kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
i honestly can tell you that was the first time i was aware of it and from that moment on i was determined that we should get to the bottom of why that should happen. now in this particular inquiry with these two strands political and technical my concern is that we make sure that at the end of this
we know what the political lessons were; we understand clearly why the parts of the commission that should have been working together to make this work for citizens and their health were not doing so quickly enough and not taking their responsibility seriously enough;
mr president i believe that this was a very encouraging debate a debate that was obviously not about the interim report because that was limited to procedures but much more about the current state of the investigation of our inquiry committee.
because i noticed a very broadly shared common understanding of the problem that did not necessarily already reach commonly shared conclusions but will be the challenge for my dear colleague pablo zalba and myself
but i do believe that we are on the right track.
i think it was seb dance who very eloquently talked about the myriad of responsibilities.
he said and many others did as well that there seems to be nobody really responsible in the end not the commission not a member state not national authorities etc.
that might be the core of the problem that we are facing here.
finally i think it was my colleague ivo belet who said that if we look at responsibilities a lot has to do with the inability of the member states to take their responsibility.
i believe that in politics in a well functioning democracy political accountability is crucial and that might mean naming and shaming if that is necessary.
now it is time to make sure that such maladministration will never happen again.
at the same time i have a question for you.
we should be focused on the future that is the most important thing.
concrete evidence must prevail over alternative facts legal obligations over written commitments meps' demands over congressmen's promises.
we must build a transatlantic digital bridge on a rock solid privacy pillar and unfortunately i have the feeling that the shield might already have turned into a smokescreen.
the article twenty nine working group does not because yes the privacy shield has improved safe harbour but no it did not assuage many of our concerns. the problem is and always has been the use of national security as a blanket exemption and this is one of the numerous questions that need answers most of all during the upcoming review.
clearly the privacy shield is a substantial improvement when compared to the old safe harbour.
as you rightly note in the motion for today's resolution the privacy shield has attracted a lot of interest with more than one nine hundred companies that have been certified under this framework.
it also means that an increasing volume of the personal data that is transferred across the atlantic benefits from the many protections that the privacy shield offers for individuals.
both as to the value of the privacy shield and the need to keep all of its elements in place.
representatives from the ombudsperson's office as well as the federal trade commission and department of commerce have come to brussels on several occasions to discuss with the commission and the article twenty nine working party the details of this cooperation and to report on their implementation work.
fourth in addition in the issues identified already in the commission's adequacy decision such as the dialogue on automated decision making as well as any developments in the united states law that might raise questions concerning the eu us privacy shield and its operation will have to be discussed.
this concerns in particular the limitations and safeguards that apply in the area of government access for national security purposes.
this will allow you and us to assess and discuss where we are on this and also discuss the next necessary steps.
all the various elements that are relevant for the functioning of the eu us privacy shield will be covered by this review inter alia first how us companies comply with their data protection obligations and the mechanisms they have put in place to ensure a speedy handling of complaints.
it is equally important that these rules also fully apply in practice. this is why our focus since the adoption of the decision has been on the effective implementation of this new framework.
the input from business and from civil society will also be of crucial importance.
another key element is the ombudsperson mechanism which ensures that europeans have a possibility to obtain an individual review if they believe that intelligence authorities have broken the law when accessing their personal data.
on the us side we expect the joint review to involve the department of commerce and the federal trade commission but also the ombudsperson and representatives from the intelligence community.
this will be a crucial moment a moment of truth where we take stock of how the privacy shield functions in practice and to see whether there are things that need to be improved.
we will closely monitor any relevant developments in the united states with a possible impact on the privacy shield including the upcoming debates around a possible reform or prolongation of section seven hundred and two of the foreign intelligence surveillance act which expires at the end of this year. this is the message we have been sending since the start of the new administration.
for the sustainability of the privacy shield it is essential that these elements are part of it.
i have agreed with the us commerce secretary wilbur ross that the first annual joint review meeting will take place in washington in september.
i have repeated this message during my recent visit to washington and my meetings with the white house the commerce secretary the attorney general state department as well as congress and i received assurances that this message is well understood by our us counterparts
a third one is the privacy and civil liberties oversight board.
second how the department of commerce and federal trade committee certify companies monitor compliance and cooperate with our data protection authorities in the enforcement.
however putting in place the privacy shield framework the privacy principles together with the commitments and assurances by the united states' government was only part of the work.
as partners in this review we will of course discuss the precise parameters of the review with the article twenty nine working party.
a central element of this is presidential policy directive number twenty eight which specifically addresses the privacy protections afforded to foreigners.
i met both sides in washington and they are committed to contribute.
this involves several actors and i am happy to report that our data protection authorities and the united states authorities have cooperated closely in working out procedures to ensure a robust oversight and enforcement of these new rules.
third the operation of the rules regarding access by public authorities and the rules and procedures to ensure that the ombudsperson mechanism functions well.
during my visit to washington last week i put a particular emphasis on some of the key foundations on which the privacy shield is built.
directly after the joint review we will report our findings to you and to the member states in the council.
my focus is now on the first annual joint review.
honourable members thank you again for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today and of course i stand ready to address any questions you might have.
let me make this point very clear if we are faced with any developments that could negatively affect the level of protection afforded under the privacy shield the commission will take its responsibilities and use all available mechanisms be it review suspension revocation or repeal
this shows the importance of the instrument for our trans atlantic relationship.
i know that some of you had hoped for more and i too would one day like to see a fully fledged comprehensive data protection law in the united states but in the meantime our assessment is that the privacy issue of framework lives up to the requirements of our data protection laws as interpreted by our highest court.
today's discussion is very timely as i have just returned from washington and can inform you of the latest state of play.
rather what the commission has to assess is if that third country offers in law and practice an essentially equivalent level of protection to that guaranteed in the eu legal order.
this is the view of our data protection authorities and i am glad to see that your motion contains the same clear statement.
what about the interpretation of ppd?
what about the legal status of the assurances?
indeed we do not expect the us law to be identical but we do expect it to be essentially equivalent because that is what the judges have said.
we had already expressed very serious concerns under the obama administration and for some reason the changes that have been made by the trump administration do not alleviate my concerns.
it is not by asking critical questions that we create legal uncertainty;
the resolution has been available in the public domain for some time now. i would have expected the commission to have already responded to the questions which are in there.
i would really urge the commission not just to repeat what should be done but actually to be on top of things.
what about the privacy and civil liberties oversight board which is under quota?
that is the way the americans would do it so why do we not do it on behalf of our citizens?
what about the impact of section fourteen of the privacy act?
there is also the other issue namely that national dpas may actually decide to suspend the transfers and then we have legal uncertainty.
there is a legal challenge before the ecj.
what about the definition of bulk transfers?
we receive information from them about the number of requests from the intelligence services and security bodies on the american side and much other detailed information.
the obama administration had instructed federal agencies to use their discretion also to apply these protections to others in the context of migration databases and this policy has now has been reversed.
that is why we had to negotiate new arrangements notably the umbrella agreement and the accompanying judicial redress act to ensure the necessary protection for europeans and these remain unaffected by the executive
partners. i would say that the protection of private data must remain great not be made great
order. this has also been confirmed in writing by the united
but let us be clear as i indicated the privacy act never granted any rights to europeans.
i want to take on board all the critical comments from the ngos.
when i say that the first annual review will be the moment of truth i mean it very seriously.
we must focus on three main things the legal environment in the united states;
why are we proposing this resolution?
we know that privacy shield protects the fundamental rights of anyone in the eu whose personal data is transferred to the united states as well as bringing legal clarity for businesses relying on trans atlantic data transfers and we cannot allow that to fail.
this is one of our deepest concerns.
these include concerns regarding the principle of data retention the bulk collection of personal data for national security purposes the need for sufficient judicial redress and the effect of independent oversight as well as several law enforcement issues.
so the resolution acknowledges that the final agreement on the privacy shield adopted in july two thousand and sixteen has taken a number of parliament's concerns into consideration.
however several issues must be resolved.
we note also that the agreement will facilitate data transfers from the eu to the us particularly from smes and business in the eu and that the eu data protection authority's supervisory powers remain unaffected by the adequacy decision including the power of suspending or banning data transfers to us companies that are members of the privacy shield.
commissioner today we are calling on you to conduct a proper assessment to ensure this legal certainty is provided for citizens and business alike.
that is what the resolution is saying today.
the parliament has consistently called for a stronger agreement following the invalidation of safe harbor in october two thousand and fifteen and we now want the protection of personal data which meets the requirements of the charter of fundamental rights and the data protection legal framework.
we in the parliament simply want to do our job.
the resolution highlights issues of concern that remain unclear particularly for example those made by the article twenty nine working party which as we all know is deeply involved in these matters.
we also take note of the clarifications and interpretations of the us administration in particular as regards the processing of personal data by security agencies.
if these concerns are not taken into account the privacy shield risks not achieving its purpose and could face further challenge in the courts.
we know that key improvements have been made compared to the former safe harbor.
it does not doubt that that will happen but we are doing our job in ensuring that every part of this detail is covered.
both citizens and businesses relying on transatlantic data flows need that certainty of a robust legal framework and this text calls on the commission to conduct that proper assessment.
i want to begin with what you said about your trip to the united states.
i do not see any problem with this.
it allows us companies to collect data on individual citizens every time they go online with no effective legal protection and it is only voluntary.
it only applies to companies that have signed up.
the rest can run fancy free with our information.
so this shambles breaches our fundamental privacy rights and it needs to be fixed.
it needs to be fixed urgently with a robust effective and enforceable system that protects the privacy rights of citizens not the interest of spooks and big business. i would call on the commissioner to fix it before the european court of justice forces you to do so for a second time.
but this is one of the problems we have in the european union where we banned certain animal proteins from the chain for very good reasons relating to human and animal health and therefore we do have a shortage.
we do need to find a technical solution and i believe we are moving towards that with recent developments.
i understand your sensitivities regarding the gmo point in this report but in terms of the here and now this issue of the adventitious presence of non approved gmo is of concern to livestock farmers in the european union.
i think your emphasis on the situation in which we find ourselves in relation to china is really important because we do need to look at this from a food security perspective.
despite the reservations of the rapporteur can i also say that i believe that europe must move to a solution in relation to zero tolerance.
rising feed prices and import bans put in place by other countries have highlighted just how exposed the eu is in relation to animal feed supplies. protein supply is most important for the livestock sector and its profitability.
end this extravagance and return taxpayers' money.
it needs to be by independent assessment.
that should stop.
you have the daily allowances of eur three hundred and four and there will be a significant number of meps and some meps i see in this place right now who sign in on a friday in strasbourg when there is no official business stealing taxpayers' money.
a budget freeze is the minimum our citizens expect.
we should for example abolish the useless european economic and social committee and the committee of the regions.
two thousand and thirteen this must be a first for a member of the labour party. in the uk they oppose every single measure the coalition government takes to reduce expenditure to clear up the mess they left britain in.
we could also save money by having just one seat for this parliament and ending the wasteful monthly trek between brussels and strasbourg.
that would save the taxpayer money and reduce bureaucracy.
we do not need these european political parties.
the house of european history with an initial cost estimated in excess of eur fifty million and with running costs of more than eur eleven million per annum is an extravagance at any time.
mr president in the middle of this crisis in which the eu is imposing cuts on member states this house still thinks it has the right to ask for inflationary increases.
the first concerns building policy.
secondly administration and staffing costs. this parliament should be looking to the institutions to deliver a progressive reduction in costs through exploiting economies of scale.
but i would also say that we now have the right as members of this house to demand that the other european institutions follow that example.
but for now i congratulate mr vaughan on a very good report. however there are three points that i want to make.
as members of this house we should be doing the same.
we should be demanding real savings in their budgets and they should be able to demonstrate value for money.
indeed as he will know there are many areas where i would wish to go further.
it is indefensible that this house goes on promoting cost saving efficiency and competitiveness amongst the other institutions amongst national governments and indeed amongst the people of europe while we continue such a wasteful practice ourselves.
it is now time we looked again at staff levels staff regulations and staff pensions policies to ensure that they are both up to date relevant and represent value for money to the european taxpayer.
the members of this house ought to be looking more critically at building investment building management and building cost control and in particular we should expect the other institutions to be achieving greater efficiencies through sharing resources.
we have had examples today of differences over a single seat the house of european history staffing levels and translation costs all differences between colleagues.
another difference was the role of this working group that i have suggested.
i believe now that there is a broad consensus that in difficult economic times the european parliament must play its part and make savings in its budget.
for example i now believe that very few in this parliament would argue against the proposal to freeze our budget. i believe certainly we need to ensure that the rise in the parliament's budget next year is below inflation. no doubt there will be discussions as to what inflation is but at least
i am also pleased that the main recommendations in our guidelines have been accepted.
i think that it is important as a parliament that we identify savings in our own budget. i believe we need to avoid unnecessary new initiatives unless they are absolutely needed.
i believe that we need to freeze our travel budget lines pending the requested review from the secretary general which we requested as part of this year's budget process.
i also believe we need to examine all our budget lines especially those budget lines which are always under implemented. i believe that these are the budget lines that we should look to to make savings in our budget.
in the recent past we have had many building projects proposed and now we need to take stock.
we need transparency so that this parliament is fully involved and informed about building projects and therefore i welcome the request to have regular updates at the committee on budgets on the building projects which are proposed.
another suggestion is to seek greater cooperation with other eu institutions for example cooperation on buildings on translation on interpretation on security and on human resources.
for example there is already a joint agreement in place between the committee of the regions and the economic and social committee working together jointly on many of these issues.
i think perhaps we should take a look at that joint agreement in order to learn some lessons and maybe work with them in terms of joint work and cooperation again with the aim of making savings.
i certainly believe that there is a lot of scope for us to make savings in the translation service for example.
therefore i have suggested that the secretary general comes forward with an idea for an independent evaluation of the parliament's budget.
this is a way of bringing fresh eyes a new pair of eyes to the budget helping us to identify and make the required savings.
my suggestion is that we establish a working group between the bureau and the budgets committee who can bring in expertise from outside and between them look at making savings. i believe this working group could form the basis of an independent evaluation of parliament's budget.
it could also look at a comparable study which was requested as part of this year's budget process;
a comparable study with other parliaments in europe and maybe the congress of the united states as well.
finally i would say to colleagues that i understand some will be concerned about this idea of a freeze in the parliament's budget.
they may feel it is too difficult to achieve but there again there are others who will want to go much further and to cut the budget and indeed some of the amendments in front of us today to be voted on tomorrow reflect that.
however i would hope that most colleagues in this house would agree that the guidelines which we put forward are a good compromise.
a good compromise and a good way forward;
a way forward which would allow us to make savings in the parliament's budget but also at the same time to ensure that this parliament is run effectively.
that is important in this difficult economic time.
we are very positive with regard to the development in the house right now where we seriously examine all our costs in order to find savings instead of increasing our own budget.
a part of this could actually be the external audit that my colleague mr maka just asked for. we have been calling for a similar type of solution for a longer time.
it probably would not hurt.
so we obviously have to look at ourselves and remember that the savings will only be created once we ask for them.
we will also vote on the single seat amendment which some colleagues referred to.
as stated before this is a symbolic issue for many but it is also an economic issue.
that is why many members from our group signed this amendment.
if you talk about equality and democracy at least give some pretence of it in this chamber.
let me assure you that the eed has been closely involved in discussions around the review of the neighbourhood policy and it has been given the opportunity to submit very concrete and pertinent recommendations based on feedback from the grantees.
thousand and sixteen to two thousand and eighteen that is a considerable increase compared with the previous grant.
the eed has been proved as you say in your evaluation to be able to provide fast and flexible support in restrictive and repressive environments where often the eu cannot act efficiently to reach human rights defenders.
i am very pleased with the pragmatic and very operational approach adopted by the eed and its focus on demanddriven assistance. we will continue to disseminate information about the eed among our staff and to use it to complement the support offered through the eu instrument.
i also believe that whilst coordination and complementarity is key the eed must remain independent and enjoy the latitude which is necessary to address the most challenging circumstances.
the eed can also quickly deliver emergency funding and provide small grants as well as core and bridging funding to new democratic actors with limited capacity to apply for larger eu grants.
in the report you make a number of suggestions regarding the enp review.