 Felly, dweud, ddechrau i ddweud i ddweudio'u ddigon oparadau gyfan gyfoedd y Cymru. Felly, regwlad ei hwn yn dweithio'r gwneud hynny ac yn ei ddweudiaid oherwydd gydigau cyfan i sylmwysigol. Felly, dweudio'n dweud i ddweud i ddweudio'u gydigau siaradau gyfan gyfyglwydol. Os dweudio'n dweud i ddweud i ddweudiaid agorau i ddweudio gyfan gyfoedd yn gyfysigol, gan gyfuedd y Cymru o arferfyn sydd yn dweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud the European Union, and implications for equalities and human rights. With us this morning, we have Professor Allie Watson, who is the Executive Director of the Third Generation Project, Best Acts and Andrews University. We will be keen to hear about that project, Allie. Craig Wilson, the Public Affairs and Parliamentary Officer, with the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations. Thank you so much for coming to committee this morning and any evidence that you have provided to us so far. We have a very deep pile of papers with us this week, so we thank you for that. It's very informative and very helpful in our investigations. You'll understand that this committee has obviously got a line of sight on equalities and human rights and the impact of any withdrawal from the European Union and the negotiations on go. So this is something that we'll tap into as the negotiations on go. This morning is another example of us doing this. Our focus this morning is the third sector and the work that they do and the impact that Brexit could have on the third sector. So we're really keen, Craig, to hear from you this morning and your organisation. We see that you conducted a survey of the organisations that fall within your gambit and we're really keen to hear about that and maybe some of the other factors that Brexit would have an impact on the work that you do. And then Allie, if you can come in after that. Craig. Yeah, well, since Brexit, obviously, everyone's been in the same boat. We really don't know very much about what's happening at all. So our first action was to call together meetings of our members to try and gauge their concerns and to throw ideas around and see if we could pin down some of the risks and any potential opportunities that there might be. We had round table meetings with Scottish Government ministers, with UK Government ministers as well, and we do an annual state of the survey, state of the sector survey, which brings in about 400 responses each year. This year, as a result of the vote to leave the EU, we included a separate section on Brexit and some of the risks that people perceived might be coming down the line. So just to briefly recap some of the stuff that's in that survey, around 86 per cent of our members felt that leaving the EU would have a negative impact on the Scottish economy. 81 per cent felt that it would have a negative impact on poverty and social exclusion. Specific to this committee, 80 per cent felt that it would have a negative impact on human rights and equalities. The feeling was strong in the sector that the EU had generally been good for policy priorities in Scotland related to the third sector. Just at the bottom there, third sector organisations partner up with other third sector organisations across Europe. They build networks, they learn from them, they secure funding together, so the strength of the sector overall is impacted by the European Union. Alex Rowley, do you want to tell us a bit about the project that you're working on in St Andrew's and maybe give us some responses and the thoughts that you've been working on? Sure, because I think it would be quite nice just to put in context what we do and where we're coming from as well with the Brexit debate. First of all, I'd like to thank the committee for giving the third generation project the opportunity to contribute to the evidence being presented here today. We are basically an independent think tank that's based at the University of St Andrew's. What we aim to do in our work is to further human rights institutions and cultures. We welcome, of course, the work of the committee and especially your consideration of the impact of Brexit on human rights, because this is an area that we think needs to be a whole lot more discussion on. Just to give you a bit of background, because I think what we're doing is looking at Brexit and human rights from quite a wide perspective, from an international and a UK and Scotland. We're looking specifically at how human rights, both individual and collective, are understood in Scotland and across the world and how those understandings are adapting to this political landscape. There's a lot of unheap upheaval at the moment. Today, what I'd like to do is focus on the collective rights implications of Brexit. Before I go on, I should clarify that when I differentiate between individual and collective rights, I'm referring to the idea that there are three dimensions of human rights. The first dimension being civil and political, the second, economic and structural, and the third dimension of collective rights. Those rights can be interpreted as rights that are held by certain groups, either groups that are perhaps marginalised or minority groups, and rights that are held by all of us that access collective commons such as water and food and our environment. There's a direct crossover between what we're looking at in terms of some of the work on marginalised and minority groups and the kind of work that Craig's doing, as well. We're focusing—I suppose that you've seen the evidence submission. I'd probably quite like to focus on the human rights implications of climate change. I think it's important to look at that, because it's fair to say that that's one area that has received scant attention so far in Brexit discussions. There's no mention of climate, for example, in the letter that triggered Brexit, or indeed there's no mention of human rights, as that phrase, human rights. In the UK, environmental policy is closely linked to EU policy, so Brexit will affect almost everything, every part of the UK's environmental policy, and that policy anyway has been heavily influenced by Europe. Brexit will require that measures already in place are safeguarded under the great repeal bill, but that will only aim at preserving the status quo when much more is needed. There are some opportunities—I think it's important to think about opportunities within Brexit, because given that it's happening, we have to think about how we work within that. Within a Scottish context, Scotland already has a strong focus on environmental policy, and there's been a lot of effort put into securing Scotland's resources, but we're not protected from that wider geography of climate change. Having a place within the European Union gave the UK a place at the table in environmental negotiations, and that's something that, obviously, they will no longer have. I think that what's important to say from the Scottish context is that I just want to be clear that there are human rights implications of environmental policy both within a Scottish context but also in the UK and an international context. For example, one of the things that we could consider and think about is geopolitical instability. Climate change can be referred to as a threat multiplier, so it creates instability and worsens it if it already exists. Another is displacement. As a result of climate change, large numbers of people are already being displaced, and there's estimates already that that displacement is going to far exceed anything that we're seeing at the moment with the current refugee crisis. For us as well, we're thinking about how climate change, for example, has an impact on food security and on water rights. If it seems like all of those things are happening very much elsewhere, one other point to consider is what addressing those issues head on would do in terms of job creation, possibility for increased research and innovation. What we're doing at the third generation project is thinking about those human rights concerns about climate change, but thinking as well about what the opportunities are, I guess. I'm going to go to some opening questions and I'm coming to Gail Ross first. Thank you, convener. I do have a couple of questions for ASCVO, but I wanted to go along that line that Professor Olly Watson started with the climate change. Obviously, in Scotland we have our own very ambitious climate change targets, and we have hit the previous one six years earlier. Are there any particular EU policies that you think are under threat? How easy or difficult would it be to incorporate those into Scott's law? I'm not a lawyer, I should say that, and a lot is still up in the air, of course. I think that it's important, first of all, when we talk about Scotland's policy and how ambitious that is, to see that when we're talking about the Great Repeal Bill and things almost just being sort of transferred, there's a tendency to think of that policy as almost being the floor of where we could potentially go. I think that what Scotland already has highlighted is that it actually could go much, much further. There's a great quote that we're talking about a floor, but actually we should be thinking about a ceiling. I think that in terms of climate change policies in particular, for us it's really important to just think about the human rights implications, to think about the rights framework. For example, to ensure that water quality is maintained, to make sure that the policies that come back, if they do come back in terms of agriculture and fisheries, if some of those at least come back to Scotland, that those are done again with that idea of moving forward. We have to see as well environmental policy as not just carbon emissions and things, but also as fisheries, agriculture, the way that land is managed, the way that water is managed. Those things previously and now are things that Scotland has been leading in. I think that it's important to keep that and to maintain that position. The difficulty is that, given that you've got the UK in negotiating at the moment as an EU member and having this position in the EU, the worry is that not only are the policies weakened within a UK context, but within a European context as well, because you don't have the UK there, that that actually becomes problematic. Then you've got Scotland swimming amongst this sea of policies that aren't moving forward as quickly as they could. We have on our programme, we're going to be legislating for a good food nation bill, and part of that is going to be food security and environmental impacts and things like that. Do you think that that's something that we can focus on in respect of what you were just talking about? Food security is just vitally important whether it's a national context, whether it's looking in terms of some of the research that we do is working with communities that are dealing with land rights issues and food security issues that arise as a result. The significance of that in human rights terms just can't be underestimated, but I think there is a tendency to think that we know human rights is this, and land rights and environment and climate change and development are something else, and the two are just increasingly interlinked. Craig Wilson, good morning. I was interested in your survey and you opened by speaking about that. In your opinion, what parts of your sector do you think will face the biggest challenges from Brexit? Probably. Across the board funding is a huge issue, so we're not quite sure yet how that's going to pan out and it's something that all of our members are concerned about. I think that in terms of the aims of particular third sector organisations, I think that the organisations that tackle poverty and deal with the symptoms of poverty will probably find that if there is an economic shock, as people are predicting, or if inflation increases, those organisations will find an increased demand for their services. That represents something of a perfect storm because if their funding is cut or reduced, at the same time, that demand for their services increases, and that will cause real problems for them. So, certainly, organisations that tackle poverty are the ones that are most likely to, in the short term or the medium term, see an uptake in their services at a time where funding is uncertain for them. I do find it rather ironic that Brexit is likely to increase the need for advocacy and charity services at a time where funding will be going down. The chancellor has pledged to underwrite EU-funded projects that are signed off before Britain leaves the EU, but his guarantees are not backed up by any legislation or any kind of formal policy. They have also stated, on the other hand, that they will only honour or replace EU funding for projects that are judged to be good value for money or, in line with domestic strategic priorities. Do you think that that is a good way to distribute funding? The first thing that should be said is that it is great that he is underwritten up until the UK leaves the EU. That has given some certainty to our members who were just in shock the day after the vote. In terms of going forward, it would seem that the UK and potentially Scotland will have to establish their own funding streams for future delivery of charitable funding or for strategic funding. We are not quite sure how that is going to work yet. We do not know if that is going to be done at a UK level or if money will come to the UK and then be barnatted back to Scotland, and Scotland will have its own priorities. Certainly, that would seem sensible, because you can then target what specific needs you have. At the moment, under the 2014 to 2020 funding structures, the third sector has been able to tap into funding for very specific things. That includes employability, pipelines, social inclusion and poverty reduction, and growing the social economy. To tap into that funding, you have to have very specific aims. That funding is there for that purpose. If it is going to be as vague as in line with domestic priorities or good causes, that will be a worry to people, because that is capricious. It could be up to the Government of the day to decide what those priorities are. Certainly, any new funding system, whether it is at UK level or Scottish level, we would hope would continue to have specific aims and ambitions, which the third sector could blend itself to. You mentioned funding from project to project. We all know that, following the financial crisis in 2008, there were a lot fewer grants available to charitable organisations. A lot of those organisations have no reserves, and they rely on project to project funding. What advice are you giving those organisations? They are relying on reserves and they are drawing on reserves as well to keep going. In many cases, there is very little advice that we can give at the moment because the money is money. If it is not there, it is not there. We are struggling to give advice in that regard. NSVO runs a funding advice line, which charities are always welcome to call for assistance. We can try to point them to funding that they were not aware of in the past. It is something that we have to get to grips with. When the new funding streams are in place, we have to hit the ground running. At the moment, European funding is not perfect. It is turning an oil tanker around. It is very hard to get those things off the ground and up and running. We would hope that serious consideration is given to what funding will look like in the future and to make sure that it starts on time, as it means to go on. Do you see any particular challenges for charities in the third sector in rural areas? From what we can gather, the leader fund is particularly important to rural areas. As a generality, rural areas get a greater percentage share of funding from Europe. Certainly, any shortfall or any reduction is going to disproportionately hit rural areas. We would anticipate that. Do you think that the voluntary sector can have any influence over the Brexit process? As I mentioned at the start, we have been engaging with the Scottish Government and the UK Government. We had Lord Dunlop from the Scotland Office to visit us quite early on after the vote. We have been bending anyone's ear that will listen. What we have agreed amongst ourselves and our members is that the debate was becoming very arid and focused on the economy, on jobs and agriculture. Those things are hugely important. There is no doubt about it, but we felt that, as that went on, people were maybe starting to switch off. They were missing perhaps the bigger picture of what Europe is about. It is about solidarity between European nations, about networks between third sector organisations, it is about human rights, it is about freedom to move about, it is about people essentially. We have been trying quite hard to inject that back into the debate, to offer a bigger picture of what Europe means and hopefully to make people aware of what might be at stake. I will give other people a chance. I will see if we have time at the end then. Alex Cole-Hamill. I have not quite done my homework in the way that Gail Ross has, but welcome to the panel. I do have a couple of questions for you. First, in respect of the human rights environment, we will find ourselves if and when we leave the European Union. I say if because my party is still fighting very hard to keep the United Kingdom in the European Union. Nevertheless, that is the trajectory that we are on. Obviously, the great repeal bill will continue our observance of certain treaties and rights that we have adopted through our membership of the European Union. After that, it is really up to us to continue the progress in terms of rights. I wonder if the panel could reflect on what Scotland can do, particularly with regard to incorporation. Certainly, from my perspective, the incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scott's Law is something that we have been working hard to convince the Government of. In the Brexit context, where are the other gaps? What are the other things that we should do as low-hanging through easy wins in terms of our progress in that human rights agenda? I would like to start by saying that one area that I see as an opportunity because it is quite a gap is to identify. At the moment, we are talking a lot about economics and security within the Brexit context. I think that, for example, in economic terms, it is necessary to continually highlight the importance of human rights in trade policy. For example, when the UK negotiates a trade deal with the European Union, the European Union is sitting with all the rights that it has at the moment. It is trading partners to adhere to those rights. In economic terms, it is necessary to continually highlight the benefits of human rights to trade policy. If we do not do that, then it becomes the possible consideration of having cheaper labour, taking rights away, not constantly moving the goals forward. It is important that we ensure that individual and collective rights do not lose traction as a result of Brexit. What that does is opens up a space for a much more visible championing of human rights in trade policy. That could form the basis of future policy leadership. It is saying that it is a different type of trade policy. It is one that is mindful of the wider scale of human rights implications. In both economics and security terms, those issues that were traditionally sort of soft politics issues or seen as soft politics issues have hard politics implications if they are not addressed. Given that there is a tremendous amount of political will in terms of the economic and security dimensions, but there is not so much mentioned about the human rights dimensions. One way to push human rights forward is within that particular context. Do you have anything to offer on that? Very briefly at the start, the great repeal bill and the transferring of European legislation over into the UK statute books is on the face of it excellent. That is a great starting point. It gives people some peace of mind, but we are quite cautious about how those fit into UK legislation and also the use of statutory instruments and so-called Henry VIII clauses to do that. There is a risk that, as this is done en masse, which will be thousands of statutory instruments, there is a risk that the letter of the law is not quite remembered. It is translated in a different way that there are accidental changes or, hopefully, not, but deliberate changes to those pieces of legislation. That is something that we want people to be vigilant about. It will be difficult because it is monumental the amount of legislation that we are talking about. In terms of what Scotland can do, I am not a lawyer either. I do not know exactly what is devolved and what is not and how those things work. However, I understand that, as procurement law is freed from EU legislation, there may be opportunities there to build in more equalities aspects to them that would encourage more disabled people to be employed or whatever those might be. It might be something that is worth looking at to improve procurement and, essentially, to ratify as much into Scots law as possible that we think is good if it is doable. That is certainly something that should be done. Also, the role of the Parliament to bring rights into focus. One of the by-products of the Brexit vote is that we are now talking about these things since the ECHR in the 50s. Human rights have almost been taken for granted in some respects. That is an opportunity for us all to look at what is important to us and to safeguard against any potential regression. I mentioned the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and our desire to see that incorporated into Scots law. Without it, children do not have access to justice ability of their rights. There is no recourse to justice if their rights are impinged upon under the terms of that treaty. That is why we need to take legislation in this country still further beyond part 1 of the Children and Young People Act, which gives duty on ministers to raise awareness of the UNCRC rather than do anything that will bring about justice ability. Access to justice is absolutely crucial in making rights real. Without recourse to justice, without testing those rights in court, they are meaningless. They are not worth the paper they are written on. As I understand it, we will still have access to the European Court of Human Rights, even though we are potentially leaving the European Union. Can the panel reflect on the risks to our access to justice in that sort of estrangement from the wider European continent, albeit not physically, in terms of that crucial access to justice in making those rights real? I think that one of the risks is not only to be lose the protections that we have through the Charter of Fundamental Rights, but it is the oversight and the idea that there is another court that you can go to. It is a great leveler between citizens and their own state that, if they feel that they have been wronged, they can appeal to a higher power. In that sense, it is a loss. SCVO contributed to the British Institute for Human Rights report to the UN, which looked at the state of human rights in the UK. Scotland was not great either. There were certain areas—for example, the criminal age for children is still very low in Scotland. There are lots of problems, but there were areas where there was regression already happening as part of the EU, and one of them was access to justice. It was changes to legal aid and people's ability to go to court and seek justice. Certainly, there are concerns that the trajectory is not already good, but the oversight and checks and balances that other courts outside the UK and Scotland provide will also be lost. If I could just say as well, I agree with Craig that the idea of oversight and monitoring is very important. It is important to look at those instruments that exist and, like the UN convention. I also think about the efficacy of those instruments and whether they necessarily do all that they can do. What they do is provide international standards, but if you look within a European context, something like the age of criminal responsibility changes wherever you go in Europe. There is a different view of childhoods and of children across Europe. It is quite important to consider, because there is not a standardisation of law with regard to children in the European Union anyway. It is also very important that the UN convention on the rights of the child is there. It is very important that that instrument is there, that that document is there. It is the most widely ratified piece of human rights legislation that exists, but that does not stop the fact that you have child labour still existing, that you have the worst forms of child labour still existing. Under article 12, children's voices are meant to be heard more in decision making processes, and they are really not, except in particular, context. Some countries are much better than others. The idea even about the universality of age in the UN convention on the rights of the child is that a child is everyone up to the age of 18. In human rights terms, what do you do if you are a 16-year-old who is in charge of the family and needs to access land rights? It is very, very difficult. There is a view of children that comes from the UN convention on the rights of the child that is somewhat idealistic, but I do not think that it is wrong for doing that. In some senses, there is a notion that you can give back to a child who has suffered a large amount of abuse. Really what you can do is help them to deal with that, but not actually give anything back. I think that it is important to see as well the UNCRC as a global standard, but also comparatively a flawed document about which there is an awful lot of discussion within academic circles and elsewhere about what it restricts in addition to what it allows to go forward. Then, in that context, to think, within Scotland and the UK, what can we do about the age of criminal responsibility? What should it be? What does it say about our view of childhood, of where we set by age of criminal responsibility? It is important as well. I remind members of my register of interests that I was previously the convener of the Scottish Alliance for Children's Rights. Can I just pick up a point on something that you said? It was on the question on recourse to justice and where you go for that. I know a number of the organisations that fall within SCVO that provide advice, guidance and support in order for people to access their rights and to seek recourse through the justice system. If you have not got EU funding for those projects and that has not been forthcoming from the Chancellor, what happens to those people when they are seeking that justice? It depends. Some of those organisations will receive EU funding, some will not. Some of it will be guaranteed up until, for anything that is signed, I understand, before the UK leaves the EU. There is no immediate threat. What we have to do with any funding, any monies that come back as it is, that has to be fed into a funding stream that allows that to continue. If that is at Scottish level, then the same priorities should continue to be met. If it is at a UK level and it is as vague as good causes, then that could be a concern because that is open to interpretation. Whether they have that funding or not, if they do not have it, they cannot do their job. They will not be able to signpost people in the way that they did in the past. It is really important to make sure that the funding is sustained. Good morning. I suppose that I wanted to further explore the issue of funding. I know that we have concentrated quite heavily on that. That is one of the key issues for the third sector organisations as we leave Brexit, is the issue of funding. If we look at third sector organisations, I suppose that many of them have their core function, but third sector organisations are usually very inventive in the way that they use their funding to ensure that they go 100 per cent of the time above and beyond what they are required to do. I suppose that my question, Craig, is specifically for you. What is the level, or have you assessed the level of unrest among third sector organisations of how much of their whole package they will need to pull back? Will they be left with just the core service that they get funding for? Certainly, there is unrest. Some organisations more than others rely on EU funding, so there will be some that actually receive very little, or maybe none at all, so they are more concerned about the economic impact and what that means for demand. If they are already stretched, that makes things harder. Organisations that rely on EU funding as a core element of what they provide are obviously concerned. It is very hard to pin down who gets what and through what mechanism because you get money that comes via the Scottish Government, directs from the European Commission and you also get organisations that sister organisations across Europe partner up and they bid for funding together. It is almost impossible to keep track of so to give a straight answer about what the overall impact would be in terms of any lost funding is nigh on impossible, am I afraid? I suppose that the other area of concern, while we have been given a degree of guarantee that the funding will carry on and there has been an assurance given that the funding will be matched. When third sector organisations are planning what they do, the current way that the funding system works, there is almost a kind of confidence that the funding will be given to them so that they can carry on with their services. Is there a concern that they will have to stop supporting people or stop providing services that would normally just carry on as each funding period comes round and that people will fall through the gap? Certainly, security and stability for the organisation itself allows them to forward plan. At the moment, the