Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-22-Speech-1-093"

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.20030922.6.1-093"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-09-22-Speech-1-0942
lpv:speaker	lp:Elly Plooij-van Gorsel2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member; ELDR (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 chair; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; ECON (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in June of this year, we voted for the so-called energy package which included, among others, the directive concerning an internal market for natural gas. In my view, we succeeded, in June, in adopting legislation not only facilitating the further liberalisation of the energy market but also safeguarding the security of energy supply. If this new directive is implemented properly and enforced consistently, Europe can avoid situations of the kind experienced in California. According to the new legislation, it is the Member States that are required to offer security of supply. This is why, according to the ELDR, the current gas market proposals go way too far. After all, the subsidiarity principle applies at all times. Commissioner, this applies all the more to the supply of oil. Consequently, on behalf of the Liberal Group, I would call for the Commission proposal on oil supply to be rejected and returned to the Commission. We have a number of reasons to substantiate this view. The legislation already in force is adequate to safeguard security of supply. Directive 98 requires Member States to maintain a stock level of 90 consumption days. The Commission would like to increase this obligation, but fails to make it clear why a higher stock level is necessary. The Commission has failed to explain the expected benefits derived from a higher stock level, let alone how it can justify the expected costs for the Member States. It is unacceptable for this Parliament to issue legislation for which any basis is lacking, while current legislation is sufficient and as long as there is no proof demonstrating the need for new legislation. This is something that we in this House must emphatically reject. I would therefore urge you to support the ELDR Group’s position and thwart this superfluous legislation. I am given to understand that people from different political quarters in this Parliament are adopting the same reasoning. I think that we will be able to reach an agreement during the vote tomorrow. I would thank the rapporteurs for their excellent work and I thank you all for your attention."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph