kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
let me be clear this is not about attacking our culture or trying to stop europeans from enjoying a glass of wine or beer with their meal but ultimately this is a really important public health issue one which requires coordinated and targeted action from member states and the commission. so i hope we will adopt a strong resolution this week.
why should alcohol be treated any differently to everything else?
now you may prefer a glass of wine to a slice of cake sometimes i do but you need the information to make that choice.
we are also waiting for the commission's report on extending food labelling rules to cover alcohol.
so it does not feel as though the commission is taking this problem really seriously.
yet the eu's previous alcohol strategy ended in two thousand and twelve and still we are waiting for a new one.
the commission needs to listen to this parliament and take action immediately to reduce alcoholrelated harm. by finally coming forward with a new alcohol strategy it would at least show commitment to taking this matter seriously.
this was due by the end of last year.
it does seem strange to me that we know how many calories are in a can of coke or a glass of orange juice and yet we are not told the calories in a large glass of wine which are actually the same as in a slice of cake.
mr president as the commissioner has said europe is still the heaviestdrinking region in the world and in europe alcohol remains the third biggest cause of preventable death and disease.
one really important issue is to have clear warnings on the dangers of drinking whilst pregnant because there is overwhelming evidence of the dangers of alcohol to the unborn child.
my question is why can we not have calories labelled on all alcoholic drinks?
the commission has been funding and continues to fund projects on alcohol and health under the health programme for example by collaborating with the who and the oecd.
while it is the case that the previous strategy has expired the work of member states and the commission is continuing. the commission considers that the objectives of the strategy and its implementing tools are still valid and is co funding a three year joint action programme with member states to reduce
as regards how labelling for alcoholic beverages could be addressed under eu food information legislation the commission will issue its report as soon as possible.
i also wish to thank the rapporteurs for their work to date. it is clear from all of the contributions that we are like minded and that parliament and the commission share similar concerns on the need to address alcohol related harm and the abuse of alcohol.
we will continue to keep in touch in terms of what the timescale is for the particular publication of the report and on whether a legislative proposal can be brought forward at the same time.
we are currently at the stage of preliminary discussions with member states.
i know that ms willmott in specific terms mentioned the issue of labelling and others did as well.
at the same time i believe that we need to focus more on health promotion and disease prevention and place action on the main causes of chronic diseases not only in relation to alcohol but also in connection with tobacco nutrition and physical inactivity into a wider context;
what matters most is not the tool that we use or its name but the achievement of positive results and outcomes.
in addition to alcohol related harm we need to carefully consider alcohol labelling. i want to confirm to mr la via that the commission has started preparatory work on a report about the possible use of ingredient lists and nutrition information for alcoholic beverages.
all our efforts need to be truly joined up and all of us have an important role to play.
when i speak about the necessary tools i mean the european alcohol and health forum as well as the committee on national alcohol policy in action and the joint action we currently have with member states to reduce alcohol related harm.
just last week at the informal meeting of health ministers member states expressed support for an eu approach to address alcohol related harm. the commission is indeed ready to do its part to support national efforts and as such the commission intends to build on the solid foundations of the two thousand and six eu alcohol strategy and maintain its objectives and
and certain cancers.
drink driving violence and the suffering of children and families with alcohol problems are all part of the bigger picture of the harm that alcohol abuse inflicts on society.
the commission is therefore keen to find the best way to work together with all stakeholders to deliver concrete results and to reduce alcohol related harm.
at this stage i wish to express my regret that commissioner andriukaitis is not able to be here this evening but i am glad to be able to take this debate on his behalf.
europe is still the world's number one alcohol drinker with an annual average of over ten litres of pure alcohol per person and with significant variation among member states regions and population groups and yet most alcohol related harm can be avoided.
the term alcohol related harm' covers more than sixty types of diseases and conditions including addiction; injuries; liver cardiovascular and mental diseases;
so it affects not only the individual drinker but also many other people particularly family members.
along with the renewed eu health policy forum these tools can help secure the active involvement of all stakeholders and in this way we can ensure that all efforts are unified and mutually reinforcing.
tools to work together with stakeholders.
further discussions are however needed before we can announce a date for the adoption of this report.
of course the member states have the main competence and responsibility to address harmful alcohol consumption for example by setting and enforcing age limits and regulating accessibility.
in other words we need a holistic approach to preventing chronic diseases.
we are serious about tackling that and minimum unit pricing is an important step within those plans and i do hope there is nothing in eu institutions which will stand in our way.
it is a proportionate evidence based policy to cut down on problem drinking specifically problem drinking presently before the court of justice in luxembourg after the scotch whisky association challenged it.
people have the right to make choices based on information which presently the drinks industry is not giving them.
in paragraph thirty nine we make specific reference to our plans in scotland for minimum unit pricing of alcohol.
recital b specifically says that the competent authorities in the member states are best prepared to tackle alcohol abuse.
so it is sub judice but i hope that we can agree here that the first step to tackling a problem is to admit that it exists. sadly in scotland we do have too many people who drink excessively.
research suggests that alcohol can severely damage the brain if you start with it too early and alcohol abuse by young people is an increasing problem in many european countries including my own.
in particular we are in need of more education and an awareness campaign to promote healthy lifestyles and discourage binge drinking and of enforcement laws on the sale of alcohol in order to protect minors and prevent the sale of very cheap alcohol as well. i support a european action plan that supports member states implementing measurable rigorous policy goals while respecting the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
so if we decide to go forward we have already made all the preparations for accelerating the procedure.
although for the moment this is not the case we will have to see what we are going to do.
i would conclude by saying that the commissioner has been at the forefront of advocating sustainable stocks and fishing at maximum sustainable levels and we all support that.
the time for talking is over.
in light of what i have said and the specific requirements laid down in the framework regulation i find it very difficult to understand why the commission and the commissioner continue to ignore the views of the vast majority of this house.
i am now calling on the commissioner to act now on the very strong mandate given to her and not to ignore any further the mandate that had been given to her by the majority or practically all of this parliament.
i am losing confidence.
there have been at least twelve rounds of negotiations with neither party coming to the table with any realistic proposals.
i cannot totally blame the faroe islands and iceland but i lay the blame at the door of the commission. i also cannot accept that the eu needs to prove that it has sustainably fished mackerel stocks before the commission can implement such sanctions.
the commission has also introduced very tough measures internally within the union and i support that.
but that has not been reflected in the decisions that are not being taken by the commission.
they will now continue to do so unless immediate action is taken.
we have got to see action and action must be taken to save this industry.
surely commissioner you must see that this overfishing is going to result in serious devastation for the industry?
this reckless behaviour is putting at risk in the medium to long term a very healthy mackerel stock and the livelihoods of the pelagic sector.
i think this is one of the considerations we need to look into. secondly as others have highlighted the current negotiations on iceland's membership of the european union are continuing. as the commissioner is well aware the icelandic elections are being held next week. does she think that once the elections have been concluded there may be an opportunity to promote progress on this matter?
it is frustrating because cfp regulation and the european commission seem all powerful when it comes to regulating our fishermen and their activities.
i would like to think that the commissioner has not left that possibility off the table since we seem to be making little progress with the instruments which have been used so far.
i would welcome iceland joining the european union but we also know that those negotiations are delicate. with elections coming it is not for me to ask the commissioner specifically whether she is under any pressure with regard to this matter.
i have taken the message on board although i would like to repeat that we have to be careful.
that is why regarding mackerel i have said to you that i am going to discuss this issue again with the norwegian minister next week.
so things are getting tougher for the uk pelagic fleet and this will probably worsen further when frozen stocks run out.
no one is suggesting the collapse of the stock yet but with no agreement in sight this will happen eventually.
what we do have already is a collapse in price meaning that european fishermen who have behaved well and followed the rules are getting half the returns they were getting two years ago.
so i join my colleagues in asking the glaringly obvious questions why has the commission not secured a viable deal with the faroes and iceland?
that is also one of the reasons why i put the comprehensive victims package on the table setting basic rights for victims in criminal proceedings.
the moment we have the necessary coverage for all women who are in danger when they go outside their member states then we should together with the member states launch an information campaign which i think will be very important.
madam president protecting victims wherever they find themselves across the union is and must remain a crucial element of our action because exercising one's freedom of movement and residence should not result in a loss of that protection.
if improving procedural rights is crucial to developing a fair justice system it is equally important to improve the rights of victims.
as we raise those standards we have to embark on balancing on one side the rights of the accused and on the other side the rights of the victims in the administration of justice.
this is why the commission has always supported the objectives of this proposal and why we have completed this member state initiative by legislation allowing victims to benefit from the speediest means available for civil law protection measures as well.
ensuring that no gaps remain in the protection of victims is equally important.
it is important to have both so that no woman will be left behind.
i discussed it last week with the incoming danish presidency to ensure that it will also be a priority for them.
that is also why i very much look forward to our fruitful cooperation on my proposal for a horizontal directive on victims' rights which will complete what we have now started to do on the epo.
i will come back to parliament as soon as there are results.
if a woman is a victim of violence she should not fear that she will be deprived of the legal protection extended to her in her own country once she crosses national boundaries in the eu.
i think everybody in this house and this has been expressed by every single speaker is facing those dilemmas but we have to take tough decisions.
are we going to suspend air travel altogether?
it is also the first step in a long process.
we are in the middle of very tough negotiations with canada and the united states.
this is the first agreement.
it is the first reversal of the trend of unrestricted collection of data and we are facing other negotiations.
i recognise that this would fit in with another green objective namely that of reducing co two emissions which is a good objective but it is not very realistic.
there is a need for governments in particular to try to protect their citizens.
in this context the use of pnr data is an essential tool but it recognises that such information sharing has to be undertaken in full respect of fundamental rights and freedoms.
it has clearer language such as the definition of terrorism and serious transnational crime it is a further strengthening of police cooperation with high standards of data protection and it ensures freedom and safety for international air travel.
after three years the data elements which could serve to identify the passenger to whom pnr data relate will be masked out.
all data processing is logged or documented for the purposes of oversight and auditing by the australian information commission.
such depersonalised data will only be accessible to a very limited number of customs services officials.
as regards suspension in general suspension of agreements is regulated as you know by article two hundred and eighty nine of the treaty.
onward transfer of data to authorities of third countries is allowed subject to the same data protection safeguards as those applicable to transfers of data by air carriers to australian customs services under the agreement only for the purposes set out in the agreement and only on a case by case basis.
it prohibits decisions with adverse legal effects being taken exclusively on the basis of automatic processing of pnr data.
the agreement applies without discrimination between passengers and prohibits all processing of sensitive data.
all data processing is subject to oversight by the australian information commissioner who has effective powers to investigate and monitor compliance with the terms of the agreement.
under that procedure the council takes a decision on suspension on a proposal from the commission but a parliamentary resolution calling for a suspension signals serious problems with the current agreement and would certainly be a very important element in this respect. i would like to thank the house and especially the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs
data may be shared with other government authorities of australia only on a case by case basis and only for the purposes of the agreement.
the data will as the rapporteur said be transferred to the australian customs service on the basis of the push' method only.
the data is retained for five and a half years.
the data are transferred to the australia customs service for the purposes of preventing detecting investigating and prosecuting terrorist offences or serious transnational crime. in exceptional cases pnr data may be processed for the prosecution of the vital interest of any individual such as risk of death serious injury or threat to health.
it also recognises that information sharing is a fundamental component of the fight against terrorism and serious transnational crime.
we tried to achieve something together.
these sessions have been restricted because they are of course sensitive. i know that us representatives have also met members of that committee.
system. we will discuss that at some other
however they know as well as i do that a no' vote will not stop the transfer of data.
for this reason some groups in this house will withhold their vote or vote against.
however that does not mean that all concerns and reservations have been met.
the most fundamental point is that the necessity and proportionality of the mass collection and storage of data has been demonstrated only partially and not sufficiently.
however there are also a couple of remaining concerns as i said initially.
if the purpose were exclusively police and justice cooperation the eu could theoretically decide against the collection of pnr data by australia.
that is very important also in view of future agreements.
a no' vote therefore is purely symbolic.
i think that is a very important achievement.
we have assessed the draft agreement against the criteria that we set out last year and given a positive assessment on a number of points in particular the limitation of the purpose' definition.
the retention period of five and a half years appears to be fairly random and was not based on any specific evidence.
finally the appropriate legal basis for the agreement should be or in any case include article sixteen of the treaties on data protection.
therefore the only proper legal base can be article sixteen and nothing else.
it has been considerably tightened and includes only the fight against terrorism and serious transnational crime.
if in future the european parliament notes serious deficiencies in the application of the agreement we expect the commission to respond and to take appropriate action including if necessary the submission of proposals for the suspension or termination of the agreement. i would like to ask the presidency of this house to see to it that these assurances
we are not voting on the actual transfer we can only vote on the conditions governing the transfer of data.
secondly no justification has been given for the long term storage of identifiable data of all travellers.
but it cannot because it is a sovereign and unilateral decision by australia to collect these data.
the commission then put forward a very good package in line with those criteria and the council very swiftly adopted a negotiating mandate. i think this example demonstrates that if the three institutions work together europe is a force to be reckoned with.
there are still some doubts and hesitations.
i fully understand their objections and i share most of their concerns.
perhaps we should also focus on what is good about it and more importantly why we need it.
this is a vital tool which enables law enforcement agencies to prevent and combat the most serious of crimes and to capture the most serious of criminals terrorists murderers people traffickers paedophiles rapists and drug smugglers to name but a few.
to answer the critics yes we have a responsibility to our citizens to protect their data and their civil liberties which i feel this agreement has done but we also have an unavoidable responsibility to protect all the people of europe from harm.
that is why i and my ecr colleagues will be voting in favour of the agreement.
my main difficulty with the agreement is the fact that it does not deal up front with the question of profiling. the european commission has dodged this issue for years.
i did a report two and a half years ago on profiling just before the last elections.
the european commission keeps using synonyms and keeps falling back on this phrase which is in the agreement that it bans any decision which significantly affects or produces an adverse legal effect on a passenger solely on the basis of the automated processing of data.
i do not think it helps for the commission to refuse to face up to this issue.
this is to say that legislation changes culture changes and what we can and must do is to accompany and encourage this change towards having full respect of every single human being this is what the european union stands for regardless of gender religious ethnicity or whatever other conditions.
it is that our credibility in defending and protecting religious minorities everywhere in the world is directly linked to our capacity our policies and practices to protect and defend minorities inside the european union
i hope this is a message that we bring back home to all our countries to all our member states because this is something i face in my daily work with our partners around the world.
if we want to stand firmly and clearly in defence of all religious minorities in the world we have to be consistent on this at home.
a european union member state that i know very well an extremely catholic member state that i know very well used to have a law justifying honour killing that was abolished only less than forty years ago.
furthermore coming from a very religious country like ireland with a history of religious conflict unfortunately i understand the dynamics of religious coexistence and the challenges it creates.
pakistan's latest national report on the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women for example has been overdue since one march two thousand and seventeen so pressure needs to be put on pakistan immediately to start taking the lives of women seriously.
however i absolutely condemn acts of violence in an attempt to coerce another into converting to a different religion or acts of violence as punishment for someone who is not willing to join that religion. the intersection of religious conflict with gender inequality further exacerbates the traumas women face on a daily basis and so both of these issues need to be tackled head on.
the next sessions of both the eupakistan joint commission and the gsp monitoring mechanism are foreseen for next autumn and our special envoy for freedom of religion and of belief was also recently in the country.
we always raise these issues in the eupakistan joint commission and in the subgroup on governance and human rights.
we're working with seven hundred and fifty zero poor households to lift out of poverty at least thirty of them and we're doing so working with women helping them to get a job and raising their position within their communities.
according to data provided by ngos acid attacks in pakistan went down by fifty in the last three years and this is happening thanks to new laws that were introduced to protect women and victims but it is also happening because of the relentless work of pakistani civil society.
mr president today we are here not too numerous i have to say unfortunately for all the women in pakistan killed or abused simply because they wanted to choose who to love or how to pray.
we must invest in dialogue and coexistence even more so in times when others invest in division and segregation.
only through dialogue and engagement can we make a difference to the life of pakistani women all of them.
we all know the names of malala or asia bibi but there are also many more unknown stories of brave people who are helping pakistan turn the page.
we have invested two hundred and ten million on education in pakistan over a sevenyear period.
we're working with civil society organisations that provide specialised medical support to the victims of acid attacks and we have supported better legislation against these crimes.