RT HON CAROLINE FLINT MP, MR MATTHEW RYCROFT AND MR MICHAEL DAVIDSON

4 FEBRUARY 2009

  Q20  Chairman: —but also a Declaration on the enhancement of the European Security and Defence Policy, a Declaration on strengthening of capabilities and a Statement on strengthening international security (all already adopted by the 8-9 December General Affairs Council. Why were you unable to share any of the thinking that has now produced these important statements of future policy, which we believe all should have been scrutinised prior to adoption?

  Caroline Flint: Can I just ask Michael to say something about Declarations?

  Chairman: Welcome, Michael.

  Mr Davidson: Thank you very much. It was our impression that Declarations were not subject to the parliamentary scrutiny reserve and therefore not subject to formal parliamentary scrutiny, although we should have gotten the EMs to you sooner after the event. In fact, we could not have actually presented any of Solana's points to you prior to him giving a speech because we did not exactly know what was in the speech. I think that is why the Declarations were not submitted.

  Caroline Flint: And—

  Q21  Chairman: Can I pursue that. You have put forward Michael for questions by asking him to speak. You said that Solana was subject to scrutiny but not subject to the scrutiny reserve. If you had followed the debates and a lot of the (misguided) anger about the European Security and Defence Policy and the Common Foreign and Security Policy, through the debates in the Lisbon Treaty for example, clearly it is a very heated area, and the idea that we can make changes and agree things at European level that then impact on this country, even before Lisbon, clearly is a matter of major importance to the Parliament that we represent, so why did you think that it did not require to be cleared in scrutiny before it could be agreed?

  Mr Davidson: I was making a technical point that the parliamentary scrutiny reserve cannot be applied to Declarations because they are not subject to the scrutiny reserve. We cannot stop Solana from giving his speech by imposing the parliamentary scrutiny reserve. Therefore if we cannot impose the parliamentary scrutiny reserve, prior scrutiny of the statement can also not be enforced.

  Q22  Chairman: My understanding is that the European Council adopted these Declarations. They did not just let him make Declarations, they were not just speeches of where he thought we were going. If the Council agreed these Declarations, then they adopted these positions. Is that not correct?

  Mr Rycroft: I think we are talking about two different things. Michael was referring to the European Security Strategy updated by Solana, which was a speech which was part of the Council Conclusions from the GAERC in December, and you are talking about elements of European Council Conclusions later in December about European defence. Just to be clear we are talking about two different things here.

  Chairman: There had been a General Affairs Council and we are talking about the fact that they were adopted by the European Council. I said that in my question, so they became agreed policy across Europe, and therefore with major impact on all the countries of Europe, subject, I would say, to scrutiny. I think Matthew was getting involved there?

  Caroline Flint: There seems to be a difference of opinion here about what is subject to scrutiny, and that is why, as I have been saying, I hope to be helpful, I think the discussions that are happening at the moment in which we are reviewing our scrutiny processes, we need to make sure that our officials can get together so that we can really work this through, because there do seem to be some differences of opinion about (whether it is Declarations or Council Conclusions or other things) whether they need to come through the parliamentary scrutiny process. I am very happy for that to be clarified between our Department and your Committee, and our colleagues in the House of Lords as well, to be clear about just what elements of European policy as it develops needs to come in. Another point I would say, Chairman, is that even if there are some areas where it is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, I think we can have a conversation (I hope) about how we can improve information and communication about what is developing in those areas so that, as and when, for example, something may be happening, the Committee is informed, but also has more background to something before potentially a Common Position or a Joint Action comes before the Committee, so you do not just feel as if you are being given something in a very short space of time. That is something that I am very willing to think about and try and work through.

  Mr Heathcoat-Amory: During the debate on the Lisbon Treaty in the House, we were told by ministers that we need not worry about future scrutiny of foreign policy, as developed in the Treaty, because it would build on the existing system which was considered to be working very well. From what you have said already, it clearly is not. We have this European Security Strategy which, according to your own words, will "form the frame of reference for future external EU action". Then we have two Declarations and a Statement which go into matters such as terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, proliferation and disarmament. These are first-rate Statements and Declarations of importance, and you seem to be saying that there is some doubt as to whether you should tell the Committee before they are adopted. This is truly bizarre and it makes a complete nonsense of scrutiny by the House of Commons if even your Department does not know whether we should be told before these things are adopted.

  Caroline Flint: I think the view of our Department is that on some of these Declarations it is not the case that they require scrutiny, and that is why I have said we need to clarify clearly some differences of opinions, in the same way we were discussing earlier about Council Conclusions, as to what is the right process. I think I have been pretty open about that. What I am wanting to try and contribute in this job is to see where we can make improvements because I do think that improvements could be made. I think I have been pretty blunt about that. I am sure you will appreciate, because it happened under previous Governments, that we are dealing with a fast-moving situation. As I have said, we had something like 135 EMs in the course of 2008, and we try our best to most of the time meet the needs of the Committee. On some of the things that I have provided the Committee recently I think it has been welcomed, and I welcome some of the encouragement that I have had, but clearly it is not as great as it could be, and that is why we are having a review at the moment about how we work. We are looking to introduce a new electronic system so that we can better track what is happening with documents. We cannot do that without discussing it with the clerks of this Committee and the House as well, because there is an issue about time management there, to ensure that we get the right balance. I think we are quite positive compared to some other European parliaments. That is not to say we should not improve.

  Chairman: We are the best among other European parliaments.

  Caroline Flint: Thank you!

  Angus Robertson: Apart from the Danes!

  Chairman: We have a persuasive system.

  Q23  Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Can I ask a supplementary? You say that you are working on this now. I must say that I find it rather disingenuous that these assurances were given to me personally in the House when we debated this and they clearly have not been carried out. You said earlier, Minister, that you have not been in the Department very long but your officials have, and they will recall that another select committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, was so alarmed by the failures of communication between your Department and that Committee, they went to see the Permanent Secretary St Peter Ricketts, and that Committee received full and comprehensive assurance that there would be a step-change in that relationship and that the House of Commons and its committees would be kept fully informed in advance of major decisions being taken. You are now saying that the whole thing is up for review and nobody really knows what should be scrutinised.

  Caroline Flint: I never said that—

  Q24  Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Could I ask you, Minister, if you would ask Mr Rycroft to confirm that this discussion took place with the Permanent Secretary and will you raise it personally with the Permanent Secretary and ask him why his assurances have not been carried out?

  Caroline Flint: What I think actually is that the engagement of departments with our colleagues in Parliament needs to be constantly kept under review. Things actually had been looked at before I arrived in the Department. I mentioned before about developing a better way to keep documents electronically and log them and capture information as an on-going process. We are currently looking at correspondence requests from before 2008 and long-term requests for updates, in order to clear any outstanding requests. It has been helpful to have those conversations with the Committee staff in relation to that. I am certainly not coming here saying that I have come to this job and I have started a process; the process has been underway.

  Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Please ask him.

  Caroline Flint: Part of attending these committees for this Department is to see in what areas there are outstanding issues, which is something I am working through. As I said, there have been some changes made, there has been work in progress before I arrived at the Department, but there clearly is more to be done. As I say, I think these meetings, but also outside of this, the meetings between the clerks and others will help, hopefully, to pull that forward, and we should keep in closer contact about how we can improve the situation. I think that is fair.

  Q25  Mr Cash: I want to try and be helpful, as ever, and I just wanted to put this against the background of the prerogative nature of the Foreign Office itself, which goes back a very long time, with the idea that it can just do things on its own terms, which is historically accurate. Could we not put an end to these failures of scrutiny which we have been discussing today, and in a constructive spirit, could we also come to an arrangement, or an understanding, that you will go away and then stop this catch-up with the European Secretariat—and I mean by that all the unelected people, chaps like Solana, who are not elected on our behalf at all—and therefore just to ensure that you achieve all this, to guarantee to deposit all future documents in this area for scrutiny prior to their adoption at GAERC meetings. If we could be sure that we were actually given an opportunity to look at all this before their adoption, it would be much better. There are deeper reasons which are embedded in the culture of the Foreign Office and in the practices of the European Union, which is largely unelected. Do you not feel that there is something that needs to be put right there?

  Caroline Flint: All matters in relation to documentation are agreed with the Cabinet Office and Council Decisions, Joint Actions, Council Regulations and Common Positions are important. I am not saying that the draft Council Conclusions are not important, but the difference is that the four areas and documents I mentioned, are legally binding. In our system—and I understand this has operated under previous Governments as well—those are the ones that have been subjected to the scrutiny process because it is part of the legally binding way in which it works. Again, the Cabinet Office sets the rules for us, and presumably for other departments as well, about how they should work. I have to say that I do think that in the last ten years or so the interrogation of European work has improved. Whilst there is always room for further improvement, I think government departments have stepped up, and the resources that have gone into area have increased as well. As I said, for the Foreign Office, and maybe JHA as well, because I remember that from when I was a Home Office Minister, one of the things that we are trying to grapple with in the time-tabling is a very fast-moving situation, obviously with GAERCs every month, and the same with the JHA Councils too, how we can make sure we timetable it in. We have to constantly review that, to be honest, to look for improvements. As I say, it is not always easy and we do try to minimise the amount of overrides that we do.

  Q26  Mr Clappison: Could I begin by drawing a distinction between the Security Strategy and the Solana Review and the three Declarations which were made because I think it is important. Can I ask you, Minister, when did work first begin in your Department on the three Declarations?

  Caroline Flint: I think I would have to write to the honourable gentleman on that issue.

  Q27  Mr Clappison: Can you say when it was that you first became aware that there were going to be these Declarations?

  Caroline Flint: I do not know if Matthew can provide it. I do not want to say something that proves to be inaccurate. I would like to give a fuller detailed note.

  Mr Rycroft: I think we should write on the detail, but I can assure the Committee that we knew that European defence was going to be a major priority for the French Presidency of the EU in the second half of last year and we worked closely with them on what turned out to be three Declarations.

  Q28  Mr Clappison: I am not asking you to say "at 10 am on 21 August" but can you give us some indication of timescale, please. Was it a matter of weeks or was it a matter of months? How long was it?

  Mr Rycroft: I think we should write to the Committee with that detail.

  Caroline Flint: I think we need to write to you on that.

  Mr Cash: There are too many Tiggers bouncing around.

  Q29  Mr Clappison: Is it a fair assumption to make from the content—and I think we need to look at the content of these Declarations in order to examine the process—that they are very important indeed. They covered a wide variety of the areas and they are not something that could have been put together overnight. There must have been some considerable work done beforehand. Is that right?

  Mr Rycroft: Absolutely, it is important work and it was an important priority for the French Presidency.

  Mr Clappison: To pull one or two things out of the Declaration on strengthening capabilities, you agreed to encourage the efforts of the Secretary-General to establish a new single civilian/military strategic planning structure for ESDF operations and missions, which I think has been a long-standing objective in certain quarters who have certain wider objectives on this. In the Statement on enhancing international security it goes into some detail about the threats which we face, and then the Declaration on enhancement of ESDP goes into a very large degree of detail about the capabilities which would be available for a European force, what it would be expected to do, the sort of missions it would undertake, going into some detail, which I imagine would require quite a lot of consultation across Whitehall. So you must have known about this for some considerable time beforehand.

  Caroline Flint: I am sure there were discussions about this particular area, and in relation to the report on EDSP, under the Presidency of the French, they published a report in early December. We deposited the EM on the report 10 December. As I said, we tried to keep the Committee informed.

  Q30  Mr Clappison: Could I ask you about that, Minister. It is not just a question of the French, because presumably this came before ministers of our Government at some point. It is detailed matters such as these which resulted in binding political declarations, as has been pointed out, which bind this country, so the ministers in this country must have been aware of what was on the cards, surely?

  Caroline Flint: Of course we are aware of the development of some of the work around EDSP. Clearly it is part and parcel of what the European Union's contribution has been. As I have said, we try to keep the Committee informed as best we can about developments in that area.

  Chairman: I do not think we can afford your fee. I know you are a very good lawyer and you are pursuing a case against a witness that would go down very well in court, but I am not sure that we are getting anywhere since the Minister says that she does not have the necessary detail of timings to hand.

  Q31  Mr Clappison: The Minister is responsible for this and the next question is: assuming that ministers knew—although that has been left up in the air because we have been told about the French ministers who know about this—did it occur to ministers to let this Committee know about the Declarations?

  Caroline Flint: Obviously if there is a gap in that—and that is something I have said we will look at—we will try to improve that situation. I have already made that very clear. Part of what I am looking at is the areas where we are meeting our legal requirements, and making sure that is right, and in areas where it is about providing information for informed discussion, whether we can make improvements in those areas, and that is something I have said to the Committee that I am happy to do.

  Chairman: I am conscious that we have another section of our inquiry to do—

  Q32  Mr Clappison: This is an extremely important subject. What is being planned here goes to the heart of this country's defence. What we are entering into is a binding political commitment. The fact of the matter is that the first this Committee would know about this was when the Declaration was made. Had you deposited any documents beforehand?

  Caroline Flint: I will have to check on that.

  Mr Clappison: We are now in the position—and you have talked about scrutiny and your review—of recommending this for debate in a European standing committee after the agreement has been entered into, which is rather pointless because it defies the whole purpose of scrutiny, which is to have an opportunity to have the issues ventilated before final decisions are made. The binding political commitment has already been entered into, and this country has been bound, and we have been asked to scrutinise something after that commitment has been made. It is like looking at laws after they have been passed and become acts.

  Caroline Flint: I am happy to write with details for the Committee, but I think it is already part of the work that we do in the European Union to support security and defence operations. I do not think that is a new policy. We see that there is a role for the EU in terms of our security to contribute to various operations, also looking at how we can better work alongside other organisations, NATO being one of them. I do not think that is new. Part of the Declaration, from what I understand, was looking at how we could improve our approach to civilian military operations and early planning. However, as I said, on this particular group of declarations that the Committee have raised, I am happy to provide more detail.

  Chairman: Can I just say, Mr Clappison, that I am not going to disagree with anything that you have said, I am going to put it on the record that I agree entirely with the questions you are asking. However, we still have a debate to come. This matter was referred for debate and I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with those policy issues and those timing issues at that debate. That debate will be accessible to everyone in Parliament to come and ask questions and speak on.

  Mr Clappison: It is on the process, Chairman, which is so very important. If the Minister is making the case that these matters were just part of the ESDP and there was nothing of importance in them, I would beg to differ with the Minister.

  Caroline Flint: I have tried to be clear that Declarations, from what I understand, are not subject to scrutiny. These are set down by Cabinet Office and therefore there is a wider discussion about what the different parts of our engagement are. People might have different views on that. What I have said is that I want to look at the areas where they are subject to parliamentary scrutiny, certain elements of our European work, and whether that is working and where there are parts of it that are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, how we can find a way to better inform the Committee. You might want to have someone from the Cabinet Office here explaining about these different documents because this is the case for every department that deals with European Union work.

  Mr Clappison: We simply would like to have the opportunity to scrutinise very important decisions before they are taken.

  Chairman: I was leaving all the questions to end before I challenged the original assumption by Mr Davidson. It says quite clearly in the Standing Orders of this Parliament under 143, which sets up this Committee, that what we should be shown is every document. It says for example in 143(c)(iii): "Any proposal for a common strategy, a joint action or a common Position under Title V of the Treaty on European Union that is prepared for submission to the Council or to a European Council." So it is any European Council not just the European Council, including the General Affairs Council. It then goes on to say in (v): "any document (not falling within (ii), (iii) or (iv) above |", so it is quite clear that it is any document. If this Declaration was on a piece of paper going to the General Affairs Council it should have come to this Committee. That is a fact. No-one discussed this with the clerks of this Committee. As far as I understand, no-one consulted the Cabinet Office. Mr Davidson did not say that he got this from the Cabinet Office. He made this assumption or decision himself on the assessment of what the scrutiny reserve is. I think you are wrong, Minister, and I think your officials are wrong, unless it was a word-of-mouth statement that was not put down on paper, which is not likely from Mr Solana, particularly with three Declarations of such importance, as has been pointed out by a number of Members in their questions. I think you are entirely wrong in your interpretation as to what you are legally bound to present to this Committee. I would ask you to look very seriously at that, to talk to the Cabinet Committee and to talk to our clerks. I think you have been misadvised on that matter.

  Caroline Flint: Absolutely.

  Chairman: Moving forward—and you have made many declarations—what I would like you to do is get a clear declaration that you are willing to reflect on this afternoon's discussions and then write to the Committee with proposals, not just communicate it in discussions, but write to the Committee with proposals on how to improve the up-stream scrutiny of CFSP and ESDP. We are asking you to guarantee the deposit of all future documents in this area for scrutiny prior to their adoption at the General Affairs Council, because that is in line with our scrutiny reserve Standing Order. That is what Parliament says you should do: deposit all documents in those categories. That is what the Foreign Secretary promised us, an engagement up-stream, so that we do not get into the situation where people are saying—and I do not disagree at all with Mr Clappison—that serious decisions are taken that do affect particularly this area which are very, very sensitive to this country. I am a great defender of and advancer of European Security and Defence Policy, but not on the basis that we are being dragged at the tail of a decision-making process that we cannot scrutinise and cannot affect.

  Mr Cash: Or out-of-control people who are running it.

  Q33  Chairman: Can you give us that assurance that you will do that?

  Caroline Flint: Yes, Chairman, I will give assurance that I will follow up on what you have said and reflect on it, and come back with some proposals to make sure that we are all very clear and in line with whatever are the requirements that are laid down, to make sure that we are delivering them.

  Q34  Chairman: Thank you very much. Can we move on to the session on the Lisbon Treaty and the legal guarantees. I am conscious, Minister, that you said that you had about an hour and a half to give us and we have used up most of that time on the other issues, and they are very important, but clearly so are comments about giving Ireland legal guarantees and comments by President Sarkozy that they would somehow write some protocols into the Accession Treaty for Croatia that would allow the Irish to have guarantees. We are clear in our mind that if that should happen that would be an amendment to the Lisbon Treaty and would require ratification by all the countries of the European Union. There are some very great difficulties and problems in how this could be met. Some of us who could make it met with the Oireachtas European Committee last week to discuss this and other matters. What form will the so-called legal guarantees to Ireland take? Can you confirm that to be effective they must have the effect of amending Ireland's Treaty obligations towards the other Member States?

  Caroline Flint: The discussions about what form these legal guarantees will take is obviously under discussion in terms of our Irish colleagues and the Commission, and obviously we are yet to see any particular text come forward. What I can say is that at the Council there was agreement that what these guarantees should not do is re-open the Lisbon Treaty, because there was a very strong view at Council that this is about providing some assurances and not actually changing the basis of the Treaty. My understanding in terms of what might happen once a text is agreed between the parties involved is that either they will take the form of a decision to clarify the concerns that were raised by the Irish Prime Minister at the Council, or they might take the form of a protocol which could be attached to the next Accession Treaty, which is where the comment about Croatia comes into play. That in itself would be not changing the Lisbon Treaty but would be clarifying the situation in terms of the concerns that our Irish colleagues raised. That is how it would be taken forward.

  Q35  Mr Cash: Minister, this is a very serious matter because of the importance of the Irish referendum, and of course the fact that they have been bullied into a second vote. The Lisbon Treaty itself amends the EU and the EC Treaties. Ireland cannot be given legal guarantees without also affecting the operation of the EU and EC Treaties as amended by Lisbon. If the Treaties then work differently for Ireland, there is a corresponding change in the rights and duties of all the other Member States with regard to Ireland. You said in your letter to the Chairman of the European Union Committee that there will be no change to the Lisbon Treaty, but do you not accept that this, at best, is no more than a half truth—I repeat, half truth—and in fact it is just playing with words? This would give the effect that the Lisbon Treaty must inevitably be changed in order to give Ireland legal guarantees, because after all, surely, a legal guarantee amounts to an amendment? The Court of Justice will adjudicate in relation to these matters, and what is going on is just a racket, a fix, and it does leave a very, very unpleasant feeling that, somehow or other, the original democratic consent is being converted into a lot of rather devious manoeuvring.

  Caroline Flint: First of all, I do not think that we have or anybody else has bullied our Irish colleagues. Prime Minister Cowen came to the Council and in his presentation, based on an extensive report from his own Parliament (and I met members of that whilst I visited Dublin and I know the Committee has had contact with them as well) into what were the issues that Irish voters thought were in the Treaty and caused them concern.

  Mr Cash: Come on!

  Caroline Flint: That was also backed up by some other studies that were done, so what he was presenting to the Council was for example a view, that I think was sincerely believed by people, that potentially the Lisbon Treaty would undermine Ireland's neutrality and could lead to conscription. We are very clear that is not in the Treaty and I think the Irish Government are very clear that that is not in the Treaty, but that was a concern. There were other concerns around tax, abortion and other matters that came out of the post-Irish referendum work. We are very clear that a number of these concerns that were raised by Irish voters are not in the Treaty and therefore there is no need to amend the Treaty, but I think actually, in a constructive way, we are looking at how we can provide additional confirmation to satisfy the people of Ireland that this is the case. That is why the legal guarantees are in the form of either a binding decision at Council or potentially a protocol, which is rather like the Danish had some years ago, as a way of not changing the Treaty but re-emphasising and clarifying what is there and what is not there.

  Mr Cash: Surely every voter received an agreed text, agreed between the yes and the no camps in advance of their vote. Nobody can say that they did not know what the Treaty contained.

  Caroline Flint: I cannot speak for the Irish. I can only speak for what the committee of their parliament—

  Mr Cash: I know but you were repeating what they were saying as if there was some excuse for our being complicit in agreeing to bully them into this second referendum.

  Caroline Flint: I cannot speak for the Irish voters. All I can say is that this was presented by the Prime Minister and it was based on the evidence of their parliamentary committee and other studies that asked, post-referendum, what were the issues that meant people felt so concerned about voting yes in that referendum.

  Chairman: We did participate and I certainly gave evidence and we all have had copies. Mr Robertson?

  Q36  Angus Robertson: Just to follow up on something that you were able to observe, and that is whether you and your European Union colleagues from other countries took Ireland's concerns seriously? Those were the concerns that were presented by the Taoiseach at the meeting of the Council of Ministers. In your view, do you think that the Irish Government secured a strong deal on the issues that they had sought clarification on, the four areas that you outlined?

  Caroline Flint: I think everybody did take seriously, and with understanding, the presentation by the Prime Minister. I think that is why the Council agreed that work should be done through this legal guarantees route to provide, hopefully, the assurances that the Irish Republic want. As I said, at the moment we have not got any text and that is something that obviously is being worked on.

  Q37  Angus Robertson: So a country of three and a half million people sitting at the top table in the European Union can exercise real clout and deliver important priorities for its citizens, can it, Minister; yes or no? I am sure Irish people reading the evidence will be very interested in your view.

  Caroline Flint: I think countries of many different shapes and sizes in the EU have influence in terms of their own country's aspirations. I think we do very well as the United Kingdom in terms of how we are able to influence as well. As a Home Office Minister and as Europe Minister, I have always been pleased to work with my colleagues in the devolved administrations to represent the wishes of everyone in our islands.

  Chairman: Can I just remark for the record that when we did meet with members of the Oireachtas—and, unfortunately, Mr Robertson could not be there—they actually said, "We are just a little country. We don't have any clout. It is different for people like you in the United Kingdom who can really get things done." They were quite clear about that and there were four or five members of the Committee there to witness that.

  Angus Robertson: They are queuing to come into the UK, are they?

  Chairman: I just said that is what they said; I do not want to be misquoted; the context was quite clear.

  Q38  Kelvin Hopkins: One thing that puzzles me about the Irish situation is that a major factor, as I understand it, in the referendum was employment rights. There were trade unions and people on the Left who campaigned strongly on those issues, and yet they seem not to be addressed at all by the renegotiation. Employment rights were certainly a major factor in Holland and in France with their earlier referenda on the Constitution, and even in the Swedish referendum in their decision not to join the Euro. At no point has anybody addressed these employment issues. The events this week have some relevance I think. Are we not looking at the Treaty ourselves, perhaps as to ways of improving employment rights so that we or whoever supports the European Union strongly, do not have these problems in the future?

  Caroline Flint: As I said, we do not believe that it is necessary to renegotiate the Lisbon Treaty. What we have recognised, and I think acknowledged, is that there are concerns about what people in Ireland thought the Treaty might involve. Just looking at the Presidency Conclusions—

  Mr Cash: We are affected by it.

  Caroline Flint: Just looking at the Presidency Conclusions, they confirm that the Union "attaches high importance to social progress and the protection of workers' rights, public services, as an indispensable instrument of social and regional cohesion," and other matters. So, again, we wait for the text to come forward. We believe that in terms of the red lines that we secured, that they are not affected by the position happening now, which is to try and seek resolution through these legal guarantees. The reality is that at the end of the day all 27 Member States have to ratify the Lisbon Treaty for it to go forward. If at the end of the day that does not happen, we will just have the Nice Treaty to fall back on.

  Q39  Kelvin Hopkins: Just to strengthen the point, we have had some recent decisions by the European Court of Justice, the Viking line judgement and others, which have found in favour of employers rather than employees. Do not these decisions give justified cause for alarm for people and was that not a factor in the Irish referendum?

  Caroline Flint: I think there were a number of factors in the Irish referendum.

  Chairman: I do not think we want to get into a deep discussion about that at this moment.

  Caroline Flint: And that is what was presented by the Prime Minister.

  Chairman: Mr Clappison?