Mr.
Francois: I cannot give a country-by-country breakdown,
but I can assure my hon. Friend that Ireland is getting a great deal of
attention from its European partners, and there must be some reason for
that.
The motion
asks us to
welcome “the
measures taken to further improve the co-ordination of the European
Union’s work on communicating with the
public”, but
that would mean helping to ratify the treaty of Lisbon, to which the
Conservatives are firmly opposed. The people of this country were
promised a referendum on the treaty, but Labour and the Liberal
Democrats denied them that. For those reasons, we will oppose the
motion. 5.40
pm
Jo
Swinson: I am positive about Europe and the European
Union, and the role that they can play in making our
constituents’ lives better. On certain issues of the day, such
as tackling international crime or climate change, solutions have to
come at a European level, and some matters must be taken even further,
with more global agreement sought. It was therefore with despair that I
received these 190 pages of documentation, which are, as the right hon.
Member for Wells pointed out, filled with phrases such as
“communications multipliers” that hardly roll off the
tongue and are not immediately easy to understand.
It is a shame
that the EU’s approach to improving communication has
demonstrated some of the things that most need to change about the way
in which Europe works. The process seems to be all about bureaucracy
and producing dry, turgid documents, rather than being dynamic and
engaging people in a way that will make them feel positive about Europe
and give them an opportunity to have a say and make their voices
heard.
Page 21 of
the document says that the period of reflection and engagement on this
issue between June 2005 to June 2007 was meant
to “encourage
Member States to organise a broad public debate on the future of the
European Union involving citizens, civil society, social partners,
national parliaments and political
parties”. That
is exactly what we need in this country, and I would wholeheartedly
support it. I did not speak for my party on foreign affairs during that
period, so perhaps I
was not paying as much attention as I would these
days, but I am interested and involved in politics, Europe and foreign
affairs generally, so did I miss something? Where was that broad public
debate on the future of the European Union that was supposed to be
rolled out across the UK? Most of our constituents will have missed it,
and that is not something that we can easily point to as having
happened across the country. That is a shame, because there are some
good ideas in the documents, such as ideas networks between experts and
academics about policy proposals, citizens’ forums, and making
better use of internet debates. If we are trying to communicate with
700-odd million people across an entire continent, surely a key part of
that must be more use of information communications
technology. My
problem with the process is that it has been carried out in such an
uninspiring and bureaucratic way that even people who are passionate
about how Europe can improve our lives have found it less than
inspiring. I appreciate that it is not easy to conduct a debate among
700 million people, but the Government should be taking a lead in the
UK on promoting the benefits of Europe. They should point out that the
EU has delivered on consumer protection in relation to mobile phone
charges, and on international crime such as people trafficking and
terrorism. The EU emissions trading scheme is leading the way for the
rest of the world on environmental protection and tackling climate
change.
There are
still problems in Europe that we cannot shy away from. People who are
pro-European sometimes fall into the trap of saying that everything
about Europe is wonderful, yet there still is not enough focus on the
democratic institutions, and there is too much centralisation of power
among the unaccountable parts of Europe. Those problems must be tackled
and debated with the money that is being put forward for such a
purpose. The process cannot be just about selling the EU and its
benefits; it must also be about considering the problems and finding
solutions. I
believe that Britain needs to be at the heart of Europe, but the
Government need to lead the debate on that. So far, there has not been
anything like the kind of open, public debate that we need to have in
this country. My priority is to propose a way of having that debate: we
should have a referendum on whether Britain’s future should be
within or outwith the EU. I appreciate that that would not qualify for
the funding as described in the documents, but it is certainly
something that the Government could take up. That would be one
mechanism for having the debate, but the Government may prefer to do it
another way. Whatever the mechanism, I would like them to take the lead
and have that
debate. For
that reason, I therefore reluctantly support the Government’s
motion. I emphasise the word “reluctantly” because
although, as the Minister said, this is a start on better communication
about Europe, the communication does not go nearly far enough, and the
Government must do much
better. 5.45
pm
Mr.
Heathcoat-Amory: The more unpopular the EU becomes, the
more obsessed the Commission becomes with trying to sell it to the
public. This could all have been avoided—this debate would have
been unnecessary—if it had just taken seriously the Laeken
declaration, which
is now seven years old. The Heads of Government spotted that there was a
wide and growing gap between the public and the EU and instructed the
Convention on the Future of Europe to design something completely
different that was simpler, more democratic and closer to the citizen,
to cite the phrase that was used. Instead, the Commission wrote a
constitution that actually widened the gap, with more decisions to be
taken even further from the citizen, so now it has to work even harder
to try to persuade everyone that the EU is actually a frightfully good
idea. Things
like anthems, Europe days, flags and plan Ds will not do the job.
Incidentally, what happened to plans A, B and C? I do not remember
them, but we are now on plan D. There is absolutely no indication that
the public are learning to love Brussels. In fact, on average, the
turnout in European Parliament elections has fallen in each and every
election since the initial one in 1979. As has been said several times,
the EU really is not working, but we are spending an awful lot of money
on
it. Rather
than analysing the effectiveness and fairness of existing expenditure,
the Government are happy to wave through another €88 million. We
will not get an assessment of the results of that expenditure until
September 2009. In the month in which the EU accounts have been
rejected by the auditors for the 14th year in a row, does the Minister
really think that that is a clever way of using taxpayers’
money, particularly as we are entering a
recession? Of
course, there have been regular assessments of public opinion—at
least in other member states. They were called national referendums,
but the Commission did not like the results. The simplest way to ask
this country whether it wants to move forward with the treaty is to
have the promised
referendum. The
Minister said that a private organisation might be able to apply for
some of the money on a case-by-case basis, but I will let her in on a
secret. There is absolutely no way that any organisation in Ireland or
any other country will ever receive money to fight an official
referendum—or, in this country, to hold one. Referendums that
deliver the wrong result do not receive EU
funding. In
the light of last week’s debate on the Floor of the House, I
suggest to the Minister that if she really wants to do something about
public understanding, she could make a start by opening up the European
Scrutiny Committee to public view. I am a member of it, and other
members of this Committee are past or current members. It is absurd
that she says that her aim and that of Europe is to increase public
participation when we keep people out of the Committee that deals with
documents such as those that we are considering. That really is the
height of
hypocrisy. The
Minister was noticeably weak on what is actually meant by things such
as Europe Direct centres and European public spaces. There is a clue in
the documents. Apparently, a European public space is a meeting point
for Europeans. If we are to have one in this country, it will be a
place
for “films,
debates, forums and
lectures”. The
only thing is that a person has to be European to use it, so they have
to produce their passport at the door. Is that really worth a great
deal of public expenditure? Our net contribution to the European Union
budget will soon increase to £6 billion a year. Is there not
some modest reform that the Government could bring in? We
really do not want to fund a European public space in London with
foreigners kept out and stopped from seeing hosted exhibitions and
films. The
aim of promoting what is called active European citizenship runs right
through these documents. We are all familiar with the concept of
citizenship. It is about entitlement, and it not an active concept
because that implies obligations. Under the existing EU treaties, we
are all citizens of the European Union, but that does not create a
requirement for us or something that we have to do. It is therefore
perfectly obvious that the concept of active citizenship goes beyond
that and that organisations applying for funding that take any other
view about what is required of the European citizen will not receive
the funds. That gives the game away. These proposals are a distorted
form of propaganda at public expense. The Minister’s remarks and
answers so far have shown that she has not understood the true nature
of this
initiative. 5.51
pm
Caroline
Flint: I thank hon. Members for a number of interesting
observations. Over the weeks and months ahead, I will look more closely
not only at what the European Union can offer in terms of access to
information, but at the ways in which Departments can provide factual
information on what we gain from our EU membership and on the things
that affect people’s lives. That is important because people
have strong views about the European Union. It is not my mission to try
to get British people or anyone else from within the EU to love the EU
as an institution. There are some exceptions, but generally there are
few institutions that people love—even the beloved BBC is
getting a
hammering. I
want to contribute to a better understanding of how the EU adds value
to our daily lives and what we gain from our membership. An example of
that is the way in which the EU member states have worked together on
the financial situation. We have some important decisions on climate
change to make in the EU towards the end of the year. That will have an
impact on the EU’s strength and role in terms of global
discussions on climate change with the USA, China and India. Of course,
there are other issues to consider. The energy review document was
published last week. British people are concerned about fuel prices,
and that is important in relation to where fuel comes from and how
secure our fuel supply is in the short and long term. The ability of
the EU to add value to what we can achieve nationally is important, as
I have
said. Some
people—I would not suggest that it is anyone on the
Committee—do not believe we should be members of the European
Union, whatever is said to them. It does not matter what the European
Union does. When it makes mistakes, they do not accept that it also
does good. People need to be honest about that in their deliberations
and their contributions to the debate. I would not for one instance
suggest that the EU gets it right all the time or that it cannot
improve. However, as a Minister, I feel that we need to consider that
too. Whether someone is a local councillor or an MP, they should always
look for ways to make improvements.
The
“Debate Europe” paper seeks to encourage ways of
listening and explaining things better. It also seeks to ensure that
communication is a two-way street. I imagine that, along the way, there
will be some examples of where that works well. There will also be some
projects
that, with the best intentions in the world, did not work as well as
they might have done. The internet and other forms of media
communication mean that we all grapple with the problem of how to
communicate with people and seek their views in today’s
society—particularly considering the demands that are put on
people’s time. I hope that we can all recognise that it is
important to communicate effectively. I absolutely agree that always we
have to be mindful of value for money; we can contribute there as
well. The
hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire asked why three Europe Direct
centres had closed. The information that I have to hand advises me that
Europe Direct centres, which come in many forms, as I have explained,
are required to meet certain standards and fulfil contractual
obligations. I understand that the three centres concerned did not do
so. I hope that she will agree that that shows that quality control
mechanisms are in place. The Commission office provides advice on best
practice and administration when offices are closed. The closures are a
result of looking at the offices and perhaps finding them wanting. That
is the only information that I have to
hand. The
hon. Lady also talked about monitoring and assessing the engagement
that has already taken place. It is important that we evaluate and
assess for successive projects, and that there is learning with regard
to future bids when projects do not work well. As I said, the
Commission is evaluating in detail the seven projects funded under the
Debate Europe initiative for 2007-08. That was one of the reasons why
it decided not to go for another round in 2008-09; it wanted to have
time to evaluate how the programme had worked in the previous year.
That is sensible, and hopefully we will learn from that evaluation for
2009-10, should the opportunity be available again. We support that
action and have said that we wish to be involved in looking at how well
the projects worked in the
UK. The
Commission is also committed to extensive independent evaluation of the
projects funded under Debate Europe. The provider of the money will not
necessarily be doing the assessment; there will be independent
evaluation. I do not know who will do it, but I am happy to provide the
Committee with more information on
that. The
right hon. Member for Wells talked about the joint public
spaces—where they are and how much they cost. There are no joint
public spaces in the UK. As I said, they usually exist where the
Commission and Parliament offices are co-located, the idea being that
since they are co-located there is an opportunity for them to look at
how they provide information. They can perhaps run exhibitions, in
which members of the public can engage and take part, or use their
offices as an opportunity to have schoolchildren or young people in.
Again, the emphasis is on avoiding duplication and reducing costs, and
I cannot see that as a bad thing. However, there is no joint public
space in London atthe moment; it does not cost anything because it does
not exist.
The hon.
Member for Rayleigh asked about the documents. I have said that I will
try to ensure that what happened today does not happen again. There
were some issues between our officials and the Committee about the
provision of the documents. There was an attempt to get them earlier,
but there was a discussion about the format and how they should be
brought
forward and that, I think, created delays. What we learn from that is
that we need to be clearer about what the format is much earlier in the
proceedings, to ensure that we get it right first time. I will
endeavour to ensure that that is corrected for the
future. The
hon. Gentleman also talked about the proposal for IIA. The Government
and my predecessor agreed that an IIA raised legal concerns. The
Council legal service was asked for its advice, which was that an IIA
binding the institutions legally would require a legal framework, as he
noted. We agree with that advice. We have instead agreed to adopt only
political conclusions, which have no legal status and are therefore not
legally binding. Those conclusions contain a political commitment for
the EU institutions to improve communications, which is useful, and to
have access to fair but diverse information about the EU. In answer to
his earlier question, there is no legal status; I am sorry that I could
not give a clearer response
before. The
hon. Gentleman also made the point about schools information being
unbiased and not expressing only the Commission vision for Europe. The
programme is not about promoting a Commission vision for Europe. The
award criteria state clearly that projects
should “allow
a variety of opinions to be expressed (without excluding any
opinions)”. That
is healthy for the debates that we need to
have. Points
were made about polling. We all know about polling in our respective
parties, and the hon. Gentleman gave an example that could be described
as a focus group. It was good to hear that he shares the view that
using polls is not in itself a bad thing, but that they need to be
based on real evidence and on what works. I agree, as did my
predecessor, that there are some weaknesses in Eurobarometer. The
Commission recognises that too, and “Communicating Europe in
Partnership” contains proposals to improve it. I hope to look
into that, too, in more
detail. Treaty
ratification was raised. It is a matter for each member state,
according to its own constitution, law and traditions. As we have said
on many occasions, the Irish decision is a matter for the Irish
Government and people. The communication programme is about explaining
and debating how the EU can make a difference, given its existing tasks
and competences. It is not about new powers, including those in the
Lisbon
treaty. Finally,
I wish to follow up on a point made by the hon. Member for East
Dunbartonshire. One problem in coming into this job has been that
documents such as those in the official bundle before us are worded
in such a way as to take account of the fact that we
have 27 member states. On one level, the language is therefore
not the most accessible, because of the task of ensuring that it keeps
its meaning when it is translated. That is important to ensure that we
all understand the legal or other basis of the documentation. I would
be worried if I had to use such documents in my constituency as a way
of expressing in plain English what the European
Union is about. We should look at ourselves: plenty of documents in the
House would be pretty hard for people to work through if they were in
the public domain. Legislation has to be written with legal competence
so that lawyers, not ordinary citizens down the road, will be able to
judge whether it is being implemented properly. We have to live with
that. The
key issue for me is how to translate the language for lawyers, which
ensures that everything is above board, into the language that we use
every day with our constituents, families, friends and colleagues. I am
interested in that because some of the very good things that the EU
contributes get lost in translation. If documents such as these were
the only basis for people to understand the EU, we would be rather
worried. However, a document such as “50 Ways Forward” is
in accessible English and is very clear and factual about some of the
things that the EU has done. It could be used by many right hon. and
hon. Members to initiate debates in the communities that they
represent.
| 
