Probing the new Commission

The first week of 2010 in the European Parliament has been dominated by the formal hearings of the 26 candidates that European Commission president Josè Manuel Barroso hopes will form his new Commission. Malta's John Dalli will appear at his hearing today, when he will be scrutinised by members of the Internal Market Committee and the Environment and Public Health Committee, of which I am a member.

The commissioner hearings are set piece events in the parliamentary calendar. Normally, they would take place straight after the European elections, at the start of the new legislative term. However, the delayed ratification of the Lisbon Treaty meant that the EU has had to operate for the last six months with the old Commission. The hearings themselves are (or, at least, should be) a rigorous test of the credentials of candidates, not just testing the water to gauge their political priorities and mastery of their policy brief but also their ability to think on their feet in the heat of political debate.

Each hearing is three hours long. Following an opening speech by the commissioner-designate, MEPs from across the political groups are able to ask an extended question to the candidate, before having the opportunity to ask a supplementary question in response to the answer given. The process is open and transparent (the hearings are all web-streamed live on the internet on the Parliament's website) and is similar to the US model of Senate public hearings. Following the hearing, the committee meets to evaluate the performance of the candidate and, in two weeks' time, Parliament as a whole will debate and then vote on whether to approve the Commission candidates.

I myself have already represented the Socialist and Democrat group at the hearings of three of the commissioner candidates assigned to economic portfolios: Olli Rehn for economic and financial affairs, Michel Barnier for the internal market and Joaquin Almunia for competition.

On Monday, I was responsible for questioning Mr Rehn about his stance on the EU's Stability and Growth Pact, which has come under pressure as the economic crisis has seen rising government debts and budget deficits. In a way, the SGP failed to prepare the member states to withstand the shock of financial and economic turmoil. This is a very important issue for the economic recovery and long-term sustainability of European countries and their public finances. Twenty-five EU countries have already been subject to an excessive deficit procedure and it is vital that the Commission works with Parliament and with governments to ensure that the SGP is fit for purpose.

In particular, I wanted to know whether Mr Rehn supported bolstering the SGP. In the light of the problems in Greece (but also in other countries), where statistical manipulation and highly-optimistic economic forecasting has meant that Budget deficits are far higher than people thought, I asked Mr Rehn whether he agreed that all member states should be required to have independent institutions to provide oversight for the credibility of medium-term fiscal governance.

It is mistaken to regard the appointment of the Commission as a "rubber stamp" exercise, with Parliament being presented with a president and team of commissioners and accepting them on the nod. These hearings are not a formality. They are an integral part of the right of Parliament to elect the Commission, and to exercise its right of control, as the only directly-elected EU institution. Indeed, Parliament has previously forced a reshuffle of the Commission when it found candidates to be unacceptable. For example, following the hearings for the previous Commission in 2004, Parliament's dissatisfaction with Mr Barroso's team forced him to present a new line-up including different nominees from both Italy and Latvia.

Although the discussions about the competence and performance of the candidates held after the hearings by individual committee's will be kept confidential, it is an open secret among political groups that the performance of candidates so far have been largely lacklustre. This is, in part, the result of the 2004 experience, which has terrified many candidates, especially the new ones. Candidates are now anxious about expressing their own political vision and seek to avoid controversial issues at all costs.

Finally, the hearings procedure is not just a test of the commissioners-designate. It is also a test of the European Parliament. With the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty, Parliament's legislative powers are increased. It is a great responsibility and, therefore, Parliament's scrutiny of the Commission, as the executive branch of the EU, is particularly important.

Prof. Scicluna is a Labour member of the European Parliament.