CITIZENS FOR EUROPE (8154/05)
Letter from the Chairman to Shaun Woodward
MP, Minister for Creative Industries and Tourism, Department for
Culture, Media and Sport
Thank you for your letter dated 29 September
2006[119]
which was considered by Sub-Committee G on 26 October.
We note that a Common Position was adopted at
the Competitiveness Council on 25 September and that final adoption
is expected this month, following approval by the European Parliament.
We also note that you abstained from voting
in favour of the Proposal when political agreement was reached
at the Education, Youth and Culture Council meeting on 18 May
and again when a Common Position was adopted at the Council on
25 September. Abstention was clearly the proper course at both
Council meetings, since the scrutiny reserve continued to apply.
But we are very concerned about your failure to notify us that
political agreement was expected to be considered at the May Council.
We accept that the sudden and unexpected decision
of the Finnish Presidency to press for a Common Position at the
September Competitiveness Council put you in a difficult position.
But we are very surprised by the statement in your letter that
your officials were unable to contact the Clerk on 21 and 22 September.
Our office was staffed on both these days. In addition your officials
may wish to be reminded that our officials can always be contacted
in emergency during Recesses through the House of Lords Duty Clerk
(020 7219 3000).
While we welcome your apology, I must say that
we find the Department's failure to reply to my letter dated 28
June 2005[120]
for over 15 months quite unacceptable, especially since several
reminders were sent to your officials during that time about the
need to report progress to the Committee. We are therefore glad
to know that you have asked your officials to review their procedures
for dealing with scrutiny correspondence and hope that this review
will lead to a marked improvement in the standards of efficiency
and courtesy which the Committee should be entitled to expect.
Our officials stand ready to assist and advise yours during this
review.
On the substance, you say that you continued
to press for the Commission's interim evaluation which was originally
requested in my letter to you dated 28 June 2005 and that it is
now apparently expected "very shortly". We are very
disturbed that the Commission should have failed to produce the
requested evaluation after all this time and are bound to wonder
how hard the Government have been pressing them for it.
You will see from my letter dated 28 June 2005
to your Secretary of State this evaluation was requested because
the Commission had failed to justify the proposed doubling of
the annual expenditure. Yet we see from your letter that the Government
apparently believes that the Programme is beneficial. We find
it difficult to understand to see how the Government has been
able to reach that conclusion in the absence of the evaluation.
Your letter adds that you and your officials
will continue to address the concerns which we have raised. But
we question how much scope you might have to do so now that the
Common Position has been adopted and the budget has presumably
been approved. This seems to fall far short of the robust approach
which my letter of 28 June 2005 urged the Government to take in
Council negotiations with the aim of securing more clearly articulated
and imaginative proposals than the Commission had given and a
convincing analysis of the likely impact of those proposals.
My letter also asked the Government to ensure
that the proposed activities avoided duplication of effort and
action at Community level which could be taken more appropriately
or effective at more local level. Your letter fails to address
that request.
We are also surprised and disappointed that
your letter makes no reference whatsoever to the concerns about
the proposed legal base which were raised in my letter dated 28
June 2005. It is deeply unsatisfactory that the Proposal should
have been adopted while that important question apparently remains
unanswered.
We will continue to hold the document under
scrutiny and will expect you to report as soon as possible on
whether the Proposal has now been adopted by Council and whether
the promised evaluation has been received. If so, we will expect
to see the Department's assessment of that evaluation without
delay. We will also want to have a full and satisfactory answer
to all the other points raised above and in my letter dated 28
June 2005. Given our doubts about the programme, we will also
want to know how the Government intends to monitor its effectiveness.
30 October 2006
Letter from Shaun Woodward MP to the Chairman
The Commission have now informally provided
a copy of their external evaluation of the active European citizenship
programme (2004-06). We are now in a position to respond fully
to all your Committee's concerns.
EVALUATION OF
THE "ACTIVE
EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP"
PROGRAMME
The final report on the evaluation of the Community
action programme to promote active European citizenship is largely
positive about the programme. The evaluation has found there is
a strong need for the Active Citizenship programme and makes several
recommendations for the improvement of future programmes many
of which have already been implemented.
The report recommends an increase to the total
budget to bring it more in line with the wide remit of the programme.
There has been an increase in the budget for the new Europe
for Citizens programme which is in line with the recommendations
of the evaluation and also reflects the even wider scope of the
new programme. However, the agreed budget is €215 million
for the period 2007-13. This is less than the Commission's earlier
proposals and, along with the redirecting of resources to Action
1, was welcomed by the UK.
The evaluation also recommends the fostering
of links with national programmes, through improving contacts
with national bodies. This will help to avoid a duplication of
action at Community level which could be more appropriately taken
at local level.
A copy of the Executive Summary of the evaluation,
including the recommendations made, is enclosed for ease of reference.
A copy of the full evaluation has been forwarded to the Clerk
of your Committee.
Although the UK continued to raise the importance
of evaluation, the Commission were unable to consider an evaluation
of the former programme prior to the negotiations for a replacement
programme due to the timescales involved.
The Commission issued a public open tender for
the evaluation of the active European citizenship programme
which was awarded towards the end of 2005. This meant that the
evaluation report was not completed until late in 2006 and was
made available to the department just before the Christmas period.
An increase in provision for evaluation and
the inclusion of SMART targets in the preamble of the programme
has been incorporated into the new Europe for Citizens programme
in line with suggestions made by the UK following the Scrutiny
Committees' comments.
The Government considers that the new programme
respects the principle of subsidiarity. The programme will complement
activities carried out at national level, but will achieve goals
which the Government does not consider could be achieved effectively
at national level; the programme must by its nature be operated
at a pan-European level.
LEGAL BASE
The Commission proposed that the Decision for
the new programme be based on a dual legal base: Article 151 regarding
culture, and the residual legal base provided by Article 308.
Regarding the use of Article 151, the Government
considered it clear that this was an appropriate base to empower
the Community to pursue such objectives of the programme as bringing
people from different European communities together to share and
exchange experiences, and promoting and celebrating Europe's values
and achievements.
The Commission considered that there were elements
of the programme which did not fall within the cultural aims of
Article 151, being those which came under the objective of fostering
action, debate and reflection related to European citizenship
through cooperation between civil society organisations, to be
attained through various actions for supporting civil society
and encouraging citizens' participation in public life and in
decision-making. The Commission proposed Article 308 as being
necessary to cover these elements of the programme, as it considered
that no other specific Treaty provision conferred powers on the
EC institutions to act in pursuant of these aims.
The Government accepted that Article 151 was
not adequate to cover these elements, and accepted that no other
specific Treaty article was adequate to provide an alternative
base. The Government had considered whether a base might be found
in Part 3 of the Treaty on citizenship of the Union (Articles
17 to 22), but considered that none of these Articles provided
powers for the Community to take actions as proposed in the programme
for the promotion and support of civil society. In regard to the
use of Article 308, the Government considers that the phrase "to
attain, in the course of the common market, one of the objectives
of the Community" does not require that every proposal using
it as its legal base should relate, in a narrowly understood sense,
the operation of the common market. The Government considered
that the use of Article 308 was justified. The Government took
the view that the civic participation aspects of the programme
went to obtaining various Community objectives laid out in Articles
2 and 3 of the Treaty, such as solidarity amongst Member States
and the strengthening of economic and social cohesion. The Government
considered that the proposed programme was necessary in order
to obtain these objectives, through actions designed to encourage
EU nationals to understand, appreciate and benefit from their
citizenship of the Union.
Some Member States had expressed concern about
whether Articles 151 and 308 were compatible. The question was
discussed in detail at the Council Working Group meetings during
the UK Presidency and Member States reached a consensus that Articles
151 and 308 would be used.
The Government accepted that, since the procedures
under both Articles 151 and 308 required the Council to act unanimously,
the Articles could be combined to form a joint legal base. The
proposal required a Decision of both the Parliament and the Council
acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251
of the Treaty. Article 151 requires that the Council act unanimously
throughout the Article 251 procedure. Article 308 also requires
that the Council act unanimously. Accordingly, the Government
considered that the two procedures required under the two bases
were compatible; ie, co-decision on the basis of unanimity in
both the Council and the Parliament.
REGULATORY IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
In our Explanatory Memorandum dated 8 June 2005,
we stated that a Regulatory Impact Assessment would be to follow
if an assessment was required. Following advice from Cabinet Office
officials, DCMS considered whether this proposal would necessitate
an RIA. As the proposal does not impose new burdens on business,
charities or the voluntary sector, an RIA was not necessary on
this occasion.
UPDATE ON
THE CURRENT
POSITION OF
THE EUROPE
FOR CITIZENS
PROGRAMME
In my letter of 29 September 2006, I informed
the Committee that the Council adopted its common position at
the Competitiveness Council on 25 September. The European Parliament
second reading took place on 25 October 2006. The Commission accepted
the four amendments proposed by the European Parliament. A number
of informal contacts took place between the Council, the European
Parliament and the Commission in order to reach an agreement on
the dossier. The amendments adopted correspond to what was agreed
between the three institutions.
The first amendment introduces the word tolerance
in addition to enhancing mutual understanding between European
citizens respecting and promoting cultural and linguistic diversity,
while contributing to intercultural dialogue.
The second amendment reduces the number of days
between the publication of the Decision in the Official Journal
and its entry into force, from twenty to just one, which has speeded
up the implementation of the programme.
Finally, the third and fourth amendments involved
a reallocation of 2% of the total budget from Action 1 (citizens
projects) to Action 2 (projects initiated by civil society organisations).
The UK supported these amendments. The proposal
was adopted on 11 December 2006 and the programme was implemented
on 1 January 2007.
I apologise again for the gross delay in updating
your Committee on this proposal. This was due to the department's
Scrutiny Coordinator post being vacant for a period of five months
at the beginning of 2006. Unfortunately this led to the scrutiny
reservation being overlooked by officials. It was certainty not
the intention of the department to appear discourteous to you
and your Committee. Following an internal review by officials,
systems have now been put in to place to ensure that this does
not happen in the future.
I hope this information will allow you to complete
your consideration of this proposal.
30 January 2007
Annex A
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
THE COMMUNITY
ACTION PROGRAMME
TO PROMOTE
ACTIVE EUROPEAN
CITIZENSHIP
The Community action programme to promote active
European citizenship (civic participation) was established by
the Council in January 2004, for a period of three years ending
in December 2006. The overarching aims of the programme
were to reinforce an open dialogue with civil society on the principles
of transparency and democratic control and to intensify links
between citizens of different countries.
The programme had a budget of €80 million
and a specific remit to co-fund, through an operating grant, organisations
pursuing an aim of general European interest in the field of active
European Citizenship (organisations promoting European ideas and
debate and organisations and "think tanks" promoting
European values and objectives) and actions initiated by civil
society organizations (actions by nongovermnental organisations,
associations and federations of European interest or cross-industry
trade unions and town twinning projects). In total over 30 organisations
received an operating grant, whereas around 250 NGOs, associations
and federations and trade union projects received funding between
2004 and 2005. Over 2,800 town twinning projects received funding
during the same period.
PURPOSE OF
THE EVALUATION
The overall and objectives of this ex-post evaluation
were:
1. To evaluate the impact of the activities
carried out under the Community action programme to promote active
European citizenship (civic participation) and;
2. To learn lessons for the implementation of
the future "Europe for Citizens" programme (2007-13).
The specific objective was to provide an external,
independent evaluation of the current (2004-06) programme, with
a focus on projects/activities launched in 2004 and 2005. The
evaluation focused in particular on the relevance, effectiveness
and efficiency of the programme and its coherence with other interventions
supporting the development of European citizenship and civil society.
To fulfil these aims the evaluation employed
desk-based research, an online survey of programme beneficiaries
under its different strands, 54 in-depth interviews with beneficiaries
and Commission staff and seven case-studies to illustrate good
practice.
This executive summary presents the main findings
and recommendations of the evaluation.
MAIN FINDINGS
The evaluation found that there is a strong
need for the Active Citizenship programme. Increasing concerns
about the distance between the EU and its citizens and a growing
perception of a "democratic deficit" have led the European
institutions to increase the emphasis to be place on "civic
dialogue". Moreover, the specific programme objectives and
activities of the programme are in general coherent with its overall
objectives and the policy context. The internal coherence between
the different strands of the programme is still to be improved
since the programme only recently brought together different budgetary
lines under one single unit. Yet, this has already proved a positive
step that has increased the coherence between these previously
different budgetary lines and provided horizontal priorities across
them. A second point for improvement under the programme is the
weak coherence between the modest programme budget and the breath
of its stated aims; whilst the remit of the programme is challenging
and very wide, its resources are in comparison limited. This puts
the programme under risk of having a large gap between its aims
and what it can actually deliver. The programme has a wide range
of target groups but they were clearly defined. In terms of the
coherence of the programme design with the policy environment,
NGOs expressed the view that partnerships between old and new
Member States should be encouraged further.
With regards to the complementarity and synergies
between Active Citizenship and other European programmes (such
as Youth or Socrates) the evaluation revealed a good degree of
complementarity, although links between programmes need to be
developed, as it also happens with the few national programmes
identified in the area of European Active Citizenship.
Each objective of the programme was addressed
by a large number of beneficiaries reflecting a good balance in
terms of the interest of projects. Achievement of the different
programme objectives, however, was found to vary by strand of
activity. Most beneficiaries reported being successful in intensifying
links with citizens and promoting the values of the EU. Fewer
beneficiaries reported success in stimulating initiatives by bodies
engaged in the promotion of active citizenship, bringing citizens
closer to the EU and involving citizens in reflections and discussion
about the construction of the EU. Bottom-up approaches, therefore,
in which citizens from different countries are brought together,
seem to have worked better than top-down approaches that try to
link citizens directly with European institutions, although this
conclusion is based mainly on the views of town twinning projects
which made up the largest group of programme beneficiaries and
survey respondents.
The activities undertaken to try to deliver
the programme objectives were very diverse. They included exchanges
between towns, families and schools, the organisation of debates
and capacity building activities, organisation of events, such
as congresses, fairs or seminars, production of learning and promotion
materials, publication of books and audiovisual materials, as
well as design and maintenance of websites, amongst others. This
flexibility of the programme and the considerable freedom it allowed
in selecting the core activities for delivery as well as the diversity
of target groups it addressed were key features of the programme
that were reported to bring benefits to its beneficiaries. Some
beneficiaries felt that other activities could have usefully been
included in the programme, including more exploitation of mass-media
and media tools as means of reaching citizens. Other beneficiaries
advocated a higher cross-sectoral approach to projects, whereby
civil society organisations would work with other institutions,
such as local authorities and businesses, in order to become more
effective and achieve greater impacts. In these respects, the
challenge now faced by the programme is the need to maintain its
flexible character whilst at the same time ensuring the continuity
of the core range of activities undertaken within its framework
during its first three years.
The main results derived from the activities
and outputs presented above included tangible products (such as
publications), methodological learning, experiences and knowledge,
policy lessons and legislative changes and greater European cooperation
and awareness raising about citizenship issues and other cultures.
The programme also obtained important results in terms of capacity
building for its beneficiaries.
Although there are some caveats in the information
available on impact, it is nonetheless possible to highlight some
strong impacts achieved through programme activities. These have
included legislative changes and better understanding of EU debates
by citizens in the areas covered by the programme, and the development
of new activities in these areas, consolidation or creation of
networks, improved access to institutions/ development of civic
dialogue, greater organisational visibility and beneficiary empowerment.
In addition to the impact on direct beneficiaries the programme
has had an impact on indirect beneficiaries (eg individuals and
organisations that have not received funding from the EU) and
structures (eg through legislative changes).
In terms of the efficiency of the management
of the programme, given its small size and budget, the programme
was managed by the European Commission. Overall, beneficiaries
were satisfied with the management of the programme. The main
points for improvement in respect to the implementation of projects
and project support refer to some noted delays in the payment
of money from the Commission and a relative lack in terms of feedback
on the degree of satisfaction of the Commission on the quality
of outputs produced, lack of support to find partners and a need
for more information, advice and guidance on the operations of
the programme. Many of these problems are already being addressed
by the Commission.
In relation to the size of the grant received
by projects, the majority of beneficiaries felt that the limits
to grant levels had been established at an appropriate level,
across all types of activity. The tension is always present between
financing either a relatively large number of small projects but
in large amounts or a lower number of larger projects. Small projects
such as those financed by the programme were often closer to the
citizen and provided very tangible outputs and outcomes for those
involved, and also gave the opportunity for more organisations
to get involved, aspects that are highly valued by beneficiaries
of the programme. Yet, for the programme to have visibility at
European level and improve its impact, larger projects may be
needed.
In terms of dissemination, this took the form
of events, publications, links with policy-makers, websites, leaflets,
brochures and posters, press releases and media coverage. The
European Commission did not undertake many activities for the
promotion of the call for proposals. An example of these activities
was the distribution of information through national associations
of local authorities in Member States about town twinning projects.
The main tool for promotion of the programme is a dedicated programme
website although, at the time of the evaluation, many of the links
provided in it were not functional, which is detrimental to the
image of the programme and to its dissemination. The evaluation
found significant differences between the organisations in terms
of their dissemination and exploitation potential. Some organisations
participating in the programme were predominantly focused on dissemination
of European values and information through visits and educational
activities, whereas others have a very high exploitation potential,
both at EU and local levels because of the representation of their
members in European institutions or specifically targeted services
towards their members. Examples of exploitation of the results
of the activities of the organisations receiving Active Citizenship
operating grant funding included: using the policy research produced
through the programme in consultations and in the design of new
policies or in improving existing ones and the development of
training and capacity building.
In relation to the added value of programme
activities, this concerned mainly the "European" dimension
of the activities funded by the programme and the possibility
for direct involvement of European citizens, regardless of their
background. EU funding and being supported by Commission grants
is reported by beneficiaries to have contributed greatly to increasing
the credibility and visibility of their activities. Only one in
five beneficiaries reported that they could have obtained financing
elsewhere for their activities and declared that this would have
resulted in lost advantages in terms of nature/coverage of their
activities.
Several aspects in relation to sustainability
were explored during the evaluation. In relation to partnerships
that operated within the programme, many of these intend to continue
to work together, in particular those led by organisations funded
through an operating grant. With regards to the sustainability
of activities beyond the Active Citizenship funding period, slightly
under half the respondents have planned to continue their work
through EU funding; many organisations preferred to integrate
their Active Citizenship projects within the wider work of their
organisations to deliver the activity later on a self-funded basis,
or are looking for alternative funding sources from the European
Commission. Finally, in relation to sustainability in the use
of results, this has been greatest in relation to the use of results
within the programme beneficiaries (eg use of own products/results)
than outside participating organisations. Around two thirds of
respondents to the evaluation survey reported that they were using
or planned to continue using the results they had produced through
their involvement in the programme in their organisation. By contrast,
only around a quarter of respondents expected that their results
will continue to be used by other organisations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Following on from the conclusions presented
in the previous chapter, the evaluator provided 31 recommendations
in relation to the main topics covered in the evaluation, including
that:
Relevance
— When designing the aims and objectives
of the new programme, the Commission continues to pay particular
attention to the direct involvement of citizens in the design
of the new programme.
— In the new programming period a greater
focus on partnerships and cross-sectoral perspectives that bring
together civil society, policy-makers and businesses is explored.
Coherence and complementarity
— The Commission promotes synergies
and networking between the various strands of activities and different
types of organisations funded through the programme, in particular
using ICT, to enhance their impact and strengthen the European
dimension of projects, for instance through virtual communities
or partnership networks.
— The introduction of new approaches
to "bring citizens closer to the EU" through alternative
activities to those currently in operation in the programme be
explored.
— Partnerships between new and old
Member States be actively encouraged for NGO projects.
— The introduction of greater time-scales
for the delivery of trade union projects be explored to enhance
the quality of their outcomes.
— Further links between European programmes
in the area of active citizenship are developed, in terms of awareness
of other programmes and use of their outputs.
— Links with national programmes in
the area of active citizenship are fostered, through improving
contacts with national bodies responsible for civic participation.
Effectiveness
— The total budget of the programme
be increased to bring it more in line with its remit or that conversely,
the remit of the programme be narrowed.
— The use of external assessors of
proposals is maintained and applied to all the strands of the
programmes to ensure impartiality and that these are appropriately
supported and guided by the Commission to minimise the effect
of individual interpretations.
— Financial forms are made available
in Excel format for easier completion and other procedures for
the simplification of administrative procedures are adopted.
— Further information is provided in
relation to the process of selection in terms of selection criteria
and feedback on how applications ranked against them.
— The possibility of incorporating
some of factors identified in this report as capable of maximising
projects' impact (eg whether there have been previous consultations
with stakeholder prior to the submission of applications) as selection
criteria for projects is explored.
— In order to ensure a balanced geographical
distribution, weaker applications might be accept from some countries,
provided they are given support to improve their project.
— The possibility of putting in place
a personalised point of continuous support at the Commission/Executive
Agency for projects throughout their lifetime is explored.
— The focus on output quality of the
programme is enhanced, and that more resources are devoted to
this task, including the consideration of onsite monitoring visits
to selected projects.
— The possibility of creating a centralised
management system of information regarding potential partners
for "partner matching" is explored.
— The Commission studies the possibility
of introducing structured templates for project reports. This
will facilitate the analysis of outputs produced through the programme,
which is a gap in the monitoring of the programme so far.
— A programme logo is introduced that
could be included on the outputs funded through the programme,
and that projects are required in their application to include
visibility actions through the use of media.
— The dissemination of results from
projects is enhanced, for instance through the creation of an
online repository and the production of case-studies and good
practice guides. This will also enhance mutual learning and programmme
efficiency.
Efficiency
— The Commission studies some reallocation
in the programme budget between town twinning projects and other
actions and activities in the programme, and/or develops more
structured activities with stronger multiplier effects within
town twinning projects and related support measures.
— European activities for the promotion
of the programme are expanded.
— Additional guidance is provided in
relation to the submission of applications and eligibility criteria
for selected strands of the programme.
— Systems are put in place to improve
the financial management of the programme, in particular to ensure
faster disbursement of funds to beneficiaries and simplify financial
reporting procedures.
— Benchmarks and indicators against
which to measure the success of projects, and the programme as
a whole, are introduced for project monitoring and evaluation.
— The Commission provides guidance
to projects on the data to be collected in individual evaluations
to enable beneficiaries to monitor their efficiency and effectiveness
better and enhance the possible contribution of these reports
to the overall evaluation of the programme.
— The collection of e-mail addresses
of indirect (non-funded) beneficiaries by direct beneficiaries
is ensured for monitoring and evaluation purposes.
— Time/funds, are allocated for the
analysis of projects' final reports by Commission staff or during
external evaluations, in order to enhance monitoring arrangements.
— In those instances where cost-benefit
analysis of particular strands of the programme are undertaken,
consideration is given to using their results to guide future
allocation of funds.
Sustainability
— A database of potential projects
or partners is made available online and that links to information
about the results obtained through the different strands of activity
of the programme are established.
— The external use of results from
programme activities is incentivised (for instance by recognising
plans for external use as a selection criterion).
Letter from the Chairman to Shaun Woodward
MP
Thank you for your letter of 30 January. This
was considered by Sub-Committee G on 22 February.
We regret that your Department's problems with
the administration of scrutiny procedures has led to a number
of delays in the handling of this document and, ultimately, resulted
in your override of our scrutiny reserve when the document was
adopted at the 11-12 December 2006 Council meeting.
We very much welcome your review of the DCMS
arrangements for handling scrutiny correspondence and in my letter
of 8 February 2007[121]
to David Lammy, I suggested that Simon Burton (Clerk to the EU
Select Committee) and Barry Werner (Clerk to EU Sub-Committee
G) should visit DCMS to speak to your scrutiny team about the
House of Lords scrutiny process.
While the information you provide in your letter
satisfactorily addresses the questions and issues we raised in
my letter of 30 October 2006, we are most concerned about both
the content and the timing of Commission's Evaluation report of
the 2004-06 Active Citizenship programme. The content of this
seems to amount to little more than a description of what was
done in the programme. It provides scant information about the
effectiveness of the programme in achieving its aim of increasing
awareness among citizens of EU activities and projects; and there
is no attempt at all to interrelate the outcomes generated by
the programme with its costs.
Moreover, we do find it entirely unacceptable
that the Evaluation was not produced by the Commission until December
2006. For the assessment of the evidence it provided to be used
for the thoughtful formulation of a 2007-13 programme starting
on 1 January 2007, this was obviously far too late.
We therefore ask you to make the Commission
aware of our view of the weakness of content and the lateness
of timing of the Evaluation Report. Please would you urge them
to ensure that, when evaluations such as this are needed in the
future, they include more clear cut information for assessing
the benefits of the outcomes achieved by the programme against
its costs; and that the reports are produced to a timetable which
makes them of practical use as an input to the development of
subsequent programmes. We would be grateful if could let us know
what undertakings the Commission makes as a result of your representations
to them on this issue.
A final point is that we wonder why the Government
has done so little to promote the activities undertaken under
the 2004-06 programme in the UK as originating from the EU. If
indeed benefits for active European citizenship have been achieved
in the UK, it would appear that few, if any, members of the public
are aware of the EU origin of the activities undertaken, even
if they have been involved in them.
We will list this item in our Progress of Scrutiny
document as a case of scrutiny override.
26 January 2007
119 Correspondence with Ministers, 40th Report of Session
2006-07, HL Paper 187, p 469. Back
120
Correspondence with Ministers, 45th Report of Session 2005-06,
HL Paper 243, pp 564-565. Back
121
Refer to Culture Programme 2007-2013 (11572/04). Back
| 
