kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
that others accept we must agree on a roadmap where other major emitters engage in a broader framework and where kyoto rules are improved to ensure the environmental integrity.
we should never forget that this must be the key issue so i agree with mr leinen on making that the first point.
we are open to taking a second commitment period but because what matters to us is the climate and because what matters to us are real reductions we have also attached a condition.
the problem is those who are not moving their position in order to deliver what must be delivered if durban is not just to be about process but about really achieving something that can improve the climate.
it is and it remains the best way to keep the global temperature increase below two c.
i fully support the need to build on the foundations of last year's cancun agreements particularly the full realisation of the green climate fund which of course is crucial to many potential outcomes in durban.
madam president on behalf of the uk conservative delegation i say with some regret that we will be having to abstain on this vote having been unable to agree a text which we can sign up to.
with the climate summit coming up i would like to affirm our support for the key message which emerged from the g eight and g twenty in advance of the seventeenth conference of the parties namely that the conclusions of the summit should be balanced fair and credible while at the same time maintaining and strengthening the multilateral rules based response to climate change.
in the midst of this crippling recession it is out of touch to make sweeping suggestions like financial transaction taxes full decarbonisation etc.
with such a firm working basis ahead of negotiations it is therefore vital that the latest round of talks is not encumbered by unrealistic unworkable and unaffordable wish lists.
i would suggest given this fiscal crisis that we have that it would be a nice gesture particularly from you commissioner who does not pay much income tax and is on a very good salary for you to offer to pay for your own trip.
i have these figures in front of me.
we need concrete steps on how everybody is going to achieve this and we need everybody to do it.
it is not good enough any more for the european union to say we are going to go this far and we hope you will follow us.
an example is the blending of red and white wine to make a ros.
i then asked for new ideas on another way of labelling that it was the traditional method but i have had no suggestions on this issue.
why should we prevent our own wine producers from competing with imported wine within the european union?
we will have this discussion again in the regulatory committee.
i completely agree with those of you who have said that quality must be the future for our european agricultural products.
however i have a certain sympathy as well for wine producers in europe who have to compete with wine produced by other oenological practices that are allowed in third world countries.
following wide ranging discussions which took place last autumn with stakeholders and with all member states the commission proposed the abolition of the ban on blending red and white wine.
this was subject to an indicative vote in the wine regulatory committee in january when a majority of member states including france voted in favour.
on the wine reform.
it is clear that the traditional ros is a quality product that is highly appreciated by consumers and associated with the place of origin of this product.
the product specification of champagne allows the blending of red and white to produce ros champagne.
of course i understand their attempt to try to safeguard the traditional ros and that is the reason why the commission has been looking at various solutions on the labelling issue. we actually proposed two different labelling options
you also asked for a specific impact assessment before the removal of the blending prohibition.
wine to traditional methods. however other protected designations of origin do not impose restrictions on making ros wine.
all remain silent.
at eu level the ban on blending red and white wine is today limited to the production of table wine. the discussion on wine making practices including on blending started back in two thousand and six during the negotiations
with the reform the commission gained competence to authorise new oenological practices and shall base itself on the oiv's recommendations.
the draft regulation has been notified to the world trade organisation under the procedure in the agreement on technical barriers to trade and we have recently accepted further time for third countries to examine our proposal. therefore the regulation will be formally
already now economists in the wine sector stress that this reform will not weaken traditional ross as these ross with an appellation are not in competition with table wines.
the role of the national enforcement bodies regarding luggage may also be considered as part of the review of air passengers' rights legislation which will be presented during the first half of.
better information to passengers the issue of inconsistencies among airlines and application of the luggage handling procedure can be effectively addressed.
the commission takes the view that commercial relationships are a matter to be agreed by airports and airlines and our airlines and passengers provided that they do not pose a risk to safety or security rules.
the freedom of air carriers to set airfares and conditions is one of the cornerstones of the aviation single market.
this has to be seen as a reflection of the diversity of services that are now available to passengers in a very competitive market.
it has caused offers to increase and prices to fall for the benefit of consumers and businesses.
two thousand and thirteen the commission takes note that part of the industry considers that the one bag policy respects the interests of retailers and airports.
the second way of addressing this must be better enforcement of existing legislation.
if the market functions and information is transparently available this may become a criterion for choosing one airline rather than another. when it comes to passenger rights passengers have the right to know the conditions whereby they can carry luggage in accordance with the principle of transparency as laid down in the existing legislation. the commission therefore considers that by providing
passengers against excessive restrictions and to allow them to carry on board a reasonable amount of hand luggage. we have heard the horror stories of the travelling public;
if i heard the commissioner right he is going to leave it up to the market and possibly the courts.
two thousand and twelve i was the author of the first report which concerned the functioning and application of established rights of people travelling by air and that report was adopted by a large majority. concerning hand luggage we called on the commission to propose measures which make it possible to harmonise commercial practice so as to protect
i would like to thank you all for the interest shown in this issue and would like to continue working on policies which support passengers' interests as well as promoting subtle mechanisms to pave the way for the better enforcement of existing transparency legislation.
madam president there is a commercial relationship between the passenger and the airline but it is not a relationship of equals involving a passenger who can choose from any airline in the world.
as a previous speaker pointed out many passengers have no choice.
we all know that many airlines do not use this one bag rule' in the interests of passenger safety or passenger comfort but simply as a means of increasing their bottom line by forcing passengers into paying inflated fees for checked baggage.
of course there is a need for a unified system.
but we also know that this is only one of the many wild west practices that are used by airlines to increase their bottom line with ryanair unfortunately in the vanguard.
my committee feels that action needs to be taken to address the inconsistency and the lack of transparency which often faces the public when travelling by air.
it has been standard practice for a number of years that passengers are allowed to take airport purchases on board an aircraft free of charge as part of their carry on allowance.
and it was the introduction of charges for these purchases as well as charges for extra baggage like laptops that sparked off this oral question.
there is the inconsistency there is the lack of transparency and it is this inconsistency that the committee is concerned about.
there is a belief that some eu airlines are ignoring iko guidelines in the pursuit of income which is having a detrimental effect on both the passengers and on the airport retail sector.
i fully appreciate that cabin bag rules must reflect the aircraft type and i also appreciate the commercial element here for both airlines and airports.
my concern is that over recent years certain airlines look to charge for everything and others do not and it is in this area that i would ask the commission to act to give the public full transparency and to help alleviate the cancer that is add on charges which bedevil european aviation and often leave passengers
this will give passengers greater clarity when packing shopping and travelling.
i agree with the commissioner that some differentiation does favour competition.
i think we need some rules but they need to be light touch and sensible.
and reform of how we test products for fire safety including for toxic smoke.
the horrors of grenfell tower have brought this to the media's attention but fire is something that affects the lives of eu citizens no matter where they live.
we need an eu wide action plan which includes a single eu system to collect comparable fire data and statistics among member states in order to identify recurring issues and risks;
but while the devastation of fires might be local the sources of what is burning is not. every part of your house from the walls to the furniture inside are products of the single market and therefore national actions alone will not increase fire safety in the eu.
commissioner the time has come for the creation of a fire safety strategy for europe.
for too long we have said this is an issue of national competence.
like with vehicles now is the time to take the tests out of the laboratory alone and to test against real life situations.
a cooperative forum between member states to share best practices;
to achieve this the local authority may have used combustible material in the cladding when the building was refurbished last year.
since then specification regulation has passed from national governments to the european union.
when grenfell tower was built the original cladding material was inert.
the questions for the inquiry to answer are firstly exactly what regulations were applicable;
fire could not pass through or behind.
following the grief the anger and sadly the shameful attempts by some british opposition politicians to exploit the tragedy to score cheap political points our priority should now be to continue to help the survivors to help rebuild their lives.
a belgian firefighter explained that plastics containing petroleum release oils and toxic smoke making their job more dangerous and suffocating victims.
and if you will allow me as a londoner born and bred i am proud when i hear stories of individuals and communities from across london and the uk who came together to support those who had suffered the greatest of losses.
they told me that they are now assessing which buildings in their cities contain similar dangerous cladding. so many issues were exposed by this tragedy that i hope that the commission's exchange or proposed exchange will address. but whichever city or country you are from we need to make sure that at best such a tragedy does not occur again and at worst emergency services are able to put out the fires and evacuate residents safely.
when meps met firefighters from across the eu last week they told us that this tragedy could easily have occurred in any of their cities.
but at grenfell the initial reports suggest that the door to a flat may have been open and that the fire escaped through the window and spread by the flammable cladding in a matter of minutes.
my hope is that the full public inquiry that the british prime minister has rightly ordered will reveal why did it happen what can we learn how do we prevent a repeat of this terrible tragedy?
a british firefighter told me that in the uk an apartment in a high rise building with the door shut should be able to contain a fire for forty minutes to allow time for evacuation and to put out the fire.
let me end by expressing my deepest sympathies for the victims and their loved ones.
we owe this to all our citizens and the emergency services that keep us safe.
they shared concerns over single staircases in some high rise buildings which means that those fleeing fires may block emergency services entering the building.
mr president the importance of fire safety in buildings was all too tragically highlighted by the horrific events at grenfell tower in my home city of london.
renovation works at grenfell were inspected sixteen times by the local authority showing current rules simply aren't fit for purpose.
this both benefits and protects consumers because we need a fire strategy that puts people first and it is shameful that it has taken a tragedy like grenfell to put fire safety back on the agenda.
mr president the shocking pictures of the grenfell tower blaze must serve as a wake up call to all law makers and we must work towards a common fire safety strategy.
i recently met with colleagues from the university of central lancashire in my constituency and they pointed out that while fire toxicity in trains planes and ships is regulated there is a real lack of regulation in the construction sector.
so i urge the commission to do two things first to meet with the scientists and experts as part of the dg grow study and secondly to incorporate an assessment of the fire toxicity of construction products into the existing regulation.
let me just add that the work of the commission on fire resistance needs to be continued and possibly intensified. both the european parliament and council as co legislators and as bodies controlling the legislative power of the commission have exercised their responsibilities and we are ready to continue to do so. i am convinced that the member states can follow up on that and that effective enforcement on product markets is possible without any new shift in the competences or legal responsibilities. however should the commission decide that a new proposal on the performance of construction products as part of harmonisation legislation
we have to bear them in mind while having today this very important discussion on fire safety.
finally outside the legislative work the estonian presidencies supports the forthcoming platform on information exchange on fire safety issues.
i am looking forward to the discussion and thank you very much.
this is an initiative that had already been prepared by the commission for some months and that should fit well with other initiatives underway.
is appropriate the council will of course be examine such a proposal in collaboration with the parliament.
under the cpr the european performance tests include the examination of how construction products behave in fire in terms of reaction to fire resistance to fire and the fire performance of roofs. furthermore the energy performance of buildings directive requires
the eu should only undertake actions if the objectives of fire safety cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states.
the various pieces of eu legislation should be applied coherently.
this is due to important differences in local conditions between member states.
for this we need the broad participation of member states open discussion of the issues encountered independence and of course objectivity.
for this reason we consider that it is not justified for the commission to regulate at eu level in order to ensure the fire safety of buildings.
experience obtained from new products and technologies as well as use of fire engineering principles for setting regulatory requirements.
thanks to this member states set their own safety requirements for buildings.
to conclude let me say that the commission shares everyone's concerns to ensure that our buildings are fireproof.
under the current rules the eu's role is to make sure that construction products which have the necessary performance requested in given eu member states are not rejected.
therefore i can commit that we will set up a fire information exchange platform.
we will act if eu intervention is needed but not more than is necessary to ensure the single market of construction products.
we have no proof for now that national rules are not achieving this today.
they are thus a challenge to the regulatory authorities of the member states.
therefore member states may equally have requirements on fire safety regarding for example the spread of the flame or the emissions of smoke.
the commission is examining emerging new issues such as smoke toxicity and the fire behaviour of facades and it evaluates the functioning of the internal market for construction products.
what is perhaps even more important fire safety is crucially dependent on the effective enforcement of fire safety regulations at different levels national regional and local. today under the subsidiarity principles fire safety in buildings is regulated at the level of the member states.
the commission is entrusted with the implementation of the construction products regulation.
as i said the eu member states remain responsible for setting the level of fire safety in buildings on their territory and to enforce their building regulations.
