European and External Relations Committee, 28 Feb 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Official Report 209KB pdf

---

Pre and Post-council Scrutiny

Item 5 is on pre and post-council scrutiny. Do members have any comments? I am sure that Phil Gallie does.

All right. I have numbered the papers from one down to 13. I will pick up on paper two first.

Which council is that? Our copies are not numbered.

It is the justice and home affairs council.

I have a general question about the European evidence warrant. What does it mean for individuals? A recent high-profile case involved Mr Irving, who wrote a book in which he denied the Holocaust. He voluntarily went back to Austria. He was not in contravention of United Kingdom laws.

I emphasise that I do not have much sympathy with him, but the case is a good one to consider. He violated not UK law, but Austrian law. Would he have come under the jurisdiction of the European evidence warrant? Could he have been extradited from the UK, if that warrant had been in place? He went to Austria voluntarily, but if the warrant could have applied to him that would concern me a little.

I ask Jim Wallace, our resident legal eagle, whether he has a view on that.

I would have to check, but I always thought that for extradition to take place there had to be a comparable crime in both places. Mr Irving was arrested in Austria when he went there voluntarily to address a right-wing, neo-Nazi youth movement. If he was subsequently released on bail or the equivalent of bail and went back that is fine. I suspect that if there had been no chance of his returning voluntarily he might have found that he would not have been released. Certainly, the initial nature of his trip was voluntary and the purpose of his trip was to address a neo-Nazi rally. I do not think that there is anything in the documents before us that would cover that eventuality.

My recollection is that, for extradition, you need a comparable crime in both jurisdictions.

That is the point that I am making. That is the law as it currently stands. I am asking whether the European evidence warrant supersedes that.

We can ask the Executive.

It is an interesting issue. There could be circumstances in which it could have detrimental effects.

It is an evidence warrant; it is not for an arrest.

You say that as if we would understand what you are talking about. Remember, you are the only lawyer here.

Evidence is not people. I assume that the issue relates to whether, for example, a search warrant that is issued by the Scottish authorities can be recognised or exercised in Sweden. It is not to do with taking away anyone's liberty. I should say that that explanation is just off the top of my head. We should probably get some clarification of the issue.

Just to make sure, yes.

Towards the end of the paper, the section headed "General" mentions the

"Follow-up to the Court's judgement of 13 September 2005 (Case C-176/03 Commission v Council)."

I did not understand what that was all about because I could not remember what that court judgment was.

Where is this, Phil?

In the same paper, in annex B. Can anyone clarify that?

We should ask the Executive to clarify that point.

I just want an explanation of what it means.

Do members wish to add anything further?

I have lost my tick sheet. I can see that you are glad.

Not at all. I really enjoy your little discourses.

I would like to talk about paragraph 4 of the section that is headed:

"EU Environment Council: Annotated Provisional Agenda
9th March 2006".

Paragraph 4 deals with the thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste, which relates to a question that I asked Mr McCabe earlier. The Executive has not picked up on this matter but I would like to know what effect this has on the burning off of waste oil by garages and so on for heating purposes. You touch on that in your report, convener.

The UK's position appears to be supportive of that practice, yet garages are being stopped by Europe from burning off old oil because it is a waste product. Further, the European courts have said that Longannet should stop burning sewage pellets. The European approach is creating waste unnecessarily.

Would you like us to write to the Executive pointing out that seeming anomaly and asking for a response?

We should consider the issue when we deal with your report, which refers to it.

Okay. I will put that on hold until the final item. If members have no other comments on these documents—

Sorry, convener—

Do you have another point, Phil?

Yes. Moving down the line—

You do this deliberately.

Not really. I just cannot read my own handwriting on the papers.

Item 7 in the employment, social policy, health and consumer affairs council paper is on the

"portability of supplementary pension rights",

which issue is very much to the fore at the moment. Once again, I have to wonder what such a phrase really means. I am not against Polish workers, but are we saying that if one aged 55 came to this country, worked for five years and then retired they would be on this country's pension list for ever, like any other individual who had worked a lifetime in the UK? If that is what is meant by portability, I think that it is wrong. However, before I say that it is wrong, I would like some clarification.

I do not think that that is what is meant, but I have to say that I do not know why I think that. I might have read about it previously. We should certainly ask for clarification.

Rather than bore the rest of the committee, I will leave my comments at that for today.

Are you sure?

Well, convener, if you insist—