HRWG BRUSSELS 20th NOVEMBER

NCP Questionnaire The Directors General responsible for Public Administrations agreed to “review the added value of the network of national Contact Points closely associated with the group”, in their 48th meeting, in Berlin, in the Resolution concerning the Human Resources Working Group. The DGs resolutions of June gave to the Human Resources Working Group the task to “review the added value of the network of national contact points.

For this purpose, a small questionnaire was prepared and sent to The Portuguese Presidency wanted to collect the opinion from all the members of the HRWG and the NCP Network regarding the state of play of the group For this purpose, a small questionnaire was prepared and sent to For that purpose the Portuguese Presidency wanted to collect the opinion from all the HRWG members and NCP regarding the state of play of the group. A small questionnaire was prepare and sent to this two addressees. NCPs HRWG members

FORM – TWO PARTS Addressees: HRWG members Structure: 4 questions Goal: General overview of the NCPs network Addressees: NCP Structure: 8 questions Goal: Work developed since January 2007 The questionnaire had two parts- one addressed to the NCp and the other to the HRWG members Composed of 4 and 8 questions respectively which goals were to make a general overview of the Network and to make the state of play of the work developed since the beginning of the year.

Replies Received: 21 From: Replies received from: Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain and The Netherlands Nevertheless these are considered a low number, even taking into account that some member states HRWG members assumes both functions – about 40 answers from both parts were expected – only one part answered making impossible to confront positions (opinions) between the two

Queries presented since January 2007 (Question 1 – Part II) LEVEL OF ACTIVITY: NCP Queries presented since January 2007 (Question 1 – Part II) Member State Number Austria 1 Cyprus Finland France Hungary 4 Latvia 2 Portugal Total 11 Nevertheless it is possible to present some results: In terms of level of activity 8 out of the twenty one MS that have replied, stated that they had requested information to other MS as we can see in this table. Some MS (Bulgaria and Romania) are not yet familiar with the functions of the NCP network thus have no representatives in this sub-group – thus didn’t present any question. Other situation happened to Luxembourg that besides never having presented any questions, was never contacted to answers to questions The questions are raised only to some MS, not to all

LEVEL OF ACTIVITY: NCP (QUESTION 3 Part II) 56% considered they had received a reasonable number of answers to their queries. Nevertheless 44% considered otherwise which combined with the fact that the questions are oriented to just some addressees shows a low answering level.

LEVEL OF ACTIVITY: HRWG members Questions presented to HRWG members (Question1.1- Part II). Besides these level of activity of NCP be considered low the questions raised in these period of time to the HRWG members were nearly in the same number (and in an average of 1 per month) an were the same.

LEVEL OF ACTIVITY: NCP / HRWG members Questions presented to NCPs and HRWG members (Question1.2- Part II). According to the answers received, the questions addressed to the NCP Network and to the HRWG are coincident in 57% of the times.

LEVEL OF EXPERTISE: 22% The level of expertise is not seen as a problem (Question 4). In fact, 78% of the respondent MS consider that the answers provided the necessary information, which suggests a high level of knowledge on the issues or the promptness in gathering it. 78%

Issues subject to query of MS to NCP: Remuneration systems; Reference date for advancement on pay scale; Loss of official position; Recognition of periods of service in the Swiss PA to periods of service in the Austrian PA; Working hours in the public sector and the police of other Member States Housing and living costs; Retirement; Eventual compulsory administrational holidays during the summer or winter time; Dismissals in the European PA; Public Servants Ethics Code. The questions presented to MS focused 10 different issues - None of them was identified in a mobility context or related to a mobility question.

Fulfilment of NCP Tasks: TASKS: To provide information in all basic issues concerning the exchange of public servants and their secondment; To provide information on place and form of publications, including use of Internet. To provide information on existing EU-wide exchange programmes and bilateral agreements. To refer the requesting administrations to the national, regional and local points in charge of personnel matters; To endow assistance to other administrations involved in case of detachments, without doing the administrative work itself. Another subject covered by this questionnaire regarded the fulfilment of the NCP tasks and before presenting its results we may list them and it can be considered that exist Two types: - Provide directly information about mobility related issues - Assist members on mobility related tasks/processes

Fulfilment of NCP Tasks: The results regarding this question show that 59% of the MS that have answered to this question stated that NCPs didn’t fulfil their tasks.

Fulfilment of NCP tasks 59% - weren’t fulfilled Lack of activity; Lack of visibility; Lack of communication in the Network 41% - were fulfilled The Network is mainly seen as a forum for exchanging information regarding all issues connected to public administrations in MS – unfamiliarity with NCP tasks Reasons indicated to justify this answers: Yes - The NCP Network encourages the sharing of experience, good practice and views among EU MS and others who are interested in the field of public administration; - The NCP Network can be an open and informal forum to share information about HR topics and it contributes to a better understanding of the European public administrations models; - The right contact person can be found and contacted immediately and questions are efficiently answered. Positive answer reflects (so we think) the unfamiliarity with NCP tasks NO - Inactivity of the Network: it doesn’t provide information among NCP nor regularly to national authorities. It exists only on paper; - Lack of awareness of the NCP Network and it work; - Lack of information provided by NCP due to the lack of communication and contacts between NCP members; - There are no questions that NCP might answer; a lot of questions have a broader nature as only mobility, so the HRWG contacts seems to be more appropriate forum for cooperation; - The Network has not proven to have practical use so far. Requests on mobility are rarely received. This maybe a result of the Networks’ low visibility, or simply because interest on mobility is low across MS. - The Networks’ modest activity; most NCP have never received information requests or questions. Since a number of HRWG members are also NCP for their country, the questions are often sent to the HRWG list, instead of NCP. we may say that all these reasons are connected in the sense that low activity may explain the low visibility and these the low rate of communication between NCP Another aspect to consider, in close connection with the above mentioned, is the fact that no report was presented to the Human Resources Working Group (HRWG), related to the number, character and scope of the enquiries as well as the possible problems and needs for improvement of the Network. This information is to be given before the end of February of each year.

Need to rethink the Group 63% 37% The final question was related to the need to rethink the group. A clear majority of the respondent MS (63%) considers that this sub-group should be reviewed, not only in terms of working methods and organisation but also in terms of structure.

Organization and working methods Need to rethink the Group: Suggestions for improvement Organization and working methods To increase the visibility of the Network; To update the members list more frequently; To review the Networks’ mandate in order to include more issues rather then mobility; To review the role and added value of the NCP Network in addition to HRWG, identifying the activities and the outcomes it should produce; To encourage regional twinning projects/regular thematic debates; To promote combined meetings of HRWG and NCP To promote a common meeting with the NCP that are willing to develop and improve the function of the Network To appoint one of the NCP to play “the leading role”, as to remind periodically other NCP about news and interesting information to be sent, according to their tasks One of these approaches points out only organizational and methodological changes in order to improve the Network performance. Interesting suggestions are presented that should be taken into consideration for future improvements, nevertheless the redefinition of the mandate of NCP should not represent a overlapping of competences with the HRWG members, unless the latter assume the NCP functions.

Structure Need to rethink the Group: Suggestions for improvement To reconsider the need of existence of such a Network. Only if the answer is positive, the ways of improvement of the group should be discussed. To merge the NCP sub-group with the HRWG group in order to have the same contact point for both groups. Structure To joint up the competencies of the NCP with the HRWG representatives, as it already happens in several MS, justified by the low work load and by the low involvement and interaction of NCP with the group. To review whether or not the existence of the Network should be continued: if the answer is positive, the NCP should exchange information regularly among each other and with the Commissions’ representatives. The second approach goes further and points out structural changes such as the extinction of the Network by merging it with the HRWG. It is considered that the NCP exist only on paper with no practical relevance. This is partly justified by the fact that in 2004, under Irish Presidency, a report was presented contemplating several suggestions to improve this Network that were never implemented.

CONCLUSIONS: Only 8 MS used the Network - Feed-back to the questionnaire Low participation Only 8 MS used the Network - Activity of the Network Only 11 questions in 10 months 44% considered they received an unreasonable n.º of answers We say it’s a low level of participation as we expected to received two answers from each member states, with the exception of those o assume both functions (HR members and NCP) As we already so only 8 MS tried to obtain information through the Network In 10 months were raised only 11 questions – an average of 1 question per month A positive aspect is the fact that respondents considered to have received answers with the information neede – what shows a good level of expertise.

CONCLUSIONS: - Fulfilment of NCP tasks A majority stated they weren’t fulfilled - Need to rethink the Network The majority of respondents believe the group has to be restructured - The Network is nowadays mostly inactive As seen above – the majority of respondents believe the NCP don’t fulfil their tasks and that the Network needs rethinking. As final conclusion it is possible to say that the Network is nowadays mostly inactive.

Next Step The conclusions of this questionnaire as well as the results of the this Meeting will be presented to Directors-General in December.

Thank you for your attention.