Mr President, I shall try to make myself understood, despite the noise. The present report deals with a Commission proposal with a view to the adoption of a Council framework decision. It aims to help create an area of freedom, security and justice, as provided for by the Treaties, particularly since Amsterdam, and for which, subsequently too, a programme had been expressly scheduled during summit meetings. However, the proposal in question is not terribly far-reaching. More specifically, it is about the common fight against cross-border crime, particularly in terms of making arrangements regarding minimum maximum penalties to be included in the legislation of the Member States. In fact, the entire document has been written in such a way as to maximise its chances of being adopted by the Council, which means that it merely codifies the lowest common denominator emerging from what is to be included in the legislation of the Member States. As such, it has, in fact, become a fairly modest document which we in the Committee thought required some more reinforcement in places. The reinforcement should be sufficiently constructive to ensure that the improvements remain within the realms of what is possible. We have therefore not held an explicit debate on drugs policy. Neither in the framework decision, nor in the proposal did we want to include a decision on whether certain drugs should be legalised or not, and neither did we want to draw a distinction between certain soft and hard drugs. These issues are all far too ambitious. Our goal is, in fact, far more modest. I therefore hope that, during the vote, we will reject the amendments which do implicitly deal with these issues, so that we can present to the Council a viable proposal which is in line with the opinions that are, democratically speaking, held by the majority of the European population. We have tried – and we have, in my opinion, reached consensus about this in the Committee – to tighten up the proposal in terms of penalties, for example by not seeking to replace custodial sentences by alternative penalties where serious offenders are concerned. For them, spending twenty-four hours helping out in an old people’s home does not really constitute a suitable, alternative punitive measure. Furthermore, we have already suggested that the Commission and the Council should perhaps consider the options of civil law penalties which particularly affect offenders in terms of what is most dear to them, namely their possessions. Thirdly, we agree that we would prefer not to develop a shadow bureaucracy under the authority of the Council’s Secretary-General. If the Treaty of Amsterdam already mentions a transfer of elements from the third pillar to the first pillar, this must be implemented, and we should refrain from leaping forward to an entirely different policy by instituting a shadow bureaucracy under the Secretary-General. Even within the Dutch political spectrum, I am not one of the extremists, but rather a moderate, on this score. I am therefore of the opinion that this legal approach with regard to penalties etc. forms a kind of tailpiece and is not the most important component of our drugs policy as a whole. What matters most are the preventive and therapeutic measures, and the policy developed in these sectors. However, we should not neglect the legal approach because, to a large extent, it has a lot to do with keeping the peace. This is therefore very much a tailpiece that should have its place. For the rest, and on behalf of all of us, I believe that Community cooperation should be imposed in a more stringent manner at times, whilst maintaining respect for the national courts’ own boundaries, maybe even somewhat more respect than has already been shown in the Commission proposal. I would now like to turn to the amendments. Following the vote, thirteen amendments have been tabled in the Committee, something which I am not terribly happy about. Or rather, I would like to advise against nearly all of them. In Amendment No 37, the idea that we will not focus on the prosecution of addicts is broadened to also include users. In my view, it is not for the report to comment on this but, rather, up to the Member States to decide on the policy they generally wish to enforce, or resume enforcing, where users are concerned. In any case, it is clear that our position in terms of not wishing to prosecute addicts is based on our preference for a therapeutic emphasis in our policy. Furthermore, I have noticed that the words ‘large-scale’, ‘international’, ‘cross-border’ and ‘organised’ appear liberally in these thirteen other amendments. This is rather forced in my opinion. They are already used a few times in the text itself, and it seems as if the people who tabled these amendments are, in fact, on a mission to restrict the scope of the proposal. The text even states that action is to be taken specifically if the trade is from one EU country to another EU country. Adding the words I have just mentioned seems downright ridiculous. For what arrives directly from Columbia, Surinam and the Dutch Antilles would not fall within the scope of this framework decision. I would really advise against adopting these amendments in the strongest terms. Incitement and complicity too are exempted from the scope of this proposal in one of the amendments. I would say that there are some that are more liberal in their inclinations than the rapporteur. Since he himself is not one of the strictest people, I would therefore, in fact, like to reject all amendments which I consider to be unduly liberal.

Political group: PPE-DE