Highs and lows as MEPs attempt to make the most of new-found powers

Date: 21/12/1995

THE European Parliament opened and closed the year on a political high.

But, in between, there were some ups and downs and false alarms which took some of the gloss off its efforts to be taken more seriously.

The year began in a burst of publicity. The Parliament, elected six months earlier, used to the full the leverage it had been given by the Maastricht Treaty power to vote in the new Commission. With some skilful manoeuvring, MEPs set up the first-ever hearings to determine the suitability for office of the Commissioners-designate.

Not only were the hearings in public, but, to the surprise of many, the MEPs' assessments of the candidates - five of whom only just scraped pass marks - were published. The incident set the tone for much of the relationship between Commission and Parliament throughout the year, with MEPs trying, and often succeeding, in calling the tune. That pressure continued through to December as MEPs used their traditional budgetary role to prise more details from Commissioners about any outside professional interests or paid activities they might have.

The Parliament displayed another of its powers - the ability to approve or reject international treaties - shortly before Christmas, when it ended months of uncertainty by overwhelmingly approving the customs union with Turkey. For many, the vote was a sign of new maturity among MEPs. Not only was there record participation - 528 of the 626 members voted - but the MEPs put consideration of the dangerous political fall-out from a 'No' vote ahead of their dissatisfaction with Turkey's human rights record.

Closer to home, MEPs used another of their new Maastricht powers this year and, in doing so, angered both EU governments and the Commission. They used the ultimate sanction available under the co-decision procedure to reject draft biotechnology legislation. Critics accused them of caving in to green lobby fears on the patenting of human life and of undermining European industry. MEPs retorted that they were merely using their legitimate powers.

Either way, the incident reminded governments of the need to take MEPs' views on board in those areas where they share a legislative role, although some - notably the UK - drew the lesson that those powers should not be extended in the upcoming Maastricht review.

In between these demonstrations of its new responsibilities, the Parliament still managed to fall back into some of its more embarrassing old ways, despite generally successful attempts by President Klaus Hänsch to try and tighten up internal proceedings. The appointment of the first EU Ombudsman became a long-running saga in which parliamentarians trapped themselves in procedural and political wrangles. MEPs tried to raise the stakes in their protests over France's nuclear tests, only to retreat later with as much dignity as they could muster.

The past 12 months have revealed a number of new facets of the Parliament's continued progress in gaining influence within the Union. It has also confirmed that some things do not change. In this case it is the eternal rivalry between Strasbourg and Brussels to host its activities. As the New Year opens, the institution faces a court case lodged by France in protest at the failure of MEPs to hold 12 plenary sessions in the Alsatian capital in 1996, as agreed by EU leaders three years ago.