August/September
2002 - CER BULLETIN, ISSUE 25 REFORMING THE COMMISSION By Alasdair Murray
The
convention on the future of Europe is exploring whether, and how, the Commission
president could be elected, rather than appointed by the European Council. Such
constitutional tinkering might improve the Commission's image. However, it would
do little to prepare the Commission to meet its real challenge: drafting and
enforcing legislation in an enlarged EU. The Commission should consider reforms
in two key internal areas. First, commissioners must provide stronger leadership
to the Commission as a whole. And second, the Commission needs to become far
more rigorous and transparent in upholding EU law.
Unlike national government ministers, commissioners come from different member-states
and myriad political backgrounds. Indeed, most commissioners have never met
each other before they take up their posts. Their lack of familiarity with the
job means that commissioners are at a distinct disadvantage to the Commission's
permanent staff.
The Prodi Commission has attempted to tackle this problem by frequently re-shuffling
the directors-general, the most senior Commission officials, to ensure that
no individual becomes too powerful. However, the Commission must do more to
ensure that commissioners drive the legislative agenda. The Commission should
introduce a code of conduct which sets out the responsibilities and reporting
requirements for senior staff. The existing staff rulebook only details pay
and working conditions.
The Commission must also make a greater effort to ensure that its resources
are targeted at the areas of greatest political importance. The Prodi Commission
has successfully reduced the number of directorates-general from 42 to 35. However,
there are still far too many different departments, and too many staff working
in non-priority areas. For instance, DG Administration, the Commission's own
internal bureaucracy, is the largest single directorate-general, employing a
total of 2,500 people. In contrast, the justice and home affairs department
is struggling to meet Council demands for important new legislation with less
than 200 staff. The Commission should adopt a much more radical programme of
departmental mergers, to increase political control and improve the coherence
of its policy-making. For instance, an enterprise directorate-general could
oversee all business related matters, such as information technology and energy,
which are at present contained in different directorates-general. The Commission
could also free up resources, and make an important gesture to the principle
of subsidiarity, by abolishing peripheral directorates-general such as the 600-strong
DG for Education, Culture and Sport.
Such a reform programme would break the tradition that commissioners oversee
their 'own' department. Instead, several commissioners should work together
in one department - as ministers do in some member-state governments. Undoubtedly,
one 'senior' commissioner would need to oversee the whole directorate-general
- in line with President Prodi's recent proposal for an inner-tier of senior
commissioners to steer the Commission's programme. Some 'junior' commissioners
may object to their apparent loss of status. However, Prodi is right to argue
that a Commission of 25 members would be far too unwieldy to function effectively
without reform.
Finally, the Commission needs to improve its record at enforcing EU rules. Existing
enforcement procedures are painfully slow and unevenly applied. Just one member-state,
Greece, has ever had to pay a fine for failing to implement EU laws - and that
case took 14 years to wind through the European Courts. Other even more long-standing
breaches of EU law go unpunished: France, for instance, has still not implemented
a directive protecting wild birds which dates back to the late 1970s. Such uneven
enforcement causes resentment between member-states, and greatly damages the
EU's credibility.
After enlargement, the Commission will face the even tougher job of monitoring
enforcement in 25 different countries. The Commission needs to introduce a far
more methodical approach. The Commission should set down clear guidelines, complete
with a timetable on how it intends to deal with infringement cases. For instance,
the Commission should endeavour to review member-state implementation of a new
directive after six months, and launch infringement proceedings, if necessary,
within a year.
The Commission should ask the member-states to amend the treaties to streamline
the process for fining member-states for repeated breaches of EU law. At present,
the Commission needs to win two cases in the European Court before a fine can
be imposed on a member-state. In future the Commission should be able to impose
a fine on the member-state after winning a first judgment in the Court. Member-states
could still appeal and have the fine repaid. But such a mechanism would greatly
reduce member-state foot-dragging in serious cases. Alasdair Murray is director of the
economics and social policy unit at the CER.
