Caroline
Flint: I shall look into the availability of the
documents. They are obviously public documents and are available. They
have already been discussed in the Scrutiny Committees concerned, but I
will certainly look into that matter and consider whether that usually
happens. If things have happened incorrectly, I will put it right for
the next
time.
Mr.
Francois: I am sorry to pursue the point with the
Minister, but I am not sure that she understands how the system works.
The documents were discussed in the European Scrutiny Committee and
were then forwarded to this Committee for debate. For two weeks, I have
been asking for copies of all the documentation—not just the two
documents themselves, but all the exchanges of correspondence between
her, her predecessor and the Committee—so that we could read it
all in good time to debate it this afternoon. It is not correct to say
that all the documentation was publicly available. That is the point of
my question. The documents for debate on Monday were made publicly
available on Thursday afternoon. I ask her seriously that if we are to
improve the scrutiny of European business in the House, can we please
ensure that that does not happen
again?
Caroline
Flint: In terms of public availability, I was talking
about the two documents. On the bundle of documents, I will look into
that and find out what has happened in the past. If things have not
happened correctly this time, I will try to ensure it does not happen
again in the way that the hon. Gentleman has
outlined. Jo
Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD): It is a pleasure to
serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Key. I echo the
sentiments of the hon. Member for Rayleigh about the scrutiny of the
documents. It is somewhat ironic that, in a debate about better
communication between Europe, this Parliament and the people, even the
communication channels in the corridors of Westminster seem to have
been clogged up. In my case, I had left for my constituency by the time
the documents were available, so I hope that the Minister agrees that
it is clearly unacceptable to suddenly be landed with 200 pages on a
Monday morning
for a Committee in the afternoon. That situation does not enable Members
to do their job well. However, I accept and welcome the
Minister’s assurances that she will look into the
matter. I
have a question on the Commission’s plan for going “even
more local”, which is an interesting form of words. The wording
suggests that it has already been going local quite effectively and
that it will be going even more local. As for Europe engaging with
citizens, the Commission’s plan implies that acting beyond the
capital cities is some kind of bonus in the proposals, rather than a
necessity. Can the Minister give us a guarantee that the proposals will
go a lot more local than capital cities and that they will go beyond
that and definitely include the capital cities of all nations
in the
UK?
Caroline
Flint: Part of my newness to the job involves my
considering how communications are currently provided for and, for
example, who is applying for funds. One of my questions to officials
was about which organisations had applied for funds in 2007-08. The
Commission in London is evaluating those organisations to see where
they have come from, as well as the content of those proposals and what
they wanted. I am keen to establish how aware people across the United
Kingdom are of what funding is available and how they might make best
use of it. For example, I have had a brief look at the European contact
centres to find out where they are, and I have also asked questions
about how they operate. Again, one of the issues in relation to access
is whether people know how to access information—on the internet
or by phone—and who to talk to and so on. I will consider that
matter in terms of how local the process can be.
The hon. Lady
will be aware that there are particular criteria concerning the sort of
organisations that can apply for the funding. That is to ensure that
they are bona fide organisations and can do what they are bidding to
do. I am keen to consider how that works out outside the capitals of
this country and elsewhere in Europe. I am open to receive any ideas
the hon. Lady has on
that. Mr.
Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) (Lab): I am glad to serve on the
Committee with you in the Chair, Mr. Key. I welcome the
Minister and I wonder what she has done wrong to end up with one of the
least exciting of subjects. Allowing for that, what can she do to
examine debate and engagement with MEPs, because the biggest failing is
that, under a regional system, people do not understand who their MEP
is or the electoral system? Moreover, that electoral system works
against the Westminster system because, unfortunately, MEPs are not
accountable, they do not have the responsibility that they used to have
and I wonder how we can put that right. The Minister mentioned
terrorism and how a united Europe can fight it. Will she ensure that
Spain takes that issue seriously when it comes to Gibraltar, because
the links are not there?
Caroline
Flint: I must say to my hon. Friend that I am delighted to
have this particular position. I must also say that, as a former
Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for
Neath (Mr. Hain), I know only too well how important it is
to look at the
context of how we live today. The fact is that,
although there is a considerable amount of work that national
Governments can do, are doing and will continue to do, there are areas
where we are stronger if we can work
together. The
European Union provides a forum and framework for that collective
working. We owe about 10 per cent. of British jobs either directly or
indirectly to investment from the EU. We have seen many benefits from
membership. For example, in telecommunications, the price of mobile
telephone calls is coming down, and we can also avail ourselves of
access to health treatment should we visit other parts of the
EU.
It is
important is to look at where the EU adds value to what national
Governments can do rather than seeing it, as it is sometimes seen, as
being in competition with national Governments. Beyond the EU level, we
are clearly seeing the importance of how 27 member states can agree
some principles of engagement to take forward their arguments on the
global stage, where the financial situation is being examined. I am not
in the business of hyping different institutions or organisations, but
the fact that the EU can add value is
important. Regarding
Gibraltar and Spain, I was very pleased in the past few weeks to hear
about the trilateral talks that are under way. They are a step forward
and I was pleased to attend the Gibraltar day at the Guildhall
recently, where I reacquainted myself with the First Minister of
Gibraltar, Peter Caruana.
Mr.
Heathcoat-Amory: One of the avowed aims of the
communications initiative is to gauge public opinion. One of the
questions raised in the European Scrutiny Committee was whether or not
those wishing to hold referendums could apply for funding and whether
they should be looked on favourably by the Government and the European
Commission. Indeed, that question was explicitly asked by the European
Scrutiny Committee, and I mentioned it in my initial remarks. I do not
think that the Minister responded to that point. Would it be in order
and would encouragement be given to the making of an application for
funding to hold such national referendums on behalf of a private
organisation? Can she now answer that question, which exercised the
European Scrutiny
Committee?
Caroline
Flint: In my earlier contribution, I tried to establish
the fact that there is lots of work that the EU does, and is tasked to
do, on climate change issues, supporting employment and skills
initiatives, and some issues about tackling crime. The EU enables,
through those communication lines, an opportunity for people to
question and debate how those areas of work are being tackled, what the
outcomes are and what they mean to communities and
citizens. In
that sense, when one looks at the criteria, one sees that the EU is
looking for a diverse range of views and for something that will
interact with the work streams that already exist and which the EU is
legally required to undertake. I do not think that a referendum would
quite fall into that category, but I am informed that every case that
is presented is judged on a case-by-case basis. I would not necessarily
rule out a referendum, but I am not sure that it fits within the
criteria. That is what I was trying to say earlier. It would almost be
like saying that we should provide funding from Parliament to have a
debate about the abolition of Parliament, and I think that that is
quite different—
Caroline
Flint: Let me make my point. If Members are saying that
these lines should be used for a debate about whether we are in the EU,
that is somewhat different. The work of the EU and how it is presented,
how it helps families, and what form it takes are open to discussion,
but, as I said, things would be looked at on a case-by-case
basis. The
EU is open to variety of voice and diversity of the means of
communication, whether online, in public meetings, through pamphlets or
other documentation. At the end, if people want to have a vote, that
might be something to look at—I do not necessarily rule it
out—but this debate must be within the criteria and confines of
what is provided in the
documents. Mr.
Ken Purchase (Wolverhampton, North-East) (Lab/Co-op): It
is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Key. I
came expecting to be wholly excited by this debate, which is missing
only one element: the presence of the hon. Member for Stone to
complement that of the right hon. Member for Wells. I am in a
heightened state and anxious that we should drive the debate forward,
and I give ground to no one in my belief that we must have a
progressive policy on working co-operatively with nations around the
world, and that Europe is but a stepping stone in that direction.
“Co-operation” should be the buzz
word. I
have fundamental doubts, however, about the wisdom of allocating funds
for the purpose of communicating. It seems that minds are made up, and
it is most unlikely that the mind of the right hon. Member for Wells
or, indeed, my own, are likely to be changed substantially. I ask the
Minister how much money might be involved, and whether, if a
considerable amount will be spent, any portion of it will be directed
at combating the lies, slurs, slanders and misrepresentations in the
Murdoch press, the Daily Mail, the Daily Express, The Daily
Telegraph and all those publications that do their best to ensure
that there is not balanced reporting of the pros and cons of the
EU.
Caroline
Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. The
documents that we are discussing today and the associated budget lines
are only part of what is available to the EU to communicate a better
Europe. Funding is available through the European Parliament, MEPs have
access to funding, and I believe that my Department has some
£140,000. My
hon. Friend’s point is pertinent to this debate. It is one thing
to have diverse views about, for example, how the EU should tackle
climate change, and whether it is more appropriate to do it at the EU
level or the national level, but putting clear misinformation in the
public domain is not helpful. Some of the myths that are put around do
not inform the process at all. Very often, they undermine the good
contribution that the EU makes in different ways—the added value
I talk about that the EU can give over and above what national
Governments can
do. In
the months ahead, I will be looking with the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office and other Government Departments that lead on certain policy
areas at how we can ensure that we explain more clearly what we have
achieved as a member of the EU, and balance that
against healthy debate and criticisms, where
appropriate. Discussions must be factual, informed and based on giving
people real and true information so that they can make up their own
mind. Mr.
Francois: There was some discussion in the correspondence
between the European Scrutiny Committee and the Minister’s
predecessor, who is now the Secretary of State for Scotland, as to
whether the inter-institutional agreement that was originally proposed
to underpin such projects had any legal basis in EU law. It now seems
from the previous Minister’s letter of September 2008, which is
on page 197 of the bundle, that a way has been found to use the
inter-institutional group on information—the IIGI as opposed to
the IIA—to fulfil the same purpose without the need for a new
agreement. Will the Minister explain the difference between the
original agreement and the new one, and tell us why one was potentially
illegal, but we are led to believe that the second is
not?
Caroline
Flint: I am happy to look into the matter that the hon.
Gentleman raises. [Interruption.] May I
finish?
Mr.
Francois: If you tell me
something.
Caroline
Flint: I am happy, in particular, to look closely at the
page to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We constantly examine the
constitutional base to decide what is legal and what is not. My
predecessor looked into the matter, and we were satisfied that the two
documents did not lead to a contradiction between the roles of
individual member states and the EU’s role in communicating
better on EU policy and the engagement of our citizens. I am happy to
look into that in more detail and I shall give the hon. Gentleman a
specific answer
shortly.
Mr.
Francois: It is very good of the Minister to offer to look
into that, but we are here this afternoon to debate it. Rather than go
away and look into it, will she answer the question that I asked her? I
even gave her the page reference. Will she explain why those things are
different—why one agreement was supposed to be illegal and the
other is not? Perhaps she could just answer the
question.
Caroline
Flint: I have said that I will come back to that in the
course of the debate, and I will be very happy to do so. There will be
plenty of opportunity for me to do that in the time that we
have.
Jo
Swinson: I want to bring to the Minister’s
attention the issue of the Europe Direct centres. One proposal before
us is for the scheme to be expanded, with perhaps as many as 32
additional centres. I note that some areas of the country seem to be
well served, with Scotland having three, although obviously it has a
rural population, yet the east midlands seems to have none and just one
serves all of London. We read in our papers that three of the centres
closed down in the past funding cycle. Will the Minister explain why
those centres closed and tell us whether there is a danger that the
money might be used to set up centres that will ultimately close down
in a couple of years, thus giving no real continuity? Will she also give
us her thoughts on the spread of the centres and try to ensure that
they are within reasonable distance of people, no matter where in the
country they
live?
Caroline
Flint: We believe that Europe Direct centres are a useful
way of relaying information to the public in the European Union. As the
hon. Lady says, they are provided in local venues. The previous
corporate proposals and the grants for the existing centres will expire
in March 2009, and the new corporate proposals will run from April 2009
to March 2013. Part of the process will be reviewing the operation of
the current
centres. As
the hon. Lady said, there are a number of centres across the
UK—there are 28—and I am keen to examine the form that
they take. I understand that some are in libraries and piggybacking
other organisations, and I will be interested to examine the review of
what they are offering and how well they are used. It is always worth
doing that to ensure that we are reaching people, particularly those of
different generations, in the way that best enables them to access
information. I am open to hearing views on the centres from Members of
all parties, such as whether they think that they could be improved,
whether the current dispersal is the right geographical spread, or
whether they should be in other places. Such a debate would be
useful.
| 
