Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-03-Speech-1-137"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010903.9.1-137"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I am aware of the fact that I trespassed on the patience of the House earlier in order to try and make a full reply. I will now try to be as brief as I possibly can in response to the very good points that have been made by honourable Members in the course of this debate.
I think I have covered Mr Marinho's point relating to the nature of what we are seeking to do, which is consistent with principles of public service, but now I come to Mr Dell'Alba's point about language. He is a Member of this House for whom I have great respect despite our political differences. His point about language hegemony was a cheap point, which regrettably diminishes my respect for him, and what he says has absolutely no foundation at all in anything that I or my fellow Commissioners have said or done. He might have intended it as a joke but I do not think that in the European Union of 2001 we should joke about things like that.
We have been told that, in the two years we have had as a Commission, the only reform has been to get rid of the medal for 20 years' service. But when I look back over these two years I see that we have kept promises to establish, for the first time ever, an independent, professionally led and staffed internal audit service, a central finance service, audit capabilities in every directorate-general, an audit progress committee that bears comparison with any comparable mechanism in the private or public sector anywhere in the European Union. We have drafted a new financial regulation which came to this House on time and to the Council on time and we are waiting for its enactment. We have developed a strategic planning and programming system. It is capable, with the use of activity-based budgeting and management, of being implemented in the European Commission, on time, provided that we get the necessary support from elsewhere. On time, in keeping with the promises we made on 1 March 2000 we have set out the most complex and extensive set of proposed reforms for personnel management and conduct in the European Commission and European public service comparable to the work that has been undertaken in the administrations of Member States over five and ten years.
It is a slur on the people who work in the Commission and the huge commitment that they have shown, in working 75 hours a week or more, month after month, to suggest that this Commission has done nothing in two years. I will not tolerate that kind of attack on the officials of the Commission and the way in which they have demonstrated their dedication to the public interest by seeking to fulfil the mandate given to the Commission by this elected House.
We have not finished the reform. It will be some time before we have even implemented the mechanisms of reform, let alone securing the changes in attitudes, conventions, behaviour and so-called ‘culture’ that will result. One group of people really does deserve credit: the civil servants of the European Union, both those who have contributed to the design and development of the reform programme and those who, in a time of turmoil, have shown patience, understanding and commitment in thinking up the ideas, considering the proposals being made, suggesting improvements and showing the goodwill that demonstrates a high standard of professional commitment to the cause of Europe.
We will continue along that path, hopefully with the cooperation and constructive support of Members of this House and the Council. But if in the end we do not succeed in making all the changes that are needed in the time available, one thing I want to ensure is that every tax-paying citizen and every voter in the European Union understands that a failure to meet the targets and deadlines is in no way the responsibility of the European Commission or the people who work for it. The responsibility for failing to fulfil the mandate lies elsewhere – maybe with the very institutions that gave us the mandate in September 1999. I would much prefer to be able to show people in the Member States that Parliament, the Council and the Commission heard and heeded the demands for change and modernisation and have worked together to bring about the changes needed to ensure that the citizens of Europe have the high quality, efficient, transparent and professional administration they deserve.
The Commission and its staff have committed themselves to that. I hope that this House will continue to show the same commitment.
Perhaps if I try to go through the more salient points made and simply make the most brief answers that will assist the House, especially against the background of the fact that in their post today and probably in their offices already, there is a very comprehensive lengthy reply to every aspect of the oral question set down by Mr Harbour and Madam Guy-Quint and secondly a very full table of 23 pages going through each of the 98 actions for reform proposals and giving a detailed account of the state of play on each of those at the moment, whether those proposals have been completed and implemented, which several have, or whether they are currently the subject of consultation or whether they have been presented to this House, or to the Council, or both, for the legislative amendment required to put them into effect. All the honourable Members, including Mr Pomés Ruiz and Mr Dell'Alba and others who have enquiries of that kind can, simply by referring to that table, get the most up-to-date information available to any one in the European Union, including the Commission itself.
In response to Mr Harbour's questions relating to whistle-blowing and to the code of good administrative behaviour, obviously we require changes to the Staff Regulations in order to secure the necessary advances on the existing legislation relating to the duty to report suspected wrongdoing that has an effect on the financial wellbeing of the European Communities. The proposal has been made in detailed form. We are now seeking the cooperation of the Council and Parliament in the course of consideration of the modernisation of the Staff Regulations next year. I am optimistic that this cooperation will be forthcoming. The result will be that the European public service will have the best and most secure provision for safeguarding the interests of staff and the institutions and the European public of any public administration anywhere in the European Union. As far as the code of administrative behaviour is concerned, the principles of that code are already set down in the Staff Regulations. In day-to-day practice, since we have implemented the code, the answer to the question on the oral paper today about whether the code of administrative behaviour is in practice incorporated in the activities of the Commission is yes.
On the career structure question, it appears that people have either adopted misinformed views or been given misleading opinions. I assure the House that the intention behind the reform generally, and specifically the intention behind the proposals we have made in relation to career structure, is not to try to emulate some form of private sector multinational. It is to establish, to make an assessment upon, to recognise merit and to provide reward in the development of an individual's career according to the very best principles of accountable, efficient, independent, professional civil services at European Union level. No more no less. If anyone is trying to give the impression that we are trying to set official against official, to destroy the contribution of loyalty made by officials over the years, to overlook the individual qualities of individuals by making the proposal that we do, they are sadly misled.
I am prepared to go into the most thorough detail in order to ensure that we do not get any repetition of the misunderstanding that has led to various communications that have manifested a complete failure to comprehend the purpose and detail of what has been proposed so far. I am very glad to say that in the Commission the staff unions, or a majority of the unions representing Commission staff members, have gone into these issues in the most thorough detail and have actually developed attitudes and ideas that can lead to significant improvements on the original propositions and options that were put.
It is on the basis of that constructive dialogue and negotiation, which has lasted over the past five months, that we are now putting refreshed and reconsidered options which I hope will recommend themselves not only to staff in the Commission but to the other institutions. There is nothing to fear and there is everything for the staff, the institutions and the public interest to gain by the modernisation of the career structure of the European Union institutions from the inherited structure which is over 40 years old. Everything else in the European Union has changed and it is time that the career structure and the recognition of commitment and capability caught up with those other changes.
Can I say to Mr Pomés Ruiz that the answers to the questions that he has raised, for instance on audit, are available in a number of documents which have been conveyed to Parliament. But for quick and easy reference, I draw his attention to the set of tables that he will have in his office today or at the very latest tomorrow – I suspect that they are there today – which will give him complete and up-to-date details on each of the aspects of reform relating to the establishment, development and operation, for instance, of the internal audit service.
Mr Miller refers to timing. That is an apposite point. Our commitment to sustained momentum is nothing to do with any desire to rush the Commission, its staff, Parliament, the Council or anybody else. The point is that in managing very substantial change that affects our institutions and the people who work for them it is in nobody's interests to delay, evade, or unnecessarily prolong the deliberations. Let those deliberations be thorough and the negotiations candid and well-informed. But when the prospect of change hangs over people's heads it can be destabilising, demoralising and demotivating, which is in nobody's interests. That is why we are not rushing. These changes are being considered properly and democratically in a process of consultation and negotiation. We have honoured every commitment on that and we will continue to do so.
As regards the early retirement package mentioned by Mr Miller, the package we have now has retained its attractiveness for staff and its cost neutrality. We have kept our promises. What we need now is for the Council to act quickly and effectively, because the increased efficiency and cost neutrality and the benefit to the operation of the European Union that can derive from the Commission's proposal last year could be drastically reduced or even lost altogether if any part of the Council prevaricates. That is not in anybody's interests. I take Mrs Jensen's point: what we are proposing is to link effort to recognised assessment and reward."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples