kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
so we need an education and awareness programme for citizens about the importance of separating waste in a way which allows us to reuse it putting it back into the entire production cycle.
mr president my mother used to say waste not want not' and i think many of us in this house will know that phrase.
it makes a great deal of sense and that is why i supported all of these reports on waste management.
i was disappointed to learn that several i think one hundred and sixty containers of green bin waste from ireland were stopped because they were found to be contaminated.
lastly i would say that rural europe including rural ireland tends to be used as an illegal dumping ground for waste from villages towns and cities and this needs to stop.
mr president i have also received thousands of emails from constituents who have joined compassion in world farming in calling for legal protection for farmed rabbits across the eu.
unlike other farm animals there are no minimum standards specific to them yet rabbits are the second most farmed animal in the eu.
these inhumane conditions also facilitate the spread of disease leading farmers to use alarming amounts of antibiotics.
as we know antibiotic resistance is one of the most serious public health risks facing our world today.
a recent report by researchers from bristol university found that current legislation does not adequately address the welfare needs of rabbits.
the eu has rightly banned similar cages for hens. now let us seize the opportunity to improve animal welfare again. it is time to end the cage age.
up to six hundred million tonnes of this could have been recycled and the resources returned to productive use but instead was wasted completely.
the bottom line here is that we have too much waste and we must do everything we can to reduce it.
this is just a synopsis of what is happening.
i would like to congratulate compassion in world farming on a very successful campaign.
i myself received over twenty zero emails calling for support for minimum legislation in relation to farmed rabbits.
i also received a large number of pictures of rabbits drawn by children from across the european union in calls for support for action in this area.
there are over three hundred million farmed rabbits in the european union which means there are more farmed rabbits than there are men in the european union and those farmed rabbits are living in cages no bigger than two sheets of a four paper.
properly used this data has the power to transform the smarter more personalised public services to better inform decisions increase efficiency and unlock new ground breaking research.
mr president we live in the midst of a data revolution.
with big data come big challenges and big responsibilities for legislators.
of course people have legitimate privacy concerns and we have seen what happens when people feel they have not consented to the changes they see around them.
the key objectives to thwart terrorism and the transfer of illegal weapons for terrorist purposes will never be delivered by this particular proposal.
they will not be delivered because of the fundamental pillar of the single market the freedom of movement people services and goods.
all the time that fundamental pillar is in place nothing is going to change the access and transfer of weapons whether they are there for lawful or unlawful purposes within the european union member states.
we will see improved conditions for authorisation requirements and safe storage.
we will see a revised categorisation aimed at increasing public security.
we will see that activities of collectors will be covered by this directive closing the existing legal loophole and we will see easier rules of traceability.
at the same time the rights of legal owners and users will be preserved.
in two thousand and ten fifty eight of notifications were in respect of goods from china and in sixteen of cases it was not possible to identify the country of the manufacturer.
the drive to extend free trade worldwide without regard for the job security of europeans is well documented.
mr president given that national legislation is insufficient this proposal is ostensibly to protect consumers. yet the more you read the more you realise that consumer protection is not wanted primarily for its own sake but because it will facilitate free trade.
the countries of europe individually or collectively cannot deal with countries that habitually sell us unsafe or substandard goods.
it seems that cutting the budget would not be acceptable. no surprise there! in the context of product safety the report does contain some interesting revelations.
however it seems that consumer safety has also been a victim of international free trade.
and last but not least enforcement.
this will be achieved by financing a number of key actions under the consumer agenda the eu strategy on consumer policy and by laying the basis for meeting emerging challenges.
consumer information and education including support to consumer organisations;
the few sensitive issues identified during the negotiations related rather to management of the programme.
the actions supported by the programme will contribute towards strengthening the confidence of eu consumers in the single market and empowering them to play a key role in the economy.
here i think that the solution we have found together is a balanced one.
ultimately a high level of consumer protection will contribute to our overarching priority of making markets work better and supporting growth.
the evaluation scheduled for two thousand and seventeen will offer the opportunity to review the implementation of the programme to discuss it together and to make adjustments if necessary.
following these long but successful negotiations our priority now is to implement the programme as rapidly and efficiently as possible.
these include actions to further promote cooperation in the field of product safety better coordination in enforcement co financing of the european consumer centres and support for eu level representation of consumer interests.
the negotiations served to improve the text and led to a number of adjustments in order properly to integrate the political priorities identified by parliament.
this programme can bring strong eu added value and contribute towards making the single market deliver for consumers. now is the time to focus on swift and effective implementation. my services and i have already been working hard to prepare the ground.
i particularly want to thank all colleagues who have worked on it under the inspired leadership of robert rochefort who i see is not paying attention to me because he is talking to ms wikstrm but i want to say to him that his expertise in this has been very well deployed in many of the detailed proposals.
i particularly want to highlight the issue about dispute resolution or rather alternative and on line dispute resolution because there are a lot of really important resources to help get that operating.
equally important for the welfare of consumers in the european union will be the upcoming copyright reform.
the commission opened a consultation on the future of european copyright in december last year and a modernisation of copyright will be as important for new and innovative services in the digital environment as it will be for consumers.
i hope that the future of copyright law will also be closely integrated into any consumer welfare programme that the european institutions engage with in the upcoming six years so that we can ensure a sustainable and inclusive digital environment for everyone in europe.
the point is for this required action of the commission an impact assessment is not required.
that they will be coming in june it does not matter you are too late with that but you are still using the argument that an impact assessment is needed.
there is a very clear court ruling saying the commission is not complying with its own rules.
but it is really crucial to say this we have to make sure that the commission is following the.
the point is that after several discussions we are having on the issue of endocrine disruptors commissioner you continue to say we are working on an impact assessment' and every time when we criticise you say but the impact assessment'.
and every time you then replied but what is wrong are you against an impact assessment?
it is not that we are against an impact assessment;
both old and new inter institutional agreements clearly say that impact assessments are not a substitute for political decisions.
but still the commission is neglecting its duties and is tinkering with an impact assessment thus violating both the inter institutional agreement and the treaties when doing so.
two thousand and thirteen so this deadline passed three years ago but the list is still not ready and the general court has stated that the commission is currently in breach of eu law.
european union citizens are losing trust in the european union.
so when the commissioner starts his statement with once again we are discussing this topic' this is not because we as parliament want to continuously discuss this.
in the correspondence between president juncker and president schulz president juncker was still talking about the necessity to first finalise this impact assessment.
let me quote from the legal opinion from the parliament's legal service which is really crystal clear and be aware that people from the legal service are the most cautious people on planet earth and when they are so crystal clear there is really something there.
let me quote there is no doubt that to date the commission has not yet taken the measures required under article two hundred and sixty six of the treaty in order to comply with the general court's judgment.
simply the commission is not complying with the court's ruling.
to respect a ruling of the european court of justice and to comply with it.
it is because the commission is refusing to comply with the court's ruling the court's ruling that was crystal clear in saying that no impact assessment of the social and economic consequences was necessary before the independent scientific criteria would be set.
i welcome that.
in addition we have legal advice from parliament's services which has acknowledged that taking further action against the commission would be superfluous given that as soon as the criteria are published there would no longer be a case.
so i look forward to the work that we will begin in june when we see the criteria.
i would just like to take this opportunity to restate my own position which is that these criteria must be scientifically robust and fit for regulatory purpose.
they need to ensure that human health and the environment are protected taking into account the possible consequences for the agri food sector and the need to encourage innovation and the development of new plant protection solutions.
parliament must be serious about supporting the commission's initiatives on better regulation and improved evidence based policy making.
the point now is that we will get a proposal from the commission and then we will have to have a fight on what scientific criteria will be there. for example potency which all the scientists say is not a scientific criterion a good reason not to have it in.
will it not be in?
that is a fight that is really about the safety of our citizens.
that is the fight we still need to have. so before we make all kind of symbolic changes let us first make sure that the right criteria are out there.
that is the most important concern of the greens and i hope that we can have that fight together so that we are sure that the right scientific criteria are there.
after that discussion let us see what the commission does.
concerning the nabucco pipeline i think the project should be quickly redesigned to take into consideration gas from various sources and reconsider a shorter route which might lead from georgia ukraine under the black sea to romania.
we just have to look at the map. the fact that member states have different interpretations of or interests in energy security is also proven by the fact that some countries involved in nabucco have also signed up for south stream thereby lowering nabucco's credibility and the chances for a common european energy policy.
if we succeed in developing high voltage solar thermal power in north africa we can give a sense of purpose to the union for the mediterranean we can assist in water provisioning in the countries on the southern mediterranean rim and we can develop electricity generation technology for which there is a massive world market.
the motion for a resolution before us today says little about what we need to do here in the european union.
deserts get more energy from the sun in six hours than humankind uses in a year.
we need to build high voltage dc electricity distribution capacity through a smart grid some eur fifty billion of investment but creating many jobs and we need oil and gas storage facilities and even more a storage policy to reduce our dangerous dependence on russia. our energy provision will continue to rely on oil and nuclear power but as we prepare for the world climate change conference in copenhagen the only big idea is the switch to renewables.
wind could meet all the new electricity demand in china in the next twenty years and replace twenty three of their coal generation.
commissioner you said this is not part of our strategy for security of energy supply.
well it should be and it must be.
if we can convince member states of the political need for greater energy independence and stop berlin and paris from undercutting it at every turn nabucco can help us diversify our supply of oil and gas.
we need to develop renewable energy production solar thermal and other.
it is acknowledged that the energy mix and energy supply differs among member states according to geography and other distinct factors.
the energy dialogue with russia is a necessity based on the pragmatic and equitable principle of security of supply and security of demand.
thank you very much for this debate.
but we as greens are also realistic and realise that in the medium term we will need gas supplies.
therefore we are in favour of diversification and also see the nabucco project as a european priority project.
but let me say why we do not believe that a nuclear strategy is a strategy of independence certainly not of energy independence.
we cannot neglect that and we cannot say that nuclear energy is completely separate from the question of nuclear proliferation.
in addition our group strongly believes that all projects have to address concerns about transparency and corruption and cannot stand in the way of a frank and strict human rights dialogue with the cooperation countries as well as a holistic and political approach to these countries.
as both the nabucco agreement and the desertec initiative show turkey is an essential gateway and in this regard i echo mr van orden's point.
it is critical at this time to be building greater trust and deeper ties with countries who will be our energy partners including middle eastern and north african states.
in relation to many of these there is a connected development issue.
with desertec the mass generation of electricity from solar power is a unique opportunity for revenue generation which must be used for the benefit of their people also.
unfortunately some member states including my own have not used the recent past to prepare a coherent energy strategy.
my own constituency the north west of england has been identified as a prime area for wind power generation and yet the uk's planning laws are an obstruction.
whilst we must look outward for future energy supplies member states must also make the best use of the resources and potential they already have.
mr president i want to thank the commissioner for reminding this house that there is also a demand side to energy security.
the decision to take incandescent light bulbs off the european market will save the equivalent of the annual electricity generation of finland.
this autumn we are seeking agreement with the council on a package of energy efficient measures.
forty per cent of the energy we use is consumed in buildings so it matters a great deal for the future of energy security that we set high standards of efficiency for both new and existing buildings.
i hope that member states in the council will support the parliament's proposals which are designed to put a stop to the utter waste of energy which is currently used in heating cooling and lighting.
if nothing else ministers should support those proposals out of self interest because it will considerably ease their job and their responsibility of keeping the lights on and the gas flowing.
firstly complacency over energy policy is putting us increasingly in the dangerous position of dependency on russia.
where possible it clearly makes sense to coordinate our response but any unified eu policy would inevitably be skewed by those countries that are already in bed with gazprom and related interests.
and we should not be handing yet another area of vital national interest to the european commission which sees every possible crisis as an opportunity to extend its competence.
needless to say many of us will vote against any endorsement of the lisbon treaty or further efforts to take forward political integration on the back of the various energy concerns of our countries.
secondly diversification of sources of supply requires greater commitment to nabucco.
for the success of this pipeline turkish cooperation is essential yet the opening of the energy chapter in eu negotiations with turkey is being blocked.
mr president the ecr group supports the need for an eu common external energy security policy based on solidarity between member states but energy mix must remain a member state competence.
we need better gas storage capacity in europe and more integration of our pipeline and electricity grids.
in the uk we are keen on new nuclear power stations as well.
so it is very important that we reiterate that global agreements are the best place in which to deal with emissions and with the effect on climate change in these areas.
in fact the titanic was well in advance of the safety rules of its time on lifeboats and everything else but i think there is a lesson to be drawn there about modesty and about not thinking that you can declare some invincible or irresistible policy. look at the things we are voting on today all these plans to eliminate unemployment and become the greatest knowledge economy and so on.
we are like the architects of that doomed vessel with the lack of self awareness to see that we cannot decree these things and make them happen.
let us rather act in the spirit of the poor bandleader wallace hartley who in his final minutes played himself out with his threnody remembering the hymn he had learned as a boy.
if we stick to what we know rather than presuming to tell the rest of the world what to do we might be a little bit more respected.
the main purpose of these laws must be to ensure that passengers and crew can travel safely on board passenger ships and boats in the eu.
however it is important that passenger confidence is maintained and that penalties for breaches of the national provisions adopted will be adequate and enforced.
the final text moves in the right direction in these respects.
it is absolutely worth voting for and i am glad that i did so.
so if we are serious about gender equality we need to act in this area as well and end the practice.
these are important recommendations and it is essential that we welcome the fact that parliament has today put this item on the political agenda.
over the years people working in the entertainment industry have approached manufacturers who were still making this type of light bulb requesting that they continue production.
not only that the legislation will also affect most of the lighting used in this field.
this directive will have a negative impact on theatres and similar venues especially smaller establishments that would be disproportionately affected. consequently we in ukip believe that the creative industries should be exempted from this legislation.
madam president i and many of my constituents are extremely concerned about the content of the eu ecodesign directive and i have received many emails and letters about it.
this is a topic of major importance to everybody increasing transparency and ensuring that irish and european citizens embrace energy efficiency as soon as possible.
those venues face many challenges business rates going up rents going up planning regulations.
so i appeal to the goodwill and willingness of the commission to work positively to reach a sensible compromise on this specific issue and a way forward so we can find a low waste low energy and more sustainable economy and protect live music and arts venues at the same time because that would represent good positive cooperative policymaking and i know that it would be music to the ears of venues across the uk and other member states.
therefore it is difficult to mount an argument against the concept of ecodesign as i am sure some will try to do because if you look at some headlines on this you would think that this was all needless eu red tape brussels bureaucrats trying to tell us what sort of vacuum cleaners we can and can't buy.
if a specific exemption is removed we will see energy usage of certain lamps.
it is about helping people make better choices as consumers to buy products whether they be televisions whether they be coffee machines whether they be laptops that are more energy efficient that are more sustainable that been made in a more sustainable way.
this must also be an issue of social justice as well as environmental justice.
it is key therefore that we make sure the most sustainable products on the market are also the most affordable products on the market.
it would mean an immediate waste of existing equipment if that exemption was removed.
key to this is the implementation of course and that is where i feel we need to see the balance of ambition with pragmatism. whilst not directly referenced in this report let me take the case of lights used in music venues and theatres.
any further increasing costs will present a real threat to music venues in the uk and across the eu.
data from uk music shows that thirty five of live music venues in the uk have closed in the last ten years.
this also shows that we still have a bit of a problem with the mind set.
the sole scope of the ecodesign directive covers energy and energy related products but what about other product groups for example ict products which contain a number of precious elements or furniture which definitely creates a large part of our landfill?
composition of products has the same relevance as energy consumption in my opinion and therefore ecodesign should be considered as a part of the circular economy and that has been underlined.
this priority needs to be reflected in the staff policy and especially in training as well as in development in general human rights and conflict prevention.
sensitivity for these matters cannot be achieved by proclamation but needs thorough commitment and thorough training.
back in june were set in stone.
and this difference emerges even before it is fully operational.
the amendments have led in my view to a real improvement of the whole text.
the compromise also includes provisions which express a strong commitment to reaching geographical and gender balance in the european external action service.
tomorrow. allow me to conclude by expressing the commission's strong commitment to ensuring the smooth creation of the eeas and its readiness to provide all necessary support and help to this new european
opposed. i am convinced that the amendments as tabled to you now constitute a balanced solution.
the negotiations on this file have not always been
the relevant departments of the council and the commission will be transferred to the eeas while the existing rights of the staff working in these departments will be fully guaranteed.