What do MEPs want from the new commissioners?

Written by Andrew Duff MEP and published in FT on Mon 25th Jan 2010

Like it or not, the European Union cannot work without the European Commission. And it never works well unless the Commission is strong.

To deride the Commission as a bunch of faceless bureaucrats, as nationalist critics are wont to do, is wrong on both counts. The body is made up of real people, many of them already powerful politicians in their own right.

Nor is it true that the Commission is unelected. Indeed, its election is taking place at this very moment.

The outgoing Commission, appointed in 2004, was supposed to have left office at the end of October, but the late birth of the Lisbon treaty forced a delay. The old team has struggled on gamely, but much longer on the life-support machine and questions would be raised about the Commission's legitimacy. In any case, President José Manuel Barroso has been unable to take the bold political initiatives which are needed in several areas while his colleagues are lame ducks. Renewal is now badly needed.

Since the European Parliament forced the resignation of President Jacques Santer's Commission in 1999 the role of MEPs in electing the Commission has steadily advanced. Parliament and Commission have agreed on an elaborate auditions procedures before Parliament takes a solemn vote (simple majority by roll call) on the election of the whole college. Each commissioner-designate, having been nominated by their national government and having had a portfolio distributed to them by President-elect Barroso, appears for a three-hour grilling before the appropriate parliamentary committee. Before the hearings start, the candidate publishes answers to five written questions from his or her committee. Only Mr Barroso, already elected for a second five-year term as president, escapes this particular ordeal (he has others).

What is Parliament looking for? Probity, affinity with the goals of the treaty, general understanding of the role of the Commission, specific competence to master the given portfolio, and communication skills. On top of these criteria, MEPs are likely to express themselves on the overall distribution of posts and the question of gender balance. Implicit only will be Parliament's assessment of the new college on the grounds of party balance.

In 2004 Parliament forced the withdrawal of two candidates (Rocco Buttiglione from Italy and Ingrida Udre from Latvia), as well as obliging Mr Barroso to swap a portfolio around. Inevitably, the scent of spilt blood from last time makes some MEPs bloodthirsty this time.

Weighing against the obvious temptation to upset the apple cart for a second time is the sense, widely shared among MEPs, that the investiture of a new Commission is urgently needed. It is arguable that this suddenly much more powerful Parliament might do well to moderate its criticisms of putative commissioners nominated, presumably in good faith, by the European Council. Used well by MEPs, the hearings are a good chance to shape not only the composition of the new Commission but also its political programme.

It is certainly important for Parliament's reputation that the hearings are conducted fairly and scrupulously according to the agreed procedure, and that the assassination of one candidate will not descend, by way of partisan tit-for-tat, into general slaughter. Everyone is mindful that the media will follow the hearings with grisly interest (they are all to be webstreamed on EP live).

The EU has borrowed the idea of public auditions from the US and not from parliamentary experience in Europe. One hopes the press and public will not be disappointed if there are no sexy revelations about the private lives of hapless commissioners-designate. The European Parliament is not (or not yet) as cruel as the US Senate. But rigorous interrogation about potential conflicts of financial interest can certainly be expected, and competition between parties will sharpen the inquest.

The hearings take place from January 11 to January 19. The plenary vote is scheduled for January 26 and will be prepared by a joint meeting of Parliament's 20 committee chairs and seven party group leaders. The options before Parliament are these: rejection or approval of the whole "Barroso II" college, postponement of the vote until February to seek further information, or a behind-the-scenes negotiations with Mr Barroso about the future of any failing candidate.

Foc the record, of Mr Barroso's 26 commissioners-designate, 14 have previously been a commissioner. Eight have formerly been MEPs. The average age of the whole college is 53. Only nine of the 27 are women, including Catherine Ashton, vice-president, who doubles as high representative for foreign affairs.

All speak English, although the German, Günther Oettinger, will try to speak German. Seven speak Russian. Thirteen are affiliated to the Christian Democrats, eight to the Liberals and only six to the Socialists. Neither the Greens nor Communists will have a commissioner of their own; nor will the new rightwing group to which the British Tories are so proud to belong.

Andrew Duff MEP is the European Parliament's rapporteur on the hearings process. He is president of the Union of European Federalists