----

(2004/C 84 E/0321)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3961/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject:   Jules Muis — functioning of the Commission

The Commission's Director-General of the Internal Audit Service — Jules Muis — has recently said that there needs to be a cultural change amongst the officials responsible for running the European Union.

In talking to the BBC, he said that Commission officials are judged on their ability ‘not to rock the boat’ and to get along with other people, and he acknowledged that a ‘politeness conspiracy’ (nothing less than a code of silence) exists within the Commission.

Also according to the BBC, Jules Muis said that the task of bringing about change is left to whistleblowers, since ‘people have difficulty telling each other the truth’.

Although he acknowledges the efforts being made by Mr Kinnock to address this cultural issue, Mr Muis says that there is a need for more and better leadership than has been the case in recent years.

In view of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2004)

Officials of the European civil service may make comments in a manner which is consistent with the provisions of the Staff Regulations and, as a public servant, the Director General of Internal Audit abides by those provisions whilst, naturally, retaining the professional independence necessary for an auditor on audit matters.

The Honourable Member will be aware that the Commission is, manifestly and very deliberately, an organisation which is undertaking extensive and radical modernising change. The instruments for achieving the necessary comprehensive alterations set out in the March 2000 White Paper on Reform Strategy (1) have been installed and are operational. The programme for achieving that in the Commission has — from design to implementation — been fulfilled more quickly and at lower proportionate cost than in comparable organisations, despite the substantial legislative changes that had to be enacted and the detailed organisational and personnel changes that had to be made. Among the results are significant financial savings which will continue. Such advances give evidence of the standards of execution of Reform by the staff and management in general and by those who have had the main responsibilities for planning the changes, implementing them, and ensuring that they continue effectively. As in much else, actions — objectively assessed — are more authoritative than words.

As the Commission has made clear from the outset of Reform, the ‘culture’ of an organisation is largely produced by the systems and structures — and, consequently, patterns of management and relationships — that have customarily been employed over a period of years. It is realistic to recognise that, just as outdated and inadequate conventions develop over time and for a variety of accumulated reasons in an organisation, modernised and improved systems, structures, management and relationships also take full effect incrementally and with use rather than instantaneously.

The Commission is obviously conscious of the fact that advances in an organisation need to be driven as well as designed and the Reforms made by the Commission have, therefore, not only provided the infrastructure of improvement, they have also put the means of propelling it systematically into effect. Those means include, for instance, the introduction of internationally recognised Internal Control Standards, trebled staff training participation, comprehensive internal audit, compulsory 5-yearly mobility for all management and for staff engaged in money and contract handling roles, annual individual appraisal of staff and promotion provisions which firmly depends on sustained merit, specification of individual responsibilities, Strategic Planning and Programming to achieve better balance between tasks and staffing and much else — some of it referred to below. As components of cultural change, such systemic modernisations have more substantive effect than could be achieved by exhortation.

It is evident that the reform process has — as intended — been fostering continual systematic self-assessment and reporting that results in identification of problems where they exist, and systematic remedial action to deal with them in a transparent manner. The Commission is pleased to note that objective examination shows that progress has advanced beyond what was envisaged in the White Paper on Reform.

Central to the development of the increased transparency, which is an explicit purpose of Reform, is the system of Annual Activity Reports by Directors General which was proposed in the March 2000 Reform White Paper and introduced across the Commission from 2001 as part of Activity Based Management. Each Director-General is required to provide a comprehensive report on the activities of his/her Services, together with a Declaration of reasonable assurance that resources were used for the intended purposes. In addition, he or she must also set out any difficulties encountered, draw attention to any management or other weaknesses identified, and propose specific actions to remedy them. A consolidated ‘Synthesis Report’ of these Annual Activity Reports is produced each year for the Commission as a whole. That and all the other reports are sent to the European Parliament and the Court of Auditors. The system, now further refined with the benefit of experience, has been described by — for instance — the President of the Court of Auditors as a ‘genuine management revolution’ which shows ‘unprecedented openness’. The analysis and action undertaken as a direct product of Annual Activity Reporting plainly requires and produces frank inter-action and effective follow up. Realities like these factually contradict the Honourable Member's assertion about a ‘code of silence’.

Meanwhile, and similarly, as products of the comprehensive Reform Strategy, the IAS and the Internal Audit Capabilities (IAC's) in each Directorate General have had, and continue to have, positive effects in a number of areas relating to internal control. This is borne out by the very high acceptance rate of audit recommendations by the auditees which manifests the willingness to respond to factual analysis and relevant recommendations candidly and effectively. Such results could not be secured by ‘silence’.

The Commission has also included in the new Staff Regulations clarified and updated arrangements on Whistleblowing in order to improve the ability of officials to fulfil their statutory duty of bringing suspected wrong-doing to the attention of management or OLAF. For instance, where either OLAF or the official's own Institution is considered not to have acted with due speed, officials may refer their evidence to Presidents of the other Institutions. Arrangements for the professional and career security of officials who make bona fide reports of possible wrongdoing have also been improved through the relevant reforms in the Commission. Far from encouraging ‘silence’ such provisions facilitate reporting of evidence of suspected wrongdoing of any kind.

On 10 February 2004, the Commission adopted the latest in its series of Reform Progress Reports (2). That Report demonstrates that, in less than 4 years since the publication of the Reform Strategy White Paper, 96 of the 98 actions stipulated in that document have been implemented and the remainder are being implemented in full this year. The Honourable Member is referred to this Report in order to familiarise himself with the extent and substance of comprehensive reform and to obtain a detailed answer to his fourth question relating to how the Commission ‘rates the outcome of the actions already taken’.

The Commission obviously regards the rapid and widespread developments achieved to be evidence of major progress, not perfection. It continues to emphasise, therefore, that — as in any profound modernisation programme — improvement is always possible, and sustained application is always vital. Whilst continuing to work on that basis, the current Commissioners will also seek to encourage the next Commission to comprehend the need for maintaining momentum and to act accordingly. Meanwhile, the Commission retains realism and advises against illusions that organisational habits are genetic, and against impractical hopes that the full effects of modernising change can be universally and immediately palpable. Effective Reform is, frustratingly but inevitably, a process not an event.

The most productive and important way of instilling the kind of respect and confidence referred to by the Honourable Member is for the Commission to continue to be willing to put the proper and consistent emphasis on the skills and quality of management, and to make changes and adjustments where necessary and possible in order to prevent future outdatedness or conventions that could inhibit the performance of the Institution as a multinational Public Service with unique responsibilities. In sustaining such evolution, the Commission will have to also continue to include reference to practical experience, to future identified work obligations, and to recommendations from staff, from those responsible for internal control systems, from internal and external auditors, and from the European Parliament in the discharge process.

----

(1)  COM(2000) 200 final.

(2)  COM(2001) 115 final.

----