Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-30-Speech-4-146"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001130.2.4-146"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
In March 1999, in the wake of various scandals and patent inefficiencies, the European Commission resigned. This resignation, the outcome of a long process of deterioration, must not however make us forget that the ‘Delors Commission’ bore heavier responsibilities than its successor.
It is, moreover, common knowledge that certain nationalities are manifestly over-represented in the junior grades of categories C and D, for the undisclosed budgetary reason that the staff concerned would not benefit from the 16% expatriation allowance!
These discriminatory practices are unacceptable. The fact is that unemployment exists in all our countries and the Commission would be well advised to take advantage of future procedures for early retirement and for the recruitment of hundreds of new civil servants to start putting its house in order. By the same token, nepotism and lack of transparency must be eradicated from the Commission services, especially as regards recruitment for temporary posts.
Finally, the Union for a Europe of Nations Group forcefully recalls that the citizens of the European Union expect more than ever that reform measures and staff recruitment must take account of the diversity of opinions and convictions which are expressed in our countries.
This resignation, imposed by the elected representatives of the nations of Europe, revealed the pressing need for far-reaching reform of working methods within the various Directorates-General of the Commission, and of decision-making procedures and structures, in order to improve the utilisation of the available resources in the management of Community resources and policies.
The Union for a Europe of Nations Group, while taking note of the serious infringements of the past, will not criticise the Commission and its reform out of hand. It is clear, however, that the exercise it is engaged in must seek primarily to restore the widely and legitimately shattered confidence of public opinion in the European institutions. This must come about, as the report says ‘by means of a significant improvement in performance and efficiency’, but also by means of more transparent practices.
The Commission reform will be judged on actual evidence, hence the need for regular follow-up reports, which the European Commission will present throughout the programme, and the importance of the overall report, which is expected in December 2002.
As far as the ABB is concerned, on the basis of whose activities the budget is established, we recall that it presupposes an amendment of Article 19 of the Financial Regulation, which establishes the distinction between Part A (administrative appropriations) and Part B (operating appropriations). As a result, the Commission must ensure that it does not call into question Parliament’s powers with respect to the allocation of resources. The French delegation will naturally oppose the introduction of the codecision procedure in amending the Financial Regulation.
By imposing the dismantling of the Technical Assistance Offices with a view to increasing the Commission’s accountability for programme implementation, this House wishes to point out that ‘only tasks not requiring public authority intervention might be outsourced to the private sector, and this in the form of one-off contracts’.
As regards commitology, the Union for a Europe of Nations Group denounces the report’s federalist vision, which claims that Member States, through management and regulatory committees, encroach on the Commission’s independence as regards management, and reproaches Member States ‘through those committees, of promoting national interests which are sometimes at odds with those of the Community’. The rapporteur even takes the view that ‘reforming the Commission must provide an opportunity to restrict their intervention solely to areas where no expenditure is involved’.
The management of Community policies must reflect the pragmatic agreements entered into between the countries of the European Union. For our part, we take the view that, especially because of the widespread lack of bureaucratic transparency which prevails and the scandals and inefficiencies of a still recent past, Member States must be more than ever involved in the decision-making process. The willingness shown by the rapporteur to eliminate their influence is, in this respect, edifying!
The Commission proposals, in the context of its reform, raise a number of questions as regards human resources. I will cite but one: the early retirement measure concerning some 600 staff, which is 3% of the total staff employed. The Commission services tell us that this would not have any significant impact on the budget. Our group hopes this is the case, but this is not a sufficient condition and it is necessary to ensure, in particular, that the statutory provisions are respected and that these measures do not obscure the other priorities of the reform and do not give rise to a political settling of scores."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples