Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs evidence session Scottish Parliament

The draft Article 50 letter must have existed by then. It was done in

-- there was none in March or April, and are clearly won't be any inmate.

I suppose it is possible one could be squeezed in by the end of June,

but given everything that is happening, the Queen's speech will

be on the 19th of June. I have made it clear I am available to attend

the GMC by negotiation of any reasonable occasion. I suspect we

may stretch into July at the earliest. In that period, there will

have been only four of those meetings, which is a breach of

commitments we have entered into. There is a suggestion that once

negotiations begin, they will operate enough for weekly cycle. You

will know the detail of what they have set. What proposals will you

put to the incoming UK Government in terms of the relationship between

that cycle and meetings of the GMC? It's a good question. The terms of

reference refer to the oversight of the Gershon 's -- of negotiations.

The president, I suppose, is in the JMCE, so that issues could be

discussed between the devolved administrations and the UK

Government. A developer top-heavy structure because it was a means by

which ministers in Whitehall could find out about the European Council,

so I once went to a JMCE in which there were 21 UK ministers myself

and Rhodri Morgan, so it didn't work as it should have done. That would

indicate, I suspect, that the agenda for negotiations each month should

be discussed by the JMCE, and then the committee at its next meeting

would have to review that progress and look forward. That would seem to

be ideal. Thank you very much. That is helpful. Finally, just to relate

will be critical in the months will be critical in the months

ahead, to relate that to the relationship between yourself as the

Minister and this committee and between the Government and

Parliament. In your reply on the 4th of May on determining Scotland's

future relationship with the EU, you said much that I would welcome, but

perhaps the one thing I was most disappointed at what is your view

that there was no need to expand on the written agreement between the

Government and Parliament on informing Parliament of the

progress. The example we have just considered shows the room there is

for things of great importance to be withheld from Parliament under the

current circumstances. I wonder whether you would reconsider that

bold statement that there is no need for any difference in approach. Only

cope perfectly well in terms of what cope perfectly well in terms of what

I've talked about. The committee would expect to be informed of what

takes place in each cycle, and it would be supplemented by the publish

creation -- the publication of information. As is the EU side. We

will publish information as we move forward. We will make it available.

I don't think it's a question of withholding anything, I just think

the structures we have, supplemented by the transparency we are committed

to, would create a substantial and proper flow of information from

ourselves to the committee. I am absolutely committed to transparency

in this process. There will clearly be things that we will want to

negotiate privately for a while, but on the vast majority of things, we

will want people to know what our position is. We think the EU

position is right. I have spoken TEU parliamentarians who are keen on

that view. The role of the EU Parliament at the end of this is

absolutely crucial, so this is about keeping the democratic forces

informed, and this is one of the democratic forces. I accept much of

that. I guess, my sense is that we find out in recent months after the

event, when it is too late to bring any influence to bear. I feel the

same way. But I wonder what the Scottish Government has taken to the

table at the JMCEN. I wonder what you're putting in those negotiations

as the vital interests of Scotland. Much has been made previously of the

JMC in which we did not know which room would be hosting the meeting,

let alone what would be discussed. I have only been accompanied by one

other Minister to the floor, Michael Matheson, who came with me to the

second one, and that was only because we did not know -- we did

know that Justice and home affairs was to be discussed, and we knew

that ten days in advance. Most of the time, we don't know what is

happening. Even David Davis has only been to two of those. I think in the

other two, he has popped in because he has been in House of Commons

debates will stop it has not been a stable process. My Welsh counterpart

compared the arrangements unfavourably to a community council

within his constituency. I think he was being quite generous. As a

supplementary on that, you had mentioned that one of the JMCEN

meetings was cancelled, in your view, because the Government, the UK

Government, did not want to discuss the Article 50 notification letter.

Was there any consultation on that? It was a considerable matter of

discussion from an early stage. Minutes have only appeared recently.

I think they only appeared at the end of March for the previous two

meetings. We had difficulty in getting minutes. I would have to

check, but I think on every meeting there has been reference to the

Article 50 letter. It certainly occurred in all my discussions with

David Davis. It was a major subject of discussion at the JMC plenary in

January in cover. The request was simple: That we should be consulted

on the terms of a letter in whole or in part. The argument was that there

was no letter, then that no decision had been made on whether it was two

sentences or 20 pages. The length became an issue. And then there was

no response to what was pretty much a formal request I make face-to-face

in February for involvement in the process, and then nothing happens

during March. The letter came the day before the white paper. There

was a commitment, I think the week before, that we would see the White

Paper two days in advance. We did not, just one day in advance, which

was better than we had had with the previous White Paper, the Great

Repeal Bill White Paper. We never got it until 40 minutes before it

was published. I saw the Article 50 letter about half an hour after the

Prime Minister had got up in the House of Commons. I could not see it

in draft or any other text before that. Thank you very much. Jackson

Carlaw. Is the stuff of politics flies freely in discussion and

comment. I would like to go back to a remark you make, which is, we are

where we are, that popular expression about what the Government

now does. A lot of your energy, rightly, was in preparing the

Scottish Government's contribution to the discussion that was to take

place, and whatever one thinks of the response, we now have the

response and we move forward from there. , structural point of view, I

would be interested to know how you are approaching the next phase in

terms of the Scottish Government, the civil service, the work streams

that you are now preparing, the resource you feel you have and are

bringing to those preparations in advance of whatever the next phase

proves to be. I think it will be interesting, given the scrutiny we

will have to apply as time goes on, just to have a better understanding.

I understand from what you have said that you are not quite clear what

the JMC process will be. What you are preparing now to do and the

resource and structure you are putting in place to do that. It is a

good question, and I am happy to answer it. There are three separate

issues. There is the issue of what our position is. Your right to say

that this was a substantial piece of work. We intend to continue with

substantive work on the issues that will arise during the negotiation

and the desired outcome. We have to think of what we need to get out of

this situation. And you know, in some cases, it may be the same as

what the UK wishes to get out of it, though perhaps we would go about it

in a different way. So we are working on those things, and my job

in that regard will be to coordinate the work across the Government of

all the directorates and all the Cabinet secretaries, and to build

that into a coherent whole so that we can both answer the question of

what is the Scottish Government's position and what is good for hours,

the right position I hold, and how we can ensure that is part of the UK

negotiating procedure. The first part is easier than the second, so

there is a process issue of how you influence the Government. We will be

clear about what we want. And we will also be, in the process, when

we know that, of building and developing the structures to deliver

that where we are able to do so. An example would be in agriculture,

where we would have to have our preferred position. We would have to

have the ability to deliver that position, and we need to know that

that position would work for the stakeholders. It is a complex

process involving lots of people. I've been debating the future

structure of agriculture with a constituent of mine in IE owner,

Andrew Prentice, by Twitter this morning, and he has our view on what

would work for remote islands. -- on Iona. We are preparing a position on

negotiations in the round, knowing the detail of when issues will come

up, knowing the process that will be followed. For example, the first

issues we need to be clear about, the debt is one, the cost of

leaving, our position on the Irish border, are position on EU

nationals. Another issue, the role of the ECJ and what role it has in

the whole process will The position on the frameworks on

agriculture and fisheries and the de-Sir, the -- desire the Prime

Minister's message have been different and talking about EU

frameworks returning to the UK and then decisions about where they are

and David Davis referring to consensus about new frameworks.

There is an issue about what that means. We oppose the issue of EU

frameworks coming back in that way. All compentencies should be looked

at and we would want to work hard to make sure that happens. Then issue

two the great repeal bill, the biggest legislative task any of us

will take on. We have not seen the draft. The draft exists, it is meant

to be published, the Queen's Speech around now it is off for a month it

would be enormous helpful if civil servants shared that with our

counter parts here and would give us an opportunity to prepare. Whatever

happens, unless another government decides not the leave the EU we are

going to have to go through that process. We need a good start and we

have only seen the White Paper. There are issues we don't

understand. We need to see that. Then we need to work out and it

can't be a pronounment from London. It is conceivable there shouldn't be

legislative consent. It covers areas that we legislate in. That is not

clear. The UK Government's not said if that is the case A big burden of

secondary and other legislation, the Great repeal bill is the first of

several. Whether that allocation for resources is there and getting that

through and this committee I suspect will... When it confronts the issue

of the Great Repeal Bill will be concerned about the workload on the

committee. And then this the third and widerish knew of influence and

-- wider issue of influence. Fiona Hislop is involved as am I and that

is something we will continue to do. There is no shortage of work being

done. On the first of the points, minister, I mean, once the

negotiations are under way, all of us have a vested interest in the

best possible outcome for Scotland from those. We may at times disagree

as to what that might be, but there may be times when the Scottish

Parliament and the parties within it do agree on what the approach should

be and I wonder how you intend to seek to identify and potentially

ensure that the positions that are represented enjoy the widest

possible support as and when that proves to be possible for you to do.

How do you imagine in a sense that negotiation that can be tricky, that

that influence is maximised? This committee would have a role and if

that is an invitation to bring more debates to the Parliament, something

you and your colleagues were complaining about. If it is an

invitation to do, I'm happy to make sure the matters are debated in the

Parliamentary chamber. I think there will be issues we will wish to

develop support for. I think the question of agricultural structures

is key and we have to make sure people are interested and bringing

their points of view. Fergus Ewing will be key to that and will make

sure there is support and discussion. The Parliament has a big

role in influencing those things. There is no monopoly on wisdom and

there will be views from people who have strong views on issue that

bewill want to hear. It is a Parliamentary process, I'm keen to

see it as a Parliamentary process and providing members do not become

bored, debating Brexit, I'm always up for it. There is a distinction

between debating speculatively and debating substantive issues as they

are progressing through. You mentioned the Great Repeal Bill and

you will have had conversations with other governments in the UK and we

all appreciate the potential workload that could arise for the

devolved administrations as a consequence. That is something for

the Parliament to give consideration to. From the Government's point of

view, how do you anticipate reconciling that with what the

Government's work programme might have otherwise have been and how you

manage, you imagine these two things will operate in tandem. That will be

an issue for the UK Government as well as ourselves, the workload at

Westminster will be enormous. They have greater resources. Our workload

will be very large too. We will have to manage it. So we will have to

find a way to do it. Because we can't afford on 29th March 2019 to

find there are areas of law that are inoperable. The question of how it

is done and how rapidly it can be done is taxing all of us. There is

the issue of what is called south of the border Henry VIII process that

is fast track secondary legislation that will be something they will

need to do at Westminster, we don't know whether we will be able to do

that or whether we would want too do that. Some things may be necessary.

Our position is, our position will be perhaps in terms of requirement

and resource more difficult than they have imagined south of the

border, because it is not just 8.8% of all legislation, we deal with

substantive areas of European legislation that the changes to

which will be as complex as they are south of the border and we have our

own legal system. I have had discussions with the Law Society and

the Faculty of Advocates and been involved in meetings with Michael

Matheson and we are aware of the problems and the problems that will

be presented by not having certain types of European legislation

available to us. There are issues you will know from your justice work

for example in the... In the European arrest warrantses in, in

some of the family law issues. There are complex systems in place. And if

we are no longer part of those and revert to systems before they came n

in we will be dealing with archaic systems and those are big questions.

Thank you. Thank you minister, you covered some of what I was going to

ask in regard too the Henry VIII powers, recognising what you have

said about as yet being unsure if they're wanted or required in

Scotland, what process would you envisage for the Scottish Government

may have beeninging that decision? -- make nag decision. Ing -- making

that decision? I haven't seen the UK proposals for those, because we

haven't seen the detail of how they intend them to operate. Until I see

that and this is an issue of seeing the actual repeal bill. It is there

in draft form, I wish I was able to say having seen it, this is how it

will operate, can we then, should we then dupe Kate those o' O'--

duplicate those powers? My instinct is always against using powers that

do not have adequate scrutiny. That is the wrong thing to do. The

imperative is to have the work done so there is no collapse in the

systems. If you look at some organisations, I had a meeting

yesterday with the Scottish food standards body, I I think they had

identified less than 3% of their work that isn't covered by European

legislation. Unless we get that done in less than two years there will be

a huge issue in term of food safety and food production and export. So

we will have to do it. So the question is, once we see the powers,

we have to ask ourselves if its possible to to operate without them.

And I think that will require discussions right across the

Parliament. On the potential outcomes of negotiations, there have

been speculation about outcomes, considerable of evidence from

figures such as Sir David Edwards that it is away with the fairies the

idea you could sort it out in two years. The former ambassador there

was there was a chance negotiations would fail. What planning is the

Scottish Government doing for the worst case scenarios of failed

negotiations or negotiations being resolved for exit but no

transitional arrangements. The First Minister appointed a counsel of

experts that includes John Kerr. There is a distinguished group being

very thoughtful about this. I think that chances of the UK not sticking

with a negotiations are high. I don't think they're necessarily 58%

or 60%, but they're high. Therefore, it is in our mind that we would have

to be prepared in those circumstances. All I can say is we

have a range of scenarios that we look at regularly. You start

probably with that issue and you work your way through hard Brexit,

with detriment to devolution and hard brefbgt without detriment to

devolution and moderate Brexit, through to independence, which we

believe is the offering that should be made. We have thought through

some of the issues. But if there is going to be a collapse in

negotiations it will probably happen sooner rather than later. I think

the real pressure points will be the debt. That would be the biggest of

the pressure points. If they can get through then to the autumn, I think

the prospects of negotiations going full term become better. Then you go

into the European Parliament ratify xags and a process -- ratification

that will involve most of the that will involve most of the

Parliaments of Europe. So it is a complex process. Things could fail.

And the year piano Parliament has -- European Parliament has been known

to take an individual is tick views and set red lines early on and it

would be foolish for them to be ignored. We think about it. I spend

a loft time thinking about thing I would not like to think about. In

the events of these scenarios playing out, at what point would bit

appropriate for the Government to present proposals to Parliament?

Specifically, proposals on? ? If we are looking likely that the

negotiations would fail, my point would be it would be preferable for

Parliament to be presented with the Scottish Government's plan before it

happened. We would wants to make sure that the Parliament was not

only fully consulted but we had a proposal for the Parliament to

consider at the earliest possible stage. One thing the First Minister

has brought is to have always thought through what the next steps

are. The day after referendum, she said we knead to do this and this.

She is determined that we should be clear in our thinking about all

these matter and we will have a plan I'm sure of that. Thank you. Do you

have a supplementary? Yes, the increasing number of references from

the UK Prime Minister to the idea of no deal is better than a bad deal.

Is it the case the Prime Minister is saying that more and what signals is

that sending to the Scottish Governments? I think she is and some

people would speculate she is saying that in order to strengthen our hand

in negotiations. To make the rest of the, to make the 27 fearful of that

and determined to give ground. Others say there is not much system

in what she says and she is operate occasion a political basis and not

thinking through the process. there shouldn't be any dubiety that

no deal is considerably worse than any other option. That is a really

bad option. There should also be new dubiety about the naivete with which

many people think the UK Government has gone into this without a clear

perspective of the point of view of the European Parliament. It is

important to read European views more widely on this. It is a

different view that is taken. Your own clerks produce for you a

publication, the latest one of which has two articles specifically on

this issue - the way in which this looks from elsewhere. I spent time

in Brussels, as do colleagues, and what you hear there is obviously a

very different view. The UK Government say, that is just the

EU's view. But actually, the 27 Rabbit mystified why where this has

gone -- the 27 are a bit mystified by where this has gone. They don't

feel themselves to be hectored and pressured in the way that perhaps

Theresa May thinks they would feel. There are bigger issues for the 27

sometimes, and they are addressing them in that way. I hope there is a

process that produces an outcome which is successful. Not unlike one

of the pieces in your own paper, your own summary, I actually think

in 20 years, if the UK does come out, the UK will be in the process

of trying to be back in and it will have lost 20 years of influence,

progress and prosperity. I think it is that foolish. Can I just say that

I understand the minister has to be away 11am. 10am, sorry. I am at his

disposal, not all day, and you wouldn't want me here to be all day!

But I'm happy to be flexible. Good morning, Minister. Has the Scottish

Government requested an official role in the negotiations in order to

represent Scottish interests? Yes. The discussions we've had have been

discussions where we've said we want a role, but that is already

guaranteed, in a sense. The terms of reference for the JMCEN, which James

has passed, and it is important to quote them, item three says: Provide

oversight of negotiations with the EU to ensure as far as possible that

outcome is agreed by all four governments are secured from these

negotiations. Item for: Discuss issues stemming from the

negotiation. There is already a definition of the role that the JMC

would give to the devolved administrations. The exercising of

that, in my view and in the view of colleagues, is that there should be

an active involvement. It wouldn't be unusual for officials to be

involved in complex discussions with Europe as part of UK teams. It does

happen in a variety of areas, so it would not be that like there would

be a precedent to make sure there was representation. Ministers do

attend the European Council. I've been to the European Council in

three different roles. I represented Richard Lochhead when he was on

paternity leave, for instance. I have attended culture Council when I

was culture minister. And I spoke Gaelic for the first time in the

European Council. I was the first person to speak Gaelic in a speech,

and that was in the culture Council. There is precedent for involvement

and for speaking. That is also an issue that needs disgust. It should

be obvious where we should be. The issue -- that is an issue that needs

to be discussed. RB discussing devolved competencies or should it

be wider? Example I might uses freedom of movement. -- use is

freedom of movement. Increasingly, people are recognising... We should

be in there when the issues of freedom of movement and migration

are discussed, because they are of crucial importance to us. Your

clarification is helpful, but certainly, the reason I posed the

question follows on from Jackson's questions earlier, when he was

asking what you would do to represent and highlight the various

interests from Scotland. Sometimes the parties in the parliament can

agree on particular issues. If the Scottish Government didn't have an

official role in the negotiations, then it would be difficult for the

Scottish Government to then put forward any interests from Scotland.

With respect, it wouldn't be difficult to put it forward. We

intend to be heard. We won't be silent in this process the fault --

in this process. It would be better if there were any facts to us being

heard, which would be we could take this in to discussion and in

discussion with in the JMC to be able to seek positions which are

advantageous to Scotland, so that is what we would seek to do. There is

no question of us not doing or saying things. We will be doing

that. A second area I want to question your news regarding the

European Commission's proposed framework, and the four-week cycle.

Just to get it on the record about the four-week cycle. Week one is

dedicated to internal preparations and consultations. The second is for

exchange of views between the two size. Three is for negotiation. And

the fourth is for reporting back to the European Parliament Brexit

group. As well as publishing information emerging from the tasks.

In terms of the issue of the Scottish Government reporting back

to the Scottish parliament and to this committee, and also on the

issue of transparency, how can you reconcile that four-week cycle with

what you can do to make sure the Parliament in Scotland is informed?

As indicated at the start of the process, we would need to be

involved in the discussion. At the end of the process, we would want to

represent what the outcomes are in exactly the same way as the EU will

represent those outcomes. We don't know what the UK Government will do.

I think it fits pretty well. It is not a matter we can influence,

frankly, so we will fit in with it and make sure we're doing it as

constructively undemocratically as possible. I don't see any

difficulty. There is a pressure in that, and you have to therefore

respond to that pressure. There will be a pressure in showing if this

committee were a committee that would regard itself as wanting to

comment on it, it would have the structure itself in order to allow

itself to do so. Would you anticipate regular updates and

briefings to the committee and the chamber? . Yes. I am happy to go

along with the structures, and we will supplement them with the

publication of information. I am always happy to come to the chamber.

We can do ministerial updates and statements, which we have done. I am

keen to have more debates, if possible, because I know Jackson

Carlaw is keen on those. Members can submit written and oral questions

and ministers will respond. I was hoping we wouldn't stick to the

strict ten o'clock deadline. There were a few areas I hoped to touch

on. You mentioned a bit about the potential divorce Bill, what that

might cost, and we heard about the House of Lords EU financial affairs

committee report on that and their opinion that if we left with no

deal, then that would mean that there might not be an obligation on

the UK to pay anything towards the EU. Just to get your sense of that

and what discussions have been held around that, if any. No discussions

around that, in the sense that the issue of the bill has been

studiously avoided by the UK Government, particularly in terms of

the JMC discussion. To be fair, it is not the major issue we have been

pressing so far. So far, it has been the Article 50 letter and

negotiating process. Leaving without paying a bill is a bit like going

out for dinner and not paying the bill. In the end, someone will catch

up with you, and in the circumstances, it is unlikely, to

say the least, that you would be able to move towards a construct of

trade deal if you hadn't actually come to an agreement on the terms

under which you would exit. What would be the incentive for the other

countries to do so? There might be some small detriment to them, but

they would have to make a point about the refusal to pay the bill.

The results of a requirement. The European budget is set until

2020-21, and there will be a gap that needs to be filled. Any

reasonable negotiation would have to come up with a sum that was due. The

difficulty in this is that some sums were being bandied about Burnley on,

whereas the right thing to talk about was the methodology and how

you come to a calculation of this. That is where the meeting between

the Irish Prime Minister and the Dutch Government was significant. I

think they have been struggling as a smaller group to see if they could

suggest a methodology which would drive this, and it may well be that

that is where the effort will go in, and it is in terms of finding

methodology. If there is a build-up of resentment at a payment, that may

create a huge political difficulty for the UK Government, whoever they

are, to negotiate this. Some of the remarks from Ukip figures, and Ukip

thinking is mainstream in the Conservative Party at the moment,

that it's a bit like a golf club, where you say you will not pay your

subscription. Actually, many golf clubs require you to pay a

subscription even if you resign for a period, and many forfeit the

deposit you've made if you walk out without due process. Even golf clubs

have rules. That is the thing with it, because the figures do vary so

wildly as to what that could be, so I think how that can be done will be

one of the most important things. On another point, in terms of free

movement and how the immigration setup might work, we were presented

with a report a few weeks ago from Doctor Eve Hepburn about options for

differentiating the UK's system. I wondered whether there had been

discussions on that and what were the feelings of the UK Government in

terms of that, and will that be a possibility for Scotland, going

forward? The issue of differentiated migration was dealt with, and in my

view, it was a positive compromise that we were offering. Such systems

exist in Canada and Australia. I remember quoting David Davis at the

previous committee on the nature of migration problems. It is not about

borders. No one is proposing at this stage that this island should be in

the Schengen area. The borders issue is about stopping people getting in.

The migration issue being addressed is whether people have the right to

stay. You can deal with that differentially by marketing people's

passport or marking their papers that you only have the right to stay

in Scotland, so it is not a difficult thing to do. However, we

should not underestimate the fact that we're dealing with a Prime

Minister who used be Home Secretary and has, frankly, an obsession with

migration and is not prepared to countenance any weakening of that

position, so this is a dead duck at the moment. It is the right thing to

do, and it would have solved a problem for us and the rest of the

UK, but a rational solution does not appear to be possible. The issue of

EU citizens is tied up in this too, and that is increasingly a big issue

and it is a considerable worry to me. As you probably know, I was in

Angus on Monday, and I visited one of the big fruit companies, who had

given evidence before to Parliament on some of these issues, and I had

conversations with people from Bulgaria, Romania, and I was really

concerned for them, because they are very distressed, and people are

saying now what we thought would happen. Whatever the solution is to

this, I am really fed up with this and I am doubtful whether I want to

stay. Some people have bought flats, some are here permanently, but they

are looking and saying, there are other places. One of the people I

spoke to, who had worked there for a long time, quite senior, said, I

have skills which are needed in Germany and elsewhere, and although

I would like to beat you, I don't want to put up with this any longer.

If I go back to Romania and I get on the plane, I don't know what will

happen when I arrived in Scotland. I am nervous and fearful. The Romanian

consul general was telling me there was a big increase in application

for Romanian passports because people want something to prove who

they are if they live here. So I am very worried about that. I was in

Angus College, meeting staff and students, who are very concerned and

are not getting answers. They had 11 months of this. We will see people

who are enormously positive contributors to Scotland and who are

passionate about Scotland deciding, in the end, that it's not the place

they want to be, and that will be damaging to our reputation across

Europe and the world. So, this is a really concerning area.

I met with a rural business who had closed part of business, because it

was relying on EU migrant labour. There are some businesses that

cannot do without. If you look at Angus Soft Fruits, there is a

thousand workers from other parts of EU and it is not possible for that

to happen. The solution might be to move the business and the complexity

of it is something I think we are only just getting to grips with.

Many people who work in the soft fruits may work in the fish plants

in the autumn and winter and some industries are dependent upon this

labour and there is an affect in the businesses and those running the

businesses. Somebody said to me, I'm worried for the people who work for

me, but I'm worried for myself too, I may not have a job. Because I

can't keep the business going. I guess the supplementary question was

when we were presented with that report from Dr Hepburn, a lot of the

other countries agreements they have which he already highlighted, we had

them in detail in that report and a lot of the arrangements were

dependent on political will. I was going to ask if you believed the

will was there. It is also dependent on information. A lot of could have

been dealt with a flow of information and policy commitments.

Nobody knows what the policy of any prospective UK Government is about

this. So it is the lack of information. Where do people get the

information they need. They don't have it. Sorry. Thank you. Another

point I would like to touch on as well, is in terms of funding, we

hear about horizon 2020 and cutting payments and it is in terms of

relation to some of the other funds that I would say local Government in

particular depend on and communities as well. There is the interregular

funding, the transnational fund and the leader that is vital for rural

areas for in Angus it is worth 2.7 million and they provide vital

projects in communities. It was just, I I know a lot is still

unknown. But in terms of those funds in particular, are there any

discussions on what the transitional a arrangements maybe. No, not with

us and that is concerning. You know how vital these are and these

connections, these access to this money and the connections it

produces are vital. In my area in the west of Scotland access to DP

money and agricultural support, infrastructure funding, all those

things are really important. Now, you know Richard lochead will

remember when we moved from one programme to another, there was a

hiatus with the best will in the world, even if you know what the

programme is, there is bit in the mid that will doesn't fit perfectly.

We are in a situation where we know where the programme will finish. But

we have no idea what comes in. Nor do we know the quantum that is

talked about. Will there be a sum of money available across the UK to be

allocated for these purposes? Will the purposes be priority purposes or

will that money be allocated to the Scottish government by Barnett or in

some other way. No knowledge. Because of that, there will be a

hiatus of some sort. I mean, how big it is, what it look like we don't

know. One example is in my constituency the island of Ling has

been talked about a bridge for many years. But they have moved on to the

extent they're wonding how it can be funded. Until now a European

contribution would be needed. I don't know whether there will be a

contribution of equivalent monies. Until you know that, nobody can plan

for it to happen. There is a hiatus. Now, that is a flow of information.

But it is also we also require to know what the objectives would be

from the UK Government. If the UK Government said to us, look, in the

last five years, X amount has been allocated to Scotland and we will

guarantee X amount plus inflation will be guaranteed for the same

purposes, you go ahead and set up those funds. That would be good. We

would say, let's go ahead and we don't want to leave Europe, but yes

we will set the things up. But we have no idea when that is going to

happen or if that is going to happen. We can't say. We are saying

to people, I had a conversation and said we were talking about the

allocation of funds, I said, work out the ideas and come back to me.

And let's see if we can develop some plan in the anticipation that we

will need new structures. But what those are, you know, we don't know

and the clock is ticking on them and it is concerning. Thank you. Sorry

just one final point in terms of of trade and security. You touched on

that answer earlier. One of the briefings we had if no agreement is

used and using World Trade Organisation rules as a fall back

plan, before we could begin training on World Trade Organisation rules

the UK would need to establish its new status in that organisation and

that requires agreement from all members. Is that something that can

happen parallel to the discussions over the next couple of years or

wait until we are out of the EU. I'm not a trade expert. I understand it

the difficulty would not becoming a member of the WTO. We are a member

any way. The difficulty would be the application of the interim tariffs

before you negotiated that would take the standard tariffs as set.

Some would be fine, some would be disastrous. There are huge

agricultural tariffs. I don't think that is an option. Clearly the UK

Government this it might be an option. But I think the difficulty

would be great. The process of trade, I have had conversations with

bodies like the chamber of shipping and people like that, one of their

concerns is you know the continuation of tariff-free access

to Europe with the minimum regulation means that you can flow

as you are now. The moment that flow is interrupted, it has consequences.

One is for Scottish shell fish, which are delivered promptly and if

they're not delivered promptly they don't get delivered. Another is

capacity. No port, no channel port has huge capacity to stack up

lorries that can be inspected. That is why you get queues on motorways

if you have a dispute. Now, that would become commonplace, you would

haven't the capacity to deal with it. So those issues need resolved. I

can't imagine on 30th March 2019 that barrier will come down. But we

need to know what the policy intention is of the UK and have some

confidence they can achieve it. That might bring us back to the approach

of the Prime Minister, confident to achieve an intention is not enhanced

if you're standing in Downing Street denouncing the people you're about

to negotiate with. That makes it harder. You had a question? I have

two questions. Firstly turning to the Secretary of State's letter, to

you, on 29th March. He says, that Scotland's assertion to EFTA and the

EE A would not be deliverable. To ask you are you aware of how he has

come to that conclusion and who he has spoken to. And what is your

response to it. No, I'm not aware of who he has spoken to. He does not

speak on their behalf. Our paper makes it clear that would be a new

departure for EFTA and the negotiation is worth attempting. We

are clear on Scotland's place in Europe, the right way to proceed was

to place a requirement for a solution into the Article 50 letter,

which was, which would be the first step. Then to assist us in the

discussions we would have using their good offices, one of the

solutions would be to make use of their membership. In a way, not

dissimilar to what the Greenland option that was described as, to

piggyback on their membership. We had figures involved and knowledge

which said the discussion should take place. But it has not taken

place because this was submitted, we published this on 20th December.

That letter is dated 29th March. I made a presentation based on this at

the January JMC and officials went away and discussed various parts of

it. We were unaware and then that process was "intensified" after the

GMC meeting. I'm not aware of any barrier to this that arose. That ims

not to say we came to agreement. But there was no deal-breaker was dealt

with during the discussions. And then I get the letter which says,

no, can't be done. I don't believe that. Well whoever deems the

Scottish Parliament report enough to appear before perhaps we will ask

him those questions ourselves. We are struggling to get him to appear

before this committee. I want to ask about the UK's Government response

to the idea of Scotland having a bespoke with Europe, which is no, we

need a UK internal market that is something that appears to have come

on to the agenda, the idea of a UK internal market. I wonder what you

thought the agenda was for the UK Government and how that could be

compatible, notwithstanding it may be necessary, how it is compatible

with devolution and given how things decided here could be usurped or

have to be compatible with a UK market. The phrase they have used is

a UK single market. I have been sceptical of that phrase. Before I

come to just say what I think the motivation is, I might draw the

committee's attention to a paper in the judicial review, a paper by

called Brexit as a constitutional shock. And there is, it is an

interesting paper, because what it deals with is the question of how

the devolution settlement is under threat and what that thet is and it

is an interesting study of the problems and how they might be

addressed. But I do think this concept of the UK single market has

been overinflated by the Prime Minister for purposes of her own

really. First, it runs contrary to what devolution is about. Devolution

is about subsidiarity and the appropriate places for power to be

exercised and sharing the arrangements as we are required to

do. So that is how we operate now. There is a differentiated

constitution and there has been since the act of union in 1707. So

different yapted powers -- difference yapted powers that are

exercised joint lip as required. It is a bit of a threat to two things.

One is the sovereignty view of the UK Parliament that is held by Brexit

ears that the UK Parliament is sovereign and must not be dictated

by any other body, so you can't share power in Europe and can'ts

accept the ECG and that is why devolution is not popular with them.

There is another issue. If you look at the issue of agriculture it is

strong. One of the ways the UK Government could be able to set up

new trade deals elsewhere would be to trade away access to our food

markets. They couldn't do that if those things were still controlled

by devolved Parliaments, because te volcano ved Parliaments -- devolved

Parliaments would say no. I have used the Welsh use the example of

New Zealand land. They would not want to be in a position of not

being able to secure those advantages in trade deals. So they

have to control those things. Now, they're also, you know I've seen it,

they're concern about what happened over the SITA treaty and for a short

period it looked as if that might be scuppered by a devolved Assembly. If

they have got trade deals to do and things to trade off, like fishing,

which will be traded off, mark anybody's word that is what they

intend, they can only do if feck if they can control the assets. So a

major part is doing deal that are presently the responsibility of the

Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland

Parliament. This is threatening for devolution,

to the health of our agricultural industries, and to rule rule

Scotland. This is not being inimical to devolution. It is about that, but

it is also about having the power to trade away things that we would not

trade away, and should not trade away, given that the interest of our

farmers and fishermen are concerned. Going back to your answer to marry

Evans on structural funding -- to marry Evans. One of the challenges

after Brexit is, what is the relationship between schemes that

have an application across the whole UK and particular interest here in

Scotland? For example, structural funds at the moment are considered

Europe-wide. The dynamics of the Highlands and Islands at one time

had a different status from what the ad now, reflecting changes in social

development. Is the Scottish element's preferred proposal to have

a UK wide dynamic scheme where we might be net beneficiaries or

contributors, depending on our stage of development relative to the rest

of the UK? Or is it to freeze the situation as it is in 2020 and make

that the permanent financial relationship between the UK and

Scotland? Know, our ambition is to be an independent country that is

taking part in the EU. So, your second preference... It is not the

second preference, but in terms of how we would operate within the

current situation and in Brexit, my principle is no detriment. Scotland,

and particularly the Highlands and Islands, and my constituency has

benefited disproportionately from European investment. That is right

and proper that the Highlands should do so, because they have required

special treatment, and in those circumstances, we want to make sure

there is no detriment. The same principle of assisting areas to

develop and assisting communities should apply, and also the priority.

For example, in agricultural terms, one of the key issues of support is

keeping people on the land. The crofting system has developed as a

uniquely successful one of showing that -- ensuring that immunities are

not decimated and the land is still in use, and that is a useful system

to have. If you have a UK wide agricultural policy with virtually

no variation, that would be the principal. Quite rightly, the

principle will be about agricultural production in areas such as the East

of England or Scotland, and other areas will lose out. So, no

detriment, a policy that suits Scotland. I hear all the time from

people in crofting and agriculture in my constituency that, above

everything else, retention of a less favoured area system is crucial,

because without it, they will not be able to operate, given that they

live in less favoured areas, so we pay attention to the need, to what

the stakeholders are saying, to the principle of no detriment, and I

suppose I am saying it is a matrix of issues, based upon making sure

the interests of the people who elected us are followed and that we

are true to those. Does that mean that you take a snapshot at the

point of Brexit and then keep it there? No, it doesn't have to be the

existing system, clearly. If they work well, they should be retained.

If they don't, they can be changed. I just want to say this, probably as

my last answer, the preference is to continue, or to find a way to be a

member of the EU, and taking part in the schemes which have been very

positive for Scotland. I was at the positive for Scotland. I was at the

Europe Day celebrations in Edinburgh on Tuesday, and they were vibrant

and interesting and vital, but the people who were there, and were

representatives of all 27 countries, were saying, what we want is to

celebrate something which has produced peace and prosperity on our

continent for all of our lives, and that's vitally important to us, and

we shouldn't forget that. It's about peace and prosperity. Do you have

time for one more supplementary from Ross Greer? In relation to the

answer he gave to Ms Evans, you mentioned the time you spent in the

rest of Europe meeting with other parliamentarians and goverments.

There are two different perceptions about the relative strength of the

UK's negotiating position. We recently met with a delegation from

another European Parliament who were perplexed by what they had heard

when they were at the House of Commons, the belief about the

strength in the UK position on the basis of caste that we sell to

Germany, for example. What have you picked up from the rest of Europe?

What did they believe the strength of the UK position to be in

comparison to the perception they have of the UK Government's self

belief. But like everyone wants to resolve this in as positive as

possible. I don't think there is any doubt about that. The language of

the Article 50 letter from the Prime Minister implies that in some way

there is another arrangement that is just as good, and that that will

become too because they are owed this. That is not the view. The view

is, this is a mistake, a profound mistake and it shouldn't be

happening. But if it is happening, then let's get it done as well, as

neatly and as carefully as possible, but it won't be the same. And the

advantages of membership are not available to nonmembers. That is

simply axiomatic. And the language being used is either that language

of saying, we'll have a strong, constructive relationship and there

will be some wonderful pot of gold that comes to us outside the EU,

which is nonsense. And then there is the view that we know best and we

know what we're doing. It is all a bit confusing, and sometimes I have

heard it said, once by a very distinguished former European figure

some weeks ago, in the end, they go. That's it. And it's a mistake and it

shouldn't have happened, but it has happened, now let's move on. Thank

you very much. You have been very generous with your time. Thank you

for coming to give evidence to us today. We will now have a brief

suspension and go into private session.