Official Report 106KB pdf
The first two documents on the list of those to consider are 972 and 1600, which replaces 1190. Those documents were referred formally to the committee. The other documents were simply notified to the committee for information, but as a result of discussions at our previous meeting, we decided to put all the documents on the agenda for today's meeting. We also have more explanatory information from the clerks.
I am none the wiser. My reading of document 972 is that—as we discussed at last week's meeting—it is an attempt to make uniform throughout Europe the legislation on criminal offences in competition law. The conclusion is that Scots law is probably sufficient as it stands. I picked out from the clerk's note the sentence that reads:
I missed that meeting, unfortunately, but I agree with Pauline McNeill. We are supposed to scrutinise material that comes from the Executive; I do not want us to act as a rubber stamp. We hear that Scots law is already sufficient to deal with these matters, but I wonder whether we should ask for outside advice from an academic in Scots law, both criminal and commercial. That would allow us to check the view that we have been presented with. I feel that I am quite ignorant on these matters and would like to have some guidance other than—with all due respect—the guidance that comes from the Parliament. For instance, is outside consultation being sought on these documents?
The documents are not sent to us for our approval—they are not like a statutory instrument for which we have the role of saying yea or nay. We are free to write to ministers to seek their comments or to ask to be kept informed of what is going on. It is open to us to take evidence either on the general implication for our processes of European documents as a whole or to hear views on any particular document.
Did the documents come to us from the European Committee?
Yes. The first two in the list on the agenda were formally referred to us; the others were sent simply for us to note, which is why they are attached at the end of the agenda.
If we have concerns, we can indicate them to the European Committee without necessarily holding an investigation ourselves. Both committees could then write to the European Commission and the United Kingdom Government to raise any concerns.
I want to press the point that we require further information—especially given that the revised drafts of documents 1600 and 1224 affect Scots criminal law. It does not matter whether we can change what happens: if we have a valid comment, we should comment. I would like to hear an independent view, especially on the
Rather than going to an outside source, we could ask the legal advisers to the European Committee. They know about European law and may be able to explain the issues to us.
Members are suggesting two things: to write to somebody—and Christine Grahame knows the usual suspects better than I do—to ask whether documents 1600 and 1224 will cause any specific problems, and to ask for a briefing on the general processes involved with the documents. As Maureen Macmillan suggests, that information is probably already available. Whom should we write to on the specific implications of documents 1600 and 1224?
Professor Robert Black.
Gordon Jackson is pulling a face.
Professor Black is incredibly busy on the whole Lockerbie thing. On the radio this morning, he called himself a "Lockerbie buff".
I did not hear that, so that is not why he sprang to mind.
We could ask Joe Thomson of Glasgow. I do not have a strong view on this, but he is into all these things.
I have no desire to go down the road of changing Scots law. It will lead to an interesting constitutional question if our UK and EU representatives say that we should go down that road. The bottom line is that we have the final say on criminal law, and I do not want to change it. I do not want competition law to be changed from civil to criminal, and I do not see the need to change criminal law.
We seem to be getting into policy areas, in which case it is the minister or his representatives to whom we should address our questions.
The time scale may not allow us to take oral evidence but, before we see the minister, I would like us to arm ourselves with the written comments of Joe Thomson, or someone like him. If we do not, it will be hard for us to ask the right questions. Does not one of the documents come into force in a couple of days anyway? That would make our discussions a bit academic. At this stage, we perhaps need to learn a little about the process.
The negotiations on some documents are at an advanced stage, so it may be too late for us to influence them.
Would advice from the Law Society of Scotland be free?
We certainly do not charge the society when it sends us e-mails and documents that we have to read. I am sure that writing to it would be mutually beneficial. We should hear what it has to say.
We do not have to ask it for advice. Could we not word our letter so that it asks for evidence, rather than advice?
Yes. I will ask for its opinion, or evidence.
Opinions come very dear, do they not, Gordon?
Not mine.
Are members happy with my suggestions?
Members indicated agreement.
What would be the time scale for this?
The letter to the minister will go within the next week, as will the letter to the Law Society. When they respond is more in their hands than mine.
Will we have a briefing from the European Committee's legal team? Before we face any more European documents, it would be useful to have an explanation on how things operate and how enforceable the documents are. That would give us an environment in which to work; at the moment I do not understand things fully.
I will arrange for a briefing from the legal team, which we will circulate to members. If members feel that it raises more questions than it answers, we could arrange for the team to come to the committee.
Members indicated agreement.