Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-03-07-Speech-1-095"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050307.12.1-095"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, let me start by expressing my heartfelt thanks to the rapporteur, something that I do not normally do, believing as I do that the function of a rapporteur is to deliver a proper job of work and that thanks are not called for when things are done as a matter of course. This has, though, indeed been a really complex business, and one that Mr Seppänen has handled outstandingly well. The debate has not, of course, only just started; we and a number of other Members already know each other from the previous Parliament and were there for the first reading, which was already complicated enough.
The Council has now joined Parliament in adopting many of the things that we debated at first reading stage – initially with some acrimony – and then accepted, and we can actually be content with that. It just so happens, though, that new parliaments bring with them new people, with new ideas and new proposals. Our new Members did, of course, have new ideas, and the fact that a compromise had very largely already been reached with the Council meant that it was very difficult to take these on board. I know that Mr Seppänen was already in favour of our adopting the Commission proposal and the Council position without significant amendment, and so he has done a good job of getting Parliament’s interests across and successfully negotiating their acceptance by the Council.
I will come to the point, though: neither on the energy market nor any other do we want competition for the sake of it, but we are well aware that competition is in fact a suitable means whereby a common market’s efficiency gains really can be maximised. This common market and the exploitation of these efficiency gains demand that we open up the national market segments and turn them into a single internal market in energy, and hence require transparent and discrimination-free access to the networks. We see this Regulation as making provision for the enactment of more specific, detailed and binding guidelines, thereby complementing the 2003 internal market directive on the complete opening-up of the gas markets.
Among other things, this Regulation is meant to bring in more explicit requirements with regard to transparency, also requiring network operators to offer third parties services providing access to the network and, in particular, less ambiguous structures for tariffs. It is this tariff structure that is essential if competitors are to enjoy transparent and discrimination-free access when using the networks, for such networks are monopolistic by nature, and it is only by regulating access to them that we will be able to get them under control and make them transparent and non-discriminatory. That is why it was important, in one instance that I want to draw to your particular attention, for us to again tighten up the common position on the tariff structure, having already got many other points accepted. The fact is that it is not sufficient to ensure that the tariffs laid down include relatively abstract efficiency incentives. Tariffs must be measured against the benchmark of the costs of an efficient network operator with a comparable structure; this is what this House devised and got accepted for cross-border trade in electricity, and it is also suited to the gas networks. That being so, it should be generally supported in the House."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples