Kallas:'‘Vereinfachung ist ein sehr komplizierter Vorgang'[en] 

Commissioner, a t the beginning of your mandate, in the  interview  that you gave to Euractiv in January 2005, you spoke a great deal about the simplification of procedures. You stated at the time: "I sometimes find it very difficult to know what I am responsible for." We are aware of the recent decision on financial procedures but we also learn that the role of civil servants is getting more complex. Have you progressed on this?

Simplification is a very complicated exercise. In terms of responsibility, I don't see that there is much confusion. The director-general signed the Annual Activity Report, which is also signed by resource managers, so that's a very clear responsibility. The Commission has discussed these issues several times, and all Commissioners have shared the view that there is also clear political responsibility, so I don't see any ambiguity.

And the procedures?

If you look at my domain concerning the Paymaster's Office, for example, there are clear signs of simplification - we have several procedures that are simplified and which will be simplified further. We no longer have the old paper slips or mission statements, but of course fiscal management still puts us in a very controversial position, where from one side we must – we want – to simplify, particularly in the area of direct management. For instance, a very simple example - we are urging that more money be given to projects in the shape of lump sums, but there will still be a reaction from the field, 'you cannot give the same lump sums to Oxford University and Warsaw University."

Overall, have things been simplified, or not?

A little. A little.

And do you still hope to get more done by the end of your mandate?

Yes, I am working on the career-development review proposals, and there will be simplifications in what is one of the most complex areas, because rigidity supports transparency and the reliability of systems. 

You said that you would be in favour of simplifying EU officials' salaries, surpressing most bonuses and perks. You said that you wanted a system in which we could say, this is a salary, and there are no other bonuses for Christmas vacations and so on. Have you made any progress?

In fact, this problem was not too important – at the moment, we don’t have any additional payments. We have no Christmas gifts, nothing. It’s very fixed, it’s very clear.

There is the 'prime d’expatriation', which is very substantial.

But this is in the staff rules. I don't have any intention to open staff rules, that's clear. But you asked about 'gifts for Christmas', and these don’t exist, and really any kind of additional payments that are not in staff rules don't exist. Whatever we will do during our mandate will and must match with staff rules.

So in that aspect, you have been an agent of status quo?

Yes, salary issues and the pension system is out of my hands.

How would you grade yourself, on the changes that you intended to make initially? And where do you want to be by the end of your mandate?

I hope that we will move ahead in the areas of IT and modernising e-governance. This year will already see the heads of cabinet holding their meetings online, so that will definitely also be at the level of Commissioners, so huge IT changes will be made there. Concerning the appointents issue, we have ensured that appointments based on merit. This is not an easy issue, because we also respect member states' concerns about their people, and there is a certain goal to respect geographical balance. But still, I can clearly say that appointments are merit based.

So that’s one of your main achievements?

Yes. I must say that I could not in the beginning estimate how complicated this issue is, but it has the support of the Commission president, and we have appointed and promoted people based on merits.

Secondly, concerning administration and personal issues, where I think I have made some progress, is to create more team spirit, and separate the nucleus within this machine. Of course, this is with Commissioner Margot Wallström's assistance too, because people told me at the beginning that we have split based on the different political views and priorities of the European Union, so one desire has been to engage people via training processes and lunchtime debates and other forums to increase the feeling of ownership. Of course this will take time before the culture changes.

So, you have fulfilled the majority of your objectives?

I think I can be satisfied. And, also, the contact with staff and unions, while sometimes complicated, has been improved. We have had good co-operation with staff units. 

Commissioner, the transparency initiative is very much in the news at the moment, exactly where it should be. You previously stated, concerning the decision to go for a voluntary as opposed to a mandatory register for lobbyists, that you would be "ready to trust the profession". For how long, and how long before you switch to a compulsory system? 

It’s one year. Concerning this issue...the political decision is made. There are of course plenty of technicalities on how the voluntary website register will work, but with time, everything will be solved.

Unfortunately, the actual implementation of transparency for agricultural subsidies will come after the start of the review of the financial perspectives, which is a pity.

Yes, well, OK, this is Europe…things take time. I believe that during our mandate, we just have to convince member states that this has to happen. Two countries in the beginning, 12 when the Council made the decision. I have visited numerous member states, and had a lot of interviews and public appearances. Secondly, the register [for lobbyists] is a huge step forward. OK, people can say that 'look, this is voluntary and it doesn’t work'. It will work. It will work. There will be a register, and the vast majority of lobbyists will join the register. And then this will be a very bad situation for the lobbyists who don't join, and…

Is that a threat, Commissioner?

No, but from a professional viewpoint, everything will be visible. Questions will be asked as to whether lobbying organisations that don't join have something to hide, by not disclosing their financial background. And for officials, for Parliamentarians, it will be very uncomfortable to deal with these kinds of organisations. If you ignore the register, you cannot be successful. And I am happy that this decision was made, that the register will be there, and the main tool that is provided by the register is a legitimacy, not access to documents. [Editor's note: Privileged access to certain information for lobbyists was considered, then dropped.] 

Just to reiterate, you’re completely confident, 100% confident of the register's success?

I'm very happy about this decision, and the register will be in place. There are a lot of technical problems, and there will be delays, but there will finally be a register that clarifies the landscape of interests being expressed in Brussels.

Obviously, the media stands for transparency. On the consultancy side, people were surprised by the extent of the financial disclosure required. Could that lead to a number of them not registering?

I must say that you are absolutely right - [some people] have expressed huge surprise [at the extent of financial disclosure]. Nobody should be surprised - this was announced from the beginning, in all my speeches.

It seems for some of them that the devil is in the detail, they are not opposed to broad figures, but that they are reluctant to have mandatory publication of commercially sensitive or confidential financial information, which is indeed a principle [of non-publication] that is applied in other areas of Commission work, such as competition policy. So, how would you answer this?

We have confidence in them. We ask for an honest declaration of their financial background. They can do it. We need honest background, and this is a matter of declaration of the relative weight of clients. Without that, it's pointless. If you have a register where you have…and at the same time, you have very clear requirement to endorse and open the background.

In the UK at present, they are talking, as they have been for some time, about the introduction of ID cards, which are now obviously widespread across the rest of Europe. The argument that's always put forward in their favour is ‘Why should you not have an ID card, do you have something to hide?’ However, perhaps people who object to registering believe that it's the thin end of the wedge, perhaps they believe that enforced declaration of information is to follow. Would you agree?

No, it's absolutely the opposite. If there's a reluctance, and if there are complications in establishing this register, there is a danger that my successors or Parliament will take it over…that this Commission proposal has failed, now we must go to mandatory regulation based on the United States model, which asks for the disclosure of very confidential financial information.  

When you said the next step, that the mandatory stage could be introduced in a year, what would be the legal basis for this?

Everything is possible. I still hope that this will work without any mandatory approach, even after all this debate on financial disclosure.

You said, regarding accounts sign-off, that the political context in the run-up to the Parliamentary elections is relevant, and perhaps it is relevant also to the transparency initiative. How do you think that the Parliament would react to proposals to make transparency mandatory? How would that affect the spirit around the EU in the run-up to the elections?

I don’t know. I would have a rapporteur in Parliament, Tomas Ruiz; this transparency initiative will have also working contacts with the secretary-general of two institutions, concerning how to make the existing registers and the existing requirements inter-operable. And also the personal integrity issues are likely to become the next big issue – I have several times expressed and proposed this approach to Parliament, and I have only ever received positive feedback. I don’t think that anybody, until we really can say that this has failed, will come up with mandatory regulations. During our term, it's difficult to imagine that we would even have enough time to propose something.

Regarding transparency on comitology, if the transparency initiative is successful, do you see the likelihood of there being an accountability initiative, specifically, is the Commission likely to release the names and job titles of the around 3,000 experts, people who sit on the expert committees that actually advise the Commission on policy? Will that information be released?

First of all, I must say that we have published the names, titles and backgrounds of special advisors to the Commission. So this is published. 

That's not very many people...

What is really required from us? Under comitology, these are not permanent experts. They are sent by member states and may change frequently. So there will be a conciliatory committee...We have a website already with the names of those that we know of. We also know that some of the lobbyists who are asking for this, it's not for transparency, but for facilitating the lobbying of the members of the committee. We have also ordered a study of all legislation that is adopted in member states concerning the personal integrity issues, conflicts of interest. This study will be ready before 1 July, and then there will be a Green Paper or a Communication on personal integrity and conflicts of interest.