 Mae'r cyfan nfodol yn cael eu dynnu gyda'r newid yng Nithfyrn. Rhyw o'r ffordd digiwyr yw'r cyfan, byddwch yn ddif ei fodr. Rhyw o'r ffordd ddim yn ddifewiddiant gyda'u yw'r cyfan. Mae'r cyfan yn fawr o ddif는데요 i'r cyfan tynnu byddwch yn fawr o fawr o ddif тутiau. Rhyw o'r cyfan yn fawr o ddifutig o'r cyfan, ond rhaid i'r cyfan yn gweithio'r cyfan, roedd i gael ei gweithio'r cyfan i'r cyfan. Rambles, rym ni efo rainwyr arweinydd y cychwyn. Rwy'n fyddiw, ond ond y cyfun o'r gwaith, rwy'n credu i'n cyd-dron... Rwy'n credu i'n credu i'n credu i'r cyfun o'r gwaith o'r cyffin, oherwydd mae'r arbennig peth o'r Sefydliadur o'r gwaith o'r gwaith o'rhooch yn y ddiddilygotu cyflawn, i dechrau iechyd hynny'r prinsypel cyfu cofian sydd o'r Chymyddolol, oherwydd yn ddifrwm iawn o ddiforog sydd o'r cyffin oeddi nhw. Calwm sy'n dechrau'r ddodwg i siarad achieve, mae'n equifio'r cyfrifoedd o'r ses司 yn dda i'r cyfarref, ac rydyn ni'n gilydd i siarad arno, ac rydyn ni'n gilydd i chi i chi'i sesio ar y brud divide.heu'r cyfrifoedd, Mike. Rydym chi hon i chi'n siaradau? Rymell. Rymell, rhaid i chi'n meddwl ar y cyflau, mae'n mynd i'ch gael ysgol yn ein gilydd. Mae'n gilydd i chi'n meddwl ar y chyrgyffredinol, ac rydyn ni'n galluNGwch chi'n meddwl On the basis that the members that have spoken in favour of doing it in public session and no one has spoken against it, does the committee agree that we should do it in public? It seems reasonable to me, for transparency point of view, that people can see what the committee is doing and what our views are on this particular subject. We will take that in public session. I therefore want to move on to a gender item 2, which is a bordinate legislation. The item is to consider one negative instrument as detailed on the agenda. No motions to annul or representations have been received in relation to this instrument. I believe that Stewart, you want to say something, Stewart? Yes, I am fully supportive of this and don't wish to stand in its way at all. I have identified 14 references, and I may have missed some, to various European legislation in the order that is laid before us. I would like the Government to assure us that it is keeping this one on its list of things that will have to be changed if and when the UK actually leaves the EU. It is worth making the point that it was made on 26 March three days before the original departure date, but, nonetheless, it has 14 references. I do not want to change anything that it does, but just that general point. Does anyone else have a question? I am sorry for not saying it earlier, convener, but I need to declare an interest as a partner in the farming business. In paragraph 19 of the thing, it speaks about the termination of the age of sheep or goats. There was a proposal that the way that you determined whether a lamb was over a year old, rather than going through the dentition, as we have had to do in the past, would be that any after the 30th of June, all lambs would be considered to be a year old. I know that the industry was keen that that was brought into being because it means that it is much simpler to determine when a lamb is a year old, and it also means that it is about splitting the carcass for taking out specific risk material. It mentions that here. The method of ageing will be approved by Scottish ministers. I pretty much know that the UK Government has decided not to go down that road, although the industry would love it to go down that road. Is there going to be a different regime north and south of the border? Does anyone else have any comments? I think that because I am now talking in response to the thing, I will declare an interest in that I am a farmer, but I am only responding to the comments made. I think that the committee should write to the Government, or I propose the committee's rights to the Government to ask the questions read by Stuart Stevenson regarding EU legislation. It would also be helpful if the clerks wrote on behalf of the committee to the Government asking for the Government's position on how they will do the determination of the age of lambs and sheep. However, there is no one speaking against the instrument. I think that our general feeling is that there are no recommendations, apart from the ones that I have made regarding writing to the Government. Is that the committee's view? Are we agreed? We are agreed. We now move on to agenda item 3, which is EU withdrawal-related scrutiny. The Finance and Constitution Committee has invited other committees to provide their views on the Scottish Parliament's scrutiny role in relation to the new powers that would arise from the UK's withdrawal from the EU. That is to consider how the Wreck Committee could respond to this letter. Options are set out in paper 2, which forms part of your papers. I want to ask the committee's view on whether and how to respond to the finance committee in relation to three areas. First of all, the UK Government's making regulations, certain devolved areas, international trade treaties, common UK frameworks and whether there is anything else that highlights any other issues. There are some suggestions in the papers, and I would really just like to invite comments from the committee. John Finnie is first followed by Stuart Stevenson. Thank you. I think that it is a helpful paper. Given the previous thing that we heard from Mr Chapman about how the movement of livestock and indeed the trade in livestock is international, I think that with regard to paragraph 12, where the questions posed there about whether we should have a role, I think that I am very clear that the Scottish Parliament should have a role in scrutinising the impact of future international trade treaties on devolved areas. In fact, I think that it would be entirely remiss if we didn't, so I would like that to be stressed. Stuart Stevenson. Yes, there are three references in the papers that are in front of us to that subject, which is exactly the one that I wanted to address. We are asked in specifically the committee to welcome views on them, and then it goes on. As a matter of principle, the Scottish Parliament, as a minimum—I underline that—must be consulted prior to consent being given by Scottish ministers to exercise of the powers. That is something that I would absolutely support as a minimum. I would go further than that, however, in that there are some precedents of which I am aware, and I am sure that there will be others of which I am unaware, where there is co-decision making among the jurisdictions in the British Isles. In particular, for example, there is a small point to accept that there has to be unanimity when appointments are made to the UK climate change committee. As a minister, I had to deal with the circumstance where initially there was not unanimity and we got to unanimity. Also, there are some cross-border institutions that require sign-off north and south of the border. The British Waterways Board was an example where I, as minister, found myself having to authorise the sale of land in Birmingham. I did not think that that was a particularly useful thing for me to be doing, but that is the way it works. There are principles in relation to that. I just leave the other comment almost sticking to the wall. While I have a much simpler approach to this issue, which I will not rehearse for members, I think that matters are related to the interests of the various parliaments and assemblies in these islands. Given that, perhaps at Westminster—I do not think that that is unduly controversial—there is a case for reform down there in the way that things are done, it may be time to visit the subject of joint committees between the various parliaments when it is an issue of joint interests. It is all very well-government having ministerial committees that allow ministers to liaise, but I think that bluntly some of the liaison is really about parliamentarians and parliament, and that touches on the same subject as a possible way that you could deal with it. I think that we have to be careful when we are considering this, that this was a letter on EU withdrawal-related scrutiny, and that may go beyond that. Richard, do you want to make a comment followed by John Mason? Yes, as I said, based on the fact that the paper that is in front is in the French Constitution Committee has asked for our options on this. In regard to the legislation, I agree that the French Constitution Committee should consider extending its scope to cover all relevant future UK legislation. In regard to international treaties, again, I agree that the Scottish Parliament should have a role in scrutinising the impact of future international treaties in devolved areas, in particular. If we are going to come out of the EU, we should be consulted. The common UK frameworks, again, I agree with the paper and believe that we should be involved. Thanks, convener. That also came up at the economy committee yesterday, and we took evidence from Cabinet Secretary Derek Mackay. In an ideal world, yes, there should be parliamentary scrutiny of what both Governments are doing. The reality is that we know that the relationship has varied at times from being good to not so good between the two Governments, and that makes it difficult in practice. There was one case where John Swinney, as the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, was disagreeing with Down South about an adjustment to the block grant and they had a phone call and they split the difference. That kind of decision is very difficult to scrutinise by any committee. I think that the point was also made that different UK Government departments do vary as to how co-operative they are and how open they are. Another point that was made to which I agree with is that there really needs to be a framework for framework agreements, and I think that that falls within Mike Russell's remit, whereas obviously the individual Cabinet Secretary and Ministers will then deal with particular departments. Mike Russell, you want to— I think that our job in the Scottish Parliament is to scrutinise the Scottish Government's actions. That is what our role is, and that is what we should be focused on. On the specific questions of those three areas, I know that paragraph 11, if everybody has got it in front of them, is a bit too harsh that it says, propose a statutory requirement that new trade agreements must be agreed by the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament. That, to me, looks like a veto on reserve matters, so I do not think that that is appropriate. What I do think is appropriate is that we have established between the Scottish Government and the UK Government a protocol as to how to work through this process, because we have this mix of reserve matters and devolve matters. If we start demanding that we have a veto on this or a veto on that, I do not think that that is helpful to try and get an agreement between the UK Government and the Scottish Government in practical terms. Jamie Fullerbyd John Finnie Thank you, convener. I am just turning to page eight of our committee papers on this and letter from the Finance and Constitution Committee, which is the fourth page of the letter. The last bullet point is discussing what process should be in place to enable the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise all UK legislation that confers powers and UK ministers. It then talks about the protocol that applies to the EU withdrawal act, in that it may be a starting point in that conversation. I am unclear as to which bit of the EU withdrawal act, presumably that would be the Westminster act, not the one passed by the Scottish Parliament, which protocol we have been asked to consider. It is quite detailed and lengthy, Bill, and I think that it would have been helpful if we were given some bullets as to what that process is or what the suggestion is that it may help us to consider whether that is an appropriate protocol or not. That is the first point. I think that on that, that is the protocol that the Scottish Parliament agreed regarding the classification of SIs. Perhaps you could clarify that. We have been operating the protocol in relation to UKSI consent notifications that we will be familiar with. What we are suggesting is that that may be a useful starting point to look beyond the withdrawal and how we manage those future SIs as they come forward, perhaps building on that and developing a similar protocol to handle those. Therefore, that would be on the assumption that the committee and the other committees are content with the process as it currently stands, and I think that largely some of the feedback and other committees that I have set on or