kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
and are you really willing to tell that mother of three that she cannot be automatically told the amount of energy she is using and why she is paying for it?
we do not pay them in telecoms.
to those people voting against these issues ashley fox is ashley still here no he has gone are you really prepared to go back to the uk and to your region to face your constituents and say that they still have to put up with aggressive doorstep or phone selling
especially your elderly residents?
why on earth should our citizens pay for them in energy?
we have to end termination fees.
we should be proud of a europe of jobs and growth a europe that acts to protect its most vulnerable citizens.
the eu is not the problem here.
i think there was an overall agreement that the best recipe to tackle energy poverty is to focus on energy efficiency and today's technologies are already offering us to do a lot to use the smart solutions to smarten our grids our households and to use the proper information to customise the services and empower our consumers.
so therefore i think we need to work on the new instruments the instruments which we are currently developing in the commission smart financing for smart buildings because i believe that this would play a very important role for the future.
but the question is is it enough?
in september we would like to present the package on energy efficiency.
to conclude i really would like to thank you for all the ideas for the support for our work and i believe that together we can really empower consumers in the energy market and i think that through this it can make a real contribution in the fight against energy poverty.
and i am very happy to say that we feel we have very strong grassroots support from local authorities from mayors for this energy transition for tackling energy poverty and for transforming their cities into the smart cities of the future.
we need the investment so we can start this wave of energy efficiency across europe.
i think it's not.
i very much welcome the support for the democratisation of energy generation and i agree with you that we still need to do well and ought to make sure that the third package in all our member states is properly implemented.
the new deal for energy consumers is about correcting these shortcomings.
this means removing barriers for companies with innovative products and services which try to enter the market.
the report is very timely because the energy transition and the new technologies are changing how the energy markets work.
this is significant for the small budgets that these households have.
i would like to thank theresa griffin and all other colleagues involved in this for their
the fight against social exclusion and poverty is a cross cutting policy issue so let me mention just a few examples.
it contributes to better health and living standard and as for all energy efficiency measures it creates jobs in the local economy. we have underlined the importance of energy poverty from the very beginning and we promised in the first state of the energy union report that we would pay particular attention to the issue when reviewing key legislation
but nevertheless the commission is analysing if and how our work can support the member states in addressing energy poverty.
in the short time that i have today please let me mention a few issues to make this more concrete.
this means that more and more consumers could reduce their energy bills by using technologies like rooftop solar panels heat pumps or smart meters.
the commission agrees that energy efficiency is the most effective way to prevent energy poverty.
we need more cooperatives aggregators and energy service companies in order to ensure access for those who are not in a position to self generate such as tenants and vulnerable consumers.
this is beneficial for energy efficiency and for consumers.
i know from my energy union tour and from the country analyses which we drew up that we have a very diverse picture in europe but energy poverty is an issue everywhere.
we must adjust our rules to the energy technologies of the twenty first century. we need a better framework for decentralised generation and self consumption.
this is correctly the competence of the member states.
demand response and storage solutions must be developed.
we have to work on removing the barriers for switching between providers.
we are analysing if a definition of energy poverty is possible and how it could help address the problem.
i am pleased to see that parliament recognises the importance of smart technologies in the energy sector. technology costs are falling rapidly.
since two thousand the share of energy spending of the lowest income households in their total income increased from six to nine which means a fifty increase.
and finally we need a better and informed debate about energy cost taxes levies and subsidies. therefore we will publish in the second half of this year a report on energy prices and costs that will enhance transparency on the different components of energy prices in the member states.
we want a market where consumers can make informed choices about the way they consume energy and about the sources of energy they want to consume.
our objective is to deliver a competitive technology driven and fair energy market which delivers high quality energy services to consumers.
these are found in the eu member states with the most liberal energy markets.
and better information on prices and transferred billings.
and nine and two thousand and thirteen over fifty million citizens are living in energy poverty in the eu and are forced to choose on a daily basis between heating cooling or eating.
throughout europe energy markets are not transparent and are not competitive enough.
energy bills are becoming increasingly complex and citizens are not able to compare offers easily.
the new deal' report on which we will be voting tomorrow highlights key recommendations to address these problems.
i strongly believe that proposing a meaningful level of ambition in the revision of the two thousand and thirty energy efficiency targets is a necessity.
as a conclusion i want to say that this report is about the widow in bulgaria unable to compare energy offers and unaware that she could save money by switching.
regarding the retail energy market to increase the transparency and clarity of bills we need to include peer based comparisons and information on switching in those bills.
we also call commissioner for a definition of energy poverty and an action plan from the european commission. i was very pleased that the committee on industry research and energy voted on tuesday on the energy efficiency implementation report to place tackling energy poverty at the heart of energy efficiency.
for the most vulnerable.
we need to promote new business models collective purchasing schemes and innovative financial instruments to incentivise self generation and self consumption.
it is about benefits for all and twenty eight member states working together to end energy poverty.
it is about the young couple in malta willing to invest in a solar panel but facing high upfront investments.
and it is about the long term sick person in spain too frightened of costs to turn on their air conditioning in august.
it is about the student in the uk living in a rented flat poorly insulated and with inefficient heating.
regarding self generation we need to set up a common legal framework for the right to store and sell excess electricity at a fair price.
and on energy poverty we need to focus energy efficiency objectives and funds on our most vulnerable citizens.
consumers should be placed on the most appropriate tariffs and suppliers should notify them about their cheapest offers. we need to eradicate termination fees and penalties for switching suppliers. and finally social tariffs should be maintained
energy efficiency can be the glue of social cohesion and european integration.
for every one improvement in energy efficiency three million more homes can be properly renovated and seven million citizens lifted out of energy poverty.
as a conclusion i want to highlight that energy is not a commodity it is a basic social right.
many consumers are on outdated energy contracts unaware of their ability to switch.
in this context industry fails to pass falling wholesale prices on to consumers.
around the eu consumers are willing to invest in energy efficiency and self generation projects but are hindered by heavy administrative burdens and high upfront investment costs.
that is the reason and if we fail to address that reason we will not solve the problems of competitiveness in the energy market in the european union and we will not deliver secure and affordable energy to our consumers.
we have chosen as a deliberate policy to drive many consumers into fuel poverty;
completing interconnectors so that we can trade energy across europe that too is very positive.
these measures are merely fiddling at the margin.
but with great respect i point out that we are ignoring the elephant in the room.
the reason why we have very high energy prices in europe and the reason why we are driving our industry into an uncompetitive situation compared to the rest of the world is that we have chosen to rely obsessively on unreliable expensive intermittent renewable energy which exports inefficiency to the backup and across the grid.
we have chosen to undermine the competitiveness of our industries and to drive energy intensive businesses offshore to other jurisdictions with lower environmental standards where they actually emit more co two than they would do if we remain.
it is a lose lose policy and until we start addressing the fundamentals we will not solve these problems.
competition the ability to switch suppliers that too is extremely positive;
the fact is we have chosen as a deliberate policy to drive up energy prices;
i think one important aspect of this is increasing the share of the retail price on which retailers can compete. in europe retailers can only compete with each other on about a third of the price.
increasing this share by reducing the amount of government addons would increase competition drive down prices for consumers and at the same time allow retail prices to better reflect wholesale prices enabling proper market signals to occur. the other part of this debate we are here to address is energy poverty.
it puts forward some good ideas about how we can lower energy prices for all.
this can in turn boost consumer spending power give a boost to businesses and help to bring economic growth across the eu. for me the best way to deliver this new deal for energy consumers is by putting in place a wellfunctioning market and a wellfunctioning energy system.
we should not underestimate the importance of this issue in a wider economic context. reducing energy costs and therefore household costs is a massive opportunity to ease the burden on already stretched household budgets across europe.
i think the differing definitions of energy poverty in different member states based on different climatic conditions is something we need to strongly consider before thinking about an eu level action but that should not distract from the importance of this issue. in ireland we define energy poverty as an inability to heat or power a home to an adequate degree.
as a country that has the third highest energy prices in europe this is of course a big issue for us and i am pleased to say that we put in place a strategy to combat the problem early this year.
i worked in the employment committee on the issue and the figures i learned are tremendous.
we have to get rid of that.
the market is not really functioning well and is failing to provide competition and also better prices for consumers. so what is the cure for this? we must move away from regulated prices make switching easier and provide incentives for the deployment of smart technologies. also we must make data available for app developers to help consumers to manage their energy consumption.
this is essential to get active consumers on board.
one important point on consumers that we should not forget is that active consumer' does not mean a presumer' and not every consumer wants to be a presumer so it should remain up to them what level of engagement they want in their energy consumption.
mr president my group supports the concept of an energy union.
we believe the best way to ensure energy security for the whole of europe and to provide the lowest prices for our citizens is a properly integrated gas and electricity market.
i want consumers and businesses in my constituency to be able to buy their energy from any company in the eu. i want an energy system that is fair on consumers and helps to protect the energy poor.
i am happy for the commission to share the best practices of member states in combating energy poverty.
customers should receive clear information in their bills and switching energy suppliers should be a simple and transparent process.
i support the call that energy providers' websites and digital invoicing should be fully accessible to disabled people.
whilst energy poverty needs to be tackled the best way this can be done on a european level is through having a properly functioning and competitive single market that delivers low prices.
i do not want the commission to bring forward an action plan or to propose legislation on this subject because these are matters for the member states.
the rapporteur calls for a legal maximum percentage increase in the costs that distribution networks can charge.
this is surely a matter for national regulators.
we do not need eu legislation on this subject.
has she thought what this means in practice?
it is not the eu's business and it is also inappropriate for her to call for a ban on doorstep selling by energy companies. this is not for europe to decide.
commissioner we need you to defend consumers and to ensure this law is enforced in all eu countries.
mr president i would also like to thank my colleague and fellow northwest labour mep teresa griffin for her report on a new deal for energy consumers.
completing the european energy union and lowering energy costs across the eu will have an enormous direct positive impact on british citizens and it is yet another reason for us to vote to stay in the eu.
i welcome the report's recommendations on fighting energy poverty and i am here to stress that we must include a holistic gender perspective in all of these proposals.
energy and household costs are strongly linked to household indebtedness which in turn plays a role in female homelessness. these are issues we need more european research on.
economic data on households is important but household income can be unequal and vulnerable women or children can end up facing de facto poverty in effect the feminisation of poverty and this should also be taken into account when we define what energy poverty is.
by all means energy union energy diversification etc. but let me stress and finish by saying that what we really need is a new energy market design because we have a distorted market. this is something that we need to focus on.
but obviously if we have an eu wide regulation or directive then the individual states have an obligation to deal with that and especially in relation to energy poverty.
it absolutely make sense that all member states should do everything they could to try and reduce or eliminate energy poverty whether these companies are state owned private or whatever.
it is a long term challenge and it needs a strong sense of international solidarity.
the last message from this report is assistance for the victims.
we are concerned about the increasing number of mine victims resulting from mines laid by non state actors.
secondly through the provision of development assistance the union budget has contributed around eur four hundred million for the period.
significant humanitarian and development challenges therefore remain. the report rightly points to the huge effort already made by the international community.
this constitutes around half of the world's financial assistance to mine action. our support has taken many forms.
financial support amounted to nearly eur.
firstly through common foreign policy joint actions we have provided support to mine clearance we have promoted implementation of the landmark ottawa convention we have enhanced our efforts to secure greater adherence to the convention
the report correctly points out that while the number of new mine victims is decreasing there is still a need for assistance to victims.
as part of this effort the eu and member states have collectively provided political financial and scientific support to mine action worldwide.
in conclusion let me underline an important aspect which was not covered by the report.
two thousand and two two thousand and ten thirdly we agree that it will be necessary to review the guidelines on european community action.
and we have also had written contributions from many others. one outcome of the seminar was unanimous agreement that the commission should revert to a single budget line for mine action.
farc which are continuing to produce their own devices and other terrorists and insurgents that have made increasing use of improvised explosive devices which are a threat not just to our armed forces on operations but to the local civilian population as well.
many countries such as angola rely too heavily on international financial assistance and could make a greater national contribution themselves and there are other states such as bosnia where conflict is over but where there is a massive residue of explosive remnants that is holding back economic progress. such countries should make greater use of their own armed forces for mine action training units specifically for humanitarian demining
many of us who contributed to the ottawa declaration and were involved in the sponsorship of the original mine actions' entertained the hope that this great problem could be overcome in a finite period.
our focus throughout the report has been on anti personnel landmines while recognising that explosive remnants of war may include cluster munitions as well as other munitions. in drawing up the report i was very conscious that the western democracies are on the side of the angels. we try to help.
still there are casualties and still huge resources are being spent on mine action. we therefore thought it appropriate to draw attention once more to the issue particularly since the european union institutions are heavily involved in mine action.
i pay tribute to the role of the commission in this being one of the leading contributors along with many member states the united states canada and others.
our motives are good and nothing is served by unnecessary self flagellation the research underpinning the report reflects this. instead we highlight those governments burma and libya for example that have recently laid anti personnel landmines and insurgent groups such as the
our armed forces had agreed that anti personnel landmines were no longer an essential element in their armouries. there was an enormous international mobilisation of political will and the resources of governments and ngos to overcome a scourge that not only costs lives but obstructed development in so many of the poorest countries recovering from armed conflict.
we have to ask why this has not been the case although there has been enormous progress. fourteen years on more than ninety countries are still afflicted by anti personnel landmines and other explosive remnants of war to some degree.
our attention therefore needs to focus on those whose actions continue to impact on innocent civilians going about their everyday lives.
tasks. in conclusion i reiterate our belief that through better international coordination and prioritisation improved management survey and demining practices better reporting and more astute and better use of funds a world free of the anti personnel landmine threat to life livelihood and economic development is a realistic possibility within a finite period.
we held a seminar in january which was attended by the international campaign to ban landmines the geneva centre for international humanitarian demining the international committee for the red cross the slovenian based international trust fund for demining halo trust and the external action service
but given the difficulties that we are facing today the economic difficulties in so many of our countries a key message of the report is for a more focused approach to mine action prioritising those states which are most in need of help while encouraging afflicted states that can afford it to commit more of their own resources to combating the scourge of anti personnel landmines.
i am also very sorry we do not have a wider debate on it.
that is a shared responsibility.
that is an encouragement.
we will therefore emphasise circular economy aspects in new or revised criteria for creating public procurement and the commission will lead by example.
today only twenty five of plastic waste is recycled whereas half goes to landfills with economic and environmental consequences.
we need to rethink our ways of producing and consuming. we need to create new technologies and business models which will shape our future.
this is about empowering consumers and encouraging businesses to move from an inefficient and unsustainable linear economy to a circular market economy.
a key objective here is to work on further deepening the eu single market which is also the most important part of the investment plan for the eu.
that is why creating a market for secondary raw materials and ensuring a reliable quality standard is crucial. it is fundamentally about broadening our internal market.
now we can really talk about the circular economy package. this package is a competitive package and it is also a single market package.
the package is the beginning of the story.
this matters because there are barriers that make it difficult for businesses to optimise the resources used.
it will not transform the european economy from the current linear model in one go overnight to a circular economy.
we will develop work to address all these issues based on the latest evidence.
i am afraid that is not happening with this action plan so i urge the commission to step up its pace and really accelerate.
i would tell the commission that i am willing to do so.
i really expected after the very strong language from the commissioners an acceleration in the transition towards a circular economy.
we have first of all a new legislative waste proposal which is slightly weaker than the one we had before and i assume that the commission expects parliament to increase the level of ambition and to pick up the fight with the council.
first what is different with this package compared to the previous one which was withdrawn by the commission?
target and look at the landfill target they are one entity.
by two thousand and thirty recycling levels should be
more and more evidence shows the wider benefits of the circular economy including in lowering carbon dioxide emissions.
in the week that cop twenty one in paris has started this is i think a very timely proposal.
in a world where the population rises every day with huge demands placed on land water food feed raw materials and energy we cannot rely further on a take make use and throw away' approach.
it makes economic sense to use natural resources in a smarter way.
with the package we are proposing today we want to give a concrete push to the circular economy and accelerate the transition.
it will also allow us to continue as a market leader for green technologies. so the question is not whether we want to set europe on a circular path of growth.
is it ambitious?
the eu and its member states are committed to delivering on this target.
with targets and through incentives and support for recycling and reuse we want to ensure that resources stay within the circle and are available for future use.
it is economically socially and quite simply morally unacceptable that so much edible food is wasted every year in europe.
from the total waste production in the eu only a limited share thirty six was effectively recycled.