European Document
I refer the committee to the clerk's note on our scrutiny of European Union justice and home affairs issues, with reference to the parental responsibility regulation. The purpose of the item is to consider the committee's approach to European Union justice and home affairs issues. Given the short time before dissolution, we will also consider the matters that we wish to recommend to our successor committee in respect of such scrutiny.
We took the opportunity to be briefed to get ourselves up to speed with the various options for influencing EU directives and regulations. The paper contains suggestions for members' consideration. The proposals include setting up a system of current awareness and focusing on influencing specific pieces of legislation, which is what we are attempting to do in respect of the parental responsibility regulation. It is also suggested that we scrutinise the implementation of EU measures as and when they happen. The paper contains a number of options for the committee's consideration. Which items do members wish to action?
The briefing that we had before the formal meeting was extremely useful and interesting. We should record our thanks to those who came to talk to us.
I would like to put two areas of focus on the record. First, we need the earliest possible indication of any work starting in the European Union that may affect us. I know that some of the time scales involved are extremely lengthy and would span the lifetime of the next parliamentary session. It is vital to get involved at an early stage. Given the relative lack of priority that one will always place on something that might happen in six, seven or eight years' time, it is important that we have a concise and focused way in which to see what has started to happen, what the time scale will be and what the impact might be on Scots law. I would like the committee to be provided with a regular overview. I have an open mind on whether that should happen every month, every two months or every three months, although it should certainly be no longer than three months. The overview should cover a single sheet of paper—possibly both sides.
The second point that I want to put on the record is that our successor committee—or any similar committee that there may be in the next session—should, I suggest, seek to satisfy itself, probably by talking to the minister on a regular basis, that Scots law, which is distinct from English law, is being represented in Europe in a way that ensures that its distinctive needs and practices are taken into account. I am sure that there is good will in the system—I am not suggesting that there is not—but I do not know whether the distinctive practices of Scots law are being taken into account. I have an open mind on the matter, but I believe that any successor committee should examine it.
That is a good suggestion. As a starting point, we should have some way of being made aware of legislation that may impact on Scots law. I am concerned about the volume of information that we might receive. Stewart Stevenson's view is correct—any briefing should be short to enable us to determine at a glance whether we should pick a matter up.
We must take the issue further, because we need to question the speed at which some of the regulations seem to be made. We have done the right thing by examining at least one of the regulations—the one on parental responsibility—with the assistance of Peter Beaton, who has given us an up-to-date note on the discussions on the matter. That has been an important exercise in examining how the committee can get involved in the process and what kind of information we can receive. We should continue to take the matter as far as we can, as long as the committee is in existence, and see where it ends up.
It is important that we should have a dialogue with the Minister for Justice to alert him to the fact that we take the scrutiny of EU regulations seriously. That scrutiny should be part and parcel of the general work of the committee. It may be helpful if the committee were to agree today that we should write to Jim Wallace to make him aware of the issue. We should ask him to come to talk to us, if there is time. A future committee could pick up the matter if it wanted to. It would be good to hear from ministers about their contacts on justice and civil matters in the EU. That would give us an idea of the extent to which ministers are themselves involved in those matters.
I agree that it would be useful to have a discussion with the Minister for Justice. A matter that I want to focus on is the situation post and pre-devolution. I imagine that the well-established system that was in existence from the 1970s until devolution translated easily into the current constitutional situation. I cannot imagine that the system would have been eroded or that it would not cover all the bases. Before devolution, we had a minister with responsibility for home affairs. We now have a Minister for Justice covering the same area. My suspicion—it is not an informed view—is that the transition has been seamless. However, it would be useful to have a letter from the minister telling us what the arrangements were pre-devolution, what they are now and whether there is any way in which they can be improved. My suspicion is that the transition has been seamless, but that is speculation.
We can mention in a letter that we would like that information. Do members have any other comments?
As Stewart Stevenson said, we had a long and—to my mind—beneficial session before the formal part of the meeting, during which we discussed in considerable detail various aspects of the way in which European legislation has the capacity to impinge on Scots law. There was unanimous agreement that, in certain respects, especially in these days when terrorism has to be eminent in our considerations, international co-operation is essential. In the context of the parental responsibility regulation, that co-operation can only be of benefit.
Nevertheless, the committee feels that the European influence on Scots law has the capacity to be damaging to some extent. The law of Scotland is well founded and, although it can always be improved, we would not wish to see it put under pressure because of the Commission. The chain of events can resemble a juggernaut—once it starts, we cannot stop it or change its direction. That makes it all the more important for us to flag up early anything that has the capacity to influence Scots law.
We have to consider—this may be a secondary matter once we have discussed the regulation with Jim Wallace—how a committee of the Scottish Parliament can directly influence a committee of the European Parliament. I know that the clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre have had initial discussions on that issue, which will be beneficial, especially because contacts have been established. However, as far as I can see, there does not seem to be any formal arrangement whereby this or any other committee of the Scottish Parliament can directly make a view known to the appropriate committee of the European Parliament. We must examine that closely.
I ask the committee to consider what direction it wants to head in. Members have in their paper some options in relation to the scrutiny of implementation of EU legislation and on current awareness, both of which are important issues. I wonder whether we want to go a step further and discover how we can directly influence legislation that impacts on Scots law. We could investigate the best process for doing that.
We accept the point that Alasdair Morrison and Stewart Stevenson have made, which is that we need a system to make us aware of what is going on. We can discuss that with the minister if we get the opportunity. We will certainly make him aware of our discussions. Our view is that we need to look for a way in which we can have direct influence and that we need to spend more time considering how best that could be done. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Do members have any specific points on the regulation that we have been discussing?
No.