Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-08-Speech-1-078"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020408.6.1-078"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by thanking Carlos Coelho and by congratulating him on his excellent report. I must emphasise that the aim of this proposal for a framework programme is to rationalise and simplify the implementation of the programmes of police and judicial cooperation between Member States in criminal matters, thereby complying with the specific request made by the European Parliament in the Kessler report.
As to the content of this framework programme, this covers all five of the previous programmes and also the implementation of actions linked to the plan to combat drugs, for which the European Parliament had created a specific budget heading, due to end in the course of this year. The programme covers all the fields that are and that must be subject to European action, which demonstrates the commitment of the public authorities and of the beneficiaries of the projects, with whom we are in close contact, and also reflects the results of the external evaluation carried out two years ago on, of course, the development of the programmes that preceded the evaluation. The Commission is sometimes accused of being a schizophrenic institution, but we have not yet reached the point of assessing things that have not yet been done …
With this in mind, the basic legal provision was voluntarily confined to laying down the broad guidelines, because the Commission felt that the task of defining priorities more precisely must be left up to the annual programmes, year by year, in line with developments in the political situation and the actual requirements of the situation as regards crime. From this point of view, the amendments tabled to Article 2, emphasising one specific issue or another, are, I believe, hard to accept. The Commission takes the view that in the framework programme, objectives must be defined in general terms, leaving it up to each annual programme to define its priorities. Nevertheless, all matters and issues to which amendments have been tabled are, as I understand it, fully covered by the general wording of the Commission proposal and can be included in every annual programme.
The framework programme also highlights the concept of partnership. This element is crucial, because projects must be developed not only through broad European participation, but also – and from their very inception – in the context of close cooperation between the main players involved in the various countries. The amendment tabled by the rapporteur that defines this concept of partnership more clearly is, therefore, totally acceptable to the Commission. As Mr Coelho stated, the countries that are candidates for accession can already participate in projects. The Commission would like to go further and, in line with European agreements, has developed a system of financial protocols that will enable organisations established in the candidate countries to be equally eligible to submit projects on the same basis and according to the same rules as Member State organisations. I therefore welcome the amendment also tabled by the rapporteur on this point, which proposes a wording that I consider to be fortuitous, because it further clarifies the concept of the eligibility of the candidate countries.
With regard to the remaining amendments, the Commission can accept those that have an effect on the recitals and which enrich the text, or certain explanations, such as, for example, the more explicit reference to the inclusion of universities, NGOs and police academies as eligible organisations.
In relation to the request to bring forward the interim report to June 2004, the Commission would propose that the date of June 2005 be maintained. Instead, we propose that the presentation of the annual report be brought forward to June 2004 so that the European Parliament can be informed as quickly as possible on the first results of the implementation of the programme to have already produced effects that are likely to be assessed. Finally, on the duration of the programme, I must admit that, in relation to other existing programmes in the European Union, the argument of ‘a legal base providing for its implementation beyond 2006’, in other words, beyond the lifespan of the financial perspective, has not been used. Bearing in mind, of course, that the financial envelope for the period after 2006 will always be dependent on the financial perspective adopted following 2006, we would, therefore, ask Parliament to ensure that the limitation on the legal base does not stop at 2006 and could cover actions programmed up to the year 2007, with the proviso, naturally, that a given financial appropriation will always be dependent on the new financial perspective. Lastly, I wish to thank the rapporteur, Mr Coelho, and the European Parliament for the support, the boost and the encouragement that they have given to this important task of rationalising programmes in a particularly sensitive area: the area of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters at European level."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples