Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-07-21-Speech-3-050"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19990721.5.3-050"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to congratulate the new President of the European Parliament and all of you most warmly on your recent election. I am very happy to be here today to introduce to you a new team of European Commissioners. In the last two addresses I gave before the European Parliament, in April and May, I promised to inaugurate a new era of change within the Commission. The new College of Commissioners which I am going to introduce to you today is the team which will implement these changes.
I will now move on to the other main subject of my address today: the reform of the Commission. The need for reform is indisputable, as recent events have shown that European institutions as a whole are no longer adequately equipped to deal with the wide range of tasks incumbent upon them. This is why I have promised a revolution in the Commission"s operating procedures. This does not mean that I want to undermine the Commission"s achievement as an institution: that would be extremely unjust. The Commission has many strong points, including committed, experienced personnel and a great capacity for innovation and foresight. Over the years, it has given proof of its considerable capacities to adapt, repeatedly taking on new tasks and responsibilities. Practically every major development in the process of European integration can be traced back to the commitment and dedication of the personnel in the Commission. However, as is the case in numerous public administrations, the world has moved on and the Commission has failed to keep up. Too little has been done to modernise the institution itself and no alterations of substance have been made to the structure of the Commission in forty years. This is why an in-depth examination of the institution"s working procedures needs to be carried out now.
The challenge to be taken up consists of redesigning, adapting and improving the organisation in order to make it more efficient, to fight fraud at all levels and place the institution at the service of the citizens of Europe. Let us not be under any illusions! This whole process of change will take time, but an initial reorganisation of the Commission is already underway. The bureaucratic machine will be simplified and rationalised, with fewer Directorates-General. The Commissioner"s offices, that is, their private offices, will be in the same building as their respective Directorates-General. Both offices and Commissioners will be more streamlined and more multinational – I have tried to ensure that each head or second in command of an office is the citizen of a different country from that of the Commissioner, and each office contains people from at least three different Member States. The rules for appointing higher civil servants will be more stringent and transparent, and mobility within the Commission of higher civil servants will increase. The Directorates of the Commission will be identified by short, clear names instead of by numbers, and a larger department will be established in the mass media and communications sector to ensure that the Commission"s policies are communicated professionally and that they reach all the citizens of Europe. Naturally, this is only the beginning and further, more important changes will follow.
Presumably, the Committee of Independent Experts will present its second report in September, although I share Mrs Fontaine"s hope that it will be ready for publication as soon as possible, within a time frame which the five wise men will be able to sustain. We will study this report with the utmost attention, and I hope that it will contain elements which will be useful for the reform process. In this respect, the new Vice-President responsible for reform will submit a detailed plan at the beginning of the year 2000. All this will have to be discussed in depth with the European Parliament. In particular, we will have to find a suitable mechanism for ensuring that the Parliament is kept constantly and exhaustively informed of the progress of the reform, while at the same time respecting the Commission"s autonomy in managing its own competences. My intention is to transform the Commission into a world class administration which will lead by example. Our watchwords at all times will be transparency, accountability and efficiency.
Now is not the time to dwell on the programme for the new Commission. I gave a broad overview of our future priorities in my addresses to this Parliament in April and May, and we will have the opportunity to examine these issues in more detail in September. I am here today to introduce the new Commission, not its programme, but I can promise you that the central theme of our entire programme will be to make the European Union more relevant to the citizens of Europe. In fact, it cannot be denied that the European institutions are suffering from a collective loss of confidence on the part of our citizen and in order to win this back, we must act decisively. However, we will only succeed if we confront the issues which have genuine importance in the daily life of the citizens, such as unemployment, economic growth and the challenge represented by sustainable development to ensure a balance between the creation of riches, social justice and quality of life. This must be the new Commission"s genuine priority.
As I have just said, this is not the time for a detailed examination of the programme, but I would like to put forward just three examples of what I mean by renewal. First of all, let us consider the issue of health and food safety. The European public has lost confidence in the national and European authorities responsible for controlling drugs and foodstuffs: it no longer has faith in this government, or any other governments, or scientists. I consider it our duty to take the initiative and make provision for an independent European Food and Drugs Agency, which will help to win back consumer confidence.
(Applause)
Air traffic is another matter for concern. Our European airports are in a semi-permanent state of chaos, due to ever-increasing traffic and lack of co-ordination between air traffic controllers. I think we can all testify to this. The problem transcends national boundaries in this case as well, and we must seek solutions at a European level – solutions that really work.
A third example is the doping which is taking place in the sporting world – a question which may seem banal to some but which for many is a cause of deep concern. This is a problem which obviously requires the different nations to co-ordinate and take decisive action. I do not pretend that Europe has all the answers to these problems. What I mean is that we must show our commitment to contributing to the resolution of these issues at a European level, as by their very nature, they go well beyond purely national boundaries. I have no hesitation in suggesting that in some cases – or, rather, in many cases – the answer to the concerns of disillusioned European citizens lies not in reducing but in increasing the European dimension. The vast majority of European citizens are not sceptical about action on a European scale, but they are becoming increasingly disillusioned and are fast losing interest in the interminable, impenetrable wrangles over who should do what at a European level. What the citizens persist in demanding are clear answers to the important problems in their everyday lives. The bottom line is, what interests them is not who solves their problems but the fact that the problems are finally being dealt with. They want consumers to be able to trust the food they buy, travellers to be able to take a plane without worrying about their safety and the sporting world to be above board.
I have already stated that I do not intend to dwell on the policies as the time for that will be in September. However, I would like to touch briefly on two issues which are especially important in the new Commission: Kosovo and the next Intergovernmental Conference.
Let us first take the situation in Kosovo and the Balkans. The war in the Balkans has left the whole of Europe deeply scarred. What we must do now is make sure that peace brings something positive. As time goes on, my concern grows that our capacity to make war far exceeds our ability to co-ordinate the reconstruction after the devastation suffered by the populations involved. More time than necessary has been wasted in diplomatic disputes over who should co-ordinate the reconstruction work. It is now a question of focusing our energy on the really important tasks: rebuilding houses left without roofs, putting back together shattered communities, and, even more importantly, providing the Balkans with a clear political and economic future, which will put an end to all the centuries of continual conflict. Only the European Union can do this. In order to restore peace, a clear, long-term strategy is needed, based on reconstruction, reconciliation and
: construction to repair the damage done by the war, reconciliation between all the parties involved, including the Serbian people, and the
of this region to the European Union, including the prospect of future accession to the European Union for all the countries of the region, if and when they show themselves to be politically and economically ready. I am sure that the best way of pursuing such a goal is the method already successfully employed by the Community in the past: firstly, to ask the various parties to co-operate with each other, to start to work together on issues of everyday relevance, to establish customs unions, to set up common institutions and to consolidate peace through common interests. This is how lasting peace was achieved within the European Union, reconciling opposed nations by co-operation. When the Second World War was still a recent event, the signatories to the Treaty of Rome were people of great courage and farsightedness. Are the men and women of our generation unable to display the same farsightedness and courage over the Balkans issue? Is it that Europe is not ready to take the risk? Does Europe not have the ambition to bring about successful change?
I do not intend to introduce each member of the College to you individually. They are sitting here in front of you and their names are well known to you. This is a well-balanced team of the highest quality, and is the result of my constructive debates with the Heads of State and Government, which have fully respected the new powers which the Treaty of Amsterdam conferred on the President-elect.
When we start to take up this challenge, we find before us a paradox. The European Union may be first in line with its contribution, but the risk is that the impact of its aid will be lost in a complicated network of competing structures: the United Nations Mission to Kosovo, the Stability Pact, the G−7 High Level Group for economic relations, the Office of the High Representative in Bosnia, the special envoy for the Republic of Yugoslavia, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
This multitude of decisions undermines the central function which should be carried out by the European Union. There is a desperate need to simplify things. In particular, we must ensure that the European Union"s huge financial contribution is spent on reconstruction and not on bureaucracy. I believe this is the reason the Commission has refused, for example, to draw upon the budget made available by the OBNOVA reconstruction programme, approximately EUR 45 million to pay the salaries of the seven hundred people working for the Office of the High Representative in Bosnia. This is the equivalent of a sum of about EUR 17 million out of a total of forty-five. As a priority, our financial aid must be used to benefit the population and reconstruction work directly. We must focus exclusively on sustaining the economic growth of the region and reinforcing its democratic structures. Moreover, with regard to the structures to be created, we must pay particular attention to the specific value added in each case. We must at all costs avoid things being done in Brussels when it would be better to do them in Thessaloniki, and doing things in Thessaloniki when it would make more sense to do them in Pristina.
(Applause)
The second point which I want to touch on today is the new Intergovernmental Conference which will be announced at the Summit in Helsinki. Some people think that the Intergovernmental Conference will be a simple job of fine-tuning after the Amsterdam Summit, the object of which will be to speed through the individual issues on which it was not possible to reach agreement in Amsterdam. I do not share this view. For me, the Intergovernmental Conference will be crucial for European institutions. It is our opportunity, possibly the last opportunity, to prepare ourselves for the potential doubling of the number of the Union"s Member Countries. In my opinion, an Intergovernmental Conference which only has limited goals could not deal with a similar challenge. I am well aware that some people will object that it is better to make rapid progress in a limited field than to line up a whole series of issues in several fields, which are too complex to be resolved quickly. To me, this means not going to the heart of the matter. If the agenda of the Intergovernmental Conference is too limited to allow us to prepare adequately for enlargement, the only thing to do is to enlarge its scope.
(Applause)
It will serve no purpose to patch up the borders. For enlargement to work, an in-depth, thorough examination of the institutions is essential. To this end, I intend to build a small, high level working party – and I do hope that it will be of a high level – which, during the next three months, will prepare a report on the subjects to be covered at the Intergovernmental Conference. The report will contribute to the preparation of the official position of the new Commission on the Intergovernmental Conference. Even though much of the political demand of the European Union is currently opposed to a clear refusal on this matter, I will not be shaken in my resolve to present, at least in an official way, the possible options.
(Applause)
In my opinion, it would be an error of mammoth proportions to organise an Intergovernmental Conference in Helsinki which is too limited, simply because of the collective fear of confronting the real challenges of future enlargement head on. We will naturally see to it that the European Parliament plays a greater role in the work carried out in Helsinki.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Commission and the institutions of the Community have been through a very difficult period. The European public is now looking to us to draw a line under the past and move on towards the future. The challenge facing all of us is that of restoring the credibility of the European Union in the eyes of its citizens and ensuring that they understand the benefits that the European Union provides for their personal, everyday lives. I cannot insist enough on this point. As I speak, the whole of the European public is watching us, and is waiting with bated breath to see what is about to happen in the great history of the Commission and the Parliament.
I would like to propose that we disappoint those spectators who have come here to watch a confrontation. None of us will act in the interest of the people of Europe if we allow the European institutions to be in a state of permanent confrontation and deadlock. Now we have a new Parliament and a new Commission, and this is our opportunity to start afresh. The Commission and this Parliament are the only two institutions whose leaning is exclusively and genuinely towards Europe. There should be a solid alliance between them. We have to deal with the same tasks. Who else, if not the Commission and this Parliament working together, can take this project forwards? The Commission has suffered greatly from the recent events, but I believe that this Parliament has also been affected, considering the poor turn-out at the recent elections.
Each member of the team has proven experience. Almost all have been members of the parliaments of their own countries, three quarters of them have been Ministers, many have been leaders of political parties and others have accumulated a wealth of experience in diplomacy, business, economic policy making and the legal sphere.
The task we face is that of restoring deep, mutual confidence between the two institutions, which has traditionally been the driving force of European integration. This means working together, while at the same time acknowledging the diversity of our functions. I am convinced that it is in the best interest of the Parliament for there to be a strong, autonomous, independent, trusted Commission. I hope that the new College which you see before you today will receive your full support in September. The go-ahead is not, however, a
for the future. This Parliament, which is the voice of the citizens of Europe, is the supreme judge of the Commission"s work.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are faced with many challenges and Europe needs a powerful sign of renewal and leadership. I have done all I can to prepare the new team and we are all impatient to get started. However, only you can give us the signal to start work. I am confident that you will use the great powers and responsibilities conferred on you by the Treaties wisely and in the best interests of the Union.
(Applause)
Right from the beginning, I have made no bones about the fact that I would not accept a lower female representation than that of the outgoing Commission. I have succeeded in this although I had hoped to do better. Therefore, throughout its term of office, the Commission will promote equality of opportunities between the sexes in all sectors.
The new College is also characterised by the right balance between the political complexity of national governments and the European Parliament. I am happy that this is so, but it should be specified that the Commission does not operate according to the same procedures as political parties. The Commission is a College and the Commissioners are neither delegates from political groups nor representatives of their national governments.
(Applause)
In our first informal meeting last weekend, we set a few clear ground rules. Each Commissioner will, at all times, discharge his duties in such a way as to reflect the interest of Europe as a whole. If at any point I am not satisfied with the situation, I will not hesitate to use the powers conferred on me by the Treaty and change competences and portfolios or ask individual Commissioners to resign. With regard to this, although it is not laid down by the Treaty, each Commissioner has given me his personal assurance that he will stand down if and when I ask him to. Obviously, this is not a step to be taken lightly, but the existence of these agreements is a transparent guarantee of the sense of responsibility of each individual Commissioner.
We also found we were in agreement regarding the need for the new College to abide by the highest standards of public life. One of the first actions of the new Commission will therefore be to adopt formally the new Code of Conduct for Commissioners, including also new, stringent rules for avoiding conflicts of interest when the Commissioners leave their office.
We are looking forward to getting down to work and we hope that dialogue with the Parliament will be frank and open during our team"s hearings, and that we will receive firm support from you in September."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples