Second experts' report on the Commission

The Committee of Independent Experts' second report on the reform of the European Commission was well received by the European Parliament when it was presented on 13 September. Several recommendations were made on how the Commission's management practices could be improved, wh...

The Committee of Independent Experts' second report on the reform of the European Commission was well received by the European Parliament when it was presented on 13 September. Several recommendations were made on how the Commission's management practices could be improved, which if accepted could affect Community research contract procedures.

The second report was requested by the Parliament in March with a mandate to undertake a 'wide-ranging review of the Commission's culture, practices and procedures'. Among other topics, the Committee was asked to scrutinise 'procedures in existence for the awarding of financial contracts and of contracts for interim or temporary staff to implement programmes.'

The report looks set to be instrumental in the reforms promised by the incoming Commission. Romano Prodi, President-elect of the European Commission, welcomed it saying: 'It will stiffen my resolve to turn the Commission into a modern and efficient administration.'

Commissioner-elect in charge of reform, Neil Kinnock, pledged that the report would be treated as a fundamental part of the Commission's reform proposals. He said: 'Deeds speak louder than words', and announced that it was now a question of taking action on the report.

In the field of awarding contracts, the Independent Experts suggested a whole range of new rules designed to increase transparency and clarity at all levels of procedure.

For example, the Committee observed that calls for tenders are not always drafted in 'sufficient detail'. While calls for tenders are a 'preferable' precondition for awarding contracts, the Committee found they are only useful when certain practical conditions are met. The report suggests that 'the authorising officer must state his needs and define precisely and exhaustively the subject of the contract as criteria for selection and award which cannot subsequently be modified'.

The procedure whereby all transactions must receive prior approval from a separate financial control service was held up for particular scrutiny, with some experts believing it removes a manager's sense of personal responsibility for the operations they authorise. The report says: 'Authorising officers should be made responsible, consider themselves responsible and be held responsible.' It suggests that strict rules on their disciplinary and financial liability should be made, and advises that the authorising officer and signatory to a contract should be the same person or close associates. The Commission itself and the individual Commissioners should be debarred from acting as authorising officers, since their responsibility is political not administrative.

The Committee recommended that authorising officers should be more thoroughly debriefed on contracting procedures, and suggested the Central Contracts Unit, recently set up by the Commission, should be equipped to provide the necessary assistance. Representatives of the CCU should serve on the Advisory Committee on Procedures and Contracts (CCAM) in order to be properly acquainted with the most important or typical contracts. The Committee also recommended the CCAM be reorganised.

Contracts awarded following an invitation to tender or a negotiated procedure involve the disbursement of Community funds, and the report recommended that they be subject to the same financial regulation as other Community institutions. It therefore advises the Commission to seek information concerning the board of directors and identity of shareholders from contractors, and suggests that this information should be made available to unsuccessful bidders.

Community public procurement law is currently a 'jumble of disparate source texts', and the report suggests that active consideration should be given to its codification. This would 'achieve rationalisation to facilitate the work of practitioners'.

Several changes to personnel policy were suggested. At present research staff members are paid from the research budget. The report recommends drawing a clear distinction between temporary, visiting and permanent staff, and the establishment of recruitment procedures similar to those used for established officials for long term staff.

The report also called for a strengthening of internal control and internal audit in the Commission.

More wide-reaching reforms proposed by the Committee that would affect the Commission as a whole include a call for a European Public Prosecutor and an independent 'Committee on Standards in Public Life'. The public prosecutor, backed by national prosecution offices for European offences in Member States and a European Prosecution Office, would have unrestricted jurisdiction for offences committed by officials of EU institutions and bodies. The Standards Committee would provide more clarity in the areas of political responsibility and accountability, providing advice on ethics and standards of conduct in European institutions.

An official of the European Commission, DG XII, said that immediate consideration would be given to the Committee's recommendations. However he expected little obvious impact in the short term as the Fifth Framework Programme is in its infancy and changes will take time to filter through. He also noted that the adoption of a new evaluation manual between the Fourth and the Fifth Framework Programmes was making some procedures longer and more complicated.