Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/380554
12 SINCE accession in 2004, the Euro- pean Parliament has earned a perma- nent place in the collective subcon- scious of the Maltese nation. One regular appointment concerns the five-yearly 'grilling' given to prospec- tive Commissioners by MEPs. These hearings have to date always been keenly followed and heatedly discussed in Malta (much more so, in fact, than in other EU member states), ever since former foreign minister Joe Borg was given a tough- er time than expected in 2004. Already there are indications of unrest associated with Commis- sion president Jean-Claude Junker's choice of commissioner to handle the Environment, Fisheries and Maritime Affairs portfolio. NGOs have expressed concern at an appar- ent 'downgrade' of the environment (previously a standalone portfolio) as a key area of European policy. Ques- tions have also been raised – among others, by BirdLife Europe – regard- ing the suitability of Karmenu Vella himself for the post, given his gov- ernment's track record in the area of wildlife protection. I meet Peter Agius, who heads the European Parliament Office in Mal- ta, to get a better understanding of what to actually expect when Vella faces the European parliament at the end of this month. How severely will Malta's nominee be 'grilled'… and how (if at all) will the above- mentioned concerns be reflected in MEPs' questions? More specifically: what procedures are in place to ensure that the new Commissioners, once approved, meet the expectations raised in these hearings? "There is a political and a procedur- al dimension to this question," he be- gins. "Let's start with the procedural. The European Parliament is the only directly democratically elected insti- tution in the Union. So in a Union which is founded on democracy, and where all the components have to be accountable, we cannot afford to have European commissioners who have significant powers of initiation and implementation of legislation who do not respond to this demo- cratic mandate." This concern, he adds, goes be- yond the simple approval by the EP. "The hearings allow Commission- ers-designate to be scrutinised and approved by the representatives of the people. Karmenu Vella will face a hearing to be approved; but then, he will also have to appear before the EP very regularly to defend dossiers, to respond to criticism in the execution of his mandate, and also to propose new ideas, and to get the partnership of the EP…" Parliamentary approval is therefore an ongoing requirement that lasts throughout a Commissioner's term. But does the European Parliament have the power to dismiss a Com- missioner after he has been approved at the hearings stage? "The EP has the power to summon Commissioners and ask them to give an account of themselves, certainly. But to dismiss a Commissioner is an- other context. The EP can, in certain situations, take a political stance in the sense that an action or a position taken by a Commissioner is not ac- ceptable to the parliament. But this is a very remote possibility, as the Commission acts through collegial- ity. There cannot be a single com- missioner who is responsible for something. The responsibility rests with the whole Commission…" This brings Agius to the first of a number of procedural safeguards to ensure that commissioners are kept in check. "In this hearing, the par- liament has the power to accept or reject the Commission as a whole. That's what the treaty says. But there is an interesting element here. The rules of procedure of the EP also go into details of how specific commit- tees have to give their endorsements to different Commissioners. These endorsements will then go to the conference of presidents, and be fed to the plenary. So procedurally, from a legal point of view there is only the power to endorse the Commission in its entirety. But politically, there might be interventions or pressure on individual Commissioners, that may in turn condition the approval or otherwise of the whole Commis- sion…" This also has specific implications for Vella's appointment. "His hear- ing has to take place in the specific committees associated with his port- folio. Environment, fisheries and maritime policy are dealt with in two separate committees: environment by the ENVI commission; fisheries and maritime affairs by PECH. So the two committees will have to be brought together for a joint sitting." Once Vella has duly answered the committees' questions, the MEPs will remain in the chamber and dis- cuss their assessment of the hearing: particularly, the group co-ordinators in those two committees. "Normally, within 24 hours there has to be a letter by the committee chairs, ad- dressed to the conference of com- mittee chairs." Meanwhile, Juncker's choices of both commissioner and portfolio have already been subject to a lot of international speculation and media criticism. Obviously the criticism that concerns Malta most is the de- cision to entrust the environment portfolio to a Maltese commissioner, at a time when the government he was until recently part of has had various problems with the Commis- sion specifically on environmental issues. Not just hunting: there have also been problems with air quality and climate change targets, among others. Similar concerns have been raised in connection with other Commis- sioners, too. For example, Juncker chose a Hungarian nominee to ad- minister the civil rights portfolio, when the government of Hungary has been widely criticised over civil rights issues. Is there any chance that the EP might reject the Commission on these grounds? Agius expresses his doubts. "Some portfolios have been assigned to commissioners-designate who al- legedly do not have the most limpid track record in those areas. This will surely be on the minds of the MEPs. It will be part of the scrutinising process. But the European Parlia- ment will take an overall assessment. And there are a number of safe- guards in place to minimise the risks involved." As it happens, Agius has already touched on the first of these safe- guards: collegiality, or the principle that decisions are not taken by in- dividual commissioners but by the Commission as a whole. However, it doesn't sound very convincing to my ears. The instruc- tions Juncker has already given Vella, for instance, include a revision of the European Wild Birds Directive. This looks more like a single Commis- sioner taking a decision which will steer the EU in a certain direction… Agius disagrees. "No: the decision is assigned to be led by a single Com- missioner, but effectively when the Commission decides, it is always by collegiality. The whole college of Commissioners has to approve. And this is an important safeguard: any decision taken by a single Commis- sioner has to pass the scrutiny of all the other commissioners…" But how does that make any differ- ence in practice? The fact that a de- cision was taken unanimously by the entire Commission doesn't automat- ically make that decision correct… "Perhaps not. But to put it bluntly: if the fear is that a single Commis- sioner may place the interests of his own country ahead of other con- cerns, he or she will not be able to do so without getting approval of all the other Commissioners. This makes it difficult for Commissioners to reflect their own countries' agendas, espe- cially in areas where other Commis- sioners may disagree." A second safeguard, he adds, is that Commissioners also have to take an oath to "act in the European inter- est". Again, however, it doesn't sound very impressive. One frequent criti- cism levelled at the Commission is that individual commissioners tend to favour their own home country… and Malta has already been spe- cifically singled out in this respect. When Joe Borg was Fisheries Com- missioner, he set the European quo- tas for Bluefin tuna at three times the maximum level recommended by scientists to ensure the survival of the species. Malta has a thriving Bluefin tuna industry. So couldn't it be argued that Borg's decision fa- voured an industry interest in which his home country was a key player? "Do you really think he did that under pressure from Malta? There are other much bigger countries in- volved in the Mediterranean tuna trade…" Precisely: and they all have a com- mon interest. My point is that Com- missioners do not always take deci- sions for the right reasons. Let's take a hypothetical scenario, in which Karmenu Vella is approved by the EP, and goes on to 'revise' the European Wild Birds Directive in a way that justifies his government's policy to permit trapping and spring hunting (both technically illegal and current- ly subject to derogations). How does such a vague commitment to 'defend European interests' ward against that kind of (hypothetical) abuse? "Because to get away with some- thing like that there would have to be a feeling among the rest of the Com- mission, a significant and consistent collective interest to promote that kind of approach... and I don't think this feeling is present..." Here Agius warns against the dan- gers of stereotyping commissioners on the basis of nationality. "We have to be careful here. Your question implies that because Kar- menu Vella is Maltese, he may not have a clear environmental commit- ment. That could be a bit unfair…" Perhaps, but there is also a track record to support that view. Vella is a veteran of a political party that has pledged support to the hunters' lobby, and which made it an electoral priority to allow spring hunting. This is where he is coming from… and it also explains why environmental NGOs are so concerned with the fact that he has already been asked to re- vise the Birds Directive. The princi- ple of collegiality itself should argue against this: European directives are established by treaties, not by in- dividual commissioners. If Juncker is talking about changing the trea- ties that we signed up to when we joined… can a decision of such mag- nitude be left in the hands of a single Commissioner? "Let's clarify certain procedural aspects. The treaty says that in all the actions of the Union, it shall 'take as a principle the highest level of environmental protection'. The Birds Directive, like any other piece of subsidiary legislation, is based on that principle; but it is also sub- ject to change. Some European laws have been changed 60 times in the past 20 years. The Birds Directive has not been changed since its adop- tion in 1979. This is an exceptional situation; I think it's the only Euro- pean directive that has never been amended in the last 35 years. What Juncker is asking of Karmenu Vella is an in-depth evaluation of the birds Interview By Raphael Vassallo maltatoday, SUNDAY, 14 SEPTEMBER 2014 What to expect from FAVOURING HUNTERS To get away with something like that there would have to be a feeling among the rest of the Commission, a significant and consistent collective interest to promote that kind of approach... and I don't think this feeling is present REVISING THE BIRDS DIRECTIVE Some European laws have been changed 60 times in the past 20 years. The Birds Directive has not been changed since its adoption in 1979