MEP Bernd Lange: ‘Now time for in-depth scrutiny – approval by the EP will not be a foregone conclusion’

The European elections took place on 9 June 2024. The term of office of the EU Commission also ends at the end of the legislative period of the Parliament. After the election of the European Parliament, a new Commission has to be formed. After each EU Member State has proposed a candidate, the European Parliament examines the candidates through hearings in the relevant committees. Then, initially, the committees vote on the candidates and either accept or reject them. In the event of rejection, the Member State concerned must propose a new candidate. Finally, the European Parliament as a whole must approve the list of proposed candidates. This week, on 17 September 2024, the already elected President of the EU Commission, Ursula van der Leyen (EPP) from Germany, publicly presented the new team of commissioners.

Bernd Lange, a German member of the European Parliament, provided an initial assessment of the new team of EU commissioners. He is chair of the Committee on International Trade (INTA) and chair of the Conference of Committee Chairs. Bernd Lange belongs to the Social Democratic Party of Germany and the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament (S&D). He was first elected to the European Parliament in 1994. Read Bernd Lange’s comments below.

The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, presented the nominations for the commissioners and the allocation of portfolios today. The European Parliament will now question the candidates in the specialised committees and must give its consent to the new college as a whole.

The limbo of the last few weeks and days has now come to an end, at least for the time being. However, the way today’s presentation was made, was not very respectful. Instead of presenting her potential team to the European Parliament for the first time at the Conference of Presidents, as originally planned, she only provided us with general information and chose to hold a more detailed press conference immediately afterwards. That’s not how it should be done.

We now finally have a list of potential candidates and the corresponding portfolios. However, in order to be able to take further steps, the so-called mission letters for the individual potential commissioners, in which their tasks and requirements are described in detail, must be available in good time. Only then can we prepare the hearings thoroughly. It is very important that these come soon.

Anyone who thinks that approval by the European Parliament will be a foregone conclusion is mistaken. Nobody gets a blank cheque. We will subject the candidates to a thorough professional examination during the hearings. This ‘grilling’ has already led to the replacement of candidates in the past.

Especially since we have also revised the rules for the hearings as part of the reform of the rules of procedure. The hearings are now an even sharper tool. For example, they now last longer, the question and answer sessions are more efficient and, if necessary, there can also be additional hearings. As chair of the conference of committee chairs, I will of course pay particular attention to this when organising the hearings.

Even if it would be good for the new Commission to start its work as soon as possible, we will not allow ourselves to be rushed. The European Parliament was not responsible for the delays in the nomination process and will take the time necessary for the parliamentary scrutiny. We will not be cutting corners or taking any shortcuts.

I am very pleased that four of the six Executive Vice-Presidents are women. I am also impressed by the regional balance. However, I think it is a shame that once again it will not be possible to achieve equal representation in the Commission.

Regarding the new portfolio distribution, it is not yet clear to me how the overlaps will be dealt with. This needs to be looked at more closely. For example, how would the work of the Commissioner for Trade relate to the work of the Executive Vice-President for Prosperity and Industrial Strategy?

As for the trade portfolio, I am pleased that trade and economic security will be in the hands of a single commissioner. This should ensure that our trade policy continues to be nuanced and that we only protect our market in extremely limited cases. The default position should be that we pursue open strategic autonomy. Of course, I am also pleased that Šefčovič was nominated for this particular portfolio. He is no stranger to trade due to his role in the Brexit negotiations and has a lot of experience, including in dealing with the European Parliament. I am also pleased about the nomination of Síkela for international partnerships. We can only pursue an effective trade policy if we also take into account the needs of our partners, including developing countries. We need close cooperation between our trade policy and Global Gateway, for example.