The European Commission faces a censure motion from MEPs in January following a Parliament decision not to give it a clean bill of health in respect of managing the 1996 EU budget. MEPs voted 270 to 225, with 23 abstentions, against a recommendation from the Budgetary Control Committee to approve the Commission's management of the 1996 budget.
Immediately after the vote, PES Group leader, Pauline Green (London North, PES), tabled a censure motion signed by 71 MEPs. This will be considered in January and, if successful, the Commission will be forced to resign. But it requires the support of a majority of the 626-strong Parliament and two-thirds of the votes cast.
And after the budget vote, the two leaders of the largest political groups, the Socialist and the European People's Party, Pauline Green (London North, PES) and Wilfried Martens (B, EPP), indicated that while they were dissatisfied with the Commission's handling of the taxpayers' money, they were not in favour of sacking the 20-strong body en masse. The EU Treaty does not provide for firing individual commissioners.
In the debate, however, MEPs were divided across party lines on whether or not the Commission had done enough to put its house in order following a year of scandals, financial mismanagement and fraud. Mr Elles (EPP, UK) said that to approve the accounts now would be a "whitewash" and indeed undermine the credibility of Parliament.
The Commission, he felt, had not responded sufficiently to a number of points, in particular to set up a truly independent anti-fraud office OLAF, as recommended by Parliament earlier in the year. Furthermore, the Commission's failure to provide sufficient documentary evidence relating to fraud involving the ECHO food aid was another reason not to give it a clear bill of health.
Political influence
His other concern was what he felt was a system of undue political influence in senior appointments which he said was "unparalleled" in national civil services. The challenge now was to introduce sweeping reforms to enable a modernised Commission to be in place on January 1st, 2000, with a revised statute, proper screening and a code of conduct to govern the appointments of high level officials.
Piet Dankert (N, PES) felt the Commission had responded positively to criticism. Of the two outstanding areas - personnel and providing documents requested - he felt serious efforts to address these questions had been made.
On the personnel question, he felt it was unrealistic to expect the situation with regard to scandals to be put right in just two months. What was important was a sign of a positive response to this issue and this was happening.
Budget Commissioner Liikanen defended the institution and insisted that he had acted positively to all the criticisms and was willing to provide Parliament with all the documentation it sought, except confidential references to officials facing disciplinary or legal proceedings. Furthermore, he accepted the call for a Code of Conduct to govern relations between Commissioners and staff.