Awaiting committee decision
2015/2040(INI) Procedures and practices regarding commissioner hearings, lessons to be taken from the 2014 process
Lead committee dossier: AFCO/8/02754
Legal Basis RoP 052
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | AFCO | CORBETT Richard (S&D) | PREDA Cristian Dan (EPP), MESSERSCHMIDT Morten (ECR), DURAND Pascal (Verts/ALE) |
Opinion | EMPL | ||
Opinion | ENVI | PATRICIELLO Aldo (EPP) | |
Opinion | ITRE | ||
Opinion | JURI | CAVADA Jean-Marie (ALDE) | |
Opinion | TRAN | CRAMER Michael (Verts/ALE) |
Legal Basis RoP 052
Activites
-
2015/02/12
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Documents
Amendments | Dossier |
60 |
2015/2040(INI)
2015/03/20
TRAN
19 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph -1 a (new) - 1a. Acknowledges that public hearings of Commissioners-designate present an important opportunity for Parliament and EU citizens to assess the priorities of each candidate and their suitability for the role;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Expresses its
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Considers that when a vice-president of the Commission has responsibilities which are primarily horizontal, the hearing could exceptionally be carried out in a different format, such as a meeting of the Conference of Committee Chairs, provided that such a meeting would be open to all Members, or a joint meeting of the relevant committees;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Believes that the designated Commissioner should be required to clearly set out the programme priorities for the considered portfolio in his or her opening statement;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Notes that the allocation of speaking time between groups and the number of questions allocated to associated/invited committees was finally decided by the Conference of Presidents and the political groups respectively, although in the past those arrangements had been made at committee level; notes that the procedure was confusing as the Conference of Committee Chairs had initially suggested to committees to arrange bilaterally the number of questions to be allocated to associated/invited committees;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Stresses that the d'Hondt rule for allocating speaking time among the political groups should be thoroughly applied;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Points out that the generally applicable rule of 45 questions of three minutes, as decided by the Conference of Presidents, did not give committees sufficient flexibility to vary their practices where necessary, for example by introducing a catch-the-eye procedure or allocating more time to the speakers in the first round, while three minutes was completely insufficient for a follow-up question; considers that in future arrangements should be made to provide committees with more flexibility, while also ensuring the inquisitorial nature of the hearings
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Believes that the questions during the hearing should - at least partly - be answered in a language different from the mother tongue of the Commissioner- designate;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Considers that if the evaluation shows no clear majority, or if there is a majority but not a consensus against the candidate, the coordinators should - as a next step - request an additional 1.5 hour hearing;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Reminds that, under Annex XVI to the Rules of Procedure, evaluation statements must be adopted and made public within 24 hours after the hearing; notes, however, that the procedure actually followed was not in conformity with that provision, as evaluation statements were made available only after the Conference of Presidents had declared the hearings closed; stresses the need to clarify that provision to allow publication of evaluation statements on a visible place on Parliament's website 24 hours after the evaluation;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Asks for clarification of the following provisions in Annex XVI to the Rules of Procedure: − “Where possible, questions put during the course of the hearing shall be grouped together by theme.” This provision has been interpreted as bundling together questions from associated/invited committees, but the actual theme of a question is not supposed to be known in advance as questions should not be disclosed before the hearing. − “As a last resort, the Chair shall put the two decisions to the vote by secret ballot.” The ‘two decisions’ are meant to refer to whether ‘the Commissioners-designate are qualified both to be members of the College and to carry out the particular duties they have been assigned’. However, there is no evident link between these two sentences in Annex XVI, which could lead to misinterpretation.
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Notes that the formation of the Juncker Commission was delayed owing to the late nomination by some Member States of their candidate commissioner, while an acceptable degree of gender balance was only achieved at the last minute thanks to Parliament’s firm insistence that the new Commission must contain at least the same number of women as the outgoing Commission; considers that such a situation could be prevented in future by setting a deadline by which Member States have to nominate their candidates, and by encouraging Member States to propose at least two nominees
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Notes that the formation of the Juncker Commission was delayed owing to the late nomination by some Member States of their candidate commissioner, while an acceptable degree of gender balance was only achieved at the last minute thanks to Parliament’s firm insistence that the new Commission must contain at least the same number of women as the outgoing Commission; considers that such a situation could be prevented in future by setting a deadline by which Member States have to nominate their candidates, and by encouraging Member States to propose at least two nominees –
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Notes that the formation of the Juncker Commission was delayed owing to the late nomination by some Member States of their candidate commissioner, while an acceptable degree of gender balance was only achieved at the last minute thanks to Parliament’s firm insistence that the new
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Notes that the formation of the Juncker Commission was delayed owing to the late nomination by some Member States of their candidate commissioner, while a
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Notes that the formation of the Juncker Commission was delayed owing to the late nomination by some Member States of their candidate commissioner, while an acceptable degree of gender balance was only achieved at the last minute thanks to Parliament’s firm insistence that the new Commission must contain at least the same number of women as the outgoing Commission; considers that such a situation could be prevented in future by setting a deadline by which Member States have to nominate their candidates, and by encouraging Member States to propose at least two
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Considers that a deadline should also be set for the President-elect and the Council to adopt, by common accord, the list of persons proposed for appointment as members of the Commission, so as to give Parliament sufficient time for the proper preparation and conduct of the hearings, including supplementary hearings where necessary; opposes a ‘take-it-or-leave-it’
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Further suggests that - in case a candidate is rejected - a deadline should be set for the designation of a new candidate;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Expresses its utmost dissatisfaction regarding the procedure that led to the replacement of Maroš Šefčovič in the transport portfolio at very short notice and without prior consultation with the Committee on Transport and Tourism, even though the President-elect had been promptly informed of the committee’s firm wish to maintain Mr Šefčovič in this portfolio; considers that a committee opinion should be legally binding; deplores the fact that the TRAN Committee’s request was not fulfilled and that the subsequent nominee, Violeta Bulc, did not enjoy equal and fair conditions in presenting herself to the committee, as she had very limited time at her disposal to prepare for the hearing, which was nevertheless successful; reiterates that transport is a key policy area which should not be the victim of last-minute changes to accommodate other political considerations;
source: 552.013
2015/03/31
ENVI
41 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Acknowledges that public hearings of Commissioners-designate although not provided for by the Treaty, is a well- established practice developed over the last 20 years, which presents an important opportunity for the Parliament and EU citizens to assess the priorities of each candidate and their suitability for the role;
Amendment 10 #
2. Recommends that section 1(b)(7) (Hearings) of Annex XVI to the Rules of Procedure (Guidelines for the approval of the Commission) provides that questions ‘may’ rather than ‘shall, where possible’ be grouped together by theme; believes that such a change would be consistent with the need for political groups to set their own political priorities in questioning and would enable greater flexibility in the arrangements for the increasing number of joint committee hearings (involving two or more committees); maintains that questions should be of use in making a value judgement and intended to assess the competence and qualifications of the Commissioner-designate;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Considers that the lack of follow-up questions to Commissioners-designate in the 2014 process
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Considers that the lack of follow-up questions to Commissioners-designate in the 2014 process arguably enabled some candidates to avoid confronting more sensitive issues;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Considers that the lack of follow-up questions to Commissioners-designate in the 2014 process arguably enabled some candidates to avoid confronting more sensitive issues; whilst there is merit in examining this problem, underlines the importance of guaranteeing to political groups the maximum amount of question time possible, particularly in the case of joint committee hearings, and of apportioning time in accordance with the principle of equal treatment;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Considers that the lack of follow-up questions to Commissioners-designate in the 2014 process arguably enabled some candidates to avoid confronting more sensitive issues;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Considers that the lack of follow-up questions to Commissioners-designate in the 2014 process arguably enabled some candidates to avoid confronting more sensitive issues; w
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Considers that the lack of follow-up questions to Commissioners-designate in the 2014 process arguably enabled some candidates to avoid confronting more sensitive issues; whilst there is merit in examining this problem
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Considers that it should be possible to extend the hearing of Vice-Presidents given their enlarged competences as compared to ordinary Commissioners, not least to allow all committees involved to be able to properly assess the candidate;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Recommends that the hearings be conducted in such a way as to allow more time for substantive discussions, which would make it possible to learn more about the candidate's views without leaving any questions unanswered; feels, moreover, that the hearings should take greater account of human limitations and should, therefore, provide for the possibility of a break;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Acknowledges that public hearings of Commissioners-designate are an important element in European democracy and present an important opportunity for Parliament and EU citizens to assess the skills and priorities of each candidate and their suitability for the role;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Stresses that the duration of the hearings of Vice-Presidents and Commissioners-designate with extensive powers ought to be extended beyond three hours to make it possible to assess their preparedness in relation to all the topics in their portfolio;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Recalls that section 1(a)(1) of the abovementioned Annex provides that ‘Parliament shall evaluate Commissioners- designate on the basis of their general competence, European commitment and personal independence. It shall assess knowledge of their prospective portfolio and their communication skills.’, and emphasises that no other criteria are relevant in the evaluation of the candidate;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Recalls that section 1(a)(1) of the abovementioned Annex provides that ‘Parliament shall evaluate Commissioners- designate on the basis of their general competence, European commitment and personal independence. It shall assess knowledge of their prospective portfolio and their communication skills.’
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Recalls that section 1(a)(1) of the abovementioned Annex provides that ‘Parliament shall evaluate Commissioners- designate on the basis of their general competence, European commitment and personal independence. It shall assess knowledge of their prospective portfolio and their communication skills.’, and emphasises that no other criteria are relevant in the evaluation of the candidate; notes further that under paragraph 1a, the scrutiny of the declaration of financial interests applies to a candidate in their capacity as Commissioner-designate and not as a Member of the European Parliament; considers that an assessment by the Committee on Legal Affairs of the compliance of a declaration of financial interests can only be a formal check and cannot replace a political assessment of the independence of the candidate based inter alia on his/her declaration of interests;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Recalls that section 1(a)(1) of the abovementioned Annex provides that ‘Parliament shall evaluate Commissioners- designate on the basis of their general competence, European commitment and personal independence. It shall assess knowledge of their prospective portfolio and their communication skills.’
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Recalls that section 1(a)(1) of the abovementioned Annex provides that ‘Parliament shall evaluate Commissioners- designate on the basis of their general competence, European commitment and personal independence. It shall assess knowledge of their prospective portfolio and their communication skills.’, and emphasises that no other criteria are relevant in the evaluation of the candidate; notes further that under paragraph 1a, the scrutiny of the declaration of financial interests applies to a candidate in their capacity as Commissioner-designate and not as a Member of the European Parliament; considers that the scrutiny of the Declaration of Financial Interests of Commissioners designates should be broadened to include their wider family if possible.
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Stresses that Members of Parliament should always be guaranteed the possibility of obtaining a full and exhaustive reply from Commissioners- designate;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Recommends that Commissioners- designate be given the option of submitting a written statement within 12 hours after the hearing is declared closed in cases in which they have not succeeded in giving a full and exhaustive reply to a question;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Stresses that committee coordinators should endeavour to reach a consensus on
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Emphasises that as far as opening statements are concerned, it would be preferable, in line with section 1(b)(7) (Hearings) of Annex XVI to the Rules of Procedure, to give all candidates the same amount of time so as to ensure that all Commissioners-designate enjoy an equal and fair opportunity to present themselves and their opinions.
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Stresses that committee coordinators should endeavour to reach a consensus on the evaluation;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Stresses that committee coordinators should endeavour to reach a consensus on the evaluation; believes nevertheless that, where they are unable to do so, they should be able to act by a majority representing at l
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Stresses that committee coordinators should endeavour to reach a consensus on the evaluation; believes nevertheless that, where they are unable to do so, they should be able to act by a majority representing a large majority of the committee, having regard to the respective strengths of the various groups; considers further that the opinion of groups which dissent from the majority view should be
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Notes that methods and practices of the post-hearing evaluation vary between committees; points out that coordinators should make their evaluation guided by a list of issues and specific criteria; considers it useful to establish a set of evaluation guidelines to be used by the coordinators;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. As regards the deadlines applicable to the evaluation statements, in order to make the process clearer and avoid any sort of confusion which may come out from a wrong interpretation of the Section 1(c) (6) of Annex XVI to the Rules of Procedure, believes that (the Rules of Procedure) should provide for the statement of evaluation to be adopted as soon as possible, and made public within 24 hours after the hearings are declared closed.
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 6. As regards the deadlines applicable to the evaluation statements, believes that the Rules of Procedure should provide for the statement of evaluation to be adopted as soon as possible, and made public within 24 hours after the
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. As regards the deadlines applicable to the evaluation statements, believes that the Rules of Procedure should provide for the statement of evaluation to be adopted and made public as soon as possible
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. As regards the deadlines applicable to the evaluation statements,
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. As regards the deadlines applicable to the evaluation statements,
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. As regards the deadlines applicable to the evaluation statements, believes that the Rules of Procedure should provide for the statement of evaluation to be adopted as soon as possible, and made public
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Considers it legitimate to refrain from reaching prior political agreements, which partially distort the very aim of the hearing and reduce Parliament’s ability to assess objectively the knowledge that Commissioners-designate possess concerning the subjects with which they will have to deal if they are confirmed in post;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Maintains that the opinion of the committee responsible should be legally binding; considers further that Parliament’s requests should be taken into account when it asks for a candidate to be replaced or given a different portfolio.
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Recommends that individual hearings be subject to clear time limits and that, in addition to the minimum duration for a hearing, a maximum duration be set; feels that, where necessary, it would be appropriate to hold a hearing over two days;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Recognises that the installation of the Commission was unduly delayed because some Member States were slow to nominate their candidates; to avoid a repetition of such a situation in the future, calls for Member States to be subject to a deadline for putting forward at least two nominations;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Requests the Committee on Constitutional Affairs to change Annex XVI to the Rules of Procedure by amending Rule 118 and calling the Annex not "guidelines" but "provisions", thereby making it binding;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Considers that it would be desirable for each Member State to put forward at least two candidates – one male and one female – for consideration by the Commission President-elect; notes that more candidates would partly solve the "take-it-or-leave-it" problem when a single candidate is found to be inadequate for various reasons;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Considers that it would be useful, for practical and political reasons, to set a deadline by which all Member States have to put forward candidates.
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 c (new) 1c. Notes that the 2014 hearings generated more media and public interest than previous hearings, partly because of the evolution of social media; believes that the impact and influence of social media is likely to grow in the future; considers that provisions should be made to use social media and networks to include the citizens more effectively in the process of the hearings;
source: 552.132
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2015-04-09Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
activities/1 |
|
2015-03-12Show (7) Changes | Timetravel
activities/0/committees/0/shadows/1 |
|
activities/0/committees/4/date |
2015-02-24T00:00:00
|
activities/0/committees/4/rapporteur |
|
committees/0/shadows/1 |
|
committees/4/date |
2015-02-24T00:00:00
|
committees/4/rapporteur |
|
other/0 |
|
2015-02-19Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
activities/0/committees/5/date |
2015-01-19T00:00:00
|
activities/0/committees/5/rapporteur |
|
committees/5/date |
2015-01-19T00:00:00
|
committees/5/rapporteur |
|
2015-02-18Show (5) Changes
activities |
|
committees |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure |
|