Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2014-12-15-Speech-1-085-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20141215.16.1-085-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, Mr Groote says that we can only say no. Well, in actual fact this decision on the Fuel Quality Directive (FQD) is being considered under the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, as it relates to pre-Lisbon regulatory procedure and this has not been aligned.
This means that the objection must be justified. It is not a question of saying yes or no. The objection must be justified on one of three grounds. The proposers of the objection have chosen ground number three, that it is incompatible with the aim and content of the basic Act. This suggests that the measure is inappropriate for accurate estimating and reporting of the volume, type, origin and lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of the fuels supplied.
Whilst for me also it does not go quite as far as some Members would like, the case for grounds under point 3 is not proven. I think there is much to recommend the Commission’s proposal. The proposal requires major fuel suppliers to disclose the trade names and volumes of the crude oils they import. This is a positive step and will provide a level of transparency to the public that does not currently exist in the EU. As trade names are generally associated with crude oil types, the tracking of this information will allow for a simpler updating of the EU fossil fuel mix’s carbon intensity in the future.
Furthermore, with the Fuel Quality Directive currently not included in the Commission’s post-2020 Energy and Climate Framework, the adoption of this objection will only serve to undermine the credibility of the FQD by forcing additional institutional delay on a piece of legislation set to expire in six years. I think this would be a poor way forward and that the better compromise – and Mr Groote is looking for a compromise from the Commission – would be for Parliament to move forward with the Commission’s proposal in the spirit in which it has been offered, that is, as a way forward, and make sure that we get somewhere in the next several years, and do not just leave this lying in an interinstitutional wrangle."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples