Item 2 is consideration of whether an EU legislative proposal meets the principle of subsidiarity. The proposal is for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council of the EU on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at trial in criminal proceedings. I remind members that the subsidiarity principle is that, unless the EU has exclusive competence, action should be taken at the lowest level of governance that is consistent with the subject matter and the objective.
I found it difficult to reach a full view on the proposal. I note the Scottish Government’s view that there is evidence that the proposal breaches the subsidiarity principle. However, as a private paper to us from the Parliament’s solicitor indicates, the United Kingdom Government accepts that, if there is a lack of mutual trust between judicial authorities of different EU member states, the EU’s conclusion that EU-wide action is necessary is valid.
The main procedural problem is that the Westminster committees will meet tomorrow. If members want to have input, a decision must be made today.
That is ridiculous. I get longer to decide what blend of butter to buy.
I agree with Rod Campbell that it is difficult to come to a conclusion. In relation to what the Scottish Government said, I accept that there is probably no evidence of concerns about people from other EU member states who go on trial in Scotland. However, I wonder whether the reverse position applies—I do not know the answer. Can a Scottish citizen be assured of their full human rights in a trial in another EU state? Do we have any evidence of concern about that?
That is a good point.
Given the short time, perhaps we could email our concerns. The position is more or less outlined in option (c) in paper 1:
We will send a letter as an attachment. I call Roderick Campbell.
Does anybody else want to speak?
No. I am happy for you to go ahead and chair the meeting.
I am sorry, convener—it is early in the morning.
You are doing a Margaret Mitchell.
Realistically, all that we can do is sit on the fence, because we do not have the full picture. Otherwise, we would be accepting what the Scottish Government says without scrutiny.
Can we say that the committee has had no opportunity to consider the matter in any depth?
I support that position. The committee has spent a number of months scrutinising legislation. Despite different people’s views, we are still accused of acting in haste. Today, we are being expected to act in a short timeframe that is totally unacceptable.
This is not the first time.
It is consistent with what we had to deal with last week.
The committee is experienced in justice issues in Scotland and it is inappropriate for such a matter to come to us so late from the UK level. We need time. All that we can do is wring our hands in misery and say that we cannot think about the issue in any depth. That is an important point to make.
We might want to emphasise that the committee has seen no evidence that the subsidiarity principle is not being breached.
That is important. Is everybody happy with that?