IGC consensus on commission pleases Ireland

DISCUSSIONS this week in the Inter-Governmental Conference on reform of the EU treaties have had a particular importance for Ireland - and produced a most satisfactory outcome on one key point.

The group of personal representatives of foreign ministers which is conducting the negotiations has turned its attention at last to one of the key institutional questions facing a potentially enlarged European Union, the size and functioning of the Commission.

And as both the chairman of the group, the Dutch European Affairs Minister, Mr Michael Patijn, and the Irish representative, Mr Noel Dorr, accepted afterwards there is a clear consensus that whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue, no deal is possible if it calls into question at this stage the principle of one member one commissioner.

The Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Spring, has made the defence of this principle one of the cornerstones of our approach to the IGC, so the not altogether unexpected outcome of this week's deliberations will have come as a relief to Iveagh House.

The group's discussions focussed around a submission from the Commission itself which also argued that to keep numbers of commissioners to manageable levels in an enlarged EU, large states should lose their second commissioner; there appears to be unanimous acceptance of this proposal. The Commission suggest they could be compensated lord this through the reweighting of votes in their favour in the Council of Ministers.

The submission also proposes significant increases in the powers of the President. For Dublin this debate is a key strategic issue, not just for the "selfish" reason that we want to keep our commissioner, but because the Commission's place as "guarantor of the treaty" in the complex of inter- institutional relationships is crucial to the defence of all the smaller member-states and thus, ultimately, the stability of the system of sharing power.

The delicate institutional balance of the EU depends, so the argument goes, on the credibility of the Commission in all the member-states. This is a function of both the visible representation of each country in its ranks and its consequent increased sensitivity to the impact of its policies from Athens to Helsinki.

Mr Dorr makes the case that a Commission without a Frenchman would be just as unacceptable to Dublin as one without an Irishman. Of course it's not a question of special pleading - credibility is also a function of competence - but it is not necessary to believe the Commission is wonderful to defend its place in the system.

Other elements in the Commission's proposals are not so welcome. In particular the idea of reducing the number of Commission portfolios to 10 or 12, leaving other members without portfolio - the idea is that they would have a full vote and be given specific tasks such as enlargement or relations with the Parliament, but might not have full directorates under them.

And the Commission is proposing to strengthen the role of vice-presidents in co-ordinating areas of policy - external relations, economic affairs, and internal affairs and citizens rights - for the first time creating a hierarchy within the EU's executive with some commissioners being required to work under the general direction of policy supremos.

The Commission President, Mr Jacques Santer, argues that such reorganisation would give greater coherence to policy where now overlapping competences create confusion.

Critics acknowledge the logic but fear that the larger countries would expect their nominees to get the plum jobs. The Irish commissioner, Mr Padraig Flynn, is understood also to have argued in the Commission that it will be difficult to get high-ranking politicians or public figures from the member-states to volunteer for positions if they are likely to end up with non-portfolio jobs.

And Mr Dorr makes the case that it is of key importance to the functioning of the Commission that all its members be given roles of substance. Part of the dynamic of the Commission comes from the ability of commissioners to engage in horse-trading, impossible without real directorates and powers under their control.

Mr Patijn said there was probably a consensus on strengthening the democratic credentials of the President of the Commission by allowing MEPs to approve or reject the member-states' nominee, and some support for extra powers to allow a reshuffle during the term of the Commission.

There is wariness, however, at the idea of allowing the President the right to chose his own team from shortlists of potential candidates submitted by capitals. The right of national leaders to name their own commissioner is, one suspects, too valuable a piece off patronage to give up lightly.

MEPs are likely to strongly oppose the Commission's insistence that it should still only be subject to a collective vote of censure in Parliament. During the recent BSE debate MEPs found themselves unwilling to use the ultimate but very blunt sanction of sacking the whole Commission while not being allowed to pick off individual commissioners. Member-states are very unlikely to back their call.