European Commission Work Programme
The final item on our agenda is the European Commission work programme. We will consider a letter from the convener of the European and External Relations Committee, which is consulting subject committees on the work programme for 2010 to 2014, with a view to identifying the European Union policy and legislative proposals in devolved matters that could have a significant impact on Scotland. Paper J/S3/10/16/3 provides some background detail and lists the main issues in justice and home affairs from the Commission’s work programme.
The committee is asked two questions. First, we are asked to decide whether there are issues that we would like the Scottish Parliament European officer to track, and to indicate whether there are issues on which would like to commission a specific report by the Scottish Parliament information centre. Secondly, we are asked to agree to return to the issue of JHA scrutiny at an early opportunity after the summer recess, in order to consider the EERC’s report on its inquiry into the Lisbon treaty and how best to take forward issues arising from that.
I am conscious of the fact that, a couple of weeks back, you and I were rather nearer to the subject than colleagues were.
I am grateful to those who have produced the numerous pieces of paper that are before us, but I still feel that I am not in a position to make a sensible judgment on the issue. I am grateful for the information that we have received, but two things are missing. First, we lack serious information on the background to what is happening in Europe. We have just considered the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill. Like every other member, I have experience of what happens in Scotland and understand the background against which we consider matters, which allows me to make sensible comments or, I hope, no comment. I do not have the same European citizenship background, so I am not sure what the backdrop is. Secondly, even if I understood all of the subjects clearly, I am not sure in which areas we would be able to exert an influence and to see movement—in other words, I do not know what slack there is and what opportunity for influence may exist in some areas, partly because I do not know the background.
I am not in a position to say anything other than, “That looks interesting,” “That’s probably important,” or “I’m not sure that’s terribly important to Scotland.” I do not have the background to be able to say what we will be able to do, where the people will come from or what the end results may be. I am not sure how we can overcome that difficulty. I suspect that we may need to meet people who can answer such questions—people who have a background in what is happening in Europe. Our European officer may be able to do that. We need to hear from someone who is able to tell us that there is a huge range of opportunities in one area but that in another we must take either position A or position B, and that, instinctively, Scotland would want position A. I am struggling to know quite how to evaluate matters, as I cannot put more detail on them.
I will fill in other members on the special knowledge that Nigel Don and I have. We spoke at a recent prestigious conference that was held in the Parliament by the United Kingdom Association for European Law. I gave a presentation on how I see the Lisbon treaty impacting on subsidiarity, especially on legislating in Scotland. Nigel Don dealt with the issue on a similar basis. What we said seemed to go down well—it should have done, given the amount of research that I had done into the matter, which is complex but important. I will copy the relevant papers to committee members.
Nigel Don’s comments are sensible. We have the facility of inviting the European officer, Ian Duncan, to give us a presentation. Time will be available for that, now that we have finally managed to dispose of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill.
Instinctively, I would be more drawn to hearing about the issues relating to children rather than to the issues relating to contract law, notwithstanding Nigel Don’s comments—
Those matters need not be mutually exclusive.
However, I take on board the point that more issues might arise in those areas to which I am not instinctively drawn but that we should perhaps look at.
I agree that we should ask for a report from the Parliament’s European officer, Mr Ian Duncan, at the earliest possible opportunity. I also think that we should await the recommendations in the EERC’s report on its inquiry into the Lisbon treaty and then come back to the issue in due course.
If I detect the mood of the meeting correctly, we are agreed that we should ask the European officer to attend a future meeting, commission some localised research from SPICe on how European Commission legislation impacts on children—which would deal with the point that Angela Constance has, entirely appropriately, raised—and, at an early opportunity after the summer recess, further consider matters of JHA scrutiny with specific reference to the Lisbon treaty. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
May I add one thought? I would be delighted to hear from the European officer, but can we also consider the possibility of hearing from others who have a serious interest? For example, if the Law Society of Scotland has its own European contact, he or she might be an extremely interesting person to hear from; there might be just one or two other folk out there who know an awful lot about the matter and from whom we might want to hear.
That seems eminently sensible. Can we agree to that suggestion?
Members indicated agreement.
We will pursue that.
That brings the meeting to a formal end. I remind members that the good progress that has been made over the past two weeks means that we will not require a meeting next week, unless an emergency arises, which I do not anticipate. I thank members for their attendance, in particular Aileen Campbell for attending as a substitute.
Meeting closed at 12:07.