Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-18-Speech-2-314"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000118.10.2-314"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Can I begin by stating for the record and for the enlightenment of Mrs Langenhagen that the decision for me not to address the full plenary tomorrow and therefore be available for formal responses on the report is not mine and not the Commission's – it was the decision of this Parliament! So if she has any lectures to offer they are best contained within this House. She knows me well enough to understand that at all stages in the five years in which we worked together in this House, there has never been a single occasion on which I have refused to account in full, formally and in detail for everything I have done.
In addition, and to achieve better assurances than those provided under the present system, the new system of decentralised controls must be complemented by setting up an internal audit service –“the second key” as Herr Bösch said, established in a way that is closely consistent with the recommendations of the Committee of Experts. That service will open on 1 May this year. It will be headed by a professionally qualified member of the audit profession and its independence must and will be guaranteed through a new provision to be added in the financial regulation. The new service will report to me and it will be accompanied by an Audit Progress Board chaired by my colleague, Mrs Schreyer, who I am delighted to see in the Chamber this evening. As Budgets Commissioner, here responsibilities already include relations with the Court of Auditors. This Audit Progress Board will ensure effective and rigorous follow-up to internal audits.
I want to emphasise strongly that changing our control systems will definitely not mean relaxing them. The proposed change will make the systems more effective, both in terms of inputs and in terms of measured and accountable outcomes.
I can also specifically assure the House that we are not going for what is sometimes called "a big bang approach". Financial control’s ex ante visa for each spending department will
be relinquished as and when the internal control system in a department is shown to be fully adequate.
I am somewhat surprised that paragraph 10 of the draft resolution does not appear to address the fundamental criticisms of the current centralised financial control function made in both reports of the Committee of Independent Experts. That committee was very clear about the need to abolish the centralised ex ante visa. It was clear too on the need to separate internal audit from financial control.
In addition, I do not believe that paragraph 10 fully reflects the opinion of the Court of Auditors in 1997. Naturally the Court will be able to give its considered opinion on the proposed changes to the Financial Regulation but it is useful to recall Mr Karlsson’s comments to this House last month. “The Commission's internal control” he said “is not forceful enough in preventing incorrect operation. For instance, the Financial Controller granted a positive a priori visa in most of the cases of mismanagement or irregularities recently uncovered. At the same time, the internal audit function is carried out in an uncoordinated way by several bodies, notably the same Financial Controller, the Inspectorate General and by some units operating Directorates-General.”
The centralised ex ante approval system was doubtlessly originally designed to ensure carefulness but, over the years, it has had the perverse effect of reducing the extent to which managers feel responsible for their decisions. I do not believe that there is any real disagreement between us on this. I take it from paragraph 10 that the underlying preoccupation of honourable Members is that there should be a carefully managed transition. That will most certainly be the character of the change as honourable Members will see when they read the reform strategy document. Our objective, the committee’s objective, the Court of Auditors' objective is not to abolish financial control, it is to get rid of and improve upon centralised financial control.
Before leaving this area I would add that we agree with the rapporteur that the existing internal audit function must be maintained pending the establishment of the new independent internal audit service in a matter of months.
Turning quickly to the section of the resolution on fighting fraud, corruption, mismanagement and nepotism: the major new proposal of the report concerns reporting by Commission officials of perceived wrong-doing. As I made clear in the hearings last September and on other occasions, we are at one in the belief that there is value in defining the best possible mechanisms for this purpose although obviously we all hope that it will rarely be needed.
Since June of last year, the OLAF regulation has given better guidance to staff about reporting possible irregularities. We propose to complement those provisions by defining the rights and obligations for officials to report suspected wrong-doing through internal channels but not exclusively within the same hierarchical line. The possibility of using specified external channels will also be addressed. We are seeking to implement best practice. Serious response to reports, confidentiality at early stages and career protection will be assured for people who report wrong-doing in good faith and in ways that do not compromise investigations by untimely disclosure. As a corollary, there will be safeguards for officials who are the subject of false allegations.
