Image: Nemo bis [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons
Doubts persist over Sylvie Goulard’s suitability after protracted questioning in her parliamentary hearing
Sylvie Goulard, the nominee to become the EU’s next industry commissioner, is being asked to answer further questions about her suitability for the role after MEPs decided they were not satisfied by her justifications for her past conduct in a hearing on 2 October. If she is eventually approved by the European Parliament, her responsibilities will include space, digitisation and defence research.
“There is a cloud of doubt hanging over commissioner-designate Sylvie Goulard,” said MEP Christian Ehler, the spokesman on industry and research for the European People’s Party political group, in a statement after the hearing. “The EPP group will demand that more questions are answered, and a possible second hearing, to clear up the outstanding issues and to make up our minds.”
MEPs who conducted Goulard’s hearing devoted a substantial proportion of their questions to two issues from her time as an MEP between 2009 and 2017. These were payments made to one of her assistants—which are the subject of ongoing investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office and French authorities, and which caused her to resign as France’s defence minister in 2017—and her work as a consultant for a think tank based in the United States.
Goulard defended her conduct in relation to both issues multiple times. She said she had resigned from the government because there was a tradition for ministers under investigation to do so, but that she had not been found guilty of anything. She said she reimbursed funds to the Parliament when asked to do so by its authorities, and that the problem related to the timing of salary and benefits payments to an assistant who resigned. She said this was a human resources issue rather than a legal one.
Asked about her work for the Berggruen Institute and the sums she was paid for it, Goulard said that it was a pro-Europe think tank and that her work was permitted by the Parliament. “I declared everything. Everything was legal,” she said. “It’s true that the money, the amounts, were quite high, but they were nevertheless sums that correspond to the kind of sums that are paid for this international work.”
Goulard expressed “regret” over the way the incidents were being perceived by MEPs, saying: “We’re spending an awful lot of time on this.” She asked: “If something is declared and legal, why are we talking about it several years after the event?”
But her performance did not convince MEPs that she was fit for the role and that the concerns would not affect her ability to oversee her large and complicated portfolio. The Socialists and Democrats Group—the second-largest in the Parliament after the EPP—said in a statement afterwards that it, too, would seek “further clarifications” from her.
“Sylvie Goulard has not been able to give specific answers. It may be because she has an oversized portfolio,” said S&D Group vice-presidents Biljana Borzan and Ismail Ertug. “She may well be very experienced in European politics, but we believe that the butter is being spread over too much bread.”
Some MEPs did ask Goulard about her vision for the portfolio she had been nominated for, including the €13-billion European Defence Fund she would oversee, her commitment to defending the single market and new initiatives on artificial intelligence.
Goulard said that the procedures for the EDF, which is intended to spend €4.1bn on research and €8.9bn on procurement in 2021-27, would need to be looked at carefully to ensure that smaller countries and companies were able to benefit.
She used her 15-minute introductory statement to display her ambition to complete the EU’s internal market such that it allows the free flow of services as well as physical goods. Later, she sought to reassure MEPs that a new law on digital services would strike a balance between freedom and security.
Perhaps because of the close inspection of her personal conduct, Goulard emphasised her humility several times. “I’m not going to pretend that I’m some kind of superwoman,” she said at the end of the session, adding: “I deeply hope that you’re going to evaluate and assess a person with a narrative, a history, with strengths, and even mistakes…It’s up to you to judge that.”