kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
the role of the authorities is to audit the airline safety management system to ensure that it meets the required safety standards.
i certainly welcomed the fact that the commission in its assessment of the crisis accepted that europe needed to revise procedures through the international civil aviation organisation.
clear and decisive joined up leadership is essential and we need the european aviation safety agency to ensure that eu member states adapt their current procedures to guarantee that airline operators will take responsibility and be supported in making such decisions in future.
air transport is enormously important for the european economy and as individuals we depend on a thriving and efficient air transport industry where safety for crew and passengers is the first prerogative.
both european industry and the taxpayer have already invested huge sums of money in these projects and as european lawmakers we must continue to push forward well balanced cost effective and structural reforms.
as such i am delighted to support this oral question not least because during our previous plenary debate on this issue i called for the european union to look at international best practice on dealing with volcanic ash and more particularly highlighted america which has always applied a more measured approach in this regard.
institutions across europe and in member states who were responsible for dealing with such issues were absolutely paralysed and quite frankly if it had not been so serious it would have been practically laughable. in all this chaos one thing was clear.
i welcome the comments by the commissioner today.
international best practice tells us that responsibility for dealing with potential hazards related to volcanic ash must be transferred to the airline operators as part of their safety management systems.
this is the procedure applied by the us and other countries which have managed to deal with volcanic eruptions without major disruptions to air traffic.
it showed the importance of centralised european action in a widespread crisis situation.
therefore i would like to conclude by stating the following.
looking specifically at the eyjafjallajkull event the concept aims and objectives of the single european sky initiative have once again been highlighted.
what became clear last year was that member states and the eu as a whole had no plan for such an eventuality the data used was incomplete the meteorologists could not or indeed would not help and everybody perfected the art of blaming someone else and adopted a policy of risk aversion
rather than one of risk management. to be frank mr president member states bottled it last year.
what about the future?
do we have a comprehensive plan to cover the next volcanic eruption?
should this happen will member states coordinate at eu level in future?
crucially will they involve the aviation industry and particularly airlines before they issue their advice?
we have to avoid the mistakes made last year which gave us the nonsense of one country closing its airspace whilst a neighbouring country kept theirs open leading to chaos confusion and huge economic consequences.
finally mr president the icelandic volcano highlighted one major thing it has strengthened the argument for a single european sky better than any politician could have done.
they all come together around a philosophy that there should be a single market with a single rule book and with a single idea that every one thing is exactly the same.
you always put at depth and in problems the smaller and medium sized businesses and this directive will do that again.
this directive ensures a level playing field between different insurance sellers and a more consistent level of consumer protection in particular by increasing transparency.
the view of our legal service is that recital sixty nine of the text is not fully in line with the common understanding on delegated acts.
the directive also includes stronger requirements for the sale of life insurance products with investment elements.
the directive builds on national regimes of insurance distribution.
it will make sure that those selling insurance understand the products that they are selling and that those buying insurance better understand what they are buying.
we want people to be clearer about what they are paying for when they buy or invest in an insurance product.
it also gives legal certainty to insurance companies that sell their products directly to consumers by clarifying how they can register their distributors and the information that they need to give to customers.
mr president this directive is very much part of our overall drive to increase transparency and to improve consumer protection.
as we have heard there are stronger requirements around training and development and when a product is packaged with an insurance policy as part of a special offer it will in future be possible to separate the elements of the package so that you can buy the car or the holiday you want with or without the extra insurance.
so the directive requires greater transparency on fee structures and on any financial incentives that the distributors may have.
it sets out a number of minimum standards for insurance distributors to follow and it broadens the scope of distributors covered to include companies that sell insurance as an add on to their core business like travel companies or car dealers.
so i am very pleased that we have reached this point today and that i have got the chance to congratulate werner langen and the shadow rapporteurs for all their hard work over many months indeed over many years as we have heard in getting this proposal into shape.
the requirement for non life insurance to produce a simple and standardised product information document which was added by parliament is a further strengthening of consumer protection.
that said in the context of a general compromise the commission can accept this wording because generally it does adhere to the common understanding in accordance with which the commission will of course continue to act.
it requires suitability tests to be run to help determine whether a product fits a consumer's profile and because products covered by mifid ii and the idd are often interchangeable these rules have as far as possible been aligned. there is one small technical point i need to mention for the record.
this agreement includes substantial achievements in consumer protection which was my priority and my group's from the get go.
the insurance distribution directive is along with solvency ii just one piece of the puzzle of updated regulations aimed at strengthening european standards and encouraging cross border purchases.
also before a contract is concluded an intermediary must disclose to customers the nature and basis such as a fee commission or combination thereof of the remuneration. this is a huge increase in transparency for the consumer.
another important achievement of idd is ensuring that sellers' professional qualifications match the complexity of the products they sell.
so the scope of this regulation has been widened to reflect that.
but in specified circumstances such as ancillary insurance intermediaries those whose principal activities are not insurance related are excluded from the scope.
included in the directive is a requirement for at least fifteen hours of professional training or development per year although as part of our compromise with the council member states may allow evidence of continuous training and development through successful completion of an exam.
so to remain competitive there is a need for innovation particularly digital innovation and this will ultimately lead to huge potential for the provision of cross border insurance sales.
the new directive requires member states to lay down rules ensuring the intermediaries insurers and reinsurers do not remunerate or assess the performance of employees in a way that conflicts with their duty to act in the best interests of consumers.
the european insurance sector has trillions of euros worth of assets under its management making it the backbone of our financial industry and an important contributor to gdp.
the implementation of this updated regulation will ensure consumers understand the risks costs and features of all insurance products and that those selling them possess the relevant professionalism and competence.
a patchwork of national regulations with some governments gold plating the measures and others implementing the bare minimum necessary for compliance has been the case across europe for some years now. however the agreement reached on idd includes substantial achievements in consumer protection notably on information for consumers a ban on time practices and the prevention of conflicts of interest.
we talked about the importance obviously of consumer protection and of citizens being better able to understand risks.
in that respect later this year we will be publishing a green paper on retail financial services that will look in particular at the question of digital financial services and how we can make further progress there.
so i think this directive will improve transparency.
in terms of the themes that were raised there is a great deal of consistency around the themes of transparency and the importance of proportionality.
in terms of the consistency between different pieces of legislation i think we have made good progress.
here the regime does allow a graduated approach with a lighter regime for some kinds of business and some businesses in ancillary services excluded altogether.
i am very much committed as we go forward to striking this right balance between protecting consumers and supporting insurance distribution. putting in place the level two rules for the directive is now the priority.
here again i think we have made big steps forward. we have also talked about the necessity of making it possible for there to be innovation particularly in the field of digital services.
i am pleased that we have agreed upon a principle based approach giving member states flexibility to implement tougher rules where they see fit to do so.
this is the most sensible way to go about legislating allowing companies room to ensure they give consumers the best outcomes rather than worrying about tick box style exercises.
the product information document is a good example of this.
we have been able to strip out many of the over prescriptive one size fits all requirements instead focusing on the information that can actually benefit the consumer.
it was vital to protect consumers' interest in the wide variety of tied insurance products that currently save them time and money.
i am pleased that consumers in my country for example will still be able to choose a bank account that includes travel insurance should they wish to do so.
consumers will also benefit from a move towards aligning insurance distribution more closely with the rules laid out in mifid ii in order to create a level playing field between insurance and investment products.
so you are the problem in that you just want one target stimulating agriculture instead of only stimulating the good biofuels.
if you really wanted to have some change then you would have joined the envi deal.
in the negotiations you were ready to give up everything and we know that.
i have seen some of these effects for myself in my previous role working for an ngo in areas of the world particularly in sub saharan africa where communities have been suffering from some pretty bad effects of the policies that we have been adopting here. in particular the proliferation of crops for biofuel production for fuel consumption there on land that could and should be used for food production;
and of course the unintended consequences of indirect land use change that have resulted from the replacement of ecosystems that would actually have contributed to solving the problem of climate change.
i think that in this package we are choosing at last to recognise the existence of indirect land use change and we are giving the commission the platform to enable itself to apply the science that the blockers have for so long denied.
it has not been beneficial for the industries that have with the very best of intentions set us down this path on the investments that they made so many years ago.
there are some in this chamber who would deny some of the bad impacts of biofuels that i have mentioned and there are others that might choose to play politics and score points on this deal.
however this is a step forward and we should acknowledge the significance of this because the impasse that we have had for so long now has not been beneficial for the communities that i have mentioned.
the package that we have now is imperfect and i make no bones about the fact that we have serious reservations certainly about the target for first generation production which as we know we wanted to be much lower.
i think it is very important that we take a moment to consider why we are having this debate and why this issue has been such an area of contention because we have for many years now seen the effects of particularly bad policy from the european union when it comes to biofuels.
the betrayal of some local communities whose livelihoods have depended on that land;
so i think that what we have done in our policies is focus too much on one technology which is a very stupid thing to do from a political perspective.
that is one of the biggest problems;
that we really need to fix and unfortunately we are not fixing that enough in this case.
we are now stimulating just one technology in the transport sector that can decarbonise the transport sector whereas there are many other options.
we also set out to open up europe for technological progress.
we come from different parties and have different opinions we come from different countries and have different priorities but despite all these differences we build something. we band together in the process and actually we end up being fairly good friends despite all the differences.
the honest answer is that actually we did not. we had much higher goals.
i think this systemic shortcoming in the way in which the council works is one of the biggest challenges we have.
we have a blocking minority in the council and this blocking minority sometimes develops into a dictatorship of the minority where we have member states that are afraid of the future.
whilst i would also have preferred to see a much lower cap on first generation biofuels the seven limit which has been agreed upon will see their growth curbed which is good news for the environment for biodiversity and for hunger in the developing world.
after five years of long and difficult negotiations i am sure many are ready to put this issue to bed but if we are truly going to commit to a feature of sustainable transport in the european union it can only be just the beginning.
mr president the revision of these two key issues of energy legislation has taken five long years to get to this vote and unfortunately a lot has been lost by parliament in the face of a relentless council.
this is no way to run an economy.
now we propose to cut the biofuel percentage to five or six or. seven we are doing huge damage to investors.
co two emissions will increase for decades regardless of what we in this house do.
more generally we see a world awash with cheap oil and gas and that is a situation which is likely to continue for some time.
mr president my party holds no particular brief for biofuels but we are particularly concerned about the damaging regulatory uncertainty which this parliament has created.
we are cutting them off at the knees.
i am happy to accept accounting when we get it right but it is not right now.
i am delighted about that too because it is absolutely clear that the science on iluc factors is not good enough.
it was the one thing on which every political group across the spectrum agreed but we did not get it.
we just lost too much as a parliament and therefore i cannot support this deal.
in the end we as a parliament agreed also with the seven cap which is from my perspective way too high because this is just filling up the target with the bad biofuels which are not the ones that we want to stimulate; we want to stimulate the more advanced ones.
unfortunately here also the council did not want anything. in the end we have a non binding target for advanced fuels so that means that there is a very weak signal for stimulating innovation within the european union.
suddenly everyone will be part of that new hype but not really delivering innovation.
the commission came forward with a proposal trying to cap the first generation at.
seven unfortunately in the negotiations we lost this.
if we do it right we can really have decarbonisation in the transport sector but if we do it wrong we are stimulating bad technologies and that is what we would like to prevent.
we set a target of ten for biofuels in the transport sector but we all know that if you look at how it has been developing it mainly concerns the development of agri fuels of first generation biofuels which are not delivering the climate benefits that they are supposed to do. that is why we had to do something about it.
in that sense from my perspective we lost too much.
are you aware of the fact that we have ethanol produced in europe that is third party certified as having ninety co two reductions? are you willing to agree that there are differences between different first generation biofuels?
i think we fixed that but saying that we have fixed it at the same time as we have very fast progress it is a very tricky issue.
the european union has a strong interest in ensuring the emergence of a new libya one that is democratic and fully integrated into the international community and the euro mediterranean region.
support for urgent needs in the health sector and finally assistance to migrants and displaced people.
at the same time it is important to ensure a sound framework for the management of oil and gas resources. once the stabilisation phase is over the commission considers that it will be important to set the appropriate basis for long term relations with the new libya.
the swift unfreezing of assets should provide resources for reconstruction and restarting the economy.