A communication later this year will give full details. I do not think Parliament will be disappointed by what we will propose. I am persuaded, however, by the suggestion in paragraph 34 of the report on using external bodies to enforce existing provisions on financial liability. We already plan to reform the existing disciplinary procedures to ensure thoroughness, fairness, consistency and professionalism. And we will propose the establishment of an interinstitutional Disciplinary Board – something else on which we will need the support and understanding of Parliament. A communication in June will set out the full proposal for change.
Mr President, may I begin by paying tribute to the painstaking and, from what I hear, the pains-accepting work of Mr van Hulten in preparing his report. Although new to this House he is relatively old in some respects, certainly in his familiarity with the Institutions as a former official – and I think that the value of that is shown by his ability to tackle the complex subject which is of critical importance, as several Members have said, to all of our Institutions. I thank him and I wish him a long and distinguished career as a representative.
Standards in public life is the next main section of the report before the House. With the introduction of a series of codes of conduct the current Commission has begun to develop an explicit ethical framework. This will be taken a step further with a proposal in June for an interinstitutional agreement on a committee on standards in public life. That is in line with the draft resolution. An important role for the committee will be to give advice on ethics and standards and to supervise common and separate codes of conduct for the institutions. I welcome Parliament's support for that.
We are also currently examining how we can most effectively implement the proposal for a classification system for documents, made in paragraph 50 of Mr van Hulten's report.
The draft resolution rightly recalls the Commission's accountability to this Parliament. President Prodi and Vice-President de Palacio and other colleagues have demonstrated the Commission's practical commitment to that. I hope that we will soon be able to agree a code of conduct on relations between our institutions which will include updated rules on access to documents. The point was very properly raised by Mr Elles and referred to by Mrs Thors. I am sure they are aware that in mid-December we officially received the draft framework agreement with Parliament. We are now waiting for Parliament to decide when it wishes to begin negotiations on the text. We are very happy to proceed as rapidly as possible.
The report rightly emphasises the central importance that human resources policy must have in reform. I am glad to say to Mr van Hulten and Mr Haarder that the detailed recommendations on recruitment, training, appraisal and the appointment to management positions are very much in line with our own thinking and our own proposals. I also want to move towards a linear career system because the current category system is no longer adapted to the needs of our institutions. It certainly blocks the advance and mobility of people with proven capabilities. Members, who, in the course of this debate, have properly praised Commission officials, who in the great majority and typically are of high integrity, hard-working and of great capability, are absolutely right in the comments that they have made.
While the reform strategy White Paper will clearly outline our ideas on these and other points, detail and precision are obviously essential. A series of communications will therefore follow in the coming months. Each of them will be available for reflection and response by this House. It is, meanwhile, very obvious that we will need to work closely with Parliament, as an institution, on central matters of common interest, notably pay and pensions and the revision of the staff regulations.
On this latter point we are reflecting on whether it might be useful to adopt a framework regulation which makes common provision on leading issues like pay, conditions, staff representation rights and so on, but enables the different institutions to operate implementing rules on other matters. The early thoughts of Parliament on this consultative idea would be especially welcome.
I conclude by referring to paragraph 15 of the resolution before the House relating to the resource requirements of our policies for change. That is most certainly relevant. We are sure that there will be an important “reform dividend” as the modernisation measures begin to foster increased efficiency and better management in the use of resources. It is very clear, however, that parts of the Commission services are already very stretched. Parliament has frequently made that point. Secondly, it is also clear that reform will require some new investment in training for skills and in technology. Thirdly, it is very clear that increased preparations for enlargement must be undertaken. They are already having implications for resource availability.
It is also clear that if we take on new tasks – which we will surely be asked to do by the Council and Parliament – we will have to identify so-called "negative priorities" and drop those negative priorities in order to create spare capacity. A central feature of the reform will therefore be a more rigorous process for tying the process of priority-setting into resource allocation under a system of activity-based management. I want to emphasise, however, that whilst internal discipline on priority-setting will certainly be introduced by the Commission, it can only be fully effective if Parliament and the Council share it and take an equally stringent attitude to the demands made on the Commission.
The Commission therefore welcomes paragraph 15 of Mr van Hulten's report.
I conclude, Mr President, by thanking the House for its attention during an unavoidably lengthy speech and by expressing sincere gratitude to the rapporteur, to the Committee on Budgetary Control and to the other committees which gave their opinions. We look forward to working closely with this House on the finalisation of the reform strategy package and then, most important of all, working together with this House on its implementation continually through the years that will be required on such complexities.
Mr President, as you will know, Mr van Hulten's report on the second report of the Committee of Independent Experts is necessarily long and, since I want to make a comprehensive reply, particularly on the issues relating to financial management and control, I seek your indulgence. Naturally I will not take up any more of the time of the House than is absolutely necessary.
When this House considered the second report of the Committee of Experts last September, I pledged on behalf of the incoming Commission that the report would be treated as a fundamental ingredient in the Commission's reform proposals. Our efforts to completely honour that pledge will be evident to the House when consideration is given to the reform package that was adopted by the Commission today, well within the demanding timetable that we set for ourselves four months ago. I am sure that Mr Pomes Ruiz is encouraged by that. The great majority of the paper's proposals are closely akin to those put by Mr van Hulten and that paper includes – I say to him and to Mr Staes – a very explicit timetable of actions to be undertaken in pursuit of reform. There is nothing therefore that is open-ended or vague about the report which I have had the honour to compile.
The considered view of this Parliament in the consultation period over the next four to five weeks will for obvious reasons be of great significance. I would say to Mr Elles that we are most definitely in listening mode. But he will appreciate – with his customary generosity I am sure – that for us to be able to listen to the response to what we are proposing, it is first necessary to transmit what we are proposing. Hence the transmission. Though time forbids me, Mr President, from commenting in this debate on each element in the resolution before the House, I readily give the assurance that the details will be treated as an important input into our reform proposals throughout this consultation and indeed to our work in other relevant areas.
Turning to the main themes of the resolution I offer the following observations. The need for transparency is rightly stressed, not least because greater transparency in the way in which the Commission operates will improve the efficiency and will also demystify what the Commission does. This is essential for an executive administration that must be accountable, not just to this House, but more generally to the European public. Naturally, sensible safeguards are required to protect specially sensitive information, but the cases where these are needed should be kept to the minimum possible. I have repeatedly emphasised that, indeed not just as a Commissioner, but in 25 or 30 years of campaigning. That most certainly is the intention of the Commission.
Financial management and control is obviously a crucial area of reform. As the House knows and has repeatedly said, the scale and scope of the Union's financial interventions have grown immensely in the past decade without a proportionate increase in staffing or an adjustment in procedures. Several Members have made that point again in the course of today's debate. We share the view, forcefully expressed by the Committee of Independent Experts, and repeated in this draft resolution that the time has come for a thorough overhaul of our rules and procedures. The means of doing that are set out in the reform strategy and the Commission will present its proposals for a radical recasting of the Financial Regulation in April.
Parliamentary support in pursuing that essential course for change will be absolutely vital. I share the view expressed by Mrs Theato that it would not be acceptable in any way at all for us to seek to operate new arrangements without a change in the law.
Change in the law is fundamental. There are preparations which can be made and they are specified and set out with the full reassurances in the reform strategy, but enactment of change in the legislation is obviously of fundamental importance to the operation of the new system. Essentially – and with legal change – the Commission will systematically move away from the current centralised system of prior approval of each financial transaction by the Financial Controller and instead strengthen the internal control systems within spending departments so that Directors-General are better equipped to take responsibility for decisions with an impact on the European Union budget."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples