Jo
Swinson: If the Minister does not have the information in
front of her, will she outline, perhaps in her concluding remarks, why
three centres closed and whether there are any lessons that we should
learn as bids for new centres come forward so that they do not suffer
the same
fate?
Caroline
Flint: I am happy to do
so.
Mr.
Heathcoat-Amory: The first document before us,
“Debate Europe”, which was deposited seven months ago,
mentions proposals for European public spaces. It proposes that pilot
projects “will
be extended to Rome, London, Copenhagen and
Berlin”. Presumably
the project in London is now well under way. Will the Minister tell us
what a European public space is, where the one in London is, what it is
costing, and what the Government’s involvement
is?
Caroline
Flint: European public spaces are joint communication
initiatives that are intended to enable the European Parliament and the
European Commission, for example, to set up in the same building and
consider ways in which to serve the public as meeting points for the
sharing of information. For example, they can jointly offer information
and documentation, and host exhibitions, debates, forums, lectures,
training and seminars on European issues. This process is about looking
for opportunities for much greater collaboration. I do not have the
information to hand about London, but I am happy to provide it, and I
am happy to provide cost details as appropriate—if not today,
then in writing.
Mr.
Hoyle: The Minister did not really mention the problem
that we have with MEPs not delivering and not being accountable to the
areas that they represent. Will she respond to that point?
I
am concerned about funding from Europe for political parties. Does the
Minister have a view on the extreme parties that could be funded, and
is there anything that we can do about that situation? I believe in
having a debate, but I certainly do not believe in financing
extremists.
Caroline
Flint: I apologise for not referring to the situation
regarding MEPs that my hon. Friend brought to our attention. Of course
within the United Kingdom, due to devolution as well as the European
Union, there are various ways in which people are elected to represent
local or regional communities. There are issues for some of our MEPs,
and I know that when we had Yorkshire South, the situation was somewhat
easier.
We face
challenges in how we work together. Perhaps one of our jobs is to find
better ways of working with MEPs—of whatever party—across
the country so that their added-value role is seen in relation to what
they do. From what I understand, the Lisbon treaty will give both
national Parliaments and the European Parliament opportunities
regarding their future scrutiny and policy-making roles. That might
help to support MEPs, who do a good job, but find it quite difficult
when, for example, they are only one member of a group representing
Yorkshire and Humber. We should support MEPs in carrying out their very
hard work.
My hon.
Friend mentioned funding for extreme groups. Let me say, just for
clarity, that the funding covered by these documents is not available
to political groups. However, different forms of EU funding are
available to any political party that is legally established in an EU
member state, provided that it forms part of a wider political
grouping, such as the European political party that is represented in a
quarter of member states. There are certain other criteria related to
transparency of funding. From what I understand, funding is available,
but a party would normally have to have a certain number of members and
also to be part of one of the groupings within the European
Parliament.
Mr.
Hoyle: Just to follow up on that, will the Minister say
which extreme parties could possibly qualify for funding and tell us
whether any of them are in the
UK?
Caroline
Flint: I do not want anyone to misinterpret me on this
issue. For example, money currently goes to 10 separate EU-level
political parties, including the Party of European Socialists, which
includes the Labour party in Britain; the European People’s
party, which at the present time includes the Conservative party in
Britain; and Eurosceptic groups such as the Alliance for Europe of the
Nations, the EU Democrats and the Independence/Democracy group, which
includes the UK Independence party. UKIP is therefore part of one of
the European political parties that receives EU funding. If Libertas, a
party that has formed in recent times, succeeds in setting up a
European political party that meets the representation and transparency
criteria, that party would also be eligible for EU
funding.
Mr.
Francois: The Minister’s predecessor’s
correspondence with the European Scrutiny Committee expressed some
reservations about the deliberative polling techniques that are used as
part of the Eurobarometer polling exercise, which is a subject that
crops up quite often in the documents that we are discussing. Does the
right hon. Lady, as she now holds the ministerial
position, have any reservations about the techniques that are used in
Eurobarometer
polling?
Caroline
Flint: I am aware that some issues have been raised about
Eurobarometer polling. From what I understand, one of the issues was
whether or not one could poll a member state specifically as opposed to
across the EU as a whole. At present it is felt that it is quite
important to get a poll across the piece in EU member states so that
comparisons can be made and measured against. However, we will be
looking closely at whether UK interests are represented in that
process. If one asked citizens in the 27 member states which three
European Union issues they thought were most important, I am sure that
the UK response would be different from others. That issue was at the
nub, as far as polling was
concerned.
Mr.
Francois: In a letter to the European Scrutiny Committee
dated 5 July, which is on page 190 of the bundle, the Minister’s
predecessor
said: “The
Commission plans to arrange opinion polls in a more strategic manner so
that polls are conducted on issues where they will have the most value
for recipients and are published at the most appropriate
time.” What
does the Minister think that means? Will she assure the Committee that
Eurobarometer opinion polls will not be strategically released during
the European election
campaign?
Caroline
Flint: I will certainly look into the timetable regarding
statistics. The latest information that I have is that some statistics
might be provided in January. Beyond that, I do not know, but I would
imagine that the EU, like any other institution, would have to be very
mindful of the sort of material that it produced during an election
cycle, given the very clear purdah rules for member states. I am happy
to get back to the Committee on that, but I believe that the next round
of polling information is due in the new
year.
Mr.
Heathcoat-Amory: The Minister said that she would write to
us about European public spaces. I should like to ask her about a
separate initiative for Europe Direct centres, which are different.
When the Minister’s predecessor wrote to the European Scrutiny
Committee earlier this year, he said that he
“would be
interested in seeing a full list of the proposed expansion sites in
2009”. We
would also be interested in that, particularly given that that most
recent ministerial communication does not say where the centres are or
what they do. It gives a bit more information about
them—apparently, there are none in London or the east
midlands—and says that they are “vital communications
multipliers”, but I am not quite sure what a communications
multiplier is. Will the Minister tell us where the centres are, or
write to us giving that information? I do not think that there are any
in my constituency; I certainly have never been into one. Will she tell
us what they cost and what exactly they are
for?
Caroline
Flint: I thought that I gave the hon. Member for East
Dunbartonshire rather a full answer about the centres. There are 28
Europe Direct centres across the UK. I have a list in front of me,
which I am happy to
share with the Committee by writing to hon. Members,
rather than reading it out now. I do not have one in my constituency
either. The idea of the centres is that there will be pamphlets and
other information available, as in a library. In some centres, someone
will be there to provide information on the EU in a different way. That
will not be their only job, but part of their job as an information
officer.
As I have
said, there have been new calls for proposals to run from 2009 to 2013,
and the Commission has received applications in that regard. All
centres will have to apply under the new call whether they have
received grants before or not, so they will have to make a new case for
funding. I imagine that that process will involve an evaluation of how
good centres have been. The hon. Lady mentioned three centres that have
closed down, and I said that I would be happy to look into why that
happened. This is not about setting up separate buildings or
bureaucracies, but about adding to community information centres and
finding ways of giving information about the EU that might be helpful
to local citizens. Such an approach has to be kept under review so that
we can see what is being produced and whether communication is in touch
with what people want in the 21st century. The internet, for example,
seems to be both cheaper and more appealing to the younger
generation.
Jo
Swinson: On monitoring and assessing the engagement that
has already taken place as part of plan D, what lessons might be
learned in relation to Debate Europe? I draw the attention of the
Committee to page 2, which
states: “Some
40,000 people took part in person in the six transitional Plan D
projects co-funded by the Commission, and ‘hundreds of thousands
are estimated to have participated virtually via the
Internet’.” When
I did the maths, it struck me that 40,000 people are equivalent to
0.005 per cent. of the population of Europe, which does not seem to be
a high participation rate. Given our earlier discussion about how the
European Union thought it could have these consultations locally, if
this took place only in the capital cities, perhaps we should be
astonished that as many as one in 20,000 citizens in Europe managed to
take part. That strikes me as a low figure.
The hundreds
of thousands who are estimated to have participated virtually via the
internet are part of a more positive story. However, it struck me that
it was an estimated number. Surely, in these days of internet
technology, we ought to be able to provide a more accurate estimate
than hundreds of thousands. That could be anything from 100,000 to
200,000 or nearly a million. Even if the figures are not immediately at
the Minister’s fingertips, can she give the Committee a more
accurate figure in relation to the level of engagement and how many
people participated? The consultation was probably the type that passes
most people by. If we are to go forward and improve communication,
we need to understand how successful the
previous consultation
was.
Caroline
Flint: I am happy to look at the evaluation of the
consultation and how we judge it in more detail. However, in relation
to the two documents we are debating and their role, they are not in
and of themselves
the only way of trying to communicate how we engage
with the European Union and what the outcomes of that engagement are.
That is why it is important to consider this work alongside the work of
national Governments on demonstrating how the EU adds value to what we
agree nationally and the role of MEPs and others. Different budgets
relate in different ways to trying to create an informed debate about
the EU and providing access to information that can be understood by
citizens and their families. It is interesting that the Commission in
London has been looking at the 2007-08 projects that it supported
through this particular budget with a view to evaluating how well they
have done. In 2008-09, it did not pursue the same sort of grant giving,
because it wanted to be sure about what it had produced so it could
open up the discussion in 2009-10 for another round. That seems
sensible to
me. Sandra
Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab): I wonder
whether, in her new role as Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend
will take time to consider again how European matters are scrutinised
in the House in relation to democracy. Despite all the recent reports
on that matter, we do not seem to be inspiring enthusiasm any more than
in the
past. Annexe
1, on page 31 of the document, notes projects that have been
“co-funded by
the Commission Representations in the framework of Plan D in
2007-2008”. Some
of those projects appear to be related more to community development in
local areas than to enhancing democracy in terms of people’s
perceptions of the EU. Will the Minister tell the Committee a bit more
about the purpose of those particular funded
projects?
Caroline
Flint: All those projects have to go through a selection
process. If Committee Members do not have them already, I am happy to
provide the criteria for that selection process. I do not decide that
myself; the Commission does so by working through the matter. It is
trying to consider a variety of ways in which to engage with
people—for example, I understand there was a project directed at
young people’s discussions of climate change and their views on
that. There was another project directed at women in Northern Ireland.
Such
projects can have many different forms, and that is not a bad idea.
However, all the projects are about trying to get people to discuss
different issues that are relevant to how the EU impacts on their daily
lives. As I have said, the idea is to get a mix of views back. We hope
that the EU is informed by those projects and that the people who take
part do not just keep them to themselves but use them in further
discussions within the community. I suppose that part of community
development is about understanding who makes decisions, where they make
them, and what power they have, whether it is the local council, the MP
or, at an EU level, the European Parliament or the Council of
Ministers. On
the scrutiny process in the House of Commons, of course this is part of
it. In the past four weeks, I have appeared before various House of
Lords Committees and have corresponded with colleagues in both Houses.
Part of it is trying to talk more plainly about the added value of the
EU in our daily lives. Sometimes the debate is separated, in that we
talk about what we do in the UK but do not explain how it is enhanced
by EU added value.
To give one
example, as a former Home Office Minister, I know that the trust and
collaboration that we have been able to get in tackling crime was
greatly enhanced by being part of the EU. I have no doubt that
legislation such as that for the European arrest warrant is a
contributing factor to ensuring that there is no place for criminals to
hide in the EU. We do not talk about that enough, and we do not give
information that is accessible to people and allows them to see how
what the EU does fits alongside local policing and neighbourhood teams
in their area. We need to think about how we can get better at
that. Those
of us who believe that there is added value from the EU have a
responsibility to provide such information, because there are plenty of
others who want to try to undermine the EU and what it offers to people
in this country, which is not very helpful. That is a political choice
that parties need to make, but we can get better at providing
information. I hope that I can contribute to a plainer discussion about
the real outcomes of what the EU offers. Nothing is clearer in that
respect than the present discussions, which I believe have helped to
stabilise the situation across the EU, on taking action on the banking
problems in many EU
countries.
| 
