According to the different press releases from the political groups, MEPs and other sources consulted by EUROPE on Wednesday 31 August, the reactions from MEPs have been quite contrasting, following the hearing of the former Commissioner for Industry, Günther Verheugen (2004-10) at the Parliamentary investigation into the Volkswagen scandal committee (EMIS) (EUROPE 11612). The positions appear largely dictated by the political strategy pursued by the main two political groups at Parliament.
Verheugen's hearing (Social Democrat) crystallised the tension between the Social Democrats (S&D) and the conservatives (EPP). Therefore, the S&D group has, unsurprisingly, chosen a softer line and welcomed the fact that Verheugen finally agreed to attend the hearing. The Chairperson of the Committee, Kathleen van Brempt (S&D, Belgium) subsequently declared that his testimony was "very important", whereas the EPP explained in a press release that "We have not finished with Mr Verheugen in this matter". One of the criticisms directed by the EPP against the former German Commissioner is the fact that he has not shed any light on the reasons that prompted him not to take into account the differences between the emissions results measured in the laboratories and those obtained in real driving conditions.
In response to a question put to her by EUROPE, van Brempt explained that Verheugen had played the game and had been "open" and "fair". As the former German Commissioner repeated at the time, the MEP explained that the question of defeat devices did not have the same clear profile as they did now. She explained that "There had been a collective blindness" but did regret, however, his lack of political analysis and the failure to take a position on the matter now. Pablo Zalba (EPP, Spain), co-rapporteur for the EMIS Committee, said that the Commissioner had been too vague about the question involving the difference between laboratory emission results and those obtained in real driving conditions. He took up the argument put forward by Krisjanis Karins, the spokesperson for the EMIS Committee, and said that he hoped that, "Mr Tajani will be able to clarify the points that Mr Verheugen has failed to" enlighten us about.
Tajani in hot seat The MEP and former Commissioner for Industry, Antonio Tajani (EPP, Italy), will attend the hearing next week on Monday 5 September, where he is eagerly awaited by a number of MEPs. The criticism directed against Tajani particularly involve his lack of determination to control the national approval authorities and ensure that European law was respected. Zalba provided assurances that "He will prove that he has been very active in his efforts to reduce vehicle emissions and that he was not in the hands of an industrial lobby". Kathleen van Brempt appears to be more critical towards Tajani in this connection and highlighted the clear divergences between DG Industry and DG Environment, with the latter headed by Commissioner Janez Potocnik. The same view was expressed by Bas Eickhout (Greens/EFA, Netherlands), who considers that the question of diverging results between laboratories and the measures in real driving conditions began to largely come to light under his mandate. It should be pointed out that in the spring, the EPP had carried out a manoeuvre to ensure that Tajani appeared before the summer and not afterwards. According to several sources, the latter hoped to put himself forward for the Presidency of the European Parliament (EUROPE 11541).
Greens and Liberals rather pleased. Eickhout considers that the hearing of Verheugen was positive overall. According to the MEP, his testimony proved that the fight against polluting emissions was not a priority of the Barroso Commission. He concluded, "We have a better understanding of how the Commission was working at the time". Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE, Netherlands), co-rapporteur for the EMIS, said that the former Commissioner had provided an important testimony by demonstrating that the industry had failed to identify the lack of accuracy in the Euro 5 and Euro 6 Regulation (715/2007) and that "He has demolished the industry's argument, which criticised the approximate nature of the regulation". (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)