European and External Relations Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Official Report 367KB pdf

---

Treaty of Lisbon Inquiry

For item 3 on our agenda, I welcome to the meeting another witness from Brussels, Mario Tenreiro, who is head of the institutional issues unit at the European Commission. Can you hear us, Mr Tenreiro?

Yes, thank you. I can hear you very well.

Good. In this evidence session for our Treaty of Lisbon inquiry, the committee will focus on some of the treaty’s practical implications from a Scottish perspective and explore how the Commission intends to implement its various mechanisms. However, before we move to questions, I believe that you have a few opening remarks, Mr Tenreiro.

I thank the committee for the invitation to answer its questions. I have nothing fundamental to add to Mrs Day’s letter of a few weeks ago, which the committee will know well, and suggest that it stand in for my introductory remarks.

However, I would like to focus on one or two issues. The fundamental point of departure for the Lisbon treaty is the coupling of respect for national structures with great attention to the local and regional dimension. As article 4 of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Lisbon treaty, states:

“The Union shall respect the equality of Member States ... as well as their national identities”

and

“their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, inclusive of regional and local self-government.”

At the same time, a lot of articles and the protocol on subsidiarity emphasise the need to be attentive to the local and regional dimension. For instance, although article 5, on subsidiarity, states the principle that subsidiarity means that action can be taken at the Union level, instead of being achieved by member states

“either at central level or at regional or local level”,

the protocol on subsidiarity itself states clearly that the Commission shall consult widely, and stresses:

“Such consultation shall, where appropriate, take into account the regional and local dimension”.

I could go on. There are a lot of examples. The main matters should be respect for the national organisations and our structured dialogue with the national Parliaments, and emphasis on the need and willingness to take into account the regional and local dimension.

I am at your disposal in answering your questions. I hope that they will not be too difficult and that I can give you some clarification.

Thank you very much, Mr Tenreiro. I will begin by picking up on your remarks about the requirement to consult regional Parliaments and Governments “where appropriate”—the new mechanism within the protocol. How might that be interpreted in practical terms? Do you have any examples of existing good practice in lobbying or engagement at the early scrutiny stage between regional Parliaments, Governments and the European Commission? The Scottish Parliament is considering how it can engage early and effectively, and we are interested in the new aspect of the treaty that allows such engagement, where appropriate. Does the Commission have a view on how that might take place? What is meant by “where appropriate”? Are you able to offer a view on that?

Good morning, Mr Tenreiro. You are clearly aware that a number of key policy areas have been devolved from the United Kingdom to Scottish competence. We are talking about matters such as sport, culture, tourism, health and so on. You have explained, to some extent, how the Commission would seek to take those matters into account, but how can we in the Scottish Parliament help the Commission to be alert to the Scottish dimension?

Generally, you should let us know your main concerns and the main dimensions that you would like us to consider, and you should ask us to be aware of the areas or proposals in which you have competence and special concerns. That can be done in the abstract, so if you send us a simple letter to explain your position and your concerns in general, we can take stock of that and be more attentive to these issues.

In operational terms, it can be done by entering into contact with us case by case in relation to proposals or consultations that have been put on the table. The internal organisation of the United Kingdom and the Scottish Parliament’s relationship with central authorities are also important in ensuring that there is a good flow of information and good collaboration between the different authorities. That is, of course, a matter for yourselves and the national authorities of the UK to organise internally.

The initiative should come from both sides. When the Commission prepares a proposal, it usually studies, for example, comparative law. It also conducts other kinds of study. Before the Commission produces a proposal, it has often considered the various elements and has also, in consultations, tried to find the best solutions, but you should—of course—be proactive in the sense that you should take the initiative to raise your concerns with the Commission.

The EU structures are changing, of course. As you know, Scotland has its own legislative powers. Which of the EU institutional changes are likely to have the biggest impact on the Scottish legislative process?

The European institutions are involved in the co-decision legislative process. The actors in that process are the Commission, which presents proposals at the beginning of it and has powers afterwards in it, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, which are the legislators. The Council of Ministers is composed of ministers of the European Union’s 27 member states, and the European Parliament is composed of directly elected members. The existence of the trialogues means that the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament must agree. A final directive or regulation that is adopted after the negotiation process must have at least qualified majority support from member states in the Council of Ministers and the support of the majority of members of the European Parliament.

11:45

National or regional Parliaments are not implicated formally in the legislative process per se. National Parliaments are implicated formally at the beginning of the process, during the subsidiarity check. The procedure requires that the Commission send out a proposal to national Parliaments, which have eight weeks to return it. If there is no difficulty in that regard, the process continues. National democratic scrutiny is then a matter of national autonomy: the position that a minister expresses in council is the position of their member state. It becomes an internal matter for the member states; the commission does not interfere and it should not be seen as part of the legislative process. We hope that the position is consensual and that proposals are discussed at home, if possible, because the process is, to a certain extent, part of the general statements at the end of the process as it is voted on by Brussels, as the press tends to say—although, in reality “Brussels” means member states and the European Parliament. The process comes under the law.

The Commission remains an open institution at every stage of the legislative process. That means that, even after the proposal has been put on the table, the Commission continues to receive from different players opinions in which they raise concerns and propose changes. During the legislative process, the Commission has the power to produce a revised proposal and to take contributions into account while it negotiates the proposal with the legislatures. There is always time to address issues and to draw to the Commission’s attention concerns about specific proposals. That can be done simply by sending the Commission a letter about your concerns, which would be taken into account. There is no specific process, but you can bring concerns to the Commission at any time, which we will of course look at carefully.

I welcome Michael Clancy, who is director of law reform at the Law Society of Scotland. We are grateful to you for coming along to today’s meeting and for the Law Society’s written submission. I advise colleagues that Mr Clancy has agreed to waive the opportunity to make any opening remarks because we are running rather late—we appreciate that.

We move straight to questions. I know that you listened to the evidence that we took from the European Commission. It is clear that the Treaty of Lisbon is quite a big issue for the Scottish Parliament. I suppose that we are looking to pick your brains. What do you see as being the key implications for Scotland that arise from the Lisbon treaty?

Thanks. That is an interesting point. On a practical level, how do you go about making your submissions? Do you input them directly to the European Commission when you are responding to a green paper? How do you respond to consultations? Do you copy the Scottish Parliament at any level—our Brussels officer, for example—or the United Kingdom permanent representation to the European Union into that process so that we are aware of the issues about which you have concerns?

Good morning. In your written submission, you mention protocol 21 and the opt-outs—I should have said opt-ins, as that would make it an entirely different argument. How significant might a divergence of views between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government be?

Those ideas are quite interesting. In the past, the committee has recommended that we try to become a member of COSAC but, when we approached the organisation, it did not seem very keen to have us. Of course, that was in the early days; with the Lisbon treaty, things might have moved forward. It is certainly worth looking at the suggestion again.

The Law Society seems a little bit concerned—to put it mildly—about the creation of a European public prosecutor. What is likely to be the impact of such a move on Scotland?

12:15

That is fine. Thanks.

I think that the issues are covered in the written submission that I have provided on behalf of the Law Society. The submission courses over issues such as the role of national Parliaments and the important role that this Parliament’s European and External Relations Committee will have in responding to proposals within the eight-week consultation period. When I saw reference to an eight-week consultation period in my very first copy of the Lisbon treaty, I thought to myself, “That will be a tough timetable.” Of all the issues that we have not touched on specifically today, that is the one that will require us to think hard about enhanced co-operation with the House of Lords and House of Commons committees to ensure that there is a free flow right the way through. Consideration will also need to be given to the timing of meetings to ensure that there can be discussion of any proposals that are made in that context.

Of course, if there is enhanced pre-legislative—that is, pre-green paper—engagement, the eight-week consultation period will become less of an anxiety. In addition, as a paper accompanying Lord Roper’s submission points out, whereas the English-language version of a proposal is usually published first, the eight-week consultation period will kick in only when, for example, the Estonian-language version is published some 16 weeks later. However, that is not necessarily the best way of organising legislation on what might be an extraordinarily important area of law affecting many millions of people.

In evidence to our committee, Sir David Edward suggested that, realistically, the only way to tackle that is through effective horizon scanning so that proposals are picked up very early. From what you are saying, I think that you would agree with that.

I am grateful for your support, convener.

The formal mechanism for subsidiarity is directed at national Parliaments. That is the mechanism as foreseen in the treaty. The subsidiarity mechanism must be co-ordinated internally in every member state, taking into account the national structures. That is the formal way of proceeding. However, long before the subsidiarity check, as foreseen in the treaty, comes into force, the Commission has always been willing to consult widely on its proposals.

What does “where appropriate” mean? Some proposals, by their very nature, are related much more to the local or regional dimension because the implementation of the proposed measures would probably fall to local or regional authorities. In such cases, it is clear from the outset that even more effort must be made to consult that dimension and take it into account.



11:30



In general, the Commission consults widely. That is a principle that the Commission established even before the Lisbon treaty. Before making proposals, the Commission always tries to issue consultation papers, many of which are green papers. Those consultations are open publicly—they are open to anybody. Sometimes, institutions respond to those consultations. The Committee of the Regions, which is to an extent the European Union body that represents the local dimension, often takes a view on such matters. Before a proposal is on the table, the committee works on the basis of such consultations. Of course, any regional Parliament or national authority can respond to the consultations. Those responses are duly appreciated, analysed and taken into account in the process.

The consultation process is comprehensive and regional authorities are involved in it. To an extent, it is up to those authorities to pick from the proposals that consultations put on the table those on which they can make a contribution and about which they have concerns.

For example, we launched a consultation—it relates to implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon—on the proposal for the citizens initiative, which is a new provision in the treaty that allows for 1 million citizens to ask the Commission to propose a new measure. That green paper was adopted in November and received more than 300 responses. The Committee of the Regions took the initiative to make un avis—an own-initiative opinion—on the idea before the Commission made its proposal. The committee gave its views on the basis of the green paper, and any regional Parliament or national authority can do the same, as can all other stakeholders.

I am a member of the Committee of the Regions, so I am aware of the good work that is done between it and the European Commission, and particularly through own-initiative opinions.

We want to learn from you this morning, so I will explore further whether you have examples of good practice involving regions, regional Parliaments or regional Governments responding to the Commission. Do you have other examples of networks or regional bodies other than the Committee of the Regions with which the European Commission tends to have a good exchange of views or good networking? Perhaps you do not want to single out a region, but do you have anything to add?

Perhaps the question needs to be answered more on a sectoral basis. There is certainly much positive experience in different policy areas of active participation by or active dialogue with regional Parliaments about specific items. I do not have that information now, but good examples of such collaboration exist.

The message that I would like to send is that the Commission is an open body. It is there for citizens in general and—clearly—for regional and local authorities to engage in dialogue with, when appropriate, when responding to consultations, and it takes requests into account. That is as far as I can go on the specifics of how it works in practice.

Should the initiative come from the Commission or should it come from us here in Scotland?

That is hard for me to assess because I am a specialist neither in Scots law nor in the internal organisation of the United Kingdom, but one immediately thinks of the old area of justice and home affairs, or the third pillar, as it has traditionally been called. With the suppression of the pillars and the new qualified-majority system for adopting proposals, there is a new legislative system. There will, as members know, be normal law, with directives and regulations, full Court of Justice control and so on. The communitarisation of issues is one of the substantial advancements that have resulted from the Lisbon treaty. Co-operation on criminal affairs and police co-operation are a sensitive field that might have an impact on the Scottish legal system, because many of the competencies are regional, if I can put things in that way. That is one field that I would automatically think of in which there could be an impact.

As members know, there is an opt-in system. As always, the United Kingdom has, from the starting point, the right to accept or not accept inclusion in a new proposal and, of course, decisions will be co-ordinated internally. Scotland would certainly have a say internally in deciding the United Kingdom’s position on such matters.

On the slightly different matter of the co-decision procedure, the Commission, the Council presidency and the European Parliament may take views and make decisions in so-called trialogues and first-reading deals. How might that affect other Parliaments’ scrutiny? The House of Commons and the House of Lords have already expressed concerns about that.

We have to separate out the impact assessment and the proposal. In principle, every proposal is accompanied by an impact assessment, which includes an assessment of subsidiarity, the potential impact of the proposal and alternative solutions. Where appropriate, the assessment includes the impact on regional legislation. It is an evaluation, or study, that accompanies a proposal. The Commission has an internal procedure—a board that is responsible for assessing the impact of the assessments. All that is publicly available. The impact assessments are not hidden documents—the Commission makes them available on its website at the end of the process. The proposal contains an explanation of the reasons behind it and the applications of subsidiarity and proportionality principles. Again, the Commission makes the proposal publicly available. The Commission does not formally send the proposal to regional Parliaments. In the protocols under the treaty, they are sent formally only to national Parliaments. Again, every country has to organise itself; it has to spread the information. That said, the information is publicly available; it is not hidden but accessible. It is possible to react to the information even if the commission has no formal channel to send directly all proposals to regional Parliaments.

I have a second question on practicalities. If it was felt that the Scottish dimension had not been considered adequately or that a policy was perhaps too burdensome, how could Scottish authorities address that?

We have run out of time, Mr Tenreiro. Thank you very much for coming along to Brussels to give evidence to the committee by videoconference. You have indicated clearly that the Commission has an open door and that where we have concerns we should make it our business to highlight them to you by writing a letter, visiting, lobbying or producing a report. Your evidence has been very helpful. Later today we will consider further the issues that you have raised with us. Thank you very much for your attendance this morning.

I will suspend the meeting for a few minutes to allow a change of witness.

11:52 Meeting suspended.

11:56 On resuming—

My colleagues have quite a number of questions for you, but before we move on to those, do you have any thoughts on the use of informal trialogues and first-reading deals, which Jim Hume picked up on? I do not think that your submission deals with that issue specifically, but it is one that has troubled me a bit, given that the Lisbon treaty is partly about enhancing democracy and ensuring that the views of the regions and national Parliaments are taken into account, and that stakeholders and so on are thereby involved. I share the concerns of the House of Commons and the House of Lords about the lack of accountability to which first-reading deals will give rise. Do you have any views on that? I ask that off the top of my head because it is an issue that I am interested in.

I would be quite happy to give you an answer off the top of my head. There is something counterintuitive from the point of view of transparency about doing something that is described as a “deal”. As I understand it, the Lisbon treaty was structured in such a way as to open up the European institutions and to make them more relevant to the people of Europe, the national Parliaments and the devolved Administrations. There is something counterintuitive about having a first-reading deal when national representatives are not involved or there is insufficient transparency about what the process was.





12:00

The Law Society has not thought much about tourism and cultural matters: we have much more to say in relation to law, particularly about the extension of the justice, freedom and security agenda, which is where our focus has tended to lie. I suspect that if we are talking about influencing those arrangements, we have to recognise that considerable areas of law are involved. Title 5 of the treaty says:

“The Union shall constitute an area of freedom, security and justice with respect for fundamental rights and the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States.”

It is a key issue for us that there is recognition in article 67(1) of the different legal systems that exist. Mr Tenreiro referred to, as he put it, 27 member states, but he actually deals with many more legal systems and even the three legal systems in the United Kingdom add to the total. From the perspective of the Scottish solicitors profession, our greatest concern is to make sure that that different legal system element is properly recognised and respected.

What did you make of Mr Tenreiro’s response when I asked him about where he thought the initiative or responsibility lies, when legislation is being formulated, in identifying aspects of Scottish law on which legislation would bear differently? I think he said that they would take that into account and do their best to ensure that legislation complies with Scots law, but I think he also said that it would be up to us in Scotland to put forward our views and draw the Commission’s attention to aspects that might be meaningful under Scottish law.

Yes, I can give you a sketch of where we go with something. We share an office in Brussels with the Law Society of England and Wales and the Law Society of Northern Ireland. My colleagues there, Julia Bateman and Andrew Laidlaw, are great blessings to the legal system of Scotland—I hope that, when they read the Official Report of this meeting, that makes them blush—and they give us information on what is happening and what is going to happen in Brussels. We publish a monthly bulletin that points out upcoming proposals for change and marks the progress of proposals for change that are currently in play.

The Brussels office is a fantastic asset in the whole process because it enables us to make early contact with Commission officials so that we can discuss matters that might be of importance to the Law Society. For example, we expect a green paper on authentic acts—documents that have the character of enforceability—to be published in July as a result of discussions that took place last year, which went before the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs. We became engaged in that process, had meetings with Commission officials and lobbied members of the committee so that the views of not only the Law Society of Scotland but of colleagues throughout the British isles were put to the relevant committee and those officials. That is how we go about it.

As for participation with other Parliaments, we are regularly consulted by the European Union Committee of the House of Lords on a number of issues. We make submissions to that committee and, sometimes, to the European Scrutiny Committee of the House of Commons. We have also made submissions to the Scottish Parliament on points of law. For example, we gave evidence to the Justice Committee when it was dealing with the recent green paper on succession and the one on divorce and matrimonial property. We have a lot of contact with parliamentary institutions. Frequently, although not on every occasion, we engage with the civil service at either the relevant UK ministry or the Scottish Government. We have very good relationships with the civil servants in the Scottish Government on these issues and we send them any comments that we are submitting to the European Union.

Thank you. That is helpful.

It might be significant. Of course, whether or not the UK wanted to opt in but Scotland wanted to opt out would all depend on a case-by-case analysis of the proposal in question. Essentially, that becomes a political issue, and politicians will have to decide what accommodations can be made with regard to the relative merits of the different positions of the UK’s constituent jurisdictions.

We were and are concerned about that. Given that it will require unanimity, the prospect of it happening may be very distant. When we expressed our views originally on the corpus juris proposal, which was perhaps as long ago as 1999, we said that the idea of a European public prosecutor was ill defined and that we would need a lot more detail and a lot more flesh put on the bones before we could say that it was a thoroughly good idea or give it our qualified acceptance.

There is probably not a straightforward answer to this question. Which changes in institutional structure are likely to have the greatest impact on the roles that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament play in the policy process?

The ordinary legislative procedure should enable the Scottish Parliament to make representations directly to the European Parliament. For me, that would certainly be a significant change to the way that things are done at the moment—it is very likely that it could result in some satisfactory change.

From a legal perspective, there are issues about the loading on the European Parliament’s relevant committees, because no Scottish MEP sits on the Committee on Legal Affairs or the other committee that deals with justice matters, which means that there is no natural linkage. However, that should not stand in the way of the Parliament making direct representations to the European Parliament and exercising this new democratic transparency.

The other key changes are the changes to the European Court. There are now in effect three courts: the European Court of Justice, the General Court, which is the old European Court of First Instance, and the European Union Civil Service Tribunal.

The creation of a direct right for individuals to go to court where they are directly affected will be quite a significant issue. The extension of preliminary questions to all national courts could also be quite a significant change.

Could you explain that?

Sir David Edward has a much more eloquent way of putting such matters. I certainly agree about the need for horizon scanning, which is the appropriate phraseology.

I also notice that your submission, in paragraph 5, argues that it is a very good thing that the right of legislative initiative rests much more clearly with the European Commission. You and I might be in a minority of two on that. The Commission tends to get into a lot of trouble for being bureaucratic and too remote and so on, but I agree with the Law Society’s comments. I just found it interesting that you made that point in your submission.

In the substantial matter of the law, Scotland differs from the rest of the United Kingdom. I am thinking of freedom, security, justice and so on. Is the Commission aware that, in those areas, substantive and procedural Scots law are often quite different from what exists for the rest of the UK?

Yes, we are. I will make some personal comments. I remember from an earlier life, when I worked in justice and home affairs, that frequently there were Scottish experts representing the UK on the working groups of the Council. We saw how much debate on different perspectives was taking place inside the UK. Sometimes a Scottish expert was representing the United Kingdom and sometimes it was an expert from another side.

We know about the issue, so when a proposal is prepared, studies and consultations are conducted and we try as much as possible to take into account all the different elements, including the specificities not only of the UK but of other member states where regional Parliaments, which sometimes have legislative powers, raise similar concerns. That is part of the picture. We are dealing with 27 member states, but we are often dealing with a lot more than 27 sets of laws. That has to be taken into account in the preparation of, and negotiations on, any proposal.

My questions are on the practicalities of subsidiarity and proportionality. The Commission says that, according to protocol 2, draft legislative acts should be accompanied by a

“detailed statement, making it possible to assess compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.”

Will the statements be communicated directly to regional authorities with legislative powers?

It was my pleasure. Thank you.

Thank you, convener. It is a great pleasure to come along. At least I am a witness who does not have to be plugged in, and I can modulate my own volume.

I listened with great interest to what Mr Tenreiro said about the issues that you raised. From the Law Society’s point of view, we identified a number of issues in the Lisbon treaty that were of key importance for Scotland. The change to the European Parliament sharing decision making—I am referring to the ordinary legislative procedure—the rebalancing of voting through the introduction of qualified majority voting, changes to the European Court of Justice and issues around how national Parliaments and devolved Administrations can operate are the four key areas that we thought had some implications for Scots law on which we could comment .

Thanks very much. We have some detailed questions that will be much more about your area of competence. My colleague Ted Brocklebank will begin.

Good morning, Mr Clancy. You probably heard me say to Mr Tenreiro that competence and supporting competence have been extended into areas such as health care, culture, sport, tourism and education. What are the implications for Scotland and its legislative system of the EU’s supporting competence in those areas?

He also said that he is not an expert on Scots law and would need to be guided as to where such issues of concern lay. Mr Tenreiro was clear about opportunities for consultation and said that before any regulation or directive was introduced, there would be a green-paper consultation. That provides an important opportunity for people in Scotland to make representations. The Law Society makes representations on green papers all the time and we encourage other actors in civil society and the Parliament to do just that. However, anyone who deals with European legislation or the European institutions knows that by the time a proposal becomes a green paper, thoughts are fairly well formulated and it is quite difficult to dissuade people from a particular perspective, so representations need to be made at the earliest opportunity. As soon as there is sensitisation about a proposal coming down the track, we ought to be getting involved with Commission officials to discuss with them areas that might be of concern to the Scottish legal system and to identify the issues of which they should take account when preparing the consultation paper that is to follow. In that sense, the Parliament’s initiative in having an officer in Brussels is extremely commendable.





I know that the representative—I will spare his blushes—is highly respected in Brussels. We must ensure that there is co-ordination of responses between the Parliament and other bodies and that the effort is prosecuted at the earliest stage.

Would it be wise or even possible to put in place a mechanism that allows those decisions to be scrutinised to ensure that Scottish interests are represented and fed back in? One would imagine that such exchanges already take place, but should the Parliament rather than the Government be doing anything?

Specific arrangements will have to be put in place. Of course, there are arrangements for discussions at EC and UK meetings but, as they take place only twice a year, that might not necessarily be the way to go. Relationships should be much more embedded to ensure that there is a free flow of information between this Parliament and the UK Parliament.

In his evidence, Lord Roper lists various issues on which, prior to the Lisbon treaty coming into force, views might have been sought from the Scottish Parliament. Those include matrimonial matters, postal services, combating terrorism—which, although a reserved area under the Scotland Act 1998 and therefore an issue on which the Parliament was not consulted, is nevertheless something that we have an interest in, given the bombing attempt at Glasgow airport—equal treatment, organ transplantation, translation in criminal proceedings and wills and succession. In certain areas, the UK Parliament was able to take on board comments and, in others, it found itself unable to do so. Whether comments are taken up seems to revolve around the recesses, and we have to figure out some way of ensuring that that rather poor excuse for not taking up comments is not used. It should not be beyond humankind’s wit to devise a mechanism whereby, if we know that something is going to come up during the recess, we can put in some kind of advance comment or even, as Mr Tenreiro indicated, simply send a letter.

Lord Roper also refers to the Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union’s subsidiarity pilot exercises. COSAC is an interesting organisation and it would be a good thing if it were willing to extend the hand of friendship and allow one of its six UK delegates to be a representative of the Scottish Parliament. If that proved not to be possible, some special relationship could be established between COSAC members and committee members to ensure that views could be regularly exchanged. I know that views are exchanged not only between this committee’s clerking team and the clerking team at Westminster but between ministers here and at Whitehall, but those suggestions might help the situation.

If an issue of European law arises during the course of some ordinary case in a Scottish court, the judge can refer the matter on to the European Court for a preliminary hearing and get a ruling from it. Sir David Edward made some comments about the timeframe and court resources that would be necessary for that to operate successfully. I suspect that I share the view that the court will not be overwhelmed by thousands of preliminary hearing approaches but, nevertheless, one has to bear in mind that it is now possible that we will see an increase in that work. As Sir David pointed out when he gave evidence to the House of Lords European Union Committee, there are issues to do with timing in criminal cases, such as the 110-day rule and the 140-day rule, which mean that a quick turnaround in the court is necessary.

Given that you did not have the opportunity to make an opening statement, I invite you to bring to our attention any issues that we did not pick up.

Thank you for coming along this morning and for providing a written submission. When the committee moves into private session, we will deliberate further on some of those issues, so we very much appreciate your taking the time to make those submissions to us.

Colleagues, I will not suspend the meeting at this point as we have only the “Brussels Bulletin” to consider before we move into private session. If members are content, we will just push ahead.