1-001

HEARING OF CANDIDATES FOR THE POST OF EUROPEAN OMBUDSMAN

MONDAY, 25 NOVEMBER 2002___________________________

1-002

IN THE CHAIR: MR GEMELLIPresident

1-011

Hearing of Mr Wuyts

1-013

Wuyts, Candidate Ombudsman. – (NL) Thank you, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are various trends within the Ombudsman field at the moment. The first important trend is that of the traditional Ombudsman who, originally from northern Europe, has spread across the world via Denmark and New Zealand. The second trend emerged some 10 or 15 years ago, with the primary emphasis on extending the Ombudsman's remit to include human rights.

Why am I saying this by way of introduction? Because within this traditional model from the first era, there are actually another two different trends. One of these works on a purely, or predominantly, legal basis and the other gives more consideration to the principles of sound administration.

The first seven years which Mr Söderman served here correspond to the period required in all fledgling Ombudsman institutions, namely the period during which the legal framework has to be defined. He has done this in such a way that the legal framework within which we need to operate has now nearly reached completion. In my opinion, what could, and should, be added therefore – and Mr Söderman has already paved the way for this – are the principles of sound administration. That does not mean that they do not exist. We have the code of good administrative conduct that Mr Söderman has drafted. However, I am mentioning this to illustrate why it would be useful – and I am really saying this on my own behalf – that after an Ombudsman who is a legal expert and has a background in the traditional Ombudsman institution, I, with a background in political sciences, public administration and principles of sound administration, would, or will, start shifting the focus slightly.

Needless to say, this ambition is restricted in time because the period that is left is only the second half of what remains of Mr Söderman's term. However, I think that he has paved the way so effectively that more emphasis can now be placed on this second trend.

Why – and this is something I wish to underline – should we emphasise it? Because the work of an Ombudsman is not merely a legal matter; it is not only about complying with rules and regulations. It also relates to the wider political and administrative culture, which, although, needless to say, delimited by a legal framework, goes

beyond it. If we consider the criteria that need to be taken into consideration by Mr Söderman, but also by national Ombudsmen, such as fair play, for example, then this is something that, although it cannot be captured in a legal framework, is still of major importance.

I know that you are asking yourselves questions. The same thing happened six years ago when I was the first to apply to become Belgian Ombudsman in the Belgian Parliament. The question that was put to me straight away was how it is possible to become an Ombudsman without being a legal expert. Well, after six years, I can say that if one can rely on a good team of sound legal experts – and Mr Söderman's team is one such team, Mr Harden, for example, not only having a fine reputation within the European Parliament but also outside it – the time has come to give non-legal approaches a chance.

This is the first point I wanted to make. The second point is: why Europe? You will be able to glean this from my CV, so I am not going to spend too much time on this. Since 1968, when I graduated from the University of Louvain, until today, Europe has featured as one of the focal points of my activities in research, in education and in setting up a European Masters in Public Administration. During the last three years of my term as Ombudsman, my European colleagues elected me as one of the directors of the International Ombudsman Institute, and out of the four directors who work within the European sphere, they elected me as vice-president for the European Region. This illustrates that I have for a long time had an eye on what is happening in Europe.

One point that I shall not enlarge upon due to time constraints is the opportunity to be at the helm of an establishment, in other words the management aspect. Suffice for me to say that six years ago, we started from scratch. Two Ombudsmen – my colleague is, as you know, also standing for the post of European Ombudsman – with a secretariat that had no resources at all at the time. In other words, the Office of the Federal Ombudsman has grown into an organisation that is currently manned by 38 to 40 people.

Thirdly, my CV states that in the early 90s, I was responsible for drafting the Government Information (Public Access) Act in Belgium. We were one of the last in Europe to do so, not the very last, but still one of the last, and in the early 90s, a start was made on changing the civil servants' statute, accountability for government actions and also the Government Information (Public Access) Act.

Consequently, when I say 'back to Europe', as a reason to stand here for Ombudsman, then this is nothing new

6 25/11/2002

that has come out of the blue, but the continuation of a trend that actually started nearly 30 years ago.

By way of conclusion, I should like to focus on the Ombudsman's role itself. The legal framework defined by Mr Söderman and relating to access to administrative documents, to the principles of sound administration and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must now be accomplished and must be sustained, and this will take a few years. The new Ombudsman will therefore have the task of further defining this framework and of persevering, and in this respect – and this is my final point – the raising of the European Ombudsman's profile is of the utmost importance. The incentive that was given for this via the website is of key importance, and the liaison publication sent from the European Parliament to the European, national and regional Ombudsmen is equally very important.

The final point that is not included in my explanatory statement but that I am imparting with all due respect as a personal opinion, is the fact that one be of a certain age in order to fulfil this role. The Ombudsman should not start too young, but should not be too old either. This is to do with independence and with not being tied down to career prospects, not being tied down to the question: what will I do when I finish here? No, going for the post of Ombudsman should be done at a time when you say: when it is over, so be it, then I will retire or not, as the case may be. This was my argument when I was 54 in Belgium, and, having turned 60 last week, it is still one of the arguments to say: now is the time to go for it.

1-015

Marinos (PPE-DE). – (FR) This is also the first time that I have taken part in a procedure of this kind. I would like to ask Mr Wuyts to give us a few specific examples, one, two or three specific examples of things he would do during his mandate as European Ombudsman, some things which could help to develop the specific role of the Ombudsman, as he said, from the legal point of view, and also from the point of view of managing governance.

1-016

Ford (PSE). – (FR) I have a couple of brief questions. I am not sure if you have read the article by one of our colleagues published in the Luxembourg press, which strikes me as stating that the position of Ombudsman is a waste of money. I would like to know what you would say in defence of that office. Also, could you give an example of what you would not do, in the light of what Mr Södermann has done? And finally, what is your view of Article 155?

1-017

Di Lello Finuoli (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Very briefly: if you were appointed Ombudsman, what do you intend to do, particularly in those countries that have never had an Ombudsman? Basically, Italy is one of the very few countries in the civilised world not to have an Ombudsman. This is also the case in many of the countries involved in enlargement. In this respect, a great deal of work will have to be done in the area of

human rights, but also in the area of public administration.

How do you intend to tackle the considerable challenge of enlargement and the challenge posed by these countries, which have never had an Ombudsman?

1-018

Wuyts, Ombudsman candidate. – (FR) Let me respond to the first question, as to what I would do, as European Ombudsman, in terms of legislation and good governance? Well, in the short term, I would continue in the same vein as Mr Södermann by giving instructions regarding the Convention and I feel that we must try to put what Mr Södermann said into practice.

As far as good administration is concerned, I would say that its principles are established, but that we are only at the beginning of the process. We have seen this in Europe for some time now. Work can begin as soon as a principle is established. What we must do now is to build on what Mr Södermann started. He produced a plan on the basis of interviews with his national counterparts. He also visited us. We must now put this into practice and this is taking time, in Belgium, for example. And we have seen what has happened in the Netherlands. As for improvements in the current situation, that still does not mean that these have taken place in the administrative and political culture. We have therefore reached a memorandum of understanding with the administration to find out exactly how these wonderful principles could be put into practice. This is a long-term job, because we must gain the trust of the administration, yet European public administration has been around for a long time and there are a number of areas in it into which the institution of Ombudsman has, to some extent, descended from on high. Establishing a relationship of trust between the Ombudsman and the administration will be a lengthy process.

The question of wasting money was raised. The saying goes that if our institutions are to work well, it is our institutions that must determine how much money is needed. My personal view is that the Ombudsman forms part of the democratic system. I feel that this is an important aspect that enables us to bridge the gap between citizens and their administration. This will cost money and if money is squandered, in the sense that the objectives are not met, the relevant bodies will then be able to ask the necessary questions. The amounts themselves are not great. If we look at the baseline figures, in Brussels and in Strasbourg, there are approximately 40 people in total. This is almost the equivalent to the total number for the whole of Belgium.

What would I do differently to Mr Södermann? Nothing for the time being; it is too early to say. He was able to lay only the foundations of what we need to work on in the future. And we need another two, five or seven-year timetable to see if all this must be changed.

I was slightly puzzled by the third question. You are asking ‘to what extent it is appropriate to stop work at 65

25/11/2002 7

years of age?’ If it is not necessary in statutory terms, it is not necessary at all. In Belgium, we can, in principle, continue indefinitely. I feel, and we have said this in Belgium, that if one does this job for two six-year periods, in other words for twelve years, that is enough. The reason for this is that after twelve years, you yourself become or can become an institution, whereas an Ombudsman must establish a personal relationship with the people that he represents. So, if one does this role for twelve years …

1-018-500

* * *

– (NL) whether this is at the age of 65, 67 or 70, that will depend on the candidate's personal constitution. What is crucial for me is the maximum period in office.

As to Mr Di Lello's third question, it is true that Italy does not have a national Ombudsman, but does boast a number of active to very active regional Ombudsmen, and also a few less active ones. The Ombudsman's traditional function has therefore already been established. I should actually ask you why Italy does not yet have a national Ombudsman. Do not forget that a country like Germany, for example, does not have a national Ombudsman either. In that case, in our international institution, Germany is represented by the chairman of the German Bundestag's Petitions Committee. This is quite remarkable, for this is, of course, a political function more than anything. Luxembourg too, already has legislation ready, but does not yet have a national Ombudsman. If we extend this notion, not only to your country, but also to enlargement, then this is one of the new aspects I have noticed in my European role: namely a traditional model and a model which focuses on human rights.

I think that we as Ombudsmen have the duty to help expand at European, national and international level. This is exactly what we did. At the request of the Bulgarian study centre, we, including two colleagues – or rivals should I say – Mr Diamandouros and Mr Monette, visited the centre a couple of months ago in order to help Parliament draft legislation to set up an Ombudsman function. This is what they are all asking. Last week, we were in discussion with Latin American Ombudsmen in our European capacity. This is not a European matter, but they are all asking for very specific help in developing these functions. The role of the IOI – and Mr Söderman, the European Ombudsman, is also a member of the IOI – meets this need, and I think that we should give them this help. I think that this strengthens democracy.

It is precisely all those new democracies that add new features to the field in which Ombudsmen work, which is an enormous enrichment for those who, like us, can identify more with the traditional model.

1-020

Lambert (Verts/ALE). – This is another question about the future role of the Ombudsman and where you see it going. Is there a potential role for the Ombudsman in the

control of the national application of European Union law in future and, if so, what might that role be?

1-021

Camisón Asensio (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, I would like to ask a very concise question. I have listened very carefully to what Mr Wuyts has said to us, but I have heard nothing about his intentions in terms of contact and collaboration with the Committee on Petitions. In our experience, the European Ombudsman and this committee have worked and cooperated very closely with one another. Is that your intention as well?

1-022

Κoukiadis (PSE). – (EL) Mr Wuyts, I listened very closely to the beginning of your speech, when you tried to persuade us that no legal knowledge is required in order to exercise this office. I have no wish to disagree completely, because that too is just one opinion, just one approach. However, what I did notice was that you played down one issue, which is that 95% of the Ombudsman's work is evaluating citizens' complaints about the failure to apply legislation. The Ombudsman does not evaluate abstract matters; he has to deal with cases such as these every single day because the law is not being applied. So some legal knowledge is required. These are not generally political duties.

But let us leave that to one side. I did not understand and would like you to clarify the following: you said that the new way forward is good governance. And what exactly does good governance mean? It means proper application of the law. These are not castles in the sky. Why play down good governance and then refer specifically to good governance which, as far as I am concerned, is the primary target, although other qualifications are important here too? In other words, I was not persuaded by your argument. Perhaps you should explain yourself further?

1-023

Wuyts, Candidate Ombudsman. – (NL) Thank you. Mrs Lambert, you asked whether, when applying European law, we should, at present, see the future role as a task to be fulfilled by the European Ombudsman or the national Ombudsmen.

Since European law automatically applies, and will increasingly do so in future, it is a question of distributing the tasks evenly between the European and national Ombudsmen. There is still a division at present. The importance of the European Ombudsman and the national Ombudsmen working together lies precisely in the fact that after a while, one big organisation of Ombudsmen should be created that is able to examine who is able, and in what way, to achieve the best outcome on the basis of European, Belgian or other law as it then stands.

So I believe that cooperation will become increasingly important, but we are at present keeping the two distinctly separate. Once it has been established as Belgian law – if I may quote the Belgian example – then the control thereof will, in principle, fall within the remit

8 25/11/2002

of the national Ombudsmen; in other cases, the European Ombudsman remains responsible. However, there are increasing efforts being made to avoid this conflict, insofar as you can call it a conflict, and to ensure that the Ombudsman's office within Europe is not faced with contradictions at whatever level, even down to the local level.

I should now like to turn to Mr Camison's second question about this committee's intentions. I regret that this has come across in this manner. I really put it down to a lack of time. Cooperation with the Committee on Petitions, and I am now also partly speaking on the basis of my six years' experience in the Belgian Parliament, is absolutely vital. When we started out as a new institution in Belgium, we had to find out what exactly the role is of the Committee on Petitions and what it is that we do.

At Belgian level, we found a mode of cooperation, a distribution of tasks that is now, six years later, working effectively. In order to achieve this – and I am not going to go into the detail of the specific agreements – we actually had to spend the first three years building up mutual trust. This was because we, Belgian Ombudsmen, were new and because the committee was uncertain as to our role. This is no longer necessary within the European Parliament, because they have been working together for seven years. This bond of trust between you and the present European Ombudsman can be adopted by the new Ombudsman. Since you trust the new Ombudsman and believe in his way of working, this cooperation must, in my view, remain very intense and should be further developed. You are right, though, I did not mention this at the beginning, but selected a number of points I wanted to highlight instead.

Mr Koukiadis, I am delighted with your question, as that is naturally not the case. If I said it in that way, then it is incorrect. However, I think I said it in a different way. A very firm legal framework is needed in the Ombudsman profession. I said that the Söderman team boasts such a framework. Why can I say this from my Belgian perspective? Because within the team, except for one other person, I am the only one who is not a legal expert. It is this cooperation between the two on the basis of a firm legal basis that is important. I can only say this therefore insofar as the legal framework is already in place and has a good reputation in Europe, including within the universities.

It is then indeed more a question of the implementation of the law, and this is more in the European than in the national, certainly Belgian, framework. However, I am convinced that after some time, this other aspect of sound administration will generally become more prevalent. After all, what is happening within Europe is somewhat similar to what is happening in all young democracies – if you will allow me to use this term – and in a way, Europe too is a new young democracy, namely that first of all, it is necessary to invest years in developing the legal framework and to ensure that one is extremely well equipped for the task ahead before the

second wave of comments, which are more related to sound administration, can be addressed.

All in all, however, and I am taking the argument one step further still, the role of the Ombudsman should be to transfer those non-legal principles, which are currently referred to as principles of sound administration, or soft law, into hard law, so that they become legally binding and thus become a legal instrument that can be enforced. This is what is happening in the European Parliament and in most other cases too.

Indeed, what does an Ombudsman do where sound administration is concerned? He tries to convince the administration when something is unacceptable, even if this is not prescribed in law. The example that springs to mind is time periods that can be extended indefinitely, unless prescribed by law. Such time periods applied in Belgium in the area of taxation. If nothing is prescribed by law, then you have nothing to fall back on. It must, therefore, be possible in those cases to say that it is unacceptable for people to have to wait for 6, 9 or 12 months. In other words, as soon as such a provision is laid down in law, you have something firm to fall back on.

I therefore repeat what I said at the beginning of my speech. What matters is that a firm, legal basis is in place, but I do not think that the Ombudsman should necessarily have this quality, as long as this legal basis is firmly embedded in the Ombudsman organisation. In my view, it would be ideal to have someone like the former Dutch Ombudsman, Mr Oosting, who was legal expert as well as public administrator, because he combined the two aspects in one person. I, on the other hand, only have one qualification.

1-024

González Álvarez (GUE/NGL). – (ES) Mr President, in fact, one of the questions I intended to ask has already been put by Mr Camisón Asensio. For us in the Committee on Petitions it is very important to have a good relationship with the Ombudsman. I agree with him that the money spent on the institution of the Ombudsman and the money spent on this Committee of Petitions is money well spent, since they are the two institutions with a direct relationship with the citizens.

I will comment on that direct relationship. In the past we have had certain problems with other institutions of the European Union in terms of accessing all the necessary documentation on particular petitions – which are very well-known to the Committee on Petitions.

In reality, this affects our work but it also affects the credibility of the institution of the Ombudsman and the Committee on Petitions amongst the citizens. What is your view of transparency, about which so much is said, but which is not always put into practice, and how do you see the relationship between the Ombudsman and the other European institutions, not only the European Parliament but also the European Commission and the

25/11/2002 9

Council? For example, one of the problems we always highlight in our reports is that the Council – which is sometimes the institution that should respond to the complaints reaching the Ombudsman and the Committee on Petitions – is never present. So, what is your view on transparency, on the one hand, and the relationship with the other institutions on the other?

1-025

Descamps (PPE-DE). – (FR) I just wanted to know, Mr Wuyts, how you see the role of the Ombudsman evolving in the future? What original contribution would you wish to make, and how do you plan to develop the human aspect of this position? Because this role does indeed serve as the link between European citizens and Europe, and the Ombudsman is the only means for them to express their views.

You have spoken at length about relations with the administration, with which you are very familiar, but I would like to know how you can bring the role of Ombudsman closer to the people of Europe. I think that we always complain about the fact that the Ombudsman is not very well known in Europe, and I feel that people are the key to raising awareness of him. That is the question that I wanted to ask you.

1-026

Cashman (PSE). – I would like you to give recommendations on a problem that we are encountering at the moment, and I put this question as the rapporteur on public access to Council, Commission and Parliament documents. All too frequently, we are seeing, certainly within the Commission, a tendency to rely on data protection rules to prevent access to documents. What recommendations would you make to overcome this very serious problem?

1-027

Wuyts, Candidate Ombudsman. – (NL) Mrs González, your question is basically about transparency and the application of the institution’s remit, especially in relation to the Commission or from the point of view of the Commission and the Council. It is a problem that is bound to arise when a new institution is launched in an existing framework of institutions that already have a rapport with each other. In my view, as far as I can make out as an outsider, the legal framework, in terms of the relation between government information and public access, is sufficiently in place to be able to work with it.

Something that is not sufficiently in place, and I think that this also is impossible after only seven years, is the adaptation of, what I termed a political, administrative culture, not only with a view to familiarity with that framework, as everyone will be familiar with the laws and regulations, but also to applying it to day-to-day situations.

The response to the other question concerning transparency, namely: what can be done about it, is to work on what I mentioned at the beginning. There is traditionally a bond of mutual trust among the different institutions. I therefore have no cut-and-dried answers,

and this also applies to Mr Cashman's last question. I have no ready-made response as to how this could be done in the short term. Traditionally, also in national states, it is easier to build a good relationship with an administration than with a government. I am speaking in national terms. It is therefore easier to deal with this whole throng of officials who take on board new concepts relatively easily than to deal with a government similar to let us say the Commission or Council in this context, which view this institution as an intruder. This is how it is. The only way of addressing this issue is, I believe, to be permanently present for a number of years, to continue to hammer home the same message and to persevere.

I think that everything is in place legally speaking but it takes a good number of years, give or take a few.

Mrs Descamps, I am really pleased with your question because it touches upon one of the points I was unable to clarify earlier on, namely the issue of developing a greater bond. I do not entirely agree that the Ombudsman is not present anywhere, that he is absent, etc. Mr Söderman has made quite a few attempts in this respect, starting off in the development phase, but there is no mention of this. He is now known among all national and regional Ombudsmen. This is of key importance within the framework of the network which I have already mentioned, where he enjoys a good reputation.

This is only the intermediary level, however. The important level is that of the individual citizen. This is, I believe, even more difficult at European level than it is at national level. Since the scope of powers is now being extended and the bond between the people and the administration is being strengthened, this situation is set to improve. There is the added problem that if a campaign is launched to gain popularity among the people who need you, that campaign only really touches the people who need you at that particular time. If, therefore, we were to launch a big campaign today, all the people who do not have a problem at the moment will have forgotten about this campaign by next week. Such a campaign will have been very expensive in a number of cases, but it should actually be repeated at regular intervals.

To avoid spending too much money on this, it is necessary to pursue an awareness policy. I do not know whether I am allowed to say this within the European context, but I should like to give you a Belgian example. Sometimes to the displeasure of the MPs who are not allowed to do this, we have always accompanied our Belgian campaigns with photographs. We in Belgium have always said that the Ombudsmen are Mr Wuyts and Mr Monette. These are faces, these are people, rather than an institution. As I said a moment ago, we should avoid becoming merely routine or administrative in our dealings.

10 25/11/2002

I realise that this is more difficult at European level. There are more people, but it is important that this name, this face, this institution is known via all kinds of means. This is only possible by pursuing an awareness policy and by using all the means available. A website is only one of those means because – without placing a percentage on it – the large majority of the people who need it frequently do not avail themselves of it.

It is therefore important to develop this technological dimension while at the same time trying to be present in other, more popular, more accessible media. Only in that way is it possible to establish this direct bond, in my view. This direct bond is not only an issue concerning the Ombudsman and the European citizen; it is also an issue with all European institutions and the European citizen. They must, therefore, be able to work together in order to bring Europe as a whole closer to the citizen. I failed to mention this at the beginning but it is possible and must be done, for there is no way back.

Mr Cashman, I have no recommendations. I have read this document very closely because, as I mentioned in the introduction, this public access to documents was an important issue in Belgium ten years ago. I can therefore identify with the problem. What is happening there is an exact replica of what happened in Belgium. There is, for example, your problem in connection with secrecy if documents contain names. We were faced with this issue ten years ago, and the government stated that if a name is included, then this is an issue of privacy, in which case the document should not be made available. We then reacted by saying that this is not what privacy legislation is about. The same line of reasoning applies in the European context. Privacy legislation pertains to your family, some aspects of your professional life, possibly health and such like. But if an individual is mentioned – since you are asking me for my opinion – also particularly in their professional context, then this does not fall within the scope of privacy, but within the remit of public life, public administration. There is no doubt about that.

The basic principle for me is therefore that, barring a few exceptions, everything should be public. We have seven exceptions in Belgium. There is still plenty of scope for discussion. It then becomes a matter of weighing up the criterion of public access against, for example, state security, to name a classic example. However, this activity of weighing up must be done on a daily basis for each dossier. This is why I think it is so important that an Ombudsman is elected whom you can trust to be capable of doing this. When I said that the Ombudsman should not be too young, this means, therefore, that he should not say in his youthful enthusiasm that anything should be possible. It takes maturity – and I have a licence to say this in view of my birthday last week – to say: how can those two be balanced against each other? Which of the two carries greater weight? The framework is there, but it is the Ombudsman's specific role to weigh up individual cases on a daily basis.

You are aware that in a number of countries, although this public access falls within the Ombudsman's remit, there are also separate committees, for example the administrative documents access committee, which was specifically set up for this purpose because the subject area is so specific. Weighing up, however, remains important, and I am therefore in favour of absolute public access, except when in a number of very specific cases, it can be demonstrated that the exemption rule applies.

1-028

President. – The time for this hearing has come to an end. Mr Wuyts has been asked a lot of very clear questions by the Members and has given equally clear, satisfactory answers. Thank you, Mr Wuyts, for taking part in this meeting. We shall see you at the next stage.

(Applause)

1-029-500

Hearing of Mr Perry

1-030

Perry, Ombudsman candidate. – Mr President, this is a familiar seat for me but, of course, an unfamiliar role. I thought I would read my presentation out as that makes life easier for the interpreters and I will try to answer as many questions from my colleagues as possible. In my opinion, the position of Ombudsman, which as we know was established in 1995 following the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, marked a most important development in European democracy. By adopting in the European Union the role of Ombudsman so well established in Scandinavian countries, we have incorporated into Europe an important and valuable democratic instrument.

Most Member States, but not all, now have an Ombudsman's office of some sort. The titles which I believe best encompass the role, and I say these to give you some view of how I see it, are the Spanish and Italian offices, el defensor del pueblo, il difensore civico, the defender of the people, the defender of the citizen. I see this as the most noble of all democratic roles.

Protecting the rights of individuals in their dealings with bureaucracies is an important role for any parliament and it must certainly be so for the European Parliament. As with all parliaments, we have various formal means for us to protect the rights of individuals. These include the right publicly to question the Commission and the Council, the Petitions Committee which, we all know, has an important role, the Ombudsman, as well as our more general legislative competence to frame laws to protect the interests of the citizen.

Throughout my political career, before and during my period in the European Parliament, I have always regarded the protection of individual citizens' rights, regardless of political allegiance, to be an important aspect of my work. As a member of the European Parliament, I have given high priority and commitment

25/11/2002 11

to the membership of this Petitions Committee where individual citizens can and increasingly do bring their specific concerns. Sadly, this committee is little known even by members of the European Parliament. It is the committee which we put at the end of our formal list of committees. Nonetheless, it provides a crucial interface between European citizens and European institutions. It is the committee with special responsibility for relations between the Parliament and Ombudsman and I have always been pleased to work closely with Jacob Söderman over the time he has served as European Ombudsman. In my opinion, he has established the post on firm foundations and provided a good base from which to take the role forward.

Despite the establishment of the post of Ombudsman and its other democratic institutions, the European Union often faces the charge of having a democratic deficit. I believe this charge is over-emphasised and false, but nonetheless it is a problem that needs to be addressed. I see the problem as an insufficient awareness of the role of the Ombudsman – even amongst European Parliamentarians, as I have said, there is often only a limited appreciation of the role. I suspect many national parliamentarians from across the European Union have no idea that such a position even exists.

I do not criticise Jacob Söderman for this situation. Euro-barometer after Euro-barometer show that even the major institutions such as Parliament and the Commission themselves are little known or understood. Jacob Söderman has frequently stated in his annual reports that it would be counterproductive to have a major profile-raising campaign. The complaints that would be attracted could fall well outside the competencies of the office and thereby engender disappointment and cynicism on the part of citizens. He has however established a first-class website that is a model of openness and transparency. The problem is that many people do not know how to look for the website in the first place.

I believe the Ombudsman needs to work much more closely with members of this Parliament and do more to apprise the citizens of the role. MEPs are in daily contact with citizens across Europe. They will know when a citizen's problems are best dealt with by parliamentary question or by reference to the Ombudsman.

To deal with the powers of the Ombudsman, I have been disappointed to note cases of specific petitions where European Union institutions, in particular the Commission, have rejected the findings of the Ombudsman where maladministration has occurred. They have rejected his findings and proposals for either a friendly solution or where he has made a critical remark. These cases are rare, but that they exist at all must be a matter of serious concern.

For the position of Ombudsman to have respect and thereby engender the confidence of the officials of the institutions, and more importantly the general public, the

findings of the Ombudsman should only ever be rejected in the most exceptional circumstances. The integrity and reputation of our institutions is not sufficiently well established in general public opinion that we cannot afford to have certainty that complaints of maladministration will be objectively assessed. The Ombudsman must be able to rely on Parliament.

During his mandate, Jacob Söderman has been responsible for a number of important own initiatives. I particularly applaud his work on public access and on anti-discriminatory employment practices by the institutions. It was my report, proposed and adopted by Parliament in 1997, that first put forward the idea of a code of good administrative behaviour. I was pleased when that was endorsed by the Ombudsman, who came forward with specific proposals, and again when the Parliament adopted by a large majority that report in September 2001. Without a clear route map of what constitutes good administration, it is difficult for the officials to meet expectations and, above all, for the citizens to know what they are entitled to expect. That is why the code must be binding in nature and consistent across all institutions.

Whilst the Commission has its own voluntary code, it is illuminating to note certain subtle but nonetheless significant differences in what the Commission regards as good enough for the citizen and what Parliament and the Ombudsman consider as necessary to constitute good administration.

Just to explain a few of these, the Commission code makes no formal requirement for courtesy nor offers any mechanism for an apology or a correction when mistakes are found. Secondly, whilst the Commission states that departures from normal administrative practice need to be justified it does not state how this obligation is to be met. The Ombudsman's and Parliament's code, on the other hand, requires the grounds for any such departure to be recorded in writing. The Commission code prescribes certain types of discrimination but unlike the Ombudsman's proposed code, fails to recognise ways in which that can exist.

May I conclude by making some points in support of my candidature. I would bring a European experience to the role gained from my membership of this committee. I have served on the joint parliamentary committees with Slovakia and Hungary, and it is important that we take account of the candidate countries. My current parliamentary experience would be of assistance in the discharge of the role since an Ombudsman needs to understand the Parliament and needs to be able to work with the Parliament. As a parliamentarian I have perforce performed a political role within one political group. I do not repudiate my political beliefs but from professional experience as a lecturer in politics and from personal disposition, the requirement to act with complete political neutrality and objectivity is not something that I would find difficult. I want you to be in no doubt that, were you to entrust this role to me, you

12 25/11/2002

would be entrusting it to somebody who believes that it is not difficult to be both a good European and a good Englishman.

1-031

Banotti (PPE-DE). – You have not left us an awful lot of questions to ask as your statement was clear and comprehensive. One area that still remains to be enhanced in the role of Ombudsman is, of course, the public perception and knowledge of this service. The way it has actually happened in my own country is that the Ombudsman has managed practically every year to get one particular case that really impacts on the public and evokes a public response.

Mr Söderman said that raising public awareness and public information is one way of doing it and I can understand why he would have said it. In my opinion probably the most effective way is some of the judgments and the way they are actually communicated to the public. Have you any particular views on this aspect? As you rightly said in your presentation, many of the European institutions are not widely known or recognised. A human interest story every year would do an enormous amount to increase the public profile of the Ombudsman. I would like your comments.

1-032

Cashman (PSE). – You have hit two nerves with me, on public access and the democratic deficit given my role as rapporteur for the Parliament on public access to documents. How would you overcome, or what recommendations would you make, regarding the fact that the data protection rules are being used more and more, especially by the Commission to deny access to documents?

1-033

Lambert (Verts/ALE). – I must say this an unusual situation. You have talked about a number of the dimensions of the work at the moment. I am interested to know whether you might wish to see particular additions or expansions to the role of the Ombudsman, for example in the European Convention, included in the Treaties to actually expand the role or to firm up certain aspects which exist already but may need to be reinforced.

1-034

Perry, Ombudsman candidate. – Starting with the first of the three questions. Mrs Banotti, you asked me what we could do to improve the public perception and awareness of the Ombudsman. You will be well aware of the English expression that success breeds success. Of course, if there are successful cases where people feel they have a genuine grievance and that grievance is redressed by the Ombudsman there is nothing quite like that to achieve that end. Of course, good relations with the press are important and we as politicians know it is not sufficient just to issue press releases, it is necessary to work quite positively to cultivate a link with the Brussels press corp. Certainly, they would by on my visiting list at a fairly early stage.

The present Ombudsman's office has in fact an extremely first-class website. I did suggest that it needs to be better known, but that it is there is important. I mentioned there are 626 Members of this Parliament and it is they, as much as anybody else in their daily, weekly contact with constituents, who need to say that one of the ways in which a situation could be addressed is by going to the Ombudsman.

Then we have to build on success and we have to have fewer cases where the Commission simply rejects the Ombudsman's findings. When that happens, people say that this is a waste of time.

Mr Cashman, I agree with public access and we have cooperated in the past on some efforts to get public access. That is not to say that responsible people do not recognise that there are certain documents that any administration or organisation must have the right to treat confidentially. There have been problems in the past where even the Ombudsman himself has not been allowed access to documents. That, to my mind, is unacceptable. I would probably exclude future developments where security is an issue. Other than that, we cannot really contemplate a situation where institutions say the Ombudsman is not a fit person to access any secrets that the institutions have. He is there, in the Spanish term, as the defender of the people. Data protection is sadly being abused too often. It is being used as an excuse and it was never designed for that.

As far as the expansion of the role is concerned, let me be honest with you, if there is one thing I want to achieve even from being a candidate here for the post of Ombudsman, it is to ensure that we get that code of good administrative behaviour. The Parliament has voted for it overwhelmingly and yet still the Ombudsman is receiving letters from the President of the Commission and from the other institutions saying that they do not see the need to have a binding and uniform code. I want to give publicity to that and would certainly make it a key objective of my period as Ombudsman.

1-035

Di Lello Finuoli (GUE/NGL). – (IT) I agree that, in order to have an Ombudsman with a high profile, we need very visible measures, as Mrs Banotti said, not least in that it may be that the most vulnerable citizens, those who have most need of the Ombudsman, have absolutely no idea what a website is.

Now, I would like to ask you a specific question, Mr Perry. Does your programme provide for the Ombudsman taking practical steps and making on-site visits without waiting for any documentation to assess a situation and interview people with complaints?

I will inform the new Ombudsman of the extremely rare but important case of an Italian woman who has been abducted – she is now in Great Britain – and, because of the Mental Health Act, is not being allowed to go back to her family in Sicily. However, nobody has ever been to ask this woman whether she wants to go home or not.

25/11/2002 13

Mr Perry, does your programme envisage these sorts of measures too?

1-036

Μarinos (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, as Mrs Lambert said, this is an unusual situation, to be putting questions to and requesting information from Mr Perry who, at least as far as I am concerned, certainly knows far more than I do. I should like in particular to ask him how, in his view, the offices of the European Parliament in the various Member States might be used to bring about real cooperation with the Ombudsman; perhaps they could spread the word about this institution and, more importantly, help him in his work by taking in petitions and then passing them on to him, given that, as we have heard, those with the worst problems generally have no access to or do not even know about the Internet and this new technology.

Secondly, I should like to ask, because this issue has been tabled repeatedly in our committee, how we can achieve real, efficient cooperation between the Ombudsman and the Committee on Petitions, with the Ombudsman perhaps assisting the committee so that it can perform its duties more quickly and more efficiently. I do not know if the Ombudsman's services could help make our job easier.

Thirdly, I did not understand if you are in favour of the Ombudsman's decisions being binding or merely advisory; I would think that decisions which try to help citizens deal with their problems should be binding. Otherwise, what value do the Ombudsman's recommendations have if the national authorities or the European Union have no intention of applying them?

1-037

Κoukiadis (PSE). – (EL) Mr Perry, of course if you are elected, we shall have to say goodbye to you in the Committee on Petitions and we shall lose your good offices. I trust you will bear that in mind.

Be that as it may, allow me, if you will, to take a slightly different tack. You are not the only candidate because, if you were the only candidate, it would be a very straightforward matter, but you are competing with other candidates. I see that your CV is much shorter and leaner than the other candidates' CVs. If we have to tell our fellow Members why we prefer you, because do not forget we must choose from several candidates, what will help us champion you above the other candidates with long CVs, experience, several languages and other qualifications which come in useful to an Ombudsman? Perhaps you should enlighten us here because your CV is indeed the most meagre of all.

Secondly, I am sure Mr Cashman will have no objection if I round off his question on the matter of the balance between personal data and public access to documents. You know better than I that personal data protection is the real sticking point when public access is denied. However, there it is and I should like to know your views. The theory of personal data cannot completely preclude public access, because then transparency goes

out the window. So I should like to know how you intend to reconcile the need for transparency in administration with personal data protection?

1-038

Perry, Ombudsman candidate. – You are raising all sorts of questions, let me go through them. I have always believed that if we try to run anything, for example the work of this committee, if it is done simply in this room it would not achieve its objective. You have to get outside meeting rooms, outside Brussels, and that is certainly true of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman needs to be able to go to the various countries where the citizens live and be able to see and be seen, that is very important. Of course, there is limited time to do all that one would want to do. I am always conscious that there are at least two sides to every issue, and that is if you are lucky, sometimes there could be half a dozen alternative perspectives. You only get that appreciation in full on occasions by actually going outside.

Just as an aside, it is perhaps not a well-known story, but the post of British Ombudsman rejoices in the title of the parliamentary commissioner for administration. This actually came about because there was a character detained in a British lunatic asylum who was so aggrieved that when he ultimately got out he was determined to find some way of dealing with it. He got himself elected to parliament, I might say as a Conservative member of parliament, which says a lot for the antecedence of conservatives. He got from the lunatic asylum into the Conservative party and then campaigned and ultimately a Labour government introduced in Britain the post of commissioner for administration. So therefore, the poor lady in Italy perhaps merits a visit.

