Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-19-Speech-1-131"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040419.10.1-131"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, I stand by my earlier statement regarding the legal basis. Consequently, I shall focus on the various views expressed and on the amendments to Mr Seppänen’s report.
Amendment No 3 could prove helpful in this regard. However things eventually turn out, we have no intention of excluding the sector. On the contrary, we hope it will remain involved. Looking to the future, we intend to support the Madrid Forum.
The Commission does not wish to go beyond the ground covered by the Madrid Forum. Nonetheless, we do believe that one of the proposals put to the Forum by Eurogas, relating to the ‘use it or lose it’ principle, is essential in the field of contracts. Otherwise
contracts could result in outright prevention of genuine access to third parties. This would mean restricting competition. Future user contracts must therefore be based also on the ‘use it or lose it’
principle. This is the only way of ensuring they are genuine contracts and not contracts aimed solely at using or saturating available capacity. By creating artificial congestion in the networks such contracts would prevent access by third parties.
In general, the draft regulation is in line with the Madrid Forum guidelines, as you have pointed out and recognised, ladies and gentlemen. The amendments that clarify or support the provisions of this draft regulation are acceptable, at least in part or if their text is adjusted. This is true of Amendments Nos 1 and 22, and of many others I shall not mention individually. A detailed list will be provided.
Concerning certain technical issues such as those dealt with in Amendments Nos 14 and 16, these are matters dealt with by the European Association for Gas Exchange. The latter was set up at the request of the Madrid Forum. I have to say that given the very specific, complex and technical nature of these issues, we shall continue to leave them to the aforementioned organisation to deal with. It has already made significant progress, and is reporting regularly to the Madrid Forum. We believe this is the best way to deal with such matters.
There are practical and legal reasons why amendments such as Amendments Nos 8, 17, 22, 27, 30, 35, 37 or 42 are not acceptable. Finally, we cannot agree to the presentation of new guidelines on the remaining issues dealt with in the draft regulation in a predetermined time period. Some of these issues may require studies to be undertaken. Discussions and negotiations on others may take longer than anticipated. Consequently, Amendment No 31 is not acceptable.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the last debate on fundamental issues concerning energy to take place in this Parliament. There will of course be a debate on Eco-design later. To some extent, however, that is a side issue, bringing together industry and energy. It tends to be always the same people taking part in these debates, and we have come to know each other fairly well. I should like to congratulate Mr Seppänen, the rapporteur, and also to thank all the honourable Members present for their input and support over the years. Their contributions were most welcome and have been incorporated into many of the proposals drafted during this period. I feel Parliament’s constructive attitude and the helpful interchange of ideas have resulted in considerable improvement to most of the proposals brought before the House. Personally, I have valued your help, ladies and gentlemen, and also the Commission’s constant support.
It is worth remembering that, thanks to this constructive attitude, it has been possible to make spectacular progress during these last years. The Commission’s adoption of the Green Paper marked a turning point. Parliament’s report on the Green Paper was of the utmost importance too, as were the conclusions it led to. I could mention the gas and electricity liberalisation packages. There were also the crucial accompanying measures, such as access to the networks. Work on the latter is just drawing to a close. As Mr Linkohr, Mr Rapkay and several other speakers have mentioned, we would have liked to wrap up earlier on this. Nevertheless, our goal is in sight and we are moving slowly but surely towards it.
Along with the liberalisation of gas and electricity, the proposal concerning trans-European networks is essential in order for the European internal market in energy to become a reality as far as infrastructures are concerned. The relevant measures dealing with the current Union have been adopted already. Work on similar arrangements for the enlarged Union is well advanced.
We have worked as never before to debate and promote matters relating to energy and the environment. In the past, in other parliaments, the tendency had been simply to set goals for this key area. Many good intentions were expressed, but there was a lack of specific proposals aimed at attaining the objectives. We have succeeded in translating those pious statements and good intentions into texts, obligations and responsibilities. By way of example, I could mention the promotion of renewable energies, energy efficiency in buildings, issues related to biofuels, the creation of intelligent energy, Eco-design and energy efficiency. Community policy has come into play too. This has been most important. Good progress has been made concerning Community policy on nuclear safety. The work is not yet complete, but much has been achieved. A further issue related to the European energy market on which substantial progress has been made concerns the adoption of a European objective with regard to the security of energy supply. Mr Linkohr referred to this when he took the floor. Furthermore, the importance of ensuring security of internal supply within the Union has been recognised also.
Good progress has been made. We have worked well together. Madam President, I am bound to thank the House once again for its cooperation, for all the effort it has made and for its valuable contributions. In particular, honourable Members are to be commended on the intellectual skills and depth of knowledge they displayed in tackling the texts, which have sometimes been extremely complicated and technical. They demonstrated an excellent grasp of the issues, and I believe congratulations are in order.
I should like to begin by thanking the House for the discussion that evolved on a matter of such vital importance, and for the calibre of the 43 amendments. This does not mean that we will be able to endorse all 43, however. In particular, I should like to thank the rapporteur for his excellent work. Thanks are also due to Mr Mombaur, who has already left the House. I do not share his views on changing the legal basis, but he certainly has worked in a most constructive manner also.
I have to say that the Commission cannot support the amendments restricting the scope of the draft regulation to cross-border trade only. That would amount to scaling down the aim of this proposal significantly. The same would be true of its possibilities. There would be no difficulty in trading gas from one country to another, but internal competition would definitely be restricted. In a number of States, including several new Member States, gas flows along many networks. Some of the latter do not link into a specific point of importation. Consequently, they do not link into a cross-border point either.
All these transport networks and the relevant companies would be excluded from the scope of implementation of the proposed regulation. This would hinder and prejudice the smooth operation of the internal market. In addition, the scope of implementation is that envisaged in the transit directive and in the second directive relating to the internal market in gas.
What is at issue is facilitating competition, not only competition between the various countries but also within them. Restricting the scope of implementation of this regulation would entail limiting its aim significantly and also limiting the possibility of actually achieving a competitive European gas market.
It must also be taken into account, however, that several speakers, and in particular Mr Mombaur, have raised the issue of guaranteeing a degree of profitability that would make the allocation of funds to the creation, construction and maintenance of the gas networks an attractive proposition. In this connection, I can say that we are able to accept Amendment No 12. We believe it clarifies our text and improves its quality. We feel the amendment takes account of competition between the various networks. There was no specific provision for this in our text. We are therefore of the opinion that the amendment helps to allay the fears of those concerned about the lack of profitability. Consequently it also allays concerns about future difficulties relating to new investment.
I must point out that the minimum standards for access to transport networks are absolutely crucial. They are essential in order to facilitate access to new competitors, and therefore also to creating a genuine internal market in gas. I cannot emphasise this enough.
The subject of the Madrid Forum has also been raised. It has been suggested that we should move somewhat further ahead. Furthermore, concern has been expressed as to whether, in future, the comitology procedure will result in sidelining the Forum, or sidelining the sector, that is, its protagonists.
The House must be aware that over the years I have always stressed the need to listen to the main stakeholders on a regular basis and we are, therefore, prepared to consider a solution guaranteeing that the sector will be consulted at the Madrid Forum, together with all other interested parties."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples