Exigences de l’Eurogroupe à la Grèce
point 5 : Sanctuariser l’indépendance de l’agence statistique grecque ;
D’après Olivier Berruyer sur Twitter
▻https://twitter.com/OBerruyer/status/620391381173989376
Bonne idée de raviver ce vieux serpent de mer : l’INSEE est une direction du Ministère des Finances…
Dans les Peer reviews le sujet revient très régulièrement (en toute première position), et malgré tous les éloges sur la tradition de la maison, la confiance des citoyens, etc. et la gentillesse des reviewers le point reste toujours difficile à avaler. Ça donne ceci :
▻http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/64157/4372828/2015-FR-Report/156ad9fd-06eb-4f16-b20e-20cd6d5eb832
In common with other top public servants in the French public administration, the Director General of INSEE is appointed and removed by the French President through a decree of the Council of Ministers. Under French legislation, there is no restriction on the right of the French President to appoint, transfer or remove, without giving cause, any officials at the top level. Furthermore, when a vacancy arises there is no formal open application or assessment procedure prior to the issuing of the decree by the Council. The Peer Review team was informed that over the past 40 years all but one of the Directors General appointed were graduates of an INSEE “Grande École”, had worked at some stage of their career in INSEE, and had been involved in various economic or statistical positions prior to their appointment. The team is also aware that in recent years one Director General was removed by the Council of Ministers and transferred to another senior position in the public administration without any explanation being provided.
The Peer Review team was assured that the appointment/removal procedures have never been the subject of political or public debate in France and that opinion polls continue to indicate a high degree of public trust in INSEE. Moreover, it would appear that persons of the highest calibre have been appointed as Director General over the years. However, the Peer Reviewers consider that the lack of transparency in the appointment/removal procedures is a weakness in the French system that has the potential to impact negatively on the professional independence of INSEE and, by extension, on that of the wider statistical system. It is also, in the opinion of the Peer Review team, not fully compliant with CoP indicator 1.8, when it requires that the “reasons on the basis of which the incumbency are terminated are specified in the legal framework”. The Peer Review team also notes that the current draft proposals to amend Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 stipulate that the “procedures for recruitment, transfer and dismissal of heads of NSIs shall be transparent and based on professional criteria only”. In the event that the draft proposal is adopted it is clear that some amendment to the French procedures will be required
Et constitue le tout premier point des Recommendations and improvement actions in response to the recommendations
▻http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/64157/4372828/2015-FR-improvement-actions/98e6647d-7d6e-4a26-88ee-4ab14ac3505e
1. Appropriate legal and/or institutional measures should be taken to explicitly empower the National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies and the Ministerial Statistical Departments to undertake their mandates in respect of the development, production and dissemination of statistics in a professionally independent manner. (European statistics Code of Practice, indicator 1.1)
C’est la version 2015, mais c’est un véritable marronnier…
