kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
however i believe in the future that the european commission should also take into account the reforms made by member states to tackle tax fraud and tax evasion and give credits to these member states in the same way as member states who reduce their excessive deficit get credits.
at the same time we believe that the sector needs to be encouraged to develop new business practices and to reap the benefits that digital technology can bring for this purpose. so the commission has launched a stakeholder dialogue called the european film forum which has as its main objective to bridge the gap between european films and their audiences.
we also agree that the main weakness of the european film sector compared with its us counterpart is reaching out to wider audiences especially across borders.
and review of the audiovisual media services directive in the context of the digital single market strategy.
the need to develop new working methods and business models in the face of today's digital revolution;
more recently the programme has taken over the preparatory action on the simultaneous release of films in cinema theatres and through video on demand which provides incentives to the sector to innovate in the way that films are released. the creative europe guarantee facility makes available seed money to mobilise private investment and thus encourages the sector to become less reliant on public funding.
operationally the european film forum will adopt different formats depending on the issues discussed. conferences round table discussions workshops and expert group meetings will be held and the first deliverables of the european film forum will be shared at a major public event due to take place in brussels in the last quarter of next year.
as for the cultural and creative sectors guarantee facility the commission and the european investment fund will launch this new financial instrument for the benefit of audiovisual and other creative smes early next year.
furthermore tv programming as well as video on demand services receive support.
there will be structured dialogues with member states' public bodies the film industry and other stakeholders in conferences or in smaller groups in different locations on issues such as the overall efficiency and effectiveness of policies in support of films regardless of whether they are national regional or european;
new strategies to increase public awareness and interest for european films and stimulate dialogue within the audiovisual sector on the impact of the forthcoming copyright reform;
in two thousand and thirteen one five hundred and forty six feature films were produced in the european union and only a very small fraction of those films were released in countries outside their countries of production. of course this is linked to a number of factors for example the linguistic and cultural diversity of the eu the fact that european films are mostly financed with support from national or regional public funds as well as the very small size of production companies active in the european market.
diversity is key in the eu and it also applies to diversity of the demographic reality and we have to study that more deeply now than before.
this sends a clear signal to the commission on the follow up to the green paper.
this means that we need to create employment opportunities also for people with disabilities and increase the stability of financial systems.
in the meantime i would like to make sure that the green paper and the white paper do not get mixed up with other flying objects in the european sky.
the commission has absolutely nothing in common with approaches that assume that there could be a uniform retirement age in the european union.
there was agreement that we should continue with the holistic approach to the pension reforms.
we should also recognise that ongoing reforms carry new risks as they make future pensions far more dependent on long term developments in the labour market and financial markets.
we know that a fiscal black hole is opening up in the area of pension provision and we just cannot ignore it.
i think this is the start of that process.
i am pleased we have highlighted the gender issue and asked member states to deal with the issue of men and women who take time off to care and that we have paid attention to the issue of mobility and the role of the eu two thousand and twenty strategy.
i think in the report we are clear that member states are themselves responsible for making sure that there is adequate pension provision for their citizens.
but we also state that the economies of member states are interdependent and therefore a coordination of pension policies using the omc is certainly useful. however we do not believe it is possible for the eu to set adequate pension levels or indeed to harmonise retirement ages. nonetheless we do consider that member states should define adequacy as the condition required for older people to live a decent life.
but the core question is who is responsible?
finally i support the inclusion of pension liabilities within the sgp.
the lisbon treaty makes it very clear that it is member states not the eu who are responsible for pension provision.
this makes it very clear that pensions are first and foremost the responsibility of member states. thankfully we have rejected any call for a minimum pension at eu level as well as for a solvency ii type regulation to be applied to pensions.
but what we can do is share best practice and experience. i am pleased that my amendment calling for the implementation of the employment directive two thousand to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of age is also included.
indeed they are working for several and not always in the same country. and we need to avoid this fragmentation of pension provision so there is an essential role for the european union there.
for us too the portability of pension rights is a crucial issue.
we are all aware there are national differences as well as differences within our own political groups and to come up with anything that gains a significant level of support is quite something.
like others we also welcome the recognition that we need to tackle decent pension provision here for women.
after all we spent all of last year two thousand and ten dealing with questions of poverty.
we would agree as well and are pleased to see it there that we need to be adopting more of a life course approach that deals with the different rhythms and patterns of modern working lives both positive and negative.
and of course this is also for many people a fixed income an essential guarantee.
we are also pleased to see that this report contains a commitment for second pillar provision that it should be available without discrimination on grounds of age gender and work contract.
we also recognise the importance of tackling discrimination against older workers and using other measures to help people stay in work.
and again we recognise the importance of solidarity in that first pillar not least for those whose working lives are involved with more casual labour short term contracts and so on.
more and more people are not working for one company throughout their working life.
yes we need safe saving schemes but rules on capital must be intelligent.
from one employer to another and across countries.
individual countries should be responsible for their own policies and reforms. sustainable state pensions need sustainable public finances but this parliament's report is clear there cannot be a harmonised eu retirement age or minimum income level. company schemes and individual savings should be portable
savers deserve transparent information which is easy to understand and available.
forty five today we live longer but face the challenge of how to achieve reasonable incomes in retirement.
risks for pensions are not the same as insurance companies or banks.
pension firms and member states do not need this report;
there is double speak here with eu control overturning principle. the uk national association of pension funds says that this report will make pensions more expensive by ninety according to actuarial consultants punter southall.
otherwise this misguided report has the potential to destroy that which it seeks to protect.
they need help to keep premiums down.
there is a consensus on the need for coordination at eu level and for establishing eu rules on cross border issues.
the crisis has highlighted the need to review financial market exposure and the design of our pension systems in order to improve risk mitigation and enhance the funded pension's capacity for shock absorption. fourth we need to fully prepare our pension systems for the acceleration of population ageing.
this is a promise on which we have to continue to deliver and help member states to take the right decisions to ensure that pension systems are fit for purpose.
second we need to adjust the european framework to reflect the changes that have come about in national pension systems after a decade of pension reforms.
the commission is currently in the final stages of analysing the results of the consultation including the final opinion of the european parliament. given the urgency of the situation the commission has already started the preparations for the white paper to be presented in the third quarter of. two thousand and eleven let me conclude by saying that one of the great successes of europe's social model is to ensure
the green paper takes a holistic approach because my fellow commissioners rehn and barnier and i are convinced that adequate sustainable and safe pensions call for coordinated joined up policies spanning our three areas of responsibility. let me briefly restate the commission's reasoning for publishing the green paper last year.
in several places it highlights the links between adequacy sustainability and safety. it also clearly identifies policy areas where the eu can add value.
first we need to overcome the imbalances resulting from the increasing divergence between life expectancy and retirement ages.
the member states have already engaged in long standing cooperation to learn from each other's experiences and exchange good practice in pension reform.
however most member states have a long way to go and a few others have not even begun with pension reforms.
the green paper outlines the key challenges facing the union in this area and asked fourteen questions about how work at eu level could help the member states in ensuring that pensions are adequate sustainable and safe while fully respecting the principle of subsidiarity.
for the last ten years coordination at eu level has underpinned member states' efforts to modernise the pension systems and many member states have already made good progress in adapting the pension systems to reflect demographic ageing changes in the labour markets and evolving gender roles.
member states will be able to exchange information in a secure way also via europol.
i am sad that there is still resistance to adopting obvious measures when the experts tell us clearly that pnr is essential to prevent and combat terrorism.
passenger name records are not a magic recipe against terrorism but an essential tool in a limited toolbox.
how much more blood has to be shed before we come together and drop this ideologically infected debate?
the key is better information sharing to identify the routes taken by foreign fighters going back and forth for example to syria and iraq to train and plan attacks against us.
emotions have been running high we have had and we still have very difficult debates.
and we have to confess that external pressure has been huge;
the result of analysis.
we wanted a regulation that would enter into force immediately.
mr president first of all i would like to congratulate the rapporteur not least because this is the start of a new chapter in his life where he will not meet with daily harassment by his favourite shadow rapporteur from the alde group.
now we may all assess the outcome differently including in my group i will personally vote against that will not come as a surprise but it remains to be seen whether we get the security that everybody is talking about or whether this is just fake security.
but i will do something unusual for a politician i am going to confess that in my group we have been struggling with this topic.
my group was unanimous on a number of principles. we wanted a truly european and effective pnr.
but all these proposals have been categorically refused by the ppe the ecr and the member states.
we wanted mandatory sharing of information i.
but i am actually quite proud of the liberal group that we have that debate that we have discussion and doubt and that we do not take a position blindfolded that we are not dogmatic or ideological or represent certain interests or opportunism.
as i said earlier there is no such thing as a single solution to stop the terrorist threat or organised crime.
let me underline once more how grateful i am for parliament's support.
we need to strengthen the capacity of police officers and security personnel locally regionally and at european level to analyse this information.
that is exactly what has been missing in the past and what has led to the insecure situation we have today.
you have to create some determining criteria and indicate where the risk or suspicion is.
you have to choose where you are looking.
this money is instead urgently needed for the police everywhere in europe and for the coordination of european security and police authorities.
it is there we can access it and we can know who is on which plane.
the proposed blanket mass surveillance of all travellers is exactly the opposite of that.
instead you are delivering a symbolic measure at the cost of effective security and the civil liberties of eu citizens.
even before the brussels and paris attacks it was possible to know who was travelling on which plane.
i agree with all those who say we need to deliver whatever is necessary and proportionate to get a higher level of security but what is proposed here?
in the case of known suspects and fifteen out of seventeen attackers from several attacks in brussels copenhagen and paris have been known suspects we can follow them and collect more information.
so why are we not focusing on those known suspects?
but the problem is that we are spending all our money on blanket surveillance measures like data retention of passenger name records.
the court of justice as well as the european court of human rights here in strasbourg has clearly and repeatedly said that it is not in line with our fundamental rights and freedoms to just put everybody under surveillance.
that is what the greens propose because this would protect our security better and protect civil liberties which we defend against these barbaric terrorists.
you have to choose who you are going after.
that is what we should do in this directive because that would be a focused and effective approach towards more security.
i would like to echo the words of my colleague mr albrecht and i actually think that the repeated accusations on the side of the ppe to the effect that we are somehow responsible for terrorist attacks are disgusting.
no one will give you a guarantee that something a tool an instrument will suddenly make terrorism and organised crime disappear from europe obviously not.
this will send a strong message about the contribution of this parliament to our common efforts to strengthen the european framework in an area that used to be dealt with at the national level only.
addressing our common goal to have an instrument a tool that is effective in preventing and combating terrorism and serious crime.
the commission will be putting pressure on member states to implement it as soon as possible we cannot wait for two years.
we have no time to lose.
the directive will now put in place a coherent framework for the necessary pnr data exchanges between member states. this is an essential aspect.
we will continue supporting the member states to ensure the national passenger information units are inter connected.
we do not want to exchange information at the expense of fundamental rights.
prohibition of sensitive data such data must be deleted immediately upon receipt;
and oversight the processing of data is supervised internally by a data protection officer and externally by an independent supervisory authority.
of course by itself it will not solve all our problems with terrorism.
much more needs to happen such as better information exchange better implementation of the tools we have in place and tackling the roots of radicalisation.
that is why coming to an agreement on this proposal today is so important.
in the wake of the tragedies in brussels this is a good example of joint operational action to ensure the security of our citizens.
pnr is one critical tool and we will need all the tools we have at our disposal.
let us continue in the same way for all other pending proposals on the table.
some member states already use pnr data according to national legislation. common eu rules will bring about a level playing field and to me this is important a level playing field with more transparent procedures.
a directive at eu level will harmonise member states' legal provisions and avoid legal uncertainty as well as security gaps while at the same time safeguarding data protection.
mr president as a british conservative i believe that the eu should only legislate where there is clear added value for our citizens and where achieving our goals cannot be done alone.
criminals and terrorists do not respect national borders and legal jurisdictions they will exploit any gaps and weaknesses.
we need a fighting chance against them.
it is time for this parliament to fulfil its responsibilities and adopt this important crime fighting measure.
it is simple i will be voting to protect my constituents' rights privacy and their lives.
i hope that tomorrow's result is a positive one.
we have created a directive which i know is going to save lives protect rights catch criminals and make europe a safer place for our citizens.
throughout this process there has been more than enough finger pointing enough games and enough politics but today i hope to add some facts and the arguments for why i feel we need this instrument a view shared by governments of all political persuasions and by all law enforcement authorities across the whole eu.
there may be people here in this debate today who still want to vote against this report but i believe this is the best deal we could have reached.
too often politicians come away from negotiations in possession of a piece of legislation which feels like the lowest common denominator something they can live with something which could have been worse.
i do not feel that way at all. i can say with my hand on my heart that i am proud of what we will vote on tomorrow.
i know that we pushed for sound data protection provisions which mirrored those of the data protection directive and which provided specific rules for pnr data exchange.
i know we allowed for the ecj judgment on retention to have resonance and to be a meaningful basis for any review.
i know that we have retention periods which are proportionate and that we are collecting pnr data to combat a list of crimes which we must prevent and prosecute.
never have the challenges europe faces been so prevalent and inevitably the fight against terrorism has become the focus of this directive for many given its value in combating eu foreign fighters.
but i have been urging this parliament to support pnr for nearly five years not just because of terrorism but because it tackles the worst and darkest kinds of criminality as well human trafficking child trafficking drug trafficking paedophiles murderers and rapists. pnr does not just help bring perpetrators to justice it can also save people from the horrors that criminality brings.
there are many examples from the uk where pnr has helped rescue children and women from a life of exploitation and suffering.
pnr is not a hypothetical instrument and the uk has had a system in place for a decade.
it works it saves lives it puts criminals where they belong behind bars.
to the critics who say we are sacrificing civil liberties in the name of security let me emphasise that without this pnr directive there would be no european standards whatsoever specific to pnr no specific rights of redress no rules on data retention periods no rules on who can access the information no rules on
pseudonymising data no rules on keeping logs no rules on reviews or compliance with the principles of proportionality and necessity and ecj rulings.
for those who ask why we need a european solution on this i have listened to the experts to europol director rob wainwright to anti terrorism coordinator gilles de kerchove and to law enforcement experts from around europe.
by having a single set of rules at a european level we close the legal loopholes criminals seek to exploit under different legal jurisdictions.
by collecting and sharing the same information across the eu we make data comparable and relevant.
we cut down the lengthy delays of exchanging information through bilateral agreements allowing for an expediency which is so vital today in criminal investigations.
and to those who say we need mandatory sharing of all information for a centralised eu database i would say that mandatory exchange of personal data without regard to necessity and proportionality would be contrary to the fundamental principles of data protection.
but sharing relevant information with law enforcement agencies in other member states and with europol should take place whenever necessary.
irrelevant or unnecessary processing of data would undermine individuals' rights and will make it more difficult for authorities to prioritise the most relevant and serious cases.
but throughout this process i have always welcomed positive contributions from my colleagues.
i look forward to today's debate because i believe that the sooner the better as far as pnr across europe is concerned.
a balance between security and privacy.
there is an established monitoring mechanism with a strong position for the data protection authorities and a list of serious crimes.
indeed throughout the whole process of this directive and the work on it i have always been and i think everyone would agree not always in agreement with everybody but certainly very willing to listen to the various suggestions that have been made even for those who are quite sceptical of the proposals and i thank them for their contribution today.
i would urge people not to support the amendments that have been put down by groups because we are dealing with a package of measures here which i hope we can put through as they now are on the table.
i think it is an important matter because my country of course is in the middle of a nationwide debate on why we should be members of the european union.
frankly this is timely. it may have taken five years but our security and our cooperation in the fight against criminality is something that i strongly believe does add value to our membership.
as has been said it is not just a question of dealing with terrorists or threats of terrorism important though that is;
it is also dealing with all the other major criminal areas people trafficking child trafficking trafficking in drugs and all the other things that are so important that we should be working together to tackle them.
so i am asking everybody to vote for this tomorrow of course but i think it will also give a message to our citizens that we really do care about them.
we care about their security we care about their privacy and by doing it in a balanced way i think we will restore some of the trust which sometimes our institutions seem to have lost.
this makes it all the more difficult to understand why this house has taken so long to vote on this directive.
it has now been banished back to that office by ms ratti the deputy secretary general without any consultation as far as i know or debate in this house.
i have received some verbal and written assurances that the problems will be addressed through the commission publishing frequently asked questions and the responses to those.