the european commission is ready to mobilise at the request of the libyan authorities further expertise and technical assistance for the post conflict phase.
a pragmatic operational and selective approach to the needs assessment on the basis of libyan priorities.
this choice was made with the full support of the new libyan authorities and as my colleague already said a joint external action service and devco mission has been deployed to tripoli since eleven september in order to prepare the needs assessment exercise. now
at the two september conference the european union was assigned sectoral leadership for civil society including women border management and public assurance through media messaging.
our support includes technical assistance to help build state institutions and public administration capacity support for the respect of human rights and democratisation capacity building for civil society assistance for education and the relaunch of schools
i recall a debate in this chamber on eight march when many of us were demanding that the european union should recognise the national transitional council.
i think that was a pity because european leadership on this question would have been quite accessible.
my message to the house today and to those listening from other institutions is that we must be ready for change but also for uncertainty because the future is not as clear as we might have hoped a few months ago.
this chamber has been the source of some informative and inspirational debate but today we are looking at a libya which has transformed since we last met here in july.
has been dramatically altered by the extraordinary events of the arab spring and its fall out.
can i conclude by saying that i do hope the house can support the consensus that the sakharov prize should be awarded to the martyrs of the arab spring and some of the leading personalities within it.
the mountain that the national transitional council must now climb is great and it will need all the friendly support it can get in order both to re establish security in the country and to provide the basic services to its citizens when right now many of the inhabitants of tripoli for instance do not have access to clean running water.
we must also ensure that surrounding countries such as algeria and niger pledge to hand over gaddafi and any accused members of his family to the ntc so that they may be put on trial for the crimes against humanity for which they stand accused either in libya or before the icc in the hague.
gaddafi your friend has gone please recognise the ntc as a legitimate authority in libya. mercifully once oil production restarts libya will again be a rich country.
it will also be necessary to subject libyan finances including in the city of london which i represent to the investigation of forensic accountants in order to determine the whereabouts of the billions that were stolen under gaddafi's rule.
from a war that has killed many of its citizens and build a democracy;
we in the ecr therefore welcome the lifting by the eu of the freeze on assets held by the member states and believe that these should be returned forthwith to the ntc for reconstruction efforts and humanitarian aid.
it is also vital that we support the ntc led political transition that must now take place from a dictatorship of over forty years to the ultimate goal a government chosen by the people and thereafter subject regularly to elections to ensure its legitimacy to govern by consent.
the ntc must for its part guarantee fair and transparent trials for all those found guilty of serious human rights crimes. we congratulate libya on its achievements thus far. we recognise the bravery of the rebels in particular the long suffering berbers that had the courage to fight this ruthless regime and we offer our condolences to the families of the victims both of the regime and of the battle for freedom.
all this must remain nevertheless a libyan led process without any occupying foreign army.
we have followed with profound concern the siege of misrata the violence in the streets of tripoli and the flow of refugees from libya into neighbouring tunisia and egypt.
as in the aftermath of every conflict the libyan authorities are in need of funds to satisfy the provision of basic services to their population.
it is almost seven months since the revolution in libya began. during this time the world has witnessed the extraordinary courage and determination of the people of libya.
the eu will continue to engage energetically in the friends of libya group established after the summit in paris on one september.
restoring public services and the public administration;
we already have staff on the ground in tripoli and together with partners are beginning the process of assessment of needs in critical sectors identified by the ntc.
the eu office has allowed us to maintain direct contact with the national transitional council as well as to coordinate european assistance on the ground together with those member states present in benghazi.
we are working both in brussels and in new york to obtain the release of remaining frozen libyan assets as soon as possible.
as a result the eu's assistance has included help in the evacuation of more than twenty four zero third country nationals including from misrata and the provision of assistance to those fleeing the conflict.
it has also included emergency health assistance help for the war wounded protection of the civilian population including humanitarian mine action and the provision of adequate logistics capacity coordination mechanisms and air transport to deliver relief aid to the beneficiaries.
the legitimate aspirations of the libyan people should be respected.
as a whole the eu has provided more than one hundred and fifty two million in humanitarian assistance since the beginning of the crisis.
the eu has been planning its support for libya in the post conflict phase for some time.