 Welcome to the 12th meeting of the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee in 2017. I would like to remind members and the public to turn off mobile phones and any members using electronic devices to access meeting papers should ensure that they are switched to silence. Before we begin on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank former member Rachel Hamilton for her work during her time on the committee. Our first item of business today is a decision on taking item 5 in private. Are members content to do that? Our second item of business today is an evidence session on the EU referendum and its implications for Scotland from the Minister for UK Negotiations on Scotland's place in Europe. Welcome, minister, and his official Ian Mitchell. I would like to invite the minister to make a short opening statement. Thank you very much and thank you for the invitation to be here again. I have given evidence to this committee before. Can I compliment the committee on the series of reports that you have produced and the way in which you are building a corpus of important work that informs the Brexit situation? I am happy to take the opportunity to update you today on where the Brexit negotiations are following the triggering of article 50. I was very disappointed, as was the Scottish Government, that article 50 was triggered without any meaningful consultation. Did any consultation at all with the Scottish Government about the content of the letter and without proper consideration of the proposals that we put forward, the compromise proposals in Scotland's place in Europe? I think that the formal response and the pantomime around the formal response that we have seen in terms of access to information indicates a lack of serious consideration of what were important and very workable proposals. Nonetheless, we intend to continue to engage as constructively as we can in the JMC-EN process, although that process will have to return to the intentions that were and are in the terms of reference. We continue to believe that the UK Government's Brexit approach, a harder and harder Brexit approach, presents a highly significant threat to jobs and prosperity in Scotland. There is a clear consensus, I believe, in Scotland that leaving the European Union will damage the Scottish economy just as it will damage the UK economy. There are wider issues that I am happy to refer to today in terms of the rights of EU nationals. Of course, we are all also EU citizens and the way in which our rights will be affected. I have spent some considerable time in recent weeks talking to EU nationals about the difficulties that they find themselves in, and I am happy to elaborate on that. Of course, the UK Government stands continues to undermine the expressed democratic will of the Scottish electorate. The people of Scotland did not vote for Brexit, and they have the right to reject it and to make a different choice. That is why the First Minister, mandated by the Scottish Parliament to hold a Scottish referendum on independence to be held between the autumn of 2018 and the spring of 2019 once the terms of Brexit are known. That will be the choice between the UK's negotiation of Brexit and a Scottish future as an independent country within Europe. We will do all that we can to make sure that Scotland's interests are represented in the process of negotiation. I repeat that publicly. We do not believe that a hard and bad Brexit will be good for Scotland. There has to be a better deal than that, and we will do everything that we can to assist to get it. We need to reset the JMC process to achieve that. We also need a great deal more information than is presently forthcoming. When we come on to matters such as the great repeal bill, I will indicate to you where I think that that is already presenting considerable problems in terms of not sharing with us the information that we know exists. Two weeks ago, the committee heard the views of young people in Brexit. That is one of the groups that will be most affected, and I continue to work with young people and other organisations to make sure that I understand their concerns and can also fold those into the process of negotiation and representation. I will also do increasing work with the widest range of stakeholders so that I understand their position and that I assist them in articulating their views so that they are heard more widely. I think that all of us welcome the engagement that is taking place from Scotland's Parliament, Scotland's committees and Scottish Government, with the people of Scotland on those issues. I look forward to discussing those and to future engagement plans with the committee today and no doubt in the future. Thank you very much, Mr Russell. Mr Davis' response to the Scottish Government, he states that it is his belief that the Scottish Government and the UK Government agree on a large majority of subjects. The impression is that there is very little between you. I wonder if you would perhaps like to clarify. I think that many people will be confused by that statement. I have to say, and with the greatest respect to David, he has been saying that for a considerable period of time, as has the Prime Minister. I have never believed that it was true. If you see in the exchange of letters, I make that point yet again to him in my response to his letter of 29 March. Indeed, his letter of 29 March talked about the majority of subjects that we had discussed that we were in agreement with. I took the bother of looking at the agendas for the GMC, the four that have been held. I could only find two items in which I think that there was any measure of agreement at all. On almost all the others, we reserved our position, we made it clear that we did not agree. Most of the GMC, in fact, all the GMC substantive items after discussion, the item was simply taken away for officials to consider and has never re-emerged. I do not think that it is true to say that we agree. In fact, you can see that on the largest issues. We do not agree on the importance of membership of the single market. It is not enough to say that the UK Government does not want to be a member of the single market but that we want everything that the single market provides but none of the conditions of being in the single market. That is not an agreement. I could agree, no doubt, with the UK Government on the need for world peace. I think that we would find that our approach would be very different. On that point, the Prime Minister made a statement recently in Downing Street about the process of the negotiations. I wondered if you would care to comment on how you think that that will affect the negotiations in the coming weeks. I think that it was extremely foolish. I said to her at the time—I said to the First Minister and I am happy to put that in the record again—to take these very sensitive negotiations to try to use them for essentially to stoke up an election issue that creates resentment towards the EU is an incredibly foolish thing to do and will have produced and has produced a resentment within the 27. If the UK negotiating tactic is, as it often appears to be, to divide and rule to find weaknesses between the unanimity of the 27 and to probe into those, it would seem that it is just a basic negotiating premise that is foolish to do something that would solidify the feelings of the 27, but that is precisely what she did. I just think that it is also the language is utterly wrong. There needs to be a sensible process of negotiation. There is a sort of parallel in that. We have tried since the establishment of the GMC—indeed, we have tried since the GMC plenary last September—indeed, the First Minister earlier than that in the discussions that she had with Theresa May very early on—to establish a way forward that would allow us to have meaningful negotiations within these islands, and we have constantly been stymied by the approach of the Prime Minister. It does seem that, having undertaken that as a sort of template, she is now trying to do it in the wider EU negotiations. It is foolish. Have you been given any indication in terms of your discussions to who is likely to be conducting the negotiations? The Prime Minister has given the impression that she will be conducting the negotiations, but the EU has ruled out heads of state conducting the negotiations. I wonder if you have heard anything that would, in light of— Heads of government will clearly be very influential. My experience of this process is that the Prime Minister tries to decide everything, so I cannot imagine a negotiation moving forward without her very substantial influence. In terms of negotiation, a great deal of work will be done by the Sherpas, by those who are essentially officials representing the ministers, and a great deal of it will be done before ministers get anywhere near each other. However, we do not know the formal structure of it, and we do not know our own place in it. There has been an attempt at each GMC—perhaps not the first one—to find out what the intentions of the UK Government were about the involvement of the devolved administrations in whatever negotiating structure would be established. We know no more about it. The position of the Welsh Government has been that the devolved administration should be at the table when devolved issues are discussed and in the room when all other matters are discussed. We have not expressed it in that way, but I support that view. Certainly, we need to have a substantive involvement in the process. We do not know anything about that. Now, the reasoning that we have been given for that is that the UK Government themselves did not know how that process would work. That may well be true, but they have far more idea about that than we have, and still we have no indication at all. So, to what is the Scottish Government's position on the EU negotiating position? We already know what the red lines are. Does the Scottish Government have a position on those red lines? We are and will bring forward our views on each of the issues as they arise. We will bring forward our thinking on the issue of the deficit. Clearly, we do not believe that Scotland should be paying any debt owed. We do not believe that Scotland should be paying any share of that money. We did not vote for that. Certainly, there should be no detriment to the Scottish budget and the economy as a result of that decision. We will bring forward our views on all those issues. Many of them we have expressed a view up until now. I am now quite keen to bring those views together and to make them widely available. I agree with the EU approach on transparency, and we will put our views up quite transparently and let people see them. I gave a lecture in University College Cork about three weeks ago, the annual lecture for the Irish Contemporary European Studies Institute. I talked there about our great strong support for work being done by the UK Government and the Irish Government to ensure that the border issue was settled constructively. We have taken positions on that. We have taken a position on the EU nationals and the need for immediate recognition of their right to remain. That should have been cleared off, frankly, 11 months ago. Finally, on the Scottish Government's position in the European paper that was published last year, and that has now been dismissed by the UK Government, what does the Scottish Government hope to get out of it? Is it still your position that you want a differentiated solution? If that were to re-emerge as an issue, of course it would be our position, but I do not think that it will re-emerge as an issue. There was a very strong attempt by ourselves and by the Welsh to ensure that Wales and Scotland were referred to in the article 50 letter as areas where there should be a differentiated approach, just as Northern Ireland was referred to and appears to be in a forgetfulness about mentioning Gibraltar in that regard, which we might have been able to help with had we been consulted on the letter. That was a key issue. Our view was that, had that been in the article 50 letter, it would have been placed on the table and therefore would have been part of the negotiating process. We believe that that was a perfectly feasible thing to happen. We are now where we are on this. A lot of the work in Scotland's place of Europe is still very valuable. It would not be impossible for the Prime Minister, for example, to look at the devolved issues again and to say that that makes a great deal of sense, but we have laid out what we now believe should happen. The process of negotiation will continue, we will support that, we will try to assist the UK in getting the best possible deal, but it is then the right thing for the people of Scotland to be able to choose, to be able to choose whatever the outcome is, and the position of Scotland as an independent member of the EU. That is the right choice for the people of Scotland to make and we will ensure that they are able to make it, which is, of course, the view of the Scottish Parliament, because the Scottish Parliament has voted in the majority for that view. Thank you very much. I will now hand over to Lewis MacDonald. Thank you very much. Minister, you have already referred to the election. I am sure that you will recognise that the democratic choice of the British people to make a different choice of government and a different choice of strategy in relation to Brexit is important to acknowledge at the beginning of this session. I would want to distinguish between the relationship of the Scottish Government with our future UK Government and what we have seen in recent months in the relationship with the outgoing Conservative Government. Particularly, I would like to start with the exchange of letters that I know you released a few days ago. David Mundell wrote to the committee on 3 April and referred to a letter that you had received from David Davis on 29 March. I wonder if you would outline why it took from 3 April until 27 April for either Government to release that document and the circumstances. I would be very happy to do so. Before I do so, I want to acknowledge the absolute correctness of the point that you make in relation to the choice of Government. There is an election pending. We cannot second guess the outcome of that election, but, quite clearly, our view is that Scotland should be within the EU, and that is where we are. It is an interesting set of issues. We were asked by your clerk for those letters. The Scottish Government replied to your clerk saying that, in the provisions of the memorandum of understanding between the UK Government and devolved Administrations, we could not supply a copy since the UK Government was considered the owner of the letter under the memorandum of understanding and it was not released into the public domain. In other words, we had no objection, but there is an MOU. The MOU says that, if you are the owner of the letter, you get to say it, so, quite rightly, we said, go and ask the UK. What we did not expect was that the Department of Education and Skills in the UK said that it really did not want to release it. It was their decision and they did not want to release it. There it would have probably stayed. I was perfectly happy for my response to be published in No Difficulties at All. The Secretary of State for Scotland then said in the House of Commons on 19 April that Scotland's place in Europe did play an important part in the Government's thinking, just so that the hecklers opposite are clear that the Government has formally responded to the Scottish Government in relation to Scotland's place in Europe and, surprisingly, the Scottish Government asked us not to publish our response. That is untrue. There was no such request. In those circumstances, my view was absolutely clearly that both letters should then be published. I may have breached the memorandum of understanding, but I have done so because that statement is untrue. You now have the letters in front of you, you can see what the exchange was about, and you can see the differences of opinion. There are perfectly polite letters. I also, in context, saw David Davis on Monday of that week—I think that's the 27th—in Glasgow, when the Prime Minister saw—the First Minister, David, came to Glasgow as well, and I had a meeting with him. I spoke to him on the phone I think on the evening of the 29th, and I had seen the letter about half an hour before. During that phone call, I said to him, look, I disagree with this letter, and I particularly disagree with your assertion that we've agreed on lots of things. I think he's at once was, yes, I thought you would. It was a perfectly amical discussion, and then I responded to him some time later. That was also the recess week, so it took a little bit of time to get that response, and I responded to them. You have that in front of them. I've had conversations with him regularly, I won't go into the detail of all of them. I've had private meetings, bilateral meetings, and I've had phone conversations, so there has been a debate and discussion. I'm not averse to letters being published. I think that we're all in the glare of publicity. I just think that perhaps the Secretary of State for Scotland should have stuck to the actual facts. Thank you very much. I'm grateful for the full outline on that, and I understand the basis for on which you made the judgment, as you say, to breach the memorandum of understanding in order to put those letters in the public domain, and it's absolutely right that they should be in the public domain, and mysterious as to why the UK Government was reluctant to do that. I wonder if you can tell us are there any implications from the decision that you made to breach that memorandum of understanding. I'm fine. Nobody's yet told me I shouldn't have done it, but I may receive that information at the next GMC. I should point out that we don't have a date for a future GMC. We've had four GMC ENs in November, December, January and February. The last was on the eighth of February. I've had two meetings with David Davis since then. I've had a number of phone calls, but the commitment to monthly GMC ENs was breached. There wasn't one in March. I think that was because it would have been increasingly difficult in the March meeting to say to the members that they can't see the draft article 50 letter, because it must have existed by then. There have been none in April. There clearly won't be any in May. I suppose that it's technically possible that one could be squeezed in by the end of June, but given everything that's happening, the Queen's Speech will be on 19 June. I've made it clear that I am available to attend the GMC by negotiation on any reasonable occasion. I suspect that we may stretch into early July at the earliest one, so that will have been in that period of time only four of those meetings. That also breaches a commitment that was entered into. The European Commission's consideration of these matters suggests that once negotiations begin, they will operate in a four-weekly cycle. You will know the detail of what they have said. What proposals will you put to the incoming UK Government in terms of the relationship between that cycle and meetings of the GMC? Clearly, the terms of reference to the GMC, and it's a very good question, the terms of reference to the GMC refers to the oversight of the negotiations, insofar as devolved competencies are concerned. Clearly, they would have to fit in with that. The precedent, I suppose, is in the GMC, which was always meant to meet in advance of the European Council, so that the agenda for the European Council could be discussed between the devolved administrations and the UK departments. It developed a very top-heavy structure, because it was a means by which all the ministers in the Whitehall departments would find out about the European Council. I once went to a GMC in which I think there were 21 UK ministers, myself and Rodri Morgan. It didn't really work as it should have done, but that would indicate, I suspect, that the agenda for the negotiations each month should be discussed by the GMCEN in the first week of the cycle, I would think, and then the committee would have to probably come back 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 very helpful. I think that that process is going to be critical over the months ahead, to relate that to the relationship between yourself as the minister and the committee and between the Government and Parliament. In your reply of 4 May in reference to our report 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 was your view that there was no need to expand on the written agreement between the Government and the Parliament on informing Parliament of the process. Now, the example that we have just considered shows the room that there is for things of great importance to be withheld from Parliament, not necessarily by your choice but nonetheless under the circumstances that currently apply. I wonder, therefore, whether you would reconsider that bold statement that there is no need for any difference in approach to a parliamentary capability? Only because the existing structure can cope perfectly well with what I have just talked about in terms of how it would work, the committee would expect to be informed of what has taken place in each of those cycles. It will also be supplemented by the publication of information, just as the EU is committed to the publication of information as the process continues and the issue of transparency, as I have indicated earlier on, so are we. We will publish information as we move forward and make it available. I do not think that there is a question of withholding anything. I just think that the structures that we have supplemented by the transparency that 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 actually the vast majority of things we want people to know what our position is and we think that the EU position is right on this. I have had conversations with a range of European parliamentarians who are also of that view and, of course, who will be keen observers because the role of the European Parliament at the end of this process is absolutely crucial. This is about keeping all the democratic forces informed and this is one of the democratic forces. I accept and support much of that. I guess that part of my sense of the problems in recent months has been how much we have learned after the event when it is too late for any influence to be brought to bear. You may feel the same. I wonder, though, in terms of what the Scottish Government has taken to the table at JMC and how far you think it would be useful to let us know what you are putting to UK Government colleagues as the vital interests of Scotland in those negotiations. It is quite important to recognise, in an ideal world, that we would be in a position to know more before the GMC than we have been. Much has been made previously of the GMC in which we did not even know the room that we were going to be in, let alone what was really on the agenda. We have been seeing agendas a day before, two days before maximum. We have not been in a position. One of the reasons that I have only been accompanied by one other minister to the fore, which was Michael Matheson, came with me to the second one, was because we did know that justice and home affairs was to be an issue then and we agreed that well in advance, but ten days is perhaps a week in advance. Most of the time, we have not known what has been happening. The standing items have been an update from the chair, but even David Davis has only been to two of those meetings throughout the meeting. I think that the other two he has popped in because he has been in House of Commons debates. It has not been a stable process. I noticed that Mark Drakeford, my Welsh counterpart, compared the arrangements unfavourably to a community council within his constituency. I think that he was being quite generous. Just a quick supplementary on that. Minister, you had mentioned that one of the GMC meetings was cancelled in your view because the UK Government did not want to discuss the article 15 notification letter. Was there any consultation at all on the article 15 notification letter? No, it was a considerable matter of discussion from a very early stage. Minutes have only appeared recently. Minutes have only appeared at the end of March for the two previous meetings with difficulty in getting minutes. I would have to check, but I think that on every meeting that has been referenced, the article 15 letter certainly occurred in all my discussions with David Davis, I would say, pretty much all. It was a major subject of discussion at the GMC plenary in the end of January in Cardiff. A request was very simple, that we should be consulted upon the terms of the letter in whole or in part. The argument was that there was no letter. The argument was that no decision had been made whether the letter was two sentences or 20 pages. That became quite an issue for a period of time. The length of the letter became quite an issue. Then there was no response to what was pretty much a formal request that I made face-to-face in February for involvement in the process. Then nothing happened during March. We saw that the letter came a day before the white paper. There was a commitment, I think, a week before that we would see the white paper two days in advance, but we did see it a day in advance, which was much better than we had in the previous white paper. That was a great repeal bill. The previous white paper, we were promised the day before and never got it until 14 minutes before it was published. In terms of the article 50 letter, I said this publicly before, but I just put it back on the record. I saw the article 50 letter about half an hour after the Prime Minister had got up in the House of Cards. I didn't see it in draft or in any other text before then. Thank you very much, Jackson Carlaw. Actually, Lewis MacDonald has covered a lot of the ground, I would like to, with a general election under way. Of course, the stuff of politics flies freely in discussion and comment. I would like to just go back to our remark that you made, which is where we are, that kind of 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. Whatever one thinks of the response, we have now got the response and we move forward from there. I am interested to know from a structural point of view how you are now approaching the next phase in terms of the Scottish Government, the civil service, the work streams that you are now preparing, the resource that you feel you have and are bringing to those preparations in advance of whatever the next phase proves to be. I think that it would be interesting, given the scrutiny that we will have to apply as time goes on, to have a better understanding of and I understand from what you have said that you are still not clear what the GMC contributory process will be, but what you are now preparing to do and the resource and structure that you are putting in place to do that? Yes, it is a very good question and I am happy to answer it. Let me deal with three separate issues. There is the issue of what our position is. You are 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 from those issues. Scotland will have to have a desired outcome from all the issues. What do we actually need to get out of this situation? In some cases, that may be the same as what the UK wishes to get out of it, that perhaps we would go about it in a different way, but we are working on those things. My job in that regard will be to co-ordinate 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 position of what is the Scottish Government's position on this and what we wish to see happen and what is good for us, which is the right position to hold and how we can ensure that that is part of the UK negotiating procedure. The first part of that is much easier than the second, so there is a process issue of how you influence the UK Government. We have discussed that and discussed that again, but we will be clear about what we want. 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, of course, would be in agriculture, where we would have to have our preferred position. We would have to have the ability to deliver that preferred position. We need to know that that preferred position would work for the stakeholders. It is a complex process in which we are involving lots and lots of people. I have been debating the future structure of agriculture with a constituent of mine in Iona, Andrew Prentis, by Twitter this morning. He has views about what will work for remote islands in terms of agricultural support, so that type of thing that needs to be folded into. There is the issue of preparing our position on negotiations in the round, knowing the detail and when issues will be got, knowing the process that will be followed. For example, the first issues that we need to be clear about our preferred position have indicated them. The debt is one, the cost of leaving, our position on the Irish border, our position on EU nationals, our position on another issue that will arise in that first round, which is the role of the ECJ and what role it has in the whole process. Our position then on all the devolved issues that will be affected, the position on the frameworks on agriculture and fisheries, for example. The desire, the terms of the letters and the Prime Minister's message have been slightly different. The Prime Minister is talking about UK frameworks returning to the UK and then decisions about where they are. David Davis referred to consensus about new frameworks. There is an issue to find out precisely what that means. We oppose the issue of EU frameworks coming back to UK in that way. All competencies should be devolved directly. That is a Welsh position too. It is, I think, substantially the Northern Irish position, whether to be one at this stage. We would want to work very hard to make sure that that happens. That is issue 1. Issue 2 is the great repeal bill. It is tremendously complex. The biggest legislative task that any of us will ever take on, we have not seen the draft. The draft exists. It was meant to be published. The Queen's Speech, around about now, is off for a month. It would be enormously helpful. I say that very clearly. It would be enormously helpful if civil servants were sharing that with their counterparts here. It would give us an opportunity to prepare. Whatever happens, unless another Government decides not to leave the EU, we are going to have to go through that process. We need a good start on it. We have only seen the white paper. The white paper is huge. Jubiates are issues that we do not fully understand. We need to see that. Then we need to work out. It cannot be an ex-cathedra pronouncement. From London, we need to know about the legislative consent and other processes. It is inconceivable to me that there should not be legislative consent given where we are, given that we will cover areas that we legislate in precisely what we have to legislate in the consent process. That is not clear. The UK Government has not said whether that is the case or not. It is a big burden of secondary legislation and other legislation, because the Great Repeal Bill is only the first of several, maybe 10 or 12 bills. How that works in, where our resource allocation is there, you are right with that. There is a lot of work being done on that resource allocation. When it confronts the issue of Great Repeal Bill, we will be concerned about the workload on this committee. There are issues for the Parliament in there, too. Then there is the third and wider issue of influence and making sure that our position is understood. That is something that we continue to do. My colleague Fiona Hyslop is very active in it. I am involved in certain places making sure that people understand what our position is. That is something that we will have to continue to do. There is no shortage of work being done in preparation. On the first of those points, I mean that 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 agree on what the approach should be. 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 so to do. How do you imagine, in the sense that you are feeding into a negotiation, which can sometimes be quite tricky and operate in all different levels, that that influence is maximised in every possible way? This committee would have a role, and if that is an invitation for me to bring more European and EU debates to the Parliament, something that I think you and your colleagues were complaining about at some stage. If it is an invitation to do so, I am very happy to make sure that these matters are debated in the parliamentary chamber. I think that there will be issues that we will wish to develop support for. I think that the question of agricultural structures is a key one. We will have to make sure that people are interested in bringing their points of view. Fergus Ewing will be key to that. He will want to make sure that he is reaching out through relevant committees and making sure that there is support and there is discussion. This Parliament has a big role in influencing those things too. There is no monopoly of wisdom on positions being taken and there will be views from people who have strong views on issues that we will want to hear. It is a parliamentary process. I am quite keen to see it as a parliamentary process. Providing members do not become bored debating Brexit issues, I am always up for it. Of course, there is a distinction between debating highly speculatively and debating the substantive issues as they are progressing through. You mentioned the Great Repeal Bill and no doubt you will have had conversations with the Scottish Government and other Governments in the United Kingdom. I think that we all appreciate the potential workload that could arise for the devolved Administrations as a consequence, and that is something for the Parliament to give consideration to as well. From the Government's point of view, how do you anticipate reconciling that with what the Government's work programme might have otherwise been and how you imagine those two things will operate in tandem? That will be an issue for the UK Government as well as for ourselves. The workload at Westminster on those bills will be enormous. They have greater resources and a larger number of members. 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 cannot afford, on 29 March 2019, to find that there are substantive areas of law that are inoperable. It will have to be done. The question of how it is done and how rapidly it could be done is taxing all of us. There is the issue of what is called south of the border Henry VIII powers, but, essentially, it is fast-tracking without parliamentary process or due parliamentary process whole sways of secondary legislation. That will be something that they will need to do at Westminster. We do not know whether we will be able to do that or whether we would want to do that, some things that may be necessary. Our position will be, perhaps, in terms of requirement resource, more difficult than they have imagined south of the border, because it is not just 8.8 per cent of all legislation. We deal with some very substantive areas of European legislation, which will be as complex as they are in south of the border. We also have our own legal system. I have had discussions with the Law Society, with the Faculty of Advocates, and I have been involved at round-table meetings with Michael Matheson and various stakeholders. We are very, very aware of those problems, and of the problems that will be presented by not having certain types of European legislation available to us. There are issues that you will know from your justice work, for example, in the European arrest warrants and in some of the family law issues. There are complex but very effective systems in place. If we are no longer part of those and if we revert to systems before they came in, we will not have operability across Europe. We will be dealing essentially with our cake systems, and there are other systems operated across the 27th. Those are very big questions that will need to be resolved even before we undertake the legislative process. Minister, you covered substantially some of what I was going to ask in regard to the Henry VIII powers, but it is very brief on the back of that, recognising what you have just said about as-yet being unsure if they are wanted or required in Scotland. What process would you envisage for the Scottish Government making that decision? Obviously, it is a substantive decision to make to use those powers that some would say circumnavigate parliamentary scrutiny. We have not seen the UK proposals for those, because we have not 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, our officials having seen it, this is how it will operate there. Can we then, should we then duplicate those powers assuming the bill will give them to us, or will we find another route? 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 this work done so that there is no collapse in systems. If you look at some organisation—I had a very interesting meeting yesterday, I am sure that they would not mind me saying so—with the Scottish Food Standards body, I think that they identified less than 3 per cent of their work that is not covered by European regulation and legislation. Unless we get that done in less than two years, then there is going to be a huge issue in terms of food safety and food production and food export. We will have to do it. Once we see the powers, we have to ask ourselves if it is possible to operate without them. If it is not possible to operate without them, we will have to ensure that there is as wide as possible support for us to operate with them. That will require discussions right across the Parliament. On the potential outcomes of negotiations, there has been a considerable amount of speculation about potential outcomes, considerable amount of evidence given by substantial figures. Professor Sir David Edwards said to us that it is a way with the fairies the idea that you could sort all this out in two years. Lord Kerr, former UK ambassador to the EU, said that there was just under 50 per cent chance in his opinion that negotiations would fail. What scenario planning is the Scottish Government doing for these kind of worst-case scenarios of failed negotiations or negotiations being resolved for our exit but perhaps no transitional arrangements made before the future trading relationship? Very fortuitously, the First Minister appointed a council expert that includes John Kerr and David Edwards, among others. There is a very distinguished group of people who are being very thoughtful about this. Chances of the UK not sticking with the negotiations are high. I do not think that they are necessarily 50 per cent or 60 per cent, but they are high. It is in our mind that we will have to be prepared in those circumstances. All I can say is that 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, hard Brexit without detriment to devolution, a moderate Brexit in which devolved powers are increased through to independence, which we believe is the offering that should be made. We look at all of those and we have thought through some of the issues. However, if there is going to be a collapse in negotiations, it will probably happen sooner rather than later. I think that the real pressure points will be the debt. That would be the biggest of the pressure points. If we can get through then to the autumn, I think the prospects of the negotiations going full term become better, but then you go into the European Parliament ratification and a process also of ratification which will involve now it looks as if it would involve most of the parliaments of Europe. It is a complex process. Things could fail. The European Parliament has been known to take an individualistic view and has set some red lines. It set them early on and it would be foolish for those to be ignored. We think about it. I spend quite a lot of my time thinking about things that I would rather not think about. I realise that this is, like most of this discussion, highly speculative, but in the event of these scenarios, beginning to play out at what point would you believe that it is appropriate for the Government to present its proposals to Parliament? Specifically, proposals on? If we were in the situation of looking likely that the negotiations would fail, my point would be that it would be preferable for Parliament to be presented with the Scottish Government's plan for this before it happens. We would want to make sure that the Parliament was not only fully consulted but that we had a proposal for the Parliament to consider at the earliest possible stage. One of the hallmarks that the First Minister has brought to this—I think that it is very important to say this—has been always to have thought through what the next steps are. The day after the referendum, she was out there saying, we need to do this, this and this, she is absolutely determined that we should be clear in our thinking about all these matters, so we will have a plan. I am sure of that. Richard Lochhead, you have a supplementary question. In Ross Greer's theme of questioning, I think that I can just follow up with the minister. The increasing number of references from the UK Prime Minister to the idea of no deals better than a bad deal. Am I imagining that, or is it the case that the Prime Minister is saying that more and more, and what signals do you think that is sending out to the Scottish Governments? I think that she is. I think that some people would speculate that she is saying that in order to strengthen her hand in the negotiations to make the 27 fearful of that and therefore determined to give ground. Others think that there is not much system in what she says about the EU, that she is operating on a political basis, not on thinking rationally through the negotiating process. There should not be any dubiety that no deal is considerably worse than any other option. That is a really, really bad option. There should also be no dubiety about the naivety with which many people think that the UK Government has entered into this process without a full understanding of what the complexities are from the European perspective. It is quite important to read as widely as you can on some of the European views of that. It is a very, very different view that is taken and with some astonishment that things are where they are. I mean, 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 have spent time in Brussels, through some of my colleagues, and what you hear there is obviously a very different view now. The UK Government says that that is just the EU's view. However, the 27 is a bit mystified by where this is gone and a bit troubled, but it is not the only thing on their agenda, so they do not feel themselves to be hectered and pressured in the way that perhaps she thinks they would feel themselves to be. There are bigger issues sometimes for the other 27 than they are addressing them in that way. I hope that there is a process that produces an outcome that is successful. I actually think that, unlike one of the pieces in your own paper, your own summary, I actually think that in 20 years' time, if the UK does come out, in 20 years' time the UK will be in the process of trying to be back in, and it will have lost 20 years of influence and 20 years of progress and 20 years of prosperity. I think that it is that foolish. I understand that the minister has to be away for 11 o'clock. Yes, I am comfortable. I am obviously at his disposal, not all day, but you wouldn't want me here all day. I am happy to be flexible. Right, okay. Thanks very much, Stuart McMillan. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister. Has the Scottish Government actually requested an official role in the negotiations in order to represent the Scottish interests? Yes, the discussions that we have had have been discussions in which we have said that we want to have a role, but that role is already guaranteed in a sense. The terms of reference for the GMC, Ian, which Ian has kindly passed to me, and it is important that I quote them, the item 3 in those terms of reference says, provide oversight of negotiations with the EU to ensure as far as possible that outcomes agreed by all four Governments are secured from these negotiations, and item 4 discuss issues stemming from the negotiation process and the impact on or of consequence of the UK Government. So there is already a definition of what the GM, the role that the GMC would give to the devolved Administrations. The exercising of that, certainly in my view, in the view of Mark Drakeford, my colleague, I've heard this view expressed by shouldn't-fane ministers as well, and indeed I think I've heard this view expressed by DUP ministers, is that this 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. That does happen in a variety of areas. So there would be precedent for ensuring that there was representation. Ministers do attend European Council. I've been to European Council in three different roles. As Environment Minister, representing on one occasion agricultural fisheries, no less a person than Richard Lockhead. When I think he was off on paternity leave, if I'm correct about that, I've been attended culture council when I was culture minister and, indeed, I spoke Gaelic for the first time in the European Council as the first person to speak Gaelic in a speech and that was the culture council. I've been to education, I think on rare occasion, I've been involved. So there is precedent for involvement, there's even precedent for speaking, and I think that that is also an issue that needs to be discussed. So I think it would be obvious where we should be. I think the issue for debate might be not whether we're there. The issue is what we're there for. Are we there simply discussing devolved competencies or should we be there more widely? And the example I might use for that is freedom of movement. Freedom of movement is fundamental to the health of Scottish economy and, indeed, to how we see ourselves. Increasingly, people are recognising that. We should be in there, just when the issues of migration and freedom of movement are discussed, because they're crucially important to us. I think your clarification there is very helpful, but certainly the reason I posed the question, there was a number of reasons, but certainly one of them was that it falls on from Jackson Carlaw's questions earlier when I was to Mr Carlaw was asking you in order to, what would you do to actually represent and highlight the various interests. From Scotland, sometimes all the parties in the Parliament actually can agree on particular issues, so certainly if the Scottish Government actually didn't have an official role in the negotiations, then it would be difficult certainly for the Scottish Government to then actually put forward any particular interest from Scotland. With respect, it wouldn't be difficult for us to put it forward. We intend to be heard. We're not going to be silent during this process. We'll be constructive, we'll be positive, but we won't be silent. It would be better if there was an effect to us being heard, which was that we were able to take this into discussion and through discussion within the JMC, say, or within the negotiating structure to be able to seek positions which are advantageous to Scotland, so that's what we would seek to do. But there's no question of us not doing or saying things. We will be doing that. A second data I want to question you on is regarding the European Commission's proposed framework and the four-weekly cycle. I'll read out just a couple of things just to get it on the record in terms of what the four-weekly cycle actually is. Week one is a week dedicated to internal preparations and consultations. Week two is a week for exchange of views between the two sides. Three a week for negotiation and four a week for reporting back probably to the European Parliament Brexit group and the council working party, 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 also to this committee and also on the issue of transparency, how can you reconcile that particular four-weekly cycle and also what you can do to make sure that the Parliament and Scotland is actually informed? We would obviously, as indicated by Lewis MacDonald, at the start of the process, we need to be involved in the discussion and the position that is taking. At the end of the process, we want to represent what the outcomes are in exactly the same way as the EU will represent those outcomes. We don't know whether the UK Government will represent those outcomes, but certainly the same way. I think that it fits pretty well in it's not a matter that we can influence, frankly, so we'll fit in with it and make sure that we're doing it as constructively and democratically as possible. I don't say that it's difficult. It will be—there's a pressure in that, and therefore you have to respond to that pressure. There will be a pressure ensuring, for example, that if this committee were a committee that would guard itself as wanting to comment upon it, it would have to structure itself to allow itself to do so. I don't think that it's difficult to do that. I think that we should anticipate regular updates and briefings to the committee and also to the chamber. I'm indicated to Lewis MacDonald that the structures that we've got are good, and I'm happy to go along with them and supplement them with the publication of information. I'm always happy to come to the chamber. There's a number of opportunities in the chamber. One is ministerial statements and updates, which we've done. Another one is debates, which I now understand Jackson Carlaw is keen on, so I'll be keen to have more debates, if at all possible. Of course, there's a regular questioning. Every member can submit written and oral questions, and ministers will respond to those, so lots of possibilities. I was hoping that we wouldn't stick to the strict 10 o'clock deadline. There were just a few areas that I was hoping to touch on. You mentioned the potential divorce bill, what that might cost. It was heard by the House of Lordy, the European Financial Affairs Committee report on that. In their opinion that if we left with no deal, that would mean that the UK may not be legally obligated to pay anything towards the EU. It was just to get your sense of that. 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 GMC discussion. To be fair, it's not been the major issue that we've been pressing so far—the major issue so far has been the article 50 letter in the negotiating process. I think that leaving without paying a bill, but like going out for dinner and leaving without paying a bill, in the end somebody is going to catch up with you. In those circumstances, it is unlikely to say the least that you will be able to move towards a constructive trade deal if you hadn't actually come to an agreement on the terms in which you were meant to exit. What would be the incentive for the other countries to do so? There might be some detriment, small detriment to them, but they would have to make a point about the refusal to pay the bill. There's also a requirement. The European budget is set until 2020-21. There will be a gap in the European budget that needs to be filled. Any reasonable negotiation would have to come up with a sum that was due. I think that the difficulty in this is that some sums were being banded about early on, whereas the right thing to have talked about was a methodology. How do you come to a calculation of this? Of course, that's where the meeting between the Danish and the Dutch Governments was significant in this regard. I think that they have been struggling as a smaller group to see if they could suggest a methodology that would drive this, and it may well be that that is where the effort will now go in and is now going in to find a methodology. The problem that is viewed from Brussels with this is the influence to be blunt of the tabloid press and UKIP. If there is a build and development of a resentment of payment, that may create a huge political difficulty for the UK Government, whoever they are, to negotiate that. Some of the remarks from UKIP figures and UKIP thinking is the mainstream, as far as I can see in the Conservative Party at the moment. It's a bit like a golf club. You just say that you're not going to pay your subscription, but many golf clubs require you to pay a subscription, even if you're resigned for a period of time. Many golf clubs forfeit the deposit that you have made if you walk out without due process. If it is like a golf club, I've even got clubative rules. That's the thing with it, because the figures do vary so wildly as to what that could be, so I think how that will be done will be one of the most important things. On another point, in terms of free movement and how the whole immigration setup might work, we were presented with a report a few weeks ago from Dr Eve Hepburn about options for differentiating the UK's immigration system. I was just wondering, again, had there been any discussions on that? What are the feelings from the UK Government in terms of that? Is that going to be a possibility for Scotland going forward? The issue of differentiated migration systems was dealt with in Scotland's place in Europe. In my view, it was a very positive compromise that we were offering. Such systems exist in Canada and in Australia. I remember, I think, that this committee, or certainly a previous committee, I quoted David Davis on the issue of what migration problems are. Migration problems are not, in these circumstances, borders. If nobody is proposing at this stage that the silence should be in Schengen, so the borders issue is the issue 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 marking people's passport or marking people's papers or a dedicated card that you only have the right to stay in Scotland. It is not a difficult thing to do. However, we should not underestimate the fact that we are dealing with a Prime Minister who used to be Home Secretary and has a particular, frankly, obsession with migration and is not prepared to countenance any weakening of that situation. At the moment, this is a dead duck. It is the right thing to do, and it would, in actual fact, have solved a problem for us and for 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. Increasingly—well, it has been a big issue for the last 11 months, but 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, the Angus soft fruits, who had given evidence before, of course, to the Parliament on some of those issues. I had conversations with people from Bulgaria and Romania, and I was really concerned for them, because they are very distressed, and people are saying now what we thought would happen. Look, whatever the solution is to this, I am really fed up with this, and I really am doubtful whether I want to stay. Some people have bought flats, some people are here permanently, but they are looking at it and saying there are other places—one of the people I spoke to, who had worked there for a long time, quite senior, simply said, look, I have skills that are needed in Germany and are needed elsewhere, and although I would like to be here, I just do not want to put up with this any longer, I do not want to—if I go back to Romania and I get on the plane, I do not know what is going to happen to me when I arrive in Scotland, because I am nervous and fearful about this. Indeed, the Romanian consul general was telling me that there has been a bigger increase in the application for Romanian passports, because people want something to prove who they are. Previously, an identity card would have done, and they need to prove who they are if they live here. I am very, very worried about that, and I was at Angus College meeting staff and students who are very concerned and are not getting answers, and they have had 11 months of this. We will see people who are really enormously positive contributors to Scotland and who are passionate about Scotland deciding in the end that it is not the place that they want to be, and that will be damaging to our reputation across the Europe and across the world. That is a really concerning area. No, I agree with that. I recently met a rural business who had actually closed down part of their business already because it was heavily dependent on EU migrant labour, and they decided that it was not worth the uncertainty in the future, so it is already having an impact. There are some businesses that cannot do that. If you look at Angus soft fruit, there are 1,000 workers who come out of parts of the EU. It is simply not possible for that to happen. The solution might be to move the entire business somewhere else in Europe, if I do that. The complexity of it is something that I think that a number of us are only just getting the grips with. Quite a number of people who may work in the soft fruits in the summer may work in the fish plants in the autumn and in the winter. A number of industries have become dependent on the labour, and therefore there is a widespread effect both in businesses and in the community. Also, there are those who are running the businesses. Someone who is involved in running one of those businesses said to me, I am very worried for the people who work for me, but I am very worried for myself, too, because I may not have a job, because I just cannot keep this business going. I guess that the supplementary question that I had to that anyway was when we were presented with that report from Dr Hepburn. I mean, a lot of the other countries' agreements that they have there, which he already highlighted, we had them in detail in that report. A lot of the arrangements, you know, could, were dependent on political will. I was going to ask if you believe that political will is there, but you have already answered that question. It is also dependent on information. A lot of this could have been dealt with, not completely, but a lot of it could have been dealt with, with the flow of information and policy commitments. I mean, nobody knows what the policy of any prospective UK Government, let alone this one, is about this matter going forward. So it is a lack of information. Where do people get the information that they need to make life decisions? They do not have it. Thank you. Another point that I would like to touch on as well is in terms of the funding. I think that we heard a lot about horizon 2020 and cap payments with good reason, but it is also in terms of relation to some of the other funds that I would say local government in particular are heavily dependent on and our local communities as well. For example, there is the interreg fund and that transnational fund. There is also leader, which is vital for our rural areas too. In Angus, it is worth £2.7 million. Aberdeenshire is worth £2.8 million. It provides vital projects in our local communities. I know that a lot still is unknown, but in terms of those kinds of funds in particular, are there any discussions on what the transitional arrangements might be? No, not with us. That is concerning. Your experience in the East of Scotland network, you know how vital those connections are. Access to the money and the connections that produce are extremely vital in my area in the west of Scotland. Access to SRDP money, rural development money, access to agricultural support, infrastructure funding—all those things are really important. Richard Lochhead will remember that, when we moved from one SRDP programme to another, there was hiatus. With the best will in the world, even if you know what the future programme is, there is usually a bit in the middle that does not fit absolutely perfectly. There is a period of time when money is not available. We are in a situation in which we know when this programme will finish. The commitment is up until 2020, but we have no idea what comes in. Nor do we know the quantum that is being talked about. Will there be a sum of money that would be available across a UK-wide basis to be allocated for those purposes? Will those purposes be priority purposes or will there be some other thing? Will that money be allocated to the Scottish Government by Barnett or some other way? Absolutely no knowledge. Because of that, there will be a hiatus of some sort. How big it is, what it looks like, we do not know. An example that I was using the other day is that, in my constituency, the island of Ling has been talking about a fixed link, a bridge, for many, many years. However, it has moved on to the extent that, I think, now they are beginning to wonder how that can be funded. Quite obviously up until now, people will be saying that a European contribution will be needed. I do not know whether there will be a contribution of equivalent monies where that will come from, but until you know that, nobody can plan for it to happen. There is just a hiatus in it. That is a flow of information, but we also require to know what the objectives would be from the UK Government. If the UK Government is to say to us, for example, look, in the last five years, X-amount has been allocated to Scotland through these programmes, so we are going to guarantee that X-amount plus inflation or whatever is going to be guaranteed to you for the same purposes. You now go ahead and set up those funds and you decide how it is distributed. That would be good. We would then say, right, let's go ahead. We don't want to leave Europe, we've got plans for other things but, yes, of course, we will go ahead and set those things up. We have no idea when that is going to happen or if that is going to happen, so we just can't say. We are saying to people—I had a conversation last week with SCVO when I said who we're talking about the allocation of funds to the third sector and said they had lots of ideas. I said, go ahead and work those ideas up and come back to me. Let's feed that through your cabinet secretary and let's see if we can develop some plan in the anticipation that we will need new structures. But what those are, we don't know and the clock is ticking on them and it is very concerning. Absolutely, thank you. Sorry, just one final point is just in terms of trade and maybe briefly on security as well because you touched on that answer in one of your answers earlier. One of the briefings that we've had here was about if no agreement is reached in using World Trade Organization rules as a fallback plan. Before we could begin trading on World Trade Organization rules, the UK would need to establish its new status within that organisation, which requires agreement from all the WTO members. Just for clarity, is that something that can happen parallel to the discussion over the next couple of years or does that have to wait until we are out of the EU or what would happen next? I am not a trade expert, but I understand that the difficulty would not be becoming a member of the WTO. We are, in fact, through the European membership of member anyway. The difficulty would be the application of the interim tariffs before you negotiated the detailed tariffs. You would take the standard tariffs to set, some of those would be fine, some of those would be pretty disastrous. I mean, there are huge agricultural tariffs, which would be profoundly effective. I just don't think that that's an option. Clearly, the UK Government thinks that might be an option, but I think that the difficulty would be great. The other issue in here is the process of trade. I've had conversations with a number of bodies, people like chamber of shipping and people like that. One of their concerns is the continuation of tariff-free access to the European market. With the minimum regulation, it means that you can flow as you are now. The moment that flow is interrupted, it has consequences. One of them is, for example, for Scottish shellfish, which are delivered promptly. If they are not delivered promptly, they do not get delivered. However, another one is capacity. No channel port or any sort has huge capacity to stack up lorries that can be inspected or whatever. That's why you get these queues on motorways if you have a dispute. That would become commonplace because you simply wouldn't have the capacity to deal with it, let alone the workforce to deal with it. Those issues need to resolve. I can't imagine that, on the 30th of March 2019, that barrier is going to come down, but we need to know what the policy intention is of the UK and have some confidence that it can achieve. That might bring us back to the approach of the Prime Minister. Confidence that it can achieve an ambitious policy intention is to put it bluntly not enhanced if you are standing in Downing Street denouncing the people you are about to negotiate with. I think that that makes it harder. I have two questions. First, I will turn to the Secretary of State's letter to the minister on 29 March. He said that Scotland's accession to EFTA and the EEA would not be deliverable. Are you aware of how he has come to that conclusion and what is your response to it? No, I am not aware of who he has spoken to. No doubt he has spoken to somebody who does not speak on behalf of EFTA or the EEA, however. Our paper makes it clear that that would be a new departure for EFTA and the EEA, but the negotiation is worth attempting. We were very clear in Scotland's place in Europe. There are no certainties, but the right way to proceed with Scotland's place in Europe, in our view, was to place a requirement for a differentiated solution into the article 50 letter, which would be the first step. To assist us in the discussions that we would have after EFTA and the EEA are 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 was described as some time ago in terms of membership to the EU, but to actually pick it back on their membership. We had figures involved and knowledgeable EFTA and the EEA who said that it was a discussion that could and should take place, but it has not taken place because we published this on the 20 December. That letter is dated 29 March. I made a presentation based on this at the January GMC, and then officials went away and discussed various parts of it. We were unaware and then that process was, inverted commas, intensified after the GMC plenary at the end of January. I am not aware of any inoperable barrier to any of those that arose during those official discussions. I was not to say that we came to agreement, but there was no deal breaker that was dealt with during those discussions. Then I get the letter that simply says, no, it cannot be done. I do not believe that. Have you ever deemed the Scottish Parliament important enough to appear before? Perhaps we will get to asking those questions ourselves, given that we are still struggling to get the Secretary of State to appear before this committee. I also wanted to ask about relates to the UK Government's usual response to the idea of Scotland having a bespoke arrangement in Europe, which is to know what we need as a UK internal market. That, again, appears to come on to the agenda more and more in recent months, is the idea of a UK internal market. I wondered what you thought the agenda was there for the UK Government and also how that could be compatible, notwithstanding the fact that some of it may be necessary, how that could be compatible with devolution, given that the policies decided in this place here and regulations decided in this place here, could be usurped by or have to be compatible with a UK internal market? The phrase that I have used is a UK single market, and I have been very sceptical of that phrase. Before I come to say what I think the motivation is, and I will come to that in a minute, I might draw the committee's attention to a paper in the judicial review paper by Burroughs and Fletcher called Brexit as constitutional shock, and it is a threat to the devolution settlement. It is a very interesting paper that I commend to people, because what it deals with is this whole question of the way in which the devolution settlement is under threat and what that threat is. It is an interesting academic study of what the problems are and how they might be addressed. However, I do think that this concept of the UK single market has been overinflated by the Prime Minister for purposes of her own. First of all, it runs contrary to what devolution is about. Devolution is about subsidiarity—it is the appropriate places for power to be exercised—and then sharing those arrangements as we require to do so. That is how we operate now. There is a differentiated constitution. Of course, it has been since the Act of Union in 1707, which is a differentiated act. Those powers are appropriately exercised jointly as required. It is a bit of a threat to two things. One is the sovereign test view of the UK Parliament, which is very much held by Brexiteers, that the UK Parliament is completely sovereign, must not be dictated to or second guessed by any other body. That is why you cannot share power in Europe. That is why you cannot accept the rights and influence of the ECJ. That is why devolution is not very popular with these people because it is seen as sharing power and compromising the UK Parliament. However, there is also another very practical issue in here. If you look at the issue of agriculture, it is particularly strong. One of the few ways in which the UK Government would be able to set up new trade deals elsewhere would be to trade away access to our agricultural and food markets. They could not do that if those things were still controlled by devolved parliaments because devolved parliaments would say no. I have heard the Welsh example of New Zealand lamb. Beef farmers might consider the issue of Brazilian beef. 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. They are also very concerned about what happened over the CETA treaty in the Flemish Parliament, where, for a short period of time, it looks as if that might be scuppered by a devolved assembly. They are determined to see that not happen here. If they have trade deals to do, if they have things to trade off, like fishing, which will be traded off, that is what they intend to do. They can only do that if they control those assets. Therefore, a major part of retaining devolved powers is about being able to do deals with things that presently are the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly of Northern Ireland Parliament. That is threatening to devolution, and it is threatening to the health of our agricultural industries, threatening to the health of rural Scotland. We should be very realistic about that. That is not simply about being inimical to devolution. It is about that. 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 interests of our farmers and our fishermen. Flementy, from Lewis MacDonald and Ross Greer. Thank you very much. I will go back to your answers to Mary Evans on structural funding. In a way, illustrated by your answer a moment ago to Richard Lochhead, one of the challenges post Brexit will be what is the relationship between schemes that have an application across the whole of the UK and particular interests here in Scotland. For example, structural funds at the moment are considered on a Europe-wide basis. They are dynamic, so the Highlands and Islands, at one time at a different status from the status that they have now, reflecting changes in economic and social development. Is the Scottish Government's proposal or preferred option on that to have a dynamic UK-wide scheme whereby we may be net beneficiaries or we may be net contributors, depending on our state of economic and social development relative to the rest of the UK? Or is it as perhaps was implicit in one of your answers to freeze the situation as it is in 2020 and make that a permanent or a barnatised financial relationship between the UK and Scotland? No, our ambition is to be an independent country that is taking part in the European funds. That would be unashamed if you would not expect me to say anything else. Given that, your second preference— No, it is not the second preference, but in terms of how we would operate within the present situation and within Brexit, pending in other constitutional settlements, principle is no detriment. Scotland and particularly the Highlands and Islands, I could declare an interest, I am a Highlands and Islands MSP. My constituency has benefited disproportionately from European investment. That is right and proper, as it is proper. The Highlands should do so because they have required special treatment. In those circumstances, we want to make sure that there is no detriment. The same principle of assisting areas to develop and assisting communities should apply. The priorities, for example, in agricultural terms, one of the key issues of agriculture support in Scotland is keeping people on the land. The crofting system is developed as a uniquely successful system of ensuring that communities are not completely decimated and that people are still on the land and the land is still in use. That is a very useful system to have. If you have a UK-wide agricultural policy with virtually no variation, that would not be the principle. The principle will quite rightly, because the majority will win out on it, will be about agricultural production in areas where the east of England or the east of Scotland and other areas will lose out. No detriment is a policy that suits Scotland. For example, I hear all the time from people in agricultural crofting and agriculture in my constituency that, above everything else, the retention of an ELFAS, a less favoured area system, is absolutely crucial. Without a less favoured area system, they will not be able to operate given that they live in less favoured areas. We pay attention to what the need is, to what the stakeholders are saying, to the principle of no detriment. I suppose that what I am saying to Mr McDonald is that there is a matrix of issues, but based on making sure that the interests of the people who elected us are followed and that we are true to those. Does that imply that the principle of no detriment means that you take a snapshot at the point of Brexit and keep it there for evermore? No, it does not have to be the existing system, clearly. If those existing systems work and work well, they should be retained. If they do, they can be changed. The preference is, and I just want to say this, probably 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 that have been very positive for Scotland. I was at the Europe Day celebrations in Edinburgh on Tuesday in Castle Street, and they were vibrant and interesting and vital, but the people who were there and representatives of all the 27 and a lot of people from Edinburgh in the surrounding area, but the people who were there, they were saying what we want is to celebrate something that has produced peace and prosperity on our continent for all of our lives, and that is vitally important to us, and we should not forget that. It is about peace and prosperity. Do you have time for one more supplementary from Ross Greer? Of course. Just very briefly, Minister, in relation to the final answer that you gave to Mary Evans, it would be interesting to hear from yourself that you mentioned the amount of time that you spent in the rest of Europe recently meeting with other parliamentarians and other Governments. There are two different perceptions about the relative strength of the UK's negotiating position, and Lewis MacDonald might like to feed in on that, but 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's position on the basis of the cars that we sell to Germany, for example. What have you picked up from the rest of Europe? What do they believe the strength of the UK's position to be in comparison with the perception that they have of the UK's own self-waith or the UK Government's self-waith? Everybody wants to resolve that in as positive a way as possible. I do not think that there is any doubt about that. That would be in everybody's interests to resolve it as positive as possible. It cannot be as good as what exists now, and that is the issue. 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 because they are owed this. That is not the view. The view is that this is a mistake. It is a profound mistake. It should not be happening. However, if it is happening, then let us get it done as well and as neatly and as carefully as possible, but it will not be the same. The advantages of membership are not available to non-members. That is simply axiomatic. The language being used is either that language of saying that we will have a strong constructive relationship and there will be some wonderful pot of gold or many pots of gold that will come to us because we are outside of the EU, which is nonsense. The contrast is in language that says, and stop interfering in our election because we know best and we know what we are doing. It is all just a bit confusing. I have heard it said by a very distinguished former European figure some weeks ago. In the end, they go. That is it. It is a mistake, and it should not have happened, but it has happened. Now, let us move on. Thank you very much. You have been very generous with your time, minister. Thank you very much for coming to give everything to us today. We will now have a brief suspension.