 Welcome to the committee's third meeting in 2019. I ask you please to make sure that your mobile phones are on silent. We move on to a gender item 1, which is the UK fisheries bill, a legislative consent memorandum. It has been lodged by Fergus Ewing, the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy. The LCM covers the fisheries bill, currently being considered by the UK Parliament. The UK Government regard areas of the bill that require legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government agrees with the UK Government's assessment of where consent is needed, except in relation to clauses 18 to 19. 18 and 19 provide the Secretary of State to set the UK's fishing opportunities, quota and effort, and duties for a calendar year. The UK Government does not consider that consent from the Scottish Parliament is required, sorry, is necessary, as it's viewed that these clauses relate to reserved matters. However, the Scottish Government believes that the legislative consent is necessary. The Scottish Government is seeking an amendment clause 18 so that determination made under clause 18 in so far as they relate to Scotland should be only taken with the consent of Scottish ministers. The Scottish Government is also awaiting DEFRA's reasoning as to why they do not believe that consent is required for clauses 20, 29 and 30. The Scottish Government indicates in the LCM that it does not intend to lodge a legislative consent motion for the bill at this time. It considers that the approach taken to the bill is not consistent with devolved responsibilities. The Scottish Government is seeking urgent discussions with the UK Government on how to strengthen and protect the Sewell Convention. The memorandum states that the Scottish Government will consider progress in these discussions in deciding its position on seeking legislative consent for the bill as its UK Parliament consideration proceeds. In its report on the delegated powers in the bill, the DPLR committee recommends that the committee, as a lead committee, considers what role is envisaged for the Scottish Parliament in scrutinising the decision of the Scottish ministers to consent to any regulations being made by the Secretary of State under certain provisions that relate to devolved powers. As a lead committee, we are required to reflect on the memorandum and then consider whether we are content with its terms. We then will need to report our findings to the Parliament. Can I invite any members who would like to make a comment on this to make it now steered? Thank you very much, convener. I am not going to talk about the policy content of the fisheries bill—that is for another day. I am only interested at this stage in the process by which the UK fisheries bill is taking forward. The fact that the Scottish Government and the UK Government have not yet bottomed out in relation to causes 20, 29 and 30, whether there is an agreement or a disagreement on whether legislative consent is required for those clauses means that any approval or withholding of approval that we might make today has to be conditional, because I think that we need to kind of know. On that basis, I am relatively content to note with the caveat that we would wish the Scottish Government to keep us up to date. In relation to what the DPLR committee has said in relation to regulations, there is an interesting point that I think we should note as a committee as well, that there is not a legislative consent motion process in relation to regulations that are dealt with at Westminster. I do not think that the Scottish Government, as far as I can determine, is objecting to that happening. For Parliament, there is a wider issue. I am uncertain as to who we should deal with that to be candid in terms of what is happening. I have nothing to say, but there is a little lacuna in our process, as I would suggest. It might be that that is something for the standards committee to contemplate, not just in relation to that, but more widely. John Lennon, I think that you wanted to say something as well. Thank you, convener. I would agree with my colleague Stewart Stevenson. I think that first things are hugely important issues. To that extent, there is a lot of common ground between the two, the UK and the Scottish Government. I think that that is very helpful. I support the Scottish Government's position on clause 18 here, and I believe that consent is required. I wonder whether one of our proposals is, and rightly, that we are kept updated by the Scottish Government, given that there are always two sides to a position, whether we could similarly write the UK Government to ask it to explain its position. Paragraph 14, where the Scottish Parliament's confidence in the operation of the legislative consent convention could be restored, is important. I think that everyone having confidence in the Sule system is important, so if that could be considered as well, please. As far as the content is concerned, I agree with John Lennon just now, but I depart on the process. Our role as a committee is to scrutinise Scottish ministers giving consent to an LCM. There is no LCM before us, and I think that the proposal is to ask the Scottish Government to keep us informed as to what is happening down the line, so that when an LCM comes forward, we then have a role. I think that the only money is the water if the committee starts writing to the UK Government. I think that we should be focused on what our role actually is. John Lennon, you want to come back and then please say something. I can see that that is a point of view. However, our job is to scrutinise also what we are told by the Scottish Government. Similarly, no one had any issues when we rightly took evidence from Mr Gove and the important issues surrounding agriculture, so I think that it is important that we get to both versions of events, please. Peter, you want to say something and then John Mason? I am very much in support of Mike's position as far as writing to the UK Government that is concerned. I think that our role and our responsibility lies here and lies with the Scottish Government, and I think that is where it should remain. Yes, I agree that our responsibility is to examine the Scottish Government, but that includes normally taking evidence from parties who potentially disagree with the Scottish Government, so I think that the more evidence we get, the better. Jamie Hepburn Very briefly, in your opening statement, you mentioned that the Scottish Government was awaiting feedback from UK ministers and DEFRA rather than writing to the UK Government for that information. Could I suggest that the information that is shared with the Scottish Government is shared with the committee? I think that there is some way to go before we bottom out this whole issue on the Fisheries Bill. Taking into account what people have said and the general opinion around the committee table, I think that it would be right to note to the Scottish Government the contents of the memorandum, but request also that we are updated. I believe that the UK Government should update us and keep us informed, as well as the Scottish Government on its proposed amendments to the bill. I think that that would help us to make an informed decision, and that should be on the discussions and the operation as well of the Seoul Convention to make sure that we are happy with that. We should also call on the Scottish Government to provide details of how it intends to ensure that there is a role for the Scottish Parliament in scrutinising any decisions by Scottish ministers to consent to any regulations made under clauses 9, 3, 11, 2, 31, 1 and 33 of the bill that has been made by the Secretary of State. I think that that seems to be a general view around the table as a student. Just on that last point, I am not fundamentally disagreeing with how you have laid it out, but I think that the Parliament is master of the Parliament's process, and it is not for the Government to decide. Although it would be helpful if the Government acts in the way that you describe, and I did suggest that we perhaps invite the Standards Committee to consider that. Now, it may be that there is not support around the table for that proposal, but I would like to test the waters on that particular aspect, if I may. On the principle that the Parliament is responsible for Parliament's process, it is not for the Government. Full agreement, we have to be very careful that I objected last time when a minister suggested what the committee should be doing, and I think that that is entirely the wrong approach. We as a parliamentary committee should be in charge of our own affairs, and I agree entirely with what Stuart just said. So, by calling on the Scottish Government to ensure that there is a role and for us to look at that, surely that is what we are asking and believe is the right way as a committee to move forward, Stuart. No, I am perfectly content that we insist the Scottish Government respects the Scottish Parliament, and I am no difficulty with that. I am merely making the additional point that it seems, and I suspect that Mr Rumbles is agreeing with me, that there is a potential, and I only put it at that level for there being a lacuna in our processes, that the Standards Committee could look at it over two minutes and decide that they disagree and not look at it. It is up to them. We do not control what they do. I am only suggesting that we invite them to think about it. We could certainly include that within the report and see what position they take on it, that may be a decision for them, and we can then reflect on that decision. Are we happy therefore to move forward along the lines that I have suggested with that addition within the report? Okay, we then now move on, thank you, to a gender item 2, which is an item under the European Union Withdrawal Act. It is the Trans-European Transport and Connecting Europe Facility, EU Withdrawal Revocation Regulations 2019. We have received a consent notification in relation to one UKSI as detailed on the agenda. This covers the Connecting Europe Facility. The instrument is being laid in the UK Parliament in relation to the European Union Withdrawal Act 2019, and this SI is categorised as A, to the extent that the transition from the EU to a UK framework would involve no policy change being made, but a simple revocation. Does anyone have any comments on that? Just the obvious comment that this has to be decided by tomorrow and in terms of time, that is not a very satisfactory place to be. I perfectly understand the logistic issues that are around this whole business and civil servants. I mean to work extremely long hours to do it, but I do think that we should formally note that. I think that it would be important also to note the extremely heavy work load of the committee in trying to achieve all that we are trying to do in relation to transport bills and other bills that we have been asked to consider. Does the committee agree to write to the Scottish Government to confirm its contempt for the consent for the UKSI referred to in the notification to be given and to note a request to a response from the Scottish Government on the wider policy matters that have been identified? Having also noted the short timescale involved and the heavy commitment on this committee, we are agreed. We are now going to move in to private for the next part of the meeting.