The preparations for the hearings of the candidates for new European Commissioners are culminating in the European Parliament's committees in Brussels. The Committee for Employment and Social Policy, in which I am involved, is preparing itself for Vladimír Špidla. It will not be easy for him to win support in the European Parliament.

In their meetings, the committees of the European Parliament (EP) are making intensive preparations for the upcoming hearings of the designated commissioners of the European Commission. The Committee for Employment and Social Affairs, of which I am a member, is getting ready for the hearing of the designated new Commissioner responsible for the issues of employment, social affairs and equal opportunities, who is none other than the failed and recently removed Czech Prime Minister and former Chairman of the Social Democratic Party (ČSSD), Vladimír Špidla.

The process of the hearing of the designated commissioners has great importance for the individual EP committees. This year, the European Parliament will take a vote of confidence in the new Commission headed by President José Manuel Barroso, the former Portuguese Prime Minister. The vote of confidence in the new Commission at the EP plenary session is preceded by the "grilling" of the individual designated commissioners before the respective committees.

As suggested by the slang term for the process of the hearing of the individual candidates, the discussion of the candidates with the committee members is neither formal nor simple. The committee members ask the candidates numerous questions of a general character and questions connected factually with the sector for which the individual candidate has been nominated. A number of the questions are prepared beforehand, and upon approval by the Committee, they are submitted to the candidates in writing. These questions are answered by the candidate in writing. In their answers, the candidates introduce themselves and submit to the EP members the political programme with which they are applying for the post of Commission member. The other question will be asked orally during the committee meeting by the MPs directly and the candidate will have to respond to them immediately.
The committees concentrate equally on the two question areas. The written questions are more general and anticipate more extensive and more detailed answers, while the oral questions are sure to be more specific – maybe less pleasant and maybe more critical. The fact remains that the answers to the written questions will be worked out by the officers, while the responses to the oral questions will reveal the opinions and plans of the candidate, indicating his/her ability to undertake the post.

The Czech EP members are in a difficult position. The candidate nominated by our renovated old/new government is most probably supported by two, perhaps three, of the twenty-four members. It cannot be assumed that the Czech EP members would nominate Mr. Špidla to the Commission and hence it cannot be expected that they would support his candidacy.

The Czech government has proposed the wrong candidate. However, this is no surprise because the nomination did not result from a need to find a good candidate for the post of Commissioner but from a need to find a good job for the failed Prime Minister. The need for an appropriate "placement" of Špidla is evidenced by the composition of the new government. It is clear that the new government is just a renovated old/new government – it is built on the same coalition platform, based on the same minimum majority in the Chamber of Deputies and contains approximately the same proportions of the representatives of the same coalition parties (only the Freedom Union, with zero electoral support, has paradoxically improved its position). The only truly visible change is the departure of Špidla from the head of the government and from the post of the chairman of the strongest party (ČSSD) – the new government is merely Špidla's government without Špidla.

Despite this considerable failure, however, the Social Democrats remain divided in their attitude towards Špidla. He is denounced by some while supported by others. The former wish to get rid of him definitively – therefore, it would be risky for Špidla to run for the post of Chairman of the Chamber of Deputies or President of the Supreme Control Office because both posts are elected by secret ballot in the Chamber of Deputies and it might be that several Social Democrats would not vote for him. The latter wish to support the former party leader – therefore, they must find an adequate post for him and Brussels is sufficiently important for the latter and, at the same time, sufficiently far away for the former.
Nevertheless, Špidla was nominated as Commissioner and the Czech EP members must work with this fact despite their disagreement. Nothing good can arise for anybody from airing our dirty linen in Brussels. Accordingly, within the discussions with the proposed Commissioners, there is no sense in dwelling on the above-mentioned story about searching for and finding a gratuitous cushy job.

Our task is to present Špidla to the other EP members as we have known him over the past eight years. We are well prepared for this and the facts are clear. As the chairman of the Committee for Social Policy and Health Service, Špidla took part in politicising the fundamental issues connected with the necessary reform of health service and the social system, including the pension system. As the Minister of Labour and Welfare and Deputy Prime Minister he bears an essential portion of the responsibility for the worsening of the situation on the labour market, the rise in unemployment, the recurring worsening of the conditions for small and medium-sized entrepreneurs and the failure to solve the necessary reforms in the social and health care areas. (We must not forget that Špidla was also Minister of Health for a short time.)

Then, as chairman of the Social Democratic Party and Prime Minister, notorious for his lack of ability to communicate and perceive different views, Špidla failed completely. He built a government based on a majority of a single vote in the Chamber of Deputies and promoted a programme of pseudo-reforms, leaving the actual solutions to the future. The Czech Republic was increasing its debts heavily, unemployment grew, competitiveness was decreasing and the conditions for business activity were deteriorating rapidly. The failure culminated after elections to the European Parliament, in which the Czech Social Democrats suffered a crushing defeat and turned their anger against their leader, forcing him to resign.

The government in which Špidla was active as Deputy Prime Minister and later as Prime Minister committed a number of errors in the preparation of the Czech Republic to entry into the EU.
In many cases, the executive identified incorrectly the needs for changes in the Czech legislation and the laws submitted by the government then adapted the Czech legislation to the requirements of the EU insufficiently or incorrectly. The endeavour of the Czech Parliament to remedy these mistakes was sometimes successful and sometimes unsuccessful.

Under the pretence of the EU requirements, the government tried repeatedly to incorporate the objectives of the Social Democrats into the amendments of the policy programme.
The main error that has harmed the Czech Republic and each of its citizens was insufficient emphasis on the defence of the interests of the Czech Republic and its citizens during pre-entry negotiations. The government should have aimed at negotiating the best conditions but instead, its target was to enter into the EU no matter what the cost. Our citizens will be affected by the consequences of this fatal approach for many years.

So, who is the man coming to Brussels to represent the Czech Republic? A failed, strongly leftist politician known for his single-mindedness, low ability to communicate, lack of ability to hear his opponents' arguments and unwillingness to make concessions on his views. A politician who has never prepared himself for work in the European Commission, for whom the Commissioner's office is an undemanding job, the purpose of which is to silence his domestic supporters.

During the hearings in the committees, Špidla will be asked about many things by many people. Our objective cannot be to demonstrate in the eyes of Europe what a bad choice the Czechs made when selecting this representative. Our objective is to present him, ask him about his plans and ideas as a Commissioner, warn the right-wing members of the European Parliament against this strongly left-wing politician and get ready for opinion clashes that are sure to be frequent and regular during the five years of the term of office. It will not be easy for Špidla to win support in the European Parliament.