Agenda item 3 is consideration of correspondence with regard to European Union priorities. We have from the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs the latest update on EU issues that we had previously identified as areas of particular interest, and our papers also include an update from the minister on the most recent EU justice and home affairs council meeting, which was held on 3 and 4 December.
Roderick—
I—
I have more to say—I am going to build your part up. As our EU reporter, would you like to highlight any particular issues in paper 3 and suggest a course of action? You may now speak.
The paper and the minister’s comprehensive letter say it all, but I wish to make a couple of points.
Obviously, work on human rights is going on in the Parliament and the European and External Relations Committee, which, a few weeks ago, had a private visit from the Westminster Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights. Without betraying too much in the way of confidences, I detected a little bit of frustration in Westminster at the delay in the progress of the United Kingdom Government’s proposals for a British bill of rights. Obviously, in the absence of those proposals and given the timescale before our parliamentary session reaches its conclusion in March, the extent to which the Scottish Parliament can carry out work in relation to human rights through the European and External Relations Committee is fast diminishing. That is certainly an issue.
The minister’s letter talks in particular about the EU migration crisis. It is hard to believe that migration issues in the European Union will not come back on to the European agenda in a very big way in the months ahead. Even if we look back at what was agreed in May last year, we can see that things have moved on considerably.
As for more technical issues, we are awaiting a revised version of the Brussels IIa regulation, which deals with court jurisdiction in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility. That is very much work in progress.
The minister has also highlighted directives that relate to the Paris attacks and foiled terrorism. Again, such issues are highly topical, and I think that issues such as combating terrorism and the control of the acquisition of weapons will remain high on the EU agenda.
The rest of what has been said is really self-explanatory.
The paper is excellent, and I am grateful to the minister for all the information that he has provided. What I found particularly helpful and interesting was the detailed information on the progress that has been made on the objectives with regard to the EU agenda on migration and Scotland’s role in relation to that, despite the UK’s being the nation state.
The migration issue has been one of the European Union’s biggest tests to date, and it has failed it. Migration is not at the top of the media’s list of issues, but we should never forget that hundreds of people are still trying to make journeys in flimsy craft and hundreds of people are drowning. Just because the issue is not on the front line of television any more, that does not mean that it is not happening. It is extremely disappointing.
Of course, there is also the referendum to take into account. Whether that happens in June or is deferred to September, it seems that it will happen this year, and the issue will to some extent just be thrown into the air until the result. I wonder whether Roddy Campbell would like to comment on that. There is also the issue of human rights and, without our getting into a yes or no debate, the issue of disentangling EU legislation that forms part of our own legislation.
The European and External Relations Committee has done some work on the EU referendum and considered its implications for Scotland. That work is on-going; indeed, I think that there will be another session on the issue on Thursday.
How do you think that will affect justice issues?
Who knows what the result of the referendum will be? If we moved back into fortress Britannia, it could open up a whole debate about the extent of co-operation between the whole of the UK and the European Union and the separate justice systems north and south of the border. If there were a no vote, people would probably look at that relationship and how it would progress in the future.
Would some of our legislation—our statutes—in which we have imported duties or certain rules have to be amended?
Obviously, the extent to which European law forms a direct part of Scots law and the impact on that of a no vote, for example, is an issue. We would have to consider whether or not that situation would remain.
Margaret McDougall and then Margaret Mitchell want to ask questions. I am sorry—I got that the wrong way round. You will be all right, Roddy—Margaret Mitchell is not going to talk about sewage.
I have a question about the negotiations over the creation of a European public prosecutor’s office and how that did not comply with the principle of subsidiarity. We were monitoring that to make sure that there were no adverse implications for the Scottish prosecutorial system. Is there any update on that?
No, but I take your point. We could write to the minister, asking for an update on the current position regarding the EPPO.
My question is about videoconferencing. Can you give us an update on that?
What page is that on?
It is on page 4 of paper 3. In his letter, the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs says:
“Although Scotland cannot access funds from the Justice Programme as the UK has opted out, we are currently laying the ground for potential applications to the Connecting Europe Facility later in 2016 to support a number of EU e-Justice Portal interconnections projects.”
Is there any update on that?
The letter from the minister is dated 21 January, and he says that he will update us on any developments. Perhaps we could write to him formally, asking him to ensure that if there are any updates, particularly before 23 March, the committee is advised of them.
Thank you for your very informative presentation, and I also thank the European and External Relations Committee for its good work. Perhaps we could have done it, but unfortunately, we do not have the time to do everything.
So many topics are continuing. What is going to happen between 23 March and 6 May? Are any EU directives coming in? Is anything happening? Can we have a reassurance that nothing will be moved forward while there is no Parliament sitting?
That takes us into the problems of purdah. We will cease to be MSPs; there will still be a Government, but there are certain constraints on what Governments can and cannot do in the purdah period. I am not sure that I can take it much further than that.
Broadly speaking, there can be an Administration but no policy announcements or anything of that kind can be made during purdah.
That is a worry.
Well, that is life. You will stop being an MSP on 23 March—like it or lump it.
A lot of things could happen at any time.
We should also remember that the UK Government is not in purdah. In fact, we will not be in purdah either; we will simply be dissolved, my dear.
I wonder whether Roddy Campbell can answer a question about the directives on the presumption of innocence and on 16 and 17-year-olds, which, again, are addressed on page 4 of the paper. Where are we with those?
Generally, the Government is reasonably content that our domestic law complies with the directive on the presumption of innocence. As far as the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds is concerned, we had a reasonable debate on the issue before we passed the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016, in which we heard views on the review. If there are any specific points that a member wants to address to the minister, we can put them in a letter.
There is also the general problem that our legislation has such varying ages for different duties, rights and protections. Some such as the age of marriage and so on have been inherited, and we might not have those now. That is perhaps a bigger issue for the Parliament as a whole.
I stress the point made at the bottom of that section that
“The UK Government did not opt in to any of the above measures”.
To a degree, it is a matter for the Parliament.
Thank you very much, Roddy, for the information that you have provided on a huge range of things. As I have said, things are bit up in the air just now.
Can we take a view on what we would like to do? Are there any issues that members want to raise with the minister or any significant urgent issues arising? If not, that concludes our consideration of EU issues for the current parliamentary session. Do we want to invite the minister to give evidence to expand on the issues set out in his written update or to write to the European and External Relations Committee, seeking an update on its work in relation to human rights and EU migration?
It is a good job that I can understand body language. Alison McInnes is shaking her head as if to say, “None of the above.”
A lot of issues have been covered, and I am grateful to Roddy Campbell for that, but I recall that we were previously very exercised about the Lisbon opt-out. Can we ask the minister where things sit overall in relation to the previous position?
Okay. Does anybody else have anything to add?
I think that we should specifically raise Margaret Mitchell’s point about the EPPO. Generally, though, I do not think that we should give the minister too hard a time on these issues between now and 23 March.
Would it be worth writing to the European and External Relations Committee, asking for an update on its work in relation to human rights and EU migration, or should we just read its reports?
I suggest that we just read its reports.
Okay. Thank you very much. That concludes that item, and we now move into private session.
11:00 Meeting continued in private until 12:20.Previous
Agricultural Crime