Mutual Recognition of Criminal Financial Penalties in the European Union (Scotland) Order 2009 (Draft)
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I remind everyone to switch off mobile phones. We have no apologies—there is the maximum turnout.
Yes—I will make a brief statement.
That seems to be fairly straightforward. Are there any questions?
The cabinet secretary said that the Home Office had estimated that there would be 1,000 cases. Was that the figure for Scotland or the United Kingdom?
It is 1,000 incoming and outgoing cases for Scotland.
That figure is an extrapolation from a Home Office estimate.
The policy objectives say that a penalty of less than €70 will not be recoverable. I can see why you might want to set that limit—it is too small a sum to worry about or it defines something that is trivial—but the costs of chasing any sum of money will be significant and a great deal larger than €70, so what is the real policy objective? Getting somebody to pay a parking fine somewhere else might sometimes be a way of bringing them to justice and making them think, but it is not obvious to me why we have that lower limit, because the costs of chasing anything will be a great deal bigger than the sum that will be recovered.
We have to have a limit and many such limits are quite arbitrary. Why is it €70, and not €65 or €75? We just have to pick a level. We live in a transient world in which people have free movement within the EU and choose to live in other jurisdictions. It is not only individuals who can be pursued; corporations can also move between jurisdictions. It is simply a matter of being able to proceed and pursue matters.
I agree entirely. If that is the case, there is no need to have a lower limit at all. I wonder why it exists.
I presume that it is because there has to be some de minimis figure.
I will attempt to be helpful. The amount probably relates to the sort of figures that would be imposed in respect of fixed penalties rather than court disposals in European countries.
In some jurisdictions, fines are taken by the police on the spot. That is not an approach that we take, although we are waiting on Westminster providing orders that will allow our police officers to ensure that some people—drivers, in particular—from foreign jurisdictions do not routinely flout the laws of our land when they come here. Those orders will give us some surety that we will be able to hold on to such people. I point out that such matters are subject to rules on traffic that are, for whatever reason, reserved to Westminster, even though they have consequences for our country.
I think that that might cause more problems than solutions, but that is a matter for another day.
Motion moved,
That the Justice Committee recommends that the draft Mutual Recognition of Criminal Financial Penalties in the European Union (Scotland) Order 2009 be approved.—[Kenny MacAskill.]
Motion agreed to.
Are members content to consider a draft report on the instrument in private at our next meeting?
Members indicated agreement.
I suspend the meeting briefly to allow the minister and his team to leave, and I thank them for their attendance.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Act of Sederunt (Commissary Business) (Amendment) 2009 (SSI 2009/292)
We come, under agenda item 3, to the first of two instruments that are subject to negative procedure. The Subordinate Legislation Committee has drawn no matters to the attention of Parliament in relation to SSI 2009/292. However, the report notes that both this instrument and a closely related instrument that did not require to be laid—SSI 2009/293—breached the 21-day rule, and states that it would have been useful if the letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to the convener of the Justice Committee explaining the timing of the instrument had been copied to the Subordinate Legislation Committee.
Members indicated agreement.
I dare say that you might already be thinking of raising this point in the Conveners Group or elsewhere, but the timing of instruments can be a bit out sometimes: the Government really needs to get its act together.
Yes. I will raise that point at the next appropriate meeting of the Conveners Group, and will report back to the committee.
In fairness, the instrument is entirely procedural. It is difficult to think of any issues that might arise from it.
Yes, but there has been a history of difficulty.
Yes—about 10 years.
The fact that a situation has been unsatisfactory for 10 years does not mean that we should not pursue it.
Not at all; I would not suggest that.
Scottish Court Service<br />(Procedure for Appointment of Members) Regulations 2009 (SSI 2009/303)
The Subordinate Legislation Committee had no points to make on SSI 2009/303. Do members agree to note the regulations?
Members indicated agreement.
Meeting continued in private until 12:37.