WRITTEN QUESTION E-2808/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 October 2001)

Subject: 46,05 % structural exceeding of deadlines for replies to non-priority written questions

Between September 1999 and the beginning of September 2001, the Commission replied to one hundred non-priority written questions tabled by myself. The quickest such reply took 18 days, the slowest a full 125 days. On average, the official waiting period was just over 61 days, i.e. nearly nine weeks. This means that the time limit was exceeded by ((61,34 / 42) 100 %) = 46,05 %. This period is calculated from the officially recorded date of receipt. On average, the date of recording of receipt was 18,75 days after I had sent the questions to the appropriate department of Parliament by e-mail and fax. When it comes to answering non-priority written questions, the Commission seems to be taking a leaf out of the Council's book, which shows its disdain for contact with the European Parliament by not infrequently making its Members wait six months for a reply. I should be happy to supply copies of the tables which I have compiled; my e-mail address is emeijer@europarl.eu.int. In the tables I recorded how long it took to answer questions, by individual question and by member of the Commission: of 18 Commissioners, only Mr Fischler, Mr Monti and the President, Mr Prodi, replied within the time limit, on average.

Assuming that my questions take much the same length of time to process as those tabled by other Members of the EP, I should like to put the following questions about the procedure in general:

1. Is the Commission aware that, according to Rule 44(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, non-priority written questions are to be answered within six weeks? Does the Commission consider itself to be bound by this time limit?

2. In its reply to my Written Question E-2806/00(1), the Commission stated in connection with other delays that it constantly analyses its own performance and seeks to improve it: does this also apply to speeding up its replies to non-priority written questions?

3. Can such methods as benchmarking, best practices and peer pressure, which are increasingly advocated in the European Union, also be applied to the Commission itself with reference to answering written questions from Parliament?

4. Can the Commission record and indicate how much time, on average, it took, per Commissioner, to reply between 20 July 1999 and 1 October 2001? Does the Commission agree that a clearer understanding of how long it actually takes to answer questions is likely to generate healthy peer pressure among Directorates-General and within Commissioners' offices which will speed up replies?

5. In addition to the hard-copy versions, can Members of the European Parliament also receive replies to written questions from the Commission directly by e-mail, so that replies are never lost amongst the mountains of written mail and to make it possible, for example, for replies to be forwarded to interested parties and suppliers of information, or posted on political parties' web sites, at the earliest possible stage? If not, why not?

Source: own review of the response to questions tabled by myself.

(1) OJ C 163 E, 6.6.2001, p. 10.

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2001)

The Commission would firstly like to reiterate that it attaches the utmost importance to the fact that Members of the European Parliament can exercise to the full their right under the third paragraph 3 of Article 197 (former Article 140), to ask the Commission for information and thereby enhance Parliamentary political control of the Commission.

The Commission's aim is to answer questions put to it by the Members of the Parliament within the deadlines desired by Parliament.

It regrets that it was unable to meet the deadlines in the cases referred to by the Honourable Member. However, it can assure him that it is continually trying to simplify and step up computerisation of current procedures and practices with a view to shortening deadlines for answers. In the short-term these changes may perhaps extend deadlines but should in the future lead to an improvement in the situation.

The time needed to draft an answer and have it approved by the full Commission and thus the provision of an answer by the Commission to a parliamentary question depends on many factors, among which number the immediate availability of data or the need for in-depth research before the Commission can adopt a position and give the information requested. Statistics prepared by directorates-general or by Commissioners' offices on the average deadlines for processing draft answers do not adequately reflect these factors.

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that as from now, in parallel with the dispatch by post of an answer to a question put by an Honourable Member, the answer is transmitted the same day by e-mail to the unit of Parliament concerned.