Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-22-Speech-1-089"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-09-22"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Natural gas/petroleum products2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030922.6.1-089"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-09-22-Speech-1-0902
lpv:speaker	lp:Johannes Blokland2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; ChristenUnie - Staatkundig Gereformeerde Parti (2002-03-18--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the European Economic Area Joint Parliamentary Committee (EEA) (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member; ECON (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Slovak Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3 co-chair; EDD (2001-01-30--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, it is a sound initiative on the part of the Commission to table proposals to safeguard security of energy supply. We in our society have become dependent on the supply of oil and gas, products supplied to a large group of consumers by a small group of producers. It goes without saying that when major interests are at stake in the supply of energy, the proposals must also be well considered. This is exactly where the problem lies in the Commission proposal on the security of natural gas supply. The first problem is the proposal’s legal basis. The Commission takes Article 95 on the internal market as its basis. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has specifically recommended having the legal basis examined. I am not aware of anything having resulted from this. A second problem is that there is no need for this proposal. Parliament has recently discussed, at second reading, the gas directive, which deals with security of supply. The Commission proposal is not consistent with this; quite the contrary, in fact – it even appears to contradict this gas directive. Finally, partly as a result of this, the Commission proposal is ambiguous and leaves many questions unanswered. Apparently, these questions must be answered in the implementation phase, and this is not the purpose of a directive. A directive aims to provide direction and offer a solution. The Commission proposal, however, raises more questions than it can answer. Particularly in Articles 3 and 4, the wording is unclear and can be interpreted in more than one way. These objections lead the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs to recommend unanimously that the proposal be rejected, and in line with this recommendation, I have tabled an amendment for consideration by plenary. On behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, I suggest that the proposal be sent back to the Commission. I thank you for your attention and count on your support for the amendment to reject the Commission proposal."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph