kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
the terms proportionality' and necessity' are brought up time and time again in our work here in parliament never more relevantly than in our work on this package.
previous directives have had the effect of providing an excuse sometimes for institutions including banks and building societies to move their decision making further away from their consumers and to introduce totally proscriptive and impractical ways of assessing customers.
businesses and financial services need to know what they are looking for and how to address the problem.
there needs to be an effective reporting and supervisory system but equally countries need to comply with and not just sign up to international principles and methods as well as to ensure good cooperation with third countries.
if businesses and our trading partners around the world are going to continue to invest in europe and if the single market is to grow and prosper it is essential we have the right legislative tools and european cooperation in place in order to prevent and prosecute financial crime.
above all else i hope we have delivered something which is consistent and workable here.
for me the ability to effectively implement the package was at the forefront of my mind when i was dealing with the section that i was responsible for.
you can have the best laws in the world but if they are not well implemented you gain nothing.
i now believe thanks to this package we will be gaining a lot.
i hope that the vote tomorrow is the start of a new era in the fight against money laundering using common sense but also bringing public acceptance at the same time.
then member states may provide for an exemption to access to all or part of the beneficial ownership information on a case by case basis in exceptional circumstances if this would expose the beneficial owner to the risk of fraud kidnapping blackmail violence or intimidation or if the beneficial owner is a minor or otherwise incapable.
the fourth amld will provide a sound basis for providing maximum transparency in respect of beneficial ownership of corporate structures across the european union.
i believe this because there is denial and the lack of will from member states and also from the commission to actually tackle the absolute need for tax harmonisation without which we do not have real competition healthy competition in the internal market.
that is exactly the job we are trying to achieve through our tax committee and i am pretty sure that if we in parliament do our job we will be able to make that case with governments and the commission.
and to counter the financing of terrorist activities.
the consecutive presidencies also put a lot of effort into this especially the italian presidency under which the work and the trilogue negotiations were finalised in december last year.
in light of the recent terrorist attacks in europe and the adoption of a european security agenda it is crucial that these rules become operational as soon as possible.
we now have the tools at hand to better detect and trace billions of euros which come from criminal proceeds or financial flows which support terrorist groups and activities.
enhancing beneficial ownership transparency has also been at the heart of the international agenda.
i particularly welcome the ambitious approach adopted by both parliament and the member states to introduce registers of beneficial ownership for companies and legal arrangements.
work must now begin to ensure that this framework which focuses on greater effectiveness and improved transparency is quickly put in place.
the commission will work with member states to speed up the process of implementation of the new anti money laundering requirements.
i would like to encourage parliament to give its final assent by its vote which will mark the adoption of a stronger framework to combat money laundering and to counter terrorism financing.
i thank the commissioner particularly for her comments both at the beginning and after the debate. i would just like to point out that my primary aim in my part of this has been to try and get the fourth antimoney laundering directive just about right.
i heard some concerns and if i may just say on the issue of trusts and wills trusts and wills contain some of the most private and personal information that there is about a person and we are a parliament that respects data privacy hence disclosure for trusts has to be proportionate within our proposals.
new payment methods are emerging every day with increasingly sophisticated technological capabilities by criminals individuals and groups in the digital and in the cyber world as has been expressed by a number of people.
we do indeed face a very tough challenge but i think we have dealt with most of the concerns.
mr president many of my colleagues pointed out that the public register would not be public' because you have to have a legitimate interest.
i would like to point out that we made sure that in the proposal it says that the authority has to clarify whether you do or not so they have to prove that you do not have a legitimate interest.
it is also a self fulfilling prophecy if we start saying here that it has its limitations it will have its limitations.
the idea of a public register of ultimate ownership which is key in this regulation came from parliament and we strongly defended it throughout the trilogue. the agreement we reached last december reflects the legitimate public demand for more transparency and marks a significant step forward in the fight against money laundering.
however there is still room for improvement when it comes to the accessibility of the public register but the directive leaves the door open for those member states which are ready to move forward and widely interpret the notion of legitimate interests.
i strongly encourage them to use the available flexibility to provide unrestricted public access to public registers with access to beneficiary ownership information to companies and trusts.
many of you spoke about energy security.
it is quite clear that if you want to bring the investors in and if we want to highlight how important active consumerism in this respect would be we need to do much more for demandside management the flexibility of our electricity systems better integration of renewables and giving more powers to consumers to decide if they want to produce the energy from whom they want to buy and what kind of supply schemes they want to have for their households or for industries.
therefore once again i would like to thank you very much for a very cooperative approach on the market stability reserve. i believe that it will be the same in the negotiations on the ets reform which we presented for the post two thousand and twenty period because i believe that also by these activities we are already making very clear what the european policies are how serious we are about a transition to the lowcarbon economy and what kind of signals we want to send to investors.
twenty one this very important i would say historic conference will start in only a few days and i very much thank all of you for the support for the ambitious binding agreement we will all from the european side try to achieve in paris.
i would like to make a proposal to you.
we need to build interconnectors in three to four years which would bring much more dynamism into our system.
thank you very much for those strong words because we are living in a political world and i think that we also need to send very clear political messages that energy diversification is important that if we speak about diversification we are talking about the routes but also sources of supply that we want to have a wider range of energy suppliers and that
of course we want to make sure that all these figures for two thousand and thirty line up that we will deliver.
i want to put it on the table also because we want to call upon member states to start working as early as two thousand and seventeen on draft national energy and climate plans to make sure that they also develop their vision for two thousand and thirty and that they will tell us how they want to implement all these plans at national level so we can see if the figures are adding
but when we are speaking about the price signals we also have to speak about the price signals for electricity.
if we see that some projects are struggling let us analyse why how can we help these projects take off financially through the feasibility study through technical assistance or sometimes also through political mediation?
but overall what you presented last week is weak.
and thereby secure a sufficient amount and volume of energy resources.
the third one would be to make sure that whatever measures we do enact they will not overburden the end consumer and will not have a negative impact on competitiveness.
they need to be empowered to make the right decisions and this goes hand in hand with our fight against energy poverty and also with climate change.
in malta we know what a difference a significant reduction in electricity prices can make for consumers whilst it gets the economy going as well.
in this regard we need a properly functioning electricity market design which can help consumers control their energy consumption and production alike one that can integrate properly all market players including consumers as renewable energy providers ultimately contributing to climate change action.
i am sure i am not alone in thinking that currently they are not.
i welcome the first stage of the energy union report published by the commission last week as i am particularly worried by the current situation in the uk.
the uk government urgently needs to modify its strategy and develop policy measures to promote energy efficiency the first fuel and renewables.
the uk government policy on renewable energy is regressive and there is a real danger that the uk will end up buying renewable energy from other countries rather than growing the green jobs that the uk and our young people so desperately need.
the report also rightly claims that the uk needs to assess whether their policies and tools are sufficient and effective in meeting their renewable energy objectives.
it is a start but it does not really solve the problem in any meaningful way.
if we are to make a real impact if we are to truly develop an energy union we have to be both ambitious and visionary.
i would like to address one of the biggest problems we have in europe as well and that is coal.
i would like to thank them here in the plenary for this work. we have proved that the new commission structure works and can deliver. last week we added a new instrument to our energy toolbox the state of the energy union report. this will become an annual exercise to take stock but also to provide concrete policy guidance for the year ahead. this will allow you and us to keep up the momentum and to have a debate every year about all the dimensions of the energy union. your support and your commitment to this ambitious project are crucial. as co legislator you will have to set the legislative framework for the energy union and you can carry the debate into your capitals cities and regions and to the citizens in your constituencies. as you know very well their support for the energy union will be decisive. let me highlight four key messages that need political attention in. two thousand and sixteen the first is to highlight the fact that the eu must remain the leader in the transition to a low carbon society. cop twenty one is only days away where the eu and notably our chief negotiator miguel arias caete will spare no effort to get an ambitious legally binding agreement with a built in review mechanism. the eu must also continue to lead the way after cop. twenty one the emissions trading system reform and the new electricity market design must give the right signals for clean and energyefficient technologies. we will make proposals for a heating and cooling strategy and for the decarbonisation of transport. we will also propose the effort sharing decision in the non ets sector. we will present legislation to ensure that we reach the two thousand and thirty targets on renewables and energy efficiency the latter having in mind
in the commission this was very important collective work involving fourteen commissioners on the energy union project team.
the commission seems to favour a network of pipelines transporting gas including via that bastion of human rights erdoan's turkey.
simply diversifying and changing gas suppliers ignores options which are safer politically and better for the climate.
the commissioner speaks of putting energy first but has already hamstrung ambitious targets and has gone against the principle of mutual respect between the institutions since this parliament backed a forty target in october.
we must shift the balance of energy needs to renewables and underline the absolute need for ambitious targets for efficiency.
absolutely not;
when we talk about barking up the wrong tree with our ukip colleagues i hope there is a tree high enough when the country is sinking due to climate change.
i think right now there are many interesting things within this trying to move ourselves away from dependence upon russian imports so the pcis are vital i think that is important;
the concept of interconnectivity at a regional level not pan european in one step but rather regional growing from the ground and lifting it up that is a huge step forward and i think that will help us make significant progress.
emissions abatement is also something we must look at and into that we have to consider ccs carbon capture and storage and indeed carbon capture and usage.
those two concepts need to be integral.
i am very struck just now that we must make sure our energy mix works and delivers.
we must again however be looking at how to create a level playing field for all our sources of energy and that will mean i believe looking at fossil fuel subsidies as well.
it is nakedly about cutting off ukraine first and then poland and other countries second from the supply lines and thereby finishing the whole independence of ukraine.
mr president we seem to have developed a collective psychosis over electricity generation in europe.
germany is closing its nuclear fleet and france is cutting back while we in britain scramble to find chinese funding for new nuclear capacity.
but this is nothing compared to the disaster of our overcommitment to unreliable intermittent and expensive renewables.
we have forced up prices undermined competitiveness and driven energyintensive businesses out of europe altogether taking their jobs and their investment with them.
as our colleague antonio tajani has said we are creating an industrial massacre in europe.
the issues we are debating today more flexibility more interconnectors may have merit in themselves but compared to the crisis of competitiveness we are merely fiddling at the margin.
we are debating the wrong issues.
it is always fascinating to hear ukip talk about these kinds of things as soon as green' is in it.
why exactly are you not making any point on the huge subsidy plans that are going to nuclear in hinkley point?
is it not about time to start discussing that issue instead of the renewables where the prices go down where people have own ownership of energy?
we believe that the eu commission should recognise that the entire eu energy project has failed causing higher energy prices in all member states.
its policy has caused job losses plant closures and a massive outflow of industry and investment to outside the eu.
we oppose this proposal as we believe that neither eu climate policy nor the new energy union proposal is a solution to resolve the severe difficulties faced by industries in europe and britain in particular.
it is now clear that the eu's obsessive green energy policy together with a lack of regulatory coherence has created great difficulties for all energy industries in europe.
let's face it the competitiveness of our industry is also one of the central themes in the whole debate on the energy union and it is obvious that europe needs cheap clean and independent energy.
desperately clinging to our fossil past will definitely not create competitiveness in the future.
we see that new disruptive technologies are overhauling europe's energy system.
prices of solar technology are dropping sharply and energy efficiency is decoupling economic growth from our energy use.
key to affordable energy is giving certainties to investors.
energy infrastructure requires large risky capital intensive investments and only governance arrangements based on eu legal mechanisms can create this stability and predictability.
the current energy union is still far away from legislative action based on democratic decision making.
the energy union is unfortunately based on voluntary submissions from member states and the commission should be more ambitious here.
they seem to prefer having full ownership of their own national energy policies with expensive pollutive energy systems to being part of a full scale european approach with astronomical benefits and the absence of the council here today is exemplary.
mr president i would like to thank the commission for the excellent work done in this report which helps to illustrate the scale of the challenge ahead of us.
europe needs a holistic approach to achieving an energy union.
we need integrated solutions in order to get more renewables into the energy mix cut our carbon footprint and use scarce energy supplies in the most efficient way.
doing so will cut costs for business and make europe more competitive reduce energy bills for ordinary citizens and help us innovate to become world leaders in the energy technologies of the future.
but many eu countries have backpedalled on even modest objectives and have then gone on to block efforts to strengthen europe's ambition.
what i want to emphasise today is that we too as parliament need to step up to this challenge.
but clearly we can only play this role if we are able to work together to find common ground on the crucial issues which often divide us.
this is a priority for me and my group looking to find pragmatic approaches but also approaches that maintain our ambition and determination to deliver the fundamental changes that energy union must deliver over the coming years.
mr president the best way to ensure energy security for the whole of europe and 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.
continued investment in infrastructure is key to securing sustainable and low cost energy across the eu.
i was pleased to see the commission approve a number of infrastructure projects within the report particularly new interconnection capacity between the united kingdom and ireland france and belgium.
i urge the commissioner to maintain his focus on infrastructure investment and give investors the regulatory certainty they need.
i want the european gas market to be so well connected that even if mr putin turns off the gas taps we can supply the whole of the continent businesses can keep going and no one will go cold in the winter.
however there are no key points so we will vote for the report as we want to encourage the exchange of information between national authorities.
so keen to adopt legislation a few months before that date when moreover that legislation does not represent a step forward in establishing a genuine european area of freedom security and justice?
the truth is that this proposal does not help prevent any conflicts of jurisdiction and does not provide for any settlement when such situations arise.
this could be done for example by reducing multiple jurisdiction and by allocating jurisdiction to member states as was done through various regulations on civil law with the obligation to mutually recognise the decisions that followed from that allocation of jurisdiction.
instead this framework decision is limited to a duty of member states to inform one another and to enter into direct consultation in order to reach consensus on any effective solution aimed at avoiding the adverse consequences arriving from parallel proceedings'.
that is also why i am not surprised by what the commissioner has said this evening.
i thank the commission for being so honest about the proposal but have to say that i consider this proposal and the entire procedure for its adoption a good example of how we should not legislate within the european union.
i strongly believe that what is important is to protect our citizens' rights and not just to tick boxes.
i have to stress that within the european parliament we took our work very seriously.
we worked in good faith during the last mandate and this one and would hope to be sending a message on our views on having more effective legislation.
what i welcome about this proposal is that the current text explicitly refers to the principle of ne bis in idem.
this was due to the exchange of views we had with the council and the commission as the original text proposed did not mention it at all.
the report i drafted pays particular attention to three aspects.
firstly i believe that the protection of persons formally charged must receive the highest attention and consistent procedural safeguards have to be provided for. these should include the right of the formally charged person to receive enough information for him or her to have a basis upon which to challenge any solution which does not appear to be reasonable.
secondly with regard to the details concerning the person formally charged which national authorities exchange through the notifications i support the idea that it is important to ensure an adequate level of data protection and that it should be specified in this framework decision what kind of personal data is exchanged.
last but not least i strongly believe that the involvement of eurojust in the decision on the choice of jurisdiction is of the utmost importance. in my opinion eurojust should be involved from the earliest stage because of its coordinating role and because of its more and more relevant tasks.
i am among those who consider that we created this agency not only to show that we are concerned with combating transborder crime but because we need strong instruments.
eurojust has already proved in the years since its establishment that it deserves our trust.
their measured content is in contrast with some other contributions.
i oppose that because it would be to act in haste without scientific evidence.
let us also remember that there is a world of difference between the seismic risks faced in japan and those in western europe.
we need above all to be absolutely certain about what happened before taking steps to review what we are doing and plan to do.
we must find out what has happened before we take any steps to change our already impressive safety culture in europe.
i urge all of you to think about this new crime against society that we are going to face in the twenty first century.
there should also be a comprehensive review of eu nuclear safety legislation by the iaea.
all facts should be made public under the supervision of the commission.
it should be obvious to everyone that we cannot leave it to governments and national authorities to supervise themselves.
it is also absolutely vital that the tests should be made mandatory and be based on common and transparent community criteria.
instead the stress tests should be conducted by independent experts and in full transparency.
there is a responsibility for the commission but there is also a responsibility for the council to step forward and take its responsibility.
could i suggest that we have that debate when the commission brings forward its road map on energy?
on the issue of safety can i ask the commissioner whether it is appropriate to use the words stress tests' because when it comes to banking the words stress tests' have certainly failed us.
will you ensure that they are carried out on all nuclear plants including waste and reprocessing facilities because i have a particular concern about sellafield which is close to the irish border?
mr president stress tests on technical standards are not enough.