Party leaders seek solution on how to work with the Commission

Date: 10/03/05

THE European Parliament's leaders were meeting today (10 March) in a bid to thrash out a new inter-institutional agreement with the European Commission. The agreement, which was last revised at the start of the Romano Prodi Commission in 1999, determines the working relationship between the two institutions.

One major stumbling block is what future role the Parliament should play when a commissioner is replaced during his or her mandate.

Under the current agreement, governments can replace their commissioner at any time without any need for them to be questioned in Parliamentary hearings or endorsed by the assembly.

The Socialist group (PES) says this could, for example, mean that Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi could recall Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini and replace him with Rocco Buttiglione, the man whose original nomination sparked a furious row between MEPs and the Commission, without the Parliament having a say in the matter.

The PES is insisting that in future any commissioner who is appointed during the Commission's five-year mandate should be subject to a vote in a Parliament plenary.

Group leader Martin Schulz said: "A new Commission, with a new commissioner on board, should come under fresh democratic scrutiny and be subject to a vote in Parliament. It is unacceptable to have two classes of commissioners - those who have been subjected to detailed scrutiny in Parliament and those who have not.

But some argue that subjecting a new commissioner to a vote would effectively give Parliament a veto in the procedure for replacing commissioners.

Commission President José Manuel Barroso is thought to favour another proposal, put forward by the Liberal Democrat group (ALDE). Under this, new commissioners would have to appear before the Parliamentary committee relevant to their dossier before they formally took up their duties.

Barroso met the group leaders in Strasbourg for an hour on Tuesday (8 March) in a bid to reach a deal. There is general agreement overthe accord's two other new main elements.

In the event of a conflict of interest, such as that involving Dutch Commissioner Neelie Kroes at the start of her current mandate, the Commission president would have to take responsibility for any subsequent action taken to reallocate his or her case work.

Also, in the event of an individual commissioner losing the confidence of the Parliament (by a substantial majority), the Commission president would be obliged to follow the Parliament's recommendation or, if he did not, to appear before the assembly to explain why.

Parliament's group leaders will meet today (Thursday) to finalise their position. The College of commissioners will discuss the agreement at their meeting next Wednesday (16 March). MEPs are to debate it at the Strasbourg plenary next month.

The European Parliament's leaders were meeting on 10 March in a bid to thrash out a new inter-institutional agreement with the European Commission. The agreement, which had last been revised at the start of the Romano Prodi Commission in 1999, determines the working relationship between the two institutions. One major issue was what future role the European Parliament should play when a Commissioner had to be replaced during his or her mandate. Under the existing agreement, governments were able to replace their Commissioner at any time without any need for them to be questioned in Parliamentary hearings or endorsed by the assembly.