Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-06-Speech-4-036"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000706.3.4-036"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate today, together with Mr Söderman, the Ombudsman, whose work in the service of the citizens of the Union is very important. The Commission takes a very positive view of this work.
With regard to the Thors report, I wish to say that we agree with the need to consolidate the independence of the Ombudsman as an institution and support his work towards transparency and openness.
Clearly, we consider that the principle which motivates decisions affecting the citizens is essential and we try to apply it in a systematic way. We also accept the definition of maladministration as being when a public body does not act in accordance with a rule or principle which is binding upon it.
Nevertheless, I wish to say that, as Mr Söderman has pointed out very well, the Ombudsman is a non-judicial body, and in that sense, it can in no way substitute judicial bodies. Its tasks are different from those of law courts.
I believe that it is very important, in the relations between the Commission, the Ombudsman and other institutions and bodies, to systematically respect the institutional balance laid down in the Treaties. It is true that the increasing reality of the institution of the Ombudsman, which in some ways is a younger institution than some of the other European institutions, requires some time to mature so that the citizens may become aware of it. The Ombudsman, in his report, has indicated that the number of complaints, investigations and inquiries over the last year have increased considerably, and this is simply the result of greater awareness of the institution on the part of the citizens. We also need time for the relations between the Ombudsman and the other institutions to mature in order to establish the desired balances and resolve the obvious tensions which may occur until things are working properly. However, I must say that, so far, the cooperation between the Commission and the institution of the Ombudsman, represented, of course, by Mr Söderman, has been wonderful.
I would like very briefly to point out that these institutions are important because any action by an administration may at some time display a lack of transparency, a lack of efficiency, a violation of basic rights or even corruption. However, I wish to say that in no way can we portray the Community administration as particularly laden with defects. If we compare it with other administrations, I believe that it compares very favourably and that we score highly in these areas.
Ladies and gentlemen, finally, I would like once again to congratulate the Ombudsman, Mr Söderman, on the work which he is doing, on the significant increase in his actions and his work, on his cooperation, although he sometimes makes criticisms, but that is his job and his role, and we in the Commission understand that.
The drawing up of a code of conduct applicable to the relations between Community officials and the citizens is a priority, and work is being done in that area by Mr Kinnock and the Commission in general. With regard to the amendments of the Statute of the Ombudsman, the competent parliamentary committee must issue an opinion in accordance with Article 195 of the Treaty, and when Parliament takes the initiative, we will analyse all the relevant issues.
I would like once again to congratulate the two rapporteurs, and of course congratulate and thank Mr Söderman for the magnificent work which he is carrying out with independence and rigour.
I wish to say that the Commission believes that the citizen should always be the focus of our concerns. The citizen is ultimately the beneficiary of our activities and is our
.
In this respect, both the Committee on Petitions and the Ombudsman play a key role, on different levels and with different purposes, but they are both nevertheless essential to the improvement of the operation of the institutions.
The Committee on Petitions deals with the specific concerns of the citizens and, in this respect, as has been pointed out by Mrs Lambert – who I warmly congratulate on her report – the petitions presented to Parliament illustrate the problems of the citizens in relation to European administrations and also, in many cases, national administrations, at the same time highlighting the legislative vacuums which exist on both European and national levels.
The Ombudsman, as indicated by Mrs Thors – whom I also warmly congratulate on her report – deals with complaints against institutions and bodies of the European Union with regard to the deficiencies of its administrations. He urges us to improve the management and quality of services by indicating the weak points to us, the points which need improvement and greater attention.
However, nobody wants a more effective and transparent administration as much as we do. It is we who are responsible for this administration and to this end any criticisms of our defects are welcome. We can only confront our defects if we know what they are. I must insist that this is why we give such importance to the work of both the Ombudsman and the Committee on Petitions; so that the institutions may work properly.
With regard to Mrs Lambert’s report, I would like to deal with two specific issues. One of them, relating to cooperation between institutions, is essential to the improvement of the operation of the Committee on Petitions and its capacity for action. In this regard, I would like to express my satisfaction because the report highlights the constructive role of the Commission in the examination of petitions and because it considers it to be satisfactory on the whole. It awards us a sort of ‘pass’, and I thank you, but we will try to improve. We see this is as a stimulus to make a greater effort, to work better and cooperate more.
Secondly, it proposes a review of the examination procedures of the Committee on Petitions. It seems to me a great idea to rearrange the examination of petitions by themes, to give specialised rapporteurs the task of examining these petitions with greater care, and, where necessary, to draw conclusions which will allow the deficiencies to be corrected, take decisions to resolve possible vacuums in legislative texts, or counteract the unwanted effects of these texts.
Furthermore, the Commission is prepared to consider a review of the interinstitutional agreement on the processing of petitions which would amend the one currently in force, from 1989, with Parliament and the Council, especially with regard to something that seems to me to be essential, which has been pointed out by some of the speakers, that is, the problem of the periods prescribed for reply. It is true that we sometimes take a long time to reply. It is not always the Commission’s fault. There are times when we are relying on responses from national administrations, but it is true that in this respect we have to make an effort to improve and make an even more satisfactory contribution to the work of this committee. I would like to highlight the importance of cooperation with other administrations. We wish to improve this cooperation as far as possible. The Commission is open to dialogue, both with Parliament, and with the Council itself, in order to reduce the time taken to produce replies and increase transparency and communication with Parliament and the Committee on Petitions."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples