 Fyglwyddo i'w ddim yn ddysgu 25 ym 28 o hyfforddiol a Gwilogwyll ddau cymaint. Gwilom Simpson, cyngorau cymaint, yw ymgwylliant o ddegosio oedd parlo-amag y bysysys gweithio ac yn ddim yn ddigwyddio i gael i chi i gael, ac mae'n ddysgu i'n gwybod i'r eistedd. Bill Bowman, MSP, will be joining us when his committee that he is currently in finishes very soon. He will be substituting for Graham. So before we move to the main item of business, there is one piece of business that the committee must decide first, and that's on agenda item number one. It's proposed that the committee takes item number three in private. This item is the consideration of the evidence that we are about to hear on the UK Trude Bill. Does the committee agree to take the item three in private? Thank you. Today we are scrutinising the legislative consent memorandum for the UK trade bill, and we have before us a porous day George Hollingbury MP, the Minister of State, for trade policy of the UK Government. Mr Hollingbury is accompanied by Suzanne Greaves, OBE, Trade Bill Manager, Department for International Trade, Eleanor Weavis, Head of Domestic Portfolio, Trade Strategy, Department for International Trade, and Rebecca Hackett, the Deputy Director of Policy of the Scotland Office. I'll let you take your seat. I welcome you all to this meeting and thank you for taking the time to come to the Scottish Parliament. I know you've already had a busy morning giving evidence to the Finance and Constitution Committee, so I certainly welcome you to this committee as well. As you know, one of the committee's roles is to look at the all-legislative consent memorandums that contain delegated powers and report to the relevant lead committee. Our questions today are therefore focused on the delegated powers in the trade bill. I do highlight the words that we may stray into some policy areas from time to time, but that is not the purpose of this committee. I will allow some latitude for some questioning, but if we do stray too far into policy, then I will ask my colleagues to stop on that. I would like to invite the minister to make an opening statement, and after that, I will open up to questions from members. Thank you very much indeed, convener, and thanks for having all of us in today. I have to say that this is possibly the most iconic table I've ever sat at. That's pretty extraordinary. Whilst I was dreading would be the wrong way, but I was somewhat tense about my appearance in the last committee, this one scares me rigid. This is a very technical area. Anyway, thank you for inviting me to address your committee today, which I understand looks as you've already outlined aspects of the trade bill and will feed back into the Finance and Constitution Committee your opinions and, of course, from where I have just arrived. As I explained to that committee, the UK Government wants all parts of the UK to support this bill, and we will continue our comprehensive engagement with the Scottish Government to ensure we secure its recommendation for a legislative consent motion. With this in mind, I note the Scottish Government's memorandum on the LCM from December 2017, and, of course, since then, the UK Government has taken significant strides through its amendments, making improvements to the bill and answering many of the concerns that were expressed in the memorandum. Beyond that, I'm conscious that members here today have specific and technical questions, particularly on clauses 1 and 2, and I look forward, along with colleagues, to providing responses as an important step to help to deliver this bill for the whole of the UK. I would just finally reflect, convener, as I just mentioned to you in our private conversation, that this is a technical area. There will be times, undoubtedly, when officials are better placed than I am to give you full answers, and I hope that members of the committee will allow me to do so, and I think that they will simply get better answers. Thank you very much for your opening comments, minister, and certainly we have no issue at all with your colleagues in that particular area. I'll open up. For question 1, it certainly appears that the general intention behind the powers in clause 1 to implement the Government's procurement arrangement agreement is that the UK would continue to be an independent member of the agreement. The delegated powers continue to be an independent member, and the memorandum for the bill explains that the power is required to deflight any changes indeed, as a result of the process whereby the UK becomes an independent member. Can you explain the scope of the powers that would be available to the Scottish ministers to make potential amendments to the terms of the Government's procurement agreement, and could the powers be used to implement further substantive changes to the GPA, given that procurement is a devolved matter? I'm going to go slide across the top of this for a moment and then I'll ask Alan to fill in underneath. Simply the point of having the powers as they are set in the bill is to allow rapid response to any changes in the schedules that adhere to the GPA. In principle, the power is there simply to slide across what we have already agreed into UK schedules with a minimum of fuss such that the delegated powers are there to just take any bits that need changing in three particular areas, in particular accession to and withdrawal from the GPA such that it reflects the current reality on the ground. Is it possible that these powers could be used more widely? Yes, it is, but it is absolutely our intention, and I can say that publicly here today and put on the record, that the Government is not going to use the powers for that purpose. It is our intention to move this agreement across such that it can be used in its current form in the UK on a legal basis. Do you have anything to add? I'll run through the scope of the clause 1 powers now if that's helpful. So it allows for changes of our domestic regulation to reflect the UK's independent accession to the GPA as we leave the EU. As the Minister referenced, there will be no substantive changes as we exceed to the GPA on the same terms and with the same coverage as we have now. The power also allows us to update our measures as new countries exceed or withdraw from the agreement. And it allows us to update annex 1 of the GPA, which is the list that covers what entities are covered by that agreement. So, for example, when that agreement was made, the Department for International Trade didn't exist, so we will need to do some technical updates to make sure that list of entities is factually accurate. Just on that, in the previous committee, there was quite a wide discussion around clauses 1 and 2. And so one aspect that was raised earlier, which certainly has an impact in this particular line of questioning, too, is the aspect of the Scottish ministers having any type of input to engage with that particular area. And there seemed to be some kind of some debate in that area of discussion. I think your officials this morning, Minister, mentioned that there have been regular and wide discussions at official level, but not at ministerial level. And so will Scottish ministers and with this Parliament actually have an opportunity to help shape and this particular area of discussion? Are we talking about specifically about GPA? Yes. In that aspect, again, I invite officials to jump in and save me at any stage. We are transitioning across the agreement which we currently carry on which basis any changes that are being made are simply to make the powers that currently exist through the EU available to British institutions through the UK on which basis any decisions that Scottish ministers have already taken in using that power are already made and are already there and the powers that they had before will still be there. I think that that is correct. In which case I think my steer has been from the beginning that the Scottish Government was content with us re-exceeding or transitioning across the GPA agreement, in which case I wouldn't anticipate that there was any need for ministerial level contact on this in that we are simply enabling Scottish ministers to be continue taking the powers that they have previously had. I believe that to be the case. Okay. Okay, Neil. In your officials jumping in to save you, maybe we could get some officials to jump in and save the Prime Minister, but maybe I don't think that that might be a stretch too far. Well, let's not go there, please. In terms of the way in which the Government has handled the whole issue around devolved powers, I think many of us would believe in across parties that it's been a pretty disastrous approach and we're now heading for the Supreme Court. Consent is vital going forward so that we provide some certainty for businesses and for workers and jobs that people who are feeling very, their position is very precarious. So as we go forward in regulations and devolved powers come forward, how is that mechanism going to, what mechanism is going to be there? A, for consultation and B, for disputes. And in which particular areas are we focusing on? Well, all of them. I mean, if we're talking about development frameworks, if we're talking about new regulations coming forward, if these are coming forward, what discussions with the devolved administrations, how are they going to take place and secondly, if there's differences of opinion, how are those disputes going to be resolved? OK, so I'm going to narrow my comments down to just the bill, which I'm here to talk about, but I take your point, giving wider questions to come up, and I'll refer if I'm made to Rebecca... Things will relate to trade. Of course they will. I understand that. We are continuing to work on how we discuss trade issues. It's a reserved matter, as we know, to the UK. Officials meeting officials on a regular basis to talk about the existing memorandum of understanding and called-outs and so on and so forth, and to see where we are in that the process of development of those. And in fact, Rebecca just spoke a little earlier about roughly where we are with that process. So there's a lot of work going on as to how those frameworks are created, the mechanisms by which we talk with each other, the various commitments that the UK Government makes to the Scottish Government about trade and international relations and how we deal with those. As to the bill, it, sorry, the next part was about free trade agreements. Clearly, there is going to be a lot of interaction with the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government, and indeed with officials as we move forward with developing our ideas about how we negotiate the free trade agreements with the four partners we've identified. We are absolutely clear that there should be real, deep and meaningful consultation with the Scottish Government that we should be open on our side to modifying our proposals based on the information we receive, and I'm absolutely committed to that. It seems to me that we will get much improved and much more deliverable free trade agreements if we can all agree on exactly what they should end up proposing and indeed how we negotiate them. Quite what that mechanism is going to be exactly and in fine detail is yet to be resolved, but you have my political commitment that I believe it is absolutely right that the devolved authorities should have a very real input into this process. And already there are many meetings. There are specific meetings I'm having one later on today on free trade agreements with the Government Minister. Contact is happening at every level. I think there's a degree of certainty that needs to be provided to that, which we will provide in due course. But as to the wider issue of framework dispute mechanisms and so on and so forth, that is strictly out with my portfolio, but we do have Rebecca here today who I think can declare on that a little further. So I mean, I think on the frameworks piece has been a detailed amount of work going on for many months now official level at ministerial level. You have the joint ministerial committee, which is chaired by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and that brings together ministers from the different devolved nations to look both at EU exit issues more generally, but also to manage the work on frameworks. And beneath that there is extensive official level discussions going on, working through all of the different areas where it's been identified that common UK frameworks might be needed, working through the detail of those, really getting into the, I suppose, the nitty gritty of the policy areas to look at how these frameworks can be applied, whether we can be looking for non-legislative frameworks, so cooperative approaches like memoranda of understanding and really trying to limit down the number of areas where legislative frameworks might be needed. So there's been detailed series of discussions going on earlier this year, second round of discussions happening now, and there is a lot of activity there, but it is complex work, it is technical work and it does take time. So it's right that we give that the time that is needed and ministers are regularly updated and we'll be reviewing that later in the year. It's just two years since the vote and when we still hear things like in due course it doesn't provide a lot of certainty. In relation to the question that the convener raised, to try to put some of the technical elements in more practical terms, so for example the procurement agreement that we're looking at taking forward, could it do things like allow the Scottish Government, for example, to not have a publicly owned railway, to not put the ferries to the islands out to tender, would it allow us within public procurement to insist that contractors paid the living wage? Because at the moment those three areas are often EU procurement policy that is highlighted as being the barrier to allow these things to happen. So would the new procurement arrangements and practical terms allow examples like that to happen? I think that the best I can do is to repeat myself and say our objective here is to transition the exactly the same arrangements that we have technically changed such that they are operable in UK law. The rules that Governed Scottish ministers and indeed UK Government ministers previously will be the same in large part but in UK law as they were previously. So is that a no? It's it's it will be the same. Any of your officials coming rescue you on that one? Excuse me about the objective of this government procurement agreement which is to allow businesses across the UK to actually pitch for contracts in other countries that are signed up to the agreement. So they get the benefit of work if you like and contracts and the monetary benefit of that and bringing that back to the UK. And also to allow organisations across the UK to procure public services from a wider range, a sort of wider market and therefore get better value for the public money that's invested in them. So that's the purpose of this agreement. It's that's why we want to transition it and still be a member in the UK's own right after exit. We've procured a rail franchise from a wide EU market that currently is a company that's a Dutch government owns yet we can't get a public bid here. So effectively we have a railway and public ownership from a foreign country. Would we be able to stop that? I think we just need to return to the reality which is that we're transitioning across the agreement as it currently sits. So anything that is not currently possible will not be possible thereafter. Is it possible that always allowing absolutely significant points is absolutely a domain access to a $1.3 trillion marketplace out there? Would we be able to change things under our own right as we are no longer members of the European Union? Yes, but that is an argument for a different day. What we need on Brexit is to be able to have companies to be absolutely certain what the rules are that they are the same as they were before such that they can understand them and get on with them. If the UK Government, petitioned by the Scottish Parliament and others, decides it is the right time and place for us to change the way that agreement works, well and fine. But this is about certainty and it's about continuity and everyone understanding the ground rules and whether there may be problems with the EU procurement rules and we may wish to change them, but we need to do that in due course as we can without disrupting everyone's expectations as we leave the European Union. And that's the whole point of the clause. I say that it does, I think, have the agreement of the Scottish Parliament and whether that's happened in the formal ways in other matter, but I understand that Scottish officials have indicated to us that they are content for us to take this view and to work in this way. Okay. I just want to move on to clause 2. Does anyone have any questions on clause 1? No, okay. Okay. Clause 2 of the bill is on the implementation of international trade agreements and it provides that the power would end or have the sunset clause after three years after exit day unless that period is extended by any regulations. Why is it to be considered appropriate that no sunset period should apply to the powers to implement the GPA? Straightforwardly, with the commitment given publicly previously, but by myself again, that what we wish to do with this is simply make sure that we have a mechanism to reflect accessions and indeed resignations, whatever the technical term is, for leaving the GPA. It seems perverse, I think, not to have that power available to us simply to make that happen for a continuing period. It is simply an efficient way of doing it. Therefore, I do not believe that there is any particular need to sunset it. If we wish to change the GPA, I would suggest to you that there will be other mechanisms by which we would do that and it would be done with much wider consultation and, I suspect, it would use a different mechanism for actually applying those changes. So, the powers sit there simply to allow us, for a period of time, to reflect the reality of membership of the body. That is what they are there to do. In terms of the international trade agreements, it is time-limited because we are only to transition agreements that existed on exit day between the European Union and the UK. Therefore, it is right that there should be a period in which we can do this beyond which that cut-off point is probably too far away. We started with five years in the bill, as I am sure you know, and we took the representations from members of Parliament and others about how that was probably too long. We agreed that we would modify it to three years in, and I think that that is probably the right balance. Thank you, convener, and good morning, minister. Just as a specific supplementary, I am correct in understanding it with regards across to the sunsetting of three years. That can be extended. Is that correct? Can you give some examples just for why you believe that power is justified? There were arguments made in similar circumstances in other four on the EU withdrawal bill and so on and so forth. I think that it is straightforward to have an absolutely hard sunset if you are right on the cusp of finishing a trade bill and you would like to get it on to the books. Finally, you have reached a point where you can transition the existing agreements. It seems to me that it would be foolish to have an absolutely hard, hard cliff-edge limit, though that does help your negotiation. There are two sides to this argument. However, if it was pretty clear, for example, that an error had been made in scheduling timetables for ratification in a different Parliament, you would be able to deal with that and therefore you could extend it. In general, it is simply about dealing with circumstances as it arises. Thank you. Just finally, on that matter, the power to extend by another three years will be available to UK Government ministers to understand, but not to devolved ministers. What was the reasoning behind that decision? Simply because this is in the area of reserve competence. It is about free trade deals. It is about international trade and that is a reserve master under the Scotland Act. I think that it is probably worth noting that I am right and just officials will confirm that, as and when we extend that power, it is not in the hands of ministers directly that such an instrument or delegates has to be put in front of both houses and past. Vision circumstances would be necessary for that power to be extended by another three years for specifically devolved matters? For specifically devolved matters. Or for matters that impinge upon devolved competencies? As I sit here now, I cannot think of any particular issue. I am sure that it is possible to sit down and write something out where that would be the case, but I would say to you that this is more about certainty and cliff edge and about dealing with circumstances as it arises than it is about anything substantive about what the UK might want to do with continuity of trade agreements. If such a scenario were to arise, would it be deemed necessary that devolved ministers required an extension? Would there be any barriers to that? Devolved ministers required an extension? Yes. For example, supposing a UK Government minister was successful in having an SI through the Commons and there was an extension of three years, if there were some hypothetical scenario where there was a requirement for that period to be extended as a consequence of that for devolved ministers, would there be any barrier to that sunset provision being extended by a further three years for devolved ministers? On the devolved ministers front, I have to say that I am struggling to get my head around the question, so let's just ask an official if they can do better than I can, which is almost certain, to be honest. I think that what you are asking is if a devolved minister needed to use the powers, would we extend in that case? Is that correct? The answer is, as part of the on-going process of engaging the devolved administrations in trade agreement continuity, we would foresee that, you would imagine. We would work closely with the colleagues to understand whether a sunset was appropriate, and you would imagine that all of us care about continuity in our on-going trade relationships, and that we would be incentivised to be as practical as possible in that situation. I would perhaps ask something else about the sunset and why it might be extendable. As the ministers explained, these are about just continuing the existing trade agreements, and the power allows us to implement in domestic UK legislation any changes that we might need to reflect the fact that we are taking them on board as a UK only rather than as part of the EU, but there might be changes that we would need to make to keep those agreements operable over time, so there are small changes, but it's still about continuing the effects of those agreements. I raise a question because, hypothetically, if a scenario could arise for UK ministers, it may arise for devolved ministers as well. I'm sorry, I totally understand the question. It's the technical nature of this committee. Clause 1, 1E and F provide that the UK ministers, all the devolved authorities, also have a power to make such provision, as is considered appropriate in consequence of any modifications to the list of central government entities in the GPA to be used after the UK has acceded to the agreement. It appears that modifications could be needed due to the machinery of government changes, which is mentioned in paragraph 50 of the Delegate of Powers memorandum. Can you explain further how that power might have effect in respect of Scotland? How might the power, conceivably, be exercised by the Scottish Government to make regulations in consequence of the modifications to the list? I'm not an expert on Scotland's public entities, but I can give you an example in terms of UK Government, which I referenced earlier. The Department for International Trade and the Department for Exiting the European Union are newly established departments, and at the moment are included in our list of entities that are covered. Those are the sorts of machinery of government changes that we would need to make. Assuming public entities changed in Scotland, the same logic would apply. I accept that you're not an expert on Scottish public bodies, but at the same time that I considered the point that Tom was using a few moments ago, there could certainly be points that it would be beneficial if there was some type of differential position that the Scottish ministers or Scottish agencies would see to be better for those particular bodies. Would the UK Government have any position to be against that type of scenario? Just to be sure that I understand that you're suggesting that we might use certain—whether a name is incorrect or where something has to be changed, there might be a desire among Scottish ministers to substitute with a body in Scotland such that we use those powers to insert that name. Am I correct in how I assess the question? I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect that quite a lot of this is probably a matter of negotiation with partners in the agreement about who cannot and cannot be included and whether or not they are right to be included in that particular circumstance. Beyond that, if officials have more to add, I think that that is the complication there, that is, I suspect, but there may be… Yes. Just to add on top of that, obviously, as we mentioned earlier, we're approaching our accession to the GPA from a consistency point of view. We're looking to have the same coverage and a seed as closely as possible in a way that replicates our membership at the moment as part of the EU. On the clause 2 powers to implement international trade agreements, the UK Government has acknowledged in the delegated powers memorandum that, obviously, the power is broad enough to allow implementation of substantial amendments, including new obligations. Could you please explain to me what scope is there for the existing trade agreements between the EU and third countries to be subject to those changes in the course of it being adopted in UK third country agreements? In the end, it's actually very similar to the GPA. We start out with a position that what we're looking to do is create continuity. In every case where we are negotiating with partners to roll these agreements over, we will be looking for just that, as few changes as possible to provide certainty. Now, over time, it may be that we have room capacity and there is desire on both sides to enter into substantially different arrangements, but I suggest to you that all of our focus should be on trying to create that continuity such that nothing in appearance, feel and look of an agreement changes substantively. That means that there is a very real impetus on and a stimulus for the UK Government to try and design these rollovers such that they have very little in the way of change. I would not expect that, in the vast majority of cases, we would find that there is any substantive difference. If it is the case that there is a substantive difference, one of the changes that was made in the bill was that an explanatory document will be placed before the house, before ratification, that tells the house exactly how an agreement has changed, where not necessarily all the language absolutely, but what all the purposes are of the changes. Further, we agreed with Jonathan Ginogli of a Nuclear 6 on dealing with that whole issue about scrutiny that the best way of then laying statutory instruments was to have an affirmative procedure such that the Parliament has a genuine time to look at it and has to vote on it, and that the explanatory memorandum for each of those delegated instruments would point absolutely back to the report upon the changes in the agreement and say which of those changes this delegated instrument actually affected. That will give Parliament very real scrutiny and ability to scrutinise full understanding of what exactly it is that it is being asked to agree to. Finally, at the end of all that, of course, Crag A has been amended in 2010 such that the Parliament is now capable, if it can hold itself together, in one cohesive block to delay the ratification of any agreement indefinitely. There are all sorts of checks and balances at every stage and we believe that that gives Parliament certainty, gives it understanding and gives it the right to scrutinise that considerable depth that should allow everyone to understand what changes have been made and whether or not they agree with them. Following on from that, if I could go back to the scope aspect, what scope is there for the regulations to