Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by congratulating the Commission, in the person of Commissioner António Vitorino, on the excellent initiative that it has presented. We often criticise the Commission – and rightly so – but today it is only fair to congratulate it on the initiative that it has presented and which provides a positive response to the recommendations made by the European Parliament when it approved the Kessler report to bring together the five programmes covered by Title VI in a single framework programme. As we all know, under the terms of Article 29 of the EU Treaty, the Union is obliged to pursue the objective of providing its citizens with a high level of safety within an area of freedom, security and justice by initiating actions in conjunction with the Member States in the field of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters too. This was the rationale underlying the creation of the five biannual financing programmes under Title VI that are due to end in December 2002 and that were – and still are – Grotius II, designed for legal practitioners, OISIN II, for Member State law enforcement authorities, STOP II, for those responsible for combating trade in human beings and the sexual exploitation of children, Hippocrates, in the field of crime prevention in general, and Falcone, for those responsible for action to combat organised crime. The proposal we are debating here today establishes a single framework programme that is intended to bring together and provide a harmonised legislative and operational framework for all the actions that fall under Title VI of the EU Treaty, reflecting developments in Community programmes in general and the experiences of five years’ work on the ground. Consequently, we have, in our opinion, managed to ensure that the actions we have supported are more consistent and have an even greater impact, to make possible a more effective use of financial resources, to prevent potential overlaps between the various programmes and to fill in existing gaps. Although I consider the approach that the Commission is following to be fundamentally correct, I felt it would be appropriate and sensible to table some amendments with the following objectives: - firstly, to make the programme’s line of action clearer, and to make the wording more precise, not least because projects submitted are to be evaluated for conformity with the programme’s objectives. In these circumstances vague, meaningless terms have to be rejected; - secondly, to give our endorsement to the inclusion in the programme of cross-border projects in the field of assistance to victims of crime, in addition to the promotion of police and judicial cooperation. We will, in this way, be promoting the effective protection, in the Member States, of the interests of victims in criminal proceedings, specifically through the creation of a network of contact points. It might also, for example, prove appropriate to provide for an independent evaluation to be undertaken on the implementation of the framework decision, accompanied by proposals for improvement for every country; - thirdly, to acknowledge that it is important and appropriate to involve the applicant countries, but also that it must be made clear that they must participate in both drawing up and implementing the project. Merely taking part in the project as what amounts to a ‘consumer’, cannot be considered to be sufficient; - fourthly, to state that the power of initiative to draft proposals cannot be confined only to the public sector of the Member States and of the applicant countries; it must be extended to NGOs, universities and other interested parties; - fifthly, with regard to financing, a maximum co-financing of up to 70% has been provided for although, in some cases, it could reach 100%. These are specific projects and complementary measures. A hundred per cent financing from the Community budget could be justified only in the case of projects which were in the very best interests of the European Union and which could not be carried out with a lower rate of funding. However, it should be emphasised, and I am sure that this is also the approach of Commissioner António Vitorino, that the underlying idea is to attempt to finance the greatest number of projects possible with the resources available; - my last but one point is that the Commission’s proposal is consistent with this Parliament’s desire to provide greater support for projects promoting the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice, but it is rather difficult to accept a proposal that exceeds the existing financial perspective. Hence the proposal that this framework programme should operate in the period 2003 to 2006, following which it must be renewed in accordance with the new financial perspective. To conclude, I find it regrettable that the position of the European Parliament does not demonstrate the appropriate degree of prudence. I have therefore proposed that Parliament should be given the option of being involved, which will surely give it the opportunity to exercise its responsibility as budgetary authority in the best possible way. The construction of an area of freedom, security and justice is one of the fundamental objectives of this Parliament, and therefore, its involvement is of the greatest importance.

Political group: PPE-DE