| Series Title | European Voice |
|---|---|
| Series Details | Vol.10, No.8, 4.3.04 |
| Publication Date | 04/03/2004 |
| Content Type | News |
|
Date: 04/03/04 The Parliament has been robbed of its full say on gas law, says Bernhard Rapkay THE European Parliament should not be pushed out of the decision-making process in crafting EU energy policy, just because member states say so. It is absolutely preposterous that our ability to decide upon a measure we are supposed to be involved in has been hampered by the whim of member states and at the stroke of their lawyers' pens. To redress the balance and keep the EU policymaking process even-keeled, the industry committee has voted - albeit by the narrowest of majorities - in favour of ensuring that the Parliament still gets to have a full say on a proposal on the security of the EU's gas supplies. By just 19 votes to 18, with no abstentions, MEPs on the committee sided with me on 24 February against changing the legal basis of the draft directive, with the majority wanting to preserve Parliament's right of co-decision on the legislation. On 23 September 2003, under the co-decision procedure, Parliament amended a number of key points to the European Commission's draft directive in a report drawn up by Peter Mombaur. Believing that the Commission was encroaching too far on the responsibilities of member states and energy companies, MEPs deleted clauses providing for major harmonization and "over-prescriptive" measures at EU level, including the right of the Commission to infringe the contractual freedom of companies. The Council agreed with Parliament and introduced similar amendments scaling back Commission powers in the original proposal. However, arguing that there were now no internal market mechanisms left in the directive, the Council then requested that the legal basis of the directive be changed. So it suggested the use of Article 100 of the treaty, under which the Council decides alone and merely informs Parliament of its decision, instead of Article 95, which enshrines the co-decision procedure in which both the Council and Parliament have an equal say in drawing up legislation. In challenging this decision last month, I was supported by fellow Socialists, plus Greens and Liberals on the industry committee. They agree that we must defend the co-decision procedure. It is the right of the European Parliament, it epitomizes what we achieved with the Maastricht Treaty. Before that, Parliament did not have any real competencies. So, now that we have successfully mounted the first stage of our attack on this infringement of Parliament's fundamental rights, it will be sent to the legal affairs committee for further examination. If the legal affairs committee decides that we are in the right, but the Council refuses to accept this, then we will take our challenge all the way to the European Court of Justice. As for the necessity of having a whole new "security of supply" package in the energy sector, as put forward by energy chief Loyola de Palacio last November in the wake of the big summer blackouts in Italy, I agree with one of my colleagues who said at the time: "The problem is that we fail to see the problem". With the liberalization of the gas and electricity markets on track and most member states opting for a healthy "mix" of energy options, many of us fail to understand the need for yet more proposals coming from the European Commission. At the same time, however, there is a very real concern that we need to plan now for the future. We will also need to rely on the big power companies to come up with effective solutions.
Trifling matters are distracting from real challenges on energy policy front, cautions Peter Mombaur CRAFTING good energy policies is a complex and challenging task, but these are all petty matters. I am referring to my colleague Bernhard Rapkay's efforts to reinstate the co-decision procedure for the security of natural gas supply directive I have been guiding through the European Parliament. There is no legal basis for this decision by the Council to be overturned, as the Commission proposal was gutted and a new draft directive drawn up. The proposed policy was thus altered to the point that the Council's decision certainly was the correct one. I know what I am talking about as I was a judge for 12 years. The whole issue is, moreover, a moot point because the two institutions could not have been more in agreement. In its meeting in December, the Council confirmed the amendments that Parliament had tabled during its first reading in September. They turned the Commission proposal on its head. The main Council amendments concern the following points: while member states would be required to introduce security of supply standards, these would be set nationally; the list of instruments for increasing supply security would be expanded but storage would be left to the discretion of member states; the Commission would no longer be empowered to lay down a binding volume of long-term contracts; rather than a comitology group, a "gas coordination group" (made up of member states and interest groups) would deal with potential supply crises. So this "legal challenge" - only narrowly supported by some members of the industry committee - really is rather trifling. I would much rather point out a few real concerns. Personally, I have some major doubts about how our new gas policies are to be implemented and feel this has not been clearly spelled out to member states, who are running up to a 1 July deadline to start opening up their gas and electricity markets to competition. The details are almost too complex to go into here and I alone cannot claim to have all the answers. But I do believe that in terms of infrastructure, we will need more transnational and national networks. The problem is clear, but it remains unclear how we can attract the kinds of investments we need. To this end, we need to verify whether our policies create an investment-friendly climate. And what about any glitches with national power grids? We are talking about a European framework law. Can we reach our goal of optimal cross-border connections and networks? Some may want to re-build old bottlenecks, which we must prevent. Then there are renewables: the German government is funding this sector in a totally inefficient way. What my government is doing makes no economic sense and the Bundesrat [which represents the Länder at federal level] in a report published in February said just that. These are just some of the most critical questions we should be asking ourselves and I am the first to admit I don't have all the answers yet. The Commission, however, would be wise to draw upon the opinions of many, many energy experts before putting forward any new policies. As for enlargement, this will also pose new challenges. Latvia, for instance, is not even hooked up to the modern power grid system. But some of the current 15 member states do not exactly boast state-of-the-art stuff either. They are stuck with what they have historically had and now all of these national networks are supposed to grow together.
Two German MEPs, Bernhard Rapkay and Peter Mombaur, debate the pros and cons of giving the European Parliament co-decision powers on proposed EU legislation on the security of the EU's gas supplies. |
|
| Source Link | Link to Main Source http://www.european-voice.com/ |
| Related Links |
|
| Subject Categories | Energy, Politics and International Relations |