factors playing an equally crucial role are for example the general design of the building the effectiveness of the installed fire detection fire alarm and fire fighting systems the location of the building potential fire accelerators inside or around the buildings
to enable this the eu sets common testing methods for specific products not their safety requirements.
we are fully aware of the regulatory challenges posed to the member states' authorities therefore we believe that the exchange of knowledge and experience among authorities and stakeholders is very important and we consider it a necessity. under the current framework i believe that this is the best way to contribute to the protection of european citizens.
i therefore want to use this opportunity and the occasion of this plenary to clarify the responsibilities of the commission and the member states in this extremely important matter.
by learning from each other and by sharing information member states' authorities will have the full knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of the regulatory choices they have to make.
for these two items the commission already asked for independent studies long before the grenfell tower fire and the results will provide very useful information i hope for the commission for the member state authorities and the construction industry alike.
member states to set minimum requirements for the thermal energy performance of buildings.
today the commission has no compelling proof that national regulations are not reaching this goal.
this legislation does not limit the responsibility of member states to define requirements on construction products in the field of fire safety quite the contrary.
moreover new emerging issues of the fire performance of construction products which are not yet covered by the cpr are the smoke toxicity from construction products in fire and the fire performance of facades.
these rules also need to be enforced and expanded to inform consumers about the toxicity of materials through harmonised labelling.
it concerns me that shortly after grenfell instead of trying to strengthen these regulations the uk government supported the red tape initiative' that classified it as an expensive and burdensome' red tape folly' that should be abandoned after brexit.
across the eu there are too many buildings hospitals student accommodation and office buildings that are vulnerable and a key lesson from grenfell is that it is not always the fire but also the toxic fumes that kill people.
finally this initiative is supported by firefighters across the eu who put their lives at risk but very rarely get the kind of hearing they deserve.
the issue of fire safety should always be at the forefront of our minds.
but it is not just about what has happened but also about what could happen in the future.
had it not we would not have had the tragedies such as grenfell tower in june.
our ethos was simple social housing provides homes for the most vulnerable so it needs to be of the best quality.
clearly over the years this message has been diluted especially in the uk.
it should not take losing eighty people in an inferno that could have been prevented.
my heartfelt condolences to the families of those affected.
eu regulations already require that construction work is done to limit the spreading of smoke and fire but what we need to do is ensure there are fire sprinklers in all buildings residential and commercial.
we also need to secure better fire testing methods for faades that reflect the reality.
i think it is far too easy to dismiss regulation as red tape but these regulations save lives and should be strengthened.
given the complexity and the nature of the question of fire safety it is important that national authorities communicate and exchange best practice and it is brilliant today that we have seen action about the platform that has been announced by the commission.
my understanding is that there are currently two facade tests a large one and a small one with member states choosing which one.
as a standing rapporteur of this house on construction products i want to emphasise that smoke toxicity from burning construction products and their testing is an important subject particularly concerning the health and safety of our emergency services personnel as well as the victims of fires.
the evidence and enquiry into grenfell had ramifications across the eu and the british government while still a member of the european union has a responsibility to work with its european partners and share information to prevent another tragedy like this from happening.
the european commission are to be commended for having the foresight before the grenfell tower tragedy to undertake a study on the need to assess the smoke toxicity of construction products.
in the uk it is the large scale that it is chosen. in the light of the differences across member states in facade testing will the commission adopt a harmonised european method to assess the fire performance of facades which would guarantee a sufficient level of fire safety to eu citizens?
we in this house cannot allow a disaster like grenfell to happen again.
mr president along with my colleagues i also want to express my condolences to all those affected by the grenfell fire because i am also elected from the region of london as is my colleague syed kamall.
we still do not know the final death toll from that fire but we do know that the tragedy itself was a result of a number of factors about regulation or the lack of effective implementation of regulation about building design and about smoke and toxicity.
cyanide gas was certainly related to some of the deaths but also attitudes to social housing tenants.
it was certainly felt by many in the community to have been a part of the tragedy that unfolded not being listened to procurement priorities not prioritising safety and indeed compounded by the poor disaster response.
so we do need to learn from each other.
we do need an effective fire prevention strategy at european level.
i have been raising the need for a greater focus on fire safety in the eu for many years calling for greater horizontal thinking in the legislative process and i now hope that the issue will become a priority for member states and for members right across the eu.