Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-03-Speech-3-118"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000503.7.3-118"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, it would naturally be rather difficult if Parliament were to take over the European Commission’s personnel policy. In my opinion, we would then be far removed from the efficiency required by the Commission. Because when you made your proposals back in January, and we studied them carefully, it was clear that the Commission’s appointment policy – and that is how we put it then – is a matter for the Commission and we should not interfere with it, unless there is obvious cause for this. We continue to endorse the guidelines you gave at the time for this personnel and appointment policy. First and foremost, appointments must be based on the candidate’s merits. This is how it was described in your document and I think that this clause should be retained. It is clear that we continue to support this. A candidate’s aptitude for managing an office is one of the key aspects, and I heard you emphasise this in your reply a moment ago. You made it clear once again what procedures are followed when appointing top officials.
You have also already stated in your action plan that a geographical balance should be kept, which was, in fact, what the question was about. This too seems logical to me, yet it would not be beneficial if we were to rely on this provision too much and be too strict about it. After all, if you were to do this, in other words, if you were to weigh it up extremely carefully, then I think personnel policy would become impossible in the long-run and you would be very far-removed from the efficiency required in this type of matter. On behalf of my Group, I would say that this question was somewhat superfluous. One can enter into a large-scale discussion on the decisions taken today with regard to the nationalities of the people who have been moved, appointed or who have left. This discussion would be meaningless. The question which should be raised is whether or not this benefits the functioning of the Commission and have the procedures laid down by the Commission been followed? This is the question we need to ask ourselves. Whether the person involved is Dutch or of any other nationality is of little relevance in the great scheme of things. What I do like, Commissioner, is that you, in your information, provide evidence of a transparent policy. I also welcome the fact that, based on your information, it appears that there are no major imbalances. I feel this should be acknowledged. We have been given important information, in my opinion, and I would therefore like to say by way of conclusion: let us not stand in the way of the Commission’s reform process but support it instead. We should not complicate matters – especially with regard to personnel policy, which is one of the most difficult topics – by asking questions which are not really relevant."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples