Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-06-Speech-4-029"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010906.2.4-029"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to congratulate the rapporteurs and Mr Söderman on their work. It has made it possible for me to discuss with you issues of an institutional nature which are important to the efficient operation of the European Union. In particular, they are important to our relations with the citizens, and we do need to bring the Union’s institutions as close to the citizens as possible.
I also wanted to urge you not to confuse issues, ladies and gentlemen. The White Paper on good governance stands for much more than administrative reform. Administrative reform is already under way and is Commissioner Kinnock’s responsibility. To date, this House has agreed with the Commission that much has already been achieved in that respect. We must carry the administrative reform through. We are quite determined to do so. Mr Kinnock is working very hard to that end, but it is a different issue, quite separate from good governance.
As I said, the White Paper on good governance stands for much more than administrative reform. It aims to establish how best to gather, bring together and integrate the various links in the chain of responsibility within our complex society. This is a problem not only for the European institutions but for all our countries, all advanced democracies. Society is becoming ever more complex, the technological means allowing information to flow more freely are increasingly widespread, and new possibilities are opening up. In addition, the way in which citizens organise themselves is daily becoming more complex.
Hence the significance of the White Paper. It puts all this in the context of the interplay between the European institutions. That amounts to far more than administrative reform. Consequently, administrative reform should not be confused with the White Paper on good governance being drawn up by the Commission under President Prodi’s guidance.
I should like to make it very clear to Mr Perry that the Commission agrees with him and with Mr Söderman on how unfortunate it is that such a wide range of codes of varying legal status are currently in place. This does nothing for consistency or legal clarity. It should however be borne in mind as Mr Perry suggests in his report, that it would be wise to consider the results of the codes of good conduct implemented or approved recently. In the Commission’s case, this was ten months ago. As for the Council, it was just before the summer, in July. In our view therefore it is still too early to draw conclusions on the implementation of these codes of good conduct.
We shall start work on a report at the end of the current year. The report will refer in particular to the Commission’s own code of good conduct which will by then have been in place for a year. As soon as sufficient information becomes available, the Commission will consider whether or not to prepare a legislative proposal for a horizontal regulation. We need to have more information available so we do not at present have a position on the matter.
As for Mrs Almeida Garrett’s report, I have to say that from an institutional point of view it is undoubtedly the most sensitive. I shall only refer to it briefly however, because pursuant to Article 195 of the Treaty the Commission is only competent to give an opinion, and the latter is not binding. Nonetheless, I feel it is important to make our view known.
In the first place, Mrs Almeida Garrett deserves to be congratulated on her excellent work. I have also had the opportunity to speak on the subject at the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and to emphasise how well the present statute has worked.
As I stated earlier, the Commission has followed up investigations launched by the Ombudsman. The code of good conduct is but one example of this. In general, the Commission provides a constructive response and complies with the timetable for supplying information to the Ombudsman. I am grateful to Mr Söderman for highlighting this.
The Committee on Constitutional Affairs has tabled three amendments. Regarding lifting the secrecy classification for access to files, I have already explained that the Commission has not resorted to this in any of the twenty requests for access submitted by the Ombudsman. We could certainly succumb to the temptation of bringing the law into line with reality and go along with the position adopted by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. On the other hand, given that everything has worked well, we might also query whether it is really necessary to amend this point.
We should always err on the side of caution when dealing with delicate matters, given the Commission’s role and the nature of the issues it is dealing with at present. Indeed, the latter will become increasingly delicate and varied as the building of Europe proceeds.
I should like to turn first to the Bösch report, the annual report on the activities of the European Ombudsman for the year 2000. Allow me to say once again how much the Commission appreciates the excellent work undertaken by the European Ombudsman’s office, and how grateful it is for it. The Ombudsman himself, Mr Söderman, deserves particular recognition. He is the driving force and is largely responsible for the results and beneficial effects achieved by this new institution of the European Ombudsman. It has to be said that the citizens of Europe are daily becoming more familiar with it.
We might also encounter problems with the governments of Member States of the Union.
The structure of the European Union, based as it is on three pillars, means that the function of the Commission and also that of Parliament itself varies depending on the pillar in question. The Commission will therefore deal with these matters in greater detail in the opinion to be given and put to Parliament in the near future, once a final position on the text approved has been adopted.
Concerning the deletion of the principle according to which when officials give evidence they speak as representatives of their administration, the Commission does not wish to be dogmatic, but we do feel that it is important for officials not to speak simply as individuals. Rather, they should put forward the details and explanations pertaining to matters they are responsible for. For the rest, they should comply with what is required of them under their statutes. Further, I should like to emphasise that as a former Member of Parliament, let alone a Commissioner, I fully endorse the position of the rapporteur, Mrs Almeida Garrett, regarding the differences between political and administrative responsibilities and the European Parliament’s responsibility concerning political responsibilities, the responsibilities of Commissioners and indeed not only Commissioners but members of other institutions.
As regards access to documents emanating from the Member States it would be appropriate, as I said earlier, to be consistent with the new Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on public access to documents. The principle of obtaining prior consent from the Member State is provided for under Article 4 Paragraph 5 of the Regulation, and in the framework agreement with Parliament. Declaration 35 annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty of Amsterdam serves a similar purpose.
In conclusion, Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteurs once again. I must also say how very grateful I am to Mr Söderman for his work. It is most helpful to us because after all, criticism encourages us to improve and also offers solutions. That has to be borne in mind. We have already made progress regarding the code of good conduct, infringement procedures, and officials’ freedom, to name but a few examples. I venture to suggest in this context that many things are open to criticism, because nothing is perfect. When, however, one fails to go deeper and criticism is unfounded, it runs the risk of losing its value or at the very least, proving less effective.
The European Ombudsman’s work focuses on poor administration and the Commission is bound to improve its administration and the quality of services provided for the benefit of the citizens. In this context, the Commission shares the concerns expressed by the rapporteur. In particular, it agrees with the need to receive the Ombudsman and the Committee on Petitions as positively as possible, and provide them with every facility required.
One aspect of the Bösch report of particular concern to us is the follow-up to critical comments. Last year, we, in the Commission, set up a new procedure for methodical review of the conclusions to be drawn from the cases dealt with by the Ombudsman. As I see it, we have definitely improved as far as study, approval and consequently cooperation with the Ombudsman are concerned.
Allow me to refer to two examples to illustrate such follow-up. Firstly, further to the Ombudsman’s initiative, the Commission agreed to make the scripts of candidates in competitive examinations available to them as of 1 July 2000. Ladies and gentlemen, these are not empty words but actual facts. I venture to suggest that some of you should keep a closer eye on what is actually happening.
You have levelled some serious criticisms at the Commission. It is only fair to criticise the Commission when it acts inappropriately. In my view however, constant criticism, targeting the Commission’s work just for the sake of it, is entirely unhelpful. It does not promote the Commission, the institutions as a whole or the idea of Europe amongst the citizens. Criticism should be voiced when it is called for. We shall work towards improvements across the board. Furthermore, we shall take all critical comments into account and study, analyse and assess them.
Another example I should like to refer to concerns the citizens’ right to freedom of expression and lifting the age limit for staff recruitment. The Commission is inclined, for example, to offer its political support here. However, these issues go beyond our competence and impact on other institutions too. For instance, an interinstitutional agreement is required to amend the maximum age at which staff can be recruited. We do endorse and accept the view expressed and are prepared to discuss the matter with the other institutions. Nonetheless, it remains to be seen whether the latter will endorse Mr Söderman’s approach. As I said, we totally support it.
I shall now move on to Mr Perry’s report on the code of good administrative conduct. Mr Perry has highlighted how these codes of good conduct are crucially important in guaranteeing a high quality service to European citizens. They constitute an important tool for us, as we strive to turn the right to good administration enshrined in the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights into an operational guide for the staff of the European institutions. The Commission therefore warmly welcomed the study undertaken by the European Ombudsman into the existence of such codes. Furthermore, the Commission worked closely with Mr Söderman in drawing up the code of good administrative conduct. The latter is now complete and contains a great many of his suggestions and contributions. It would not be fair to say that all his ideas have been included but most certainly have. Once again, I should like to thank Mr Söderman for his unfailingly positive approach and for always making helpful suggestions.
We have taken full account of the provisions contained in the Ombudsman’s draft code amongst the various other codes adopted by European institutions and bodies. Indeed, the Commission’s code approximates most closely to the model put forward by the Ombudsman. This is not only because of its content and legal nature, but also because it is binding on our officials."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples