Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-22-Speech-1-091"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030922.6.1-091"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the principal rapporteurs, Mr Mombaur and Mr Karlsson, have already set out the course that this House’s debate has taken. I do not share Commissioner De Palacio’s optimistic view that her proposal will enjoy the support of a broad majority in this House. It will not! Not only the committee’s hearings with experts – over which we took a great deal of trouble – but also the debate with Commission officials and our own reflections have led us to the conclusion that these two proposals from the Commission may well have the right objectives in mind, but the means will not command majority backing. There is no dispute about the great extent to which we are dependent on imports of crude oil; that much is obvious. This is not, though, about the Commission acquiring additional competences in order to influence prices and perhaps retain its own capacity for intervention. We take the view that, although there is a need for more solidarity between the Member States and the Commission can certainly do more as regards coordination, the use of Article 95 on the internal market to justify additional competences for the Commission in relation to petroleum products is not appropriate. We have therefore considered at length what we should do about this. The committee was divided on whether we should reject the whole proposal or accept it as modified by the amendments submitted by Mr Karlsson. A single-vote majority on the crucial issue of sending this proposal back does not make for a broad basis, and our group – that of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – has discussed what we should do with this proposal; our group took the view that at least the directive on crude oil should be sent back. This would give the Commission the chance to take on board the arguments adduced by Parliament in the Committee debates, whilst directing it, in unambiguous terms, to thoroughly revise the directive.
During the discussions with the experts, I listened very carefully to the arguments against increasing the reserves from 90 to 120 days, which made clear not only the relatively high cost involved, but also expressed a desire for the reserves to be, in future, provided by the Member States and no longer in collaboration with the oil industry. I am, for my part, convinced that the proposal for the reserves to be used to influence prices when these change in certain ways does not indicate extensive knowledge of the market realities; such a scheme would fizzle out, cost a great deal of money, and be ineffective. On the other hand, we are sure that, whilst the International Energy Agency, whose instruments were fashioned in the 1970s, is unable to make full use of the opportunities presented to it today, the strategic reserve, along with what the USA does to increase it, combined with the International Energy Agency’s instruments, would provide quite adequate help when conflicts occur. We therefore reject the idea of additional competences at EU level and hope that a majority in this House will back us in doing so. Your speech, Commissioner – whatever my undisputed regard for you – did not make it apparent that the Commission has started to do any thinking since the debate in this House and the hearings of the experts. I got the impression that it was as if we were only at the beginning of the debate. As regards your objectives, we are right behind you, but we do believe that it is the Member States rather than the Commission to whom responsibility and resources should be given. Although your role is to coordinate the action they take, this must not be on the basis of a new kind of competence to which – according to the articles on the Internal Market – you are not entitled. This leads me to believe that your proposal must be sent back, thus giving you the chance to present a new and revised one."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples