UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 1076House of COMMONSMINUTES OF EVIDENCETAKEN BEFOREEUROPEAN SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
SCRUTINY RELATED ISSUES AND
FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE EUROPEAN
|
|
1. |
This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others.
|
|
2. |
Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.
|
|
3. |
Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant.
|
|
4. |
Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee.
|
|
5. |
Transcribed by the Official Shorthand Writers to the Houses of Parliament: W B Gurney & Sons LLP, Hope House, Telephone Number: 020 7233 1935
|
Oral Evidence
Taken before the European Scrutiny Committee
on
Members present
Michael Connarty, in the Chair
Mr Adrian Bailey
Mr William Cash
Mr James Clappison
Jim Dobbin
Mr Greg Hands
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Kelvin
________________
Witnesses:
Chris Bryant, MP, Minister
for
Q1 Chairman:
Minister,
can I formally welcome you to the Committee.
You carry with you your onerous responsibilities for, I believe,
Chris Bryant: Indeed; thank you very much, Chairman. It is a great delight to be here. This is probably the job that I would most ever want to have done in Parliament and several members of the Committee will know how many debates we have already had, several of us, in various different forms. Even my loyal friends in the same party do not always agree with me. I have two colleagues with me, first of all, Alison Rose, who is the Head of Communications, Institutions, Treaty and Iberia Group in the European Directorate, and Paul Williams, who is Head of Europe Global Group, which is a wonderful title.
Q2 Chairman: Thank you very much. I will hopefully ease you into this session. The general question which, coming into this role, you must be aware of is that you know that with previous European ministers we have had discussions, particularly with Caroline Flint when she was in the position, about the Foreign & Commonwealth Office's scrutiny performance, which has not always been a shining example of good practice. We know there will continue to be slip-ups because it is a very busy department, but, for example on the Joint Action on the European Security and Defence College, which was before us in the meeting earlier today, the Government ignored a request for information from us for a year, and then when we received a letter from the Minister, which was the subject of our discussion today, it was three months after the Minister had signed the letter on that particular issue. There can be excuses but there can be no acceptable reasons for such slip-ups. We also had problems over the EU-Ukraine agreement, where the Joint Committee could not understand the professed need for urgency on that particular issue, so I think you have to accept that sometimes the Committee think that, despite all the ministerial expressions to the contrary, the Foreign & Commonwealth Office is not, in its heart of hearts, committed to the scrutiny process. How would you defend the Foreign & Commonwealth Office from that accusation, and how will it perform under your control of European matters?
Chris Bryant: Thank you, Chairman. Two things I would say. The first is, as former Deputy Leader of the
House, I passionately believe in the role of Parliament. I believe that the scrutiny that Parliament
brings to Government can only make it a better Government, a more effective
Government and more responsible to the people who put us all here, and I will
do everything in my own personal power to make sure that we are as effective in
answering to Members of Parliament, in particular members of the elected
chamber, as possible. That is true for a
whole series of different issues in relation to scrutiny. I will come specifically to the issue of the
European Scrutiny Committee. I think we
have been too slow in the past in replying to parliamentary questions,
sometimes parliamentary questions have been answered inadequately, and last
year the Foreign & Commonwealth office had one of the worst records of all
departments in answering questions.
Since I have had responsibility for parliamentary liaison in the Foreign
Office it is one of the things that we have been very keen to turn round. We managed to get all our parliamentary
questions answered fully and swiftly by the summer recess. We have tried to do better during the summer
recess as well, and we are absolutely determined to make sure that we do a
better job of that. In relation to
scrutiny and the European Scrutiny Committee, I presume it was the Defence
Minister that you were referring to, the letter in relation to the
Q3 Chairman: Foreign & Commonwealth Office, yes, indeed.
Chris Bryant: I do not know which minister it was then, but I am very happy to follow up the specifics of that. I cannot imagine why a minister would sign a letter and three months later it still had not been sent. That seems extraordinary. If you are happy to give me details by the end of the meeting I will chase that up. Yes, there have been times when we have not met the stringent standards that we like to set ourselves. I would say, having talked with European counterparts, that we are the only Government that is providing on a confidential basis some of the paperwork that we are providing to this Committee and providing it as early as we possibly can. I think there were some 90 letters from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office this year to the Committee and I will do everything in my power to make sure that you have the information you require to be able to do your job as effectively as possible. On one issue which I know you had raised with us, which was the COSI paper from the -----
Q4 Chairman: We will come to that. There is a big question that relates to that later.
Chris Bryant: All right, in which case I will not finish that sentence.
Q5 Chairman: It is a good thing, Minister, that you are anticipating where you might not have come up to the standards we expect and I am sure you will do your best, and I do commend your very short-lived predecessor in terms of while in the post she did in fact initiate the process of offering to send what I believe are called confidential fiches to the Committee.
Chris Bryant: Yes.
Q6 Chairman:
That
was very welcome and will be welcome in the future. Can we turn to specific big issues because
there are some that we want to move on to because matters will be coming to
significant change when the Lisbon Treaty is eventually fully ratified and
implemented. I want to come to the proposed
European External Action Service, on which it says that Article 27(3) of the TfEU,
"constitutes the legal basis for the Council decision on the organisation and
functioning of the EEAS (European External Action Service), and I will quote it
for the record: "In fulfilling his
mandate, the High Representative shall be assisted by a European External
Action Service", and goes on to describe what that will be. We obviously have a number of questions on
that particular area. What we know is
that a Council Decision will be required to create this European External
Action Service when the Lisbon Treaty is fully implemented. By any measure this would introduce a very
major change in the way the
Chris Bryant: Yes.
Chairman: That is a very simple answer.
Q7 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: How long has planning been going on for this European Foreign Ministry?
Chris Bryant: There is no planning for any European Foreign Ministry because there is not going to be any European Foreign Ministry.
Q8 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Do not be flippant. It is the European External Action Service which, during the passage of the Convention on the Future of Europe, was openly referred to as the European Foreign Ministry, but if we wish to be pedantic let us refer to it as the External Action Service. How long has this been planned?
Chris Bryant: Mr Heathcoat-Amory, as you yourself know from your involvement in the Convention, there have been people who have been talking about elements of this for some considerable time. In terms of specific planning, there is no formal proposal yet in existence. There is the paper which we have already provided to you in confidence but, as you know, the proposal itself will have to be something that is brought forward by the High Representative once that person has been appointed and once the Treaty has been ratified, and at that point there would obviously have to be discussion here. We want to make sure there is at least the full eight weeks available for you to be able to do your scrutiny and, if necessary, for there to be a debate, but I do push back on the term "Foreign Ministry" because I think it is a term which somehow is used, in the UK anyway, to suggest that somehow or other this is in replacement for the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office and it is far from that. It is in addition to it.
Q9 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: There is an element of self-delusion about all these things. I can tell you that when it was being set up in the European Constitution it was openly and frequently referred to as the European Foreign Ministry because everybody knew that was what it had become, but let us not quibble about that.
Chris Bryant: Let us quibble about that, actually, because my assessment, and it may not be your assessment, is that one of the things that Britain most urgently needs in terms of its own foreign policy is for the European Union to be more effective on the global stage. If you look at issues like Iran, climate change, Russia, relations with China, for that matter relations with Zimbabwe and Fiji, in all of these areas we urgently need the European Union to be far more effective and not to duplicate effort within its own structures so that we can get more bang for our euro - I was going to say "buck" - or bang for our pound, in deference to you, in terms of our effectiveness on the world stage. I think that that can only be achieved if you have a double-hatted High Representative who reports to the Commission and to the Council, and that that person has handles on all the levers that the European Union has within its structures. I just think that that would be more effective and better for British interests.
Q10 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: The European Parliament would like this to sit under their authority. It is, I think, the position of the Council of Ministers that its status in the architecture of Europe will be sui generis, in other words, it will not actually formally sit under any of the existing institutions, so it sort of hovers in Euro space. This is obviously of concern to this Committee because we want to know to whom it will be accountable and whom we can question about the offshoring of British foreign policy.
Chris Bryant: It is not the offshoring of
British foreign policy because the determination of any common position in
Q11 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: If I may say so, you are answering a question I have not asked you. I am interested in the accountability point. You are, I think, by implication saying that the European Parliament is wrong about it sitting under the Commission, or indeed under the European Parliament, because you are suggesting that if we want to interview people in the External Action Service about the development and the implementation of European foreign policy we do it all through the Council.
Chris Bryant: The External Action Service will sit underneath the High Representative. The High Representative will be a member of the Commission and will be accountable to the Council.
Q12 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: So we have got a problem there, have we not, that he is partly in the Commission and partly in the Council? Have we not got an institutional confusion there, that the lines of accounting and reporting are really blurred? If we want to find out and interview or take evidence from people such as yourself and your officials in the European context, exactly how do we do that when it hovers rather insecurely under the High Representative, who is partly in the Commission and partly in the Council?
Chris Bryant: In part this depends on
whether
Q13 Mr Hands: I have just a general question about what you think the Government sees as being the extent of the European External Action Service. Do you see it executing common foreign and security policy/common security and defence policy and even EU developmental assistance?
Chris Bryant: No, I think the development issues will be separate. The most important element is the fact that at the moment the Council and the Commission have separate people working on the same countries and that is clearly counter-productive. It leads to confusion, it leads to a waste of resource, and we want to be able to bind that resource together so that we can be more effective in individual countries and we can re-allocate resources. There will be a paper that the High Representative will have to bring forward to Council. That is a paper which should be coming to you before we end up signing it off.
Q14 Mr Hands: To try and summarise that response, you do not see the EEAS taking on new roles or new functions that are not already there; you see it purely as combining the functions and roles that are already housed in the Council and the Commission? Is that right?
Chris Bryant: Yes. For instance, in a country where all the
Member States of the EU have a significant interest we would want the High
Representative to be able to use all the different levers that are available
through from pre-conflict to conflict to post-conflict to peace-building, and
at the moment those are spread differently around the various different
elements of the Council and the Commission and we believe that it is important
to have much better co-ordination. If I
might just say too, I think some people are being a bit anxious about whether
somehow or other this would be replacing
Chairman: You are anticipating a question. You have, as usual, done a quick study on these matters and have much to tell us but if you will wait for questions it will help us all.
Q15 Jim Dobbin: Minister, we are just trying to find out how all this will work on the ground. How will it relate to the British Embassies and High Commissions where agreed EU positions are concerned, and will it not now become first among equals?
Chris Bryant: Let me take the example of
Chairman: I will duly inform you if you wander into another question; do not worry. You would in fact anticipate the question.
Q16 Mr Hands: The Swedish Presidency paper, which we have already referred to, says that EU delegations "could gradually assume responsibility, where necessary, for tasks related to diplomatic and consular protection of Union citizens in third countries, in crisis situations". Is HMG content with that and do you think it might jeopardise tried and tested arrangements for protecting UK subjects overseas which many view as being satisfactory at the moment?
Chris Bryant: there are lots of
complexities in relation to consular services.
First of all,
Q17 Mr Hands: But the problem we have got, Minister, going back to your earlier answer about the fact that you only see the EEAS combining pre-existing functions of the Commission and the Council, is that here you have got an example, which we think might be the first of many, where clearly the External Action Service is taking on functions which are currently performed by Member States. As you have just pointed out, the UK, in co-operation with Australia, is clearly something which is in our remit as a Member State, and yet the Swedish paper is describing something whereby the European Union will start to muscle out the Member States in terms of their consular functions, in this case in crisis situations, and what starts as a crisis situation could easily then be taken into other situations. I think that is where our concern is.
Chris Bryant: It would never muscle out the British consular provision.
Q18 Mr Hands: It says here "could gradually assume responsibility". That sounds like muscling out.
Chris Bryant: It does not sound like muscling out to me, I have to say. I can see why there would be some smaller countries that do not have representation, do not have consulates in some parts of the world, who might want to argue that there should be much greater co-operation in some countries. As I say, it is specifically done between different members of the European Union. We would be opposed to moving towards a situation which suggested that our consular service was in any sense going to be compromised by anything that was being done by the External Action Service.
Q19 Kelvin
Hopkins: If I can go back a bit,
first of all can I say how pleased I am to see you in your job, and
congratulations again, genuinely so, as someone who really knows the subject
and is enthusiastic about it. In a sense
this is not a case where easy cases make bad law, reversing what one normally
says. If you could make up simple cases
like
Chris Bryant: You are sitting next to the
Kelvin
Chairman: That is a comment. It is on the record what Mr Hopkins' view is. We are very proud to have him as a member of the Committee expressing such views. We are going to move on, Minister, to progress on applications the EU. Before this Committee we have had just today correspondence relating to the application for Albania. We have had material relating to Iceland and it obviously came up very strongly at the COSAC meeting for all European committees in Stockholm, and we have had quite a bit of correspondence with your own office over Croatia where we have visited as a committee and have made our own views known on many of the issues.
Q20 Mr Bailey: I understand the Commission's annual report on enlargement strategy should be deposited soon. What are your thoughts on where we are with enlargement and what do you think are the main challenges and problems confronting us?
Chris Bryant: Looking in the long term in particular, the key issue lies around the Western Balkans and how we make sure that security on our own doorstep is enhanced, that the fragile relations that there presently are become more robust. We welcome the recent report that the Commission has produced and we pretty much accept the kinds of conclusions that they have come to. We are very supportive of Turkish membership of the European Union for big strategic reasons, but just because we support somebody's eventual membership does not mean that we leap to bind them into the fold sooner than their legislative, political and economic systems could possibly sustain. These are important lessons that we have learned in the last few years.
Q21 Mr
Hands: Can I ask you where you see the
Chris Bryant: "Natural" is always an
interesting word to use because there probably is not a natural eastern
border. That is a question directed, I
suppose, towards relations with the
Q22 Mr
Hands: I very much agree with you on
Chris Bryant: I do not think there is such a thing as a natural boundary.
Q23 Mr Hands: So when you are talking about enlargement what do you envisage? Which countries do you think are in the frame? You talk about your long term view on enlargement. Which countries in that area are in there?
Chris Bryant: I do not think it the same as the territory covered by the Eurovision Song Contest, though I note that the Conservative European spokesman did not ask a question on Europe last week; he asked about Israel, which would suggest that he did feel that it should be the same, but I do not think there is such a thing as a natural boundary. We should assess whether a country should move forward through the various different stages towards accession purely and simply on the basis of pragmatic criteria.
Q24 Mr Bailey: Very briefly, following that theme, would you not agree that to a certain extent that is a self-defining issue, that if a country feels that, if you like, its future lies within Europe and embodying European value and indeed the principles on which the EU is based, and Europe feels that it is to the benefit of Europe and that of that country to do so, that in effect provides, if you like, a natural boundary?
Chris Bryant: I also think that there is a sort of process of osmosis that goes on. It is an osmosis towards better political governance, better judicial systems and the end of the death penalty, better human rights, and that has been an entirely positive benefit. I spent part of my childhood growing up in Franco's Spain, so my first political memories are of a very repressive political dictatorship and therefore for me, when I go to GERC meetings, it is fascinating to see Spaniards talking to Latvians talking to Estonians talking to Poles talking to Hungarians talking to Greeks talking to Portuguese, all of whom have lived under dictatorships.
Chairman: We are coming up to the specific question in a minute. We have a couple of others we want to do and we will come back to this.
Q25 Mr Cash: You are right to say, Minister, that the question of Turkey is a very big strategic question; I could not agree with you more, but do you not agree that, in the context of its apparent secularisation, given the underlying tensions that do exist in that country and many people believe are accumulating, mere legal documents or even treaties would have the effect of holding down some of the religious and fundamental questions which, without any disrespect to Turkey, could completely upset the entire apple cart, not merely for the European Union but also in a much wider and broader global context as well if Turkey were to be brought in?
Chris Bryant: I am not sure whether I agree with that or I disagree with that because it was such a long sentence that I was not -----
Q26 Mr Cash: Do not worry about the length of the sentence. If you will just give me a short answer I will be very glad.
Chris Bryant: No. To be serious, undoubtedly there are very complex issues. Turkey is a single state but it has so many different political currents within it, not least ethnic currents, that it is a complex issue for us to get right. Undoubtedly, it would be complex for us to get it right in terms of migration policy as well were Turkey to accede to the European Union, but I would fiercely defend the position which says that those who want to close the door to Turkish accession at the moment - and there are some in Europe - are wrong.
Q27 Mr Clappison: You mentioned migration. Of course, that was something which you never mentioned in your earlier preamble about the benefits or disbenefits of Turkish membership of the European Union, and I agree with you, it is important strategically, but are you doing any work on the possible migration consequences if Turkish membership of the EU should happen?
Chris Bryant: I do not know whether we are or we are not, so I do not want to suddenly announce that we are and then find out that we are not or say that we are not and then find out that we are. I am looking to either of my colleagues.
Q28 Mr Clappison: Considering the shambles we had over the membership of the A8 and the research which was done prior to that which proved to be grossly inadequate, so I think it is not an off-the-wall question, if I may say so.
Chris Bryant: Sorry, Mr Clappison, I was
not meaning to dismiss the question and I entirely concur with the need to get
this right. It is absolutely right that
we focus on this very closely. I am just
not sure what precise work we have or have not done. In relation to
Q29 Mr Clappison: That decision illustrated the inadequacy of the preparation which should have been made earlier about A8 membership when a wholly inaccurate forecast was produced and then later on, when the results of that became known, a different attitude was taken towards much smaller countries, Romania and Bulgaria, when they joined. It would be interesting to know if any work is being done.
Ms Rose: The general point is that
obviously we will continue to be careful to ensure that enlargement does not
disrupt the UK labour market and we will, if necessary, look at imposing
controls, but no-one is expecting Turkey to join in the very near future, so in
that sense studies today would not necessarily show us where we are going to
be. I think you can take it that that is
one of the issues that is looked at very carefully. In terms of the earlier migration, I think it
is important to note that migration is estimated to have increased the
Q30 Mr Clappison: We are going into a wider subject there, I am afraid. I do not want to take the Committee away on that. I think the Government has admitted its mistake, as the Minister has conceded, by the difference in the controls it has implemented for the accession countries of -----
Chris Bryant: Mr Clappison, I did not concede anything at all.
Chairman: Could we stop the nipping back and forward? If people want to put comments on the record, then on the record it is not a matter that is ignored in these political discussions and analysis.
Q31 Mr
Bailey: I just want to pick up some earlier comments
you made, first of all about the fact that we must not leap to have countries
in the fold inappropriately, and then in another context you talked about
potential accession countries, the osmosis, which is a very nice
expression. I think it sums up the
process quite well. In the context of
Chris Bryant: In a broader sense I will
respond and then I do not know whether Paul or Alison wants to respond about
the particularities of how the system is changing. I think the two countries have already proved
their worth. For instance, in terms of
the EU position in relation to
Ms Rose: As you said, this new chapter is a recognition that judicial and public administration reform and corruption and organised crime have to be tackled early and more vigorously in preparation for accession. As you say, the benchmarks that have to be set for each chapter require more of a sense of minimum standards and I think more of a sense of looking for evidence of implementation rather than just the passing of laws. I think the general message is that the enlargement process has been strengthened.
Q32 Mr Bailey: I agree. What as a Committee we are looking for is an agreement that this Committee will be kept closely informed on progress in closing these benchmarks on Chapter 23 for the pre-accession countries. Are you prepared to give that commitment?
Chris Bryant: Absolutely.
Q33 Chairman: Minister, let us dig into this a little deeper. Chapter 23 on judicial reform and fundamental rights, which was referred to by Mr Bailey, was really signed by the Foreign Office and I think many other commentators reached the conclusion that what happened with Bulgaria and Romania was not a very good example of how you should benchmark the preparedness of a country to be a part of the EU family, and there have been quite clear indications from the Commission's own reports that there has been backsliding even from a very poor position, according to our Committee's assessment, when these countries were allowed in. We would have thought that Chapter 23 would be one of your permanent files in relation to Croatia because the Foreign Secretary does say quite clearly that when the moment comes for the Council to set closing benchmarks, and I quote, "we and the EU will certainly want to ensure that they set clear requirements for tackling corruption, including a track record of results". Do you agree that, when it comes to "a track record of results", Croatia should be required to demonstrate before accession what the Commission is still seeking from Bulgaria and Romania, that is, "an autonomously functioning, stable judiciary, which is able to detect and sanction conflicts of interests, corruption and organised crime and preserve the rule of law", "concrete cases of indictments, trials and convictions regarding high-level corruption and organised crime", and a "legal system ... capable of implementing the laws in an independent and efficient way", all of which many in the EU and the Commission do not have the confidence exist in Romania and Bulgaria and should be a prerequisite for Croatia coming in to what is, as you say, a family? It shows that the osmosis has already begun before they are allowed to come into the inner sanctum of the EU itself.
Chris Bryant: Yes.
Q34 Chairman: That is a very clear answer.
Chris Bryant: There is only one addition I
would make to that, which is that, in particular in relation to
Q35 Chairman: I am reminded of what Colonel Gadaffi said just last week in an interview on British television, that, even during the period in which they were supposedly outside of the family of the world with their regime and were developing weapons of mass destruction, British business went on afoot and British business did very well there. It is hardly the benchmark by which to judge a regime, that we are doing quite well economically, thank you very much. I move on to a further topic, which is scrutiny of draft legislation to give effect to the Lisbon Treaty, which has already been the subject of correspondence between the Foreign Office and this Committee and possibly some slight disagreement. I am going to read a rather long entry into this question for the record, if you do not mind.
Chris Bryant: Do I have to take notes?
Chairman: You do not have to take notes. I am sure you will remember.
Mr Cash: You have to take note.
Q36 Chairman:
That
was very well put, Mr Cash. In the
summer your predecessor told us that the Swedish Presidency of the Council was
doing some preparatory work on the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty. She also told us that the Presidency might
propose that some of the implementing legislation should be adopted on the day
that the treaty comes into force or within weeks of that date. That alarmed this Committee, so we invited
the Minister to give us oral evidence.
You are here instead of that predecessor to whom we refer. The adoption of the implementing legislation on
the timetable and the Presidency appeared to be suggesting would deny this
House and all other national parliaments the necessary time to scrutinise the
proposals. Moreover, what the Presidency
was suggesting was contrary to the spirit of the Lisbon Treaty. One of the aims of the Treaty is to give
national parliaments a greater role in the EU.
Indeed, the second recital to the Lisbon Treaty's protocol on the role
of national parliaments says that the Member States have agreed to the
protocol, and I quote: "Desiring to
encourage greater involvement of national parliaments in the activities of the
European Union and to enhance their opportunities to express their views on
draft legislative acts of the European Union as well as on other matters which
may be of interest to them". Adopting
the implementing legislation on the day the Lisbon Treaty comes into force
would, in this Committee's view, make a mockery of that protocol and the claims
made by the proponents of the Treaty about strengthening the role of
parliaments. When we discussed this with
other national parliaments in COSAC at the beginning of October in
Chris Bryant: Just before that could I just respond very briefly, which is to say that, although some of the details I do not agree with, in large measure I agree.
Q37 Chairman: If you were a salmon, Minister, you would be dead by now; you would have been landed, because you jump at every fly.
Chris Bryant: I feel told off!
Q38 Jim Dobbin: Do you agree that it is important and desirable to improve the opportunities for national parliaments to express their views on the drafts of EU legislation?
Chris Bryant: Yes.
Q39 Chairman: Would you like to elaborate on how that will be guaranteed?
Chris Bryant: I said yes with a slight air of uncertainty, which is merely to do with the fact that the process of getting towards a final agreement at a Council meeting makes it difficult for every single iteration of a document to come back for scrutiny. That is just the reality of intergovernmental decision-making. However, when there are draft legislative proposals it is absolutely essential that this House, and for that matter the other House, the House of Lords, has an opportunity to come to a formal or, for that matter, informal position that can inform the Government's view and I will do everything I can to try and make sure that there is adequate time to be able to ensure that. The protocol in the Treaty does allow for certain emergency situations and I think we can all accept that there will be situations when that is true. I think the terms in which my predecessor wrote to you, Chairman, were perhaps a little bit more alarmist than I now feel it would be necessary to be about what the Swedish Presidency is proposing. In discussions that I had with them earlier this week we made it very clear, and indeed the Foreign Secretary made this clear as well in the meeting on Monday afternoon, that we want to make sure that there is every proper opportunity given for scrutiny to be had by this House.
Q40 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Minister, the Lisbon Treaty represents a transfer of additional powers to the European Union, that is obvious, but when this was all being debated we were told that as a kind of consolation prize, although that phrase was not used, at least the scrutiny rights of national parliaments would be enhanced in some way. That was a constant refrain. You are now telling us that the entry into force of this Treaty is an urgent and exceptional circumstance which might override our new scrutiny rights, which involved giving us eight weeks between a proposal being received and it being considered by the Council, so you are falling at the first fence. The spirit, if not the letter, of this new protocol is being breached in your letter when you say that we may be denied proper scrutiny over very important matters, such as the setting up of the External Action Service, which we have already discussed, and also the new Committee on Internal Security, which is extremely important. These are scrutiny matters for this Committee and you are saying that we may not have the full time period because the entry into force of the Treaty is an exceptional circumstance. How do you justify this?
Chris Bryant: I am not saying that, actually. In terms of the External Action Service paper, indeed I have already guaranteed earlier in this meeting that there will be eight weeks available for it, because the paper that will come can only come once the High Representative has been appointed and the High Representative brings forward a paper. We are expecting that that will be some time in the new year. On the COSI Committee issue, we have expressed very clearly our concern to the Presidency that we think that this should not be brought forward at speed because the Committee does not propose considering it until May, I think, so we can see absolutely no reason, I entirely agree with the honourable gentleman, why this should be brought forward as a matter of urgency.
Q41 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, but your letter of 21 October, I have it here, says that national parliaments do have the scrutiny rights as laid down in the protocol, but you say that this can be overridden and you consider that the entry into force of the new Treaty constitutes such an exceptional circumstance that you are willing to override the new scrutiny rights over draft legislative proposals in the first week of the new Treaty. How can this be consistent with all the assurances we received about the enhanced powers of national parliaments and how it was all going to be taken seriously? It is all just hot air when you do not deliver on that as soon as the Treaty comes into effect.
Chris Bryant: The introduction of the new Treaty could be such a moment. I do not at the moment foresee, except possibly in the instance of the setting up of the COSI Committee, which the Presidency would bring forward under a stricter process than we think would be right, that this is going to be the case. I may be wrong, and either Alison or Paul will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that there has been a previous occasion when you yourself were a minister in the Foreign office when exactly the same process was adopted.
Ms Rose: I cannot comment on that, but in terms of two of the documents, one of which is the rules of procedure for the Council and the other is the rules of procedure for the European Council, obviously, those need to be consistent with the Lisbon Treaty on the day that the Treaty starts operation. I think in the past we have not sent those to you for scrutiny. On this occasion we have sent them to you informally and we will be happy to do an explanatory memorandum if you would find that helpful. However, in those circumstances they implement things that are in the Treaty but say those bodies need to be brought into conformity with the Treaty straightaway, so in those circumstances it is an operational internal matter; it is not a piece of legislation that is going to define what goes on in the EU. It is arguable whether they are even covered under the Protocol which actually applies to the legislative acts, but certainly in terms of giving you information on that, and obviously the Minister will take any comments from you on the documents you already have, we will be interested in your views.
Q42 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: So, let us be clear: you will not allow the Presidency to bounce through matters without this eight-week scrutiny period on the spurious ground that the new Treaty is an exceptional event?
Chris Bryant: There is a difference, I suspect, between what you will be saying and what we will be saying about what constitutes a document that needs to go through this process because the legislative -----
Q43 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: I am sorry; the assurance we are given in the protocol does not just refer to draft legislative acts. It refers to as well other matters which may be of interest to them and the same refers to national parliaments, so you are breaking, if not the letter, certainly the spirit of all the assurances we have been given and you are now counting on a technicality that some of these documents are not actually legislative proposals, but they are certainly of great importance. They will be setting up an internal security committee. That sends a shiver through me. What rights and assurances -----
Chris Bryant: We are agreeing on these.
Q44 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: ----- and defences have we got for the people we represent in setting up this new committee? We certainly want to see that. If you are now telling us this is all exceptional, that this is all going to be bounced through quickly simply because it is not actually legislation, I think that is a breach of every assurance we have been given.
Chris Bryant: Mr Heathcoat-Amory, you may be deliberately misunderstanding me, but you certainly are misunderstanding me. I entirely agree with you on the question of the COSI Committee and the Foreign Secretary expressed this view at the General and External Relations Committee on Monday. I reiterated this with the Swedish Presidency at a mid-morning meeting yesterday morning, so we will do everything in our power to make sure that the Committee has the full time that it needs to be able to proceed. The Presidency said to us that the reason that they were intending to move forward was that nobody had said "boo" on this issue. We do not have an objection to the substance but we do have an objection to the process that is being used. I do not know whether you have an objection to the substance in that or merely to the process, but maybe you will inform me later. Your eyes are looking sphinx-like, so I am not sure -----
Q45 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: It is the process that this Committee is interested in and I think we have got a retreat on our hands here because you are certainly retreating from your assertion here that you agree that the Treaty is an exceptional circumstance. Now you are saying it only could be and you are now saying that at least one of the four proposals referred to in your letter will actually be fully scrutinised in line with the spirit of the protocol. Perhaps you could widen that to include the other three powers, including the setting up of the External Action Service.
Chris Bryant: I have already said about the External Action Service.
Q46 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: So it is all four?
Chris Bryant: Paul, would you like to do that? You are whispering in my ear.
Mr Williams: I just want to say on the External Action Service that, as the Minister has already said, we have given you already a draft of what is going to the European Council this week, and I am sure we can continue to do that as the new proposals come out. You will see from the paper going to the European Council that there is an intention to make a decision on the External Action Service by the end of April, so it depends a little bit, obviously, on when the Lisbon Treaty comes into force and when the High Representative makes the proposal when the final document for that will come out, but certainly we will keep the Committee informed.
Q47 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: I have here a copy of the draft conclusions of the Council that starts tomorrow and it does refer to an end date of April 2010 but it also says it wants to set up the External Action Service as soon as possible after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.
Chris Bryant: Yes.
Q48 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: That could be well before April. Are you now assuring me that in any eventuality, however soon it is set up, there will be no breach of what I consider to be the eight-week assurance we have been given?
Chris Bryant: I have already assured the Committee now, I think, on four occasions on that point.
Q49 Mr Clappison: Can I take you back to your predecessor's letter to us on 21 August, and I hear what you have said about that in general terms, but can I ask you to be a bit more specific because that letter says, "In the event that the Lisbon Treaty comes into force it seems probable that the Presidency, having completed preparatory discussions in advance of entry into force, would table some texts for adoption very quickly, possibly even the same day". Do you know what those texts were that your predecessor was referring to, because she seemed to have something in mind?
Chris Bryant: I do not know that she had anything specific in mind, and no, I do not know, is the answer. If I could refer you to the comment I made earlier -----
Q50 Mr Clappison: I thought that was a general comment.
Chris Bryant: Yes. I think perhaps at the time we were wanting to alert the Committee to the danger that might be ahead of us, but thus far the Swedish Presidency has tried to be as accommodating as possible to our position, which is one of wanting to make sure that there is a full and adequate provision available in every regard. The one caveat I have about that is that that which has to exist from the moment that the new Treaty comes into place, such as how the Council operates, it seems to me we have no choice about.
Q51 Mr Clappison: I will come to that in a minute. Are you saying that you do not know what the "some texts" were that were referred to here? Do you know what they were?
Ms Rose: The rules of procedure for the Council and the European Council we think are likely to be tabled.
Q52 Mr Clappison: So that is what we are talking about here?
Ms Rose: Yes.
Q53 Mr Clappison: Right. You have just referred to it now, Minister, if I may say, and we will talk the rules of procedure. Are they apt to fall within the ambit of Article 4 of the Treaty, which is quite specific about the rights of national parliaments? It tells us, and I am quoting from Article 4 of the Protocol, which is said to deal with the role of national parliaments which we are told is a very important thing as far as the Lisbon Treaty is concerned, "Save in urgent cases for which due reasons have been given, no agreement may be reached on a draft legislative act during the eight weeks", and that is the eight weeks between the act being given to the parliament and then being put on an agenda. Do the matters which you have just referred to, the texts relating to rules, fall within the ambit of that article?
Ms Rose: We do not think that they do because - and I am sorry to get boring and technical - they are not legislative acts as defined in the Treaty under Article 289. Ordinary legislative procedure, which is co-decision between the European Parliament and the Council, and the special legislative procedure, which is in consultation with the European Parliament, is not legislative acts as interpreted there because they are the rules of procedure for the Council and the European Council, so they are of a different nature to legislation on the single market for energy, for example.
Q54 Mr Clappison: Who is making the interpretation of what is a legislative act for these purposes?
Chris Bryant: We are making that interpretation within the Foreign & Commonwealth Office on the basis of our own internal legal advice.
Q55 Mr Clappison: On the question of urgency, you tell us in your letter of 21 October, "The Presidency consider that the entry into force of the new treaty constitutes such an exceptional circumstance and we agree". That is something which you have interpreted as well, is it? That is your interpretation too?
Chris Bryant: Yes, and that is in relation to these specific things. I would draw a sharp distinction between something like the External Action Service, where it is not of logical necessity that it exists on minute one of hour one of day one of the new Treaty coming force, and something like the rules and procedures that govern the operation of the Council and the Commission, where it is of logical necessity that they exist from the very beginning.
Q56 Mr Clappison: Have you in mind any draft legislation acts which would fall within the ambit of Article 4 that you are going to apply this urgent procedure to and thereby circumvent the need for the eight weeks of being deposited?
Chris Bryant: No.
Q57 Mr Bailey: If we can flesh out some of the details of the four proposals that you outlined in your letter, and, obviously, COSI we have already covered, what are we looking at in terms of a likely timetable for presentation and consideration of the EAS, COSI and the financial regulations?
Chris Bryant: It is slightly difficult to tell because if I knew, first of all, when the Constitutional Court in the Czech Republic was going to come to its conclusion, if I then knew what conclusions there were going to be later this week in the Council in relation to any requests that there may be from President Klaus, and if I knew when President Klaus was going to sign, then I might have a better idea when the Treaty would be ratified and the Treaty would come into force. Once I knew all of those things I might have a strong idea when the High Representative was going to be appointed and therefore when the High Representative might be intending to bring forward a paper. The only indication I have at the moment is that there is a hope that by the end of April the External Action Service will be able to be implemented.
Q58 Mr Bailey: What about the financial regulations?
Ms Rose: We are expecting that those will be brought forward in 2010, and I cannot be more specific, I am afraid.
Q59 Mr Hands: Just on the question of the transitional budgetary arrangements, you have said in your letter that we will be expecting a letter from a Treasury minister giving us details of a confidential report of a preliminary discussion in COREPER, which will certainly be interesting for us but it will not necessarily help us in terms of our task of publicly reporting Community issues, particularly government activity in the Council, so can we assume that when formal legislative proposals are presented in 2010 the Treaty provision for national parliamentary scrutiny will be properly observed on these matters? Can you just confirm that?
Chris Bryant: Yes.
Chairman: Thank you very much; that is very clear. Let us turn to the question which was alluded to and I am surprised you did not take up when the draft Council conclusion was mentioned by Mr Heathcoat-Amory. Mr Heathcoat-Amory has in fact, by a route which could be taken by anyone, obtained a copy of the draft Council conclusions for the Council - it has not yet taken place - by going on to the Danish Parliament website. That has been known for some time and in degrees denied or, let us say, put off as a reason by the Foreign & Commonwealth office for supplying this Committee with the draft conclusions. They are available to anyone who wishes to enter the Danish website. Mr Heathcoat-Amory has the copy and may wish to take up the issue with you.
Q60 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: I would like your comments on this because Council conclusions are very important. They virtually have the force of law. When the European Council at their quarterly meetings decide something that is final. We know that the conclusions circulate before the meeting takes place, not in totality; there are blanks to be discussed, but a lot of them are done before by officials and by COREPER. It is very easy to obtain the conclusions. I got these from the Danish Parliament website, so it is puzzling that we are not given them in this Committee. We pride ourselves in this country on our openness. This is an important Parliament which a lot of people admire but in this case it is way behind, it is secretive, and I would like you to comment on the fact that you do not give us these conclusions but they are available to the rest of the world via the Danish Parliament.
Chris Bryant: They should not be, basically.
Q61 Mr
Hands: They should not be available in
Chris Bryant: They should not be available on the Danish website, in the same way as we are providing some documents to you which are not available to other such committees in other parliaments or to other parliaments in Europe on a confidential basis, so that which Mr Heathcoat-Amory has got off the Danish website should similarly be confidential. My basic view is that, of course, you should want to be as transparent as you possibly can in every element of the process but there has to be in the negotiation process between governments a sufficient element of confidentiality to be able to have effective negotiation; otherwise there will just be other documents that are created which are confidential. I always presumed that Mr Heathcoat-Amory got these papers because somebody forgot to take him off the circulation list from when he was on the Council years and years ago.
Q62 Chairman: I am told they are accessible by going to an open website of the Danish Parliament.
Chris Bryant: I am thoroughly aware of that and I still deprecate it.
Q63 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: These have been available for months and this procedure has been going on now for certain to my knowledge for several years and nobody has been sent to prison, and, as far as I know, nobody has complained, so I do suggest you either make a formal complaint that this should cease or, if it continues, you ought to give us the same privilege that the rest of the world has in receiving these documents so that we can comment on them.
Chris Bryant: But it seems you do not need the privilege.
Mr Heathcoat-Amory: These decisions have been taken which affect British people and this Parliament and we are kept in the dark, probably in the fond illusion that the real decisions are taken at the summit. They are not; they are taken beforehand, and we would like to scrutinise these in exactly the same way that we scrutinise all other documents before they finally reach a stage of either legislation or decision.
Q64 Chairman: Minister, before you answer can I just add one thing? You made a virtue and your predecessor made a virtue of the confidential fiches you are sending us about the process. They are treated as confidential documents by this Committee which meets, when it deliberates, in private, and all of the select committees do. They will be treated as such, so there will be no breach of the limité category, you call it confidential category, but it would aid us immensely in our job and it would, I think, build up a real sense of trust. We are not sending the fiches you have sent us around the world; we would not send these around the world, and we have made our position clear on this in a paper we passed last week, that we believe the standing order should be amended to get the draft conclusions sent to this Committee membership, and it would be treated properly by this Committee membership but it would then enable us to have it as a formal document on our agenda which we cannot really do by sneaking it off the website from the Danish Parliament.
Chris Bryant: I can entirely see the logic
of the argument that you are both putting.
I am very happy to look at this matter and see whether there is any way
in which we can be of more assistance to the Committee because on the whole our
presumption should be in favour of transparency. For every set of conclusions, notwithstanding
the discussions that there may be in COREPER or that there may have been at the
General and External Relations Council, nonetheless there is an iterative
process and sometimes we find the conclusions are nowhere near where the draft
conclusions were at the beginning. I am
very happy to go away and look at it and I will either write to you or come
back to you in some other form. My basic
assumption is that we should be as transparent and open as possible and I do
respect the fact that the Committee has honoured the confidentiality of the
material that we have been able to provide to you. There are other countries which have
complained that we are providing more to you than they feel they want to
provide to their respective parliaments.
I think one of the reasons for that may be the fact that in this
Parliament all government ministers are, of course, Members of Parliament,
which is not the same in other countries in
Q65 Chairman: I can assure you that they do not get told by members of this Committee what we receive from you that may inflame their ire.
Chris Bryant: I was not making an accusation.
Chairman: We keep even the information we receive to ourselves. I am glad you have taken that step and I would say that we trust you, in the knowledge of who you are and the way you do your job, to take this matter seriously, and I assure you that you can trust us to treat these matters in a proper manner as confidential documents that will assist us in the future. Turning to our last topic, the correspondence which we had with the Foreign Secretary about the Irish guarantees and subsequent correspondence, we have a number of questions which Mr Cash would like to take up with you.
Q66 Mr
Cash: I do remain gravely disturbed, as are many
others, with the Foreign Secretary's written and other assertions claiming
legality for the Irish decision and thereby for the legality of the Lisbon
Treaty itself, which I and others strongly believe needs re-ratification and therefore
requires a new implementing Bill. The
Foreign Secretary has stated, "There is no need for the Treaty to be
re-ratified or for the decision to be implemented in
Chris Bryant: It is not just a matter of what the Foreign Secretary said in relation to what was provided to the Irish Government, which, incidentally, clearly the Irish people felt was sufficient unto the day, but the June European Council conclusions made it absolutely clear. They stated that the decision -----
Mr Cash: Forgive me laughing.
Q67 Chairman: Just continue.
Chris Bryant: Right. I am not sure why you were laughing. The June European Council conclusion made it absolutely clear, stating that the decision is legally binding and will take effect on the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. Also, there is no sense in which this changes the Lisbon Treaty. Indeed, your sister committee in the House of Lords made this absolutely clear in their report that they provided some while ago, that they do not believe there is any need for re-ratification and that there is therefore no need for another Bill as Mr Cash suggests.
Q68 Mr
Cash: Could I therefore now ask you to explain how
the decision can have effect in
Chris Bryant: The point is that the conclusions of the June European Council were legally binding in the sense that should the Court feel that it needed to arbitrate on some issue it could bear them in mind, but we believe, and for that matter the Council asserted, that this in no way changed the legal status, the legal situation affecting any of the Member States.
Q69 Mr Cash: So you are assuming that the Court could come to a different view from what you have just said?
Chris Bryant: No, I am not at all.
Q70 Mr Cash: But you have suggested that it was dependent upon what the Court might adjudicate.
Chris Bryant: No. It was a legally binding decision of the June
European Council and so in theory, if there were an arbitration that the Court
had to come to, it would bear that in mind, but we do not believe, and the
European Council asserted firmly, that this does not change the Treaty. It therefore does not need re-ratification
and it does not provide any new rights or change any rights enjoyed by any
citizen of any
Q71 Mr Cash: Let me simply say, they would say that, wouldn't they? Finally, could I ask you this question? The Foreign Secretary has also stated, "there is no conflict between the decision and the Lisbon Treaty". Can you confirm whether or not the decision is in conflict with the existing treaties?
Chris Bryant: No, it is not in conflict with the existing treaties. The June European Council said very clearly that the Irish guarantees will clarify but not change either the content or the application of the Treaty of Lisbon.
Q72 Mr
Cash: But do you think that the European Council has
a legal status to be able to make assertions of this kind, that they are
legally binding? You have said already
that the matter could be referred to the courts, either in this country or
indeed to the
Chris Bryant: No.
Q73 Mr Cash: You are effectively conceding my case by your answers.
Chris Bryant: No, I did not say that this matter could be referred to the courts. I merely said that in any arbitration on some element in relation to the guarantees the decision of the June Council could be something that could be borne in mind by the Court. As I said, the June European Council stated very clearly that the Irish guarantees will clarify but not change either the content or the application of the Treaty of Lisbon, and, furthermore, the content of the guarantees will in no way alter the relationship between the European Union and its Member States and are fully compatible with the Treaty of Lisbon and will not necessitate any re-ratification of that treaty. That likewise has legal force.
Q74 Mr Cash: Would you not agree that if you were to apply the process and the construction that you have just placed on this whole business there would be no point whatever in anybody ever seeking judicial review or going to the courts regarding matters of administration or constitutional issues because, if the Government decreed that there was no need to do so, which I would describe as a very arbitrary way of going about things, then there would be absolutely no question and you would therefore not need to go to the courts?
Chris Bryant: I presume you mean in the
Q75 Mr Cash: I am simply saying that if in fact you were right that the European Council were making an assertion and that that is unchallengeable on the basis you have just put to us, therefore there would be no purpose whatever in having a judicial process which involved questioning the validity of decisions taken by government, either in the UK or, for that matter, by the European Council.
Chris Bryant: The European Council can make different categories of statements and in this regard it was making a declaration which was legally binding.
Q76 Mr Cash: So you are saying the European Council has the status to be able to make a legally binding assertion about a matter as important as this? Is that what you are saying?
Ms Rose: I think it was more for the avoidance of any doubt that anyone could try and find an interpretation of that.
Q77 Mr Cash: So there is doubt?
Chris Bryant: We do not think there is any
doubt, but clearly some people in
Q78 Mr Cash: That is all you have to say, that it is doubtful but on the other hand the assertion by the European Council is sufficient?
Chris Bryant: I do not have any doubts
whatsoever that the Lisbon Treaty would not have made any difference to
Mr Cash: I do not think we need to go right down to the details.
Chairman: Can I ask Mr Hands to come in here?
Q79 Mr Hands: Can I ask for clarification? Can I just take you back to Mr Cash's question three, because I am not sure you answered it fully? When the Foreign Secretary said there was no conflict between the decision and the Lisbon Treaty you did not quite confirm whether or not the decision was in conflict with the existing treaties, from what I understand from your answer. I think you quoted from the Council decision that there is no conflict with the Lisbon Treaty but can you just confirm that there is no conflict with the existing treaties and, if so, why?
Chris Bryant: Part of what the June Council said was that the decision is legally binding and will take effect on the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, so it is irrelevant what effect it might or might not have on any other treaty, completely and utterly irrelevant, because within its own provision is the fact that it only applies to an already ratified and entered into force Treaty of Lisbon.
Q80 Chairman: Can I ask you one very simple question, which I believe has a simple answer? The Council decision is not binding on the Court. Am I correct? It is not binding on the Court. You said it can be founded on it if someone takes a challenge to the Court but that Council decision is not legally binding on the European Court of Justice.
Chris Bryant: We do not think that there is any -----
Q81 Chairman: No; answer yes or no. It is a simple question.
Chris Bryant: I think the question is based on a false premise.
Q82 Chairman: No; it is either binding on the court or it is not.
Chris Bryant: It is legally binding.
Q83 Chairman: The treaties are binding on the court. The Council decision is not binding on the European Court of Justice. I understand that is the collective jurisprudence, that it is not binding on the Court.
Chris Bryant: The decision is binding in international law.
Chairman: It is not binding on the European Court of Justice.
Q84 Mr Cash: That is not the same question.
Chris Bryant: The question is based on a fundamentally false premise.
Q85 Chairman: Why are you defending the indefensible when you were defending the defensible a moment a go?
Chris Bryant: I do not think I am doing any such thing, Chairman, if I might suggest, because I think that your question is based on a false premise. It is based on the premise that there is a substantive difference between that which is in the Irish guarantees and the Treaty and we do not believe there is.
Chairman: I entirely agree with you on that.
Q86 Mr Cash: Would you like the matter to be taken to the Court?
Chris Bryant: What matter?
Q87 Mr Cash: The issues that we have just been discussing.
Chris Bryant: Which matter?
Mr Cash: Would you, to avoid the doubt that your adviser just put, have the matter decided by the Court?
Q88 Chairman: Can I not let Mr Cash divert you away from the real truth of this matter because I believe, if you took something to the Court, that the decision of the Court would be founded on reference to the Council decision. What you said was that the decision is something the European Court of Justice would bear in mind in an arbitration, and I agree with you entirely, and I think if they took this question they would use it to make a judgment, but the fact is that it is not able to bind the Court. The Council decision is not binding on the Court. I think if we can clear that up we might try to have a debate on the Lisbon Treaty for many months when people did not interpret things correctly. We would then know exactly what we were talking about. I agree with you; I think most of the Committee agree with you, that the Irish situations that they were worried about were not denied by the Lisbon Treaty. The assurances that were given to them have come in to give them the comfort they required through the referendum, but the reality is that the Council decision is not binding on the European Court of Justice.
Chris Bryant: If you do not mind my saying so, we are going round and round in a very small circle here.
Q89 Chairman: No, we are not. You are a man who weighs things up and understands that you can have two different views and two different aspects of something and still be correct. It would be founded on in the Court, exactly as you have said; that is quite correct, but it is not binding on the Court.
Chris Bryant: Chairman, I think you are absolutely right that there is not a substantive point on which we are disagreeing here, which is why I say that I think we are going round in circles. We are merely expressing things in slightly different ways, but clearly that which binds the Court primarily is the Treaty when the Treaty comes into force, should it come into force.
Q90 Chairman: Correct, yes.
Chris Bryant: We do not believe that there is any difference between the guarantees and the Treaty, so we do not think there is anything that would have to be arbitrated between those two.
Mr Cash: I think you will find a lot of people really do disagree with that.
Q91 Mr
Heathcoat-Amory: No. I
must insist there is a substantive question at issue here. The Irish were given certain assurances about
how the Lisbon Treaty might affect Irish law, particularly on social
matters. The ultimate arbiters of this
are the
Chris Bryant: Which decision?
Q92 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: The Irish decision, the decision that was passed on the guarantees. Because the Court is not a party to this how can it be bound by it? When they, in future months or years, interpret, for instance, the Charter of Fundamental Rights in ways that are detrimental to a section of Irish opinion, how can that be prevented? It is not binding on the Court.
Chris Bryant: I am sorry; I am going to end up repeating myself many times, I fear.
Q93 Mr Cash: Why do you not just give up?
Chris Bryant: Because I am as dogged as you are! The Treaty is that which binds the Court.
Q94 Chairman: Correct.
Chris Bryant: We do not believe that the guarantees - it is not a word that I particularly like - that were provided make any difference to the Treaty.
Q95 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: The Treaty does not bind the Court. The Court interprets the Treaty. That is their job, so when there are disputes about how the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be interpreted on these social matters, it will be the Court that decides, so how do these guarantees ensure that the Court will act in a certain way when the Court is not a party to this decision or these guarantees?
Chris Bryant: The Court is not a party to the Treaty. It did not write the Treaty either, so I think that is an irrelevant part of the argument, but the part of the argument that is true is that we do not believe that the guarantees in any substance or in any shape or form change the Treaty, and consequently we do not believe that the Court would have to adjudicate, for instance, between the guarantees and the Treaty because we do not believe that there is any difference between the two. We believe that all the guarantees that the Irish sought in relation to the issues that I have already referred to were already fully and completely met in the Treaty, and we believe that the Court would find in our favour if there were to be a challenge in that way. I am quite happy to ask Alison or Paul if they think there is anything that needs to be added.
Q96 Chairman: I think at this moment we should leave it. Maybe you need to go and further study the question. I do not think you are correct, Minister, and you have been thrashing about for the last five or ten minutes and digging a bigger and bigger hole. It is not a question of how the Court would interpret it, it is not a question of whether the Treaty was in fact already covering all these points and the Council was just using a subterfuge or some kind of sleight of hand to convince the Irish. It is about the decision of the Council, and I think you will find that all learned opinion says it does not define the Court, whereas the treaties define the Court. There is no point in saying this in the sense of what will happen in the future. The Lisbon Treaty will be carried. The reality is that the Council decision cannot bind the Court, whereas a treaty can. A simple, "Yes, but ...", would have been fine, but you have to first get to the point where you accept yourself, as all legal opinion is giving us, that these Council decisions do not bind the Court, though they can be founded on in the Court, which is what we are trying to say. I think we will leave it.
Chris Bryant: That was a statement, not a question, so there is no need for me to reply to it.
Chairman: We will leave it there. Thank you for attending. It has been enlightening in many respects. It has been educational in others, and it has been helpful mostly, so thank you for attending. We look forward to working with you as the European Minister and hopefully breaking down some of these barriers between what we think we should get as our evidence to do our job and what the Foreign Office thinks is the evidence we should have from them to do our job.