survey that I mentioned was part of a wider survey and I can forward this on to you later on. It gives the sense of confidence within the third sector and it is not great. There is uncertainty, so it is a time of uncertainty, so that makes sense. What it seems is that charities have gone into a survival mode. They are not developing new projects, they are not innovating in the way that we know they can. They are just trying to shore things up and make sure that they survive. There is general confidence that they can do that, but that is not getting the best out of the sector. There is a freeze frame moment where we have to wait and see what is going to come next. Can I move on now and ask you about the role that the EU have played in terms of violence against women and human trafficking? A huge amount of work has been done and is filtered down around violence against women and particularly human trafficking and information sharing. What do you see is the impact of Brexit on all of that? It is not an area that I am particularly expert in. I have to say that one of the concerns that we have is, for example, about the Istanbul Convention and making sure that that is ratified at the moment that the UK has signed it, but it has not ratified it yet. We understand that that is progressing through Westminster at the moment and sooner rather than later would be great if that can be done. That leads to a slightly wider point, but the idea that the EU is set up to take on these conventions, international conventions, that it can absorb quite easily and through a set framework, has been hugely successful in the past. We would like to see that the UK is able to adapt to these things and the way it has as a member of the EU. Along those lines, international conventions and adherence to them is something that we are really keen to see continue. Allie, do you maybe want to comment on that? Yes, I am not an expert in this area either, but I think that one thing that I would say is that for me, I would say this really is. When you do not have adequate laws to really protect vulnerable groups, yes, individual rights are absolutely crucial, but collective rights as well to protect vulnerable groups. Those vulnerable groups then become vulnerable to other forms of human rights abuse. For me, it is very important to remember that when you see human trafficking, for example, that that is the end result of something before that, and something before that, and something before that. Where it might seem at times difficult to think exactly where the rights regime can operate within that particular context, thinking and monitoring that rights regime right the way along, so that vulnerable groups do not become even more vulnerable, I think that that is really important. Good morning and thank you for coming along. To declare that for the last 10 years, I have worked in my third sector both employment and also as a director of number of third sector charities, which I still am. I am slightly concerned that we are hearing an hour to hear today that might lack evidence or that we are presuming that everything is linked to Brexit and that is the reason that these things are happening. I have a few questions, but I want to come back to you Craig on one point that you have already raised. That was in regard to legal aid and entitlement to legal aid. That has been a decision made by the Scottish Parliament Government. What is the link with Brexit to whether people get legal aid or not? That has been an issue since I was in private practice 25 years ago, which was way before Brexit, so I am just trying to work out what is your link between Brexit and entitlement to legal aid, which is a decision that has been made by this Parliament. The point that I was trying to make was that human rights are even as part of the European Union are not perfect in this country. If there is a trajectory moving in a direction away from a progressive approach, that is of concern. The issue is that as you lose layers of oversight and the ability to challenge those sorts of decisions, that situation can actually become worse because as you whittle things down, Governments become freer to do what they want with less challenges to them. It was a general point about the loss of oversight. If we have to be careful, we do not link Brexit to that issue of civil legal aid. There is no evidential link between Brexit and whether people are entitled or not entitled to legal aid. I think that I just challenged on that point that you made that you seem to make that presumption, which is going to be careful. The only reason I brought that up was because it was in the British Institute for Human Rights report to the United Nations Periodic Review on human rights. It was a specific example where they had said that there had been regression. I was just making the point that there can be regression even as part of the European Union. I was just suggesting that if oversight was lost, then those things become easier. I take your point that it is not directly linked to Brexit. I have a couple of questions, if I can. It is interesting to see how many people replied to your survey. 400. Out of 1400, is that right? Estabiles membership is about 1500. Off that, would you say that the majority that responded were bigger charities, smaller charities or was that fair, Mick? I actually do not have the breakdown of that, but I could probably find that out for you and let you know, but it was a survey that ran for a couple of months and we just encouraged responses from charities big and small to get the widest possible picture. It would be interesting just in general to see the questions that were asked, and also who, without me needing a certain name and specific charities, could we may well be data protection on that, but just to know what type of charities did respond to that, if that could be helpful. This is a question from Ignoance, and again it may be something that you do not know if it is over your head. How many of your members are present to receive European funding? I am not sure, actually. The third sector is quite slippery in terms of getting people to respond to things and we do not have the central resources like the NHS, who can rhyme stats off quite easily. We have to act in a way, for example, surveys to try and collect as much information as we possibly can, so it is quite difficult. We know that about 40 per cent of Scottish charities have had a partnership with European organisations either at the moment or in the recent past, so at least 40 per cent will have had some sort of EU funding through networks that they have established on their own, then there will be money that comes directly through the funding stream, so I cannot give you a figure, but we are talking at least 40 per cent, I would think. Again, it probably does not fit a question, because it may not be something that you know, but would that predominantly be larger charities who have those partnerships, or is it a grant across the sector, or is it predominantly what we would call the kind of bigger and larger charities that have those relationships? Again, I think that all charities are bidding for funding and the larger charities will be bidding for tens of thousands of pounds, and small community organisations will benefit from, for example, the leader fund that I mentioned to Gail Ross. It is across the board, and it is, again, quite hard to pin down, but certainly I will take all this back and find out what I can for you. I think that, for an information point as well, in the previous session when the European Committee attempted to map funding across Scotland, it proved to be very difficult, because there are so many avenues in which you can attract that funding, so we commiserate with you because we attempted to do it over five years and it was very difficult, and if you can do it, then tell us how you've done it. Please, that would be very helpful indeed. Allie, I don't know if you want to come in in the back of any of Jeremy's questions, because we're specific at the survey, but whether any of the partners that you're working with have had similar experiences or have demonstrated any risk or opportunities to you? The partner organisations within the third generation project, and maybe the wider academic arena? I think that we work within the third generation project. We have a specific way of working, which is that we work very much at the grass roots and the community level. Geographically, we work in North America and in East Africa as well. What we've been noticing, I think that I'd probably like to make a point on funding, which picks up on some of the earlier points as well about EU funding. For one thing, just within the academic field, it's certainly the case that in terms of research partnerships that we would have in Europe, just talking purely academically for now, without talking about other partners, it's very clearly the case that there are concerns from European partners about having UK partners at the head of those bids. It's very anecdotal, but there are concerns. From a community perspective, in funding terms, it's quite clear that the way that research is developing, and the way that we work, is that it's important to have those collaborations between community organisations and academia and policy makers, practitioners. It's definitely something that we're advocating within the third generation project, both in terms of the conversations that we want to facilitate and act as a hub for those conversations and for research going forward. We also want to be partnering with community organisations and policy makers and practitioners. One of the things that we've very much noticed, and it's happened within the Brexit discussions, but it happens more generally as well, is that often the lines of communication. Just even the day-to-day interactions between those different knowledge sectors are not quite as fruitful as they could be. I think that's something that's important to think about the opportunities that come from that. On the back of Mary Fe's question, do you think about some of the policy development across social cohesion and building capacity in communities, building resilience? The research and development elements of that are generally being via our university's working in partnership with other universities. When it comes to organisations like yourself attached to the university of policy development and that policy becoming Europe-wide, that's essentially funded via Europe in order for that to happen. If that funding is not there, has the university sector still got the capacity to maintain those networks and to maintain that piece of work? Those pieces of work have changed nations, policy and cultures for the better. In many cases, especially when you look at things like domestic violence and human trafficking and criminal justice, there's many social care, healthcare, all of those things. How do we make it work? I think that there's a significant amount of concern. Obviously, the university sector and European funding is only part of where the university sector gets funding from. It's a significant concern right across academic disciplines with no real sense yet of what's going to fill that, because that's really quite a significant chunk of funding to fill. There are a lot of concerns. I think it's thinking about it as well. There's obviously going to be projects that will continue to be able to go on, but not necessarily then with the UK as lead partners or as principal investigators. That might be fine, but it does change the nature of that collaboration process. It's important to say in terms of research and thinking about community organisations and working with communities. I think it's as well for us as academics to be thinking about what does that sector need and what questions do they need to be asked, but also what knowledge is already there within the sector that academics are perhaps not partied to. That, for me, is really important to have that fundamental collaboration between different kinds of knowledge, because academic knowledge is certainly not the only one. Before I bring Gil Ross in with the rest of our questions, are there any other colleagues who have any questions for our panel? In your opinion, the status of EU nationals at the moment in the UK is quite uncertain. Do you feel that this is a human rights issue? I would say that it is a human rights issue because you have a level of uncertainty within people's day-to-day lives, not knowing how that is going to move forward. I think that the thing to still say is that there is still so much uncertainty about what the actual outcome is going to be. It's not fair for me to say that this is a human rights issue. Whatever comes out of negotiations might deal with what I would say is the human rights dimensions of that, but if it was a worst-case scenario where there really does feel that those rights aren't there, it has to be, because it's the right to family life, it's the right to education, it's fundamental rights. Again, when I said before that sometimes human rights is often seen as a pattern of major abuse. Of course, it's important that the focus is there, but there are daily abuses as well, the inability to have a family life. What Mary mentioned is violence against women. That's a daily abuse. I think that it's important to think of those everyday considerations as well about Brexit. Craig, do you have any comment on EU nationals either benefiting from or contributing to the third sector? One of the areas where you can say that there's a specific cohort of EU nationals working is in health and social care, which has a direct impact as far as we are concerned on disability rights and the ability for those people to realise their rights. I think that approximately there's about 5 per cent EU nationals working in the health and social care sector, so even if a small percentage of them were to leave, it would have a massive impact on the delivery of health and social care services in our evidence, but the House of Lords across Bench Pier had pointed out that a lot of the personal assistance that disabled people rely on are EU nationals as well, so they provide a lot of services. There's a lot of work in the third sector, but as a specific cohort, I would say that health and social care was an area where there could be challenges if there are changes to the immigration status or people just decide to leave. I think that we've exhausted our questions this morning. I thank you both very much for your attendance at the committee this morning. David. Sorry, convener. Good morning, everybody. I hosted on Tuesday night in Parliament a Fingale, which is a Finnish national sustainer in Scotland, and they were discussing the possibilities of a two-tier system for EU nationals, one living here with different rights to ones who are coming in to support sectors like the healthcare. We will have totally different rights. Do you really think that the human rights issue there is that you're going to have two groups of EU nationals who will not benefit from the same sort of things that we have in the UK? That's a good one. It depends, I suppose, if they are able to enjoy the same rights in terms of access to justice and human rights terms, then it would be less of an issue. The idea is unusual, but I understand that immigration systems can target certain sectors if they have a shortfall, so health and social care may be one of those areas. We had received some suggestion that the new Scottish tax code with the S prefix could be used, so there's sufficient manoeuvrability within immigration systems to achieve that, but certainly if that were to come about, you would expect those people to have the same legal protections and human rights protections in the eyes of the law. Your argument was that once you were staying here and had been here for a long while, why would you still be entitled to all the benefits and all the people coming from the EU after Brexit would have a different entitlement? There's an issue at the moment with the right to remain. The Home Office have introduced an 85-page document for people to apply for the right to remain, which even people who are medical doctors are struggling with and giving up on. It also includes demands for details about their health insurance, and there's quite a few hoops to jump through, but they're now dissuading people from applying for that, saying that they can sign up for email alerts instead. There's an issue with people that are resident here already who, following Brexit, may not have the proper documentation to remain, so I think that the issue is that the Home Office are inundated, but it's quite concerning that people are unable to get the documentation that they are looking for before this all happens. You just touched on something that I was thinking about yesterday, and I was reading about the Home Office alerts, the news alerts, you could sign up for this news alert. I couldn't find any detail on that about how that data could then be used by the Home Office, and I wonder whether any of your organisations had picked that up, because I couldn't find any disclaimer to say that your data would only be used for the use of the alerts or that your data would be used in a wider context by the Home Office. That's something that we don't know about. Either we only picked up on the email alert recently, but I'm sure that it might be something that you would want to check with the Home Office. I think that we have exhausted our questions now. We have exhausted them. Thank you so much for your contributions to commit to this morning. My usual rider is that, if you go away and you think that I should have said something, please let us know, because this is an issue that we will be touching on right through the process of the negotiations up to and if. On Alex's behalf, we leave the EU. Thank you so much. I'm going to suspend committee now to go into private, but to allow a quick comfort break as well before we get into private session.