Madam President, in my contribution to this debate, I want to concentrate on the subject of the gas supply directive, as Mr Karlsson, the rapporteur on crude oil, has had his group’s agreement when dealing with this topic. I do not therefore think that there is anything further to be added to what he had to say. Commissioner De Palacio, you threw into the scales a very weighty argument in favour of the directive: the protection of the consumer and of security of supply. Faced with so substantial an argument, one is almost inclined to shrink back and deny that any criticism of this directive was intended. After all, who would object to the consumer being protected or to the security of the energy supply? The question does not even arise. I get the impression, though, that this is where the Commission has chosen the wrong track. I have to tell you, Commissioner, that I believe that we achieved a good result when we worked together on the directives for streamlining electricity and gas, but I think that we have less common ground on this one. I want quite explicitly to refer back to what the rapporteur, Mr Mombaur, has told us. I can agree with it almost without reservation. I think that the reason why you chose the wrong track was that security of supply simply cannot be defined and organised supranationally. Security of supply has to be adapted, on a regional basis and dynamically, to incessant fluctuations in demand, which increases and diminishes. The differing framework conditions existing in the Member States call for individually-tailored measures on the part of the Member States themselves and of the supply companies involved. What is decisive is not the imposition of a single European standard, but flexible use of the infrastructure, diversity of sources, and the way contracts are framed. What I find particularly disturbing, though, is the false political message that I believe this draft directive is sending out. What, then, is the actual occasion for a directive of this kind? Unlike with oil, there have been to date no major crises in the supply of natural gas, nor is there any cause for concern that one is to be expected in the foreseeable future. As has already been said, it was only a few weeks ago that we adopted, with a great deal of consensus, the directive on the internal market in natural gas. There were those who said that, by opening up the market, we were jeopardising the security of energy supply; are we not now proving that they were right? Why do we not let the opening up of the market do its work? It is itself a contribution to the security of supply and directly involves enterprises in sharing responsibility for it. It appears to me that the draft put before us undermines the elements in the internal market directive that deal with competition. I include myself among those who took the view that the draft directive should be sent back. Now, for tactical reasons, I recommend another course of action. In the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, we had a discussion with Mr Blokland, and came to a broad agreement. All I fear, ladies and gentlemen, is that the Council is not entirely to be relied on, in that members of it are always signalling that they do not want the directive the way it is, but we never get any firm statement to that effect. For that reason, I fear that, if we now send the directive back and the Council nonetheless adopts a Common Position – which it can of course do – we will be pretty defenceless when it comes to Second Reading. That is why I recommend that we should take the approach to the gas supply directive suggested by the rapporteur, and which, after all, we agreed on with an overwhelming consensus in committee. Then we will see what further progress we can make at Second Reading stage.

Political group: PSE