Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-23-Speech-2-204"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030923.5.2-204"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I am grateful to Mr Ferber for his kind remarks on my timely arrival. It reminded me of the time when I used to have to get to a 10 a.m. division in the House of Commons and narrowly make it in, practising my side-step around the policemen. It was not quite as complicated on this occasion.
As far as the response to Parliament and the Council is concerned, I respect it. I come from a parliamentary tradition where an elected House of Commons obtained its strength by having the vote on the budget. Therefore I fundamentally respect and want to endorse that democratic procedure. I do not plead for us to depart from that. I do not make an argument for being insulated against the representations and judgment of Parliament or of the Council which represents the taxpayers. I do not ask for that for one second. I simply say that it is a practical reality that, without autonomy, it is difficult to exercise responsibility, and when we have autonomy our responsibility must be fully accountable. However, if we do not have the resources or the people whose presence, qualities and qualifications we can totally justify, then it is very difficult to see how the Commission can undertake the tasks it has now, let alone the ones that are to come as a consequence of this glorious enlargement, but which nevertheless we recognise to be additional obligations which we must discharge with efficiency and honesty.
I am grateful for constructive contributions and I can reply very briefly but I hope reassuringly to the honourable Members who have contributed. Firstly, I am grateful for the kind remarks by Mr Casaca because they are based on very thorough analysis of everything we are seeking to do. I wish that was a universal characteristic, but I find that some people writing in the press, for instance, have a confidence and an assertiveness in what they write, which is in inverse proportion to the amount of knowledge that they have.
I regret his understandable view that the Commission, to use his term, is hiding the internal audit report from Parliament. I understand the force of what he says when he reminds us again that the internal audit activity, the examination of contracts, was a direct product of the discharge resolution drafted, in fact, by Mr Casaca himself and some of his close colleagues. I fully recognise the force with which he puts the point. I only say this: we are having to use the Annex III procedure for a very basic reason which I am sure will be understood.
We have to observe strict confidentiality whilst trying to maximise information to the people who are most entitled to know, including Members of this House, simply because those reports which are now being completed contain a potential for disciplinary and even more grave procedures. That is not an excuse, it is not an evasion. It arises from the proper observance of the rights of natural justice and the presumption of innocence, and also from our strong desire not in a precipitate fashion to release details into the public domain which could then compromise the integrity of a case or cases we may wish to bring against individuals.
I hope that on examination it will be understood that I say this in a mood of explanation and transparency, not apology or evasiveness, and it is necessary simply because of the material we are dealing with. I realise that if there had been a historic background of trying to keep confidentiality to a minimum, and transparency to a maximum, then it would be easier for this House to understand that, when it is critically essential that we use confidential procedures, it is done for absolutely the best reasons.
I hope that, amongst other products of activity-based management and budgeting and the transparency that Mr Virrankoski spoke about, we will see a further evolution of the readiness of the Commission to make maximum disclosure whilst trying to safeguard the integrity of necessary procedures. The report will be available under Annex III of the framework agreement procedure when it is ready. It is being finalised literally now, so that it can be available in the proper form at the time promised.
As regards the consolidation of political responsibility I do not yet envisage the full implementation of the architecture that Mr Casaca desires, though I have a lot of sympathy for it. That architecture consists in the establishment of a full financial control unit, as it were, in the office of every Commissioner. But I consider that we have made substantial progress towards achieving that, on the one hand in the general ambit of the Financial Regulation, but more specifically in the reforms adopted by the Commission, in some cases as recently as July 2003. Those guarantee an absolute requirement for reporting on management conduct and financial operation in a DG at least twice a year, specifically to the responsible Commissioner, so that Commissioners will in future continue to be
with the practical operational management of the directorate-general, as well as bearing their straightforward and obvious political responsibilities. It will not diminish political responsibility, portfolio responsibility or policy engagement: it is likely to add to those. Commissioner Schreyer and I sent a letter to all DGs in July 2003. The response we got from the DGs - with very thorough analysis seeking to detect any practices remotely related to what we have observed in Eurostat - was rigorous and encouragingly thorough. I know that Mr Casaca, with his interest in these matters, and probably Mr Mulder, will want to examine that. That will be very welcome.
Mr Virrankoski obviously shows great understanding and I know his background really gives him an authority in this area. I would simply say to him that I agree with his forecast for future structures and the practices that he anticipates, and express confidence that they will come to pass. Culture in an organisation of human beings is substantially a product not of ethnic or national origin or regional origin or language. Culture is a product of the systems and structures in which people work. By making massive reforms that radically change systems and structures, we foster the kind of culture of transparency and accountability which is fundamental to the successful operation of activity-based management and of the activity-based budgeting which reinforces that process.
To Mr Ferber I would say: it is a matter of record that my promise at the outset of the Commission - and I am not trying to denounce or go back on any catchphrases about the best in the world, etc. - was that we would strive to achieve, through radical modernising reform, a well managed, high-performance, service-orientated, independent European Commission in the service of the peoples of the European Union. I do not think that was modest, and yet we are accomplishing it. To use his phrase, I do not imagine that the sky is as blue as he says I have painted it. We acknowledge in our frequent progress reports the shortcomings, the target dates that we have missed, as well as the ones that we have bettered. We acknowledge where further development needs to take place. It was, after all, this Commission which - as soon as we had prima facie evidence that gave us legal security in undertaking certain actions - suspended contracts, opened disciplinary proceedings, established the strongest, biggest ever inquiry task force in the history of the Commission, increased the staffing of the internal audit examination of contracts from 9 to 24 persons and has had those reports coming in absolutely on schedule. This is not evidence of a slothful or lax Commission, but neither does it mean that we imagine that the sky is permanently blue, nor do these glasses have any rose tint. I am impatient for further change. I want to see total implementation. That ambition is shared universally by my colleagues and we could not have made the progress we have unless we had had massive cooperation from staff assuming these obligations in addition to their normal workload and if we had not had the full-hearted commitment of every single Member of the College of Commissioners. Therefore, I do not try to pretend that we have done more than we have. I simply ask for a factual examination of what has been achieved. For instance, automatic mandatory mobility for senior management and for people in money-handling, contract-handling posts will in itself provide a safeguard against a repetition of the double accounting that we have detected in Eurostat. More than any other measure, but in addition, reforms of structures and systems of audit control and management control that give us - insofar as any human organisation handling money can get it - real, strong safeguards against any form of repetition of what we have detected and are acting upon now."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples