WRITTEN QUESTION E-3895/00

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Implementation of full competition with regard to Commission services

The Commission has set its sights on public monopolies with the objective of exposing all sectors enjoying exclusive rights to the harsh winds of competition.

Why has the Commission not yet had the courage of its convictions with regard to its own services? Why, for example, does it not draw inspiration from the noble principles embodied in its recent proposal for a regulation concerning public services in the passenger transport sector and issue public invitations to tender every five years with regard to its own services with a view, as expressed in Community vernacular, to improving performance and transparency, offering improved services, controlling costs and ensuring the highest possible quality?

Would private companies not be able to achieve greater efficiency in dealing with matters entrusted to the Commission, for example respecting the 30-day payment deadline set out in Directive 2000/35/EC(1), as opposed to the 60-day deadline which the Commission so generously allows for settlement of its own debts and which the Community institutions are frequently unable to meet?

(1) OJ L 200, 8.8.2000, p. 35.

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2001)

The Commission is pursuing a more efficient use of its resources by re-centering its core tasks and activities and defining an appropriate externalisation policy. The criteria mentioned by the Honourable Member improving performance and transparency, controlling costs and ensuring high quality services are indeed the basic standards underlying the Commission's general approach to resource allocation and use.

Certain tasks particularly as regards the implementation of Community programmes may actually be externalised when this is an effective and efficient means of delivering particular outputs, while avoiding a loss of accountability. Furthermore, the most appropriate form of externalisation must be selected. The Commission has given close consideration to the various possible models for externalisation and on several occasions it has reported to the Parliament and the Council on the results of this work. As announced in its recent communication(1) on matching activities and resources, the Commission is currently carrying out feasibility studies and cost/benefit analyses on certain areas where externalisation might be envisaged. Some of the Commission's internal services, such as security and canteens, have already been outsourced for several years.

However, in the Community system externalisation runs up against certain limits, notably the so-called institutional prerogatives, i.e. the activities that must be carried out directly by the institutions. The institutional system created by the EC Treaty, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, requires each institution to take responsibility for the direct implementation of the tasks explicitly attributed to it and over which it exercises discretionary powers.

Outside the institutional prerogatives area, the Commission may externalise certain tasks by resorting to different instruments, according to the level of responsibilities involved: devolution to Community bodies, decentralisation to national bodies and outsourcing to private contractors.

Public service tasks, defined and monitored by the Commission, may only be externalised to public bodies. A prior cost-benefit assessment must consider the compliance with the legal and budgetary rules, the proximity to beneficiaries, the visibility of the Community's role and the need to retain in-house expertise, as well as the costs linked to the preparation, supervision and control by the Commission. The delegation of tasks must not impair the Commission's freedom of action. The tasks in particular those linked to budget implementation must be carried out in accordance with the principles of public law, notably legality, transparency and independence, having the public interest in mind. The chain of responsibility between the Commission and the appointed bodies must be preserved and the Commission must keep effective control of the tasks it devolves or decentralises.

Nothing, however, prevents contracting out to the private sector tasks, which do not involve discretionary powers and are intended to provide the institution with purely technical assistance, such as the processing of factual information or the provision of consumer services. Contracting out enables the Commission to mobilise skills which are not available within the institution and which are not suitable for administration via Community agencies.

In particular, the Commission has foreseen in its proposal for recasting the Financial Regulation adopted on 26 July 2000(2) that The Commission may not entrust measures of budget implementation to external private-law bodies or organisations, other than those which have a public-service mission guaranteed by the State.

Directive 2000/35/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions(3) does not fix a payment deadline of 30 days for all commercial transactions in the private sector. On the contrary, public authorities and the private sector continue to enjoy the right to negotiate payment periods in their commercial relations. A payment deadline of 30 days only applies if the contract is silent on this subject. The Commission does not treat itself in a way different to the private sector.

The Commission is aware that its performance in meeting payment deadlines needs improvement. It has addressed this question on a number of occasions, most recently in July 2000 when it adopted guidelines aimed at increasing the proportion of payments made within the 60 day period. The Commission pays interest when the deadline is not respected.

(1) SEC(2000) 2000/3.

(2) COM(2000) 461 final.

(3) OJ L 200, 8.8.2000.