Item 3 is scrutiny of documents. Before we begin the scrutiny process, I ask Stephen Imrie and Christine Boch whether they wish to make any comments.
SP 2225 is the Eurojust document and can be found at page 12 of the correspondence report. Members will note the questions that we put to the Executive, which has answered the committee's queries. We asked for details of the UK representatives on the provisional judicial co-operation unit. Although the Executive pointed out that there was only one UK representative at present—Mike Kennedy, a chief prosecutor from the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales—it has made representations for the appointment of a Scottish member to Eurojust, which will take over the provisional judicial co-operation unit. Members may wish to consider asking the Executive to keep the committee informed of the result of those representations.
That is sensible advice—we will ask the Executive for that information. Do members have questions or comments?
We are all still trying to find the paper.
A single-sheet document was circulated.
While members consider the document, they may also wish to consider whether it would be advisable for the committee to seek outside views on representation on the provisional judicial co-operation unit. If members were keen, I would be more than happy to contact bodies such as the Law Society of Scotland or the Scottish Human Rights Centre to take external views on the question.
Do members agree with Stephen Imrie's suggestion?
I suggest that, as well as contacting the Law Society, we should also contact the judges and the Faculty of Advocates.
There would be no harm in seeking their views.
I am struck by the comment in the note that
What about asking the Crown Office as well?
Yes. Do members agree?
On SP 2364, the stock recovery plan that is outlined in the Commission communication is not limited to cuts in fishing efforts. The Commission makes it clear that further reductions in total allowable catches are necessary. Members may wish to consider asking the Executive to keep the committee informed of the substance of any further measures that it introduces to address the social and economic impact of the sets of measures that are envisaged under the stock recovery plan.
A further note from Christine Boch has been circulated to members. Christine's notes are helpful, concise and clearly laid out.
I will make a minor point. Credit where credit is due is a good policy to adopt, so it is worth while placing on record our thanks to certain officials in the Executive for their speedy and informative response to our questions about two documents. SP 2230 and SP 2265 can be found in the correspondence report and are exemplary Scottish cover notes. They provide members with a lot of information about the Executive's activities prior to and at Council meetings.
Do members endorse those comments?
As there are no further comments or questions, we will move on to the scrutiny process.
There are no documents on page 2 to be referred to other committees.
The recommendation for the following documents, on page 4, is that we copy them to another committee for interest only:
The recommendation for the following documents, on pages 5 to 7, is that no further action be taken:
I do not seem to have received the documents with my papers. Were they sent separately? A number of members are struggling today.
The papers were circulated separately, for which I offer my apologies. We were able to send them only late on Friday, although they were circulated by e-mail. Additional sets are available today.
The problem for members who live on the west coast is that a number of offices were closed for the Glasgow September weekend and the postal service was not operating.
Is this the normal scrutiny list?
Yes.
I go along with the recommendations.
We agreed to take items 4 to 9 in private. I thank members of the public for attending.
Meeting continued in private until 15:55.
Previous
Convener's Report