Justice 2 Committee, 28 Feb 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Official Report 159KB pdf

---

Justice and Home Affairs in Europe

We are going to enjoy a short report following the visit to Brussels by committee members Annabel Goldie, Bill Butler, Jeremy Purvis and Stewart Maxwell. We will then consider what actions the committee might wish to take.

I invite the deputy convener to make his report.

Thank you, convener. I will not take up too much of the committee's time. It was an informative familiarisation visit to find out about the workings of Brussels, the European Commission, the European Parliament and how Europe impacts on Scottish legislation and the workings of Parliament here at Holyrood.

I place on record my thanks to the clerk who accompanied the committee and to fellow committee members. We packed in quite a deal of work in just over a day. There were sessions on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings, on sentencing and on the green paper on bail, which we all found illuminating.

One thing that came through clearly was that the more aware we are of the workings of Europe and the timeframe for those workings, the more we will be able to exert influence and to put Parliament's view on what is happening in Europe and how it impacts on Scots law.

It would be appropriate for us to invite the Minister for Justice to give oral evidence

"on the outcomes of the Scottish Executive activity during last year's UK presidency and also to advise on priorities for the Austrian and Finnish presidencies",

as the paper recommends. We should also seek a written update on issues we may want to consider. One such issue is bail. Members may have other suggestions.

To conclude, our visit to Brussels was workmanlike—or workpersonlike—informative and, if I may say so, cost effective.

If you stuck to your budget, I am sure that the Conveners Group will be delighted. I did not take part in the visit. Apart from your recommendations, are there any lessons to be learned from it about possible future activity?

I endorse everything that the deputy convener said. One of the lessons that we learned concerns the importance of regular input, although not necessarily regular visits, by the committee. We met high-level individuals, which was useful. Perhaps an annual visit or a visit at the start of each presidency would put the relationship on a relatively secure footing, although not a formal footing. That would be the right way to proceed because we do not have a formal locus with the Commission.

The other lesson is that we should use the Parliament's European officer to provide us with information ahead of the game. As in most areas, informal intelligence right at the start of the process, before it is too late—before we hear from the minister and policies are well developed—is important. From that perspective, the visit was very helpful. I know that the Parliament's European officer is working with the clerks on procedures for early notification. He indicated that it may be a higher priority for some committees than for others to know what is on the European Union's agenda. In my view, the Justice 2 Committee will have a busy agenda in respect of the Commission and the European Council. Both justice committees need a closer relationship with the Parliament's officer in Brussels.

Do we have some kind of protocol arrangement with the Parliament's European officer regarding how we tap into the different systems?

There is not a protocol as such. The European officer and I liaise regularly and exchange information. He updates me on the work that is being done, but he is relatively new to the post and is still establishing ways of working. I am happy to take on any suggestions that members have.

I am not advocating a formal structure; I am just trying to find out what we do at the moment. You are saying that work is done very much on an ad hoc, good-will basis, unless we specifically ask for information.

No—there is an exchange of information both ways. The European officer is keen to provide the committee with information that he sees as being relevant and that he comes across in Brussels. He and I discuss that information and decide what issues could benefit from being pursued in more detail.

Members have no further comments on the report by Mr Butler and Mr Purvis. The final paragraph of the report contains some recommendations. It is suggested that we invite the Minister for Justice to give oral evidence on the matters to which the paper refers. It is for members to decide whether we should do so jointly with the Justice 1 Committee, which might be efficient timetabling. Do members support the recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

Whether we take evidence jointly with the Justice 1 Committee will depend on what is most appropriate at the time. We should remain flexible.

Thank you for that.

Secondly, do members agree to seek a written update from the Executive on the Commission's work programme prior to any oral evidence from the minister?

Members indicated agreement.

Thirdly, do members wish to commission from the Scottish Parliament information centre, prior to hearing evidence from the minister, research on any areas of specific interest to the committee? I believe that Bill Butler has a proposal.

I was going to suggest that we could look at bail. However, I think that we should be flexible about things and take advice from the clerk—who is in close liaison with the European officer—about up-and-coming areas on which we might be able to intervene positively and exert most direct influence.

I suggest that members consider the question and that, if they have anything in mind, they mention it to the clerk.

The clerks gave those of us who visited Brussels an excellent briefing that I do not think was circulated to other members. It might suffice to give them that bit of light reading.

Mr Purvis is so kind.

Also, we did not get to go to dinner in Brussels, which I suppose helps the committee's budget.

I thank the deputy convener for his report and I am delighted that members pretty much agree on the questions that have been raised.

Before we close, I thank members for their forbearance at my first meeting as committee convener. Finally, I should point out that, according to our work programme, we have an allowance of seven days, with one day in reserve, to deal with stage 2 of the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. Bearing in mind our upcoming workload, I intend not to use the reserve day, if possible. However, it is there if we need it.

With that in mind, I thank the clerks and close the meeting.

Meeting closed at 15:02.