Justice Committee, 20 Jan 2009

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Official Report 245KB pdf

---

Justice and Home Affairs in Europe

We now bring an international dimension to our activities by dealing with justice and home affairs in Europe. This is the first time that the committee has taken oral evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on the matter, although we considered an update paper in November 2008.

I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill MSP, who is accompanied by officials from the European Union and international law branch of the Scottish Government's civil law division. With us are Brian Peddie, Darren Burgess and Danny Jamieson. Thank you very much for coming—and for getting here somewhat earlier than you might have anticipated.

What are the main differences in approach between the current Administration and the previous Administration in relation to EU justice and home affairs matters?

I do not think that there any matters of great significance to mention. We view ourselves as a distinctive Government, and we wish to ensure that the representation of our distinctive legal system is preserved. Every Administration has sought to ensure that Scotland is safe and that we play our part and work with other nations; I have no criticism of what has gone on before in that respect. The difference, perhaps, is that we wish to fly the flag more, in seeking representation at the JHA councils. If I or a minister cannot attend, we ensure that a law officer goes. The general idea is to continue to build upon what we have inherited.

Is there anything else that you would like to say about the generalities, or by way of introduction?

I am happy simply to proceed with questioning. We take the general view that broad, cross-party interests should be served in this area. Questions of underlying political ideology might occasionally differentiate political parties but, in the main, we aim in our discussions to represent the interests of the nation and to work together to make Scotland safer and stronger.

What factors influence the selection of the Scottish Government's current EU justice priorities? What, in practice, are the consequences of that selection?

Many EU priorities are driven more by my colleague Linda Fabiani, who will address matters in detail. In justice, we sometimes respond to what is on the table—to the agenda at European level. We wish to ensure that Scotland's economic interests, our distinctive legislation and our national interest are protected. The JHA matters that require to be addressed are on an agenda that is set for us, to an extent, and to which we respond, as opposed to matters on which we seek to interact. However, we obviously wish to co-operate with regard to police, prosecution and civil matters, so that we can be the best that we can be, so that we can protect our communities and so that we can allow our businesses and citizens to flourish.

We turn to some specific issues, on which Angela Constance will open.

Can the cabinet secretary give us any indication of the EU's likely priorities for the Stockholm programme?

I invite one of the officials to answer.

The Stockholm programme is still being developed, so we have yet to see firm proposals for it. We expect those proposals to be published around May for adoption before the end of this year under the Swedish presidency, hence the reference to Stockholm.

As far as the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government are concerned, we want to see continued emphasis on practical measures, such as: co-operation across borders between criminal justice authorities and police; greater emphasis on evaluating measures that have been introduced and implemented before proceeding to radical new measures in different fields or extending existing measures; and continued emphasis on mutual recognition and on a strengthening of the activities that have been undertaken in that regard under the Hague programme.

A lot will arise from experience under the Hague programme. A review was conducted in the middle of that programme and lessons were identified by the Council of Europe and the European Commission about the need to ensure effective implementation of existing measures. There were additional comments about decision making. Some of this hinges on whether we have the Lisbon treaty by the end of this year, which remains somewhat uncertain.

As far as the Scottish Government and the UK Government are concerned, we are looking to build on the progress that has already been made and to develop practical measures for co-operation that benefit citizens directly. We are not looking for radical departures or initiatives—at least not before the existing ones have been properly assessed.

Thank you. What action is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that an effective contribution is made to the formulation of the Stockholm programme?

We have been liaising with stakeholders across the board on the civil and family law aspects of input into the Stockholm programme. We are holding a specific EU civil justice stakeholders event on Friday in St Andrew's house, which will involve a broad range of interested actors in the civil justice arena, including the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates and the Scottish Law Commission, as well as the leading Scottish legal academics from the Scottish universities. They are all coming together to discuss the Scottish input to the Stockholm programme and whether we make a separate response or whether we look to marry up our input with that of the UK Government.

Will you say a bit more about the input that is expected from stakeholders? What are the subsequent timescales, other than from Friday onwards?

As Brian Peddie indicated, we expect the Commission to come forward with a draft proposal around May. That will work up towards the end of the current year, when the Hague programme effectively comes to an end. We will capture the input from various stakeholders and academics across the range of EU civil and family law subjects that will be considered. Our intention is to ensure that those Scottish aspects are fed into the Commission in time for the May timescale to which it is working.

That is why we have put Scottish Government lawyers into Brussels and why we support the Law Society being represented there. To some extent, we are ensuring that you can influence the agenda and that you are forewarned about it, so that you can react to it. We are talking about a fluid situation that relates not simply to the Government, but to the Law Society, the Faculty of Advocates and, of course, the academics, in whom we put great faith and on whom we rely.

We will concentrate on family law for a few moments.

Good morning, gentlemen—it is still morning by a few seconds. It is clear that the citizen recognises what the impact will be of potential changes in family law. It seems to me that family law divides—the law always divides—into matrimonial and succession law. One of my colleagues will deal with succession law shortly. Matrimonial law also seems to subdivide—for example, the courts need to recognise divorce and maintenance decisions that have been made by courts in other countries. I would have expected that Europe's institutions ought to be able to make progress in that area and I would be disappointed if we were not in a position to ensure that Scots courts could enforce proceedings that took place and decisions that were made in France or anywhere in England, for example. Will I be disappointed? On what timescale will such issues be resolved?

Darren Burgess or Brian Peddie will deal with the specifics. On the generalities, our view has been that Scotland has always sought to participate in processes to ensure that people do not lose out because of cross-border fleeing and that people's obligations are met. That is why, for example, people have always sought to impose and uphold The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction in the courts here. Equally, people have obligations when it comes to perhaps simpler matters such as providing maintenance. People should not be able to avoid their obligations by seeking to remove themselves from one jurisdiction and to put themselves under another.

Divorce and succession matters, for example, are more complicated. On harmonisation, we certainly accept that, in principle, a good argument can be made for greater coherence in, and greater understanding and simplification of, the international private law perspective in the European Union, but we should consider how matters are currently dealt with in Scotland and the idea of putting things into the straitjacket of a system from the continent. Our system is a hybrid—Robert Brown has commented on that before at the committee—but there would be considerable difficulties in some areas, certainly with matrimonial and succession matters, if we accepted some suggestions that have come from Europe, which have been based entirely on its civil law system. We seek to work towards a situation in which there can be greater European Union unity and unanimity at some stage in the future, but to ensure that we meet the obligations that it is necessary to meet for those who come to Scotland and for those who depart from it and go elsewhere, we must ensure that we do not put a square peg into a round hole in dealing with child abduction, maintenance, matrimonial and succession matters. Considerable difficulties could arise in the area of succession in particular and in the area of divorce if we accepted some of the European positioning.

We must work with the UK Government south of the border. Currently, we agree with it on most of the matters in question. Our legal system is distinct from that south of the border, but we have the same concerns that the UK Government has about matrimonial and succession matters in particular.

Darren Burgess or Brian Peddie may want to comment further.

There is only one thing that I would like to add. Under the Hague programme, the Commission has been particularly active in bringing forward draft regulations and proposals on cross-border divorce and maintenance obligations in the field of family law. A green paper on matrimonial property regimes was published in 2006. As the minister said, the Scottish Government and the UK Government support much more the concept of mutual recognition of judicial decisions on family law matters as the best option for joint co-operative working, rather than advocating that foreign laws on family law matters be applied in the Scottish courts, which tends to be inherent in a number of the Commission's proposals. That is not traditionally accepted in our legal system.

From what has been said, I take it that you do not see the proposed regulation on maintenance obligations causing a problem; rather, it is going in the right direction.

There may be some technical problems with the regulation—such things never come alone—but it appears to us that the principle behind it is relatively straightforward, because the obligations and nature of the law in that field are much easier to understand. However, there are problems in dealing with the grounds for divorce in different European countries. Countries such as Malta and Sweden have different positions on divorce. Financial obligations are easier to regulate and deal with, without cutting across the distinctive nature of the Scottish legal system, than are divorce and related matters such as succession.

The maintenance regulation will finally be approved in December and will come into effect in June 2011. The important distinction in relation to that instrument is that the problematic applicable law rules were taken out of the EU instrument and left to one side in an optional protocol in the Hague instrument, which is international or worldwide and applies to those contracting parties that will sign up. The UK will not sign up to that optional applicable law protocol; therefore, we will benefit from the co-operative measures in the EU instrument but we will not be bound by the problematic applicable law rules.

If I understand correctly, that means that we would be happy to implement what appeared in the document but within Scottish law—we would not attempt to interpret it in the context of somebody else's law. Is that fair?

Scottish courts will be required to uphold maintenance decisions that have been established in other EU member states. However, as with other instruments of this nature, were there to be any maintenance decisions that were not in keeping with our overriding public policy objectives, there would be an opportunity to knock those back. There is an underlying public policy exemption within the regulation.

There have been some encouraging signs from the outcome on the maintenance regulation, precisely because the UK Government, with support from us, did not opt in to that at the beginning because of concerns around the applicable law rules but, nonetheless, continued to work hard on the process and the negotiations to achieve an outcome that would be acceptable. To be fair, the Commission and other member states were keen to get the United Kingdom on board. Therefore, after a lot of hard work—in which we took part, as well as our UK counterparts—we were able to come up with the solution that Darren Burgess outlined, which was generally acceptable and gave an outcome on the maintenance regulation that the UK could live with. The result was an instrument that was fundamentally about exactly the kind of things that you are emphasising the importance of—about improving enforcement across boundaries without, at the same time, having to accept applicable law rules that we would have found it difficult to live with. I hope that that is a good sign for the future.

Thank you. I would like to pursue that a little further. I fully understand that our divorce law is different from other people's and that other people have different divorce laws from one another. Are the discussions that are going on in Europe leading to any hope that, maybe within a generation, those things could be harmonised? Or are people sitting in their corners and saying that they will not move, therefore that will not happen? What is the feeling?

The fact that the Rome III proposal lapsed and could not be taken forward is indicative of there being different and contrasting attitudes to divorce throughout the EU. Some member states do not recognise divorce; some do not recognise same-sex partnerships. When such fundamental differences exist, it will be difficult in the short to medium term for an instrument to obtain unanimous agreement across the 27 member states. That is not to say that there are no other options, including one that is currently being considered following a request from 10 member states to consider an enhanced co-operation measure. However, ultimately, the Commission may decide that it does not want to proceed with what is, in effect, a two-speed regime in which some member states are covered by an instrument in that area when others are not.

Some may well depend on the outcome of a referendum in the Republic of Ireland. It is not a question simply of the attitude towards matrimonial law; it is a question of the attitude towards the European Union.

It is safe to say that the Government wants to do what is best for Scotland and that we want to play our part. Such questions involve a balance. We were happy to sign up to provisions on financial maintenance obligations, which had a clear benefit. However, our law of succession is that responsibility vests in executors on testacy or intestacy, whereas in other jurisdictions, the estate goes straight to the heirs. Harmonising such rules would involve significant problems. We must proceed cautiously on such issues and achieve what is best for our citizens.

We will advance to questions on matrimonial property and succession from Robert Brown.

While listening to your evidence, cabinet secretary, I was struck by the fact that the subsidiarity principle is struggling to survive. Perhaps that provides some answers.

I will ask about matrimonial property and succession and wills. The approaches of the UK's legal systems and of the civil jurisdictions on the continent are to an extent divorced, if I can put it that way. Speedy and efficacious remedies for individual citizens are desirable in such matters, given that people move around Europe—they might settle, die or divorce in Spain, for example. How hopeful are you that the Scottish and UK Governments' shared concerns will be addressed in the forthcoming draft regulations in an effective way that will be advantageous for citizens of Scotland?

It is fair to say that the position is not simply the UK, including Scotland, versus continental Europe. Divides and schisms exist between the north and the south and in various ways. As you say, society is fluid. Some people possess properties in Spain. Members will see from my entry in the register of members' interests that my brother and I have a flat in Estonia. Jurisdictional considerations apply, whether divorce or succession is involved. We want to achieve the right balance, but that is an extremely complex and difficult job.

As Darren Burgess said, countries view divorce in a variety of ways. The law of succession is significantly different in countries where the estate goes straight to the heirs. In Scotland, executors have a duty to ingather the estate and to pay out from it. Any attempt to put such systems in a straitjacket could create great complications and be difficult.

We rule nothing out. We will proceed cautiously and ensure that a system for dealing with these matters exists. We will not throw the baby out with the bath water and undermine the law of succession, which has served us well and has had to adapt to deal with illegitimacy and various matters. We will ensure that the law continues to serve us well and is not jeopardised.

I do not know whether my officials can add any detailed points.

Last September, you said that you would prepare a further response to inform the European Commission's thinking on matrimonial property. At what stage is that work? Will you give us a feel for the issues that it will highlight that are emerging from that work and from stakeholders?

The follow-up to the UK's initial response on matrimonial property regimes will be dealt with under the same process as the Scottish and UK Governments followed on succession and wills. Much time has elapsed since the Commission's green paper was produced and member states' responses were submitted. The Commission has also, in effect, put matrimonial property regimes on the back burner, pending resolution of several other family law initiatives.

We await the draft proposal that the Commission will publish towards the end of 2009. As with succession and wills, we intend to look at that draft with a view to inputting follow-up comments, to try to shape the Commission's thinking as much as possible before it produces its final legislative proposal for negotiation. That is not to say that we have not worked with stakeholders—we have indeed done that. In anticipation of the Commission's draft proposal, we have worked with academics at the University of Glasgow. We have material, but we can do nothing more until we see the shape of the Commission's proposals.

As you will know, Mr Brown, in our lifetime as lawyers we have moved from registration of titles to land registration. It is an important part of proving title to have that link, along with the will and making reference to executors. If we were to move precipitately to a system from elsewhere, we would undermine our position on land registration and, indeed, on how we record titles in Scotland. We must therefore proceed cautiously because an attempt to solve one problem with wills or succession could open up a significant problem in the registration of titles and the possession and transfer of heritable property. There is a general willingness to ascertain what we can do—but from the perspective of ensuring that what we do does not undermine the system that we already possess.

I am glad to say that I have managed to go through life with minimal knowledge of the land registration system; I hope that I continue to do so. I want to highlight a small point. In matrimonial property and succession, Scots law retains relics of its old Roman law history. Did that give you, intellectually, any potential for acting as a sort of bridge? As you know, some of our textbooks argued for that away back.

I would like to think so, and I hope so. As you said, we have a hybrid system. However, we can justly be proud of our legal profession. The Government is keen that the legal profession, in its academic input and its input into the Scottish economy, should be able not only to continue to serve our communities but to compete pan-UK and, indeed, globally. I would like to think that we can seek to provide a bridge for that.

Frankly, with an EU of 27 nations, it is simply not true that there is one legal system on the continent and another in the British isles. We have several legal systems in the British isles, including the system in the Irish Republic, never mind that in Northern Ireland. Equally, there are huge differences between the legal systems of the Mediterranean countries and those of the north of Europe. However, we have an opportunity to encourage the legal profession to be all that it can be and to look outwith the confines and borders of Scotland. We will assist the profession in that. As I said, we should be proud of our legal profession.

I have a final point on matrimonial property. You indicated that a UK opt-in in relation to maintenance obligations is now likely. Does that draw with it the likelihood of an opt-in in relation to the matrimonial property regime, given the close connection between maintenance obligations and matrimonial property? It is difficult to envisage the two areas being entirely separate, is it not?

We cannot take that further opt-in as a given, although you are right that the two subjects are inextricably linked. However, as I said in response to an earlier question, the applicable law rules, which would pose the most difficulty for the Scottish system, were taken out of the EU maintenance regulation and set to one side. There is an optional protocol in the Hague instrument, to which the UK Government will not seek to sign up. Therefore, the fact that the UK Government is likely to opt into the final maintenance obligations instrument does not necessarily mean that it will do the same for the matrimonial property regulation, because we expect the applicable law rules to be in that regulation.

We turn now to policing matters and criminal law generally.

Can you provide an update for the committee on progress on the two current EU initiatives on the exchange of information from criminal records? Given that Scotland has its own criminal records system, are you satisfied that the negotiations sufficiently take account of Scottish interests?

Absolutely. We believe that the negotiations have hit the correct balance, in which we can protect what we believe is integral to our systems. As well as ensuring that people meet their obligations to their children, we are ensuring that those who commit offences can be detected and do not avoid apprehension, whether through fleeing here to avoid justice elsewhere or through fleeing to Europe to avoid justice here. Details about a certain case are sub judice, but I can say that European co-operation on DNA evidence has been of considerable benefit to the police and prosecution systems in Scotland. We welcome that.

Clearly, the latest change following the Prüm Council decision is to ensure that we get the best balance, which is to allow nation states to operate on what has been described as a hit or no-hit basis so that they can access information throughout relevant states to see whether a piece of data comes to light. If it does, the authorities then have to go through various checks and balances. The caveat is that they do not have unrestricted access, so we can protect our citizens from unnecessary intrusion as appropriate. That provides a balance so that people in this country and elsewhere can be sure that those who are fleeing justice are detected and then go through the appropriate processes. We think that that is a balance between protecting individuals' rights and ensuring that we protect our communities' rights.

I want to develop the discussion on the Prüm convention. Can you update the committee on the progress that has been made on the implementation of the Council decision that began life as the Prüm convention? For example, have the shadow databases been set up? Are they operating appropriately, and are they configured to ensure that Scots law is taken fully into account?

I ask Brian Peddie to comment.

Mr Jamieson is my expert on shadow databases.

Thank you. I hope that the committee will not be disappointed by having me as the third option.

Scottish interests have been taken into account fully in the development of the implementation programme. We understand that a scoping study is being done.

Members should bear in mind the fact that although the Council decision was agreed in June last year, there is quite a long lead-in period for implementation because of some of the technical issues that have been raised with regard to the hit or no-hit system and what happens subsequently.

What is the timescale for full implementation?

Full implementation is due by August 2011, so there is quite a long lead-in period.

What will happen after the scoping study?

After the scoping study has been carried out, our lead people will continue to engage with the people in the UK who are taking the system forward; we are fully involved in that, so our interests will be taken into account fully. Obviously, we have separate databases, so anything that is devised needs to take account of that.

Are you confident that that can be taken into account?

Yes, I think so. As I said, many of these matters are technical and to do with—

But they are not insuperable. That is what I am getting at.

No, they are not. The Scottish Police Services Authority is fully engaged. We are content that our interests will be taken account of.

Representatives of the Scottish Government, the SPSA's forensic services department and ACPOS are all engaged in the implementation measures at UK level, under the UK umbrella.

So they are working co-operatively.

Absolutely. Clearly, technical matters require to be signed off, such as the protection of data that other police services and institutions might have. The Government believes that we will benefit. We are working with the UK, with which we already have great co-operation, despite our having our own database. It will benefit law enforcement if we work towards that co-operation. Although there may be the odd glitch here or there, the spirit and intention is to ensure that we deliver as speedily as possible.

I am sure that the committee is pleased to hear that.

I have one final question on Eurojust, which, as you know, was established to deal with the investigation and prosecution of serious cross-border and organised crime. The EC proposes changes to the operation of Eurojust. What is the timescale for the changes? Will Eurojust acquire significant extra powers? If so, what are they and what benefits will they bring?

I will ask Danny Jamieson to come in on the detail.

Whether we are talking about the European Police Office, Eurojust or DNA database sharing, we do these things because we live in a global world. Criminal gangs operate across borders—not only the border that lies between the Tweed and the Solway, but those that are formed by the English Channel and the North Sea.

Clearly, bureaucracy is involved, which we must seek to simplify. Some of the changes are not gargantuan in nature, and are being put in place to speed up the process of justice. The intention is to create a smaller bureaucracy in which the rights and individual primacy of nation states are retained. We need to achieve a balance between protecting citizens from unnecessary interference and ensuring that those who seek to flee from justice are dealt with.

We continue to pursue a variety of proposals—big and small—to further our intention of addressing serious crime, including measures to deal with money laundering, people trafficking and drug crime. That is the broad thrust of our policy. Danny Jamieson can give the committee the detail.

I am glad to hear your assurance on the policy. Mr Jamieson will give us the particulars.

Eurojust was set up back in 2002, which is not all that long ago, by way of a legislative instrument known as a Council decision. As the member knows, such instruments are the least intrusive of European Union measures in the criminal justice and policing field. The European Union has moved on a bit since 2002. We should also bear in mind the fact that the negotiations took place some time before the decision was taken in 2002. For those reasons, it was felt that it is now appropriate to look again at Eurojust and to update and refresh some of the provisions. The revised Council decision has either been adopted or is about to be adopted. In the main, it makes no radical changes; the system is working effectively and correctly, as it was set up to do.

I will cite an example that gives a flavour of what Eurojust does. It has established a co-ordination facility that has representatives on call 24/7, which is a sensible provision that had not previously been put in place. Eurojust also has a more formal role in cases that involve concurrence of jurisdiction—international cases in which more than one member state has jurisdiction to prosecute or investigate. Eurojust always had that role informally. The new Council decision built in a provision that encourages mutual agreement, where possible, between the national competent authorities. Where there is no agreement, it can issue an opinion. Albeit that the opinion is non-binding, it is—

It will be persuasive.

It might well be. Ultimately, however, there is no compulsion to do what the opinion says.

Eurojust also provides a more consistent role for national members. For instance, some were not located at the Eurojust headquarters in The Hague; now, they all have to be there. The revised Council decision also provides for the improved transmission of information to Eurojust and it has set up a new case management system. Those are practical measures that seek to build on the success that Eurojust has been to date.

Thank you very much for that. That was very clear.

If there is nothing that you would like to say in conclusion, Mr MacAskill, we will suspend briefly to allow a changeover of officials before we deal with an item of subordinate legislation; Mr MacAskill, you are not going anywhere.

Before we move on, Stuart McMillan has a final question regarding the e-justice system.

It could be argued that Scotland's justice system is quite paper driven. In his answer to the previous question, the cabinet secretary highlighted the bureaucratic aspects of Eurojust. Could the paper-driven nature of the Scottish system hamper the effectiveness of initiatives such as a European justice portal, which will use member states' existing electronic information?

I do not believe that it could hamper it. The two are entirely distinct and separate matters. Robert Brown will know that some antediluvian practices still exist in the Scottish legal system, but the legal profession accepts that we must move into an electronic age. We must ensure that we do things better and reduce the paper stream, although some things will always have to be printed out and formalised. There is a general desire in the legal profession to move in that direction. I pay tribute to the sheriff principal of Glasgow, in particular, for being a big driver for that.

The European justice portal is at a very early stage and is, to some extent, being driven by the Czechs, who intend to focus on it. They have just assumed the EU presidency and will co-operate closely with the Commission in defining projects for realisation within the portal by the end of 2009. They want to focus on activities that will promote and facilitate the more frequent use of videoconferencing in cross-border cases. They also intend to develop further the pilot project of integrated insolvency registers to enable further member states to take part in the project and to develop technical solutions for facilitating other functionalities in the portal.

To some extent, there is a parallel track. There are matters that we must proceed with in Scotland to ensure that we do not have to convene a hearing on expenses in Alloa with an agent from Aberdeen and an agent from Dumfries. Perhaps we could conduct such business in some other way. Equally, we must see whether matters at a European level can be dealt with likewise. We are at an early stage, and it is up to the profession and experts to work out just what can be dealt with by electronic means, by telephone or by videoconferencing. Sometimes, the theory does not match the reality—we know that from our experience with prisoners on occasion.

I do not see any conflict—the two systems can run in parallel. It is a matter of both international law and the law in our sheriff and district courts beginning to recognise that we must move into the 21st century, and that will serve us well.

You have just suggested that it is up to the legal profession in Scotland to introduce better practice. What plans does the Scottish Government have to improve the electronic availability of information in Scotland?

We want to work with the legal profession, and the first port of call will be the Scottish Court Service. Given where we positioned it by passing the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008, it would be entirely inappropriate for either the Government or the Parliament to make recommendations. We must allow the service to try to head in that direction.

It is about trying to encourage. The legal profession recognises that change is necessary, so matters would not necessarily be best driven by our seeking to dragoon the service. We must encourage it to recognise that there are better practices, and I think that it has cottoned on to that. One of the drivers will also be economic. We face difficult economic times and significant savings can be made. We must look into that. It is not about asking the profession to work harder; it is about asking the profession to work better.

These matters must be looked at by the Scottish Court Service, which is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the system, whether in the high courts or in the sheriff or lower courts. Equally, the legal profession has to work out how the system operates. The Government has a role in giving encouragement and, ultimately, it has powers if people drag their heels, but these issues are probably best dealt with by encouraging the profession to recognise the advantages that can come. That has happened before—lawyers have moved on from the quill to other methods of recording. We did not use computers when I first went into the legal profession, but now no firm would open without using computers. We have to move on, but it is about encouragement rather than Government diktat.

If not economic necessity.

Absolutely.

Having somewhat prematurely attempted to end the evidence session earlier, I now ask the officials who are not concerned with the next item to leave. I thank them for their attendance.