Hungarian candidate didn’t snap under pressure despite repeated grilling on abortion rights.
BRUSSELS — In some ways, it exceeded everyone’s expectations.
Olivér Várhelyi’s commissioner hearing was always going to be tough, but it turns out Viktor Orbán’s man in Brussels knew more about Europe’s health files than his CV suggested. He had done his homework.
But while he mostly handled himself well in a room full of all-too-willing interlocutors, he failed to convince MEPs when pressed — again and again — on his support for abortion rights.
Várhelyi ultimately failed to get the immediate approval of committee coordinators after the hearing — he needed a two-thirds majority — and will have to answer further written questions by Monday.
He began the hearing by invoking a lineage of health-care giants from his native city of Szeged, including Nobel Prize-winning chemists Albert Szent-Györgyi, who isolated vitamin C, and Katalin Karikó, who did pioneering work on mRNA vaccines.
He went on to recite the tasks outlined in his mission letter, talking up his familiarity with all the key pharma files.
Then the savagery began, with MEPs keen to make life difficult for Várhelyi.
Here are five takeaways from Várhelyi’s three-and-a-half hour hearing.
Calm under pressure
Várhelyi had one of the toughest jobs of any commissioner-designate on Wednesday night, venturing into enemy territory where it was already known he was not wanted. Future nominees may take care to avoid insulting the intelligence of MEPs, as Várhelyi did, whom they will need to confirm them later.
But Várhelyi was able to weather a steady barrage of questions over his suitability for the job, centering around his loyalty to Orbán, his views on abortion, and his commitment to animal welfare.
He stayed calm and on-message, seeking out his preferred ground on competitiveness and supply chains wherever possible. He was proficient in the technicalities of the brief and dipped into his past experience as Commission head of unit for intellectual property rights where necessary.
He sent friendly signals to the pharmaceutical and agriculture industries, trumpeting the importance of research and development incentives and the contribution of farmers to the food supply.
His positions weren’t to everyone’s liking, and drew sharp rebukes from The Left and the Greens. But Várhelyi delivered the message he wanted to send, and effectively played to the room by calmly defending the safety and efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines in response to frothy tirades from the German far right.
Abortion could be his downfall
He was far less assured as questions mounted over his position on abortion and women’s rights, however. Várhelyi repeatedly insisted he had been clear on women’s rights; MEPs didn’t agree.
His claim to understand women’s rights well, given that he is “subject to it every year,” was the most mind-bending moment of the night. Várhelyi also invoked his wife and three daughters as proof of his allyship, to predictable groans.
The nominee said little about his own views on abortion, but refused to commit to protecting reproductive rights across Europe. He clumsily dodged a question from Renew MEP Stine Bosse on whether he would support women who had to travel to another country in the EU for an abortion.
And he stonewalled further MEP questions on the topic, repeating that abortion was not an EU competence, trying their patience in the process.
MEPs inferred from Várhelyi’s responses that he was of a similar mind on the matter to the Hungarian prime minister. The Left MEP Emma Fourreau called him a “misogynist who’s remote-controlled by Viktor Orbán.”
Critical Medicines what?
We know that the Critical Medicines Act —to ensure resilient supplies of critical medicines and overcome drug shortages — will be a big deal under Várhelyi, we just don’t know what it will say.
But MEPs didn’t really probe for details on the legislation, beyond joint procurement and support for generic drugmakers.
Várhelyi also seemed to confuse the Critical Medicines Act with pharma legislation when asked how he would boost pharma’s strength while also increasing access to medicines.
What we do know, however, is that the commissioner-designatehas committed to forming a plan to tackle drug shortages within the first 100 days, a timeline mentioned neither in his mission letter nor in Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s political guidelines.
If confirmed, Várhelyi and his team will have a lot of detail to fill out in the first three months.
Animal — and farmer — welfare
Várhelyi managed to deliver some positive surprises — keeping in mind that the bar was low — when it comes to animal welfare.
After being pushed by Luxembourgish MEP Tilly Metz of the Greens on clear commitments, the Hungarian said he would work toward the promised ban on cages for farmed animals. He also promised to conclude the legislative process on already proposed rules to improve the welfare of animals during transport — adding that he was “shocked” by images coming from the EU-Turkish border — and to improve implementation of the existing rules across the bloc.
However, in a strange twist,when asked what animal welfare meant to him, Várhelyi said “mass [industrial] animal farming is the sector that puts food on our table, I don’t have a negative view of [it].” He then added that it’s about creating “better conditions for our animals while they’re alive,” but also about providing farmers with the means to achieve those conditions.
What wasn’t said
Even though the hearing went over its allotted three hours, plenty of important topics barely got a mention.
Social media and mental health? Almost nothing. In his opening remarks, Várhelyi pledged to investigate the impact of excessive screen time on young people’s well being, but MEPs didn’t bite with any further questions.
Várhelyi made a cursory reference to climate change in relation to the spread of animal diseases, but the discussion didn’t go near the disastrous impacts of climate change on human health, or what the EU should do about it.
The pharma package and the Medical Device Regulation came up, but didn’t exactly dominate proceedings. The course of the discussion was more down to what MEPs wanted to talk about, rather than to any reticence on Várhelyi’s part.
One suspects he would rather have spent more time talking about pharma legislation and less about abortion.
