Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-09-13-Speech-1-032"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19990913.5.1-032"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, last Friday the Commission received the text of the second report of the Committee of Independent Experts, which analyses the administrative management of the Commission and puts forward proposals regarding its reform.
Therefore, I believe that this is basically an analytical report. It is clearly a critical report and it demonstrates once again something that I have always observed as a Commissioner and that I would like to testify to before this Chamber: The human and professional quality and integrity of the men and women who make up the European civil service and who offer that service not only their labour but also their personal commitment.
There have been exceptions. There have been cases of abuse, but they are very limited, very limited indeed. It has always seemed to me unjust that, as a result of very limited cases, generalisations have been made in the past with regard to the European civil service. There are officials in the European Commission who are worthy and honest and who wish to cooperate with you and overcome the crisis which has arisen during this past year.
Please do not forget that the European Commission is, by nature, the embodiment, the consequence and the summary of everything good and bad in the history of European integration.
It is true that the Commission, as an institution, represents more than forty years of heritage in terms of European integration. But forty years of heritage can also undoubtedly be a burden. And sometimes, a negative burden.
Every day, the European Commission has had to confront new and numerous tasks and it is true – and I wish to freely admit this here without any compunction – that we had difficulties in adapting to the new challenges. This has undoubtedly been our great responsibility.
Modernisation and reform are therefore necessary and they should be carried out if we want the Commission to be able not only to fulfil its basic role of guardian of the Treaties but also to be the promoter of the decision-making process and the effective manager of the programmes and projects assigned to it.
Everybody has proclaimed during recent months – Parliament, the Member States, the media – that the future requires a strong and independent Commission. I hope this proclamation is sincere, although I must admit that I sometimes doubt whether it is actually sincere.
The report proposes a large number of changes which are summed up in 90 recommendations. This is not the time to analyse them in detail, but I would like to highlight the fact that the problems relating to the distribution of budgetary resources, the protection of the Union’s financial interests, the fight against fraud, the management of contracts and decentralisation are matters which require solutions and responses which will demand the active cooperation of the European Parliament and also, and above all, of the Member States that make up the Council of Ministers.
Why is this? The recommendations, as we have read in the report, are of a very varied nature, Madam President. Some require practical changes. They can be carried out, and without delay. Others require changes in management mechanisms. They can also be carried out, but, as my colleague Mr Kinnock will explain, they will require a certain amount of time.
Other cases involve profound, sometimes radical, modifications of the legal and regulatory framework, and this cannot be done by the Commission alone. Finally there are others, with a greater content and on a higher level, which will even require the reform of the Treaties and, in some cases, probably the reform of the Constitutions of some Member States.
There is no need to point out the political significance of this day.
I freely admit, Madam President, that as a European citizen after next week, I will be very curious to observe the attitude of the Member States and the European Parliament when the new Intergovernmental Conference opens in Helsinki. The conclusions of the Committee of Independent Experts can obviously be applauded. Some, in my opinion, are necessary, very necessary, and can be carried out. Others will need time. But in some cases, the European Parliament should apply pressure in the correct quarters, and this pressure should not be applied on the Commission this time but basically on the Member States; otherwise we will be faced with an enormous disappointment.
I repeat that the most radical reforms require a reform of the Treaties. In my humble opinion, with much experience as a Commissioner, I am curious to see how we will all behave, at this precise moment, at the moment of truth, faced with a new model for the organisation of European integration.
Other issues are old and recurrent and are not innovations but a product of the realities, contradictions and also the residue of successive political commitments which are, at the end of the day, the ones which form the overall picture of the European Commission.
We are at a decisive juncture. Perhaps we were not able to explain it, perhaps we could not do it, perhaps we lacked courage, but something was started with the outgoing Commission. And I would like to end by saying that this debate is good and positive.
The other day, we briefly analysed the work of the Committee of Independent Experts. We believe that much can be done. We are perhaps paying a heavy price for not having been able to do it, but I would ask this Parliament to painstakingly analyse the second report of the committee, to understand, after the explanations of Mr Kinnock, that the Commission will require some time, and to be a bit more generous this time. Give the Prodi team some time to carry out the task that we were unable to do, as it has work to do which is probably even more difficult.
I believe that this is the constructive way to evaluate the results of the crisis, with a view to the future and, above all, in the eyes of the citizens. Perhaps the Commission, as well as yourselves, will gain from all this. Consequently, perhaps, the next European elections will not see a repeat of the behaviour of the citizens who did not vote this time, probably because they did not understand what was happening in Brussels.
Please allow me to be frank. I have tried to illustrate the positive attitude that we have in the outgoing Commission and to ask, please, for calm, serenity and a little generosity to allow the new team to launch those reforms which, in our opinion, are absolutely necessary.
This Commission, the outgoing Commission, held what will probably be its last meeting last Wednesday and, therefore, has not had the opportunity, in the short time which has passed since the document was issued, to carry out a thorough analysis of its contents or to establish a final position in relation to it.
It will be the task of the new Commission to carry out a more thorough evaluation of this second report and, in this regard, the Vice-President responsible for reform of the Commission, Mr Kinnock, will respond during the debate to the specific points relating to future activities.
Having said this, please allow me briefly to address certain comments to you, from the point of view of the outgoing Commission, regarding the work carried out by the Committee of Independent Experts in this second report.
First of all, I would like to stress the fact that the Commission has cooperated honestly and constructively with the work of the committee as it promised Parliament from the moment that work began. When Parliament proposed the creation of the committee and established its mandate, the Commission expressed its agreement with it and its acceptance of the consequences and responsibilities which may arise from it. This was the case with the first report of the Committee of Independent Experts and the events that followed its presentation, which led to the resignation of the Commission. I will not dwell on these, since Parliament is well acquainted with them and I believe they are already assigned to history.
However, what does interest me, with a view to the future, is to point out that this second report is, in our opinion, a positive contribution to the reform process which the next Commission will have to undergo under the Presidency of Professor Prodi. I would like to express my agreement on this point.
This is a debate which looks to the future, the future of the European Union and the strengthening of its institutions and, in particular, the European Commission, whose central role in European construction cannot be called into question.
Lessons can no doubt be learned from a reading of this second report. Shortcomings in management are highlighted, but also, timidly, in our opinion, the causes are mentioned. In some cases, these include legislative limitations and the obligations which the Commission, institutionally, has had to take on in circumstances which were not expected and were insufficiently prepared for. But, furthermore, there is one issue that appeared in the first report and which is repeated in this report on various occasions: The limited human resources available for the tasks taken on by the Commission in response to public opinion or at the request of the Council and, on occasions, also of Parliament itself."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples