Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-06-17-Speech-2-337"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080617.38.2-337"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, today’s debate very much focused on households, and the Commission proposal goes beyond households: it is definitely also industry. With all due respect to vulnerable consumers, what we are trying to achieve is a well-functioning market. You cannot ever subsidise everything because it means taking from somebody to give to someone else; I know that there will be vulnerable consumers that we should pay due attention to, but basically what we are trying to achieve is a well-functioning interconnected European market based on the values and experiences that we have in other fields.
The Commission can accept Amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 40, 44, 46, 48, 50, 54, 56, 57, 58, 61, 65, 70, 71, 73, 74, 77, 83, 84, 88, 89, 92, 93, 94, 97, 99, 101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 111,112, 113, 114, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 126, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151 and 152.
The Commission can accept Amendments 10, 11, 16, 24, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 55, 59, 60, 66, 68, 72, 79, 80, 82, 85, 86, 87, 95, 98, 100, 109, 110, 115, 117, 121, 125, 127, 138, 153, 155, 165, 166 and 167 in part.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments 3, 7, 9, 13, 27, 28, 31, 32, 37, 49, 51, 52, 53, 62, 63, 64, 67, 69, 75, 76, 78, 81, 90, 91, 96, 103, 104, 116, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 154, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 168, 169, 170, 171 and 176.
The Commission can accept Amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 21, 22 and 29.
The Commission can accept Amendments 6, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 24, 25, 28, 31 and 32 in part.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments 13, 19, 23, 26, 27, 30 and 33.
The energy market has only recently started to develop and it takes some time to put into place, but I believe that today’s debate really shows that the Commission proposal addresses all the main areas correctly.
The Commission can accept Amendments 1, 6, 9, 10, 12, 16, 45, 48, 49, 53, 54, 64 (regarding paragraph 3), 64 (paragraph 4), 66, 72 and 75.
The Commission can accept Amendments 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 13, 14, 15, 19 (paragraph 1a), 19 (paragraph 1da), 19 (paragraph 1db), 19 (paragraph 1de), 19 (paragraph 1df), 19 (paragraph 1dh), 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 35, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47, 51, 57, 58, 59, 61, 64 (paragraph 1), 68, 70, 74 and 76 in part.
The Commission cannot accept Amendments 8, 17, 18, 19 (paragraph 1c), 19 (paragraph 1d), 19 (paragraph 1dc), 19 (paragraph 1dd), 19(1dg), 20, 21, 22, 25, 29, 30, 34, 36, 37, 38, 46, 50, 52, 55, 56, 60, 62, 63, 64 (paragraph 2), 64 (paragraph 5), 64 (paragraph 7), 64(8), 65, 67, 69, 71 and 73.
There have been slight doubts about whether the change is necessary. I believe that change is necessary: not only the Commission’s annual reports, but also the competitive sector inquiry has demonstrated this. Parliament’s Vidal-Quadras report said that we need a change and we need proposals.
On the ground we have also had some developments in competition law recently. The difficulty is that if you can discover anti-competitive behaviour, it is all
: you impose fines but the consumer has already paid the price. So it is structural change that is necessary and I believe that the proposals we have made are a response to it.
There are a couple of issues where I believe we are going beyond just an energy market proposal. Let us start with the Agency. I completely agree that an independent Agency is a key. The difficulty I have is that we also have case-law which draws boundaries, and the Commission is made as strong as possible, within legal boundaries, if we have an Agency.
On comitology, I understand Parliament’s questions about comitology but this is the procedure that we have and we should use this procedure to achieve the result.
On infringement, it was Mr Paasilinna who said that this is the procedure we have, and we should use it because we do not have another procedure.
There was a question about consumer rights. There is subsidiarity, but aviation is more of a cross-border issue. I believe the Energy Charter is more closely related to subsidiarity. We set a good example, but should we really bring in European legislation? I have some doubts. I am not necessarily against it, but there is a boundary between where European legislation is needed and where national law starts in this respect. At any rate I believe these are the issues, and Parliament will surely find the right approach.
I shall finish by thanking Mrs Morgan, Mrs De Vits, Giles Chichester and Alejo Vidal-Quadras once again for their excellent reports. I think that the debate clearly showed that there was a lot of internal debate, and I am looking forward to the vote tomorrow, because the Vidal-Quadras report paved the way for us to make the proposal. I know that Council and Parliament will need to work to find a balanced solution. Both sides are ready. Much depends on the vote tomorrow where Parliament will stand, but I clearly understand that there is political will to find agreement and we will have the proposal adopted during this legislature for the benefit of our consumers, and I think that is great."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Chichester report (A6-0226/2008 ) A6-0226/2008"1
"Morgan report (A6-0191/2008 ) A6-0191/2008"1
"Vidal-Quadras report (A6-0228/2008 ) A6-0228/2008"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples