Grasping the nettle

Date: 25/09/1997

Vested interests and lethargy are natural enemies of change and both will be in plentiful supply as the European Commission attempts to alter the habits of a lifetime.

Internal reform of a complex, multinational administration is far from simple, provides few brownie points and can lead to much painful blood-letting as old scores are settled. More importantly, it can undermine staff morale, create uncertainty and even lead to policy paralysis.

But like any other institution, the Commission cannot be immune to change. Structures suitable three decades ago are not necessarily appropriate for an institution which faces new tasks and is politically committed to increasing the EU's membership to over two dozen.

The Commission's own credibility, which has all too often been dented by outside criticism, is also at stake. It is politically untenable for it - and other EU institutions - to appear unresponsive to budgetary and resource pressures when national administrations are having to confront these challenges head-on.

The Commission appears to have taken that message on board. Many of the practical reforms approved this week are pure common sense and long overdue. For years, the Directorate-General for personnel has been the butt of complaints from other departments about burdensome bureaucracy, excessive form-filling and unaccountable delays. In future, those departments themselves will have to carry out a large number of the tasks which used to be centralised. The changes will mean extra work in many areas, but alongside the extra responsibility should come enhanced job satisfaction and efficiency.

The 3,500 officials and experts handling foreign policy matters will be affected more than most by the reforms. They face a fundamental structural overhaul which will have a direct impact on policy formulation.

The concept of one service handling all the Union's foreign policy financial contracts is a good one. But the Commission must ensure that the rules on organising and awarding tenders for different parts of the world are as compatible and transparent as possible. In addition, the responsibilities transferred from the existing external relations departments to the new service will need to be carefully chosen. If these are too extensive, the vital continuum between policy formulation and implementation will be broken and the reform could be a recipe for chaos.

Finally - and most crucially - one Commissioner, buttressed by others as lieutenants, should be given overall responsibility for external relations. Unfortunately, the Commission does not appear ready to take such a step now. But it is a challenge which its successor will not be able to shirk.