other members that I speak to, the sheer volume of SIs that are coming through is the point of raise of Mike Russell last week in the European Committee, and I think that he was accepted that it gives us very little room for proper scrutiny of the SIs due to the time factors and the volume. Using the protocol as a starting point is one thing, but whether or not that protocol in its current form is working for Parliament is entirely another. I do not know of any other member. Did any member have a comment on that? Before I move on to my next point. I know that you have another point. If this is the right time to answer the question, I have got the answer. It is just a very small point that, where UK SIs come before us, our processes here mean that they have not gone to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, as everything else would. There are various options as to how to look forward with this when it happens again, on which I am not taking a particularly definitive view. My next point relates to international treaties, which is the second area that the letter asks us to review. It is really asking for reviews on the role of the Parliament in scrutinising the impact of future international treaties. It is not asking as necessarily for direct input into the negotiation of the treaties, but it is around the impact. That is a fair ask. It is entirely appropriate that, where future treaties involve areas of competence in this committee, i.e. in particular fisheries, agriculture-related elements of those negotiations, consider them. The level of output and our influence in those negotiations is another matter, but we only need to look at, for example, the 2016 example of the EU-Canada deal, which faced a number of difficulties in its sign-off processes. Due to the perhaps lack of clarity of the role of parliaments within member states and the role that they play in the negotiation of those treaties, for example, I cite being Wallonia. I think that there is an important discussion to be had around the role of the Scottish Parliament, albeit that the negotiation of the treaties is perhaps a reserved matter, as some might say. The last point was around common frameworks. It was just really something that has come up time after time, and that is the discussion around whether or not the Scottish Government could or should create divergent policy matters in areas in which there is disagreement between the UK and the Scottish Governments. It is fair to say that there are in the buckets of areas of responsibility there that there will inevitably be disagreement as to whether something sits and is a devolved or reserved matter, as it is transposed from the EU back to these islands. Our job really, as a committee, is just to scrutinise the Scottish Government's approach to those policy matters, in my view, with the view to try to avoid divergent policy. However, be respectful of the fact that each constituent part of the UK may have differing needs, and we should respect that as well. I think that the debate, as far as it has been very good, illustrates that we all know each other's position on the constitutional matter. We would all accept the procedural of what would be ruled as being reserved. However, I chose my words very carefully, and I said that we should have a role. The reason I said that is because, if I read out paragraph 9 to you, it says that the UK Government has committed to establishing a formal mechanism for UK and Vov Government ministers to discuss and provide input to future trade negotiations. It is entirely competent that we—by default, if we are scrutinising the minister that is having input—we are having a say on the input. If we take last week, for instance, the cabinet secretary, and what he talked about in the event of a no-deal relation to the disastrous effect that we would have with World Trade Organization tariffs for our lamb industry, it is around those areas that we are all agreed to. I think that it would be disappointing if we got hooked up on some of the constitutional issues there, because it certainly seems that the UK Government, as it says, is committed to hearing the views, and it is important that we scrutinise the input from the minister. Does anyone else have any comments? I have a general comment. I find it quite interesting, as convener of the committee sitting and seeing all the paperwork coming through relating to the various instruments that we have to consider in LCMs. It is a point that I have made before, and I can see the clerks saying that he is going to say that again. Yes, I am. It is about the amount of paperwork that we get and the clarity of the paperwork. One of the things that I would like to see the committee go back and ask for is when we are doing this scrutiny, is that the papers are laid out in such a way that they are easily readable? In some stages, the paperwork exceeds the legislation by multiples of 10 per page. That, to me, is unhelpful, and I have found it sometimes very difficult, even with my experience previously, as someone involved in Lansing Man, to even understand what land management processes are being put forward in the legislation. I would like the committee to consider including in that a simplification of the paperwork process to allow our position of scrutiny to be done more effectively. Truthfully, as a committee, we have done more instruments than any other committee, apart from the DPLR, who has considered them all. We have got more than our fair share of them. Some of the paperwork, as you know, has been massive. I propose to draft up a response based on what we have heard today. I think that it should be quite focused, and I am pleased that John Finnie has made the point that it should be focused on the process of scrutiny. We should not get hung up on any constitutional issues, because it is how to make that effective. I propose to draft something up and circulate that with the papers for a future meeting within the guidelines. I am not tying them down to it, because we have got quite a lot on. However, I will talk to the clerks and we will find out when the appropriate moment is to have that ready. Does anyone else have any comments on that? I propose that we move on to agenda item 4, which is a matter to be taken in private. Therefore, I would like to move the meeting into private.