WRITTEN QUESTION E-3895/00 by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission. Implementation of full competition with regard to Commission services.
Date: 2000-12-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, administration of the Institutions, deadline for payment, discretionary power, interinstitutional relations (EU), management accounting, operation of the Institutions, outsourcing, provision of services

13.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 318 E/13

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2001)

In order to respond to the most urgent needs, the European Community(cid:146)s Humanitarian Office (ECHO)
implemented in Honduras emergency relief actions for a total amount of € 15 million between 1998 and
1999 and has committed a further € 1,5 million in 2000. ECHO(cid:146)s intervention focused on three main
sectors of assistance: water and sanitation, health, rehabilitation of houses. Aid for food security in the
region totalled € 30 million in 1999, the majority of which was committed to Honduras. All the Food aid
and ECHO aid committed to Honduras was disbursed via European and local non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) throughout the country in the months following the hurricane.

In addition to the important emergency assistance, the Community is highly committed to contributing to
the reconstruction and transformation programme of the Central American countries affected by Hurricane
Mitch. This has been a longer term effort which had to be thoroughly prepared and co-ordinated with the
national development strategies and other donors(cid:146) activities. In this respect, the Commission is pleased to
inform the Honourable Member that it has indeed started to implement the (cid:145)Regional Programme for
Reconstruction of Central America(cid:146) (PRRAC). A decentralised team, including officials and local agents, is
managing the PRRAC programme from the Commission Delegation in Nicaragua, in order to ensure the
proper use of public funds.

This programme totalling € 250 million covers, in the four beneficiary countries (El Salvador, Nicaragua,
in an
Honduras and Guatemala), public health, water and sanitation, housing, education and training,
attempt to give continuity to and strengthen the activities previously undertaken. On 22nd December
1999 the Commission made the first financial commitment for the PRRAC, amounting to € 82,5 million.

With regard to Honduras, the PRRAC has committed € 30 million via its (cid:145)Subprograma Honduras(cid:146) to this
country which are being implemented during the period 1999 to 2002. In 1998 the PRRAC(cid:146)s Studies and
Technical assistance project committed € 8,2 million to Honduras. On 22 December 2000,
the
Commission has committed the second part of the PRRAC for a total amount of € 44,16 of which
approximately € 22 million are devoted to Honduras.

More than 30 % of the total amount allowed to project (cid:145)PRRACOs Studies and technical assistance(cid:146) has
already been disbursed. Regarding the first commitment for the PRRAC, disbursements have started in
December 2000 and will continue within 2001, together with the second engagement, once this one will
be signed by the beneficiary countries.

In addition to the above programmes, the Commission will contribute at least € 15 million to the Highly
Indebted Poor Country (HIPC)
initiative in Honduras. This will be disbursed when the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) confirms that Honduras is in a position to receive it.

The Community is pleased to inform the Honourable Member that it is also implementing several projects
by traditional bilateral co-operation for development aid in Honduras. In March 2000, approximately
40 projects were being implemented by the Community, totalling € 60 million.

The Commission is of the view that it has made a considerable effort in the relief and reconstruction of
Central America and in particular with regard to Honduras.

(2001/C 318 E/015)

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
(cid:145)exclusive rights(cid:146) to the harsh winds of competition.

C 318 E/14

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.11.2001

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 (cid:129) improving performance and transparency, controlling costs and ensuring high quality services
(cid:129) are indeed the basic standards underlying the Commission(cid:146)s general approach to resource allocation and
use.

Certain tasks (cid:129) particularly as regards the implementation of Community programmes (cid:129) 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(cid:146)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
(cid:145)institutional prerogatives(cid:146),
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 (cid:145)institutional prerogatives(cid:146) 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(cid:146)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(cid:146)s freedom of action. The tasks (cid:129) in particular those linked to
budget implementation (cid:129) 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.

13.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 318 E/15

In particular, the Commission has foreseen in its proposal for recasting the Financial Regulation adopted
on 26 July 2000 (2) that (cid:145)The Commission may not entrust measures of budget implementation (cid:133) to
external private-law bodies or organisations, other than those which have a public-service mission
guaranteed by the State.(cid:146)

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.

(2001/C 318 E/016)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3965/00

by Vincenzo Lavarra (PSE), Pasqualina Napoletano (PSE),
Guido Sacconi (PSE), Fiorella Ghilardotti (PSE) and Giovanni Pittella (PSE)
to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Health and safety of workers in industrial plants which produce dangerous chemical substances

The EU places a high priority on policies concerning environmental protection, protecting the health of
citizens and safeguarding workers in the workplace.

In Italy we are continuing to see suspected and established cases of injury and serious illnesses because of
a lack of precautionary measures in the production of certain substances in chemical and petro-chemical
firms (in Venice, Taranto and Val Basento).

In Brindisi a judicial enquiry is in progress, with 68 notices of
to establish
responsibility, within the petro-chemical undertaking, for possible large-scale manslaughter, deliberately-
caused environmental disaster and failure to take adequate measures to safeguard the health of employees
working on the production of polyvinyl chloride.

investigation issued,

Can the Commission therefore say:

1. whether there are any maps of at-risk areas in connection with the industrial production, past or
present, of substances which pose a danger to the health of workers and residents in surrounding
regions?

2. what initiatives the EU has undertaken or intends to undertake to prevent, monitor, check and reclaim

the sites in question?

3. how it intends to follow up the issue of health and safety at work as part of its social agenda and,

specifically, to improve it considerably, as called for by Parliament in the Van Lancker report?