11 EU information and communication strategy
| (25672)
9068/04
COM(04) 196
| Commission Communication on implementing the EU information and communication strategy
|
| Legal base | — |
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 20 October 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 42-xxiv (2003-04), para 3 (23 June 2004)
|
| To be discussed in Council | To be determined
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
11.1 When we examined the original Communication on the current
information and communication strategy in October 2002,[20]
we welcomed further efforts to disseminate information on key
EU issues, but were concerned that information and communication
activities could degenerate into propaganda for particular Institutions
or the EU generally. We accordingly asked the Minister to:
- inform us as to how standards of accuracy and integrity were
to be guaranteed; and
- examine the case for a code of practice to ensure
that the European public could identify key principles and standards
that Institutions would be expected to uphold when implementing
the information and communication policy.
11.2 In 2005 the strategy and the current priority
information topics — enlargement; the future of the Union;
freedom, security and justice; the euro; and the role of Europe
in the world — will be reviewed. We examined the Commission's
ideas, outlined in a Communication of May 2004, on 23 June. If
anything this latter Communication broadened our concern. What
little the Communication had to say about evaluation revealed
the public's basic lack of information about the Union, the Commission's
response to which was to add a fifth priority information topic
— the role of Europe in the world — "the more
fully to meet the concerns of the Union's citizens". Our
view was that, especially given the level of turnout and results
of the recent European Parliament elections, it was probable that
the Union's citizens had somewhat different concerns on their
minds, and that, all in all, the strategy had an air of unreality
about it. The Government's response was essentially pragmatic.
There is nothing wrong with that in itself. But we felt that
there was both reason and scope (the 2005 review) for the Government
to take an altogether more robust position and do its best to
ensure that the strategy is re-focussed in such a way that it
both identifies and then concentrates on those EU issues that
really are uppermost in citizens' minds. We reported thus, but
— since the Minister had still to respond to our original
request — we kept the document under scrutiny.[21]
The Minister's letter
11.3 The Minister (Mr Denis MacShane) has now responded
in his letter of 20 October. He continues to stress the pragmatic
nature of the Government's approach. He cites an example of how
regular dialogue with the EU institutions on the need for decentralised
communications activities has, in his view, borne positive fruit:
asked about the "measures the Commission will take as part
of a common communication strategy to bring a positive outcome
of the procedures for ratifying the Treaty establishing a Constitution
for Europe, Commissioner Barrot[22]
said 'this work of presentation and explanation is of course primarily
a matter for the national governments'." The Minister adds
that "Commissioner Wallström[23]
has outlined her plan to work closely with Member States, Commission
Delegations in Member States, and local European Parliament Offices
to provide objective information about the Constitutional Treaty
which 'reflects national and local realities'." He concludes
by referring to the provisions regarding integrity and accuracy
in the Civil Service Code and the EC Staff Regulations.
Conclusion
11.4 The Minister has addressed the first of our
requests, but not the second. And he has chosen not to comment
at all on our main recommendation — ensuring that the strategy
is re-focussed in such a way that it both identifies and then
concentrates on those EU issues that really are uppermost in citizens'
minds — other than to say that "We continue to make
sure that our own communication activities are closely tailored
to the needs of the British public". But we are concerned
not so much about what the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and
its local partners do in the UK under decentralized arrangements
as about what is done elsewhere in the Union, with taxpayers'
money and with close Commission involvement, and not just with
regard to the Constitutional Treaty.
11.5 We are not reassured by the Commissioners'
statements cited by the Minister. We do not see how the objectivity
of "objective information about the Constitutional Treaty"
can be guaranteed by reference to staff regulations, which is
why we asked him, a year ago, to examine the case — which
to us is strong — for a code of practice to ensure that
the European public can identify key principles and standards
that the European Institutions are expected to uphold when implementing
the information and communication strategy. We are disappointed
that, for the second time, he has not responded to our request,
which we now reiterate.
11.6 Looking to the review itself in 2005, we
also reiterate our expectation that the Government will be seeking
a strategy that not only guarantees objectivity but also addresses
our original concern — that information and communication
activities must not degenerate into propaganda for particular
Institutions or the EU generally. What is needed, as we said
in our Report of 23 June 2004, is a strategy which identifies
and then concentrates on those EU issues that really are uppermost
in citizens' minds.
11.7 We accordingly ask the Minister to inform
us of developments in the review process at an appropriate stage
and, pending receipt of his response on a code of conduct, continue
to hold the document under scrutiny.
20 (23683) 10875/02: HC 152-xxxviii (2001-02), para
23 (16 October 2002). Back
21
(25672) 9068/04: HC 42-xxiv (2003-04), para 3 (23 June 2004). Back
22
Commissioner for Regional Policy and Commissioner-designate for
Transport. Back
23
Commissioner for the Environment and Commissioner-designate for
Institutional Relations and Communication Strategy. Back
| 
