Assuming responsibility as well as power

Date: 26/10/1995

The fact that the European Commission has decided there are no grounds for legal action against France over nuclear testing will have come as no surprise to those who have been following the debate inside Commission headquarters in Brussels in recent weeks.

While opponents of the tests led by Environment Commissioner Ritt Bjerregaard issued dark threats of the possible consequences for the French government of pressing ahead, Commission President Jacques Santer adopted a far more cautious approach, stressing the Commission had to be convinced “scientifically and technically” of an infringement of Article 34 of the Euratom Treaty before it could make up its mind.

As it became increasingly apparent that legal action was highly unlikely, the European Parliament stepped up the pressure with thinly-veiled threats that it might table a motion of no confidence in the Commission if it failed to take France to court to prevent any more tests.

Its threats became more explicit as the Commission met on Monday to take a final decision about what to do: court action against the Commission would be considered if it failed to deliver “firm action” to stop the tests.

Yet the response from MEPs to Santer's announcement, when it finally came, was fairly muted. As leaders of the political groups rose to respond to his statement, there was no serious mention of motions of censure, no immediate talk of court action.

Once again, the Parliament had raised the spectre of using the most powerful weapon at its disposal and then backed away from wielding it at the eleventh hour.

Whether the Commission was right to decide that there were no grounds for court action against France is not at issue here. That is a matter for the scientific and legal experts.

But it raises once again the question of parliamentary responsibility.

It is not the first time that MEPs have threatened to plunge the EU into crisis by invoking their right to dismiss the entire Commission in a motion of no confidence.

In January, they threatened to do so because of dissatisfaction over the performances given by some of Santer's new Commission team during parliamentary hearings designed to assess their suitability for the posts they had been allotted. On that occasion too, MEPs backed down at the last minute.

If the Parliament wishes to be regarded as an institution which must be taken seriously, it must show that it is a responsible body prepared to use its existing powers in a responsible way.

There are those who will argue that the power to dismiss the entire Commission would spark a constitutional crisis so serious that it will never be wielded. That is one strong argument in favour of giving MEPs a more limited right of censure against individual Commissioners.

But in the meantime, MEPs must resist the temptation to indulge in such displays of brinkmanship.

The responsibility which goes with the power to dismiss the Commission must be taken seriously or those who oppose any move to give the Parliament an even greater role in EU decision-making at the 1996 IGC might well gain the upper hand.