Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-12-Speech-2-317"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010612.15.2-317"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – I begin by thanking the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, and specifically the rapporteur, Mr Miller, for this very constructive report on the Commission's proposal for a time and numbers-limited early retirement scheme. I know that the speedy drafting and consideration of the report owes a great deal to the enthusiasm and hard work of Mr Miller, and indeed of his shadow rapporteur, Mr Harbour. Whilst expressing gratitude to both of them I would also like to express my thanks to the House for agreeing to bring forward consideration of this report in plenary. As several Members may know, that assists the Commission in its efforts to sustain progress with the reform and modernisation that Parliament has called for and to do so in good time, so that if everything else goes well it can to implement at least the first part of the scheme by the end of this year.
The House will know that the most important political points in the discussions on this early retirement scheme that have so far taken place in the Council and in Parliament relate to the fact that the proposed scheme only concerns the Commission, which is committed to implementing the scheme in a budgetary neutral way. In this context, I refer to Amendments Nos 1- 6, 12, 13 and 16, all of which seek to extend the field of application of the proposed regulation and require the participation of all European institutions and of Parliament's temporary staff in the early retirement scheme.
I understand the interest of Parliament and Council as employing institutions in this matter and, as Members of this House will know, I am not unsympathetic to their objectives. However, I wish to say most emphatically that, if progress is to be made to everyone's liking, budgetary neutrality must be observed in all of the institutions that implement a scheme of this kind.
There are three reasons for that. The first, very obviously, is the clear need for public understanding and acceptance. That in itself requires that any developments in this area should be budgetary neutral. Secondly, if the Commission alone guaranteed budgetary neutrality, the adoption of the scheme by the Council would be very unlikely indeed. Thirdly, heading 5 of the financial perspective provides budgetary means for all institutions. The margins for the years to come, which the Commission has promised to respect, would be further reduced if budgetary neutrality were not common to all institutions.
Taking these realities into account, it is clear that the success and the acceptance of the whole early retirement scheme may well depend on all institutions' accepting budgetary neutrality. In adopting Mr Miller's report, therefore, this House would need to confirm that its participation in an early retirement scheme will be subject to the same conditions as those applied by the Council and by the Commission. I am sure that that requirement is well understood and supported across this House.
Finally, before responding to the two amendments tabled by Mr Ferber, I must say that I heard Mr Miller's comments on Mr Ferber's amendments and think that, whatever glorious future offers itself to my good friend Mr Miller, I can safely predict that he will not be made head of the diplomatic service. In response to Mr Ferber's amendments, the Commission feels that Amendment No 21 would significantly reduce the effective scope of the measure by restricting the number of eligible candidates for early retirement. Indeed the restriction would be so significant as to actually have an impact on the geographical balance of the scheme. That would clearly be unacceptable to the Commission and to the great majority of this House. Amendment No 22 by Mr Ferber would introduce new conditions, notably a 50% tax so negative and complex as to significantly reduce the effectiveness of the Commission's proposals. We cannot, therefore, accept that amendment either, and I hope that, on reflection, the honourable Member, Mr Ferber, whom I know very well and have every reason to respect, will understand and accept the Commission's view.
I am extremely grateful for the constructive approach taken in this report and, indeed, the improvements made on the original proposal, because it has received close and enthusiastic attention from Members of this House. I am sure that that constructive attitude will continue to characterise our discussions on reform, since as honourable Members know, I regard the understanding and support of this House for all our reform proposals to be absolutely critical.
As the House may recall, in our reform strategy White Paper in March last year we announced our intention to undertake a reallocation of human resources across departments in order, specifically, to concentrate activities more precisely on core policy objectives and to achieve a better balance between the tasks assigned to the Commission and the resources available to it. We then set up a Commissioners' group under President Prodi to make a thorough analysis. That assessment showed that even after the rationalisation efforts carried out in 1999 and 2000 there was a shortfall of 1 254 posts in relation to Commission staff members assigned to priority activities. In order to make a significant contribution to closing that gap we then specified the ways in which further rationalisation of activities, productivity gains and internal redeployment would enable us to meet two-thirds of those requirements from within the Commission.
In addition to measures which enabled redeployed staff to perform other higher priority activities, we also proposed that explicit termination of service arrangements should be made available so that over a two-year period the Commission could offer reasonable severance conditions to 600 officials whose skills are not easily adaptable to the changed and changing needs and tasks of the institution. The purpose of the proposed regulation being considered by the House is, therefore, to authorise such a termination of service scheme for 300 Commission officials in the course of this year, and another 300 in the course of next year.
The proposal is based on the same mechanism that has been used in previous termination of service regulations related, for instance, to successive enlargements of the Union or to renewal of responsibilities in the on research directorate-general. Application for inclusion in the scheme is therefore voluntary, but the new scheme differs from previous ones, particularly on the following major points.
First of all, candidates for early retirement will be selected solely according to the interests of the services. Secondly, financial conditions are set at a lower level – 65% of final salary instead of 70% – than has been customary in all previous termination of service arrangements. Thirdly, this early retirement proposal has a neutral budgetary impact. The difference between the cost of the total remuneration of 600 officials before termination of service and the cost of the allowance they will receive afterwards will finance the recruitment of 258 new officials. The 342 remaining posts will be given back to the budgetary authority.
These elements of the new scheme will help to ensure the achievement of the overall objective of gaining a better match between Commission tasks and resources. It will also ensure that the ceiling of Heading 5 of the financial perspective is fully respected.
In response to the amendments proposed by Mr Miller, the Commission cannot accept Amendment No 9, which asks for the expenditure for the early retirement scheme to remain non-compulsory. We cannot accept that amendment simply because of the statutory reality that allowances for officials who have left the service are legally defined as compulsory expenditure. Having made this point, I turn to the more positive and more complex position of the Commission on the other proposed amendments tabled by Mr Miller in the report. I will come to the amendments by Mr Ferber later on.
The Commission can accept Amendments 8, 10, 11, 17, 18 and 19 and which are aimed at ensuring that the arrangements of the scheme are properly implemented, that the measures under consideration do not preclude the adoption of a new permanent early retirement scheme for all of the institutions. As Miller said in his speech, these arrangements should be drawn up and adopted at the earliest possible opportunity. The amendments that I have just listed are also aimed at ensuring that further single measures of this kind should in future be unnecessary and, therefore, precluded.
All of the amendments tabled by the rapporteur are in line with the Commission's intentions as regards the implementation of the scheme and introduce improvements and refinements to the proposal that we originally submitted. We therefore welcome them very warmly. Since the Commission will soon be proposing the introduction of a permanent, flexible retirement scheme into the Staff Regulations, further single measures of this kind are highly unlikely to be necessary in the future."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples