Examination of Witnesses (Questions 220-239)
General Ilkka Laitinen, Mr Jozsef Bali, Ms Mari Kalliala,
Mr Richard Ares, Mr Sakari Vuorensola and Mr Graham Leese
23 OCTOBER 2007
Q220 Chairman: That is over the year,
is it?
General Laitinen: Yes, comparing the same period
of time in 2006 that we have now gone through in 2007. There has
been a slight decrease in the central Mediterranean and I consider
that to be a satisfactory result but there are some other areas,
particularly eastern Mediterranean, where we have witnessed an
increasing trend and that is not good news but the good thing
is we know what it is all about, so we know the phenomenon as
such and, therefore, we have been able to illustrate the overall
picture. This perhaps could serve as a basic assessment of the
work of Frontex so far. There are a lot of basic things to be
completed, a lot of ongoing incomplete projects in place but we
know the view is clear and we know what to do. It is a matter
of prioritising and allocating the resources in an appropriate
way to find the best possible solutions.
Q221 Chairman: Thank you very much.
People smuggling?
General Laitinen: People smuggling is an issue
that, unfortunately, we do have some figures on.
Mr Bali: Yes, I have some figures. You mentioned
Poseidon 2007 and in the third phase in September/October the
figures were 40 facilitators, which means that in 40 cases the
national authority started with an investigation. We have some
results from Hera. The number of facilitators is less but it is
really very difficult because it is different country-by-country
based on national law. In a lot of cases we are facing the problem
that on the boat there are 20 migrants plus the facilitators,
but based on national law after three days they start their investigation
and it is in the detention centre that it is not possible to identify
the facilitator or to prove the crime. This statistic is very
different. In some countries, for example on the Greek-Turkish
land border, the facilitators do not cross the border, they only
escort the immigrants to the border line and then send them. We
know that it is organised crime and there is a facilitator but
you cannot do anything against him. It is a main objective of
the operation but case-by-case the figures are very different.
Q222 Chairman: Can I remind you,
I am sure unnecessarily, this is a British parliamentary inquiry
and, therefore, I would like to ask a question, and I hope you
will bear this question in mind in all your answers, about UK
participation. How far is the UK participating in risk analysis,
in operations, and have you got any comments to make on the British
participation?
General Laitinen: If I may say some general
words. We have the legal background for setting up links between
UK colleagues and Frontex. I consider this machinery relatively
cumbersome but it is something we have been able to do. This means
that practically speaking, in terms of risk analysis and also
the joint operations, we do not see any difference between our
UK colleagues and the others, if we just exclude the administrative
or the legal preparation for that. It is also visible here in
our staff. There is no difference between the UK and other colleagues
here but it requires considerable effort to meet all of these
practical and administrative issues. If I may come back to the
previous question for clarification. It was said that human smuggling
and arrest and investigation of traffickers is the key objective
but it is not the key function of Frontex. It is not our function
but, on the other hand, it is the key objective to bring these
perpetrators to justice and suffer the consequences. This makes
it somewhat, I would not say schizophrenic but it is an interesting
pattern that we have to apply at the border.
Chairman: I think that is a natural lead-in
for Lord Jopling to ask his question about tasks.
Lord Jopling: I am afraid that the list of questions
that I understand we have given you and the excellent presentation
this morning did not very fully cover, if I might say so, two
of the six tasks which Frontex is saddled with under the Regulation.
Let me just read them both out. One is 1(b) under Article 2: "assist
Member States on training of national border guards, including
the establishment of common training standards". Training
kept coming up as part of the wider discussion this morning but
I think it is important for us to know how big the training function
is in Frontex, how many people are involved, how much you spend
on it, how far you have got in establishing common training standards
and what you are doing over the whole of EU on training national
borders. For our inquiry it is very important we hear the answer
to that. The second task which you are provided with is, and again
I quote: "(f) provide Member States with the necessary support
in organising joint return operations". I think I am right
in saying the word "return" only appeared once in the
very last of the slides this morning and the matter does not appear
in the questions. This is obviously a very important part of your
work and it is one of the six tasks. Where are you getting to
on that? What are you doing about organising joint return operations?
I think some of us would regard this as a hugely important part
of your work and we would like to have an assessment. I am afraid
the answer to this single question, which is really two questions,
could keep us going for most of an hour but I am sure you will
make it a bit less.
Q223 Chairman: Can I just interrupt
to say that if on this or any other point you wanted to follow
up with a written comment to us we would be very happy to receive
any written comments if, for instance, statistics are not immediately
available and you are able to give us something in supplementary
form.
General Laitinen: Thank you very much. I am
very pleased to answer both of these questions. I have to apologise
that we did not manage to get a representative from the Training
Unit for this event. As far as the training is concerned, it is
the other core element in the entity that we call capacity building.
One is research and development and training is the other. How
we are performing these duties are two-fold. On the one hand,
we have created a training programme which is called the Common
Core Curriculum, and that is something the Regulation refers to.
We are happy to publish the revised version of this Common Core
Curriculum in December this year. It is a product which has been
carried out, or compiled, with the close co-operation of international
organisations and, of course, the Member States. It has been made
under the control of two universities to ensure compatibility
with the Bologna and Copenhagen processes. It is for the quality
management side. This is something that already exists but will
be revised. It is a basic training programme where the Member
States to a certain level are committed. They do not have a legal
obligation to apply that Regulation but there is only a handful
of Member States that does not apply this Common Core Curriculum
yet. This is for the border guard training. It is applied partly
but not entirely. An additional element here is the mid-level
training. We are seeking to have a Common Core Curriculum for
mid-level training and we have launched periodical four-week courses
for mid-level officers, so at the lieutenant/captain level, those
who are in charge of one unit at the border and so on. These are
the type of people who will be participating in these courses.
I think the fifth or sixth course is ongoing. The duration is
four weeks. Based on that experience we complement the curricula
series offered to the Member States. This is one part. The other
part is more risk-analysis based training activities where we
arrange courses for the Member States, mainly border control authorities,
on different subjects: land border related training, aeronautical
training, helicopter pilot training, travel document detection
training, pedagogical training for trainers and so on, and linguistic
skills. There are different areas. In 2006 we established a network
of partnership academies where for the time being there are nine
national academies belonging to border control authorities which
are together and there is common management organised by Frontex
for doing these things jointly, and each of these academies are
specialised in one particular topic: one for training for land
border related issues, one for linguistic training, and so on.
This is our instrument to promote these training activities. We
are using these two issues. I am very glad to be able to inform
you that for training projects for 2006 we committed almost €500,000
for that purpose and for the time being for 2007 the commitment
for training purposes is almost €2 million. It is quite an
active field of our functions and training. This is very important
bearing in mind capacity building for the longer term investment
in operational co-operation. May I now turn to—
Q224 Lord Jopling: How many of the
projected 198 personnel next year will be involved on the training
side?
General Laitinen: For the time being I think
the staff number of training units—I will have to double-check—is
eight, nine, 10 people. I will have to check it and give you a
precise answer.
Lord Jopling: Thank you.
Chairman: I think Lord Listowel may have a quick
question.
Earl of Listowel: It is not a quick one. I am
afraid following from both of your questions there is something
I would like to ask.
Q225 Chairman: Let us go on to answer
the second question and then we will come back to that.
General Laitinen: As far as the return operations
are concerned, it is stipulated in a slightly different way in
the Regulation to provide necessary support or assistance to the
Member States, which means that we have not adopted that active
role in this particular area. Our main objective and guideline
for performing these functions is we focus more on the capacity
building and the longer term investment in that, compiling best
practices for the acquisition of travel documents, best practices
for carrying out joint return operations and those kinds of things.
We have created the Core Country Group where for the time being
there are seven such European Member States who have been the
most active in arranging return operations, mainly by air, where
they are planning and implementing these rules and guidelines.
Our role is to spread this news to all the other Member States
as to what could be available for their needs in that way. Another
feature which is worth mentioning is we have conveyed the other
financial possibilities of the European Community to this operational
field knowing that the return operations are extremely expensive
and it is not possible to allocate money sufficiently from Frontex's
budget. We convey this money from the so-called Return Fund, which
is a future instrument, and its predecessor, which is this kind
of temporary financial instrument, to those countries that can
use it for their purposes. We do have limits operationally speaking
in performing return operations and we focus more on capacity
building, gathering best practices and promoting the Member States
to carry out these duties by themselves.
Q226 Earl of Listowel: May I ask
a brief question. You may feel that perhaps you can attach your
answer to it to some of our later questions but maybe a brief
answer now as well. My Lord Chairman referred to your expectations
of Frontex, but the expectations placed on Frontex by others seem
to me increasingly to be unrealistic. It seems to me that your
work depends very much on the goodwill of different states, both
within the European Union and outside, and that goodwill depends
on the quality of the work that you do. It seems to me the danger
is that as expectations are raised on what you can deliver, the
very quality of what you can provide may be undermined and you
may not be able to add the value to the border services that you
wish to. There is a danger also that you might begin to seem to
be superseding the role of certain Member States rather than supporting
the role that they have, their responsibility for their own national
border guard service. I do not know if you feel that is a realistic
concern but certainly it is something that has come through to
me in the course of this inquiry. Perhaps, as I say, you can attach
your answer to that in later questions.
General Laitinen: Yes.
Earl of Listowel: Thank you.
Q227 Chairman: Do you want to respond
to that?
General Laitinen: It may be a good idea to tackle
this issue. Your conclusion on the expectations is right. We have
been struggling with the more or less realistic or unrealistic
expectations from different sectors towards Frontex. The common
denominator in this case is that the role and the remit of Frontex
has not been entirely understood, either by accident or deliberately.
Very often we have felt that Frontex is considered to be a European
panacea for all border related issues and if there are some problems
at the external borders it is Frontex who is in charge of that
instead of considering Frontex to be a co-ordinator to co-ordinate
such co-operation where the Member States participate of their
own volition. That is the difference and it is a very persistent
challenge for us to spread the news on that. When it comes to
our assets I would put it into three corners of a triangle. The
first one is our financial resources, the second one, which to
a certain extent is related to the first, is our human resources,
and in the third corner is the willingness of the Member States
to participate in joint operations. This means that the budget
and human resources sides are only two corners of the triangle
which cannot be the only successful factor for these challenges.
For the time being, and more in the future, the Member States
play a critical role in this regard. If we have finances, if we
have capable, sufficient and professional staff, that is not enough
if there is nobody to participate in this co-operation where we
act as the co-ordinator. If we think of it more from the management
point of view, the development of Frontex and how the budget and
human resources have been developed during these two years of
our existence, it is a soaring threat, it is a drastic increase
and it is anticipated to continue in the future. This is a challenge
for such a new organisation which is still building the basic
procedure, the sound financial management, the human resources
management, quality management, evaluation or indicators of performance.
All of these kinds of things would have to be postponed because
of this urgent need and expectation of the need for these operational
things. I have to be honest and say this is really a dilemma for
Frontex. It seems quite seldom that we are thinking about a period
of two years and what is normal for a European agency when it
is established and what can happen in two years. Normally the
first two years is only for taking the curtain down and saying,
"Here is the agency" and we have to start running immediately,
but this is slightly different. On the other hand, I have to say
that it has somehow developed the nature of my staff here which
has a very strongly pioneer-oriented spirit. Everyone feels that
it is our mission to do it in the current circumstances and also
in the future when the expectations will be even higher.
Q228 Chairman: Can I move to our
second question which is probably implicitly answered by your
organisational chart. Who do you report to? Can you explain a
little more the relationship between you and the Management Board?
Who takes the operational decisions? Who is responsible for giving
you operational directions? Who decides on the Annual Work Programme?
General Laitinen: The functions and the powers
of the Management Board are clearly stipulated in Article 20 of
the Regulation. Generally speaking, the Management Board takes
the strategic decisions, which is adopting the Work Programme,
the organisational structure of the agency and the budget. It
is linked more to the time span of one year which belongs to the
Management Board. When it comes to deciding on the particular
operations, whether to launch them and how to finance them, the
allocation of money to particular operations, that belongs to
the Executive Director. It is clear that there is not a mixture
in that. There is one individual case where the Management Board
is entitled to intervene in the operational issues and that is
of an advisory nature. It is entitled to advise on the issues
directly related to the technical development of border control
and so on. The share of responsibilities is very clear. The other
part is the reporting chain. I report directly to the Management
Board as an entity. Whenever there is a meeting, which is on average
five times a year, I give a thorough report of all the activities,
both orally but also in written form, as to what is the state
of play, what are our plans and so on. It is a very important
part knowing that the input of the Management Board on operational
issues is somewhat limited which means I consider it appropriate
to maintain very thorough reporting towards the Management Board.
Chairman: Thank you very much. That is very
clear.
Q229 Baroness Henig: I would like
to move on to assessment of performance, which is an interesting
area and I am sure one that you are very involved in and concerned
to undertake. I wondered how the performance of Frontex was measured,
how often and by whom? I am very mindful of the fact that presumably
you will have internal assessment of performance but also your
Management Board will have expectations of performance and hold
you to account against those. I imagine also that Member States
might have ideas about performance. Are you all working to the
same kind of performance assessment mechanisms? Could you shed
some light on this whole area of performance assessment.
General Laitinen: Thank you very much for that
excellent question. It is very important. Evaluating an operational
agency like Frontex is a very challenging task. There are difficulties
in finding appropriate indicators on operational output to determine
the level of performance. We are working very hard on that. We
have an idea how to do it but we need to develop it. I am afraid
that it is not only a one year project, it takes time to achieve
the prototype at least and to establish this kind of quality management
system for the operationally tuned actors it is often possible
only by applying the rule called trial and error. That is one
side. We have an idea of how it could go, which is a compilation
of a series of different indicators for which we need some reference.
We need to have a certain history in order to evaluate the existing
situation and also to predict the future. That is for the operational
side. As far as the management and administration is concerned,
it is somewhat easier to do. There are some standardised criteria
for all European agencies and Community bodies, which are called
the internal control standards, and we apply these control standards
already which is one of the preconditions to achieving financial
independence. This is already in place. For the evaluation of
our administrative performance there are different bodies that
take care of that. We do have an internal auditor within this
agency who mainly provides me and my Deputy Executive Director
with the findings of how the procedures are ongoing. We do have
input from the European Court of Auditors, which has already paid
one audit to Frontex and the next one is anticipated to take place
very soon. We have a third auditing body, which is the Internal
Audit Service of the European Commission, which has also visited
Frontex. From my point of view there is sufficient coverage of
different aspects of auditing and there are quite frequent visitors
here. What is the good news is that the findings of the recent
audits, both by the European Court of Auditors and the Internal
Audit Service, were very positive. They concluded that the basic
management in terms of human resources and finance is in place
and that the system is sound, let us put it that way.
Q230 Chairman: I think, given the
reluctance of the Court of Auditors to sign off accounts, you
deserve our congratulations.
General Laitinen: This is now the state of the
play. The operational side is more complicated and requires more
perspective and more effort, but when it comes to the administrative
side it is much easier to do and is further developed for the
time being.
Q231 Baroness Henig: Thank you very
much. In a sense, I would like to turn the thing around now. Given
that Frontex is a facilitator, and we keep hearing that, to some
degree your success or failure in your performance is going to
be tied to the performance of your individual Member States because
of the way you operate. I wondered, therefore, whether there were
some states that were very active members as against others that
were not, and that would therefore affect things because you would
obviously want to operate with those that were active because
you would have more chance of success, although the need might
not be in that area. My second supplementary to that would be
do Member States divide up into consumers of your services and
providers of your services? Is that a pattern that you can see
as well?
General Laitinen: This is a very fundamental
question, for a co-ordinator to have something to co-ordinate.
First of all, I have to say that there is still a lot of room
for increasing the activeness of Member States to participate
in our operation by deploying technical means and experts for
the joint operations that we have. That is one corner. The other
fact is if we compare the situation of 2005 with 2006 and now
with 2007 the trend is continuously increasing. For instance,
in 2006 at sea borders the overall number of Member States which
participated in joint operations was 15 compared with the existing
figure in 2007 which is 22. This is an increasing trend. As for
land borders, in 2006 we had eight Member States participating
in different operations whereas the figure in 2007 is 23. Also,
at the air borders in 2006 it was 18 compared with 2007 which
is 26. This means that we can say that all the Member States participate
in at least some of the operations but what is needed and what
is my desire is to have more active participation of all Member
States in the different operations. The trend is promising and
what is needed is to have some patience to see how the Member
States become more active in that. On the other hand, we have
to take into consideration the fact that Member States are in
charge of controlling their external borders and that is the priority
for them and the European co-operation which is co-ordinated by
Frontex is an additional element in that. They need to consider
where to put their limited resources, whether on the domestic
side or the European side. The trend is promising and it is increasing
considerably. I am very satisfied with that but there is still
a lot of room for improving their activeness.
Q232 Chairman: Can I ask you a specifically
British question on this point. We were shown in evidence we have
already been given what was to me quite an impressive list of
operations in which there has been British participation. Have
you got any general comment you would like to give us on British
operational participation?
General Laitinen: I think we have a summary
of the UK's participation. Generally speaking, I have to say that
the UK has been active in participating in joint operations, no
matter if the practical and administrative side is somewhat complicated
and requires a case-by-case decision for each particular operation
by the Management Board, which is carried out by a written procedure
and it is customary. If you think about operations where the UK
has participated in 2006 and 2007, the UK has participated in
four pilot projects. Three of them were the Border Management
Conferences aiming to promote third country co-operation where
the UK has played a very important role. The fourth pilot project
where we had UK participation was the Focal Point Office pilot
project which is a system along the external borders where there
are joint offices where experts from different Member States come
together and assist their host country colleagues to perform their
duties and act like a liaison officer in this regard. The UK has
been active in creating this concept. They have participated in
joint operations, Gordius, Herakles and Kras, both land borders
but also airport and maritime operations. Those three that I mentioned
are land border operations. As far as the sea border sector is
concerned, there are six joint operations where the UK has participated
and I can say that in all the main operations in the Canary Islands,
in Malta and in the eastern Mediterranean the UK has participated
either by deploying technical assets or experts to the joint operations.
When it comes to air border operations, altogether there are four
air border operations where we have seen UK participation. This
brings me to the conclusion that we do have active participation
from the UK, no matter if the procedure is relatively heavy to
apply. This indicates the activeness of our British colleagues
in this. There are also some activities on the return operations
side, the best practices compilation and the training for the
return officers in this regard where the UK has been very, very
active.
Q233 Lord Young of Norwood Green:
What is the framework for the review of Frontex which is to be
carried out by the Commission? I noticed there was a reference
to this in the Management Board Programme of Work where it says:
"As mentioned in the Hague Programme, the Commission will
carry out an evaluation of Frontex tasks. As a result of this
evaluation, new tasks will be assigned to Frontex". Perhaps
you can capture that in your answer.
General Laitinen: Yes, certainly. I think that
the Commission would be the more appropriate body to respond to
that.
Q234 Chairman: I should tell you
that they have already.
General Laitinen: Okay. That is good. From my
point of view and from Frontex's point of view it is like stocktaking
where we are now: have we met the expectations which were in place
when the Regulation was adopted; have we carried out right and
appropriate duties; is the role of Frontex as a co-ordinator a
sufficient one or would there be deeper involvement of this entire
integrated border management in that sense; or perhaps find some
new areas of co-operation which could be addressed to Frontex.
This kind of more politically oriented assessment is now in question.
This is somewhat different from the assessment which is based
on Article 33 of the Regulation which is the Management Board
driven assessment for the overall internal functioning of the
agency which belongs to the Management Board. These two assessments,
in addition to the third assessment which is for the top managers
of this agency based on the staff regulations, are ongoing in
the same way. Coming back to the Hague Programme based evaluation,
that is more about paving the way for the future on integrated
border management and what would be the role of Frontex within
this framework.
Q235 Lord Young of Norwood Green:
I think you probably touched on this in your presentation but,
nevertheless, are you satisfied with the involvement of EU institutions
in setting the budget of Frontex? Is it right that some of the
budget should be made conditional on future developments which
are not within your control?
General Laitinen: Generally speaking, I have
been very satisfied with the budget authority and the Commission's
involvement in the financial management of this agency. What is
somewhat exceptional is the rate of growth of this agency. This
is a unique situation where a European agency has been developed
so rapidly and with such a drastic increase from the first year
of its existence. On the other hand, I found it was a clear signal
from the Council and the Parliament to address and indicate the
importance of Frontex by allocating more money to this agency
than was proposed. Normally the trend is just the opposite, to
cut off some expenditure. I found it a very positive signal. Now
that the budget side is in place it requires adequate human resources.
The third point, coming back to the most critical factor, which
is the Member States, has to be in balance. That is the main challenge
for us in order to digest the increased financial resources of
Frontex. Another thing I have to say is that focusing only on
the operational expenditure is not enough for a co-ordinator.
This is simply due to the fact that our success relies very much
on the added-value that we are able to prove. If the human resources
and the administrative side are not in balance with the soaring
resources and financial resources for the operational element
the results can be counterproductive. It could even reduce the
level of the quality of our products. There could be more pressure
and more tasks to do with less human resources to be allocated
to that.
Chairman: I think that leads immediately to
a factual question from Lord Listowel. I beg your pardon, I interrupted
you.
Q236 Lord Young of Norwood Green:
This is really a supplementary briefly, if I may. I am a bit puzzled
that they do not understand the importance of the point that you
make. The success of the operation depends on your risk analysis
model and your R&D as well needs to feed into that, so I am
puzzled they cannot see the importance of that connection. The
only other point I would make is that when I looked through your
budgetary allocation it did seem that the staffing you have allowed
for training seems small in comparison to the size of the task,
but it may be that is a question you are building on.
General Laitinen: Thank you very much. Another
issue which I think is worth mentioning here is that the Management
Board established an objective which would be the optimal division
line between the administrative and operational expenditure and
this rate is 33/65. In other words, one-third for administration
and two-thirds for operations, knowing that the operational work
my staff is doing here is part of the administrative budget. In
2008, as was discussed previously, our operational budget is due
to be increased by 140%. For that purpose I have made a proposal
to increase the administrative budget and also the human resources
staff number of this agency by 19% which leads to the final figure
of 25/75 which is much more at the optimal level established by
the Management Board. This is a very important point in this regard.
As far as the training staff are concerned, the Training Unit
applies a somewhat different modus operandi when performing their
duties. They have gathered an expert pool that they use for shorter
term projects which means that the co-ordinating role is within
the Training Unit and where the actual planning and implementing
work is carried out by these qualified training assistant officers,
if I can use that phrase. Very often these guest officers come
from the partnership academies, so they are the teachers at these
national academies, who come together, draft a project and implement
that project. In that time they serve the agency for a shorter
period of time which reduces the permanent staff figure to that
relatively low figure. I do agree that if we compare 89 staff
members to the existing 125 it is not that much bearing in mind
the importance of the capacity building factor and the training
being a part of that.
Q237 Chairman: I think it is my fault
for interrupting. I am not sure we have given you a chance yet
to answer the second part of Lord Young's question, which was
is it right that some of the budget should be made conditional
on future developments which are not within your control? I will
just make a comment. As a former accounting officer of the British
Diplomatic Service I am well used to situations where a lot of
things happen that are not under your control. Perhaps you would
like to comment.
General Laitinen: Thank you very much. We have
now experienced enough to have a budget reserve and conditional
budgets. It might sound attractive but we have to keep in mind
the heavy procedure which is very much out of the hands of the
actor itself, it is for the budget authority under the duration
of this procedure, but it does not provide us with sufficient
flexibility to adapt our operational activities for that. This
means that I would prefer to have certainty in relation to the
budget and, if needs be, an additional element for that instead
of starting planning for the operations which are the subject
of the reserve. I consider budget reserve as an undesirable exception.
If the only option is to earmark this money and put it into reserve
then that is the case but it is not the best possible solution
for to continuity and consistent management and planning taking
into account all of these procedures that have to be put in place.
Q238 Earl of Listowel: Do you consider
that Frontex staffing and funding are adequate to enable it to
carry out its present tasks? Will they be for the future? We have
already dwelt on those questions to some degree but, please, if
you have further comments we would be grateful for them. Also,
just a point of detail and perhaps you can write to the Committee
on this if you have this information, have you information on
the retention of staff and on their levels of sickness absence?
I ask this because that can be an indication of the state of morale
of staff. If Frontex is being asked to do too much in too short
a time that might be a helpful indicator as to whether that is
the case or not.
General Laitinen: Thank you very much for that
question. During the two years of the agency's existence we have
been at the edge all the time when it comes to human resources
and the operational and other types of expectations. There are
some challenges that we have had and we will have in the future
in recruiting staff. One is of an administrative nature and others
are related to the seat and the Community salary system that we
apply. Generally speaking, we have been in a permanent emergency
situation for two years and if we did not have this pioneer spirit
from the entire staff and very high morale in relation to work,
very strong commitment to the work, this would not be the case.
I can say openly and loud that this would not be the case. I do
have some strong concerns in relation to 2008, but in the situation
where the operational budget is due to be increased by 140% we
have a plan with the budget authority to put 30% of the previous
budget's administrative expenditure into reserve which means that
we are not able to commit the salaries for the entire year for
the whole staff and that is not a good message for the staff that
a European agency is not able to guarantee the salary payments
for the entire fiscal year. That is one issue in relation to that.
We need to work hard to meet all the conditions to release the
budget reserve but in addition, in this new situation which is
anticipated, we need a 19% increase in our staff, and that is
the minimum, and adequate new allocations for the administrative
budget which would take the staff up to 189 by the end of 2008.
I would like to mention another factor which is related to recruitment
and also in relation to the existing staff, and that is what is
called the correction coefficient which means different places
within the European Union are rated at different levels when it
comes to salary levels. Here in Warsaw it is one of the lowest
figures in Europe, it is 77.6% of the salary level from the level
of 100 which is applied in Brussels and Luxembourg. These ratings
change annually, so they can go up and down one year after another.
Last year was the first time in my career, and I think it was
the first time in my colleagues' careers, when our net incomes
decreased because of the change in the correction coefficient
at the same time as when in absolute terms the cost of living
standard in Warsaw and Poland increased by a certain per cent.
This is a de-motivating and discouraging factor for recruitment.
The difference is so drastic, 100 compared to 77.6. We have had
a lot of cases in our recruitment where even at the stage of short-listed
candidates, when they learn and understand what the correction
coefficient means they have withdrawn their applications. It is
a matter of almost one-quarter of the income that they have calculated.
Q239 Chairman: Who sets the coefficient?
General Laitinen: It is the Community. The final
decision is that of the Council. It is based mainly on the statistics
by the National Statistic Services and Eurostat.
Earl of Listowel: My Lord Chairman, is there
time for one very quick question?
Chairman: Extremely quick. We are half way through
and we are by no means half way through the questions, so we have
got to get a move on.
|
