Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-107)
COMMISSIONER MARGOT
WALLSTRÖM, MR
CHRISTIAN LEFFLER
AND MR
TOMAS NIKLASSON
12 JULY 2007
Q100 Kelvin Hopkins: I think you
are saying now that what our Minister said yesterday was correct.
Was what was read out by our Chairman, as what our Minister said
yesterday, correct?
Commissioner Wallström: I
have no other views on this.
Chairman: It is becoming a little complex,
even for me in the Chair, and I think you have been quite clear
in what you have offered to do for us. You have said you are not
going to prejudge what the European Court of Justice is going
to say. Maybe we have to ask them about this matter rather than
yourself. I am inclined to ask you to clarify the intention of
that phrase in the way I have asked you. I do not think I need
to pursue it any further. Do you feel you need to pursue it any
further, Mr Hopkins?
Kelvin Hopkins: No.
Mr Clappison: I do.
Chairman: I think the questions about
whether the application of law is uniform or whether the European
Court of Justice will attempt to do something which is quite counter
to their opt-out has to be put to them rather than to anyone else.
Q101 Mr Clappison: I have a related
point which follows on from that as to the extent of the UK alleged
opt-out from the Charter. I have a further question. You may be
able to help with this. I appreciate this is what was reported
in the British press. It was reported in the British press, in
the Daily Telegraph, that the Commission's legal service
estimates that British opt-outs to the Charter are "limited"
and says that up to 80 per cent of national law originates in
Brussels. Are you able to throw any light on what the legal service
were getting at when they said that the opt-outs to the Charter
were "limited"?
Commissioner Wallström: No,
I have no idea what the Daily Telegraph means by this.
Q102 Mr Clappison: The Daily Telegraph,
unless they got it completely wrong—
Commissioner Wallström: That
is not impossible.
Q103 Mr Clappison: --- were quoting
the Commission's legal service.
Commissioner Wallström: They
have not named any Commission legal experts so I doubt that very
much. Our understanding was there was an opt-out from the whole
Charter and that was what the UK wanted.
Q104 Chairman: That is also what
our Minister said yesterday in Westminster Hall.
Commissioner Wallström: I
have not heard any other interpretation of what happened at the
Council.
Mr Clappison: The text says—
Chairman: I think we will leave it there.
Can I just say that paragraph you are quoting is so contradictory:
it talks about 80 per cent of national law; it talks about the
Charter in the same paragraph. I do not want to put questions
to the Minister based upon bad journalism.
Mr Clappison: Very good. Can I put something
which is based upon the text of the protocol. The text of the
protocol, attached to the Presidency conclusions, states that:
" ... Nothing in [title 4] of the Charter creates justicable
rights in the United Kingdom". Okay, saying nothing in title
4 creates justicable rights in the United Kindom, what does that
mean?
Q105 Chairman: This is the footnote
to the protocol.
Commissioner Wallström: Is
that the UK protocol?
Chairman: No, the protocol in the draft
IGC document.
Mr Cash: It is confined to title 4. There
are five other titles which are not dealt with.
Q106 Chairman: In the Presidency
conclusions in the footnotes it specifically goes back to the
question of the Charter. In Section 2 it says: "In particular,
for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in [title 4] of the Charter
creates justicable rights applicable to the United Kingdom".
This is in reference to the legality of strikes.
Commissioner Wallström: I
think this is really for your Government, the UK Government, and
the Presidency to clarify. This is not my work to interpret.
Q107 Chairman: I think you are right.
It is not within your remit and I do not see why we should pursue
it. We will leave it at that. I do not think there are any more
questions to ask you. Thank you for your tolerance. We have wandered
into areas of great interest to us but not necessarily part of
your remit. I think we have had some clarification. I am sure
when you write it will be even more crystal clear. Thank you for
your time. It was very good of you to come here. I am sorry you
had another task added to your visit today, I know you had other
business in hand.
Commissioner Wallström: Thank
you very much for inviting me. Thank you for giving me an opportunity.
Forgive me, I do not speak my mother tongue so if I am a bit confused,
at times it depends on probably bad English as well. I will be
happy also to follow up and I will give you in writing what I
could not give an answer to directly now. Thank you very much.
Chairman: Thank you once again on behalf
of the Committee.
| 
