Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-12-Speech-2-068"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020312.4.2-068"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, all the Member States have decided to create a large market for electricity and gas. It is a good choice, but the problem lies in a single question: ‘How are we going to create this market?’
The aim of the Commission’s new directive is regulated competition. The main assessment criterion we should use is whether or not there is a balance between competition and regulation, that is, whether or not the fundamental rights to a public service, environmental quality and security of supply are taken into consideration.
The goals of many of my fellow Members in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy remain within the proposals made by the Commission. Their sole objective is to speed up liberalisation and create a level playing field. Others have tried to pave the way for a regulation of general interest. Claude Turmes and Bernhard Rapkay have carried out significant work to this end.
At the end of the day, however, there is an imbalance between the choice of effective competition and the requirements of society. This imbalance is unacceptable. That is the
of our strategic Amendment No 177 which aims to oblige the Member States to fulfil both their obligations regarding competition and increased, more effective obligations of general interest. We do not agree with the attitude of the French State which opposes the opening up of its domestic market while the French public operator is buying market shares elsewhere. However, the compromise it is asking for today, which consists of establishing freedom for non-domestic customers to choose their supplier, while being able to retain a reserved sector for domestic customers, is a good one, in particular if this means equal tariffs throughout national territory. Those in favour of the market have not presented any economic argument to justify the obligation to open the market to small customers at all costs, even though this could result in additional inconvenience and cost rather than freedom. Common sense would dictate that a principle of diversity be respected. With regard to the obligation on competition, strong pressure is being exerted in countries like France or Germany, where the traditional operators are powerful and well-established. The requirement for transparency is justified, as is the requirement to set up an independent regulatory body. However, ownership unbundling, or the separation of transport and distribution, amongst others, threatens to destroy effective groups. Making room for new players in the renewable energies market is justified. Attacking the nuclear industry and the national assets of our neighbours is not.
I also find it shocking that certain advocates of competition are opposed to Community legislation in the field of market access. The TPA negotiated actually represents the closure of the German market. Others are demanding reciprocal market access, even though this contradicts the very notion of the large market and stirs up ill-feeling. On the contrary, we believe that the European Union, that is to say the Commission, the Council, Parliament, organised European civil society, must take on tasks of general interest and regulation duties. Otherwise simple competition would be dogged by increasing national conflict."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples