Download language version - European Parliament

PARLEMENT EUROPÉEN
DG-INFO
Direction de l’Information
Service de Presse
TW PE 2004
Barroso - judge the Commission as a whole
Statement by Mr Barroso, President-elect of the Commission
Debate: 17.11.2004
Vote: 18.11.2004
Debate
President-elect of the Commission, Mr BARROSO opened his speech by recalling that three weeks
ago he had said that " it was time to stop the clock". Now, he said "it was time to re-start the clock."
The decision not to submit his team to the vote three weeks ago, he said, had received a welcome
both within and outside Parliament. This whole process, he stated, had been "a victory for European
democracy".
Mr Barroso looked forward to working closely with the European Parliament, and he stated that he
had listened carefully to Parliament's requests. Mr Barroso outlined the changes to the proposed
Commission - with Mr FRATTINI and Mr PIEBALGS as new Commissioners-designate and Mr
KOVÀCS changing portfolio. He thanked the Parliament for its "flexibility in organising the
hearings."
Mr Barroso stated that he maintained his ideas on a group of Commissioners taking responsibility
for human rights. He also recalled that Mr Frattini would be a Vice-President of the Commission.
On potential conflicts of interest, Mr Barroso stated that these issues had been resolved. The
Commission has the highest proportion of women of any Commission, he stated. At the time of
voting, he called on Parliament to evaluate the Commission as a college rather than as individuals.
Mr Barroso promised to work more "openly and transparently" than before and stated that he
wanted to conclude a new framework agreement between the European Parliament and the
Commission.
"A partnership for Europe based on prosperity, solidarity and security," this is what the
Commission wanted to achieve. The Commission and Parliament, he said, could do more by
working together, rather than separately. The European institutions, he stated, would emerge
stronger from recent events. The Commission would promote the common European interest, and
therefore Parliament and Commission also had a responsibility to work together to try to improve
the daily lives of European citizens.
"The EU must create the conditions for growth and jobs, sharing prosperity and opportunity across
the whole of the Union; to do this we must put a premium on innovation, education and research –
we must leverage knowledge for growth. And if I refer to the economy first, it is not because it is an
end in its own right; it is because a strong and dynamic economy is a pre-condition to our
ambitious social and environmental goals. The Commission must reinforce European democracy,
reconnecting the Union with the people, and work towards the ratification of our new Constitution.
The Commission must reach out across our continent to make a success of our recent enlargement.
The Commission must work to improve the quality of life, within a modern European model, based
on economic dynamism and social justice. The Commission must reaffirm the Union’s pre-eminent
role as an area of freedom and justice and we must consolidate our leadership in striving for peace,
security and sustainable development around the globe. The Commission must therefore shape a
Europe for future generations and capture the imagination and enthusiasm of our young people.
Today, I ask you for your confidence so that we can start this task. With your support, we can build
a better Europe. My team is ready and anxious to play its part. So let us now get on with our job. "
Political group leaders
The leader of the EPP-ED group, Hans-Gert POETTERING (DE) began by welcoming the
presence of the President-in-Office of the Council, Jan Peter BALKENENDE who was in the
Chamber for the debate. He hoped future holders of this role would follow suit. He summarised
the events of the past few weeks, noting that the EPP-ED group had supported the appointment of
Mr Barroso and would have supported his previous Commission team had there been a vote. He
said Mr Barroso had made the right decision and he praised the "noble gesture" of Rocco
BUTTIGLIONE in withdrawing, opening the way for a new decision.
He said the new candidate from Italy, Mr Frattini, was an eminent politician, who had given a
convincing and intelligent performance at his hearing. Mr Piebalgs had also been impressive, he
said, though his group would have welcomed the Hungarian government following the example of
Latvia and replacing their candidate.
There were three important conclusions to be drawn, he said. Firstly, there was a need to stand up
for European values, for a free society, for tolerance, pluralism and good order. Freedom of
expression, opinion and religion were vital, and no-one should be discriminated against, including
for their religion. Secondly, a strong Commission and a strong Parliament were essential. They
were allies in defending the Community. However, there was also parliamentary control of the
Commission, and its members should be available to Parliament whenever it requested their
presence. In December there would be a debate on Parliament's political priorities and this should
inform the Commission's programme. Thirdly, he said the Council and Member States should give
more room for manoeuvre to future Commission Presidents in selecting their team. He concluded
by saying that a large majority of his group would support the Commission and he wished all its
members well.
For the Socialist Group, Martin SCHULZ (DE) said Mr Barroso's speech had shown there had been
considerable changes in the last three weeks, and changes in the right direction. Mr Barroso should
have moved earlier, but nevertheless this was a better team than the previous one. He said it could
have been even better if Mr Balkenende had shown as much flexibility as the government of Italy a reference to the Dutch candidate Ms KROES.
What, he asked, were the consequences of these events? Parliament was clearly stronger vis-á-vis
the Council and Commission, and the Socialist group had been the decisive player in achieving this,
something of which he was proud.
Mr Schulz called for Mr Barroso to go further than Romano PRODI's position, to a point where
Commissioners would resign if Parliament decided that they should. "If we believe a member of
your team is not performing his or her tasks or if there is a problem with conflicts of interest, we
may ask you to act," he said. You tried, he told Mr Barroso, to run a majority against the Socialist
group, and this was a mistake. There could be no broad majority in the Parliament without the
social democrats and it was better to seek their cooperation than rely on the votes of the extreme
right.
He concluded by noting that a vote on the team was not a vote on their programme, which the
Socialists would judge on its substance. He expressed his respect for Mr Barroso's commitments to
make an ongoing effort to win the support of Parliament and the Socialist group. If he did not
continue in this way, the events of October 2004 could be repeated, he said.
The ALDE group leader, Graham WATSON (UK), remarked that Portugal's national symbol was a
cockerel which crowed to save a condemned man. It had failed to crow three weeks ago, but he
expected it would do so tomorrow. The ALDE group was on balance supportive of the team: Mr
Kovács and Mr Piebalgs had done well at their hearings, and if Mr Frattini had been soft on
specifics, he had been strong in general - even if he may need to disown "his patron" in Rome if he
is to be effective. His group stood by its approvals; they had been forced to define the original team
by its weakest link. Now that link had been replaced - it was time to recognise the strengths, talents
and confidence of the proposed Commission.
The treaties gave Parliament only the bluntest possible instrument for this process. There was no
middle ground between the cosmetic and the crisis, and this was not worthy of the EU, he said. His
group expected that if a Commissioner lost the confidence of the Parliament, Mr Barroso would
either ask them to resign or come to Parliament to defend them on his own personal authority. The
challenge for the Liberal and Democrat group was now to act in critical partnership with the
Commission, he said. This decision had not been a matter of internal EP politicking; it was more
important than that. He acknowledged Mr Schulz's willingness to enter dialogue and compromise.
To the "red and green banners of the permanent opposition" he said there was no honour in voting
against a Commission which had respected Parliaments main demands. The ALDE group was
ready to support the Commission in the vote.
For the Greens/EFA group, Monica FRASSONI (IT), said her group felt it had been important to
make the Parliament's voice heard, in calling for respect for freedom and opposing discrimination.
This new team was better, but it was not improved enough, and the Green group had unanimously
decided not to support it, she said. In particular, they felt it was inappropriate to put a "signatory"
of what she called "Berlusconi's law on conflicts of interest" in charge of justice. There was still the
problem of Ms Kroes's conflicts of interest in competition policy: she would have had to stand aside
from 35 per cent of the decisions made by Mario MONTI over the last term, and was linked to
companies involved in three current cases. After Santer, Eurostat and Buttiglione, he should know
better than this. If there were problems it would be the fault of Barroso, Poettering, Schulz and
Watson, not the fault of the Greens, she said. Her group would however be willing to work with the
Environment Commissioner Stavros DIMAS if he puts more energy into his work. They would
aim to be constructively critical for the new team in its work ahead.
Francis WURTZ (FR) for the EUL/NGL recalled that his group had been fundamentally critical of
Mr Barosso's original line-up for the Commission. The only major concession Mr Barroso had
made, he said, was to remove Mr Buttiglione. The Commission he said needed "surgery rather than
homeopathy." In particular, Mr Wurtz criticised the appointment of Mrs Kroes as Competition
Commissioner given the potential conflicts of interest. He also opposed the appointment of Mr
Frattini saying that he was "not the best person to defend civil liberties." Finally, he criticised the
new "Communicating Europe" programme saying it started with the "wrong cast". His group would
oppose the Commission in the vote.
Jens-Peter BONDE (DK) for the IND/DEM group also said, "almost all Members of his group
would say no thank you to the Commission". In particular, Mr Bonde criticised the Commission for
lack of transparency on the budget of Commission working groups. He also stated that the
Commission had not been accountable, and that Mr van BUITENEN "should have been given a
medal, and not penalised, for his whistleblowing." The Commission should do more to fight
against fraud, he said. Mr Bonde also criticised the fact that Parliament could not hold individual
Commissioners to account.
Roberta ANGELILLI (IT) for the UEN group stated that her group had "great expectations for the
new Commission". Specifically, on the Stability Pact, she called for the adoption of the so-called
"golden rule, which would mean spending on research and development would not be included in
the figures on public debt". She called for a new plan for economic support for developing
countries. On foreign policy, Mrs Angelilli called for the EU not to remain on the sidelines. She
criticised Mr Schulz for trying to "blackmail the European Commission" and recalled that the
Commission was accountable to the whole Parliament and not just one political group. She also
stated that "it was now time to end the crusades from some in this House against Mr Buttigilione
and Italy".
Sergej KOZLÍK (NA, SK), a non-attached Member, stated that he was speaking on behalf of
several MEPs in linking support to economic growth. He said he would support the Commission in
the vote and the time was now more than ripe for the Commission to work to reach the goals of the
Lisbon Strategy.
Other British and Irish speakers
Mary Lou McDONALD (GUE/NGL, IE) (who began and ended her speech in Irish) stated that the
EU was going through a period of immense change, not least because of the Constitution. She said
that it was an opportunity for a more open and progressive Commission, but this chance had not
been taken. Sinn Fein MEPs would oppose the Commission in the vote, not because of individual
Commissioners, but due to the fact that several policies it espoused would, according to Mrs
McDonald, undermine equality, justice and human rights. "The cosmetic changes made by Mr
Barroso were not enough."
Robert KILROY-SILK (NA, UK) made a fierce attack on the proposed Commission team, calling
them "a gaggle of rejects, has-beens and liars," epitomised by the British nominee, Peter
MANDELSON, who was, he said, synonymous with lies, deception and spin. This was not a
suitable government for Europe: "My country deserves better, and we will get it," he said.
Andrew DUFF (ALDE, UK) said European parliamentary democracy had sometimes progressed
by taking a king to the guillotine. At other times it did so by turning to an obscure page of the rules
of procedure to modernise the executive-legislature relationship. The proposed framework
agreement would strengthen both Parliament and Commission, and in particular the Commission
President vis-à-vis the Council. The Commission would now enjoy dual legitimacy of states and
citizens, which it should use wisely. No-one could now argue that the Commission was made up of
unelected bureaucrats: Europe and democracy had gained from this crisis.
Timothy KIRKHOPE (EPP-ED, UK) said the British Conservatives had been prepared to support
Mr Barroso in July, based on his record of reform in Portugal and his promises of reform in Europe.
He warned that "objectivity has been corrupted" by the left- wing of Parliament, and his group still
had great reservations about Mr Kovács, while it had been sorry to see the departure of Mr
Buttiglione, who was, he said, a good man. Nevertheless, the UK Conservatives would give Mr
Barroso their support.
Kathy SINNOTT (IND/DEM, IE) said the issue was not whether one Commissioner or another was
unfit for their job. It was about whether Parliament or the nations had power in Europe. Power had
clearly gone the Parliament's way: what would happen in the future if the two largest groups in
Parliament demanded a specific list of people on the Commission, she asked. One institution had
gained at the expense of 25 countries - the EU was no longer a Union of nations, she said.
Avril DOYLE (EPP-ED, IE) thanked Mr Barroso for listening to the Parliament. There were three
results: the EU was confirmed as a political and not a bureaucratic project; interinstitutional
relations had been improved; the EU's democratic legitimacy had been enhanced. She was now
more confident in supporting the Commission, despite reservations regarding Mr Kovács and Ms
Kroes. In the latter case, she had no doubt about the candidate's professional competence - perhaps
the right woman was in the wrong job, she suggested. The process had showed Parliament was not
a rubber stamp, she said, concluding by wishing Mr Barroso well.
Response to the debate
Atzo NICOLAÏ, Dutch European Affairs Minister spoke for the Presidency of the Council. He
said the Council was not directly a party to the debate between Commission and Parliament, but
pointed out that the Council was happy with the new list of Commissioners-designate. He
reaffirmed the right of Parliament to oppose and criticise the Commission and said the situation had
not been a crisis. There was room for conflict in mature democracies. The EU in general and EU
democracy emerged strengthened from the episode.
Mr Barroso thanked MEPs for their contributions and what he judged to be a generally positive
reception. He wanted to address three points in response to the debate.
Firstly, on the make up of the Commission, he said it was unreasonable to criticise him for taking
account of Member States' views since the treaties obliged him to do so. The make up of the
Commission was not for the President alone to decide. The October debate had allowed him clearly
to grasp Parliament's concerns and he had made some changes as a result - but since some of the
demands made on him were directly contradictory, he could never have satisfied everyone. He
planned to work openly, closely and honestly with Parliament, but not to the detriment of the
Commission's strength, independence or credibility. He pointed out that the Commission team
already represented a compromise, between the Member States and himself, some Member States
having been more willing to take account of his own concerns than others.
Secondly, regarding potential conflicts of interest and the proposed Commissioner for Competition,
he noted that the evaluation letter from the parliamentary committee had accepted adequate
measures had been proposed to address this issue. The Director- General for Competition would
have a duty to report to the President of the Commission any case with a potential conflict and the
President would decide whether this was sufficient to take on the case himself or pass it to another
Commissioner. The three cases raised by Ms Frassoni were three out of 561 current anti-trust cases
and of thousands of cases overall, he said. The mechanisms in place were transparent and took
account of the collegiate nature of Commission decisions.
He said he could not accept that no member of the democratically elected government of Italy could
be responsible for justice issues - this went against the principle of non-discrimination. It was
necessary to look at the calibre of the individual concerned. Nor could a candidate nominated by
the democratically elected government of Hungary, a former President of the majority party there,
be rejected out of hand. It was not appropriate to apply stricter criteria for Commissioners than
Member States applied for their own ministers. Noting that there were 25 Commissioners, he asked
whether members even of parties in power in their own states agreed with every member of their
government.
It was also inappropriate to criticise the Commission team for being too liberal: the team reflected
the pluralistic balance of the elected governments of the Member States. If there had been
communist governments in power there would have been communist Commissioners, he said.
Addressing himself particularly to the Socialist group, he promised again that he would not be a
partisan President of the Commission. He wanted to work with all pro-European forces for the
good of Europe. He suggested that the forthcoming negotiations on the Financial Perspective
would show the Socialists would have fewer problems with him than with some socialist
governments, when it came to social cohesion spending.
Thirdly, regarding EP-Commission relations, he said the proposal in the draft resolution tabled by
four political groups on individual parliamentary responsibility of Commissioners was acceptable to
him. If Parliament withdrew its confidence from a particular Commissioner, he would be prepared
either to ask for that individual to resign, or to justify to Parliament his reasons for not doing so.
Automatic resignation, however, was not in the spirit or the letter of the treaties, and would not
reflect the collegiate nature of the Commission which, on the contrary, was written into the treaties.
Finally, he said it was wrong to talk of winners and losers in this process. It was a constructive
process and everyone would win. He promised to work faithfully with Parliament for a positive
outcome for Europe.