Five faults with the EU commissioner-designate grillings

As the European Parliament starts scrutinising and hearing the candidates for the next European Commission this week, more eyes than usual look towards Brussels.

This is partly because the commission has so much power and influence, and partly because the European Parliament traditionally ends up rejecting one or more of the candidates, either over conflicts of interest or over lack of competences for their suggested portfolios.

Both issues that it should be in everybody’s interest to ensure they are properly scrutinised.

It is worth remembering that the parliament rejecting one or more of the commissioner-designates is something that has happened during every hearing process since 2004.

That it has happened this consistently says something about why the process is there at all — which is, among other things, to ensure that the lucrative and powerful post of an EU commissioner does not simply become a bone you can hand out to good friends or political rivals, without at least considering if the nomination can be defended. 

The reasons behind parliament’s previous rejections range from obvious conflicts of interest and slightly too lucrative part-time jobs and allegations of misuse of funds, to lack of competences or politically unsustainable views.

An example of the latter was seen in 2004, when the Italian politician who was designated to become the defender of civil liberties publicly stated that he believed homosexuality was a sin. 

Five years later, in 2009, it was Bulgaria's candidate, Rumiana Jeleva, who was rejected, not least because of allegations of links to a lobbying firm and not having been completely honest in her financial declaration. 

Then, in 2014, Slovenia's candidate was in the spotlight. This was partly because she nominated herself while she was about to step down as prime minister, partly because of an ongoing corruption investigation. 

These are examples, but not the full list, of candidates that have led to raised eyebrows and outright rejections by the EU Parliament. Examples that should serve as a reminder why the approval process is necessary. 

So far so good, and the above can already be found in numerous articles about the hearings.

Weak, inadequate, and politicised

However, what is unfortunately lacking proper debate is just how weak, inadequate and politicised the EU parliament's consultation process have become — and the questions this raise.

Sadly, it seems some political groups have decided that instead of taking their responsibilities seriously, they prefer to water down the hearing process, starting with the very initial step.

(Which, as a reminder, is where it is assessed if the commissioner-designates have too great a conflict of interest to entrust them with the job or not.)

This is a part of the process, which has in the past led to the parliament rejecting candidates, and a part of the process, which groups like the EPP have now done their best to reduce to mockery of scrutiny. In short, the problems with the screening phase of the hopeful candidates can be summed up in the following five points.

1. The question of potential conflicts of interest are scrutinised behind closed doors in the JURI committee. Here, MEPs have to assess based on declarations filled in by the candidates themselves. Declarations which were sent just three days before the actual meeting, and with a review of the individual declarations that last 15 minutes maximum. In other words, this has been turned into a process you have to be extraordinarily optimistic to call satisfactory.

2. The problems only grow when you look at the kind of declarations the commissioner-designates actually have to fill out. These are far from adequate and the candidates often "forget" to include all their financial assets, something that is emphasised by the fact that as many as 23 of the 26 candidates, were initially asked to send further, more detailed information. In addition, for unfathomable reasons, it is not needed to disclose whether you have previously been convicted of corruption.

3. Furthermore, the JURI committee has been given too narrow competences for the task. Despite the fact that several of the proposed EU commissioners for years have worked for giant multinational companies or lobbying companies with specific interests, the committee must not decide whether this could be a conflict of interest, because it must only look at the purely financial aspects. This means that one could not say there was a possible conflict of interest if a former high-ranking lobbyist for, for example, the tobacco industry wanted to be responsible for health policy. This is a strange take on the concept of conflict of interest.

4. Adding to this, there is a lack of proper control and verification. Not only is the first scrutiny limited to the financial aspect, it is also forced to rely on the good will of the candidates and what they themselves have declared. There is no way, or resources set aside, to check whether the numbers given actually match. It requires almost blind faith in the future EU commissioners, a trust you cannot be sure they deserve. 

5. Finally, this is a thoroughly politicised process. Many MEPs uncritically support politicians from their own political families, almost regardless of the situation, while only being interested in looking at those who come from other political families. This is not taking the process seriously. Whether or not a candidate is suitable as commissioner should depend on their qualifications and the absence of conflicts of interest. It should not be about if she or he belongs to the same party as those asking the questions.

More problems

Regrettably, the problems of the consultation process are not limited to the first step.

The part where the various committees of the parliament hear the candidates can also prove controversial. Even before the hearings begin, decisions on two general issues were raising eyebrows; when the process should start and how long it should take — and who will get to hear the individual candidates.

The EPP, the political family to which the president of the EU Commission belongs, pushed for as short and rushed a process as possible. This would in practice have meant that the committee would have had little time to prepare.

Fortunately, that battle was won, but even current schedule might be too tight, and will hardly last if follow-up questions or further hearings are needed — as they have been so often in the past. 

More or less in parallel to the discussion of timing, was the question of which committees should lead the various hearings.

Here we have unfortunately seriously seen the commission president's political family clearly ally itself with the extreme right, in order to push through some bizarre decisions.

Just take the case of the EU's future commissioner for oceans and fisheries. He will suddenly no longer have to hear more than one question from the Environment Committee, but will instead only have real assessment done by the Fisheries Committee.

This despite a portfolio that clearly contains environmental and climate aspects.

The same logic seems to have applied to the future commissioner for the Mediterranean; here the rightwing bloc also removed the committee for civil liberties from a leading role.

A committee that would otherwise have been quite appropriate to include, when you think about how often migrants' rights — and the EU's own rules — are violated in the Mediterranean, more often than not by the EU's own border agency, Frontex.

We could go on, because it does indeed seem as if strong forces in parliament will do whatever they want to weaken the effectiveness of our own hearings. Y

ou can wonder about the motives, just as you can about why it does not create more debate that the consultation process is so weak?

You don't have to speculate much to come up with plausible explanations for why some groups seem more interested in simply rushing 'their' candidates through, than having a real consultation process that maps competences, visions and conflicts of interest?

We, the Left group of MEPs, on the other hand, think that the future EU Commission will hardly improve, or improve its integrity, from a rushed process.

Frankly speaking, if there are candidates who can't handle more scrutiny of potential conflicts of interest, or who can't stand questions from critical committees, wouldn't it be best for all of us to get them sorted out as soon as possible?

Doesn’t the EU deserve a thoroughly scrutinised Commission for the next five years, rather than one where we may have to keep asking: what are they hiding?