Committee of the Regions struggling to explain its very reason for existing

Date: 07/02/02

By Gareth Harding

YOU have to feel sorry for the Committee of the Regions. Yesterday (6 February) was arguably the biggest day in the body's eight-year history. A new president - the unfortunately named Al Bore - was crowned, new chairs and political group leaders were chosen, 222 new members were sworn in and six lucky souls chosen to represent the consultative body on the Future of Europe Convention.

Yet this morning there were more column inches devoted to the Winona Ryder shoplifting trial than to the CoR's day in the spotlight.

This is hardly surprising, because the Brussels-based body has yet to fully answer the 'Anne Robinson question'.

Last year, the carrot-topped presenter of hit TV quiz show 'The Weakest Link' sparked a storm of controversy when she asked of the Welsh: 'What are they for?'

Members of the CoR, the Economic and Social Committee (ESC) - and the spaghetti soup of other minor bodies scattered around the Union - would do well to mull this question over.

Scroll down the CoR's website and you get some attempt at a raison d'être.

'The production of opinions is the main role of the Committee of Regions,' it clearly states. In its six years of existence, the institution has produced 400 of them in the 11 official languages of the EU.

That's more than 4,000 documents floating around, filling up officials' in-trays, out-trays and waste-paper baskets.

There is nothing wrong with having opinions, but opinions without the power to back them up are not worth the prodigious amount of paper they are printed on. Bereft of legislative authority, ignored by the media and unknown to the public, it is little wonder that most people consider the CoR and ESC to be little more than costly talking shops.

Even newly-elected President Bore admitted yesterday that after two terms the CoR's impact 'remains marginal'.

The two institutions argue that they are bridges between the Brussels decision-making process and 'the people'. That is precisely what the European Parliament is there for - the only difference is that 91 of Europeans have heard of the Strasbourg-based assembly, while a paltry 29 have heard of the CoR and 37 of the ESC. Voters already have enough difficulty remembering who their MEPs are, so how can they be expected to connect with their regional representatives?

Take Wales. The ancient Celtic nation has five directly elected MEPs who return to their constituencies every Thursday to open village fêtes, conduct political 'surgeries' and explain their work to the public. The CoR, on the other hand, is represented by two government-appointed members.

In Wales that amounts to one for every 1.4 million people. In addition to sending ministers to certain Council meetings, Wales, like all the other regions of Europe, has its own lobby group in Brussels.

So the idea that it, or any other region, needs the CoR to make its voice heard is faintly ludicrous.

Local and regional authorities are often responsible for making sure EU laws are properly implemented and their experience is vital in drawing up new legislation. For over half a century they have had their own lobby organisation in Brussels - the Council of European Municipalities and Regions, which is headed by a certain Valéry Giscard d'Estaing.

The fundamental difference between the CEMR and the CoR is that the latter costs taxpayers €37 million a year to run and the Commission has a treaty-bound obligation not to ignore it, while the former is a voluntary body financed by local authorities.

Creating institutions to deal with perceived problems has always been the preferred approach of EU leaders. They have done it at almost every other Intergovernmental Conference and, if Blair and Chirac get their way at the next treaty talks, there could be yet another institution to confuse the public: a second chamber of Parliament made up of national MPs.

One of the most frequently heard criticisms of the EU is that it is too bureaucratic. The future of Europe debate provides Union leaders with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get down to some institutional spring-cleaning. Bodies like the CoR, ESC and the mushrooming list of EU agencies should be forced to justify their existence on a strictly cost/benefit basis.

If they can, they should be given the powers to do their job properly. If they cannot, heads of state should have the courage to scrap them.