Justice 1 Committee, 01 Mar 2006

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 1, 2006

Official Report 148KB pdf

---

Justice and Home Affairs in Europe

I welcome everyone to the seventh meeting in 2006 of the Justice 1 Committee. All members are present, so we have no apologies this morning. It would be helpful if members could do the usual and switch off their mobile phones.

Members should refer to the clerk's lengthy note and the additional documents on our on-going work on justice and home affairs in Europe. I also refer members to the draft motion that has been prepared for the committee debate that is scheduled to take place on 23 March, as agreed by the Parliamentary Bureau.

Members will recall that in recent months we completed an inquiry, following which we strongly recommended that the Executive should not take any further part in discussions on changes to European law on jurisdiction in divorce matters, succession and wills. The note before members contains a couple of suggestions.

First, we should note the current position in relation to the green paper on applicable law and jurisdiction in divorce matters and the publication of legislative proposals by the European Commission; we should keep that area under consideration. We should also note the current position regarding the green paper on succession and wills and the publication of legislative proposals. We are to ask for continuing updates from the Executive following meetings of the Council of the European Union working group that is considering the proposed directive on mediation, on which we have also done some work. We are also to ask the Scottish Executive to provide regular updates on the progress of the working group in relation to the draft directive on maintenance obligations.

There is quite a lot there already, and there are two further issues. Subject to our work programme, we could invite the Minister for Justice to give oral evidence on the outcomes of the Scottish Executive's input into the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Union. We could do that jointly with the Justice 2 Committee, as it obviously has an interest and has done some work of its own. We also have to agree the terms of the draft motion that members have before them.

I appreciate that quite a lot of work is involved in this area. We are talking about several very complex documents, but in our previous discussions, we have agreed that, because the Commission is active on issues that will have an impact on Scots law, we have to scrutinise what it is doing. Do members have any comments?

We are combining the approaches that the committee has taken since we visited Brussels. We have realised how important it is to be in on any legislation as soon as possible after the agenda is set. Having considered the issues and taken part in the process, it is only fitting that we have a debate and make strong recommendations thereafter. I welcome the approach that has been taken.

Paragraph 25 of the clerk's note refers to the CVs that were received from people who are interested in being on the expert group on succession, wills and the conflict of laws in the area of matrimonial property regimes. It might be useful to find out who is on that expert group; I do not think that we have a note of whether it has any Scottish representation, but the EC promised that there would be geographical balance in the group's membership. There will be five meetings during 2006, so it might be quite important to know who on the expert group will represent our interests. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Are there any other comments on the proposed action, including the proposal to invite the Minister for Justice to give evidence to us and the Justice 2 Committee?

It is quite difficult to comment on the proposals properly at the moment because we do not know how our next bill is going to go. I emphasise the comment in the clerk's note that we could invite the minister to give evidence

"Subject to other work programme commitments".

I think that we should follow up on our work, but we would have to decide how much time to give that so that it is done properly.

Are we suggesting that we do the work with the Justice 2 Committee before the committee debate?

No, not necessarily. I do not think that that would be possible. If anything, that work would be a useful follow-up to the debate, although sometimes it is hard to interest people in European matters. We have to try and get people to take an interest because changes could be made to our law. We should make a plea in the debate for other members to take note of that. That might give us a platform for saying that we should question the Minister for Justice along with the Justice 2 Committee. That is very important.

It is the nature of our work in this area that things lie dormant for months and then, all of a sudden, we find that the Commission has come out with another proposal. We do not always know when that is going to happen, which is an important point.

I back that up. The consequences for Scots law of some of the proposals on succession and divorce law would have been material and, had the committee not taken a strong stance on those, the outcome might have been quite different. The proposals might have become EU law almost by default. The issue is important and the committee is right to flag up in the strongest terms the fact that, as indicated in the draft motion, we would be absolutely opposed to those proposals.

We are agreed on our action. I ask committee members to turn their attention to the draft motion and Stewart Stevenson's amendment to it. Are members content with the wording?

I have not seen the amendment.

It is a simple suggestion to tidy up the wording. I propose that, where the motion says:

"not in the best interests of Scotland",

it should say "not in the best interests of the people of Scotland". That does not change the substance; it merely changes the emphasis.

Are members content with that change?

Members indicated agreement.

The motion will be lodged. That will be the motion to which we will speak on 23 March.