Examination of Witnesses (Questions 227
- 239)
WEDNESDAY 25 JUNE 2008
Mr Fabio Marini, Mrs Isabelle Pérignon, Mr
Dick Heimans and Mrs Victoria Amici
Q227 Chairman: Thank
you for coming and thank you for bringing your colleagues with
you. You will, I am sure, have been told that this is a part of
the Sub-Committee which covers what we call Home Affairs. It is
a Sub-Committee of our European Committee, of which there are
several Sub-Committees covering a whole range of issues. This
Committee is conducting an inquiry on Europol. We have come this
morning from Den Haag after spending yesterday talking to officials
in Europol and Eurojust. We have a good many questions which have
arisen both from the written evidence we have received, from the
evidence we had orally yesterday, and also, of course, from various
witnesses who have appeared before us in London over the last
few weeks. I wonder in the broader sense if you could explain
to us how the budget management procedures of the Council Decision
will change in future the governance of Europol.
Mr Marini: My Lord Chairman, first of
all I would like to thank you for inviting us to this hearing
today. My name is Fabio Marini. I am the Deputy Head of Unit in
the Fight Against Organised Crime, Police and Customs Co-operation.
I am here today with a few colleagues who are involved in the
Europol dossier and I would like to introduce them. Mrs Isabelle
Pérignon is the Head of Sector for Police and Customs Co-operation
and has followed since September last year the discussion in the
Council on the Europol Decision. Dick Heimans is Head of Sector
for Counter-Terrorism who drafted the Commission proposal transforming
Europol into an agency, which was adopted in 2006. Mrs Victoria
Amici is the Principal Administrator in charge of the Europol
file following the implementation measures that need to be adopted
by 2010. Coming to your first question, Europol, by becoming a
new agency, will adhere to the financial and budgetary legislative
framework applicable to EU institutions and Community bodies.
Europol will have to comply inter alia with the rules for
the establishment and implementation of the budget at EU level.
The principles laid down in the financial regulation represent
safeguards towards increased coherence and accountability and
participation. We would also like to underline two of the budgetary
principles governing the financial regulation, on the one hand
the principle of sound financial management which requires effective
and efficient internal control, and on the other hand the principle
of transparency. A practical example of the application of this
principle is the obligation to publish the annual accounts in
the official journal of the European Union. The EU budget procedure
has two immediately significant consequences, first of all, the
involvement of two branches of the budget authorities, the Council
and the European Parliament, in the adoption of Europol's budget
which increases its accountability and transparency, and, secondly,
the obligation to submit an annual activity report. This will
make Europol more open and accountable to European citizens. The
annual activity report will be endorsed by the Council and transmitted
to the European Parliament and the annual accounts will be scrutinised
by the Court of Auditors and published. Finally, it is the European
Parliament which is responsible for granting the discharge to
the Director.
Q228 Chairman:
Thank you. Can I add to that? It has been suggested to us over
our inquiry that the Commission has only limited competence to
co-ordinate policy implementation in the area of justice and home
affairs. I wonder if you would like to comment on this. If there
is this gap in the Commission's competence what are you doing
to try to correct that situation by changing the arrangements
which exist at the moment?
Mr Marini: Talking about the limited
competence, the Commission generally speaking works with Member
States in developing policies, of course, and we try to negotiate
our proposals every day by ad hoc meetings with representatives
of Member States based also on the public/private partnership,
and we try to have common concerns in developing these policies.
Q229 Chairman:
Sorry—I am not talking about the agreement of Member States.
I am talking about the whole rules which govern the activities
of the Commission. It has been suggested to us that there is a
gap in what you are competent to do under the arrangements which
are laid down. Our specialist adviser reminds me that this came
from a witness that we heard yesterday who suggested that the
implementation of policy in the Third Pillar was something for
which the Commission was bravely trying to carry out work in that
area but had limited powers to co-ordinate the various actors
on the Third Pillar scene.
Mr Marini: I have not understood your
question very well. Do you mean in the sense of the Treaty of
Lisbon or in the future? Could you be more precise?
Q230 Chairman:
The question related to the situation now in terms of the expression
of policy at Council level and how policy can be translated into
co-ordinated action within the Third Pillar and the role of the
Commission in trying to facilitate that translation of policy
into implemented activity.
Mr Marini: As I said in my previous answer,
we have a sort of facilitator role. A facilitator role means trying
to organise ideas and pushing, in co-operation with Member States,
possible initiatives to develop specific issues in the Third Pillar,
in the police co-operation field, for example. Of course, in the
current situation we have, as you know, limited powers. A framework
decision, for example, is a useful legal tool but the problem
in comparison with what our colleagues in the First Pillar feel
they can do with a country is that we cannot force the implementation
of a Framework decision. We have only limited powers in the sense
that we can only publish reports where we indicate the state of
implementation of a third pillar instruments by Member States
but we cannot do more than that. We are confident that in the
future, in a different legal scenario, we could improve our activities.
Q231 Lord Harrison:
I suppose the question in a novel way is, are there things that
you would like to do in the present position that you feel frustrated
from doing because of the limited competence?
Mr Marini: We cannot say "frustrated".
Even if we do not have infringement procedures we try to cope
with the situation, as I said. We try to develop our ideas in
co-operation with Member States rather than impose them because,
of course, we do not have any power to impose them. The key to
being successful, I think, is to start a discussion from the beginning
on a specific issue with representatives of Member States developing
ideas, for example, to judge how to develop best practice in different
scenarios, to have a clear view of the situation in the different
areas of competence and to act as facilitators of national needs.
This is what we can do now and this is, I would say, our first
course in our activities.
Q232 Chairman:
I think we must get on. I realise that I have jumped this question
on you and maybe you would like to ponder and reflect on the question
and then perhaps in the next week or so we could further enlarge
on what we are talking about and you could write to us within
the next month if you would so that you can think a little more
about what the problem is.
Mr Marini: Of course.
Q233 Lord Dear:
Can I continue the thrust on the budgets? We all appreciate that
every organisation that spends money has to have very sound financial
management. That goes across the globe. I wondered if you had
a view about Europol's planning documents, whether you think they
are appropriate and proper for the purpose of working up their
budget. In other words, can they work out a proper budget given
the constraints and the procedures that they have to work by?
Mr Marini: In talking about the present
situation it should be noted that so far Member States have evaluated
Europol's current planning documents, for example, the year plan,
the annual budget and the accounts, after these documents have
each time been discussed and adopted by the Council, but in becoming
an EU agency Europol will have to comply with and also benefit
from the provisions of the financial and budgetary frameworks
which are applicable to all EU bodies. We consider that the documents
foreseen by the different legal instruments governing the budgetary
management applicable, as I say, to all EU budgets and which Europol
would have to comply with, are appropriate means for giving a
reasonable assessment of the budget in accordance with the budget
principles as I mentioned before. An accounting officer function
will also be created within the agency building in the spirit
of the existing financial controllor.
Q234 Lord Dear:
The reason we ask the question is that there has been some suggestion
that the budget is inadequate, and maybe you will comment on that,
but, of course, everyone wants more money and one appreciates
that, and, secondly, in particular the procedures that have to
be followed in order to construct the budget before you even spend
the money are not really suited to an organisation like Europol
which has unusual demands. I wondered if you were satisfied with
the procedures as they exist or whether you see them being changed
in some way in the future, not necessarily to spend more but to
manage the budget better.
Mr Marini: Talking about the additional
resources to Europol, for example, the European Parliament can
grant additional resources to Europol, but within the total amount
of the corresponding "chapter". The European Parliament
can also put credits in reserve pending fulfilment of the additional
conditions. This is also important.
Mrs Pérignon: We need to make
a clear distinction between what is the situation today without
any Community financing and what will be the situation when Europol
becomes an agency as of 1 January 2010, and that is one of the
reasons why the Commission decided to draft the proposal. Then
the role of the European Parliament will be increased and there
will be the possibility to grant additional money to Europol.
For example, the Commission has already planned in its financial
perspectives to increase the budget, so in 2010 we will have €82
million available to Europol and then it increases every year,
in 2011 to 83 million, and then to €84 million in 2012 and
€85 million in 2013, so the Commission can propose additional
money in comparison to what is the situation today with €64
million. Then, of course, the European Parliament, as Fabio Marini
has told you, can increase these figures but they should respect
the total envelope of the rubrique 3A .We think that it will be
beneficial to Europol.
Q235 Lord Dear:
I am grateful to you for that. That deals with whether the money
is adequate in total, but I am also interested, and perhaps you
can help me with this as well, in not only the total amount, which
may well grow in future, but also in whether the budgetary management
mechanisms within that sum, today or later, are proper to help
an organisation like Europol to grow. You have got the money on
the one hand, the total. Put that to one side. You have then got
the mechanisms in which you allocate the money and then spend
it within any budget and I wondered if you thought that mechanism
was appropriate for Europol or whether it should be changed.
Mrs Pérignon: For us today the
Commission is not in a position to judge the situation that existed
in the past because it is the Member States, as you know, who
discuss and then decide, and so far we have never heard about
any complaint when it was discussed in the Council about anything
that should be changed.
Q236 Lord Dear:
Nothing has come from the Management Board of Europol to you,
because it is really the Management Board's function to lay the
money out and spend the money within Europol?
Mrs Pérignon: Yes, exactly.
Q237 Lord Dear:
They have not made any representation to you?
Mrs Pérignon: As you know, the
Commission is only an observer to this Management Board, and on
this Management Board you also have the financial controller who
has a key function because he checks the validity of all the financial
decisions which are made by the Management Board, but once this
decision is taken by the Management Board the final decision is
presented to the Council, and so far we have never heard about
that.
Mr Heimans: I want to add one additional
element perhaps that may not yet be clear, and that is the fact
that even in the current situation Europol is working to a financial
regulation which is very close to the financial regulation of
the European Union, so in regard to the actual conditions for
spending the money in terms of procurement, allocated money, the
rules are not going to be all that different. In the past we have
not had any problems at Europol that I have heard of in terms
of spending the money for a new operational task, if that is your
concern, that the procedures will stand in the way of quickly
and adequately allocating resources.
Q238 Lord Mawson:
Can I add to what Lord Dear was saying? It seems to me one would
only want to put more money into an organisation that was effective
in what it was doing, and what you need to be very sure about
is that it is being effective. One of the things we are picking
up (or I am picking up) is that the governance of the organisation
is particularly difficult because of the constant demand for innovation
in the services delivered, but the organisation is divided into
these rigid vertical structures and the relationship between the
Management Board and the Director is difficult. If that is true
can such an organisation engage efficiently with the modern world
we now live in when there is a need for innovation and being fleet
of foot and where it is pretty essential to do that? What needs
to be done to modernise this organisation so that when you put
the money in it is effectively used and delivers something at
the end?
Mrs Pérignon: In the draft Council
Decision on which we had the political agreement, as you know,
on 18 April, there are some changes which are very important concerning
the Management Board structure. There are also, as my colleagues
have said, all the new budgetary procedures that will be applicable
in the future. As for us, we are in a difficult position now to
tell you exactly if there are any difficulties with the Management
Board and the Director and it is one of the questions I am sure
you can ask this afternoon to the Chairman of the Management Board.
Chairman: It does seem to me that in the answer
you gave a few seconds ago you did graphically illustrate the
limited competence I was talking about a few minutes earlier.
Q239 Lord Dear:
I think we are already halfway to the question I was going to
pose to you, which is, moving away from the totality of the budget
which we have explored with you and the way in which the budget
is managed once it gets into Europol, I wonder if you consider
that the Commission itself has got any role at all in setting
the objectives of any of the agencies, particularly Eurojust and
Europol. We are particularly interested in Europol but there is
a liaison with Eurojust. The setting and measuring of objectives
in detail will obviously flow down through the Management Board
and into Europol or Eurojust, but I wonder if you see a role for
yourself. Should the role you have at the moment be enhanced?
Should you not have such a great role? It would help us to understand
your thinking on that issue as well. Do I make myself clear?
Mrs Pérignon: Yes. Your question
is in fact two-fold because first of all there is the objectives
issue and then the measurement of the indicators. As you know,
the objectives of the agencies are determined in the legal basis
of the different agencies and so the legal basis is adopted by
the Council—and then the Parliament when we have co-decision—and
in the case of the proposal for a Council Decision on Europol,
Article 3 of the draft Council Decision sets out the objectives
clearly and it was something that was discussed in the Council.
Generally, in fact, Europol is considered as a regulatory agency
and it falls into the category of agencies fulfilling operational
activities. These agencies are normally managed by a Management
Board, as we have in Europol, which is responsible for adopting
the Annual Work Programme, and the work programme has to respect
the legal framework which is also set out in the legal basis,
ie, the draft Council Decision, so the Commission must give an
opinion on the work programme prior to its adoption by the Management
Board and that is exactly the case we have with Europol. According
to Article 37(10)(b) of the draft Council Decision the Management
Board prepares the Annual Work Programme where it sets objectives
and then before adopting it the Commission must give an opinion
on it. Concerning the evaluation during which the results are
measured the legal basis, so also the Council Decision, determines
how we can evaluate the work of the agencies. Here again there
is no fixed rule so we have differences between the agencies in
the Union. It depends on the agency but the agency has the possibility
to launch its own evaluation or it is launched by the Commission
with or without the help of an external evaluator. In general
terms there is always an obligation for agencies which are financed
through Community funding to be evaluated at regular periods and
this is determined by our financial regulation. In the specific
case of Europol you can see that in Article 37(11) it provides
that within four years of the date of application of this Decision
there will be an evaluation and thereafter every four years. Every
four years we will have an evaluation and the Management Board
will show the Commission an independent external evaluation. That
is something that was decided during the discussions in the Council,
that it should be external, so then we carefully analyse how we
can evaluate Europol activities. It is also important to note
that in the draft Council Decision we have Article 38(4) which
says that the Director of Europol shall be responsible for establishing
and implementing, in co-operation with the Management Board, an
effective and efficient monitoring and evaluation procedure relating
to Europol's performance in terms of the achievement of its objectives—that
is the wording of Article 38—and the Director shall report
regularly to the Management Board on the results of that monitoring.
Therefore, since the Commission will be a full member of the Management
Board as of 1 January 2010, which is not the case today because
we are only an observer, we will have one voting right. Then the
Commission will have the possibility of saying a word on this
monitoring and evaluation procedure. Finally, I would like to
insist on the fact that Europol is one of the agencies we have
in this field of JHA issues but we also have other agencies. Altogether
throughout the Commission we have 26 agencies and the Commission
is now in the process of evaluating these agencies. The Commission
published in March this year a communication explaining what the
different agencies are and what types of agency they are, and
it will be followed by an evaluation which will be launched at
the end of this year/beginning of next year, and we will have
the results in 2009/2010, evaluating all the evaluations of the
different agencies. We are already in the process of analysing
the differences between these evaluations because we have already
what we call a meta-study survey, which is a survey on all the
different systems of evaluation. It will be a first assessment
and we expect the results by the end of this year.
|
