The
Chairman: Order. Before I call Mr. Vaizey to
intervene, which the Minister has generously allowed, I remind the
Committee that this is not a rerun of the Single European Act
debate.
Mr.
Vaizey: The entire thrust of my remark was simply to point
out the Minister’s incompetence in not checking with the
European Commission. He has told us that the Commission was closely
involved from September 2005 until March 2006 and that an order, which
has now been changed, was passed by the Government. The Minister
consistently refuses to say why the order has been changed. Is it
because the Commission wants it changed or because of a policy change
by the Government?
Mr.
Woodward: The hon. Gentleman needs to be reminded one more
time that the dialogue with the Commission began at the end of 2005 and
continued throughout this year. When my predecessor brought the order
before the House in March, we had submitted it and we were in dialogue
with the Commission. We believed at that stage that it would be the end
of the matter. As it happens, it needed revision. If the hon. Gentleman
is asking whether the Government feel that something has been lost in
that, we do not. We believe, based on the consultation that we carried
out with the industry—we knew exactly what the industry wanted
at the end of last year—that we must achieve a sustainable
position with the Commission that will ensure that we will have a
long-term film industry. Even if the hon. Gentleman would like
otherwise, that will not be achieved by cheating the principles of the
single market. I commend the order to the
Committee.
The
Chairman: Order. At this point, I would like to say
“It’s a wrap”, rather than “Order,
Order”.
Question put and agreed
to.
Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Films (Definition of
“British Film”) (No.2) Order
2006. Committee
rose at four minutes to Six
o’clock.
| 
