Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-03-Speech-1-130"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010903.9.1-130"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I am very grateful to both Mr Harbour and Madam Guy-Quint for tabling this comprehensive question which permits me to make a full report to the House on progress with various aspects of the Commission's reform strategy. As I hope the House will understand, providing detailed replies to every part of this oral question this evening would take up all the time allocated to the debate. I am therefore making a full progress report on all individual reform actions available today to honourable Members in written form. Perhaps some honourable Members will have received that full report and here I will concentrate on the most salient recent developments with the human resources policy elements of our reform strategy and I also refer, as requested by Madam Guy-Quint, particularly to the budgetary issues.
Taking those factors into account and in specific answer to the question before the House, the Commission considers that our reform strategy does not require that we request a revision of the ceiling of Heading 5 and we will not make such a request. Obviously following from that, we do not consider that it is sensible or necessary to make what would be a false distinction between urgent and less-urgent aspects of reform.
On the question of staging the reform over a longer period, I simply remind the House that first of all, a substantial part of the House argues – rightly in my view – for sustained momentum of change, for the sake of our staff as well as for the sake of the institutions. Secondly, it was the explicit mandate of the Prodi Commission – not any other Commission – to undertake and achieve the reforms in its quinquennium. We certainly intend to do that. At EUR 111 million, over four years, with investments that would result in actual cost savings, as we have demonstrated, none of the reform investment is expensive. All of the reform investment is essential. There is no question of our seeking or accepting a blank cheque. Every argument that we have made, every figure that we have put, every proposition that we have tabled is carefully calculated. We expect no-one to take anything on credit or on trust.
It is clear that negotiations on modernisation of the career system have led to a consensus about the objectives of changing the system and also about conditions for reforming the system. Those negotiations have not, however, yet produced agreement on the detailed practical means of implementing the sort of reform that is needed to produce a more continuous modern career structure. The prospects of gaining such an agreement are, however, very much alive, I am glad to say.
Over the past weeks in August, work has therefore continued in order to produce fresh and detailed models and options, which will be the subject of resumed discussions with staff representatives and with other institutions this month. It is realistic to anticipate that by the end of October the Commission will be in a position to take a final view of the whole of the human resource policy reforms, including a career structure that is more linear and in the best professional interests of the permanent and independent European public service. To turn such proposals into reality the understanding and support of Parliament, both as a democratic assembly and as an employing institution, will be essential. I am optimistic that support and understanding will be provided.
As Mr Harbour reminded us, last November the large majority of this House gave support to his report which explicitly favoured the principle of making significant change – not the status quo or anything like it – in order to establish a more linear career system for the European civil service, for all the reasons he was kind enough to set out again tonight.
I hope that such a positive stance will be maintained by the House and by the administration which serves the House. Negative attitudes would frustrate the will of this House that was clearly expressed by a huge majority in September 1999, in November 2000 and on several other occasions. The reason that the will of this House would be frustrated by negative attitudes is that these would impede or prevent the Commission from making changes which are at the core of the modernising reform that has been explicitly required by the Council, by Parliament and by the European public.
I hope that the constructive and cooperative attitude to reform that has repeatedly been manifested by this House will continue strongly and consistently.
I first report, without any complacency, that in the five months since the Commission adopted the detailed consultative document on reform and modernisation of human resources policy, progress has been sustained and progress has been satisfactory. The joint high-level group chaired by the former Secretary-General of the Council, Mr Niels Ertsbøl been particularly useful in facilitating a very thorough constructive and productive process of consultation with staff representatives. The Commission has conveyed its warm thanks to Mr Ertsbøl.
In consultations and negotiations on the complex matters of personnel policy, it is natural of course that some delays have been experienced. I am very glad to say, however, that they have not been of a nature or of a length likely to cause any severe disruption to the reform schedule. As I previously emphasised to the House, and Mr Harbour has repeatedly and in my view rightly emphasised too, the Commission is aware of the need to sustain the momentum of change, not only in the interests of the institution but also in the interests of our personnel and of the public which we serve. We are sure that we can maintain the necessary pace while simultaneous achieving the understanding and the support required for fully effective implementation of the essential changes.
Against that background, the Commission adopted a document on 18 July entitled 'New orientations for the reform of personnel policy'. This has been communicated to Parliament but of course because Parliament rose at roughly the time we were producing that document, there was not an opportunity to formally bring it before Parliament at that juncture. The document includes a timetable for the completion of the current negotiations. By the end of this year the Commission will be in a position to adopt finalised decisions on all issues that do not require changes to the Staff Regulations and also to present a formal proposal for a revised set of Staff Regulations to the interinstitutional Staff Regulations Committee. We hope that the intensive consultations undertaken with the Secretaries-General and Presidents of this Parliament and of the other institutions will facilitate the support that is essential to the changes that are necessary to fulfil, I remind the House, the clear reform mandate given specifically to the Prodi Commission by this House and by the European Council.
The Commission appreciates the supportive purposes of honourable Members in their reference in this oral question to implementation of the new career development policy ahead of formal agreement. We advise the House, however, that such efforts would be certain to attract formal complaints and court cases and therefore lead to delays and indeed to unnecessary ill will. We will therefore continue to fully observe the conciliation agreement which we reached with the staff representatives in March. In any event, as the July timetable shows, discussions with Commission staff representatives will be concluded in the near future and many substantial changes in personnel policy that do not require amendment to the Staff Regulations will then be decided by the Commission and implemented immediately.
I am pleased to report that the basic objective of our February proposals, of which we are again reminded by Mr Harbour, of directly linking career advancement to proven merit has been accepted in the negotiations to date. Changes in detail made as a result of negotiation and consultation have, I am glad to say, produced improvements in the proposal. Details relating to these matters and to Mr Harbour's questions on benchmarking, appraisal, management and pensions are available in the progress report which I am circulating to the House today. To save time I therefore turn to the concluding part of the question put by Mr Harbour and Madam Guy-Quint relating to budgetary matters.
Firstly I note the reference in the question to EUR 600 million as 'a cost reform' and I must say that the House is in danger of accidentally misleading itself. It is essential to stress with maximum emphasis that a clear distinction must be made between the costs of meeting the Commission's carefully measured request for 717 new posts including 118 posts in Delegations, submitted in the amending letter last September, and the far smaller gross costs of investing in reform. The new posts needed to enable the Commission to fulfil its policy and operational obligations to 2006, set out in fine detail in the amending letter and accompanying documents, will cost around EUR 542 million. The gross cost of personnel policy reform to 2006 will be around EUR111.9 million. The largest part of additional human resources spending is therefore not related to any significant extent to the design and implementation of the reform strategy. I underline the fact that neither the request for Commission posts, nor any of the Commission's reform proposals, would cause a breach of the limitations set down under heading 5 of the 1999 financial perspectives and the Commission will fulfil the undertakings to stay within the limitations which we volunteered last year both to this House and to the Council.
However, as Mrs Guy-Quint mentioned, the House should take account of the fact – as a table I am also circulating today demonstrates – that recent proposals made by institutions other than the Commission would have the effect of significantly increasing the forecast rates of growth of expenditure on personnel and administration under Heading 5. The institutions which are at present contemplating an above-average rate of growth in Heading 5 expenditure will doubtless want to give further attention to this matter. It is conceivable that part of the estimates which they are making relate to the anticipated costs associated with enlargement. That is a matter of interest and requires a focus from all of us. The fact remains that, as things stand at the moment, any danger of breaching Heading 5 of the financial perspective emanates entirely, solely and completely from the ambitions of institutions other than the Commission and has absolutely nothing to do with the modest and temporary proposals that we make for additional investment associated with reform, which is a fundamental mission of the Prodi Commission, given to us by the overwhelming majority of this House and the unanimous decision of the European Council.
Although discussions with staff representatives are not yet concluded, the Commission wishes to emphasise that as examination of all relevant figures will show – and the relevant figures are in the documents that I have circulated today and in the document adopted by the Commission on 18 July – the increase in yearly expenditure under Heading 5 generated by Commission reform will be modest and temporary. The figures published in the new orientations document in July show the maximum yearly increase due to reform – if the measures were adopted by all institutions – would be EUR 34.3 million higher in 2005 than in 2001. Thereafter, after 2005, the cost will actually decrease, leading to permanent savings of EUR 23.5 million by comparison with 2001."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples