PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT
European Committee C
EUROPE FOR CITIZENS
Wednesday 2 April 2014
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON – THE STATIONERY OFFICE LIMITED £5·00 Members who wish to have copies of the Official Report of Proceedings in General Committees sent to them are requested to give notice to that effect at the Vote Office.
No proofs can be supplied. Corrigenda slips may be published with Bound Volume editions. Corrigenda that Members suggest should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,
not later than
Sunday 6 April 2014
STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT WILL GREATLY FACILITATE THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE BOUND VOLUMES OF PROCEEDINGS IN GENERAL COMMITTEES
© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2014 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 1 European Committee C2 APRIL 2014 Europe for Citizens 2
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chair: SIR EDWARD LEIGH
† Baldwin, Harriett (West Worcestershire) (Con) † Jones, Susan Elan (Clwyd South) (Lab) † Campbell, Mr Ronnie (Blyth Valley) (Lab) † Kelly, Chris (Dudley South) (Con) † Carmichael, Neil (Stroud) (Con) † Macleod, Mary (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con) † Connarty, Michael (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) Shannon, Jim (Strangford) (DUP) (Lab) † Vaizey, Mr Edward (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport) † Crouch, Tracey (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) † Flynn, Paul (Newport West) (Lab) Anna Dickson, Committee Clerk † Goodman, Helen (Bishop Auckland) (Lab) † Huppert, Dr Julian (Cambridge) (LD) † attended the Committee
The following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(6):
Cash, Mr William (Stone) (Con) 3 European Committee CHOUSE OF COMMONS Europe for Citizens 4
programme is justified and a worthwhile use of public European Committee C funds, and indicate what position he intends to take when the draft regulation returns to the Council of Wednesday 2 April 2014 Ministers for formal approval and adoption. Concerns have been expressed that Government [SIR EDWARD LEIGH in the Chair] delay in scheduling this debate, recommended more than four months ago, has placed in jeopardy funding Europe for Citizens for civil society organisations in the UK planning 8.55 am commemorative events to mark the centenary of the outbreak of the first world war. Whatever view is taken The Chair: Does a member of the European Scrutiny of the appropriateness of using EU funds for events of Committee wish to make a brief opening statement? that nature, the impact of the delay on such organisations is troubling and unsettling. I look forward to hearing Chris Kelly (Dudley South) (Con): It is a great pleasure, why a debate could not have been scheduled much Sir Edward, to serve under your chairmanship. Today’s sooner. debate concerns a draft regulation that establishes funding for the Europe for Citizens programme for 2014 to 2020. The programme draws its inspiration from the 8.59 am provisions on democratic principles in articles 9 to 12 of The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, the treaty on European union. Its purpose is to encourage Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey): It is a pleasure to initiatives that make it easier for citizens to engage with serve under your chairmanship. Sir Edward. For the and understand the European Union, including its history benefit of the debate, it will be helpful to set out why we and origins in the aftermath of two world wars. The support this programme. programme has two strands. The first, entitled “Remembrance and European Europe for Citizens is a seven-year programme, which Citizenship”, is concerned with remembrance, including runs until December 2020. It builds on an earlier crimes committed under Nazism and Stalinism, and programme, which covered the period from 2007 to common values associated with European identity 2013. I am pleased to tell the Committee that there have and citizenship. The second, “Democratic Engagement been some crucial improvements to the programme, not and Civic Participation”, seeks to enhance citizens’ least its greater emphasis on commemoration. More understanding of EU institutions and policy making effort will also be put into monitoring it and evaluating processes and encourage greater involvement. The draft the funded projects against published performance regulation is based on article 352 of the treaty on the indicators, as well as boosting the transferability of functioning of the European Union, sometimes referred results to give a better return on investment. To translate to as the flexibility clause, as it authorises the EU to that into English, that means taking the details of take action to achieve a treaty objective in circumstances successful programmes and showing other countries where the necessary powers are lacking under other and organisations how they can benefit from them. treaty provisions. In this case, the Government have The commemoration element of the programme has accepted that article 352 is the correct legal base for been significantly increased. In the previous programme, establishing the Europe for Citizens programme and it amounted to just 4% of the entire budget. It now have taken steps, in accordance with section 8 of the amounts to 20%. In the year in which we begin our European Union Act 2011, to obtain parliamentary commemorations of the great war, I am sure hon. approval by means of an Act of Parliament. The European Members will welcome this increase and encourage Union (Approvals) Act received Royal Assent on 30 January. those who are eligible to benefit to apply for funding The Government broadly support the draft regulation, from the programme. It is important to remember that highlighting synergies with their big society agenda and commemoration goes beyond the great war. It will also the scope for civil society organisations and local authorities include funding to commemorate the second world war, to seek funding to support activities such as town which is particularly relevant with the 70th anniversary twinning. Even before securing a significant reduction of D-day this June, as well as the victims of totalitarian in the budget for the programme—down from ¤229 million regimes including, of course, the holocaust, and victims in the Commission’s original proposal to ¤185 million—the of the Stalinist purges. Government told the European Scrutiny Committee Some 60% of the budget will support measures such that it would have the smallest budget of any of the as twinning. Whatever one’s view of the European spending programmes put forward by the Commission Union, I know that all hon. Members understand the for the 2014 to 2020 funding period. While the figures benefits of twinning and the enjoyment their constituents might appear modest when set against other EU spending gain from it. In my constituency, the beautiful market programmes, they are not insubstantial. The requirement town of Faringdon, a civil war town, is twinned with Le for unanimous agreement in the Council of Ministers Mêle-sur-Sarthe in France and intends to twin with has given the Government considerable leverage to Libcany in the Czech Republic. Wantage, which gives press successfully for a reduction in the programme my constituency its name and is the birthplace of King budget. Alfred, is twinned with Mably in France—we even have Nevertheless, this success should not, in the European a Mably way—and Seesen in Germany. Didcot, a small Scrutiny Committee’s view, blind Ministers to the need village until Brunel brought his railway, is twinned with to scrutinise the justification for every element of EU Planegg in Germany and Meylan in France. Another expenditure with the utmost care. I trust that the Minister example of the kind of programme that is likely to be will explain to us why the Government consider that supported is that championed by the National Council funding for both strands of the Europe for Citizens for Voluntary Organisations. It received ¤100,000 last 5 European Committee C2 APRIL 2014 Europe for Citizens 6 year to support a programme for sharing its experience It is important to allude to the delay that my hon. of how to run voluntary organisations with European Friend mentioned in the opening statement. I want to counterparts. mention the passage of time since the Scrutiny Committee requested a debate on the programme, which is now Like its predecessor, the programme will be implemented taking place. The Government have internal mechanisms through grants based on open calls for proposals and to ensure that all relevant Departments are aware when through service contracts based on calls for tender. It a debate has been recommended. Although these processes will provide for the analysis and dissemination of the can be time-consuming, we take the recommendations results of its activities, supported by regular external very seriously, and seek to schedule debates in a timely and independent evaluation. Priority will be given to manner. Sometimes there are unavoidable delays, but I projects using new working methods or proposing hope we are now coming to the end of a very thorough innovative activities. It is important to stress that this and comprehensive consideration of this important programme has no new impact on UK domestic policies. programme, which, as hon. Members will recall, included These types of activities have been supported since the a full debate during the passage of the European Union programme first began. The 2014 to 2020 Europe for (Approvals) Act earlier this year. Citizens programme will ensure that a source of funding As has already been said, Parliament has now approved at European level will continue to be available to UK these regulations. Once scrutiny is lifted, the UK will civil society organisations. I encourage them to submit confirm its position at Council. If we vote no, the project proposals, and I encourage hon. Members in programme will not proceed, as Europe for Citizens this Committee to encourage local civil society organisations requires unanimity. If we vote in support, it will go to do so. through. It cannot be amended at this stage, but it is the will of Parliament to approve this regulation, having Some hon. Members may well think that money passed the Bill overwhelmingly and turned it into an Act. allocated to the programme could be better spent here in the UK, but this money will be spent by the European Some hon. Members may be under the impression Union as part of its overall budget. If the UK Government that this is some kind of esoteric programme far removed did not support the programme, the money would not from the day-to-day lives of the people we represent. return to the UK. The European Union would simply We have already talked about the National Council for spend the money on different projects. I think that Voluntary Organisations, which has received funding supporting projects that commemorate the great war, under the programme. I received an e-mail from the and ensuring that horrific events of the 20th century treasurer of the Association of Local Democracy Agencies, such as the holocaust, Nazism and Stalinism, are also which I think was copied to the Committee. He says commemorated, is an effective way to spend money. that he works to promote local democracy in countries such as the former Yugoslavia, Albania, Azerbaijan, As hon. Members know, the Prime Minister secured Georgia and, particularly at present, in Ukraine. The a significant reduction in the European Union’s overall association works with local councils outside capital budget. This is reflected in a reduction in the budget for cities to enable them to learn and share experiences with this programme. The European Commission had originally EU countries and each other. It has a strong track proposed a budget of ¤229 million. That represented an record in supporting democratic advancement and of increase of around 7% on the previous budget covering working with civil society organisations to fill capacity the years 2007 to 2013, which was ¤215 million. Following and promote a range of projects including micro-business the negotiations on the multi-annual financial framework start-up schemes, development organisations, credit unions last spring, this figure has now come down to just over and youth groups. ¤185 million, which is a significant reduction of some The Europe for Citizens programmes represent a ¤44 million. That is a result of effective negotiation by significant source of funding for ALDA and the delay our officials in Brussels. As my hon. Friend the Member has already led to a cutback in its activities and the for Dudley South said in his opening statement, ¤185 million possibility of laying off staff. My correspondent tells is not an insubstantial sum, but it is important to stress me that he is aware of the concerns expressed about the that it will be spent over seven years. programme, but he is also worried that the Committee is not being informed about the wider value of the work Some people might get the impression that the ¤185 carried out by organisations such as his. It is important million is an annual budget. It is not. It is spread over to end on that note to bring to the Committee’s attention seven years. Some people might also get the impression the fact that there are very good organisations in this when that figure of ¤185 million is bandied about that country that benefit from this funding, and do work all of it will somehow come out of the UK Government’s that all members of the Committee would be happy to coffers. Of course, that is not the case. The ¤185 million support. contribution is spread proportionately among all member states. We estimate that the UK Government’s contribution is in the range of £2 million to £3 million a year. Again, The Chair: We now have questions to the Minister that is not an insubstantial sum, but I hope that puts until 9.55 am. They should be brief, but members may into context the kind of sums we are talking about in ask supplementary questions. this debate. I do not think that it is an excessive amount to spend on such important activities as commemorating Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab): It is a those who died in two world wars and those who pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Sir Edward. suffered the horrors of Nazism and Stalinism, and We have had two debates in the main Chamber about supporting our civil society organisations so that they the document and the regulation, so we have given them can more actively participate in the institutions of the a thorough airing. However, I still have a few questions EU, thereby making them more open and accountable. for the Minister. 7 European Committee CHOUSE OF COMMONS Europe for Citizens 8
[Helen Goodman] On who gives advice and responds to inquiries, I am sorry if the hon. Lady feels that my answers were The first European Union document concerns the opaque. It is perfectly within the wit of man, as can be records of the EU institutions being placed in the seen from my references to both the National Council university of Florence. Will the papers be confidential for Voluntary Organisations and the Association of for up to 30 years and, if so, why? There is considerable Local Democracy Agencies, for civic society groups to curiosity about the EU’s operation and greater transparency find their way to European funding. The European would go some way towards improving people’s Commission has an extremely large office, based in the understanding of European institutions. At a time when former headquarters of the Conservative party in Smith people are considering reform in the EU, a greater square. It may even still have the same phone number—it understanding of what has happened and why would be is seared on my heart. If there is a gap I am very happy very helpful. to discuss with the hon. Lady ways in which we can Secondly, the European Court of Justice and the bring some of our foremost institutions to bear in European Central Bank are exempt from the regulation. spreading the good news about this programme. As far Will the Minister explain the rationale for that? The as twinning is concerned I agree with the hon. Lady; I Bank of England releases Monetary Policy Committee would never accuse my councillors of going on anything minutes after just six weeks, and a similar level of like a junket. Certainly, I know that those involved in transparency from the ECB would be helpful, as some twinning arrangements ensure that the benefits spread might say that it is even more important in international far and wide. I see in my own constituency how children monetary affairs. of school age benefit, particularly when groups visit I turn to the Europe for Citizens programme. I agree from the twinned towns on the continent, but I take her with the Minister about the importance of commemoration points on board. and participation in first world war centenary events and the remembrance of victims of totalitarian regimes. Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab): That is especially important since personal, social, health I may be distancing myself from the approach of those and economic education and citizenship have been dropped on my own Front Bench but I want to focus on the from the national curriculum. Will he tell us more about serious questions being asked by the public. The first how community groups and local authorities can apply question concerns the delay. I notice that in the debate for funding? I have asked him that on several occasions on 27 January no one mentioned the function of the and when I wrote to him I found his response somewhat European scrutiny reserve. Until the European scrutiny opaque. From listening to what he said about his reserve is lifted, no one in Europe can get a penny of constituency, it is clear that his constituents are well this money for the 2014 projects. That means that, as of linked into these institutions, but that is not the case in the end of March, the funding of many of these my constituency. organisations from this source ceased. Why has the During the 2007 to 2013 programme period, no UK Minister not made himself available since November agency was appointed to give advice and respond to 2013 for this debate? Even Royal Assent for the adoption inquiries about applying to the Europe for Citizens Act did not give the European Union the ability to programme, and European Commission representation carry forward this programme, which requires unanimity, in the UK does not know whether a national agency as the Minister knows, of all countries in the European will be appointed for the 2014 to 2020 period. I am not Union. Where has he been hiding? saying that we need another piece of bureaucracy to run the programme, but we need a more structured information Mr Vaizey: I am not aware that I was hiding. I have system for both civil society and local authorities to get been willing to make myself available to this Committee. advice and assistance. Scheduling of debates in this Committee is a matter The Minister spoke of the programme’s value, in beyond my remit. When I last wrote to the Committee particular to young people, and I concur. If I may make on 31 October 2013 the Committee came back with a a political point, when we were combating a serious number of concerns on which it wanted clarification episode of racism in my constituency before the last and I wrote back on 19 November 2013. The conclusion general election, we found that having exhibitions and of the Committee then was: teaching young people about totalitarianism and what “We thank the Minister for his prompt response”. happened in Germany between the wars was extremely There has certainly been no intention to delay the helpful in changing understanding of the current political Committee. The workings of the House are such that situation. Will the Minister assure us that twinning we may have wished to prioritise the passing of the Act arrangements will be used particularly for young people and to make sure that Parliament had ample opportunities and not become mere junkets for councillors? to debate these issues. As you know, Sir Edward, the Bill Mr Vaizey: I will happily answer the hon. Lady’s was already going through the other place towards the questions. On keeping European Union records confidential end of last year, so there was a clear opportunity in the for up to 30 years and exempting the ECJ and the ECB full Chamber, on Second Reading, on Report and on from the regulation, the rules pertaining to the disclosure Third Reading, to debate all the merits or lack of merit of EU documents are outside the regulation’s scope. I of this proposal. It is entirely up to the Scrutiny Committee, will write to her in more detail about those rules, but the if it then wishes, to scrutinise it further. That is its right regulation does not affect them; it simply provides and it is what it is doing. the funding to allow the documents to be archived in As I say, it has not been my intention to hide from the university of Florence. The ECJ and ECB have this Committee and, if I may be so bold, I think that arrangements for keeping their own archives, which is allowing the entire House to debate this regulation in why they are out of scope. the Chamber in Government time is, to the man on the 9 European Committee C2 APRIL 2014 Europe for Citizens 10 street, to whom the hon. Member for Linlithgow and Mr Vaizey: Sir Edward, you will have to advise me on East Falkirk referred, the kind of scrutiny he would when the European Scrutiny Committee decided it wanted expect Parliament to give to such an important measure. a debate and at what stage it wanted to intervene. I am not privy to conversations between the European Scrutiny Michael Connarty: The Minister leaves out some of Committee and the business managers. the facts of the case. The letter of 27 November that thanked him for his response also said that the Committee The Chair: I think the Minister has given what he recommended the draft regulation for debate. That considers to be an answer, which is the end of the means that, unless the Minister did not know that, even matter. if he had his adoption Bill—and it is necessary to have one, because it is part of the law of the land that we Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con): On a point of order, must have an adoption Bill before we can allow these Sir Edward. I will explain the situation, which is very programmes to go ahead—he was not offering Parliament simple. On 22 November, the European Scrutiny Committee anything other than it had the right to have, or none of said that, because we thought the measure is of legal or this programme could be passed. He also knew, I presume, political importance, within our standing orders we that there was a requirement that we have a debate to would recommend that the matter be debated. It so clear the scrutiny reserve. Did he not know that? If he happens that there is also a requirement in general did, was he approached by the Government business statute that there should be a debate, which became the managers to make himself available for this debate at European Union (Approvals) Bill. Those processes ran any time between November 2013 and two weeks ago, in parallel, but it is perfectly true to say that there has when I raised the matter at the European Scrutiny been delay and that that delay was caused by the Committee? Government, not the European Scrutiny Committee. The debate we are having today could have taken place Mr Vaizey: I have never been a member of the European in January. In fact, it could have taken place before the Scrutiny Committee, but it seems to me that the Committee’s European Union (Approvals) Bill was passed by the role is to scrutinise all sorts of European regulations. House of Commons. When a particular European regulation falls within the scope of article 352 and therefore may only proceed after approval by an Act of Parliament, a full debate in The Chair: Unfortunately, I am not responsible for the Chamber of the House of Commons, and indeed a the Government, but Mr Cash has made his point. full debate in the other place, is exactly the kind of Does he now wish to ask a question of the Minister? scrutiny that such a regulation requires and has received. It is for the European Scrutiny Committee to decide Mr Cash: Yes. I am most grateful to you, Sir Edward. whether it needs to provide additional scrutiny over and Does the Minister accept that, as I said in the debate above that of the whole House. on commemorations for the first world war, those like me, whose father was killed in the second world war and Michael Connarty: I must press the point. Did the received the military cross fighting for his country, and Minister not know that the programme required the many others throughout the entire land, want to scrutiny reserve to be lifted? Has he been approached by commemorate those who died in the first and second the House business managers at any time since last world wars? But one difficulty with the regulation is November to timetable this debate, as required under that article 3 draws together a number of different the statutes of this House, which predate the Lisbon headings, one of which addresses “remembrance and treaty and the need for an adoption Bill to be approved European citizenship”, on the one hand, and “democratic by Parliament? Has he been approached? Did he not engagement” and “civic participation” on the other. know that this debate is required in addition to an Those things are drawn together for the purpose of the adoption Bill? regulation, but does the Minister agree that it might have been wiser to separate those questions? Mr Vaizey: Sir Edward, you can correct me on the A problem arises in article 6, which states: procedure, but it is not necessary to have this debate. It “The programme shall be open to all stakeholders promoting is entirely within the will of the European Scrutiny European integration, in particular local authorities and organisations, Committee to decide whether it wishes to have this European public policy research organisations (think-tanks), citizens’ debate. The scrutiny reserve certainly needed to be groups and other civil society organisations (such as survivors’ lifted—that is absolutely true—but it is entirely up to associations), and educational and research organisations”. the European Scrutiny Committee to decide whether it Does the Minister think it was perhaps a great mistake wishes to have this debate. I have never resiled from to have brought that into the same category, for the coming to a European Committee to have such a debate. purposes of this regulation, as the very important I would have been willing to come to have this debate on commemorative and remembrance matters that have any date that the European Scrutiny Committee wanted. now been brought together in this one regulation? The adoption Bill has been approved by both Houses, and there was a full debate on Second Reading, on Mr Vaizey: First, let me make it clear that I do Report and on Third Reading. not believe that anyone who is opposed to the Europe for Citizens programme is somehow opposed to Michael Connarty: I am not getting an answer. Has commemorating the great war. Those who opposed this the Minister been approached by the business managers when it received full scrutiny in this House at Second of this House at any time since November to make and Third Reading made it quite clear that their opposition himself available for this debate—yes or no? was based on their concern about how the money would 11 European Committee CHOUSE OF COMMONS Europe for Citizens 12
[Mr Vaizey] It is not simply a matter of twinning, so will the Minister confirm that it includes think-tanks that promote be spent and that it might be spent on certain programmes European integration? That is what the words say. I am with which they disagreed. The question posed by my not sure he has any alternative way of replying. hon. Friend the Member for Stone makes exactly that point from his perspective. I responded, when the Bill Mr Vaizey: I note that my hon. Friend regards me as received full scrutiny in the House at Second Reading, tiptoeing delicately around a path strewn with thorns. It Report and Third Reading—having had full scrutiny in is important that I do not get pricked during this the other place—that many institutions that give grants debate. We debated the issue on Second Reading, Report give them to organisations or programmes with which and Third Reading. We had full scrutiny by all Members we disagree. who were able to take part, and the issue of think-tanks With my other hat on, as the Minister for Culture, I was brought up. In my view, no think-tank is precluded am responsible for the Arts Council, for whom, incidentally, from applying for funds. Should the regulation be passed, I have the utmost regard, both for its management and my hon. Friend might wish to encourage his friends in effectiveness. However, I do not doubt for a minute that some of the more progressive think-tanks that he and I there are programmes that the Arts Council supports support to apply for funding. They might wish to with which I or other Members might disagree, without undertake research projects on European integration fundamentally disagreeing with the principle that and about different and good ways to bring the peoples Government should support the arts with Government of Europe together. Then we shall see whether my hon. money. Similarly, I imagine we all have views on the Friend’s view is indeed the case. BBC. Some people may conclude from that that we should not pay the licence fee, but the vast majority of Michael Connarty rose— people agree with paying it. I am always keen to bend over backwards and agree with my hon. Friend the The Chair: Order. Just in case Mr Connarty asks the Member for Stone, for whom I have the utmost respect same question, I have taken advice. It is not for the both as a Member of the House and a distinguished Chair to determine when European Committee C meets; biographer. However, I do not at this point agree with the Government are responsible for the timing. his premise that the two programmes should be separated. Michael Connarty: The Government always ask for a Mr Cash: May I refer back to article 6 and simply put Minister to be made available when they wish to have this question to the Minister? It says, unequivocally: a debate. We have often been told in Committee that the “The programme shall be open to all stakeholders promoting problem with getting a debate is that the Department is European integration”. unable to make a Minister available within the time I have no objection to the idea that people who promote scale that we wish to have debates. It is reasonable to European integration in terms of free speech, debate assume that there is a connection between the Department and everything else should have the right to say whatever that must answer and the business managers of the they want. I happen to take an opposite view. However, House who are obliged to organise the debates. when the regulation is put forward as the basis for I presume the Minister will recall getting the letter providing grant aid of the kind described in this programme, from the NCVO, because he referred to it a few times. is it not at least biased and one-sided to say that only I presume it came to him before the end of February. I organisations that promote European integration should was also sent a copy. It states: be allowed to get it? It just seems, to say the least, “We are concerned that the approval of the programme is still bizarre. being held up by the EU Scrutiny Committee”. I presume the Minister read that letter. His officials told Mr Vaizey: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. him the facts about the scrutiny reserve at the end of He put it forcefully. Again, it is important to be careful February. He therefore knew that that accusation was with one’s words, but the twinning of towns, as I have made against the European Scrutiny Committee; it was described in my constituency, is an example of European carried in great length in The Observer. Did he react to integration. It brings together people from different that accusation and seek out whether that was the truth, European countries who live on the same continent, or whether there might be some culpability on the part many of whom have shared similar experiences. Similarly, of his Department and the Government business managers? the commemoration of the great war and the horrors of Nazism, Stalinism and the holocaust is, in my respectful Mr Vaizey: I think that I have made it absolutely submission, an act of European integration in the sense clear, Sir Edward. Perhaps you can clarify whether it is of bringing together the peoples of Europe to remember essential for the Committee to have a debate. It was the something that commonly affected them. It does not Government’s priority to get the Bill passed. It has now talk about institutional integration. In that sense, although been passed, and I have never not made myself available my hon. Friend finds the words infelicitous, I do not for this Committee. If there is any evidence of a request regard them as sinister. being made for me to appear on a particular date and my refusing, I will be happy to look at it. However, I am not aware of any such request being made. I am not Mr Cash: I have one last question on that. I simply aware of any particular trips that I have made abroad say that I hear the delicate footsteps of the Minister that would have made me unavailable. I always make treading around this rather thorny patch. However, myself available in Parliament for any Member who article 6 does refer to, wants to have a meeting with me, so I am not clear what “European public policy research organisations (think-tanks)”. allegation is being made against me. 13 European Committee C2 APRIL 2014 Europe for Citizens 14
Michael Connarty: I will speak at length in the debate, Mr Cash: Following on from the question that was because I think this is an omnishambles on the part of very fairly put by the hon. Member for Newport West the business managers and the Department. Has the about whether the process of political integration would Minister replied to the NCVO letter, and when did he be helpful in ensuring that we did not have instability in reply? Did he address the questions? Europe, will the Minister at least take on board the fact that there is an alternative view? That is a view about what will result from creating a compression chamber Mr Vaizey: I do not know whether I have replied. I within the European Union by bringing about more will try to find an answer for the hon. Gentleman. It is and more political integration. The evidence is there, not, I am afraid, within my current knowledge. some of which, if I may presume to say so, I predicted in 1990. I wrote then that if people tried to create Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend the Member for uniformity and unity and push member states towards Linlithgow and East Falkirk has pointed out the delay European integration in that way, there were liable to be in the debate on these regulations. The original aim, as riots, unemployment, protests and the rise of the far stated by the Government, was for the Bill to receive right, which I warned against because I am so appalled Royal Assent by the end of 2013. In fact, that too took by it. That, unfortunately, is what has happened, so that much longer and did not happen until 2014. Is it true the process of European integration cannot necessarily that the Minister did not want the money to be released by any means be seen to be something that is advantageous in the run-up to the European elections because that to peace and security. would have revealed the massive fissure within the Tory party over Europe? The Chair: Order. The process of European integration is a big subject, so I think we will stick to this little matter. Minister, will you briefly answer? Mr Vaizey: No. In fact, if the hon. Lady was not jumping on a bandwagon and if she actually thought about the point she was about to make, she would Mr Vaizey: I agree with Sir Edward. realise that the logical thing would have been to get the Bill passed in 2013 and get it out of the way, rather than Michael Connarty: The Minister rejected the suggestion delay it and have it pass closer to the European elections, that it might have been better to split or change the as was the case. It was passed a month later. I am not process and parts of the Bill—the Europe for Citizens privy to the Government business managers and how programme. But I noticed in Hansard on 27 January they corral the legislation that is going through the that even after all the debates and the loss of the House, but a simple scrutiny of the hon. Lady’s question amendment, it was moved that the Bill be not adopted. would reveal that were there Machiavellian processes at In fact, a substantial number of Eurosceptics—and work to try and get the Bill done and dusted without its some members of the European Scrutiny Committee, I featuring as part of the European elections, the best notice—voted no. If the majority had voted no, would thing to do would have been to have it done and dusted that have meant that everything would have been lost in October or November 2013, rather than at the end of and nothing would have been available from 2014 to January 2014. We passed the Bill as quickly as we could. 2020, because we were unable to give it unanimity, and It has now been passed and it has had full scrutiny in that all the money for remembrance would have been both Chambers. lost as well as all the money to which the Eurosceptics were clearly objecting? Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): As the two great wars of the last century were the antithesis of integration Mr Vaizey: As far as I am aware, Sir Edward, if the and unity in our continent, does the Minister see it as Bill had not passed, we would not have been able to entirely reasonable that in commemorating those terrible support the regulation, and the regulation requires events, we should also encourage unity and integration unanimity. that would prevent future wars? Paul Flynn: Will the Government set aside the spasm Mr Vaizey: I certainly do. of petty English nationalism that has afflicted the debate and concentrate on the path they have taken, with great vision and boldness, and celebrate figures such as Willie Michael Connarty: On the substance of the package Redmond, who was a great unifying force between and the programme, a very valid question was asked Catholics and Protestants and the north and the south from the Labour Front Bench about the knowledge of of Ireland? He was a great former Member of the local authorities as to what they can access, particularly House, who willingly went back to war at the age of 58, for the simple matter of remembrance. Has the Minister knowing that the blood price had to be paid. He fought or his Department, at any time in his term of office, as a Home Ruler and the son of a Home Rule MP. He done a review as to what materials are made available to was a passionate nationalist, like Lloyd George. Both local authorities throughout the UK to let them know had opposed the Boer war, but saw the first world war that this programme is available, or is that left entirely as a war— to the EU or to voluntary organisations? The Chair: Order. British history is an even bigger Mr Vaizey: We have not carried out a review of what subject than European integration. Does the Minister materials are available to local authorities to make them want to reply on the cause of the Boer war? I will be aware of this programme’s existence. surprised if he does not know the answer. 15 European Committee CHOUSE OF COMMONS Europe for Citizens 16
Mr Vaizey: May I recommend Thomas Pakenham’s The Chair: The Minister may make a statement. I am book on the Boer war? I think it is seminal, classic sure he will wish to speak at the end. history. Mr Vaizey: I take the point from my elders and betters. I shall simply say that I am pleased to move the Mr Cash: I would like to ask the Minister, in response motion and I look forward to the speeches of Committee to an earlier question to him, to consider that those on members and to replying to them. the European Scrutiny Committee voted very differently on the Bill: some voted no, some abstained and some 9.44 am voted for it. It was a mixed bag. I say that with respect to those who are not present today, who are generally Michael Connarty: This is an omnishambles, an absolute regarded as having reservations—let us put it that way— business disaster for the Government, or it is collusion about aspects of European integration. The votes were and a deliberate attempt, as the Labour Front Bench a mixed bag and people went in different directions. I questioned, to prevent the programme from running am sure the Minister will recall that my hon. Friend the naturally. The Minister does not seem to understand, Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) tabled an and his staff should perhaps look at themselves and amendment stating that all the money should be made their ability to do their job in relation to European available for commemorative events and none for the scrutiny. They do not seem to understand that the other, more contentions, matters, some of which we statute that set up this House’s scrutiny reserve, under have discussed today. Does he recall the exchange and which the European Scrutiny Committee can refuse to that amendment? lift the scrutiny reserve, and thereby allow the Government to vote in a Council for an Act—unless it was just to break that scrutiny reserve, which it can obviously do if Mr Vaizey: I recall the amendment. it is willing to take the flak—predates the legislation that requires us to have an adoption Bill under this 9.42 am section. That has to be done, but it does not negate the Mr Vaizey: I beg to move, fact that the scrutiny reserve remains. That the Committee takes note of European Union Document The Minister knows that I have great respect for him No. 18719/11 and Addenda 1 and 2, a draft Council Regulation as an individual. He is dedicated to his task and in the establishing for the period 2014-20 the Programme “Europe for main we agree on many points to do with the business Citizens”; notes that the remembrance activities with which it is of his Department. But he does not seem to have been concerned will include the commemoration of those who died in alerted to the fact that this scrutiny reserve stands and two World Wars, including the Holocaust; notes that the programme therefore unanimity cannot be voted through in the also supports citizens’ more active civic participation in the EU Council to allow this programme to continue until this institutions for the purposes of education, accountability and transparency; notes the success that the UK has achieved against debate has taken place, and the scrutiny reserve is then its key priorities, and in particular the reduction in budget to just automatically lifted. under ¤185.5 million from ¤215 million for the 2007-13 programme; further notes the potential value of the programme to UK Mr Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? citizens and organisations at the time of the centenary of the outbreak of World War I; and supports the view of the Government Michael Connarty: I am not sure whether we can take that it is right for the UK to support the draft Regulation and interventions during speeches in this Committee, but I enable its implementation. am quite willing to take one if it is allowed. We have had a lively and interesting debate. I do not want to reiterate at great length the points that have The Chair: The hon. Gentleman may take an intervention been made. With regards to scrutiny of the regulation, if he wishes. the Bill, which had to be passed to enable the Government to support the regulation, was debated in the other Mr Cash: I only want the hon. Gentleman to reflect place and this House, on Second Reading, Report and on the fact that, by some mischance or for whatever Third Reading, and there was due to be a Westminster reason, when we considered whether there should be a Hall debate yesterday. The regulation is now receiving debate on this issue—the hon. Gentleman is a very scrutiny from the European Scrutiny Committee. It has distinguished member of the European Scrutiny Committee never been my intention to disrespect the Committee in and the former Chairman and I am sure he will not any shape or form. If that impression has been given, I mind my mentioning this, as present Chairman—he apologise. The Committee carries out a vital role in was not able to be at that meeting on 27 November scrutinising European legislation. The views of most when the Committee, as a whole, including members Government Members on the European Union and from both sides, agreed that this matter should be European Commission are well known. It is our Prime debated. The fact is, however, that the delay was that of Minister’s view that the Commission does too much the Government and that is something on which we are and we should get powers back from Brussels, which is entirely agreed. I abstained on Third Reading because I why the Committee’s work is so important. had listened to the debate— The Europe for Citizens programme is important, The Chair: Order. Briefly, Mr Cash. but it is small. Hon. Members, who quite rightly regard themselves as stewards of the public finances— Michael Connarty: We agree that it is the Government’s responsibility. It was the Government’s failure. My point Michael Connarty: On a point of order, Sir Edward. is that the debate that took place, which was under the The Minister’s speech normally comes at the end. The necessary rule under article 352 of the TFEU, did not Minister normally just moves the motion, the debate then lift the scrutiny. It did not then allow the Government takes place and he replies. to go to the Council and become the last member of the 17 European Committee C2 APRIL 2014 Europe for Citizens 18
Council to make a unanimous decision to allow this Mr Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on a programme to continue from 2014 to 2020. Somebody point of information? has let the Minister down. Whether the Minister thinks it is the business manager’s responsibility or not, the Michael Connarty: Not at the moment. Somebody fact is that at no time in the debates in the House did should have checked with the Clerk, as I did. I phoned anyone mention that a scrutiny reserve existed on this the Clerk and asked about the hold-up. The Clerk programme and that a debate had to take place. Somebody explained, as I have explained to the Committee, that was not informing him and therefore I presume not there is an overriding power of the scrutiny reserve. It informing his officials. was brought into law in—was it 1998? 1978? It was a It was not the responsibility of the Chairman of the long time ago, long before there was ever a treaty on the European Scrutiny Committee. It would never have functioning of the European union, which of course been mine during my period of office to go and tell our was set up under the Lisbon treaty, when they split the Ministers that they needed to reply to a debate for any two treaties—the treaty on European Union and TFEU. reason, particularly a reason like this, when we are Two different things came out of the Lisbon treaty. holding up the whole of Europe. This is not just about If someone had checked with the Clerk to the Committee, the organisations in the UK. These are organisations the Minister would have been told by his officials that throughout the whole of the EU, many of which have the reply was that it was not the Committee, but the come out of the most oppressed situations in the Soviet Government who had not called the debate, and that bloc and have serious problems in their economies the Minister would have to answer this debate when it because of the eurozone and the euro. They need democratic was called. Perhaps the Minister might have picked up a assistance and solidarity. Some members of the European phone and asked the business manager—the Leader of Scrutiny Committee might be offended by these things the House, “When are we going to have this debate? I’ve and the idea that it might bring people in Europe closer had two debates on the Floor of the House, thinking I together and they might think that the EU is a good was approving and actioning this programme, but I’ve thing as a consequence. But even if they thought the not.” I presume that that would have been done at the latter, helping people to meet other people and to end of February or early March, if it had been a understand that there are ways of doing things that are reaction to the NCVO letter, which I think the Minister better in a democratic situation across Europe rather received at the end of February. We would have had this than a non-democratic situation is often the purpose of debate and cleared the matter up. the non-remembrance section of the expenditure. We heard some comments about twinning. When I Mr Cash: The European Scrutiny Committee wrote was a council leader, I encouraged twinning. Twinning to the Leader of the House on 26 February, complaining was one of the best ways for young people to meet about delays in scheduling debates in European Committees, people of other nations. It required some money, but including on the Europe for Citizens programme. He not a lot of money, because much of it was done by replied, as late as 19 March: volunteers in their own home at their own cost, both in the recipient countries and people coming back to “I regret that there have been… delays” places in the UK. I was alerted by the director of social and went on to say that, “notwithstanding the difficulties”, action, volunteering, policy and fundraising at Community these debates Service Volunteers, which brings together a number of “will now be scheduled for debate in European Committee”. organisations such as Guide Dogs. It is not an organisation This is the debate that is taking place now. We are that one might see as made up of seditious Europhiles engaging in the process of trying to get them to hurry trying to undermine the UK way of life and substitute it up, not slow down. with some monster from Brussels. It is just trying to bring people with a common cause across Europe together, which seems simple to me. It was raised with me, by Michael Connarty: I fully accept that and I will not pure chance, by the director, Oonagh Aitken, who worked repeat it. The Clerk to the Committee told me that they on projects with my wife when she was a director of had communicated and specifically mentioned this education. She repeated the point in the letter from programme. NCVO that There are many outstanding debates because of the number of debates coming from the European Scrutiny “the approval of the programme is still being held up by the EU Scrutiny Committee”. Committee. I have my criticisms of the current regime, as the Chairman knows. We used to have a phrase on I can see why the Chairman of the European Scrutiny that Committee—“be selective to be effective”. If the Committee was upset by the way that The Observer demand is for three or four debates a week, the system is attacked the Committee. It had a copy of this letter. going to get clogged up. It will be difficult to get I do not know what the Minister’s officials were Ministers and time either on the Floor of the House or doing when they received this letter. It is addressed to in these Committees. We know this. I can see why there the Minister—he should have been told immediately. might be some frustration, but no one has explained the The programme has been held up, but not by the delay to me. Is it perversity on the part of the business European Scrutiny Committee. I presume that the Minister managers of the House, saying that they are getting so would have said, “It can’t be held up by me—I’ve had much hassle from the European Scrutiny Committee two debates on the Floor of the House. I have debated it for debates and are not going to be forced to fit the endlessly. I have won the votes. I have the approval of Committee’s schedule—“We will make them wait for us the democratic processes of the Houses of Parliament.” to fit them in”? That is the tenor of the reply I got when Somebody should then have said, “We’d better check I raised this question with the Leader of the House at with the Clerk to the European Scrutiny Committee.” business questions two weeks ago. It was bland. We got 19 European Committee CHOUSE OF COMMONS Europe for Citizens 20
[Michael Connarty] Michael Connarty: How long do we have left for debate? two letters back. The original letter got, I think in February, the same, very bland reply, which did not The Chair: You may carry on for a bit more, but refer to this programme but just stated that it is very would you gradually draw your remarks to a close? difficult to find time to fit these debates in. It did not react at all to the point being made. Is it because the Mr Cash: I have got nothing more to say. I have said Government want to botch this up? Or perhaps they are what I needed to say already and the questions I asked— afraid of getting stick from the Eurosceptics, which might feed the UKIP monster and therefore damage the The Chair: Order. Mr Cash has got nothing more to Conservative party. I do not know, and I do not think say. that that is the Minister’s view, but the Government’s business managers may have other views on the electorate Mr Cash: Absolutely. and their chances in the European elections. The NCVO’s letter talks about projects such as the The Chair: Has that ever been heard in this House European Network of National Civil Society Associations. before? That is a major project, which allows the NCVO in partnership with its counterparts across Europe to bring Michael Connarty: The result of this is clear from the together 23 national organisations. The letter also e-mails I have received from all of these organisations. talks about community service volunteers, remembrance, As of 1 April 2014, we now have a problem: funding for town twinning and the Sherborne volunteer engagement, many of these organisations has ceased. Many people which is about people in eight towns across Europe—the have said in their e-mails that they will have to lose staff 28 countries. That does not seem to be a political plot and to stop programmes. That is the problem. The by a group of Europhiles, and I can see why the CSV NCVO letter was trying to alert the Minister to that was upset. fact. It is the same in the e-mails that I have received, in I have been approached by people in organisations the e-mails exchanged between NCVO officers that I who are quite clearly for the new Europe. I got one from am aware of and in the e-mails that Oli Henman, head Roger Casale, the ex-Member of Parliament who sat on of partnerships and international at the NCVO, has the European Scrutiny Committee and who is married been exchanging with the Minister’s advisers. It is a to an Italian lady. He is the chair of New Europeans. He consequence of the disruption caused by this absolute believes that, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member shambles from the Government. It is not the fault of for Newport West, bringing people together to talk the European Scrutiny Committee; it is the Government’s about themselves as Europeans and cementing friendships fault. It is clear from the debate on the Floor of the across Europe is good. Perhaps that organisation could House on 27 January that some members of the European be subject to accusations of being a plot. Scrutiny Committee were prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater. They were willing to vote down Why are the Government delaying the programme? I the approvals Bill, which would therefore never get think that it has a lot to do with ignorance of the Royal Assent. Even had we had this debate, the programme European Scrutiny Committee’s power and, I have to would not have gone ahead because of their anti-EU say, the massive downgrading by this and the previous prejudice. That is what it is about. It is absolutely Government of the importance of the scrutiny process ridiculous. by removing the permanent memberships of these Standing Committees. They now have random memberships who Mr Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? may or may not wish to turn up. Their memberships have no expertise in European matters and, because The Chair: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is there are no consistent debates, they are never likely to coming to the end of his remarks. gain the ability to talk with any clarity about these matters. They do not realise that the scrutiny is a major Michael Connarty: Will the Minister review how the power: the Government cannot agree to something in programme is supposed to work and how it is working? the Council unless it has been debated, properly. I went to a memorial rededication in the village of I was worried when I read the debate. I will seek an Whitburn in my constituency, which was moving because apology from the member of the European Scrutiny the name of Robert Thomson, who was killed in Iraq, Committee who accused me of being there and not was added to the memorial, which is a difficult thing to voting for all the money to go to remembrance. In fact, achieve. The rededication was run by local schools and that meeting was on the week of the Council of Europe community groups and was chaired by Councillor George when you, Sir Edward, and I were debating matters of Paul. They said that they had to beg and borrow the human rights in Strasbourg. I was not at that Committee money to create a tableau of photographs beside the meeting and I am not listed in the minute, but the memorial to show the history of the many wars in impression was given that some of us who genuinely which people in that community have fallen. They did want the programme to go ahead were somehow deficient not know that the programme was available. In fact, it is in our willingness to make the remembrance an important now a past programme, because it ended at the end of matter. March. It was not given any prominence. The organisations that are doing the work are honourable The Chair: Order. I am worried about timing, and are trying to do a good job. Scathing remarks were Mr Connarty, so I know that you will want to bring made about the Liberal association or something getting your remarks to a close soon to let the Opposition some money because it would be used to push a particular spokesman and the Minister respond. political line. Scathing remarks were also made about 21 European Committee C2 APRIL 2014 Europe for Citizens 22 the maritime seamen in Athens in Greece as if they Michael Connarty: I believe, in fact, the documents somehow they did not have the right to money from the are going to the European Institute in Florence, which fund to talk about what is common experience and is not the same as the university. workplace for maritime sailors from this land and other lands around Europe. All these organisations are valid. Helen Goodman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for It was the juxtaposition of two things that led to a reminding me. realisation. First, I was approached by CSV, which said that the European Scrutiny Committee was being accused The Opposition think that twinning is a good idea of holding the matter up when we knew that we were and we want to encourage it. We want more exchanges, not. Secondly, people in my community wanted to hold particularly between young people. But when the Minister a remembrance service, which they took seriously and was speaking about the work from this programme organised well, but frankly if it had not been for West being done in non-EU countries, he was on stickier Lothian council, the money would never have been territory. However much we all support the development available to rededicate the memorial, to create the tableaux of civil society and improved human rights in the former and to hold the ceremony. The coming together of Soviet Union countries—I speak as one who worked in those two things said to me that this is an absolute mess. Czechoslovakia on a know-how project before the Czechs were part of the European Union—that strand is different The Government have had their debate on the Floor from this strand of building up Europe. None the less, of the House and the Eurosceptics had their usual run taking the package as a whole, which we have to do at their usual target. The list of contributors had all the because it is the result of the negotiation, the Opposition usual suspects. The debate was not a wide-ranging are prepared to agree the motion before the Committee engagement of the Commons, but the vote was. It was this morning. quite clear with 246 in favour of approving the Bill and 28 Eurosceptics against it. Yet we had contributions in the European Scrutiny Committee suggesting that they 10.7 am still did not approve of, and wanted to stop, the money. Paul Flynn: I thought we were about to witness a It was pointed out by a Liberal member of the Committee unique historic occasion in the life of this House when that Parliament had spoken on the matter. We have had the hon. Member for Stone announced that he had our debate. The Bill has passed and Royal Assent has nothing more to say, but alas he did and he disappointed been given. Unfortunately, because of the shambles us. Sadly, he has now left to spend more of his time with from the Government’s business managers and the—I the BBC. I was instructed to read a book of history, use the word advisedly—ignorance of the Minister’s but I think the Minister who suggested it had a look of advisers, we did not hold the debate earlier so that the bafflement on his face when I mentioned the very programme could have been running as soon as the Bill creditable work of the Government in reminding us of received Royal Assent. the unique life of Willie Redmond. I want an apology to the people of the UK and to the The hon. Member for Stone mentioned his organisations, which may experience major disruption personal reason for feeling passionately about these before the money comes through. Will the Minister tell commemorations. I can mention briefly that my father us when will we get unanimity in the Council so that the was seriously injured in the first world war. He was programme can go ahead? trapped in a foxhole, bleeding to death, and his life was saved by a German patrol who carried him on their backs to a field hospital. He was a machine gunner and Mr Cash: I just want to make one remark and that is all machine gunners were shot on both sides because all, Sir Edward. they had killed thousands of people. He was saved for a religious reason—there was a unity that was not a national one. Expecting the bullet to blow out his The Chair: Mr Cash, calm down and sit down. Let brains, he took out his rosary beads and was praying. Miss Goodman say a few words, then you can say a few That was the link that he always thought saved his life. words to the Minister. This seems to be a mean-spirited affair. It is one we all regret because we all want to see these events commemorated in a way that will teach us the reasons 10.5 am behind the terrible tragedy of the first world war. We Helen Goodman: We have had a very thorough discussion have seen some marvellous expositions on television of these proposals, even though my hon. Friend the that showed us the hubris; the simple-minded approach Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk and I have of many Ministers; the vanity of three royal princes raised some question marks about the process and who were arguing with one another, and the results of timetabling. Obviously, these are impacting on voluntary the progress towards war, which had its own momentum. and civil society organisations in most unfortunate ways. Everyone was expecting a war; they were making factories This goes to the heart of the problem that they face, to manufacture bullets; they were recruiting soldiers. which is that they are constantly being asked to play a The war had its own inevitability, but there was no role in the big society but they are being given short and sound reason why tens of millions of lives should be late decisions, which makes it extremely difficult for lost because of the hubris of politicians and the vanity them to do so. of military men, which is what it was all about. Let us Across the Committee, there seems to be a consensus learn those two lessons. about sending the documents to the university of Florence It is a great disappointment that because of this and about commemorating world war one and the internal row between the representative of the English victims of totalitarianism. nationalist party and other people with little Englander 23 European Committee CHOUSE OF COMMONS Europe for Citizens 24
[Paul Flynn] Mr Vaizey: I have never denied that the Committee has the rights that it has. I am picking up the theme that views, much of the progressive work that has been the hon. Gentleman had of what concerns normal carried out by all sorts of groups has been greatly people. If the concerns of normal people are that the damaged. We are moving rapidly towards August and regulation, bringing into force the Europe for Citizens July—those great anniversaries. They will not have the funding, should be properly scrutinised, I contend that same resonance if they are celebrated and commemorated it was properly scrutinised when it went through the 101 years after the event; it must be on the anniversary. House. He asked about the National Council for Voluntary Unquestionably, the delays that have taken place in this Organisations letter, and I will find out, when I get back House, for all the complex reasons that my hon. Friend to my Department, what stage that letter has reached in the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk laid out, the correspondence unit. have weakened the value of those celebrations. I am not privy to the inner workings of the House, We should see the celebrations as an act where we but four, five or six weeks to get this debate from the look with greater clarity at the first world war. My date of that letter is not a huge amount of time to wait. father went to war because he believed that he was In any event, I apologise if the hon. Gentleman feels stopping the Hun from bayoneting Belgian babies. Others offended by the way in which the press have covered this went to war for similar reasons. It was propaganda and issue, but I am not responsible for that either. We have it was not true. Willie Redmond went to war to fight for spent an inordinate amount of time on procedural small nations and gave his life for that and the Government, matters, therefore perhaps betraying the difference between with the Taoiseach in Ireland, have chosen to highlight the way in which this Committee and the House scrutinise that wonderful example. He was a figure who brought legislation. As far as I am concerned, this regulation has not discord but unity, and gave his life for it. It is very been examined to the nth degree. The views across the sad for this House that we seem to be responsible House on whether it is appropriate are well known. The throughout the whole European Community for delaying House passed by an overwhelming majority the Act the celebrations and for seeming to stop the money that enables us to support the regulation. That seems to coming in, which will affect those celebrations. I hope me to be the will of Parliament. that the decision that we take today will accelerate the process of commemoration of two dreadful events, Michael Connarty rose— which we all pray will never happen in our futures.
10.11 am Mr Vaizey: I have taken enough interventions from Mr Vaizey: It is good to come to the conclusion of the hon. Gentleman. this lively debate. As I said briefly in my opening There are concerns about whether there is a contact remarks, it has never been my intention to disrespect the point, but it seems to me that the NCVO is a well-respected Committee, and I apologise if that impression was organisation with a huge number of stakeholders, and given. I make it absolutely clear that I take full responsibility is a big supporter of the programme and can publicise for any actions that have caused concern amongst the it. As the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said, we Committee. My officials cannot defend themselves in do not want to invent a new bureaucracy at additional this Committee, so let me say on their behalf that I have cost to the programme. We want as much of the money received from them only the highest quality of advice. I as possible to go to the organisations that support it. hate to labour the point, but the Committee should Question put and agreed to. note that the regulation was debated in the Chamber on Resolved, Second Reading, Third Reading and Report. I have That the Committee takes note of European Union Document always made myself available to the House, and I would No. 18719/11 and Addenda 1 and 2, a draft Council Regulation make myself available to any Committee, to discuss this establishing for the period 2014-20 the Programme “Europe for or any other matter. Citizens”; notes that the remembrance activities with which it is concerned will include the commemoration of those who died in Michael Connarty: I am sure that the Minister is not two World Wars, including the Holocaust; notes that the programme also supports citizens’ more active civic participation in the EU trying to do it, but he appears to continue to talk about institutions for the purposes of education, accountability and this process and the demand for a debate on the lifting transparency; notes the success that the UK has achieved against of the scrutiny reserve as being the same thing as having its key priorities, and in particular the reduction in budget to just a debate on the Floor of the House. They are not the under ¤185.5 million from ¤215 million for the 2007-13 programme; same and it would be nice if the Minister admitted that. further notes the potential value of the programme to UK I will later give him the name of the official who was citizens and organisations at the time of the centenary of the written to on this matter and should have alerted him to outbreak of World War I; and supports the view of the Government the fact that they are not the same debates. Will he that it is right for the UK to support the draft Regulation and enable its implementation. accept that the scrutiny reserve resolution reflects the arcane nature of how Parliament has fundamental rights over any process in the House, because it was passed 10.16 am long before the Lisbon treaty? Committee rose.