be made by the Scottish Government under clause 2 to make significant changes in sear domestic law? If you could think of some examples, how could those be implemented in Scotland? I cannot give you a particular example, perhaps others can illustrate it a little more colourfully. Where there are requirements to implement something in domestic law that plainly will be the province of the Scottish Government. If the law is subject to the same difficulty as we have all encountered thus far about section 12 powers and so on and so forth, that is how the Scottish Government will be involved in this, that it will implement the required changes to make this work in how they see fit in their own Parliament. Sorry, I thought that you were going to add something. No, sorry. I just asked for a bit of colour, but unfortunately sometimes in these conversations it is not always possible. Why has it been considered appropriate that the trade agreements to which clause 2 actually applies should be implemented by regulations rather than primary legislation? Especially when it appears that, at the point of the proposed implementation, agreements in place before exit day might not have been ratified by the EU or substantive changes to existing agreements might not have been made? I think I'm right in saying that if it's not been ratified by the EU, then it's not an agreement that we can transition. So I think that that probably deals with that point. Sorry, the first part, I've just had a moment. I forget where the first question was. Right, let me start again. No, no, no, I do apologise. No, no, you're getting a lot thrown at you. So why is it being considered appropriate that the trade agreements... Primary legislation. There are 40 agreements that we'd like to transition. There's a little bit of legislation going through Parliament at the moment. I think that for pure practical purposes we need to remember two things. First of all, these are all agreements that have been operable in the EU for at least sometimes, actually very recently, but a lot for really quite a long time. They've been fully scrutinised before. They are on the books effectively in UK law. And yes, they may have some changes, but I've outlined the scrutiny that can be involved in that. So these are well understood agreements. They work. Our partners want them. If they didn't, they wouldn't be coming forward. We wouldn't be able to agree with them. So there is no great impetus to have fresh primary legislation simply because they're already existing. They're used and they're on the statute book. And capacity would be a very serious issue. So this, we believe, is by far and away the best way to transition these agreements. And I think both parliaments can have confidence that they will understand the agreements when they come forward, because they'll be agreements on the whole they've been using before. Okay, thank you. Oh, please. Sorry, Suzanne. We have one more thing about the limitation of the power, and it can only be used to implement agreements that have been signed by the EU, by the day of exit. Okay, I understand. Thank you. Thank you. Is that a supplementary just on this? Yeah, just for the information, it was going to be an affirmative procedure, yeah? It's just the advice that we've got is that clause 1 would be on a negative procedure. So why is it not affirmative for that? Because there's no issue of policy to discuss. This is simply about accession to and changing words. It's it, the whole purpose of this is to bring into UK law what everybody already uses in UK law and what governs UK law, and therefore it is well known and well understood. And what is being changed is simply about words that need to be changed, lists that need to be changed, and reflect accessions. And so it is something where it can sit on the negative procedure, any member of Parliament who feels that there's some problem with this, and I'm not quite sure I can understand what the problems would be, but can pray against, and there can be a vote in Parliament under third division. But I think we feel that this does not need a great deal of scrutiny. It is simply trying to elucidate, so trying to legalise a fact rather than putting policy in place. The policy is adopting the GPA. This is simply a matter of practicality. We're pretty precious about our scrutiny in this procedure. Oh, that's fine. But if, shall we say, I can see how certain accessions might be controversial, so I can see why there might be some interest in that. I know how this is all going to be unfurl or unravel. I think that enhanced scrutiny would be more welcome. A point is noted, sir. Okay, Bill. Convener, hello. Some explanation on some terminology, perhaps you can help with. Firstly, on clause 2. Now, it might have been some time ago, but the academic experts who appeared before the Finance and Constitution Committee's discussion of the bill on the 21st of February raised concerns about the clarity and potential width of clause 2, as it applies not only to international trade agreements, which are free trade agreements, but also to an international agreement that mainly relates to trade. That expression, I don't think, is further defined in clause 8.1. Can you explain why it's considered that this is sufficiently clear and what, in relation to Scotland, an agreement that relates mainly to trade would cover? I think I'm going to leave this to officials. I have a note on it, but you've been through the elements of it. So, quite simply speaking, an agreement that mainly relates to trade is one that has trade as the majority of its content. So it's a fairly simple explanation and an example of the type of agreement that this could cover would be an association agreement should the majority of the agreement cover trade related items. Would we expect any more guidance as to what percentage trade might take up in that? I think about the answer. It's mainly about trade. So, no, I think it's the answer. Well, another one, let's see how we get on with this one then. Similarly to clause 1, clause 2 enables the Scottish Government to make regulations as they consider appropriate to implement the relevant trade agreements. I don't know if that's also the mainly relating to trade agreements, but why is that subjective formulation justified rather than the power to make such provision as is necessary, as they consider appropriate versus as is necessary? That's probably a drafting question that we might have to... We have to put it to parliamentary clerks, I suspect. I'm afraid that we're getting down. I have actually asked to go and see the parliamentary clerks to say thank you for the work they did in the trade bill. Perhaps I'll ask them when I go there. In all seriousness, we'll take that, if we may, convener, and give you a technical reply to it, if that's agreeable. That would be helpful. Okay. Thank you. Tom, thank you, convener. Clearly we're going to be devolved components within statutory instruments that's been agreed. We all want this to be as smooth and as efficient as possible and to avoid duplication. What information ahead of the publication or with the publication of SNIs? Will the UK Government be able to provide to the Scottish Parliament? Given that, the detailed provisions in explaining trade documents that are accompanying instruments with the EU withdrawal bill aren't with the trade bill? We're talking here again about transitional... Yeah, yeah. ...trade agreement continuity. Again, Ellen's had these detailed discussions with officials, but my impression is that, on the whole, the process that I described to you about how we will bring forward the changes and how we will describe those and reference them and place them against the rubric of the text that says how we've changed it versus the technical instruments that we say are required to change this particular aspect of it should give any observer with access to the parliamentary website more than sufficient access. Now, to that detail. Now, if you wanted a commitment here that officials will point officials at this end to the right documents at the right time and or find some mechanism for telling Scotland that these issues are arising, I think that we would happily commit to that, but I suspect that Scottish officials are already have those sorts of arrangements in place for themselves. Ellen, anything to add? No, I just agreeing with the minister that, as he mentioned, the document that we're laying before Parliament will be publicly available and the Scottish Parliament can review it as it wishes. Of course, in advance of that, we're working closely on the trade agreement continuity programme with Scottish Government officials throughout. Okay, thank you. Okay. So, in a paragraph 3 of schedule 1 of the bill, it puts requirements on the Scottish Government to consult with UK ministers in certain circumstances before making regulations. Now, this applies where the regulations would make provision about quota arrangements or which are incompatible with quota arrangements. It also applies where the regulations would be commenced before exit day. Can you explain why the provision for consultation is actually considered appropriate and how, in relation to quotas in Scotland, it's envisaged that the consultation requirement will actually operate? Okay, I think that the first thing I'd say is that, of course, this is one of the areas where the amendments were made to the bill to change this substantively. I forget whether it was seek permission before, it was seek consent. So, it was previously seek consent and it became to consult, so the UK Government has already recognised that this is a sensible area in which to change the language in the bill to allow the Scottish Government to control this issue in and of themselves. I think that it is not unreasonable and, frankly, it is just sensible for the Government of Scotland to want to consult with the UK Government just to make sure that there isn't some implication that they had had not thought about. It doesn't imply consent in any way, shape or form, but I think that it probably is just good governance to make sure that, actually, there's something you hadn't missed or, indeed, a plan that is coming out of the UK Government which neither side has yet communicated about, which puts in a potential wrinkle or a complication. As to the quotas, no, I'm not placed to be able to tell you how that would work. I suspect, in the end, it's the Scottish Government making the quotas so it'll be up to them. But surely consultation applies both ways? It depends on the circumstance, yes. Okay. Certainly you mentioned the amendments that were made at the bill. At the report stage in the Commons, the amendments to the bill have aligned the restrictions and limitations on ministers' powers with those in the EU withdrawal act. That includes the restriction on using the powers in clauses 1 and 2 to modify or retain direct EU legislation or retained EU law in breach of new sections 30A1 and 57.4 of the Scotland Act as inserted by section 12 of the EU withdrawal act. The restriction is in paragraph 2 of schedule 1 of the trade bill. Surely this is an analogous to clause 11 of the EU withdrawal bill, therefore it being a paragraph. I don't believe so, but the simple fact is that as the UK leaves the EU, the Scottish Government will have far more powers than it had previously to control issues which were previously controlled by the EU. The UK Government has a responsibility to look after the interests of the whole of the UK, of course. And there are certain issues which are under considerable negotiation and which have changed considerably over time. And where both Governments are having very constructive negotiations about which of these areas should be reserved for the UK to be able to act in exclusively. Those negotiations to go on, it's not my job to pre-empt those. The powers in the EU and the schedule 12 restrictions I know are contentious. It is not within my gift to vary those. It's a negotiation that's happening elsewhere with different officials at different times and have been considerably narrowed over time. That's much I do know. Such that there are now very large areas of competence which the Scottish Government will enjoy absolutely without restriction. And those negotiations continue and hopefully they will continue further. But certainly it is important that the negotiations do continue. But notwithstanding that, there is a clear differential of position and that the Scottish Government clearly feel that that power grab is an operation from the UK Government. Well, you may call it a power grab. I don't, I'm afraid, agree with that term. It seems to me that it's the right and proper responsibility of the United Kingdom Government to, over a period of time, work out how it will deal effectively with the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole single market. It has to make those assessments. It has to be careful not to create distortions in the UK market. I don't think that that's a power grab at all. I think that what that is is good and responsible government. In due course, no doubt these negotiations will continue and the gap will narrow. And I wish everyone well in concluding them. And I've got one final question I'll bring in a moment. On the issue that you mentioned a few months ago, just on the issue of consultation and dialogue, I mean this was also mentioned in the earlier session that you took part in. And I think that's extremely beneficial. I know this isn't to do with the trade bill, but it generally is extremely helpful that there has been more dialogue taking place. But clearly that's on the backdrop of a situation, particularly the GMC process. That has been extremely poor, to say the least. And I know that the Mike Russell, it's only in evidence given to other committees in the Parliament and also in the chamber. He's clearly indicated his frustration at the level of consultation and lack of consultation. And the withdrawal letter is a very good example of that that the Scottish Government didn't know about it and we didn't see it until it was actually published. Can you provide a commitment today that that level of dialogue and consultation will be increased? But also that that representations made from Scottish ministers will actually be taken into account and not just brushed aside. I speak for my department and I can only in this instance speak about the Negotiation and Future Trade Agreements. I am absolutely determined, as is the Secretary of State, that the consultations we make will be meaningful, they'll be wide and they'll be deep. And we will take it into account the interests of all potential interested parties and that certainly includes the devolved authorities. We are not yet set on exactly how we will involve the devolved authorities. That is a matter that's being negotiated on the one hand. And I'll be quite honest with you. I'm not entirely at one with the future I haven't yet absolutely formulated exactly how I want that to happen. And indeed I need to consult with the Secretary of State. But I can make you the commitment that I believe that we will the more we consult, the more we listen, the more we integrate the needs and desires assuming that they don't disrupt other potential partners from in devolved authorities. But as long as we the more we listen, the more we integrate and the more we bring the devolved authorities into agreement with us, the stronger our free trade agreements will be, the more we will be united in negotiating them and the better deal we will do. Neil Sincher here, minister. I'm sure you're a clean living man and doesn't go into a bookmaker's shop but what odds would you give when the checkers plan getting through Parliament? The Government has put forward what is a credible plan for exiting the European Union. It fulfills all the obligations and promises that the Prime Minister made and the directives that we were following, free and frictionless borders and under free movement. I could recite the entire list but I think that you've probably read it a couple of times before. It is the only credible offer out there to try and finish to sort this negotiation out. I believe it has a very good chance of succeeding. Pragmatists across Europe will be saying to themselves this seems like a sensible idea. It solves the Northern Irish issue and allows free trade to continue. It creates frictionless borders. Can we just get on and create an agreement? So yes, I believe that there is a force across Europe that can combine to ensure that this sensible and practical proposal comes to fruition. So was that 51 or 21 or...? I believe that it will come to fruition. Worth of trying to nail. It's certainly the minister. I'm conscious that we have went over the time that was allocated but there are still a few areas of points of clarification that the committee may be able to seek from herself. And would you be content to respond to the committee in writing? Absolutely, of course. If the committee wants to list the final questions and we can provide written answers to those, of course, delighted. That would be helpful. Certainly. Thank you very much minister and also your team for giving evidence to our committee today. Thank you very much for having us in here. Thank you. On that, I'll move into the private session.