Minutes from the Troïka meeting of the Director-Generals responsible for Public Service in the Member States of the EU, Stockholm – February 2, 2001
Participants:Knut REXED, Director-General, Chairman of the meetings of Director-Generals, The Swedish Agency for Public Management
Björn BECKMAN, Director, Chairman of the WG on European Training Programmes, Office for Administrative Affairs, Prime Minister's Office, Sweden
Michel DAMAR, Secretary-General, Ministry of the Public Service, Belgium
Gérard DRUESNE, General Director, EIPA
Ulrika EKSTRÖM, Administrative Co-ordinator, The Swedish Agency for Public Management
Stephane FRATACCI, Director, DGAFP, France
Håkan FÄRM, Deputy Director-General, The Ministry of Justice
Margareta HAMMARBERG, Deputy Director-General, The Ministry of Justice
Birgitta ISAKSSON PÉREZ, Director General, The Swedish Agency for Government Employers
Anders JOHANSON, Project Co-ordinator, Chairman of the E-government WG, The Swedish Agency for Public Management
Maurizio MANCINI, Advisor, DG Personnel and Administration, European Commission
Regina MANUECO, Assistant to Director General, Ministry of the Public Service, Spain
Richard MURRAY, Chief Economist, Chairman of the IPSG WG, The Swedish Agency for Public Management
Raymond PIGANIOL, Head of department, DGAFP, France
Carmen ROMAN Riechmann, Director General, Ministry of the Public Service, Spain
Göran RODIN, Director, The Ministry of Justice
Lars SÖDERSTRÖM, Desk Officer, The Ministry of Justice
Peder TÖRNVALL, Director-General DS, The Ministry of Justice
Silva TOIKKA, Advisor, Chairman of the Troïka sub-group, The Swedish Agency for Public Management
Ubaldo ZITO,Deputy Director, DG Personnel and Administration, European Commission
Opening of the meeting by the Swedish Presidency
Mr REXED, chairman and Director-General of the Swedish Agency for Public Management welcomed his colleagues at the Troïka meeting held by the Swedish Presidency. Mr REXED then presented the proposed agenda of the Troïka meeting.
The secretariat of the Troïka
Mr REXED gave the floor to Ms TOIKKA, who presented the work of the secretariat. The Director-Generals (DG:s) decided in Strasbourg last year that a permanent secretariat should be created. Its main tasks should be to prepare, plan and follow up the meetings of the DG:s. The secretariat had its first meeting January 18. The secretariat is composed of representatives from the Troïka countries: Ms TOIKKA (chairman), Mr SÖDERSTRÖM (S), Mrs POLEUNUS (B), Mr PIGANIOL (F) and Mr MONTERO, Mrs Mañueco (ESP).
The web-site for the co-operation of the Director-Generals.
Ms EKSTRÖM informed about the web-site of the Swedish Presidency, as having the function of an information library and a working tool. The Swedish Presidency has an aim to work in an open and interactive manner. The web-site is hence open for, and to a certain extent dependent on, contributions and interaction from all Member States. Such contributions should be sent to Ms EKSTRÖM who will update the web-site on a continuous basis. The content and structure of the web-site will thus evolve during its existence.
The 36th meeting of Director –Generals in Uppsala
Mr REXED presented the draft agenda of the DG meeting in Uppsala, May 17-18, 2001. Mrs CARMEN emphasised the political importance of the modernisation of the European Commission and thought this should be discussed in a more global forum. Mr FRATACCI asked if there will be any meetings with the ministers and if any political matters will be raised. Mr FÄRM explained that since the conference on eGovernment, which was supposed to take place in May, was cancelled, the Swedish Presidency was considering organising an informal meeting with the European Commission and the ministers in the summer.
Mr DAMAR suggested a link between the Member States and the European Commission’s present work on governance and proposed the idea of having a permanent team continuing working on these questions during the Belgian and the Spanish Presidency. Mr ZITO welcomed an open information channel between the DG:s and the Commission, even on an informal basis. The Commission would like to invite the DG:s in order to inform them about the forthcoming White Paper on Governance, but also to exchange opinions on the various topics (March 13-15). Further, Mr ZITO explained that from his perspective, three aspects of interest for the DG:s existed:
- New Governance (
-The Commission’s new policy on externalisation which was distributed during the meeting. This report is presently under discussion in the Council.
-The Communication on Human Resources, which the Commission is working on at the moment but will be presented February 28, 2001.
Mr ZITO thought the two first aspects being of greatest interests for the DG:s.
Mr DRUESNE commented on the use of the word European Schools of training in the agenda, which could easily be misunderstood.
Work in progress on main agenda items – The Working Group (WG) on eGovernment.
Mr JOHANSON presented the work of the eGovernment WG. The creation of a working group on the use of information technologies by administrations was decided on the meeting of civil service general directors (Strasbourg, November 9-10, 2000). The function of the group is to collect and exchange information carried out by each member State in connection with eGovernment; to reflect on benchmarks requested by the ministers; to analyse the impact of technologies on the organisation and quality of work within administrations of Member States as well as to propose supportive measures. Issues presently under discussion are:
-The EIPA study
-The need for pan-European e-services
-To support the development of indicator in the Commission eGovernment WG
-Possible areas for an eGovernment action plan
-The creation of a common web-site
Mr DRUESNE proposed that 4 or 5 examples should be selected at the Uppsala meeting, among the 30 mentioned by the MS public administrations in their answer to the preparatory survey. EIPA could prepare case studies on those 4 or 5, which could be later presented to the DG:s perhaps during the Belgian presidency. Mr DAMAR thought it to be too early for the national administrations to hand in the answers already by February 20. He suggested two elements should be added; firstly the issue to facilitate citizens’ and businesses’ access to the administration; secondly the importance to consider the impact of e-government on the work of the administration itself. Each country should chose which way to put forward. Mr DRUESNE answered that the questions are quite straight forward and it should not take long to answer. The initial idea was to give the Member States freedom to form the answers but the enquiry can be more precise if needed. Mr FÄRM suggested there should be a systematic way so that the presentations can be conformed, i.e. indicating certain aspects which should be looked upon such as usefulness and costs. Also he suggested to add the question on internal use of knowledge management within the administrations. Mr REXED concluded that the questionnaire itself should not be changed but that somewhat more guidance should be given.
The question concerning a common, permanent web-site for the Member States’ national administrations was raised. Mr ZITO described the Commission’s web site “CIRCA”. He was suggested CIRCA to be used as a tool for the permanent web-site of the DG:s. He invited to a technical presentation and discussion concerning CIRCA before the Uppsala meeting so that the Swedish Presidency can propose a permanent site before handing over the Presidency. Mr REXED agreed that an Extranet with special co-operation was needed as the present web-site was constructed under the Swedish National Administration. Mr ZITO suggested the creation of a small group on technical issues before the WG meeting on March 8-9, with representatives from the national administrations, which could propose a portal or structure of a common web-site. Questions such as who should make contributions to the web should be raised, or the degree of participation of the Commission and the application countries. The idea is to create an information library which can be used ten years from now. Mr JOHANSON commented that the problem is not so much the technical aspects of a web-site, but to make sure that important and useful information from the Member States is being received. Mr REXED welcomed the initiative and concluded that a quick assessment was needed. Mr DAMAR emphasised the importance of the secretariat being informed on the development. Mr ZITO agreed.
The WG on Innovative Public Services (IPSG)
Mr REXED gave the floor to Mr MURRAY, who informed on the past and present work of the IPSG. The work of IPSG now under way includes:
-Initiating and organising the 2nd Quality Conference for European Public Administrations.
-Proposing an institutional and financial solution for the continued use and spread of the CAF.
-Continuing the work on service indicators, which involves an initiative from Italy to find such indictors in all areas of great importance to citizens and businesses.
Stimulating further international benchmarking activities, which involves the British initiative to set up a European benchmarking network.
Mr MURRAY brought up the idea of establishing a resource centre at EIPA and a network of corespondents for the CAF in the Member States. Mr DAMAR stressed the importance of having both a central unit (EIPA) and decentralised units in the Member States instead of only a network of correspondents. The national units should be responsible for pushing the use of the CAF in the Member States. Mr FRATACCI explained that France already has an “centre de ressource” for the CAF on a national level and emphasised the importance of attaching the correspondents to national units responsible for the CAF. Mr DRUESNE proposed that EIPA could organise training activities concerning the CAF, and gather information in a European database on how the CAF is implemented on a national level. Mr MURRAY will put forward the suggestion of securing that the correspondents are attached to national units on the next IPSG meeting on February 12-13.
A representative of the Swedish Presidency asked the Spanish Delegation who would be the host country of the 2nd Quality Conference for Public Administration.Mrs. ROMAN explained that, taking into account, firstly; that certain countries in the IPSG working group had expressed the preference to delay the Conference, and secondly; that the Swedish Presidency had stated the need of including the CAF among the objectives of the Conference, it would make it impossible for Spain to host the Conference, although the Spanish representatives have expressed its willingness to do so. Considering these two facts, Spain supports the Danish offer to organise the Conference. Mrs. ROMAN added that Spain is willing to collaborate with Denmark in this task.
The modernisation of the Commission and its effects on national administrations
Mr REXED stressed that the reform process within the Commission is very important and that it aims at making changes in the financial control system and the personnel policy as well as developing a new externalisation policy. He also agreed with the analysis made by Mr ZITO earlier concerning areas of interest to the DG-meetings. Mr REXED added that the Swedish focus will not be on the reforms themselves since there already exists forums for that, i.e. the Council, the EP and also the Commission itself. He suggested that our focus should be how certain parts, such as the new externalisation policy, might affect our national administrations. Without going into details, the national administrations should ask themselves what for example the new externalisation policy or the forthcoming White Paper on Governance would mean to them. Ms TOIKKA asked about the Belgian question from earlier in the morning; whether this should be a permanent issue in the Mid Term Programme? It was agreed that this should be decided later on.
The Medium Term Program
Mr REXED gave the floor to Mr SÖDERSTRÖM who gave a short presentation on the proposed Medium Term Programme (MTP). So far the MTP is mainly descriptive and should only serve as a first input. In the ministers view the document to be presented in Uppsala should give a framework and a proposition on future co-operation. Also it should be considered how the co-operation should evolve in the three main areas as well as if there are any other areas of co-operation. For example, the enlargement issue was brought up during the secretariat’s Troïka meeting. Mr PIGANIOL thought that the list on future challenges would not be complete without the issue on enlargement. He proposed the creation of a matrix which would reveal how challenges and answers crossed each others’ paths.
Other issues
The French Proposal
Mr PIGANIOL wondered if the enquiry that the Commission had distributed to the national administrations in March also could be of use for the Member States and not only the European Commission. Mr ZITO answered this was not a problem for the Commission but considering that the report was on Council level at the moment, it was rather a question which should be given to the Member States. A summary from the Council will soon be available. Mr REXED agreed that this summary would be a good reference to see the divergence in the different Member States.
The Social DialogueMrs ISAKSSON PÉREZ referred to the discussion in Strasbourg concerning the contacts with the Trade Unions (TU:s). The DG:s decided that in the future, it was to be presumed that all the TU:s will be invited to the same meeting, i.e. separate meetings with the TU:s will not be organised. Further, Mr ISAKSSON PÉREZ notified that she had been informed by the TU:s that they presently are trying to co-ordinate themselves so that they jointly can meet the GD:s. The meeting in Strasbourg realised the importance of the public employers’ to be represented in the social dialogue at the EU-level. This question ought to be carried further. Mrs ISAKSSON PÉREZ further informed about the existing plans to organise a meeting between the Troïka and the TU:s in Brussels, in the beginning of May. During the meeting information will be given to the TU:s on questions/themes which will be treated at the Uppsala meeting. Mrs ISAKSSON PÉREZ also told that the TU:s might have an interest in, in some way, participating in the GD:s activities with the applicant countries. Further, the TU:s are inquiring about information on the results of the Mobility WG.
Mr FRATACCI stressed the importance of carrying the question of representation of public employers further. Mr ZITO pointed out that both eGovernment and mobility are suitable subjects to discuss with the TU:s. He also raised the question concerning the TU:s’ participation in the working groups. Mrs ISAKSSON PÉREZ referred to the standpoint of the DG:s in Strasbourg which indicated that this question has to be discussed further by the DG:s. Mr REXED concluded that ad-hoc meetings between the TU:s and the WG:s on themes in the WG:s’ programme of work, should not be seen as a rule but as a possibility as was decided in Strasbourg.
The Meeting of Directors of International Schools of Public Administration
Mr BECKMAN informed that the next meeting will take place April 5-6. The conclusions from the Lisbon summit is on the agenda as well as a presentation on the development of the programs and ideas for other forms of collaborations.
Mr ZITO explained that the European Training Programme (ETP) is organising a seminar (the first out of three) on antifraud policy. A call for tender will be made for the other two seminars.
The WG on MobilityMr RODIN presented the work of the Mobility WG and informed that an informal (Troïka) meeting will take place in Brussels on February 9. The Commission, France and Belgium are invited to discuss the future work of the WG, and particularly the agenda of the next meeting of the Mobility WG later this spring. Mr REXED noted that the work of the Mobility WG will report to the meeting during the Belgian Presidency.
The Council Meeting
Mr REXED gave the floor to Mr TÖRNVALL who reported on the work of the high-level group, created by the ministerial meeting in Strasbourg. The purpose of the group, which is chaired by France, is to co-ordinate the strategy on better regulations and identify areas of collaboration. Priority is given to areas which are of interest for businesses and citizens. Both the Commission and the Member State level should be considered. A report should be ready in early March and give examples on:
-better initiatives on regulations within the Commission
-best practises in the EU
-unresolved problems on national level
-other proposals
Following aspects have been mentioned as suitable for co-ordination:
- systematisation of impact assessment on businesses and citizens (UK)
- consultation (DK)
- simplification of existing rules (Italy)
- codification (France)
- structures (Germany)
The final report is to be examined at the European Council meeting in Belgium, autumn 2001. The issue on developing a common method for evaluating the quality of regulation will be dealt with later on. The Council meeting in Stockholm in March should recognise the importance of these questions.
Mr PIGANIOL asked who will be responsible for a continuous work on better regulations and added that this might be a subject to discuss at the DG-meeting. Mr REXED noted that the DG:s were not given the mandate to work on better regulations.
Mr TÖRNVALL said that the high-level group will continue its work as planned and co-operate with the Commission. If the DG:s want to be informed about the work of the group at a later stage he will provide such information.
Troïka meetings
Mr REXED thanked his colleagues for the participation at the Troïka meeting and informed that the Troïka will have an opportunity to meet in Brussels in connection with the information to the European Trade Unions. A Troïka meeting will also be held in Uppsala on May 16.
1
STATSKONTORET
Statskontoret/Troïka.min.0202.doc