 Good morning and welcome to the ninth meeting of the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee in session 5. I would like to remind members of the public to turn off mobile phones and any members using electronic devices to access committee papers during the meeting should ensure their turn to silent. No apologies have been received today. Our first item of business is the decision on taking item 4 in private. Item 4 is consideration of a paper on the committee's scrutiny of the draft budget 2017-18. When I move on to our second item of business today, which is an evidence session on the implications of the EU referendum for Scotland, I would like to welcome to the meeting the right honourable David Mundell MP, Secretary of State for Scotland and James Dowell, our Deputy Director for Constitutional Policy at the Scotland Office of Welcome. I would like to begin by asking Mr Mundell to make a few opening remarks. Thank you, convener. I would like to begin by thanking the committee for inviting me today to contribute to your inquiry. The UK Government is committed to engaging widely and hearing a range of views and perspectives as we prepare for the negotiations with the EU. The evidence gathered by this committee will be an important contribution to that. I also welcome the opportunity to talk to the committee about the work that the UK Government has taken forward in the last four months since the EU referendum. As the Prime Minister made clear immediately after the referendum, the UK Government is committed to getting the best deal for Scotland and the whole of the United Kingdom. That is exactly what we are focused on. I am pleased that there have been a series of useful meetings between the UK and Scottish ministers and officials. For example, last Friday, the Secretary of State for exiting the European Union and I had a very productive discussion with the Minister for EU Negotiations on Scotland's place in Europe. On Monday, the Prime Minister chaired a substantive discussion on EU exit with the First Minister and leaders of the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive at the Joint Ministerial Plenary Committee. Yesterday, Mr Davis and Mr Russell spoke again. Although we may have different views, it is vital that the UK and Scottish Governments work constructively together to secure Scotland's interests. That is why the Prime Minister has established a new forum on EU negotiations chaired by the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU. That will give the Scottish Government and other devolved administrations a direct line to David Davis to allow them to put forward their proposals and help to shape the UK's exit strategy. The first meeting is in early November when market access will be discussed. As the agreement of the new forum demonstrates, we will give the Scottish Government every opportunity to have their say as we prepare for negotiations with the EU. I welcome that the Scottish Government has signalled that they will publish details of their priorities and proposals in the coming weeks. I also hope that the UK and Scottish Governments will take forward some joint engagement on sectors of particular importance to Scotland. I have proposed that directly to Mike Russell, which is something that we can take forward in early course. My priorities to ensure that Scottish voices and interests are at the centre of the negotiations to come and the UK Government is committed to engaging widely across Scotland. My colleague Lord Dunlop and I have already held over 50 meetings with groups and sectors from all parts of Scotland to hear directly from them about their priorities. Organisations include the National Farmers Union, the Scottish Fisherman's Federation, the Scottish Retail Consortium, the Scottish Whiskey Association, the Church of Scotland, Law Society, Young People's Representatives and a range of organisations from energy and tourism sectors. David Davis and I also had an extremely useful meeting with representatives from business, law and culture during his visit to Scotland last week. The overriding message that we have heard is a desire for this dialogue to continue and this will be an on-going priority as we prepare for negotiations. In the conversations I have had so far, I have also been struck by the appetite there is in Scotland for taking advantage of the opportunities provided by leaving the EU. In particular, the EU will provide many opportunities for the UK to create new trading links and partnerships. As we develop these partnerships, it is vital that the people of Scotland and its wide range of businesses are given every opportunity to contribute to the process. I am grateful to the committee for its work. I look forward to your conclusions with interest and to the continued engagement with the Scottish Parliament, which the UK Government is committed to as we work to leave the EU. Thank you very much, Secretary of State. Before we move to questions, can I remind members that we only have an hour today in order for every member to get the opportunity to ask the Secretary of State questions, if we could just bear that in mind? I would like to open the Secretary of State, but I am quoting something that you said on 7 August after meeting Scottish stakeholders. You said that it was your task to ensure that Scottish voices and interests are at the heart of negotiations. On 4 October, we heard the membership of the Prime Minister's Brexit Cabinet Committee and you are not a member, but you will only attend as required. How can you represent the voices and interests of those Scottish stakeholders when you are only attending this key committee as required? I am, of course, a member of the Cabinet, and it will be the Cabinet and the Prime Minister that lead the negotiating process. This is an important committee that covers a range of issues, and, as your inquiry has established, there is a vast range of issues that come up in relation to leaving the EU. My purpose is to focus on those issues, which are most important to Scotland. Therefore, I will attend that committee when issues that are most relevant to Scotland are on the agenda. I understand that, according to the Cabinet's manual, the committees of the Cabinet have the same authority as the Cabinet. How many meetings of that sub-committee there have been? We have said that we are not going to give a running commentary on the negotiations. We are not going to give a running commentary on the committees, but what I can say is that the committee is meeting next week and I will be there in attendance. You will be there. Who decides when you are required? What we will determine is what the agenda is of the meeting, what is the range of issues that are on the agenda, what is being discussed, what is I consider to be the relevance to Scotland and the importance to Scotland, and if there are matters of importance to Scotland on the agenda of that committee, I will be there. So, you will decide if you are required? I will determine whether I need to attend that committee. Right. Can you perhaps give an illustration of when you think that this committee would be discussing something that does not require your presence? I think that, as I have indicated to you, there is a vast amount of issues that relate to leaving the EU. What we have to ensure in that process is that we have focus. It is not for me to replicate the role of the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU. My role is to ensure that the issues and concerns of Scotland are at the heart of that process. Now, there are many issues that affect Scotland that also affect the whole of the rest of the United Kingdom. I have every confidence, for example, in my colleagues who attend that committee, that they are able to take forward those issues. Of course, we have distinct issues in Scotland. We will probably come on to discuss some of those, but there are a range of issues which impact on Scotland, which impact on the whole of the United Kingdom. As I say, I have confidence in colleagues to be able to take those issues forward. One of the issues that I think there is general agreement that is vital to Scotland's interest is being a member of the single market. In the 13th of July, you said that you wanted to ensure that Scotland got the best deal. To quote you, you said clearly that involves being part of the single market. Is that still your view? My view is that we want to maximise our involvement in the single market. That is the objective that the Government wants to achieve, but what I have also said, what the Prime Minister has said, is that it is not appropriate to look at existing structures, because going forward, what the UK is looking to achieve is a bespoke deal, a deal that is the best for the UK, including the best for Scotland. It is bespoke. It is not about having an arrangement that already exists. It is about doing something new and different. That is the outcome that we are looking for. I am looking for an outcome that allows the UK businesses to participate in the single market without tariffs and barriers. You want full membership of the single market in the sense that you want no tariffs or barriers. The European negotiators have already said that that is not possible. What I also know is that we are not going to conduct this negotiation in public. European negotiators and everybody under the sun are going to have their two-peneth worth as we go through the next two years. We will read all sorts of quotes from all sorts of people about what is not possible and what is possible. What we as the UK Government are not going to do is not going to conduct these negotiations in public. What, as the Prime Minister, has set very clearly out, we are focused on the outcomes. Obviously, an outcome that maximises our involvement in the single market is a desirable outcome, and that is what we are looking to achieve. There is a big difference between maximising your involvement in the single market and being in the single market with all the benefits that that brings. We are leaving the EU, and therefore, in that sense, we will be out with the current EU structures. What the negotiations will be determined is what our relationship will be with those EU structures, and all those issues, as far as I am concerned and as far as the UK Government is concerned, is open for negotiation. I pass on to Lewis MacDonald. Thank you. Thank you very much, and I would be eager to explore a little further what you mean when you talk about a bespoke agreement, because clearly that is what we are all focused on, is what the outcomes are going to be. A bespoke agreement suggests to me something that is tailored, something that is designed to fit our needs. How will that bespoke design be arrived at? What will be the process for determining what a bespoke agreement might look like? The process will be the negotiations. Clearly, the Prime Minister has set out, and the committee is aware of the timetable for triggering article 50, when the substantive negotiations will begin. What is envisaged, and David Davis set this out when he was in Scotland last week, is that there would be a single agreement for the whole of the United Kingdom, but that does not mean that within that agreement there cannot be specific issues that would relate to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There won't be a Scotland-only agreement, or a Wales-only agreement, Northern Ireland-only agreement. There will be a United Kingdom agreement, but that agreement can include differential arrangements in different parts of the United Kingdom. If, as part of the negotiation process, that is seen as to be the best way forward. Very interesting. The implication of quite a lot of what the Prime Minister has had to say recently is that that tailoring would be very specific around particular sectors. There has been talk, for example, of the city of London and finance. There has been talk of the car industry in the north and indeed the Midlands of England. What talk has there been around Scotland? If the Prime Minister asks you, which I am sure she does, what is it that Scotland needs out of this process? Where do you start that conversation? Firstly, I wouldn't believe all the media speculation that exists around special deals. David Davis confirmed when we met businesses in Glasgow last week that there isn't currently a plan for a special deal for the city or for the car industry. There will be issues that those industries have, very specific industries. We know that there are issues in relation to the financial services around passporting, for example. There are very specific issues to specific industries, but there won't be special deals. It is absolutely wrong to characterise a suggestion that, somehow, certain areas or parts of the country will get a special deal and Scotland will not. What will happen for Scotland is that we will get the deal that we need to meet our interests and concerns. I have been engaged along with my colleague Lord Donnell in over 50 discussions with all sorts of sectors across Scotland, a fairly wide cross-section, as well as a geographic cross-section. In Scotland, that is particularly important that we ensure that the whole geography of Scotland is incorporated. What I am doing at the moment is that I have fed back to the Prime Minister, for example, the issues and concerns that come up in that process. However, as I indicated in my initial remarks to the conveners, a number of issues that impact and Scotland also impact on other parts of the United Kingdom. There are other sparsely populated areas of the United Kingdom where there would be a desire for in-migration. There are areas of the United Kingdom where seasonal agricultural work is important, as well as here in Scotland, for example, so that those sorts of issues can be dealt with on a UK-wide basis, while, at the same time, dealing with a specific Scottish issue. When you began the answer, you used the phrase special deal. That was not the phrase that I had used. I know that you did not, Mr Donnell, but I have seen that phrase banded about. I was seeking to understand your own phrase, which was differential arrangements. What do differential arrangements mean, for example, in relation to financial services, for example, in relation to fisheries, for example, in relation to the motor industry? How do these differential arrangements arrive as part of that bespoke pouch? How they arrive is as part of our ongoing discussion and dialogue with these sectors to identify exactly what the most important issues and concerns are for the sector, so that we can understand the importance and the prioritisation that they have on particular issues and feed that into determining the negotiating process. Clearly, when it comes to designing that, to reaching that conclusion, the role of the person or persons determining which of those differential arrangements are in the package becomes absolutely critical. I return to the convener's line of questioning around your role and how it is that the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament can be reassured about your engagement in finalising the stitching together of those differential arrangements into that wider package. Ultimately, we are all judged on what we achieve and what the final outcome is, but I give you an absolute assurance that I am committed to ensuring that Scotland's best interests are achieved in this deal. I think that we can get a deal that can both represent the best interests of Scotland and of the United Kingdom as a whole, and I am positive about that. I am going into this process on a positive basis to ensure that our issues and concerns are right up at the top of the agenda, but clearly, as I have indicated, a lot of issues and concerns that we face in Scotland are issues that are evident across the whole of the United Kingdom and need to be resolved on that basis. Thank you very much. Just one other point. The European Commission in setting the grounds on which Michelle Barney is to negotiate from the other side of the table has specifically picked out Northern Ireland and Gibraltar as territories where a particular approach requires to be taken. Would you like to put on the record your understanding of what that means? What is it that requires the European Commission to approach discussions around Northern Ireland and Gibraltar on a different basis from the discussions around the other component parts of the United Kingdom? The specific issue is, of course, that both those areas have a land border with European Union member states. Is there not also a legal aspect to this, particularly in relation to other treaty obligations that the UK has undertaken? There are specific issues in both cases, but the geography is also a significant element in that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Do you have a supplementary question, if you could just be as quick as possible? In terms of the different asks that are going to be conveyed to the UK Government from around the UK, in Scotland our position is different. We have a Government of our own with a policy position, we have a Parliament and we have 62 per cent of the population that voted to remain within the European Union. You are, after all, Scotland's voice in the UK Cabinet, therefore, I assume that Scotland's priorities are at the foremost of your mind. Do you therefore agree that Scotland does have a distinctive case and a voice to be heard in those negotiations, especially in relation to access and membership of the single market, and that it would be unacceptable if those needs were not taken into account and asked by the UK Government? Scotland has two Governments. It has a Government here, the devolved Government and it is part of the United Kingdom and is represented by the United Kingdom Government. Scotland gets the best deal when those two Governments work together in a team UK approach. That is what I am committed to achieving. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that all the issues, concerns and asks of the Scottish Government are part of developing our negotiating process. I am pleased that we have made progress. You have previously been involved in the workings of the joint ministerial committees and you know how challenging it can be to bring all three devolved Administrations of the UK Government together, so it has taken slightly longer than I would have hoped. However, we have a process now that will allow the Scottish Government officials to be right at the heart of the process. I think that we have got the first meeting of that joint ministerial committee European negotiations coming up in early November. Market access, an issue that we have already touched on, will be on the agenda. There is a lot of work going on to determine the work programme for that. I do not have any doubt that Scotland's issues, concerns and asks will be at the heart of the process. That leads slightly and covers slightly the area that I would like you to discuss. That is to say a little bit more about the formal structures that are going to underpin the engagement that will take place between the Scottish Government and Westminster and the Scottish Parliament. How would you characterise the outcome of the meeting that took place on Monday? Just the formal structures that you have alluded to, what you think they will depend upon in order for there to be a productive and successful dialogue and outcome. You have mentioned the fact that market access will be on the agenda, although you do not propose to give a running commentary. Is that in itself a reflection of the importance that has been attached to that issue by the devolved administrations who have been seeking to identify the areas that will be discussed? Obviously, goodwill is at the heart of any process where parties are working together. I have to say that I have had a very positive working relationship with Mr Russell to date. Obviously, I know Mr Russell well of old and he has acted in a very constructive manner to date. That is why I am very keen following a discussion that we had recently that we engage in some joint activity. I think that it is very important to do that, the two Governments doing that together. There is little point in me in evidence gathering, so to speak, and finding that we have contradictory evidence, for example. Let's work together and see what the sectors are saying. Let's share information, and that's very much what this process is about. It's about both bringing officials together, but importantly, bringing the political part of the Government together as well. The committee will meet regularly, probably monthly. It will meet throughout the process of the negotiations and it will discuss the negotiations as the negotiations proceed. Obviously, in the period up until the end of March when the Prime Minister set out that article 50 will be triggered, its focus will be on that process and the beginning of the negotiations. However, there will be full and frank discussion. I have no doubt about that, but I also don't have any doubt that the Scottish Government voice will be heard in the process. The point that I asked about, the fact that market access is to be on the agenda of the first meeting that is coming up, is that to reflect the priority that has been attached to that by the devolved administrations? Is that why it is there? How do you see the work programme of that group developing? The work programme is going to be brought together by the respective administrations. There is a lot of detailed work going on in relation to achieve that, because it is a very tight timetable to work to. What the Prime Minister has assured the First Minister and others is that the timetable of that committee will dovetail into other developments. The committee will discuss, for example, the great repeal bill, which is the piece of legislation that would mean the repeal of the European community. The committee will discuss that at the point before that is finalised, so that there is full engagement in that process. We will dovetail the activities of the GMCEN with other developments as they unfold. Both sides and the other devolved administrations believe that market access is a very important issue, and that is why it is going to be the first issue that is going to be discussed. On that point, how many meetings of the GMCEN will take place before article 50 is triggered? I cannot answer that question in a definitive way. At the moment, it is anticipated that the committee would meet on a monthly basis. However, if more meetings are required, then there is the flexibility to do that. Likewise, there is the flexibility to have fewer meetings. I am very supportive of that, because I think that it was most unfortunate that the GMCP, which is the meeting of First Ministers and the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, with the Prime Minister took so long to come about. There were a whole range of administrative reasons from all sides that that did not happen. However, it has been agreed that that will meet more regularly and that there will be a meeting of that form early in the new year. If it was monthly, then you are talking about four meetings before article 50 is triggered, so that does not sound all that many to me. If the participants want to have more meetings, there is not a restriction on the number of meetings. I am just reporting what the envisaged timescale is. Thank you very much. One supplement, if I may convener, on the process points that have been discussed. Can I take it that when article 50 is triggered, Secretary of State, there will be a UK position? There will be a UK position going into the negotiations, but that position in specific terms will not be announced in the sense of a running commentary basis that I have alluded to or the sense of us making absolutely clear what our negotiating position was on issues. I think that what you can anticipate because the process of triggering article 50 will involve a communication with the EU and that will set out UK priorities. I understand that and believe me I have heard the phrase running commentary more than I ever want to hear it ever again, but what I was driving at is that it is therefore safe to assume that at that point that article 50 is triggered, Edinburgh Cardiff and Belfast will know what that position is. I would anticipate that. Thank you. The question I actually wanted to ask was on environment, fisheries and agriculture. When we came into this place in 1999, as Richard and Lewis did too, when I read the Scotland Act in that point, they are devolved. In whatever happens in the future, they will remain devolved, won't they? Fisheries, agriculture and environment will be the responsibility of this institution. There will be no change to existing arrangements other than that the context of leaving the EU does automatically change the devolved settlements because the devolved settlements are predicated on the basis that the UK is a member of the EU. It is clear that there will be a range of changes flowing from that in terms of relationship and a range of options. What I am committed to do in relation to those options is to engage with all those interested parties in Scotland. I think that it is very important that we do that. That is what we have done in relation to previous devolution settlements, both back in the settlement that preceded the establishment of this Parliament, the Kalman commission and the Smith commission. All of those were heavily consulted on and preceded on the basis of engagement. I am not proceeding at the moment on the basis of a fixed presumption. I very much understand the point that you make. You will be aware that there are other interests that suggest different options. I think that we need to look at the options and engage fully, and that is what I am committed to doing. I understand that, but politically it would be impossible to imagine our fisheries policy of Scotland being determined in Westminster, given that it has been determined in Edinburgh by no other than Richard Lochhead and Ross Finney since devolution in 1999. I could not envisage that there would be a change to the existing arrangements. On that point, you will be aware, Secretary of State, that this committee commissioned evidence research work from Professor Alan Page at Dundee University. He made the point that, after Brexit, there was a very strong possibility that Scottish law, which was a European law, could be repealed using secondary legislation at Westminster, abandoning the presumption that there would be consultation with this Parliament. Do you envisage that we will have to go back into the devolution settlement to make sure that that does not happen? What I envisage happening in relation to the Scottish law issues is obviously the two Governments working very closely together to ensure that there are no legal difficulties, firstly, at the point that the UK leaves the EU, that the body of existing EU law applies from that day, so that we do not reach a situation where there is any uncertainty as to what the law is. That will be a key component of the great repeal bill. There have already been discussions with the Scottish Government's initial discussions, with the Scottish Government's legal advisers, as to how that process can be best taken forward. It is a complex process and that process will go forward on the basis of co-operation. There will not be any suggestion that there is no suggestion that laws that have been passed here in Holyrood would, in some way, be overridden by decisions taken at Westminster. It is not a matter between the two Governments. The point that Professor Page was making is that this Parliament should always have scrutiny and there should not be an arrangement where using secondary legislation laws can be changed without consulting this Parliament. I am very happy, Ms McAlpine, to give you an undertaking that no laws will be changed of the type that you refer to without consultation with this Parliament. We want to now work through the process because, as Professor Page alluded to, there are a whole range of instruments that may have passed that make reference to the EU, which may need to be changed and we need to find a way in which that is done, not in a way that changes the substance of what they do, but just to ensure that they are continuing validity. Stuart McMillan Thank you, convener. Good morning, Secretary of State. Just a further few things this morning from yourself, such as that you went to maximise involvement in the single market and looking for a bespoke deal. I am a bit unsure, certainly in terms of the whole issue of free movement, but can you tell me what your current position is, please, on whether you do support or do not support a free movement to Scotland? What I support is that it will be for the United Kingdom to determine who enters the United Kingdom from the European Union. There are two elements to the process. One is bringing back the control of immigration from the EU to the United Kingdom. The second part of that is determining what policies we have within the United Kingdom in relation to who comes to the United Kingdom. This week, I attended the Crossmart to Group in Science and Technology event on Tuesday evening. At that meeting, it was suggested that 16 per cent of academics in the UK are from the EU, 12 per cent of academics are non-EU. Last night, I attended the RCN event here in the Parliament and it was put to me at 33,000 NHS nurses. Alone are non-UK. This week, we heard from Professor Sir Timothy O'Shea indicating that Brexit ranges from bad to awful to being catastrophic. From a Scottish perspective, we have the first marine tourism strategy published last year in 2015. That is about promoting and increasing the tourism opportunity across Scotland for sailing and boating. One of the aspects of that is about encouraging people to come from elsewhere, particularly Northern Europe, other EU member states. If we do not have free movement, notwithstanding the academics, nurses and other elements in students and other academia through universities, as well as the range of boating and sailing activities, how are we going to fully benefit if we do not have free movement? I think that there are two separate points. As I have said, the objective in the negotiations is to return control of immigration from the EU to the UK so that we can determine ourselves who comes to the UK from the EU. We already have existing immigration arrangements in place for non-EU citizens. It does not mean that we are going to go from a position of having a very significant number of people come from the EU to having no people. There are all sorts of criteria that currently exist, particularly in relation to specified occupations where there is a shortage of skills. That is certain to continue. It will be about establishing our own immigration system in relation to the EU. Last week, I participated in the inquiry that Westminster colleagues on the Scottish Affairs Select Committee are currently pursuing about inward migration to Scotland. That is a very worthwhile and significant inquiry, because one of the things that is clear at the moment is that of the people who currently come to the United Kingdom in rough terms, only three or four per cent of those people come to Scotland. A very small number of people who are coming to the United Kingdom come to Scotland, and we need to understand why that might be and how we can go about making Scotland a more attractive place for people to want to come to. That is a fundamental part of it, but in relation to your question, there is no intention to stop people coming completely from the European Union, but what we will have is our own immigration system to determine who comes. I am sure that the Secretary of State, if you want to speak to a family in Highlands, he will tell you why they wanted to come to Scotland. Secondly, in terms of the boating and the sailing aspect, are you suggesting that, if we are going to have our own separate immigration system, that there is a potential that we can then see some type of border controls at the marinas, not just in Scotland but across the UK? In terms of border controls, I would hope that we do not have to have border controls at marinas across Scotland. I want people to come here, but we also have to ensure that we do not have, as at the moment, we do not have abuse of the system. As I understand it, for example, your border force keeps a very close eye on all ports within Scotland, just in case people are using those ports to breach the current rules. Thank you very much, secretary. Good morning. It is related to borders. What discussions have you had with colleagues for Northern Ireland over how solutions for the issue of the Ireland and Northern Ireland border will impact on travel, similar to what Stuart McMillan has said? To and from Northern Ireland and from Stranrair, for instance, can you guarantee that there will be no border controls at Stranrair? There are two issues there. Obviously, the common travel area with Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom has existed, I think, from about 1923. It is something that has preceded our membership of the EU and Ireland's membership of the EU. It is something that the Government has made clear that we want to continue to be able to have the arrangement that currently exists. Clearly, that is the position of the Irish Government as well. There are detailed discussions that have already begun as to how that can be achieved. If that is achieved, I cannot envisage why there would need to be border controls at Stranrair, but as you are aware, over a period, many people have expressed concern about access to the UK mainland through Stranrair and that perhaps people had come in through that route that might not have got into the United Kingdom if they had chosen other ways to do so. However, we are committed to looking to ensure that the common travel area can stay in place and detailed discussions are on-going at the moment as to how that can be achieved. Just to be clear, do you rule out border controls at Stranrair? I cannot envisage any circumstances in which there would be border controls at Stranrair. So no border controls in Ireland or between Ireland and Scotland? That is what we want to ensure that we can keep the common travel area as it is at the moment. However, I cannot pre-empt those negotiations because they not only obviously involve the UK Government and the Irish Government. There will be a degree of requirement for the other member states of the EU to agree to such an arrangement, but it is an important component of our discussions currently between the UK Government and the Irish Government. Just on that, you have referred to the common travel area and the prospect of continued free movement of people across the Irish border between Ireland and the United Kingdom. That is quite a different matter from the single market. Does that mean that, if we are not members of the single market, the negotiation must encompass both free movement of people and an end to free movement of goods and services? I think that no one would want to go back to any of the borders of the past that have existed in Ireland. It would be an aspiration to ensure that there were none. There seems to be a tension here between the British Government's position that it needs to take back control of our borders and the willingness to ensure that there are not border controls. The Irish Government yesterday dismissed ideas that there could be, essentially, British border controls in Dublin. Discussion here of discussions between the two Governments to quote the T-shirt. We do not yet know what the British Government is actually looking for here. There seems to be quite a hard tension to resolve, but to go back to Lewis MacDonald's point, does the UK Government accept that to take back control of our own borders, of our own immigration policy, we would have to do so from outwith the single market, as has been repeatedly stated to us? I accept on one level that, if we are leaving the EU, we are leaving the single market, but our access to the single market can continue in a way that does not involve tariffs or barriers and still be able to control immigration from the EU in this country. Clearly, that is something that we should aspire to achieve as part of those negotiations. I think that other leaders from the rest of Europe have made it exceptionally clear that the tension between those two points is perhaps unresolvable. Moving on to the economic impact on Scotland, the committee commissioned a paper from the Fraser Valenston Institute looking at the potential economic effects. Its pessimistic scenario had in the region of 80,000 job losses and a £2,000 drop in average wages over the next decade. I was wondering if you could outline a little bit what the UK Government's evidence-based approach is to deciding what is in the best interests of the Scottish economy. I am pleased to find that not all pessimistic forecasts come to pass, because the forecast for our GDP today was going to be negative 1, and it is actually plus 0.5. Have you felt your respect for Brexit hasn't started yet? Well, I think it has in the sense that the decisions being taken, the process has begun, and impacts are being felt. There are other people who would argue that people are already feeling some impact, some positive, some negative. I think what the GDP figures indicate is that our economy is strong and resilient. There is going to be turbulence, and there is no doubt about that. The Chancellor will, in his autumn statement in November, bring forward a number of specific proposals, but I think that we can be confident that we have a strong and resilient economy. Of course, there are difficult circumstances at the moment for some businesses, but other businesses are taking the opportunity of the lower value of the pound, for example, agricultural businesses and tourism businesses, in terms of the number of people who are coming into Scotland and the rest of the UK. I am not denying in any way that there is going to be turbulence, but there are also going to be positives. On that note, taking aside the UK Government's view on the value of expert advice, the expert advice and forecasting seems to be a debate on the range of how negative the impact is going to be, even if the most optimistic scenarios still had strong negative impacts on our economy. In that case, I can only presume that the UK Government believes that there are non-economic benefits to Scotland taking part in what seems to be a hard Brexit position that is being adopted. Could you outline what the non-economic benefits are in the UK Government's view? I do not think that terms like hard Brexit and soft Brexit are really relevant. They are banded around, but, as I explained to the convener in my opening remarks, what we are looking for is a bespoke deal for the United Kingdom, and, including Scotland, that gets us the best possible arrangement. It is not a hard or soft Brexit option. It is about getting the best deal, which is outcome-based. That is what the Prime Minister is focused on achieving, and that is what we have to work towards. There will be lots of noises off. We will hear lots of things said by all sorts of European leaders, the European commissioner, academics and goodness knows who else about why we cannot have this or why we cannot have that. The deal will be what is achieved in the negotiations. I am confident and positive about our ability to achieve a good deal in those negotiations. I hope that we are not sick of that expert advice, and the UK Government will take it on board. Well, what I can assure you is that we are aware of all the contributions that have been made to this committee, and I think it has been a very valuable exercise in the sense of the engagement that you have achieved. Obviously, we are aware of the views that have come in through that. We are aware of what experts say, but we are also focusing on what real people say and what businesses and organisations across Scotland say. You spoke in your opening statement about creating new trading links and partnerships, and Theresa May recently set out her vision for Brexit and said that a truly global Britain is possible and is in sight. It would be no surprise that it is because we are the fifth largest economy in the world and the UK is growing fast in the G7. It is something that we should be proud of. Can you give the committee reassurances that the UK will make Brexit a success to ensure our continued performance on that world stage? Absolutely. I think that Brexit is an opportunity. It is an opportunity for us to forge a new role on the world stage. It is an opportunity for us to be, I believe, a champion of free trade. Free trade is a good thing. It is concerning some of the language that we hear, particularly in the US presidential election, about not supporting free trade. We have the opportunity to create new arrangements. Even those people who are most pro-EU accept that some of the arrangements that it has with other countries that we currently operate under are not the best possible deals that could have been achieved for the UK's interests. I think that there are lots and lots of new arrangements out there. What really encourages me is that, as I go round Scotland and speak to businesses and other stakeholders, they see those opportunities. They accept that there are challenges, but they see that there are real opportunities for them and their businesses in those new arrangements. They are very optimistic and open-minded at looking at them. Secondly, Ross Greer mentioned the Fraser of Allander Institute. We recently heard evidence from them at a business breakfast. They highlighted that the UK is a significantly more vital trading partner for Scotland than the rest of the EU. Scotland's exports are four times as much with the rest of the UK than they are with the EU. As Secretary of State for Scotland, do you agree that it is important that we prioritise relations with our largest trading partner and do not do anything to jeopardise that? I absolutely agree. The union with the rest of the United Kingdom, as you say, is a value of more than four times the value of the EU market for Scotland. Over the last 10 years, between 2004 and 2014, the proportion of Scotland's exports to the EU fell, and the proportion of its exports to the rest of the UK went up. The rest of the UK is an incredibly important market for Scotland. A million jobs depend on that market. Although I absolutely accept the legitimacy of concerns about access to the single EU market, we have to prioritise the market that is most important to us, and that is the rest of the UK. I want to pick up on where Tavish Scott left off earlier on, given the reference to my former life as fishing minister. In my experience, we found that we did not have a Scottish fishing quota because the quota was allocated to the UK because it was a member state of the European Union. Also, we were unable to take charge of international negotiations because the UK Government deemed that as foreign affairs. Are you saying that if we exit the European Union, there will be a Scottish quota? Are you also saying that Scotland will be able to conduct our international negotiations over fish stocks? What I am saying is that I am going to engage on that issue. I think that I was quite clear, my answer to Mr Scott. I am not proceeding on a presumption. I am agreeing that there are now issues that have arisen because we have begun the process of leaving the EU, and that those issues need to be addressed. I think that the best way to address those issues is through engagement. Clearly, from the way that you phrased the question, you have a view as to what the end process of that engagement should be, which may be similar to Mr Scott. It might not be the same view, for example, of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. It may not be the same view as other interested parties, but I want to ensure that we have that engagement, because that engagement is always what has preceded changes to the arrangements in the devolved settlement. I have a supplementary question from Lewis MacDonald. Thank you. You said, Secretary of State, a moment to go and answer to our previous question. If we are leaving the EU, then we are leaving the single market. You will be aware that some of our nearest neighbours in north-west Europe are out with the European Union but are inside the single market. When you come to discuss with the GMC next month market access, does that mean that the model that has been followed by Norway and Iceland is simply one that will not be considered, or is that something that the UK Government is prepared to discuss with the devolved administrations? It is certainly something that we are prepared to discuss. I would hope that it is not a necessary arrangement because the access that we have managed to secure for the UK from the single market is what meets Scotland's and the UK's needs. The Prime Minister is very clear to the First Minister when we met on Monday that all options will be looked at. You accept that it is perfectly possible to be within the single market but out with the European Union? I accept that there are a number of existing arrangements in place. I also accept, however, that we are proceeding for our own bespoke arrangement, which is not the same arrangement that Norway or Switzerland or Iceland or any other country would currently have. I understand those arrangements. At the very start of the process of engagement, when I met Fiona Hyslop, who was then responsible for those matters, on 24 June, I said that there was no manual on the shelf to determine how all of this would work and that we would be open to look at options. That has continued to be the case. I am looking forward to, as I understand, the publication imminently of the Scottish Government's proposals because, obviously, we want to look at those. What is the supplementary very quickly from Stuart McMillan and Ross Greer? In a reply to Rachael Hamilton that you spoke about free trade, but in terms of having a bespoke agreement out of the single market but having access to the single market, do you therefore think that the UK will still have free trade arrangements with the rest of the EU? I would envisage that we would want to have that maximum access to the EU single market rather than having individual arrangements with members of the EU. I understand that you cannot have individual arrangements with the member of the EU. Very briefly, to follow Rachael Hamilton's question about Scotland's relationship with the rest of the UK, if this Parliament was to decide that that relationship needed to be reexamined through a referendum, would your Government, whilst obviously taking a clear position, be willing to grant the section 30 order to allow that to take place? Obviously, I do not support being another referendum held. I believe that the people of Scotland made their decision on 18 September 2014 and, in accordance with the Edinburgh agreement, which both Governments signed, that decision should be acknowledged. Therefore, in relation to the consultation on the referendum, I feel that it is unnecessary and unhelpful. The feedback that I get from most businesses that we go around is that they want that issue taken off the table because they believe that it is creating undue uncertainty. However, in relation to the specific of your question, the one thing that I acknowledge in that consultation is that it accepts that, if another referendum were to be contemplated, it requires the agreement of the UK Government and legislation in the UK Parliament. To ask it again, if this Parliament decided that that was to take place, would the UK Government grant such a section 30 order? What I have just set out is that agreement would be required with the UK Government for such a referendum to take place and legislation would be required in the UK Parliament. We do not know then. No such proposal has been brought forward to the UK Government. Just to conclude, I was interested when you were talking about the GMCEN and you are talking about dovetailing with other meetings that are happening. Will the devolved administrations have the opportunity to discuss issues of importance to them and put their position set out clearly at the GMCEN before the meetings of the cabinet Brexit sub-committee? What is envisaged in terms of developing the work programme is that the work programme is dovetailing with the other important elements of the decision-making process. That is what the objective is. That was fully understood at the GMC. It would not serve any purpose and it would not be productive or helpful to be discussing things that had already proceeded in a different direction. It is attempting to achieve the engagement with the devolved administrations at the point where they can influence what the outcome is. The actual shape of the deal, so ahead of the cabinet meeting? Well, ahead of whatever processes are going on around it, yes. I think that we will be very pleased to hear that you are attending the Brexit sub-committee. Is that the first time that you have attended the Brexit sub-committee? Well, I am not giving a running commentary on the number of committees met who has been present at them. I go back to what I said at the start. I will ensure that Scotland's interests are represented both in terms of what that committee does, both in terms of what the GMCEN does and in terms of what the cabinet does. The Brexit sub-committee has already met to discuss trade and immigration, which I think we have all agreed are very important issues for Scotland. Were you at that meeting? It sounds as if you have not been to any of them so far. I know that you want to draw me into giving a running commentary, which I alluded to with Mr Scott. I am absolutely satisfied that my role allows me to contribute not just to that committee, but to the cabinet discussions and to the whole range of other discussions that are taking place, which will ensure that we get Scotland and the UK the best possible deal from this process. I am sorry to press you, but you are giving me the very distinct impression that you have not attended one of the Brexit sub-committees of the cabinet. Whatever impression I am giving you, what I am not giving you is a running commentary on those committees, who attends and what was discussed. At that point, we will suspend the meeting and go into private session.