Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-22-Speech-1-088"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030922.6.1-088"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, energy is among the key issues for the EU. We must take charge of the environmental dimension and security of supply, develop new, and above all renewable, energy sources and use the energy we have more wisely and efficiently etc. Oil too is part of the overall issue, including the security of oil supplies.
Does Europe need common rules governing oil supplies, together with increased coordination? That is how the debate on the proposal for a directive on security of supply for oil in Europe might briefly be formulated. For most people, the answer is no doubt obvious. Clearly, it is good for us to have more solidarity in Europe, including where energy supplies are concerned, but, at the same time, we are entering areas in which the Member States believe that each country must have sovereignty in determining the level of common commitments.
My report makes an attempt to balance these conflicting requirements. Most people agree that it is necessary to bring about better coordination of energy supplies in Europe but, at the same time, the Member States want, to a large extent, to maintain control. That is especially clear when it comes to oil supplies. My report changes a number of points in the proposal for a directive. Through a range of amendments, I have tried to find that balance between the Member States and the common interest that is required if we are to achieve a solution that can work well for the oil market and in terms of the needs of the various countries.
The proposals for increasing oil suppliers’ readiness to build up larger reserves – for 120 rather than 90 days – may appear sound, but also contain disadvantages. It costs a fair amount to increase the reserves, and both transport and storage affect the environment. I therefore choose to retain the present commitment involving 90 days. The proposal for enabling oil reserves to be released, even if there is no physical shortage, may appear sound at first glance, but it is clear, where this too is concerned, that such an arrangement would entail large problems and risks.
The market is not always right. That is something we have seen for ourselves in many oil crises, as they are termed. At the same time, it is incredibly difficult to develop regulations and agree upon clear and objective criteria that apply in all the various situations we can imagine ending up in when oil prices rise quickly. I therefore reject the Commission’s proposal to facilitate the release of oil reserves, even where there is no physical shortage.
My proposal is based upon the need for increased coordination and the sharing of responsibility for oil supplies within the EU. This requires changes to the present regulations, without impairing the arrangement that currently prevails whereby countries outside the EU and Europe also participate. Existing structures and commitments must apply in the future too, but coordination must be improved.
The committee has adopted a number of amendments that balance Community and national interests. The majority of my own amendments – the most significant – were adopted. Some of my amendments were rejected. I choose to reintroduce only one of the amendments rejected by the committee. This is about the way in which responsibility for security stocks is organised. The Commission wants a public body to be given this task. At present, the arrangements are different from one Member State to another. Nor do I see any reason why, in the future too, they should not be different. My amendment is aimed at giving the Member States the opportunity to choose the methods they consider best suit their own countries, without attendant disadvantages for other Member States. In Amendment No 28, I therefore propose that it should be up to the Member States to choose whether it should be a public body that has the task in question or whether it is for the individual Member State to opt for another arrangement.
Two amendments suggest that the proposal for a directive be rejected. This is because the proposers believe that proper regulations already exist and that no changes are needed. There are quite a few reasons for objecting to this. First of all, it has in many ways been shown that there are defects in the present regulations when it comes both to coordination within the EU and to the sharing of responsibility in a crisis situation. Secondly – and this is something I think MEPs should reflect upon – rejection would probably mean our depriving ourselves of the opportunity of exercising influence over this important area. That is something I think worth noting.
Madam President, if Parliament were to adopt this report on the proposal for a directive, including the proposed changes, we should, as a result, also have to cancel a number of previous directives, namely directives 68/414/EEC, 98/93/EC and 73/238/EEC."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples