WRITTEN QUESTION E-3429/01

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 December 2001)

Subject: The Berlaymont issue and statements by Commissioner Kinnock

In his answer to Question E-0993/01(1) Commissioner Kinnock was very convincing as regards the procedure followed. Mr Kinnock is in any case known to be an honourable man. However, it is not clear what induced the most senior officials in the Directorate-General for Administration Director-General Horst Reinchenbach and the Director responsible for the issue, Spike Browerad to approach the Commissioner directly to refute officially the note which the Commissioner's department had drawn up. In their note they state that they were extremely disturbed to learn that he seemed to believe that his department had not supplied adequate information. The Commissioner's note referred to repeated failures to communicate detailed information to the Commissioner himnself and his office in good time.

All Union citizens will welcome the fact that, as in this case, the administration's operational methods have allowed the Commissioner to state the truth regarding the fraud involved in the rebuilding of the Berlaymont.

1. Does Mr Kinnock not consider it serious that important and confidential services under his authority are unaware of the truth and can lead him to make false statements to the budgetary authority?

2. Does the Commission not consider that it is also significantly worrying that the Commissioner responsible for the reform of the Commission has not managed to recruit suitable staff?

(1) OJ C 340 E, 4.12.2001, p. 141.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2002)

Contrary to the interference in the Honourable Member's question I have not been led to make false statements to the budgetary authority at any time, and I have not made any false statements.

As I said in my very full answer to the written question E-0993/01(1) of the Honourable Member, a misunderstanding about the preliminary draft text for my statement to the Committee on Budgetary Control (Cocobu) on 26 February 2001, which I compiled on 22 February 2001, led to the note written by Mr Reichenbach and Mr Brouwer. The misunderstanding was easily and quickly cleared up at a meeting which took place on the morning of 26 February 2001. As I told Cocobu, and repeated in my answer to question E-0993/01, I had ensured that the information flow relevant to this issue has been intensified and obtained full information of all significant developments over recent months. That, naturally, has continued in the period since.

Accidental misinterpretations occur in all organisations which require the work of human beings. The staff working with me are excellent but they are, thankfully, human beings. Like me and conceivably the Honourable Member they are therefore capable of periodically, if rarely, misinterpreting information.

Whilst the worry which the Honourable Member registers in his answer is, doubtlessly, evidence of genuine compassion I am happy to reassure him that it is misplaced.

The Honourable Member may be interested to know that the report which I requested from the Internal Audit Service concerning potential problems relating to the management of the Berlaymont project has very recently been submitted to me. It will therefore be communicated to Parliament through transmission to the President of Cocobu in due course. In addition, as I have reported to Parliament on previous occasions, on 17 November 2000, OLAF was informed of my concern relating to a potential incidence of fraud in some activities connected with the Berlaymont building renovation. As a result of that OLAF opened an investigation. The results of that investigation are not yet known.

(1) OJ C 340 E, 4.12.2001, p. 141.