Official Report 147KB pdf
Under agenda item 3, I invite members to consider whether we should seek time in the chamber for a committee debate on our recent scrutiny of the European Commission green papers on applicable law on divorce and succession and wills. Members are looking at me aghast.
I support the proposal. People are often struck when measures that might have originated eight or 10 years previously mysteriously appear out of Europe. We are in on this issue at a relatively early stage, and it would be good to draw the attention of a wider audience to some of the—I hesitate to use the word, but I shall—loopy ideas that officials are discussing. We should send a high-calibre shell across their bows in the hope that they will not spend an unreasonable amount of time on something that, frankly, is going nowhere and will get no support.
Like Stewart Stevenson, I am happy to have the matter debated by the whole Parliament. The queries that I get from constituents show me that it is a matter in which they have an interest. It is also an example of work that overlaps from Europe
Our understanding is that consideration of the succession and wills green paper has been delayed somewhat. However, the Commission's plan on the applicable law on divorce green paper is to proceed to regulations over the next 12 months. That is contained in the Commission's work programme. It might be helpful for the attention of the Parliament to be drawn to that. Next week, there is a public hearing in Brussels that will be the next step towards that. The Parliament's European officer, Ian Duncan, and I will attend that session and will return to the committee with an update on developments. Certainly, ahead of any debate in the chamber, members will have an update on developments at European level.
That is helpful. I was concerned that the situation might have moved on by the time that we debate the issue. However, I am reassured by the clerk's words.
It would be worth while to have a debate to raise awareness about what is coming out of Brussels. More than most committees, this committee has been aware of the importance of being in at the beginning of agendas in order to pick up on certain issues. When we have had an opportunity to consider certain measures in depth, we have been able to see that they have had quite far-reaching consequences that we have objected to and rejected. To give such issues a wider airing in the debating chamber would be helpful to prevent the creeping mutual recognition agenda in Europe from turning into harmonisation before we realise what has hit us.
It would appear that the committee is agreed that we should put in a bid for a suitable slot.
Meeting closed at 10:37.