen, and above all, you interpreters who are assembled here in such numbers for so few of us Members, it is always a pleasure to be able to discuss such an interesting and exciting topic at such a late hour. I hope that the lateness of the hour will not downgrade the project. I refer to the Galileo satellite navigation system, the first great project to be shaped jointly by the European institutions and the ESA. In technical, economic and political terms, it is eminently comparable with such projects as the Airbus and the GSM mobile telecommunications standard. This system will to some degree be in technological competition with the existing American GPS system, which is a good thing for European technology, but it will also be compatible with GPS – at least I hope it will, and that is something by which we set store – and be able to supplement it. I have been told that the United States is seriously concerned about developments in Europe. That cannot be a bad thing, and can mean only that we are on the right road and that we will make technological progress in Europe by the use of this system. It is certainly in competition, in technological terms, with the existing GPS, but there is also the possibility of their interacting. We are working towards the system being able to use the same receivers for GPS and Galileo signals. That will increase the utility of both systems. I would also like, at this point, to refer to the coordination between GPS, Galileo and EGNOS. Most discussions fail to do justice to this point, but I think it too is important. After 11 September and during the Afghanistan conflict, the United States had apprehensions about the security aspects of what is a civilian project, but these will be safeguarded. Both the civilian character and the public control of the Galileo project make disruption, interference and misuse impossible. A certain levy on receivers will mean that broad use will be free of charge. Broad use of GPS is free of charge, and so will Galileo be. More exact services of a higher order will have to be paid for in order to guarantee the refinancing of the running and development costs. The service will, however, be permanently available. This afternoon I had the pleasure of a conversation with the US Government's representative in Brussels, who again expressed his concern about the project's development. I was able to reassure him, but not in the sense that we would unreservedly submit ourselves to the GPS system. I made it clear to him that we are building our own system, that we are working towards cooperation, but that we will carry on with development and not let ourselves be led into some kind of technological dependency. I think that these informally expressed wishes and these remarks show that we are still on the right road. The Member States have delayed taking a decision for a long time, and I hope that they will enthusiastically endorse this project in March, despite certain problems that they have with the Price Waterhouse study – indeed, I get indications from various Member State governments that they will. I hope that we will get to that, and believe that it is high time we did. We are already a couple of months behind, but will be able to make up for them. I would like to again express my gratitude to the Commissioner for the conversation we had and also for providing these documents, which again explain what Galileo is about and can allay any suspicions or misgivings. Let us turn now to the report itself and to the proposal, which is not uncontroversial. I think there is, as there was in the past, overwhelming agreement that we want this project and that we want it to be a civilian one. As a result, though, of events last year and in recent months, we are also agreed that it needs to be available to some degree to our troops who are sent out to maintain the peace. That will be feasible, technically feasible, but it will also be politically desired and feasible. It is, though, to remain a civilian system, as it was before. There were great problems in discussions about how private enterprise was to be involved in this undertaking. The Commission proposal works on the assumption that private firms will be involved, including financially. Financial participation is – shall we say – a symbolic act. It would be enough to finance the development stage by means of public funds alone, but industry is to be involved. That is what I want too, but I have had no clear indication from industry that they are becoming amicably disposed towards the Commission proposal and getting on board the Joint Undertaking. My proposal that the development company should be established, coming into being in parallel with the Joint Undertaking but dovetailing closely with it, offers a compromise, a way out of the dilemma. Indications from the business world are variable – some are rejecting this proposal, while others have a very open mind about it. I have endeavoured simply to use this proposal to reduce to some extent the inhibitions that businesses have, and I hope that they will participate in the development company. In so far, I hope for broad support tomorrow. Unfortunately, I cannot support the 's proposals, which date back to the Commission proposal and thus, in my opinion, give industry another argument against joining in.

Political group: PSE