kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
we are also working on a plan for demersal fisheries in the western mediterranean and we are cooperating with the member states on new national measures in particular in the gulf of lion and the jabuka pomo pit.
now the plan is in place but we must translate our words into concrete actions at three levels at eu level at multilateral level and across eu and noneu countries.
the majority of the issues highlighted in your report are directly addressed in the medfish four ever declaration.
in two thousand and sixteen we launched the catania process and this highlights the urgency in addressing precarious situations for our fisheries.
the plan also deals with pollution and transport and their impact on fishing resources.
we see that your report is addressing issues that are also important to the commission the role of small scale fishing measures for third countries socio economic aspects the need for better data and science based allocation of fishing opportunities and impact of other human activities.
our joint political partnership has the power to create a healthy environment a thriving blue economy and a sustainable fishing sector in the mediterranean.
at eu level we will continue to implement our common fisheries policy.
the plans like the small pelagic fisheries in the adriatic will mark the first test on how genuine our commitments are.
it will also involve the establishment of a pilot project of an international inspection scheme in the straits of sicily. last we must continue to ensure solidarity with noneu mediterranean countries.
at a multilateral level we will strive to make further progress in the general fisheries commission for the mediterranean at the plenary next october.
we now have an action plan. this provides a clear set of objectives and targets against which we can measure our progress.
it also made clear the need to join efforts across the region and to set in motion a coherent plan of action for the next ten years. i think mr affronte just said that we cannot think about the solution for the mediterranean without the third countries and i think that is really onspot.
i come from ireland and fishing is a very important part of our economy.
for that reason i was pleased to hear commissioner moedas refer to the need to engage with stakeholders and also the need to have up to date scientific evidence when we are making allocations etc. that is a very important point. i think also it was good to hear commissioner moedas refer to third countries because we cannot do this on our own even if we were perfect within the european union in fish management stocks etc.
we could not achieve much and especially in relation to climate change the environment and the sea are very important.
so agreements are not worth the paper they are written on and do nothing to help ordinary people.
this report is full of the usual nonsense with unrealistic technical measures unworkable quotas and unworkable minimal sizes of fish.
it contains lies and half truths about the behaviour of non western governments.
there are no proper controls on subsidies vested interests or industrial scale fishing.
there are massive incentives to simply cheat the system.
they are all backed up by platitudes and mother and apple pie sentiments which tell us nothing. in short everything here does what you should not do it reinforces the failure of the common agricultural policy cap.
many of the committee's changes in other parts of the legislation are moving in a helpful direction but it is vital that the changes to articles eighty one and eighty three are reconsidered.
madam president of course we need to protect an individual's data but we will also all suffer if overly restrictive data laws halt the progress of research especially medical research.
it is this sort of project which they say would be unworkable with the specific consent regime and narrow exemption proposed by the committee.
they are warning us that the committee's changes to this new law will make many health research projects at worst illegal and at best unworkable and particularly so for large scale projects.
and surely all of us including ms in't veld might recognise the need for further work on diseases like cancer alzheimer's and diabetes.
for example the million women study which is looking at breast cancer and its relationship with hrt.
over fifty patient organisations and medical research charities have written to meps about their concerns.
there is an easy way for the ministers to agree very quickly just follow the position of the european parliament because all the parties gathered together in your governments have agreed to this compromise.
we can now see that more and more citizens are searching for data protection friendly products and services that they can trust.
they all invested a lot of time and energy in negotiating this position and an agreement to be accepted.
the citizens of europe expect us to proceed to the adoption of a strong eu wide data protection regulation. if there are some member states which do not want to deliver after two years of negotiations the majority should go ahead without them.
if we the european parliament can agree on a complex and comprehensive position the council of ministers can also agree.
the broad consensus in parliament on the importance of a high standard for personal data in the whole european union and more consistent application and enforcement shows that the european parliament takes care of citizens' concerns with regard to their fundamental rights to data protection and their privacy in a digitalised world.
thanks to this european parliament we have achieved the incredible goal of negotiating a single eu data protection law on the basis of four thousand amendments including many aspects and views from all around the world.
consumer associations as well as european enterprises are urging us to conclude the eu data protection regulation as soon as possible because they all know that the only ones who will profit from this law being postponed again and again will be the big data companies from silicon valley who are constantly trying to evade eu market rules thereby gaining competitive advantages against the eu's it companies.
the governments of the european union now need to show the political will to send the message that systems products and services in europe have a gold standard when it comes to data protection.
one cannot advance without the other and one should not eliminate the other.
i believe that the commission's proposal should be maintained on this point as it strikes a balance between protecting citizens' rights in a very delicate domain and facilitating the indispensable research which saves lives.
i believe that in light of the nsa spying revelations european citizens are more concerned than ever about the risk of abuse and the invasion of privacy by institutions sometimes hiding behind security considerations. law enforcement is not
this very specific rule is justified in my view because of the crucial general interest which medical research brings to society.
european citizens expect nothing less and deserve nothing less.
that is why the commission answered the european parliament's call to present a reform that would apply to the private sector as well as to the law enforcement domain.
it should make crystal clear that for europe and in europe data protection is much more than just a concept or a vague principle.
i do not want to go into party polemics on this but let me just stress that the commission proposal includes specific rules on data processing in the area of health.
they will not understand how parliament could oppose a directive which would protect citizens in the law enforcement domain and that is why tomorrow i would really like to see a strong vote and a united parliament backing both proposals the regulation
let us see the fundamental rights question.
i say that this reform is good for smes because for those smes which do not operate cross border we have included a risk based approach to data protection which makes sense because the safeguards a company has to apply have to be proportionate to the risk for data protection.
experts from all twenty eight member states are working to ensure that the result of the negotiation is a high quality legislative instrument.
progress was also made on key provisions of chapters one to four namely pseudonymisation portability of personal data obligations of controllers and processors and profiling.
the discussion of the regulation is very work intensive.
this implies detailed scrutiny by twenty eight member states.
in two thousand and thirteen alone almost fifty days of meetings of the relevant working groups were devoted to the discussion of these two proposals and the greek presidency had already devoted over ten days of meetings of the working party to this package.
the second is a directive on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention investigation
this is intended to replace the two thousand and eight data protection framework decision.
detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties and the free movement of such data.
the council has welcomed these two proposals and has on several occasions publicly pledged its broad support for them.
however there is no hiding the fact that the council has not been able to make as much progress as you have done and i am aware that this is a source of some frustration as the honourable member mr droutsas has just mentioned. the commission chose to propose a regulation
our aim is to have a high quality legislative instrument which is able to protect the personal data of our citizens and which can be applied in all member states.
i would like also to thank the commission and personally vice president reding for her dedication and engagement in this
that is also not the case.
the existing data protection law already provides for reconciliation of data protection and freedom of expression by the member states which is exactly what we ensure in article eighty.
secondly some publishers' and journalists' organisations fear that this regulation would make their work as journalists more difficult.
that is why the regulation does not say which data can be processed by tax authorities or schools.
on the contrary this regulation even states explicitly that there have to be member state laws for data processing by public authorities.
my appreciation goes also to the greek presidency. i know and recognise the effort that the presidency is putting into this file but the presidency will also allow me to express my dissatisfaction and frustration about the fact that it is the council and at least some member states which are the reasons why we will not be able to reach the goal that we had set namely to have the data protection reform package passed by the end of this parliament's mandate.
may i also thank the commission and commissioner reding and her entire team for their commitment work and good cooperation.
it was the report by axel voss back in two thousand and ten which stressed the idea of a comprehensive and consistent approach also covering processing in the areas of police and judicial cooperation including processing at domestic level.
how can we explain to european citizens that we will vote in favour of the nsa report tomorrow which reproaches a third country for the hidden actions of its secret services while we as european union member states refuse to comply with similar rules?
it has come to my knowledge that a number of colleagues have decided to vote against the directive tomorrow. colleagues how exactly will you justify to your voters that you choose to protect them against for example google but not against police and judicial authorities that tend to act arbitrarily?
let me remind everybody that there was widespread agreement on this even before the two legislative proposals were issued.
the directive itself if approved tomorrow will bring significant improvements to the processing of personal data by police and judicial authorities in criminal matters.
as a consequence we followed parallel procedures in our work as regards the timing and content of the regulation and directive and both i and jan albrecht and also the commission as repeatedly stated by commissioner reding confirmed this commitment to the package approach several times.
i do not need to elaborate on the regulation.
while working on this file we of course also have to make sure of the high quality of the legal framework in order to meet the challenges posed by the rapid changes in information and communication technology and ensure a high level of protection of fundamental rights as was rightly mentioned
however i do not agree with some of the proposals which the european commission has made although i believe the final compromise between political groups has signalled the start of finding a proportionate and workable way forward and i commend the general approach of this house.
we must not scare off foreign investment in the eu by setting impossible standards.
it powers every new piece of technology every innovation. it powers manufacturing social media and what we buy online.
but we must apply common sense. we cannot place the same level of administrative burdens on local small businesses as on multinational companies which deal with massive amounts of personal information.
however with progress and profits must come protection.
a new era of technology requires a new era of data protection law.
our history opinions and personal information are increasingly shared exchanged and profited from.
businesses consumers and the individual are currently contending with twenty eight different legal regimes different systems and different mechanisms for appeal and redress.
we can now take a step forward in the completion of the single market and the digital economy and help attract investment into the eu.
we do not want to deter those scientists and researchers who are finding new cures for terrible diseases and ailments every day.
we must do away with the current directive which has resulted in a patchwork twenty eight national rules that make life complicated and are costly for companies.
to show to the world outside that european citizens' concerns have been heard;
you have been extraordinary during the last two years and in the preparatory years before and i think that through your work you have really shown that the european parliament is a strong voice for citizens and for economic development and the preservation of our common values.
so this vote will be an important part of the legacy of this legislature a test of its willingness to fight for europe's values.
this is about fair competition in a globalised world.
explicit consent the right to be forgotten the right to data portability and the right to be informed of personal data breaches are all important elements.
they will bring back the trust which has been lost.
companies will only have to deal with one single supervisory authority which will be the one in the country of the main establishment of the business rather than with twenty eight different authorities.
parliament will make this reform irreversible. our citizens will say thank you to parliament.
the commission delivered the proposals requested by parliament in january two thousand and twelve a package as had been asked for in parliament's resolution by your colleague mrvoss.
so thank you for having done that and.
this will make it easier simpler and cheaper for companies to do business in the eu and to build this digital economy which everybody agrees that we need.
i welcome the level of ambition of the report which matches and sometimes exceeds what the commission has proposed.
this is about creating a level playing field between european and non european businesses.
the benefits for businesses and citizens alike as regards the one stop shop mechanism are also confirmed.
to give european businesses a single market in personal data protection so that there are no more barriers and there is legal certainty.
these important elements will help to close the rift which exists today between citizens and the companies with which they share their data willingly or otherwise.
there has been a strong endorsement of the choice of legal instrument the regulation a single law for the whole of europe.
this consistent application of eu law will also make it easier swifter and more efficient for individuals to defend themselves to be protected and to have their complaints dealt with swiftly and on the basis of a coherent and strong protection mechanism.
i would ask vicky ford whether she is making representations to her political colleague the health secretary in the uk jeremy hunt about the appallingly shambolic handling of the so called care.
my reservations one smes; two health research; and three press freedom.
the reason we make this a central observation is that we spent months looking around the world at anyone who had tried to do what these rapporteurs have done.
i think mrs reding put it very well members in this house have created one set of international privacy rights.
they have created the space for the digital economy to grow.
this is an extraordinary achievement which we have put into context and that will be seen in the later debate.
but we also need to create a package approach here because it is not just about the private sector but about the judicial and police authorities as well.
so we must support both parts of this the directive and the regulation in the package;
as liberals we sought to implement our belief that it is possible to have a synthesis of high data protection standards and support for innovation and jobs in the digital economy.
our aim throughout was to secure a text which is balanced giving citizens greater control over how their data is used and by whom whilst facilitating technological advances because smart companies know that their business will only prosper on the basis of trust.
i am pleased that my colleague simon hughes who is the uk justice minister has announced that the uk government is reviewing the sanctions for breach of privacy under the existing directive.
i am glad that we put back the so called anti pfizer clause to protect our citizens against court orders in third countries and i am still rather shocked that the commission dropped this provision from its published draft. i mentioned trust and a challenge dear to my heart is to safeguard privacy for health data whilst facilitating valuable research. however that requires the public to have confidence in what is happening; foreseeability; belief that there are strong safeguards in place; and strict sanctions. i regret the fiasco of the uk implementation of a project called care data' which has had to be delayed because it has very
poor management which is losing citizens' trust in this area.
i will be honest and say that i do not think the data protection package is perfect and i still have doubts about some weak spots notably the protection of data when they are transferred outside the european union.
but i will give my support to the package imperfect as it may be because this parliament has to give a clear political signal that contrary to the national governments who are dragging their feet we stand up for the rights of citizens who have shown their interest in this legislation in a massive way.
i am actually deeply concerned by the attitude of the ppe the ecr and the council.
i would call in particular on the ppe who had the very first rapporteur mr voss to stick to the package approach which we have agreed upon because the directive is even more sensitive than the regulation and the opposition against it from the ppe and others is incomprehensible and irresponsible because when our personal data are being used by the authorities for law enforcement and security purposes privacy protections must be stronger not weaker. in the next debate we will speak about the revelations on mass surveillance which only go to show the urgent need for better legal protection for citizens.
finally in a democracy the fight against crime and terrorism takes place in a proper legal framework with proper legal protections for citizens so not adopting the directive will seriously hamper crime fighting.
that is why i have been pushing to make it applicable in real life with a clear definition of consent and with profiling that is technologically neutral and future proof.
we succeeded in striking a balance between higher standards of privacy public access to documents and freedom of expression.
the current definition of sensitive data may affect the swedish health register and unless further exceptions to the right of erasure are made medical research will be hampered.
may i express the hope that colleagues will also confirm this with the vote tomorrow?
after all it is about our credibility the credibility of the european parliament vis vis the european citizen.
so may i once again appeal to colleagues to vote tomorrow in favour of both reports the regulation and the directive.
the package presented is not perfect this is clear.
but it is the right step in the right direction and we should take this into consideration.
most of all it will be a necessary and important message to our citizens that we are taking their concerns very much into consideration especially in such difficult times sensitive times after the nsa scandal and all the other revelations.
you know it is so good when both parts of the coalition work together to correct wrongs.
for your information i spent all day on friday with the minister responsible for research getting this bit of regulation right so that there is a balance between protecting data but also allowing all of us to benefit from world leading science that needs
and yes our side of the coalition is working on correcting that wrong and getting it right.
although synergies have been under discussion and debated in this house for many years horizon two thousand and twenty is the first research and innovation framework programme that clearly and explicitly refers to synergies with the european structural and investment funds.
the brochure showcases many concrete examples of synergies and also highlights initiatives with high potential for synergies talking about the romanian competitiveness operational programme or the innovation projects in north rhine westphalia or the joint portugal spain nanotechnology laboratory
another practical manifestation of synergies on the ground is of course provided by a new successful instrument.
from wishful thinking synergies are now on the ground.
the more synergies we can achieve between structural funds and horizon two thousand and twenty the more impact we can expect for jobs growth and investment from funding at all levels be it national regional or european.
the seal is a quality label granted to projects submitted to the sme instrument and horizon two thousand and twenty which succeeded in the highly competitive evaluation but could not unfortunately be funded under the available budget.
to facilitate transnational cooperation among the regions;
but let me touch now on a number of points that commissioner creu intended to draw to your attention starting with the smart specialisation strategies.
so far we have in place three of those platforms one on energy innovation a second one on industrial modernisation and the third one on agri food.
in the future we also want to involve our jtis in that process to explore more synergies based on the excellent work that has already been undertaking by the clean sky that maximise the impact of their projects through tailor made synergies with regional interests in aeronautics.
do we have more to do?
i think we have a lot more to do.
we will have to keep on trying more and different.