Justice Committee
Meeting date: Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Official Report
444KB pdf
European Union Issues
I move straight on to agenda item 3. Paper 7 provides an update on the committee’s EU priorities, which we agreed at the beginning of the year. I ask Roddy Campbell to lead on that.
I will kick off by saying a few words about whether the UK Government will finally opt out of the 130 pre-Treaty of Lisbon measures. The paper is reasonably self-explanatory. We have known since October last year that the coalition Government is minded to opt out. In April, a House of Lords committee prepared a report that criticised the Government’s decision on that. Since then, the most significant development has been the announcement on 9 July by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, of a list of 35 measures that the UK Government would seek to rejoin should the opt-out be exercised.
There is still some way to go and I have no doubt that the relevant House of Lords sub-committee will look at the matter further. The subject is highly controversial. This committee would benefit from looking at and taking some evidence on it in due course, without duplicating the valuable work that is going on at Westminster.
The question is what the committee wants to do and when. We would need to act in time to have an impact on the final decision. If we could find a slot to do something towards the end of the year or in January, that would take account of developments by then.
I do not want to pre-empt things, but I do not think that the 35 measures contain specific items that are overly relevant to Scotland. Quite a lot of them—five—are Schengen measures, and the rest are non-Schengen measures. There will be some clarity.
The main issue is that the committee has a heavy workload, so we want to avoid doing things just for the sake of it. However, we need to have input in some form into the issue.
I thank Roderick Campbell for that update. One of the cabinet secretary’s letters refers to a seminar on 5 June. Rod talked about a House of Lords committee meeting in July. Do we have more information on the specifics? I am pleased that the Lord Advocate, the Faculty of Advocates, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and others gave evidence, but they voiced strong concerns about the implications for international co-operation on criminal inquiries. It would help to know where we are with the measures that the UK Government is prepared to go along with.
Those organisations did give evidence. There is a clear difference of opinion; the UK Independence Party and various Tory back benchers have strong views about the issue.
I am delighted to hear of that difference.
That is not fair—John Lamont is not here to defend the troops.
The background to European issues is that the European elections will take place next year. The issue is on-going and the question is when the most appropriate time is for us to stick our oar in.
We could discuss the proposals in January—probably round about 14 January. Members have a copy of the work programme.
Do we agree to note the developments in relation to the UK Government’s 2014 opt-out decision—we will continue to monitor the developments, including the House of Lords inquiry; to note the developments in relation to the proposal to establish a European public prosecutor’s office—we have stated what we think about that and we have moved on, because we have lodged a motion; and to return to the final two priorities that we identified once full details of the proposals become available, which makes sense? We can come back to that in January, when a lot will still be going on. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
That approach is helpful, convener. I ask for us to be kept apprised of any developments that occur in the interim.
Okey-dokey.
Our next meeting is on 10 September, when we will hear evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on the legislative consent memorandum on the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. We will also hear from a further panel of witnesses on the Tribunals (Scotland) Bill.
Members have in front of them a list of what lies ahead—perhaps that will be too much for Elaine Murray and she will not bother coming back. I have also suggested to the clerks that it would be useful to all members to have a note of when amendments must be lodged for stages 2 and 3 of bills. That concludes the meeting.
Meeting closed at 12:00.