Mr Marinos asked about the use of Parliament's offices. Most certainly there has to be good, close, effective cooperation with the MEPs. That again means not just here in Brussels, but in Athens, London, Rome, wherever they are. Again, I would want to see that all of the offices had good literature, good displays so that they could cover that. We would all agree, the same position applies that those who do not know much about the internet are equally not likely to know that the Parliament offices exist in our capital cities and, in some cases, outside of them. That would be a permanent, ongoing task.

Binding or advisory? It would be wonderful to make them binding. I have no doubts at all there are legal reasons and reasons of responsibility, so that it is not going to be possible. No Ombudsman anywhere in Europe has that power to make binding decisions. As I said in my presentation, where the Commission or an institutions fails to accept the recommendation of the Ombudsman, there really have to be very good reasons. Sometimes you can achieve more when the Commission of its own free will and volition accepts the advice of the Ombudsman. I would take a reserved position on that.

14 25/11/2002

Mr Koukiadis, one of the ideas I would propose is that membership of the petitions committee should be compulsory on a rotating basis for all members of the Parliament. There are some colleagues who have great thoughts, great work and a great contribution to make on foreign affairs and on budgets but they ought all the time never to forget the people that we are representing and what our policies introduce. I would be quite happy to discuss with the Parliament some way of developing that.

I am sorry, Mr Marinos, I missed the point of the Ombudsman cooperating with the petitions committee. Yes, there is more that the Ombudsman's services could do to cooperate in perhaps developing a way of investigating some cases so that we are not always in the hands of the Commission. In point of fact, we have been fortunate in the way the Commission have dealt with this committee and they have given us very good positions. Sometimes I have a feeling, as do other colleagues, that we are rather too much in the hands of the Commission.

You mentioned my qualifications to be the Ombudsman. I have to be quite clear, I have been a hands-on politician. I have a long political career going back through local government in Britain and for nine years I was the leader of a large district council. That certainly taught me the problems of citizens dealing with bureaucracies and also the problems that bureaucracies have themselves to be efficient.

By profession, I was a lecturer in politics. I read British law and British politics at university. I scratch my head sometimes and wonder, would it be good to have somebody totally steeped in British law which has very many concepts that are actually quite alien to European law? I have no doubt at all that whoever is the Ombudsman wants to have qualified lawyers from across the European Union who are used to and well understand the different legal traditions that we have.

In lecturing in politics, one of the issues was to be objective and never to say well that side is always, always right and that side is always, always wrong. This perhaps makes people in my own party wonder where I stand but I come from a professional background where that is the case.

On the final point about data, as far as possible we want a clear principle that there must be as much transparency as possible. That really has to be the guiding principle. This requires judgement and that is what you would look for in an Ombudsman. Sometimes, I think I am getting too old to be doing all of this but there are some jobs where a bit of wisdom and experience over the years is helpful. You may know, my daughter is just about to embark on a political career. She is a great girl, but I have learned a few things she has yet to learn.

1-039

Santini (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr Perry may remember how, when we elected the first European Ombudsman in

1995, we were more curious about the novelty of the office than confident that it would actually be useful.

My first question, Mr Perry, is as follows. Irrespective of the merits of Mr Söderman, has the Ombudsman succeeded in giving the office the role and the importance among the citizens that it was originally intended to have?

This is my second question. Seventy or, perhaps, eighty percent of the petitions sent to the European Ombudsman by the citizens are rejected as inadmissible because the Ombudsman himself does not have competence in the area concerned. What do you see as the way forward? Would you like to see this competence expanded and the Ombudsman given greater powers to act and respond, or are things alright as they stand with the Ombudsman having very limited powers of action?

1-040

Ford (PSE). – I was intrigued by your idea of making membership of this committee compulsory for all Members. Although having looked around the committee on a number of occasions, I would have thought compulsory attendance rather than membership would prove more useful in spreading knowledge of the committee.

I also liked your story about the move from the lunatic asylum to the Conservative party. I always thought is was the other way around.

Firstly, you may be aware of an article published in the Luxembourg press. A colleague not on this committee basically said that looking at a number of cases investigated and the amount of money that was spent, the position of Ombudsman is a waste of time and resources. How would you answer that criticism not only for us but for the general public, who are rather sceptical about European Union expenditure?

Secondly, what one thing that Mr Söderman has done would you change? We all have a very high opinion of the work he has undertaken, but there clearly must be some things that you would like to change.

1-041

González Álvarez (GUE/NGL). – (ES) Mr President, there is no question that what Mr Perry has said demonstrates his experience in the Committee on Petitions. Mr Di Lello had asked if he was prepared to engage on the ground. The truth is that as a member of the Committee on Petitions he did accompany all of us on the ground in relation to certain petitions, one of them in my own region.

Certain questions I intended to ask have already been put and I would like to ask three specific questions.

Firstly, do you believe that the Ombudsman can do sufficiently good work within the current budget?

Secondly, do you consider the team of forty people to be sufficient or would more be required?

25/11/2002 15

And, finally, a problem that I believe both we and the Ombudsman himself face: reducing the time it takes to respond to the citizens in order to improve the credibility of the two institutions amongst the citizens.

Does Mr Perry have any idea about how to speed up these timescales and how to make the procedures quicker in order to respond more quickly to the citizens?

1-042

Perry, Ombudsman candidate. – Has the position of Ombudsman been a success? I certainly can remember when I joined this Parliament and was appointed to the Petitions Committee. Lord Plumb, who appointed me to the culture and education committee, though I had spent twenty years trying to get out of education, asked whether I would join the Petitions Committee. I asked what it did and he said it was the complaints department of Europe. I thought that I would never be out of a job if I was working on the complaints department.

We have a responsibility to listen to the citizens. The citizens needs to have trust in their democratic institutions. I say, often at great political price to myself, that I am a convinced European and that the European Union is a force for good. Whether it has been a success, I really have to question. We have made serious mistakes and there have been fewer mistakes with regard to the Ombudsman's office than elsewhere. The Ombudsman has to be there to help the other institutions. In no sense is the Ombudsman there to make the work of the Commission, Council, or Parliament and the other institutions harder. The Ombudsman is there to enable the public to say they have confidence in the European institutions.

Sadly, all sorts of problems crop up and they inevitably will in the real world. The Ombudsman is acting more positively to help us achieve that success rather than detracting from it. Should he have a broader remit? Should some things be declared inadmissible? We have to accept that there are some people who will complain about anything and will start off with their local town council, work through their Member of Parliament and go on everywhere. There is perhaps no answer, no solution to that. It has to be clear that there are limited competencies and those have to be spelt out.

We all know, amongst the people who write to us, what is called in English, vexatious litigants. There are people who, whatever you say to them, are never going to be satisfied. The Ombudsman, like any institution has to find a way of saying, I take on board what you say but am sorry I can do nothing. Those cases should be kept as limited as possible but we have to recognise that they exist.

I have not read the article in the Luxembourg press, but I totally disagree. It is not a waste of time and it is an important use of time and use of resources. Luxembourg is one of the three Member States that does not have an Ombudsman. Perhaps they do not see the need, perhaps

it is such an enlightened and good administration in a small city-state, there is no need. I would offer no comment on Luxembourg's administration. Germany has no Ombudsman and neither does Italy, but it has regional Ombudsmen.

I am a democrat, and twelve out of fifteen Member States think an Ombudsman is a good idea. Most of the democracies of the candidate countries, the new member states, are moving down the road of having an Ombudsman. The one I know best, Slovakia, has not quite adopted it but is moving in that direction and they should be encouraged to do so.

Regarding change, I made the point very clearly about the code of good administrative behaviour. I would be very strong and vigorous about that point. We do need to improve the personal relationships between the Ombudsman and the Parliament. I get the impression that Mr Söderman has treated this committee with utmost respect and we work with and know him well. I wonder whether the conference of presidents and other people wielding power in this Parliament know the Ombudsman. Perhaps we should develop an institutional way of ensuring committee presidents, group presidents, etc. come into closer and more direct contact with the Ombudsman.

Budgets are never enough but if we are going to enlarge, and we are going to enlarge, we have to make sure if we have an office of Ombudsman that the resources are there. In Britain we have a device that the budget for an office like the Ombudsman's post is what is called, and I hope the interpreters can translate, is a direct charge on the consolidated fund. That is a device to take it out of the political argument, the political hurly-burly, and to have an analysis of what is required and not put it in the annual budgetary procedure. This may not be possible in Europe but I would certainly want us to find a solution.

The Ombudsman has a time frame that he will respond to every enquiry within a week but that there will be a considered response within a month and every case will be closed within a year. This is very clearly set out and all of us would do well to work to that timescale.

1-043

Fourtou (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr Perry has given such clear answers to my colleagues' questions, which have themselves been so relevant, that it is difficult to think of anything else to ask you, so I shall instead ask for your opinion: there is an opportunity for you to join us, and you have the experience of the Committee on Petitions. So how do you perceive cooperation with the Ombudsman? Do you think that you could be even more effective with regard to the Ombudsman and the Committee on Petitions? And, for example, do you think that we could have personal contacts on a rather more regular basis, since we are examining the report on the Ombudsman but we do not see him very often attending the committee? Do you think this is a way for us to improve cooperation?

1-044

16 25/11/2002

Perry, Ombudsman candidate. – It is clear that this would be a step for the Parliament to take and it is the Parliament's responsibility. Does it want a parliamentarian to take on the role of Ombudsman? That would be a change in tack, that is sure. Clearly as well as formal contacts there will always also be informal contacts. That would help in the discharge of the responsibilities of Ombudsman.

Perhaps I should conclude with a story from British history that impinges slightly on that of France. One of the most famous figures in British history is Thomas à Becket who was appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury by the English King because he thought Thomas à Becket would be the King's man. The moment he was appointed as Archbishop, Thomas à Becket said he now served God. We are not talking about serving God, but though I would value and use informal contacts, the Ombudsman has a responsibility that has to transcend former links with the Parliament. I would do it honestly and fairly but certainly objectively.

1-045

Μarinos (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, my question is this: as the Committee on Petitions, could we take recourse to the Ombudsman and ask him to exert pressure – in what form and with what efficacy I do not know – to make the Council attend meetings of the Committee on Petitions in future? When I say take recourse, I mean recourse based on the regulations governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties.

1-046

Perry, Ombudsman candidate. – My views on the desirability of the Council attending meetings of the Petitions committee are well known to most regular members of this committee – it should certainly attend them. Similarly more Members should find a way to be involved and so should the Council.

Many of the problems that the European Union faces exist because of improper application of the rules and regulations in the Member States. This is the problem we have with the accounts. Eighty per cent of the money being spent in the Member States is not properly accounted for and yet it is the European Union that gets the blame.

Ways of working with the administrations of the Member States are important. Member States would not want a European Ombudsman to interfere in the administration of the Member States, but he should perhaps work more constructively and proactively with national Ombudsmen or their equivalents. Certainly, the relationship between the centre and the Member States is an important issue.

1-047

President. – Thank you, Mr Perry, for your statement and for answering our questions. We will see you at the next stage.

(Applause)

1-048-500

Hearing of Mr Monette

1-049

Monette, Ombudsman candidate. – The document you have received gives a quite detailed overview of my understanding of the functions of the European Ombudsman, my action programme, my profile and my curriculum vitae. In 7 or 8 minutes I will only have time to focus on a few subjects so I would like to start immediately with page 2, which is my action programme.

If I am appointed European Ombudsman I would like to focus on two or three priorities.

The first would be to strengthen fundamental rights, good administration and administrative transparency within the EC institutions and bodies. On page 2 I have explained six different measures to reach this goal. I will concentrate on just a few of them: the monitoring of the strict respect of the right of access to official documents and at the same time – because it is linked – a resolute and clear position on the broad interpretation of the data protection rules by the Commission, which would undermine the citizen's right of access to official documents. This is a major concern at the moment within the Community.

The second action would be to demand the Commission enforce the code of good administrative behaviour and, in addition, make it binding by way of EC regulation on all administrations and bodies within the Union.

The third action, which goes much further, would be to make the Charter of Fundamental Rights binding on Community bodies and institutions as well as on the Member States.

This is an intensive programme but is fundamental for the construction of the Union.

1-050

(DE) The second priority of my plan of action would be to improve the work practices in the European Ombudsman's office, its public profile and the way it works with other bodies. I have listed a number of things on pages 2 and 13, but time does not permit me to describe them all to you. One example might be the systematic consultation of people who would liaise with the public and be constantly in touch with them. It is through these actors that the Ombudsman's office could become better known. Another way of doing it could be the organising of meetings between the Ombudsman and parliamentarians at European, national and regional level. I have been organising these for the past two years in Belgium, and they are very useful, as the parliamentarians can provide very important contacts between the Ombudsman and the public.

What I have also done in Belgium over the past two years is to write articles in important newspapers every other week. Cooperation with the media could be a third line of action in raising the Ombudsman's profile.

25/11/2002 17

1-051

(ES) With regard to the working methods of the European Ombudsman, here also, on page 3, six possibilities are listed, but I do not have time to discuss them all. For example, I could discuss the possible establishment of the principle of professional secrecy shared between the Ombudsman and the officials or groups called upon to testify before him, principally so that they cannot use their professional secrecy to refuse to cooperate with the Ombudsman.

That is what is done in Belgium and I believe it is a good system which could possibly also be used in Europe.

Another action would be to grant the Ombudsman the power to submit cases to the Court of Justice, something which is not currently possible.

The final action would consist of conferring on the Ombudsman – in close cooperation with the European Parliament, since this is an important issue – the competence also to deal with complaints concerning the poor implementation of Community law by the Member States themselves. This is an important issue, which I do not have time to go into, but this might be a major action to undertake were I to be appointed European Ombudsman.

1-052

(FR) Now, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in the time I have left, I would like, in addition to the work programme that I am proposing and which you will find described in more detail in the documents that I have circulated to you, to describe my candidate profile, as I feel that, over and above the work programme, the candidate profile is equally important.

I have therefore submitted an application which, politically speaking, is neutral and independent, not out of a lack of interest, even less out of a rejection of politics, but because I am utterly convinced that independence and neutrality are essential for carrying out the Ombudsman's role.

It is a pleasure to note, Mr President, that the 50 Members of the European Parliament who supported my application are from the centre, the left and the right of Parliament. This is obviously because they understood the underlying philosophy of my application, and I can only welcome this.

I am a professional Ombudsman, being an Ombudsman in Belgium, and this experience means that I meet one of the conditions specified in a European Parliament decision, namely that of March 1994, confirmed in March 2002, on performing the role of Ombudsman, which stipulates, as we all know, that the Ombudsman is chosen from either national and regional Ombudsmen or from senior judges. One of these two conditions must be met in accordance with Parliament’s decision of March 2002, in order to apply to become European Ombudsman. It just so happens that I am also a lawyer, one of the three lawyers that you are to interview to

appoint someone to a position which – and I believe this is essential – requires a good knowledge of Community law and a knowledge of the general principles of law, which explains why, in fact, in many of our countries, Mr President, national or regional legislation stipulates that the Ombudsman must be a lawyer to do this job. I am well aware that lawyers do not always receive a good press, and rightly so in some cases. In fact, I insist that there are two types of lawyer, short-sighted lawyers and open-minded lawyers. I think I belong to the second category and for roughly 15 years my work to make the law serve the citizens in Belgium can perhaps be seen as proof of this. In addition, I know the European institutions well. I published two books on this subject, one of which, published all of eleven years ago, includes a preface by Wilfred Martens and Laurent Fabius on the desire for political neutrality. I then submitted a multilingual application, because, quite apart from the pleasure I derive from speaking languages, it is my belief that the European Ombudsman, perhaps more than any other European institution, should be able to speak at least the language of the plaintiff, of his counterparts in Parliament, his counterparts in the Commission and the Council, because – as I have found from experience on several occasions in Brussels – it is only by speaking someone else’s language that one manages to bring down barriers, and that is precisely one of the tasks of the Ombudsman.

I shall conclude, Mr President, by saying that, at 42, I am one of two candidates in their forties. At 42, one already has about 20 years of professional experience under one’s belt. As far as I am concerned, I gained this experience at the Brussels Bar, as Assistant Private Secretary to King Baudouin, as Assistant Private Secretary to King Albert II, as national Ombudsman and also as a university lecturer at the College of Europe in Bruges.

One’s forties are a pivotal age between two generations, however. So, out of the 350 million people who are interested in Europe and possibly in the European Ombudsman, half of them are at least 40 and the other half 40 at most. And in this respect, I realised, in the six year period that I have been Ombudsman in Belgium, that it is, in fact, a crucial age for bridging the gap between two generations, since one belongs to one group whilst already belonging to another.

1-054

Κoukiadis (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, this may be my mistake but the candidate referred to a three-page document. I have no such document. What is this document? From what I have understood, there is a written text describing his activities. Has it been circulated? I do not have it in my file. Perhaps everyone except me has received it? That was all I wished to ask.

1-055

President. – Of course you cannot find the text, Mr Koukiadis, because it is going to be published on the Internet tomorrow. The secretariat did not distribute it to the Members so as to give the candidates the chance to make the presentations themselves here in committee.

18 25/11/2002

1-056

Camisón Asensio (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr Monette has given us a truly impressive demonstration of his linguistic abilities. This is an important point.

You are a very young candidate, and my question is, how are you going to square your enviable youth with the experience necessary for this post?

And my final question, Mr Monette, is as follows: when you speak to us of having been in the Offices of King Albert II and of King Baudouin, did those Offices examine the petitions which came to the Belgian Crown or did you not really have any contact with the people’s petitions?

1-057

Cashman (PSE). – Thank you, Mr Monette, for that presentation and, again, may I congratulate you on your linguistic skills, especially from one so young.

I will ask the question that I have asked all the other candidates. You have touched on it already and I ask this as Parliament's rapporteur on public access to Council and Commission documents, Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

As you know, the data protection rules are being used particularly by the Commission to try to circumvent the regulation on public access to these documents. What stand would you take on this ongoing and serious abuse of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001?

1-058

Lambert (Verts/ALE). – I wanted to ask a question about enlargement and how you feel it is going to affect the Ombudsman's work, partly in terms of the quantity of complaints but maybe also the nature of those complaints and whether you think that the office currently has the resources available to it to deal with them?

1-060

Monette, Ombudsman candidate. – (ES) Thank you for your question. I do not know if my age is to be envied, but I would like to answer the question by saying that the best way to carry out this task – and this is what I have done for the last six years – is by understanding the issues.

At the beginning, when I was appointed Ombudsman in Belgium, the people said ‘Oh, 36 years old, what a young person for that job!’ Well, the only way to operate well is by gaining experience. In the Office of the King as well, the important thing is to know the facts, know the documentation and know what one is talking about. And since that time, people have respected me.

I believe that in Parliament there are many people younger than me and the same is true of the European Commission.

A final response to the question about my age. I believe that what I have said about the age of 42 is very

important (two of us candidates are in this situation): the Ombudsman is a person, or if you like an institution, who really has to listen to the people. And the European population – because I believe we can speak of a European population – is also made up of young people of 16, 18, 20 or 22 who have problems with Europe and who also have problems with the European institutions. And those people – this is true of Spain as well as Belgium, and I have experience of this – when they are able to approach an Ombudsman, not of their age, but perhaps of 60 or of 40, who has a better understanding of their problems, they realise that the question of age is something which is of benefit to them.

The second question was about my experience in the Office of the King. I was appointed to the Office of King Baudouin when I was 30 years old. I was the King’s youngest adviser. In fact, I had competence to deal with complaints, because the Crown, as in Spain I imagine, also receives complaints. But here I had another role: I was the adviser to the Head of the Office for Internal Affairs, a much more political, but neutral, area, within my duties in the Office of the King.

1-061

Mr Cashman, I thought someone would ask about Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 because it is indeed an accurate and current problem.

In my presentation I linked Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 because what has been occurring for the last year or so is that by linking these two regulations the Commission misused its right. As you know, the current European Ombudsman has tried to convince the Commission that Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, based on Article 286 of the Treaty, was adopted to protect a person's life and integrity and people's private life and not to create a right to professional secrecy.

So far, the Ombudsman has not succeeded in convincing the Commission that it was misusing Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by using Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 to repeal the former and this is why I proposed, as a new means of action of the Ombudsman, the right of referral to the Court of Justice, which exists in Spain, Finland, Portugal and Sweden. Unfortunately, in the near future the Commission will not change its mind. This is a good case to explain my philosophy of the Ombudsman's work – if he cannot reach his goal he should be helped by the Court of Justice but I should give you another answer as well.

It should be remembered by Parliament – I never forgot this in Belgium and I will not forget it if I am elected in Europe – that Parliament's Ombudsman is an agent of Parliament and together we are stronger. A close relationship between the Ombudsman and Parliament or the Committee on Petitions could help with major issues such as the one you have pointed out and another one I have been talking about – making the Charter of Fundamental Rights binding. This cannot be achieved

25/11/2002 19

unless they work together and join forces to reach the same goal. That is what should be done.

Mrs Lambert, it will certainly affect the Ombudsman's office. I apologise to Mr Koukiadis as there has been a misunderstanding and I thought everyone had received my paper. In the paper and on the website that is accessible from tomorrow, I have asked for an increase in the number of staff within the European Ombudsman's office. I have the figures: the European Parliament is asking for 740 more staff members for enlargement; the European Council is asking for 647 more staff, the European Commission 3900 in five years' time and the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance 608. Whoever is nominated or appointed as Ombudsman will be entitled to ask for an increase in staff of, for example, 10, 5, 11 or 12 people because this is indeed closely related to the increasing number of complaints the Ombudsman will receive. So far we have no idea of how many there will be.

The current Ombudsman is already addressing these problems by trying to recruit people who speak the languages of the future Member States which is another problem that will have to be dealt with.

Another aspect of your question, Mrs Lambert, was what kind of complaint the new Member States can or will put to the Ombudsman. The type of questions they will put to him will not differ from the questions he receives already from the citizens of the fifteen Member States. There will not be a vast difference in the type of problems people will put to the Ombudsman.

1-062

González Álvarez (GUE/NGL). – (ES) Mr President, in reality, I would not mind having a young Ombudsman; in fact, I believe that the average age of Members in this Chamber is rather high. It would be good to have some young Members here in the Chamber who could take over. I would like to see more young people here with us, since I believe our average age is high.

We are repeating questions because naturally we cannot invent new questions for every candidate. The questions we ask are the ones that concern us.

In this regard, what is your view of the role of the Committee on Petitions and the relationship the Ombudsman should have with this committee and with the other institutions of the Union?

1-063

Μarinos (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr Monette, I shall not repeat the questions that have already been asked. I have three questions for you that have not been asked. My first question is: I see that both you and Mr Wuyts are Ombudsmen in Belgium. Are there two acting Ombudsmen? That is my first question.

Secondly, I see that you have diplomas in social sciences, Greek and Latin. Do you speak Greek? There is no mention of it in your CV.

Thirdly, I should like to ask you, as you pointed out that the European Ombudsman has no right to institute proceedings before the Court of Justice, what you think of the idea of reporting to the Committee on Petitions and asking it to set the European Parliament's procedures in motion for instituting proceedings against the Commission on the matter of public access to documents? In other words, for the Ombudsman to ask the Committee on Petitions and, through it, the European Parliament to institute proceedings against the Commission in order to clarify this matter, which the present Ombudsman has already raised and on which there is a difference of opinion, as you so clearly explained to us earlier on.

1-064

Κoukiadis (PSE). – (EL) Your CV is most impressive. From what I can see, you have an excellent knowledge of the law and are therefore indeed more qualified than the other candidates to answer for me a question that has been raised, is raised repeatedly, a question that you will come up against. Should the Charter of Fundamental Rights be made binding? The point is, if the Charter of Fundamental Rights is made binding, whether we like it or not, it will clash with the Human Rights Convention signed in Rome.

There are three opinions as to how this potential conflict can be resolved and they must be of interest to you as Ombudsman because, as I am sure you realise, citizens' complaints in connection with the Charter of Fundamental Rights can be lodged either on the basis of the Treaty or on the basis of the Rome Convention. Do you have any views as to how this conflict might be resolved if you take up office? I think that this is a question you are bound to come up against.

Now, the question of age has been raised, although I personally think that this question should not arise. Some people may be in favour of someone older, others in favour of someone younger; I hardly think that is the sticking point. Someone older will have greater wisdom, someone younger will have greater vitality; there are pros and cons. That is not where the problem lies. What surprised me was the way you handled it; perhaps you made it sound important. You say a young Ombudsman is better because the young defend the young. Does that mean we should have another, older Ombudsman for the elderly? You yourself raised the issue, whereas I personally feel that age is unimportant and the matter should have passed unnoticed. The argument you expounded was that, because there are young people, we should defend them, so a younger Ombudsman would be better. I had the impression that your views were somewhat biased. Perhaps I misunderstood the translation.

1-066

Monette, Ombudsman candidate. – (ES) Mrs González, I have already answered the question you have put to me. The role of the Ombudsman in relation to the Committee on Petitions should unquestionably be strengthened. I believe this is what I said to Mr Cashman: the Ombudsman and the European

20 25/11/2002

Parliament’s Committee on Petitions must work together in order to be stronger.

The other part of the question referred to the role of the Ombudsman in relation to the other parliamentary committees. I also believe that in this respect it is crucial that the Ombudsman is able present his issues, his reports and his problems to each relevant committee. This, for example, is not currently possible in Belgium and makes the work of the Ombudsman less effective, but here it is possible. I believe this is a possibility which I would exploit with the agreement of the competent committees.

1-067

(FR) Mr Marinos, there are not two but four Ombudsmen in Belgium, and soon there will be five. Belgium is a complicated country. I can see smiles on the faces of the Belgians in the Chamber. It is a complicated country – a beautiful country as well – but at federal level alone, we essentially have a body of two Ombudsmen, my colleague Herman Wuyts, who was interviewed earlier this afternoon, and myself. This is quite similar, I would say, to the system in Austria where there is a body of three federal Ombudsmen, and to Sweden as well, which has four national Ombudsmen. Within the European Union, there are several countries which, at national level – and I am only referring to the national or federal level of a country – have more than one Ombudsman. We therefore do the same job, in the same offices, and so the fact that we are competitors does not prevent us from working extremely well together.

‘Kai Katagen, Kai Katasalasan’ is probably one of the only things that I remember from my five years of Greek studies. I also remember ‘psomi’, ‘kalispera’, ‘kalinichta’ and a few other words but no, I do not speak ancient or modern Greek. On a more serious note, however, even though this was said half-jokingly, you are right: in accordance with Article 230(4) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, the European Parliament can complain to the Court of Justice, which the Ombudsman cannot do. I feel quite at home in this debate, because it is a debate, or I could even describe it as a ‘battle’ that I have been waging for three years in Belgium. Belgium is one of the countries – as for the majority of the Union’s countries, I understand this, since I said earlier that, to my knowledge, only Finland, Sweden, Portugal and Spain stipulated that the national Ombudsman had the right to refer to the Supreme Court – Belgium has not laid down this right, and for three years, I have been trying to put the case, by means of recommendations, that we should be able to make use of this weapon, because I am convinced that it is useful in order to push things forward, and, in particular, as I said in response to Mr Cashman earlier, to work through fundamental problems such as the law being incorrectly interpreted by the executive. This problem exists at European Commission level, and it exists in Belgium. It is the incorrect interpretation of the law by the executive, and in a very confidential manner, that leaves no other

option than the recourse to the courts and tribunals. Yet, this option is not open to the Ombudsman.

You are going to tell me ‘why do you, as Ombudsman, not complain to Parliament, so that Parliament can complain to the Court of Justice? I think that this is an extremely slow and ineffective means, given the experience of the countries which give the Ombudsman the option to complain directly to the Court of Justice.

I would also like to respond briefly to Mr Koukiadis regarding the question of age, I am very pleased that you asked me this. For a long time, I thought, should we or should we not tackle the question of age? I said that we should tackle it, in the belief that if I did not bring it up myself, someone else would. I did not say, however, that a 42-year-old Ombudsman would be better than an Ombudsman of 67. No. I think and I have been convinced since before I was 30, that what is important is quality, subject knowledge, and that age is, in fact, merely an external façade on which we are often judged. So it was more or less as a preventive measure, Mr Koukiadis, that I wanted to bring up the issue of age, but certainly not so as to say that someone who is young is better than someone who is older or that someone who is older is better than someone younger. I think that this is a question which basically relates to subject knowledge and also to temperament.

Regarding the question of law, this is a fundamental question and I regret that you have not received the document that I distributed, because in it, I deal in detail with the principle seeking to make the Charter of Fundamental Rights compulsory. You are basing your comments on the principle that it will be achieved in some time. I would like to believe you. If only I could believe you! But I think that a long debate is on the horizon and that dealing with the issue is not a matter for the Ombudsman, but for politicians, Parliament, the Council and the Commission. That said, you asked the question of when it would be effectively binding. Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union has already dealt with the issue to an extent, by clearly affirming that the Union respects the fundamental rights as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The European legislator therefore anticipated the problem of the time when this would become compulsory or binding by saying that of these two texts, it was the European Convention that took precedence. And it is very interesting to note that in the case law of the European Court of Justice, the Court of Justice stipulates that it is effectively the European Convention of Human Rights that takes precedence over any other international human rights legislation. In affirming this, the Court of Justice is merely reiterating what the legislator states in Article 6 of the Treaty on the European Union.

1-069

Balfe (PPE-DE). – I think that the 'age' business is a complete nonsense. When I first came here, I was one of the youngest parliamentarians. I am now one of the most senior ones. I have enjoyed every day of it. I do not

25/11/2002 21

regret being my age now any more than I did then. I find it very sad that people somehow look back as though something is lost. I have not lost anything. So I do not mind what age you are. I judge people on whether I think they can do the job.

I notice one of your publications, published in Nicosia, Moving from adversarial to non-adversarial approaches – a contemporary approach in Ombudsmanship. Cyprus is going to join the European Union and some of us hope the island will be re-united. People often mention the Belgian experience when they talk about a solution to the Cyprus problem of separate communities in a state of mutual respect. I wondered what extent you feel your experience in Belgium could be of value in understanding some of the problems that Cyprus may well throw up at a European level.

1-070

Ford (PSE). – There was an article written by one of our colleagues in the Luxembourg press recently, saying that the whole office of the European Ombudsman at the European Parliament was both a waste of resources and a waste of time. I wondered how you would counter that? Like Mr Balfe, I am impressed with your age, but I am equally intrigued about how you got the post of assistant private secretary to the King. Was it open competition or nepotism?

1-071

Thors (ELDR). – To how many candidate countries have you been? Do you think that the candidate countries have good administrations, with independent courts and prosecutors? What is your view on independent prosecution in those countries?

1-072

Monette, Ombudsman candidate. – I am not sure, Mr Balfe, if your question was as easy as you thought it was. First of all, the Ombudsman does not get involved in politics. It is a very fundamental point of my candidacy that the Ombudsman is not a politician. He does not behave like a politician, answering all the political questions submitted to him. So, I will probably not answer your question in the way you would like.

By living in a difficult but beautiful country, by knowing what nationalism is and by knowing how a good understanding of, and a willingness to understand, others can sometimes lead to a solution, my experience could be helpful. Even if I am appointed European Ombudsman to cope with certain problems, the Ombudsman would not be asked to examine and help solve the problem of the northern part of Cyprus. That is not the role of the Ombudsman at all. My experience can help me to a certain extent but certainly not to solve political problems, because that is not the role of the Ombudsman.

Mr Ford, you were probably referring to Mr Goebbels' statement, which I have read. I have spoken to him about this and I understand why he said that. He told me that it was an open letter to the President of the Parliament, which the Luxembourg newspapers have spoken a great

deal about, the aim of which was to provoke reactions from his colleagues and probably from the candidates. I understand his point. That is why I included in my preliminary presentation that one of my priorities should I be elected would be to ensure greater public awareness of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is not well-known enough to the public. It is a difficult task. I have included ten measures, available on the website as from tomorrow, to increase public awareness of the Ombudsman. It is not normal, as Mr Goebbels said, that only 300 complaints have been dealt with by the Ombudsman in one year. That is not many for the amount of money invested in this position.

I would like to go a bit further, as we received the same criticism when I first started the institution in my country – I co-founded it six years ago. The Ombudsman deals with individual complaints, but also with structural complaints, which affect thousands of citizens. So, it is related to the type of complaints that we are dealing with.

I liked your last question. It was not provocative. I took it as a friendly question. No, it was not an open competition. No, I am not related to the king. I was already trilingual at that age, which helped me a lot. I was a lawyer, doing a lot of what we call pro deo – pleading on behalf of people for free. I have always been very interested in helping people. The king knew that and heard of that. That is the reason, I suppose, though you never know the reason why the king chooses you.

Mrs Thors, I have been in six of the candidate countries. It is very hard to compare our standards of public administration with standards in the candidate countries. There are huge differences between them. For example, the public administration in Slovenia, a country I have got to know, is totally different from that in Estonia. I also know Hungary quite well and it has one of the best Ombudsmen in Eastern Europe. Some of these countries, such as Slovenia and Hungary, have rapidly adopted the same standards of public administration as in Western Europe, in reaction to their recent experience. This is rather like in 1975 and 1976, when Portugal and Spain became democracies. They included in their constitutions things we did not have at that time in our country. That is the reason today why the Defensor del pueblo in Spain or the Provedor de Justiça in Portugal have more means of action than we in Northern Europe. Your question is very interesting but difficult to answer as there are tremendously different standards within the ten candidate countries. Of course, in some of these countries there are real problems of independence of the courts and of prosecutors. These are real problems we will have to face in the near future.

1-073

Sudre (PPE-DE). – (FR) I would like to say to Mr Monette that it is a real pleasure to hear him answer in his own language, which does not often happen here. You are the youngest of the candidates, and I do not see this as either an advantage or a disadvantage. I do not think that we should dwell on this matter any further.

22 25/11/2002

You have already replied to a number of questions that I had in mind. I just wanted to know one thing: what was the size of the team that you managed when you worked as federal Ombudsman, compared to the team that you would have to manage if you were appointed European Ombudsman?

1-074

Stockton (PPE-DE). – I have two quick questions. I assume from the dates in your professional experiences that as you did not know why King Baudouin picked you up, you equally did not quite know why King Albert put you down.

More importantly, one of the big issues we all face is that of asylum seekers, illegal immigrants, political and economical migrants. Do you think that for people who wish to come to the European Union there should be a mechanism for appealing to the Ombudsman? Is it something you would like to take up for humanitarian reasons?

1-075

Monette, Ombudsman candidate. – (FR) The answer is very simple, Mrs Sudre. It is a team made up of 40 people, and thus a bigger team than that of the European Ombudsman. I cannot help thinking, and this is what I was saying earlier to Mrs Lambert, that the current European Ombudsman team is, in fact, slightly small if we really want it to have all the influence we would like, being restricted to 27 people. But, to give a brief answer, there were exactly 42 people in the team.

1-076

Lord Stockton, King Albert II did not put me down. I asked to leave for a reason that I could explain to you, but not here.

Your second question is a crucial one. It is hard to answer in one minute because it encompasses everything I have just mentioned during my presentation. Should the European Ombudsman be competent to receive complaints against European rights which are misinterpreted or enforced by the Member States? This is not the case at the moment. At the moment, this is a national competence and does not fall under the European Ombudsman's remit. Should the Charter of Fundamental Rights become constraining for the European Commission and the Council, as well as for the Member States, the question one must ask is whether the national Ombudsman will remain the only one competent to supervise the correct enforcement of the Charter. Alternatively, as Mr Söderman asks – and I agree with his point of view – should the European Ombudsman also become competent, together with the current regional and national Ombudsmen? Mr Söderman and I slightly diverge on this question.

This is what I said in my introductory remarks. If elected, I would like to have a conversation with Parliament, particularly with the Committee on Petitions, to analyse the pros and cons of this position. It is a crucial position that will engage the future of the

Ombudsman's office, and put the institution on the same level as its national and regional colleagues. At present, the European Ombudsman does not have the same rights as the national and regional Ombudsmen. Sometimes it could be convenient for the European people to give the European Ombudsman more means, to be better able to cope with problems like those we have discussed today.

I am giving you a very general answer to the point you made.

1-077

President. – I would like to thank Mr Monette for answering all the questions in great detail. We will see you at the Ombudsman elections.

(Applause)

That concludes the first day of the hearings. We will continue tomorrow morning with the hearings of the other candidates.

(The sitting was closed at 5.52 p.m.)