Hearings loud, but not very clear

By Giovanni Grevi

Date: 14/10/04

After 73.5 hours of hearings of 24 commissioners-designate who appeared before committees of the European Parliament (the nomination of President José Manuel Barroso was approved by the assembly in July), it is clear that there is scope for improving this important exercise in democratic accountability.

The hearings gave an opportunity to MEPs and observers to get to know the would-be commissioners, many of whom were hitherto unidentified political objects in the Brussels orbit. It is doubtful, however, that the exercise gave anyone very much insight into the political priorities of the commissioners and the College as a whole.

First, the commissioners-to-be do not present a political or legislative programme to Parliament. Written replies to the questionnaires submitted by MEPs are largely compiled by Commission officials, without much input from the commissioners themselves. Nobody would realistically expect recently designated commissioners to grasp the minutiae of their dossiers and to be able to present a fully-fledged list of policy proposals. So the answers to the questionnaires provide a good picture of the state of play in any given policy domain, but give little sense of future developments or of the commissioner-designate's - or even the full Commission's - plans.

To remedy this, it would be preferable if the next College (after Barroso's) took office in January 2010 and not in November 2009, in order to have enough time to produce a multi-annual work programme as well as a legislative programme for its first year of activity. That would provide the basis for a concrete discussion about political and legislative priorities with the Parliament during hearings.

Second, commissioners are only subject to questioning by one or two Parliamentary committees, rather than by a broader pool of MEPs reflecting a variety of interests. There is a strong case for commissioners-designate meeting a wider section of the assembly. This is because each member of the Commission is not only endowed with a policy portfolio, but is also expected to take part in all decisions of the College. These decisions are adopted behind closed doors by simple majority and the vote of each commissioner is important for a decision to be carried. It is important, therefore, that MEPs can test the thinking of individual commissioners on a large range of issues, on which they will be called to vote as members of the College. Second hearings could be scheduled for each commissioner before an ad hoc inter-committee delegation. Alternatively, a special Parliament plenary session could be dedicated to 'general' hearings.

Third, there is room for improving the way in which the hearings are managed. The opening address of each commissioner to the committee should focus more on policy, drawing on a draft work programme. Having had time to analyze such a document, MEPs could put more precise questions. The excessive number of very short questions and answers could be reduced and more time dedicated to discuss issues of policy relevance.

The hearing procedure can be improved, but its political value is determined by the role played by the Parliament in the appointment of the Commission. The results of European elections have this time clearly influenced the appointment of the president of the Commission. With the European People's Party (EPP-ED) the largest group in Parliament, the nomination of a left-wing president of the Commission was an unlikely prospect. This is an interesting evolution in the move towards a democratic system at European level where party politics matters. In addition, the unprecedented rejection by the committee on civil liberties of commissioner-designate Rocco Buttiglione, from Italy, reflects a growing polarisation of views along party political lines.

The impact of these developments, however, should not be overestimated. In the face of a College appointed by consensus by national governments, the room for manoeuvre of the Parliament and of its political groups is limited.

The Commission is politically heterogeneous. It includes, roughly, an even proportion of right-of-centre and left-of-centre members - and a sizeable group of liberals. That makes an overall political judgement difficult to calculate.

In the absence of a draft work programme, any evaluation of individual commissioners' priorities can only be tentative and the debate around their performances superficial. These are structural obstacles to serious political scrutiny by the Parliament before the new Commission takes office.

The hearings are important at a symbolic level, as an expression of democracy and Parliamentary control of the executive. On a practical level, controversial views of individual commissioners can be questioned and denounced, as happened in the case of Buttiglione. The hearing process is a reflection of the state of play in the construction of political Europe: largely unfinished business.

• Giovanni Grevi is associate director of studies at The European Policy Centre. He writes here in a personal capacity.

Author, who is Associate Director of Studies at the European Policy Centre, suggests to change the way the Parliamentary hearings of the European Commissioners-designate are organised.

• Primary Source