Justice Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Official Report 546KB pdf

---

European Union Issues

Item 5 is consideration of EU issues. Members should look at paper 3, which provides an update on developments relating to the committee’s agreed EU priorities and other EU issues. I invite the committee to agree a report to the European and External Relations Committee on our EU engagement over the past year. I ask Rod Campbell, as the committee’s European reporter, to comment on the paper.

The paper is self-explanatory. Paragraph 10 proposes that we seek a further update from the Government on the victims and witnesses bill and whether there are any implications for its provisions arising from the EU initiative. That seems sensible to me.

A similar proposal to seek clarification from the Government is made in relation to alternative dispute resolution.

As far as the jurisdiction in matrimonial matters is concerned, although it is likely to be some time before anything happens in Europe on that, I cannot see the harm in asking the Government for an update.

Perhaps more important is Theresa May’s announcement last week that the United Kingdom Government is thinking of opting out of all pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures. There was no reference in Hansard to any indication of consultation with the Scottish Government about that, although it will clearly be a matter of democratic debate and subject to review by the House of Lords. It seems appropriate to ask the Scottish Government for its views on her announcement.

Thank you for the thorough paper and for being our European reporter. Does the committee agree to seek a further update from the Scottish Government on whether the forthcoming victims and witnesses bill will contain any provisions arising from the EU initiative?

Members indicated agreement.

Does the committee agree to ask the Government whether it is content that the proposal on alternative dispute resolution in business-to-business cases will be compliant with the principles of subsidiarity?

Members indicated agreement.

Does the committee agree to ask the Government to provide an update on the outcome of European Community law and to say whether the specified regulation will have any effect on domestic law?

Members indicated agreement.

Does the committee agree to ask the Scottish Government for its views on the UK Government’s announcement that it is thinking of opting out of police and criminal justice measures, which would impact on Scottish law? In fact, we should ask it whether it knew that that announcement was coming.

Members indicated agreement.

I do not know whether there is a procedural flaw in our report to the European and External Relations Committee, but perhaps Joanne Clinton can comment.

It is a purely factual report on the committee’s engagement over the past year that requires to be signed off.

Do members agree to sign off the report?

Members indicated agreement.

We have ticked off all the items in paper 3 and completed that item. That was good; I am feeling better now. We will now move into private session.

Before we do, I want to make two points for the record. First—there was no opportunity to ask the panels about this earlier—I was disappointed that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities failed to give us any evidence in the lead-up to our discussion. Given that Stephen House, the incoming chief constable, has talked about the need for strong representation in developing local plans and Kevin Smith has said that strong local policing will be a priority for the new police service, the absence of advice from COSLA is regrettable. I would have thought that COSLA would want to come forward.

I am looking at COSLA’s response, which I want to put on the record. It states:

“COSLA is declining to attend the Justice Committee’s panel following a decision within COSLA to handle settlement issues on a corporate basis.”

Yes, I read that.

We are back to the issue of COSLA not wanting to have negotiations in front of the Justice Committee. I understand that, but I take your point.

I do not know what “corporate basis” means.

You will need to write to COSLA to find out.

I wanted to make the point for the record.

Secondly, we reviewed a £1 billion organisation in less than two hours this morning, which gave each member only about three minutes on average to ask questions and receive responses from the panels. That does not accord with proper scrutiny, good governance and democratic accountability.

I want it on the record that we seemed to have a spirit of seeking proper oversight of the developments, and I hope that the Parliament will take the responsibility for that in due course. I understand that it is not for the cabinet secretary to deliver this work any longer—it is for the Parliament—so I am flagging up a reminder to those of us who are interested in such matters.

I have been saying that for 13 years. Members who have been in Parliament for 13 years—whoever has been in government—have always felt that the timetable for the scrutiny of budgets has been far too short. That is not in our hands. My understanding is that, to some extent, it is not even in the Government’s hands because it depends on settlements from Westminster.

I take your point and I agree with it—the timetable is not good enough to deal with the budget, which is why the committee decided appropriately to focus on one particular issue, rather than taking a scatter-gun approach, which has never been effective. Your point is on the record, and let us hope that parliamentary procedures will change at some point.

The approach taken also points towards the discussions that we had last year about the need to have either a police commission or a committee to oversee the development of a new police service. We have never had a national police service before.

You have aired that point previously and I understand it.

Thank you.

It is always open to the Justice Committee to call to account any agency or party that is involved in delivering justice in Scotland—that includes the Scottish Police Authority and the chief constable. The committee can do that without the need to establish another body.

You have had your debate on the issue, so we will move on to item 6.

12:26 Meeting continued in public until 12:27.