Growing pains of fledgling body

Date: 23/11/1995

SO what ever happened to the Committee of the Regions?

Conceived in Maastricht and delivered in a late and difficult birth 18 months ago in Brussels, the Committee has commanded almost no public attention.

This is worrying for those who believe that a European Union which salutes regionalism must give the regions a powerful forum and not just a constitutionally-neutered talking shop.

It is also perhaps a touch unfair because those who do take the trouble to study opinions from the CoR - 59 produced so far - regard most of them as excellent work.

The trouble is just that the people of Europe - those whom the organisation is supposed to represent at the grass roots - have hardly noticed. Although the Committee is indirectly elected, making it the only major EU body after the European Parliament with democratic credentials, it remains something of a stranded whale. Despite its size and costs (15.7 million ecu this year and rising), it has power only to be consulted on education, health, culture, transport and economic and social cohesion. A hot-blooded political legislature it is not.

Like its unwilling EU cohabitee in Brussels, the unelected Economic and Social Committee (ESC), the CoR tends simply to be ignored except by bureaucrats and interest groups. There is speculation that some member states are coming to the view there is no longer room for both the ESC and the CoR, who cannot make a legislative decision between them.

With the 1996 Maastricht Treaty review approaching, the 222-member CoR now finds itself facing possible reorganisation almost before it has got into its stride. Some changes appear likely, but opposition from vested interests in other EU institutions and in the member states themselves appear strong enough to block even the cautiously-modest ambitions the Committee has set for itself.

Inter-institutional jealousies have also been unhelpful. Some see the CoR as a potential threat or rival. This thinking is probably behind the European Parliament's decision to refuse CoR members' use of the Espace Léopold debating chamber for plenaries, despite the fact that it is used only a few days a year.

But most of the CoR's problems are self-induced. From day one of its existence, it has been divided right down the middle. In one camp are member from countries such as Germany and Belgium with strongly-devolved regional governments, and on the other members from small local councils in centralised states such as the UK and Portugal.

In practical terms, this means presidents or prime ministers from regions like Germany's powerful Länder, representing populations twice the size of some EU member states, sitting alongside local councillors from parish authorities in the UK.

This division was underlined starkly at the Committee's inaugural meeting, when rivalries surfaced publicly in voting patterns for office-bearers. Jacques Blanc, the French president of the CoR and a regionalist, has worked hard to contain the consequent strains but they continue to assert themselves.

A recent manifestation came when the Assembly of European Regions (AER) bluntly called for a wholesale restructuring of the CoR so that it would “solely represent the regions”.

This would inevitably have involved local authority councillors being relegated to some sort of second-class or consultative role in the Committee. The idea, not ratified, has only aggravated the wounds. This is the kind of organisational question which might arise in a general review at the Maastricht II discussions. Most believe for now that the CoR is simply not equipped to sort out such problems internally.

In this continual atmosphere of internal rivalry, the Committee has found it convenient to soften the rhetoric about its future role and constitutional aspirations. Pragmatists like Charles Gray, the veteran Scottish local government leader, have conceded that the time has not yet come for the CoR to demand greater powers.

There has been talk, mainly German-inspired, of the Committee becoming a second chamber to the European Parliament, with full-blown institutional rights before the European Court of Justice.

But Gray says: “We have to prove ourselves first and we can only do that by showing the good quality of our opinions. What we need above all is credibility.”

Jacques Blanc, who beat Gray for the presidency, agrees.

Others are less patient. Erwin Teufel, minister-president of Baden-Württemberg, sees the CoR becoming a third chamber beside the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers - “and with co-decision in certain areas”.

But the CoR can at least agree with Teufel's argument that subsidiarity must no longer be regarded just as a principle or doctrine. It must be made law and written into the Maastricht Treaty so that regions can develop it and, if necessary, initiate legal proceedings.

A proposed formal change has been drafted in the Committee's submission to the Maastricht review conference. The CoR argues it should be recognised as a full EU institution alongside the Parliament, Council, Commission and the Courts of Auditors and Justice. In this way, of course, it could then raise actions in the Court of Justice against member states or other institutions it considered were being recalcitrant in respecting subsidiarity.

This raises a dazzling, if somewhat fanciful, prospect for those from centralist states who see the opportunity to sue offending governments. A cynic might conclude that it is for this sort of reason that the Committee is not to be directly represented at the IGC.

Recent events have shown the strain of the CoR's forced marriage to ESC. From the start, CoR members saw themselves as a superior force because they were elected in their own countries. This democratic legitimacy - gained only after a struggle in the UK and some other centralists states - signified little in Brussels, where the CoR was required to share some services with ESC appointees.

Although the CoR now has its own dedicated staff of 81, also rising, it has fallen foul of industrial action by unions whose members resent the extra workload. So far this has not stopped the Committee in its tracks, but the inconvenience of not having translations and routine back-up has proved debilitating. Some personal working relationships have also reportedly suffered in what the CoR sees as a political strike against it.

All in all, the Committee has not yet turned out to be the popular champion of the EU's much vaunted ideal of a Europe contentedly at one with its citizens.

As the Maastricht review approaches, there is still no real Europe of the Peoples, no Citizen's Europe and, it has to be said, not even a recognisable Europe of the Regions. To bring those goals closer requires some radical and fundamental changes to the structure and role of the Committee of the Regions.

This is the challenge for those who value the principles of powerful regionalism.