25/11/20021

1-001

ENHEARING OF CANDIDATES FOR THE POST OF EUROPEAN OMBUDSMAN

MONDAY, 25 NOVEMBER 2002

______

25/11/20021

1-002

ENIN THE CHAIR: MR GEMELLI

President<BRK>

1-011

ENHearing of Mr Wuyts

1-013

ENWuyts,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 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 MrSöderman 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. <BRK>

1-015

ENMarinos (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. <BRK>

1-016

ENFord (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? <BRK>

1-017

ENDi 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? <BRK>

1-018

ENWuyts,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 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 …<BRK>

1-018-500

EN* * *

– (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 – MrDiamandouros 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. <BRK<BRK>

1-020

ENLambert (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? <BRK>

1-021

ENCamisón 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? <BRK>

1-022

ENΚoukiadis (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? <BRK<BRK>

1-023

ENWuyts,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 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.