Commission reform job an offer Kinnock cannot refuse

It was never a job he wanted, and cheerily he makes no bones about it. Reforming the European Commission's structures and procedures is both a thankless and endless project, but Neil Kinnock says simply that there are some jobs you cannot refuse.

"And for the second time in my life," he says wistfully. "I was an advocate of change, and the time comes when you are offered the chance of making it and you either put up or shut up. And so I put up. That applied to me becoming leader of the Labour Party, and this job as well. There are more comfortable ways to make a living."

Now vice-president of the European Commission, with special responsibility for the top priority brief of administrative reform, Mr Kinnock is a man with a missionary zeal and a workload the like of which he has never experienced before. He was in Dublin on Friday, meeting the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, and the Minister for Finance, Mr McCreevy, on the reform process.

Afterwards, it was off to a fund-raising lunch for the Labour Party. A role, which he insists is "completely compatible with the function of being commissioner", bemused that anyone should think otherwise. On the EU's management he insists it's about doing to Brussels what every government in Europe has done to its own civil service. "There's no doubt that in this administration as in others there has been mismanagement, incompetence, nepotism. It's a matter of public record . . . But the fact is that the descriptions that I read in some national press of this `fat-cat', `insular', `fundamentally corrupt' organisation is a ridiculous caricature.

"The challenge therefore is much more to do with the modernisation of a particular unique international institution. This place was established as a policy factory and law enforcement agency and it's not bad at both of those.

"But at no time throughout the 40 years has anyone said it is also a public administration to be managed, and it can only really do its full job of policy production and law enforcement if it is managed."

That means making a premium of management skills, encouraging flexibility and mobility within the institutions, and "deflagging" jobs - appointing people on the basis of skill rather than nationality. And he rejects the fears expressed by some officials from small member states that this will mean they will lose out - to suggest that is to imply that smaller countries have less talent at their disposal, a proposition he would hotly contest.

So he has taken on the Commission's unions to transform the extraordinarily cumbersome industrial relations scene in the Commission that has made inertia a byword. Staff representation is being reorganised and the number of full-time trade union officials, whose salaries are paid by the Commission, is being reduced from 50 to 18. Unions who want full representation rights will also have to prove they represent more than 5 per cent of the workforce.

He denies this is draconian. "Unions must decide who represents them. I've been a trade unionist for 40 years and I'm not in the business of undermining independent trade unions. On the contrary I want unions to get a chance to do their job properly and be a partner in the social dialogue."

And he sees no contradiction between the aims of freeing managers to manage and greater accountability. "A manager who is given the ability to manage and has to account for the quality of their management is a good manager." The reform is being accompanied by a new emphasis on measuring quality output instead of relying simply, as in the past, on quantifying inputs. A new feedback system is crucial, he says. Above all it's about learning to change continuously. "It's much better to deal with it month by month and year by year. If you touch up the windows every two or three years with fresh paint you keep the smartness of the house and never have to engage in the expense of replacing all the damn windows. If you don't do it you've got a big job on your hands."

He would also like to see a better and more frequent transfer of experience between the capitals and Brussels. "In the capitals, service in the Commission or at least in Brussels in the permanent representation [embassy] has got to be seen as a career step." As a requirement? "Yes absolutely." On the euro he is careful not to tread on Tony Blair's toes but also nails his own colours to the mast. "Britain should join up when Britain is certain it will meet the economic tests," he says. But "it's very plain there is indeed a developing convergence between the economic cycles . . . and when the referendum comes I will be arguing for British membership of the euro. No question about that, I think it's a natural and logical extension of the single market."

And finally, I asked, how come after five years of stewardship of transport that the Holyhead road is still so bad? "Subsidiarity," he insists. Although money was available from the Commission for the route as a Trans-European Network, he said, it was up to the member state to find its share and build the road. "I will say," he said, putting the best foot forward, "the road across Anglesey is now underway and will be built in about 2 1/2 years . . ."

Europe must hope he has more luck with his present project.

The EU's enlargement commissioner, Mr Guenter Ver heugen, said yesterday Bulgaria is to start membership talks at next month's EU summit in Helsinki.