kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
another issue is how european producers farmers can be competitive when in the european union we have different higher standards of animal welfare in relation to the environment which are not addressed at the wto. you will only bring our citizens with you on this journey if those issues are addressed at the wto. quite frankly i think there was never an occasion when we needed direct discussion of these things in this chamber and in geneva more than we do now.
i would ask you if in your concluding comments you could address some of those very real issues so that people realise that they are being discussed.
the next big challenge for the country is to respect the ceasefire and to conduct free elections through which the people can decide who they want to see in power.
nevertheless the awful crimes committed by the rebels in the past must not be forgotten and the people responsible need to be convicted. the killings of innocent people and the use of child soldiers needs to end in order for peace and stability to settle.
only with political will and good faith will it be possible to achieve lasting peace in the central african republic.
the state needs to demonstrate that it protects fundamental rights and upholds the rule of law.
we are here today thanks to a young man called max schrems who was stubborn enough to litigate before the court for many many years and to do what the eu institutions should have done namely stand up for the interests of the eu citizens.
we all know that those exemptions are not going to be removed so can somebody please explain to me how we can realistically expect the umbrella agreement ever to apply please clarify this for me.
now i am not the least bit convinced that things like written assurances or an ombudsman or a review are going to do the trick. my doubts are shared and in different wordings by working party twenty nine working party thirty one the edps and various legal experts.
and i am not yet convinced that it is.
we have a responsibility and a duty to make good quality legislation and here it seems to me that the commission is ready to take a decision knowing that it will not stand up in court. this is not about making political compromises you know maybe i could agree with mr voss or maybe not that is all not relevant.
finally we did not say anything about the umbrella agreement in the resolution we will come back to it but i would really like two things.
the problem is that this privacy shield is very unlikely to be operational.
there is only one yardstick is this yes or no schrems proof?
i would like first of all for the european commission before we talk about giving consent or anything to finally declassify the reply it gave to the question of libe about the legal status and the scope of the umbrella agreement compared with other legal instruments really give us this information.
it is an improvement it is a step forward and i am glad that the commission is willing to discuss further adaptations but ultimately this is also about the us getting access to a market of five hundred million consumers so they too have an interest in moving.
because i recall that this house has called repeatedly for the repeal of safe harbour and the commission did not move so it took one austrian student to make sure that safe harbour was repealed.
so i do not understand why we have to keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
secondly the commission itself has clearly stated that removing the exemptions to the privacy act in the us is a precondition for the umbrella agreement to be valid.
the member states support us in this approach and we trust that our us counterparts also realise the importance of these further clarifications.
some of these recommendations can only be addressed in agreement with the us government and we are in discussions with them on those points.
it is the first time we have obtained anything like this from the us side. it is a crucial and central element that makes for a more robust framework than the safe harbour ever was.
i seek your support for the umbrella agreement as it will bring clear improvements to the protection of personal data transmitted in the course of transatlantic law enforcement cooperation compared to today's situation.
i believe that this too is a major and unprecedented achievement and again nothing remotely comparable existed under the old safe harbour.
where personal data of us persons are transferred to europe they already profit from the high level of data protection afforded by other rules be it at eu or national level.
this agreement seeks to ensure the protection of personal data exchanged between the eu and the us for the purpose of law enforcement cooperation.
more specifically the us government has assured us that bulk collection will be used only in exceptional circumstances and that even then it applies filters and other technical means to minimise the data collected.
rather it adds the necessary data protection safeguards to existing transfer agreements between the eu or its member states and the united states or where transfers are carried out based on national law.
finally once put in place the privacy issue will be continuously monitored in particular through an annual joint review.
our target remains to have the framework up and running by summer.
they have welcomed the positive elements in the shield and the improvements compared to the safe harbour.
as you know the independent data protection authorities brought together in the article twenty nine working party issued their opinion on the privacy shield on thirteen april.
third we have received written commitments and assurances on the limitations and safeguards when personal data are accessed by us public authorities.
as you know the commission has been working on several fronts to restore trust in transatlantic data flows following the snowden revelations in.
first us companies receiving personal data from europe will have to comply with stricter rules on how to use and read that information and their compliance will be monitored closely and proactively by the relevant us authorities.
the eu us privacy shield arrangement is essential for the continuation of transatlantic data flows while guaranteeing our citizens the fundamental right to the protection of their personal data.
first our thirteen recommendations of november two thousand and thirteen and of course the criteria set by the court of justice in the schrems ruling. following two years of talks i am convinced we have overcome the weaknesses of the old safe harbour system.
two thousand and thirteen the key measures include the adoption of the eu data protection reform the umbrella agreement for data exchanged for law enforcement purposes and the new eu us privacy shield to ensure a higher level of data protection for commercial transfers of personal data.
we negotiated the privacy shield with the us on the basis of two sets of guiding principles.
let me briefly summarise the main improvements.
second individuals will have access to a number of redress mechanisms to ensure that any complaint will be properly investigated and resolved.
that brings me to the other important file which will soon be submitted to the european parliament for its constant the umbrella agreement.
but they have also voiced some concerns and recommended further improvements. we take this expertise very seriously and we are now working on the more critical aspects and are adapting the adequacy decision accordingly.
during this process we will check that the various oversight and redress mechanisms are operating effectively and we have formulated clear conditions for suspending our adequacy decision in case commitments are not met by the us or answers given in the annual joint review are not satisfactory.
this concerns in particular the sensitive area of national security.
as you know the umbrella agreement is not an agreement that authorises data transfers nor is it an adequacy decision.
many of these existing instruments for law enforcement cooperation with the us have no or very few data protection safeguards.
we have received an explicit assurance that there is no mass or indiscriminate surveillance.
parliament will be asked for its consent before the council can decide to conclude this agreement.
without the umbrella agreement this unsatisfactory situation would continue for many years to come.
once we have reached the necessary qualifications and improvements we will then submit the draft to the member states in the article thirty one committee.
therefore the umbrella agreement aims at rectifying the existing imbalance of protections on both sides of the atlantic.
that includes for instance clarifying the independence and functioning of the ombudsperson mechanism and making more explicit the principle of limited data retention. this is an important exercise if we want our data protection authorities individual consumers and companies to have full confidence in the new arrangement.
the us congress and administration have enacted more than two dozen reforms to surveillance laws and programmes such as the privacy shield and the judicial redress acts among others.
we must take this progress into trade negotiations such as ttip and tisa where setting benchmarks for data protection should increase confidence on both sides.
investment across the atlantic is already worth around usd four trillion and the steps the americans have taken to ensure legal reciprocity data protection and legal redress for eu citizens will help to boost this even further.
as such my conservative colleagues and i see this debate as an opportunity for us all to welcome these efforts which give added legal clarity for businesses and consumers alike.
mr president we must recognise the steps that our american partners have taken over the last few years in improving protection for data flowing from the eu to the us in direct response to concerns arising in particular within this parliament.
in order to be even more pragmatic on this we have changed our amendment to a validity of four years.
and yes we know let us be honest that those changes will not come tomorrow.
so the question is while we are lining up all the criticism with regard to the insufficiencies which are out there do we say yes there needs to be renegotiation in the future;
yes there needs to be re opening of these files because we are not there?
the council considers that the agreement represents a clear improvement to the current situation notably as regards judicial redress where the us has so far for the first time agreed to extend such rights to eu citizens.
data flows offer economic and social opportunities.
this is good news from the european perspective as the us commits to respecting higher standards than in the past when receiving personal data from europe and i think that is very necessary.
strong safeguards are the key to restore the public's trust when it comes to transatlantic data flows.
their data has been transferred from the eu to the us and erroneously gets collected and included on a us blacklist.
furthermore the council supports the efforts of the commission in working with the united states on improving some aspects of the privacy shield and hence ensure a legally and politically sustainable framework.
this has shown there is legal uncertainty in this area of vital importance for the transatlantic economy.
the commission should fully take into account the court's ruling on the safe harbour regime.
to give you another example in the area of commercial data flows the privacy shield will offer a significantly enhanced system of oversight and enforcement which will enhance the credibility of the system.
for example an eu citizen's name is identical to that of a suspect in a transatlantic criminal investigation.
in that same spirit i welcome the creation of the position of an ombudsperson as an additional mechanism for the handling of complaints submitted by citizens.
therefore we hope that the commission will soon take a decision on the eu us privacy shield that fully respects the data protection acquis and which will be good for business as well.
of all transfers of personal data outside the european union the transatlantic flow is by far the most important one be it for commercial or law enforcement purposes.
that is why we hope that this parliament will share our positive assessment of this agreement.
the council also welcomes the agreement reached in the negotiations between the commission and its united states counterparts.
shortly thereafter the council will ask the european parliament's consent to conclude the agreement.
it is in the interest of the union and its citizens that the european union us privacy shield ensures this certainty and trust especially after the schrems judgment by the court of justice of last october.
this means an eu citizen can now benefit from equal treatment and will have the same judicial redress rights as us citizens.
madam commissioner the presidency attaches great importance to a free open and secure internet.
we are confident that the ongoing internal negotiations on the side of the union between the commission and national administrations will lead to a positive outcome thus paving the way for the new framework to enter into force.
as regards data protection in the area of criminal law enforcement the council aims at adopting a decision to sign the umbrella agreement in time for the agreement to be signed on two june at the eu us justice and home affairs ministerial meeting in amsterdam.
it is also important for european medium sized businesses as they are dependent on this adequacy decision for lack of other instruments to ensure safe data transfers to the united states.
the new adequacy decision must provide a level of data protection that respects the charter of fundamental rights the treaties as well as the standards set by recent case law.
in the law enforcement area we will be able to offer strict data protection requirements as well as basic rights to access and correction to our citizens in all instruments covered by the scope of the umbrella agreement.
the european union has a great interest in facilitating smooth and safe transfers of personal data to the us that ensure the respect of our citizens' fundamental rights both in the commercial and in the law enforcement area.
for the transatlantic transfer of personal data for commercial purposes the council considers that the commission should adopt its adequacy decision on this new transatlantic framework in a speedy manner while ensuring data protection rights.
the council trusts the commission to ensure the highest possible data protection standards including clear and directly applicable principles such as purpose limitation rights of the data subject to access and correct their data or to object against the processing and an effective system of oversight enforcement and redress of possibilities.
in that regard i believe for example that bulk collection by the united states should only be acceptable under certain circumstances.
thus the agreement will significantly contribute to restoring trust in transatlantic data flows for the purpose of fighting serious crime by adding a supplemental layer of data protection requirements on both the union and the united states.
at the same time the sensitive information that personal data contain needs to be protected in order to protect our privacy. it is key to ensure the public's trust in data flows trust that is based on a proper framework of protection.
the agreement does not provide a basis for the transfer of personal data across the atlantic but will enhance cooperation between the european union and the united states by setting common data protection standards in this area.
in the digital age it is well known that personal data are of great value because of the information they contain. they enable businesses to personalise their offers to consumers and law enforcement authorities to track down criminals.
it cannot be perfect and i will never be totally satisfied with it because there were objective reasons why we could not achieve more.
not even the member states can do that.
but what is more important is that we must not be satisfied for the future.
satisfaction must not be our leading principle for the years to come because the commission has committed itself i have committed myself and my colleagues to monitor on a continuous basis what is happening in the united states.
we should take into very serious consideration that this is also about the data of witnesses and victims of criminal offences and this plays an important role in the strengthening of cooperation between the eu and the us in criminal justice and security matters because we all know that
the presented instrument introduces many improvements to the protection of fundamental rights.
among others it strengthens member states' data protection authorities' role in the process of claims investigations.
i think this debate makes clear that smooth data flows can never mean uncontrolled and unchecked data flows.
the basis of data flows should always be the trust of our citizens that the data are being used in a just and prudent way both in europe and the united states.
and if a citizen has the feeling that this is not the case he or she should be able to object to this use.
at the same time we know and i think that many members have expressed this today the enormous importance of smooth data flows for governments companies and american and european citizens who are reaping the benefits of this.
it means companies are being enabled to operate more effectively and efficiently on the european and american side of the atlantic and therefore we are talking about a very important issue.
it also means we will be able to fight crime more effectively and increase the security of both our continents.
so we have to see to what extent this can all benefit us and i think the proposal that has been made is therefore so important.
first on the umbrella agreement.
i think and i refer to many questions that were asked on this it is important to say that the agreement itself does not constitute a legal basis for the transfer of personal data it only supplements other agreements with a common set of data protection safeguards.
finally as you know the agreement can be suspended in cases where the parties do not live up to it.
so that is important.
i think also here we have to underline the fact that the ombudsperson is an additional mechanism compared to other systems.
so in itself it is not sufficient legal protection.
it will not replace more substantive forms of legal protection and i believe that it is a step forward that the united states has been willing to create this mechanism and trust that the handling of complaints submitted will be conducted in a proper manner.
i would like to point out that the ombudsperson does not fulfil its position in isolation but as stated in annex iii works in cooperation with the internal regulators of the agencies who will need to provide information and answer questions.
i think correctly it was pointed out that the arrest was if you wish a catalyst for something that is i think a very improved deal.
the court was important;
it reminded us that an essentially equivalent level of data protection in a third country can only be met if government access to the third country meets the standards of necessity and proportionality. if a third country allows for massive and indiscriminate collection of data the standards are not met and in this case the representations by the various us government officials clearly indicated that the us has adopted laws and policies combined with a system of oversight and redress possibilities in order to avoid the massive and indiscriminate collection of data.
the main rule is targeted collection of data bulk collection is secondary and bulk collection if based on a proper legal standard and with sufficient safeguards to protect the rights and interests of data subjects is acceptable since it is not massive and indiscriminate collection of data. then about the sunset clause
i know it is a big point of discussion also in your parliament.
finally i would say that we deem that the privacy shield and the umbrella agreement offer the safeguards needed to justify our citizens' trust.
we hope therefore also that the european parliament will consider all the positive aspects.
it is also true here to say that the better is the enemy of the good.
it is important that we can now make progress on this;
the motion calls for stronger data protection arrangements between the eu and the usa.
commercial companies have contracts with their customers which include provisions on how their data may be used.
governments have no such contracts and they may enact legislation regarding the use of personal data which does not have the direct consent of its owners.
therefore governments should treat the use of such data with the greatest respect and utmost caution.
there are particular concerns about sharing data with the usa which has reduced protection of its own citizens' data under legislation such as the patriot act and which is never a respecter of foreign nationals' rights.
hydroelectricity is an ideal complement to the variability of renewables as when the sun shines or the wind blows reservoir levels can be allowed to increase to prepare for a time when there is no wind or sunshine.
this equates to around eur twenty four billion per year of savings in fossilfuel imports and therefore one hundred million tons of carbon emissions avoided.
a selective advantage has been granted to certain companies in the relevant electricity market and there is an effect on trade and a distortion of competition.
mr president i have often argued in this chamber against wind and solar power so it is refreshing to find a renewable technology which i can support wholeheartedly.
in fact in every respect it is the polar opposite of the solar and wind that we have wasted vast resources on in recent years driving up energy prices and forcing energyintensive businesses to move out of the european union altogether.
the problem of course is that availability of hydropower is restricted by the availability of suitable locations and suitable topography.
we are now facing calls for the harmonisation of rules for licensing hydropower projects.
we in my party will oppose any such moves for european harmonisation.
hydro resources in my country the uk are a national asset and we will take a very dim view of attempts to control these assets from brussels.
it is precisely the same big oil and big gas companies that have already made super profits and that have already endangered our environment who now tell us that shale gas is safe and that there is no problem.
madam president the dangers of fracking to the environment and to public health are so serious in my opinion that they cannot be regulated for.
instead of relying on them the public sector must become the spearhead of investment into research and development and infrastructure to develop green energy production.
that is why i signed the amendment seeking a total ban and when that amendment was defeated i voted against the report as a whole.
this environmentally dangerous practice must be banned.
however the reason that they are there in first place is because there are issues in relation to either the transposition or the implementation of european legislation. many petitions have been presented this year but one particular issue has been highlighted again and again and that is the issue of access for eu citizens.
in theory they are entitled to free movement to travel to work and to live in another member state but if they require a personal assistant then that is a particular obstacle and the whole idea of free movement means nothing because personal assistants are not available in all member states.
that certainly indicates that there is a genuine link between the citizens and the eu institutions.
that might be in the area of recognition of their professional qualifications the portability of social security rights etc. one particular issue relates to persons with a disability.
if that issue were to be dealt with then i think the idea of free movement would be a reality for those people.