Contents
- Attendance
- Decision on Taking Business in Private
- Vulnerable Witnesses (Criminal Evidence) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
- European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018
Jurisdiction and Judgments (Family) (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
European Institutions and Consular Protection (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
The next agenda item is consideration of a proposal by the Scottish Government to consent to the UK Government legislating using the powers under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in relation to three UK statutory instruments. I refer members to paper 3, which is a note by the clerk.
Before I invite members’ comments, I note that our clerks have looked at the instruments and have a couple of observations that it would be useful to highlight. Stephen Imrie will explain the two main areas that we should be aware of.
Thank you, convener. I want to provide an update to the paper that members have in front of them, which, at the point of writing, said that officials did not have any comments. Subsequent to that, we have been looking at things in a bit more detail.
First, the timescale that is available for scrutiny of the instruments is shorter than the normal 28 days. The Scottish Government said that that is due to “drafting issues”, which emerged late. In the case of the European Institutions and Consular Protection (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, the clerks understand that that has meant that Westminster’s sifting committee, the European Statutory Instruments Committee, received the proposed instrument before we were notified, which is not normal procedure—normally, the Scottish Parliament begins its scrutiny before Westminster does. We thought that we would bring that to your attention.
Secondly, the two instruments on civil law—the Jurisdiction and Judgments (Family) (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 and the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018—raise a number of important issues to do with child maintenance and civil law regimes for cross-border and commercial courts. This is, of course, entirely a matter for the committee, but you might want to ask Scottish Government officials to confirm that there are no substantive differences between what is being proposed and what was proposed in the Scottish Government’s consultation earlier this year on the effect of Brexit on family law.
On the timing issue, there might be extenuating circumstances on this occasion, but we want to send a very strong marker that this cannot be the norm, especially as we have no idea how many of these statutory instrument proposals we will get in the not-too-distant future. I also think that it would be good to get some more thoughts on the effect of the civil law instruments. I would welcome comments from members.
On the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, it says in our paper—I think that it is a public paper—at paragraph 21:
“in the absence of an agreement between the EU and the UK, the retained EU law will cease to operate reciprocally between the EU Member States and the UK.”
We all understand that. It goes on to say:
“The UK alone is not able to legislate to restore that reciprocity and in addition the retained law will contain numerous EU exit related deficiencies meaning that it will cease to operate effectively.”
I want to put on record my anger at a situation that means that the quality of the law that we have for our citizens is reduced because of this ridiculous situation that the UK Government is in.
I also note what the clerk says about immunities, at paragraph 35. Members know my aversion to anyone being immune from criminal or civil law in Scotland. The removal of immunities from anyone is to be welcomed. This is a modest start, but we have a long way to go.
I echo what John Finnie said about the deficiencies that have been highlighted. A number of these instrument proposals have come forward. I am not proposing that we vote against or abstain in that regard, but I think that each proposal illustrates, in its own way, the ridiculous position—as I think John Finnie put it—in which we find ourselves. It is a position that is highly, highly regrettable.
If there are no more comments, are members content that we make the point about the timing, which I think is crucial, given that we are going to be dealing with a lot of statutory instrument proposals, and that we seek confirmation that the Scottish Government is happy that there is no substantive difference between the proposed SIs and what emerged from its consultation and impact assessment? I do not think that making those points prevents us from giving our approval in the 10-day time limit; I just seek assurance that the Scottish Government is quite happy, and I think that Stephen Imrie has said that that could be done in a phone call. Subject to all that, are we happy to approve the approach that is proposed in our papers?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you. That concludes the public part of the meeting. Our next meeting will be on 18 December, when we will continue our consideration of the Vulnerable Witnesses (Criminal Evidence) (Scotland) Bill and take further evidence on the Management of Offenders (Scotland) Bill.
12:43 Meeting continued in private until 12:44.