Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-02-Speech-2-334"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030902.13.2-334"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish first of all to thank Mrs Gröner once again for her superb contribution to this debate, and all the Members who have taken part in it. I shall confine myself to making three observations, the first of which concerns the budget. We acknowledge that this programme must be accepted to be a priority and this is why we ourselves proposed that its funding be more than doubled in comparison to the DAPHNE I Programme; we believe that EUR 50 million will enable us to manage the programme properly and carefully but we understand the differences of opinion that exist in the House on this matter. If there is one thing that I have learned as Commissioner, it is to be extremely prudent when taking part in debates on budgetary matters in the European Parliament.
My second observation is to say that I accept the majority of proposals for amendments tabled by Parliament. I wish to draw attention to just three, on which my opinion diverges from the proposals that have been tabled. The first concerns the wording of Article 2, which deals with the aims of this programme: I should like to keep a full and open form of wording, which covers all forms of violence and all victims, including women, adolescents and children. As to the issue of street children, which we acknowledge to be a very significant one, and which has in fact already been accepted as a priority for actions for 2003 and also for years to come, I do not believe that the decision to include only some beneficiaries is the right one. We should leave this to the discretion of the Management Committee. I also wish to add that, at the moment, 71% of the DAPHNE Committee is made up of women, which means that in this sphere the Commission has implemented the general decision on the composition of committees and of experts that are consulted. I do not, therefore, believe that any specific regulation is needed on this matter, since in this specific case we have already exceeded the general level set.
With regard to Amendment No 35, I doubt whether there is anything to be gained by institutionalising a ‘think-tank’ with non-governmental organisations. As you all know, we do consult non-governmental organisations closely but institutionalising this system might create a potential source of conflict of interest. The organisations involved in the think-tank might find it difficult to apply for assistance from the fund and yet are often the most appropriate organisations to apply.
Lastly, I wish to make an observation on the issue of the European database. One already exists, ladies and gentlemen. This European database forms part of the operation of the Schengen information system, which contains specific references, likely to be acted on through the national Sirene network, to all those who are sentenced or prosecuted for perpetrating violent acts against women or children. I do not believe there is any advantage in creating a second, parallel database; we must use the one we have. I wish to confirm that the Commission has funded a project to create a specific database for police investigations in cases of child pornography and paedophilia, managed by Interpol. I shall conclude, Mr President, by saying that given the lateness of the hour, I have not used up the five minutes allocated to me."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples