Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-19-Speech-1-120"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040419.10.1-120"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, the proposal for a regulation on access to gas transmission networks. It is important to have reliable rules for access to networks. We found that with the gas directive last year. My group believes the proposal should be further discussed together with the amendments tabled by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy.
Commissioner, there are four points I would like to recommend you consider in greater detail in the Council debate. Firstly, investment incentives. We can talk about markets here for a long time. If we have no investors, then in the end we have no market either. The Commission has often referred to the great risks carried by investors in the gas sector – exploration, pipeline construction. There is competition in pipelines; there already was when the monopolies existed. That is how the market came into being and it must remain clear that tariffs based on costs alone may deter investments.
My second remark is please will you consider whether more weight can be given to cross-border gas transport. Thirdly, comitology. The problem is not comitology itself, but the question is whether Article 9 is in a correct relationship to Articles 3 to 8, that is whether the most important points really are in Articles 3 to 8. This can perhaps be improved when it is discussed in the Council. My fourth comment, Commissioner de Palacio, is that of course everyone who has anything to say about the market is important, regulators, network operators and above all investors, and it is absolutely clear that you talk to them before you make proposals to Parliament and Council; you always have done. Now they would all like to be mentioned in the legislation. Personally, I do not see why they should be, because I believe the Commission knows how to do its job, but if it would give those I have just named pleasure to be mentioned in a recital, then I do not really mind.
Then I would like to say something about the other report on security of natural gas supply. It is correct that we depend very much on imports. It is therefore right that we should be concerned with this and oblige the Member States to introduce a suitable policy. Now Parliament has adopted at first reading a different text than the one the Commission presented and the Council has backed Parliament in the matter. We are therefore now speaking about a different text than the Commission originally presented and in our view this text no longer contains any rules for the internal market. This means that the European Union has only one way of justifying it at all, namely Article 100 of the Treaty, and, on the basis of the vote of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, the committee therefore recommends that Parliament follow the Council’s lead on this."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples