 Welcome to the Justice Committee's 21st meeting of 2018. It's good to see you all back after summer recess. We have apologies from Jenny Gilruth, from Daniel Johnson and also from Liam Kerr, and we have Michelle Ballantyne attending as the substitute for Liam, so welcome, Michelle. Agenda item number one is our evidence session with the right honourable David Mundell, MP Secretary of State for Scotland, and it's my pleasure to welcome you to the meeting, David. Today's session will focus on the potential impact of Brexit on the civil and criminal justice systems and policing in Scotland. The committee will have similar sessions next Tuesday morning with the new cabinet secretary for justice and the Lord Advocate. Cabinet secretary, do you want to make a few very brief opening remarks? I am very pleased to do that, convener. Of course, I wrote to you setting out a number of publications in particular that the Government had brought forward in the period since I was previously due to appear before the committee. Again, my apologies for not being able to appear in June when I was required to give a statement in the House of Commons. I look forward to covering the areas that are set out in the letter and the areas that you have set out in your opening remarks and explaining some of the work that is being taken forward by the UK Government and how we are collaborating with the Scottish Government and other key stakeholders in Scotland to ensure that the distinct justice system here in Scotland is fully taken into account. I will not rehearse in detail the publications that I set out in the letter, but you will be aware that in May and June the UK Government presented proposals for the future security partnership and the future partnership on civil judicial cooperation to inform discussion between the UK negotiating team and the EU. We also published a technical note in May detailing the UK's position on security, law enforcement and criminal justice. On 12 July, we published the white paper setting out our proposals for a future relationship, which included much more detail than the earlier papers on our ambitions for a security partnership, criminal justice co-operation and civil judicial co-operation. There have also been a series of technical notices published. The first 25 of those are already in the public domain. The Prime Minister indicated yesterday that there would be approximately 70 of those notices and one of which will certainly cover the area of civil law and judicial matters. I think that the rest of the issues that you are likely to want to cover are best taken forward with questions. I would put forward one caveat that met some of the areas that are issues that would not normally be dealt with by my colleagues from the Home Office or the Ministry of Justice, so there may be some very detailed questions that I might seek to revert to the committee with written submissions. Thank you for that update and for the letter that you sent to just giving progress. That was very helpful. Can we move to questions now? As time isn't relatively short, if we can have brief questions with little preamble and as concise answers as possible, then we'll cover as much as we possibly can. Can I start with a very pertinent question about the European arrest warrant. Whilst two Russian agents responsible for the Salisbury poisonings can be extradited from Russia, if they travel to an EU member state, they can be brought back to the UK under the European arrest warrant. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that this arrangement will continue or a similar arrangement will continue, both during the transition period and after the UK leaves the EU? I think that the events are very pertinent to that question and the consideration of the European arrest warrant. As you alluded to, the Prime Minister made clear yesterday that that was the basis on which we are proceeding, so that if those individuals were to leave Russia and to enter into other European jurisdictions, they would be able to be the subject. We want an outcome that will afford the maximum protection to our citizens. We believe that the current arrangement provides that. That's why, after the implementation period in which we would see the existing arrangements continue, we would want to enter into a specific and new arrangement with the EU in order that we could continue on that basis. Clearly, it is subject to reaching agreement, but on the basis of recent figures it is very clear that there are significant benefits for EU member states from maintaining such an arrangement with the UK. As I understand it, approximately 10,000 individuals in the United Kingdom last year were subject to European arrest warrant proceedings, which meant that those people were arrested and returned to EU member states. We exercised about 1,000 arrest warrants in EU member states. There is a clear mutual benefit for coming to an agreement, and that is our objective. Certainly, the Salisbury case and the two Russian agents put that into very sharp focus. I suppose that it is absolutely being clear that the basis for what might be a new extradition treaty would be just as effective as the EU arrest warrant is operating now. It is, but we certainly want to go further than arrangements that would simply be in place if we were a third country. We want to have an extradition arrangement that is the equivalent of the European arrest warrant. There is no reason, operational, legal, why that could not be the case if that can be agreed with the EU. Can I ask you what gap analysis has been done if we no longer have the European arrest warrant and has that been shared with the Scottish Government? Obviously, there has been significant working with the Scottish Government, and there is significant working, as you are aware, between the UK police forces, including the Police Scotland, in relation to a number of those matters. In relation to what would happen if, in the event that we leave the EU without a deal, that is what the technical notice process is doing. It is setting out what we envisage happening in those circumstances. However, our position is that we see the huge benefits of the European arrest warrant. We want to continue on the same basis. Therefore, that is why we are putting the efforts that we are into securing a security partnership that would yield that outcome. I know that it is the outcome that the Scottish Government wants to see. It wants to see the equivalent of the European arrest warrant being able to continue, and that is what we want. That is where the focus of our efforts is going. Would that include contingency planning? Yes, it will. There are discussions on going with the Scottish Government about contingency planning, but the focus and the initial feedback is a positive one that the EU member states see the benefit, particularly in this area, particularly in security matters, in policing and justice matters, of having on-going co-operation. Therefore, there is a positive environment in which to have that negotiation. However, I am not suggesting that it would be a positive outcome not to have the European arrest warrant regime, in fact, exactly the opposite. To recap, you said that, if there is no positive outcome, there is a gap analysis being done and contingency planning? There will be contingency planning, and there will be most likely what is called a technical notice, which would set out what is envisaged would happen if there were not to be those existing arrangements. Folling on from the convener's questions about the European arrest warrant, and you used the term third country status, and there are also discussions about bespoke deals. It is clear that you want involvement in the European arrest warrant. That is also true of the European arrest warrant and the Eurojust. Is that the case? The policy paper, Secretary of State, recognises that, and I quote here, it is a third country that, after Brexit, many of the arrangements will not apply or be inferior. That is your own paper. What we are doing is seeking to reach agreement in relation to the arrest warrant and engagement with the European arrest warrant and the Eurojust on the best possible basis. That is what we are looking to do. We do not believe that there is any reason why that is not achievable. I think that there is a taking into account and a recognition, particularly in the organisations of the role that the UK has played. Indeed, Scotland is part of that in relation to our unique civil and criminal justice systems, and particularly in some areas such as the level of data that we are providing into the EU. It is in a completely different domain from arrangements that might be made with other third countries. We believe that that provides the basis for reaching an agreement on an extended basis. That is certainly a view, Secretary. I accept that, but again, quoting from your policy paper, the existing third country agreements with the EU do not provide direct access to the EU's databases and the streamlined exchange of data is a very significant resource that is under threat with the present arrangements. If we were suggesting that that was the outcome that we wanted to achieve, it is not. We want to have a different arrangement from a simple third country arrangement. For the reasons that I set out just in my preceding answer, I think that that is a perfectly practical and credible proposal to make, given the scale of our existing involvement with Europe. I am quoting from your paper, Secretary of State, and I acknowledge that there is the status quo and the arrangements that apply at the moment. There is a bespoke deal that you seek, and I understand that. Quite rightly, your paper alludes to the potential of being considered as a third country status. Again, I say that, quoting from your paper, that would not allow national experts, so UK, England, Wales, PSNI, Police Scotland or Crown Office Procurator Fiscal People, to be embedded within Europe or enable the third country to initiate activity in the same way. That is a very weak situation, is it not? That is why we do not want to proceed on that basis. That is why we want to secure a security partnership. We believe that that is also the benefit of the EU, and early indications are that we can make positive progress in reaching such an agreement. I think that it is right to set out what the factual situation is in relation to a third country, but we do not want to be in that position. We want to have that bespoke agreement, and that is what we are aiming to achieve. You will understand that, as a parliamentary committee, our job is to scrutinise all the potential outcomes. I accept that you want the desirable outcome. What analysis had been made of the practical implications, for instance, with the exchange of data, were that not to be secured? As I have indicated, we are in the process of producing a series of technical notices that set out what would happen in the eventualities of no deal. Data will certainly be covered in that process, so there is analysis and work going ahead. I am not going to suggest that not reaching an agreement in relation to that would be anything other than sub-optimal, it would be. Secretary of State, how many personnel from Scotland, be it Crown Office, Procurator, Fiscal Service or the Scottish Police Service, are embedded in those organisations? I would have to write to you on that, Mr Finnie, but I will get you the exact number, but I would be happy to do so. Okay, and the roles would be helpful. Yes. Many thanks. Just on that, Cabinet Secretary, I think that it has been suggested that it would be very much in the EU's interests to have a close security partnership because of the sharing of capabilities, aspects and expertise. Could you very briefly give the committee an understanding of what that is that gives you the optimism that it would be in the EU's best interest? I think that co-operation in relation to security matters is clearly in everyone's interests, and you convener right at the start of this meeting referenced the events on which the Prime Minister made a statement yesterday. That is the world that we are living in, and it is clearly beneficial for European nations to co-operate in, for example, tackling the threat that Russia poses in that regard. That is self-evident at the wider security level. We are also seeing a change in the nature of the threat. We see all the issues around cyberattacks and the involvement in attacks on the democratic process, for example. Those attacks do not just confine to geographic national boundaries. The case is overwhelming, but the case is also in the numbers that I provided at the start. In relation to individual criminal activity, we have supported the use of the European arrest warrant in relation to over 10,000 cases here in the UK for other EU states. I hope that those states found that that was due to their benefit in delivering justice in their own countries. Liam McArthur I think that we would all accept and we heard in evidence earlier in the year about the mutual interest that would be in reaching agreement. I think that the concern is the pathway to getting there. You suggested that a failure to reach agreement would be so optimal, which to me seems a rather significant understatement. I think that the difficulty is that, while there is that mutual interest, the UK will be outwith the structures that allow the system to operate at present, the court of justice being but one example. In relation to the engagement with the European justice, Tom Finney indicated that the very real and significant difficulties that there are in relation to data and evidence sharing is not clear how those are to be surmounted. I know that the European Commission back in May rejected the UK proposal for a bespoke data protection regime. Can you give the committee some understanding of what that pathway looks like, how we are going to breach that divide that exists at the moment? There is an on-going negotiation, as you know. The EU wanted the UK to set out our proposals. That is what we have done in the security partnership document and the subsequent white paper. Ultimately, any arrangement that we come to will be one that will be determined by the EU member states, not by the commission. We have, for example, since over the summer, engaged significantly with individual member states. That is part of what gives us confidence that we will be able to reach an agreement on data and other matters. We are in a negotiation. Part of that negotiation is definitely, as the conveners have alluded to, to set out to the other side the benefits to them as well as reaching an agreement. I am particularly struck by the level of the proportion of data that the UK is providing. That is why it is not to suggest that it is simply on the same status as some other third countries. There is 40 years of history of data sharing and all the other arrangements that have put place. The UK has been in the forefront of many of initiatives that other organisations have pursued on the justice and security front. We are in a different position from third countries, but we have to make our case. That is a negotiation. I am sure that the European Commission will be aware of the points that you have made in terms of the extent of the data sharing that happens at the moment. Nevertheless, it has taken a view that the bespoke proposal that is put forward by the UK Government is not adequate. From the discussions that you say are going on in EU capitals, are you suggesting that there is a mood among the member states to reject the advice of the commission in terms of data sharing and to plough on the bespoke proposal? I am saying that, ultimately, the agreement on this issue and others will be determined by the 27 member states, whether or not in alignment with the position of the commission. I would far rather say that we were in a position in which the commission was also favourable to the outcome. Clearly, in the negotiations that are on going by the Secretary of State for DECSU and the commission and other Government officials, we are seeking to make our case with the commission as well. Ultimately, whatever agreements we reach with the EU are agreements that are going to be signed off by the 27 member states. There has been no refinement of the UK proposal in terms of data sharing since that commission. There have been detailed discussions with the commission on that issue. Is that the mentoring? Yes. It is just following on in that same theme. Your letter says that, as a responsible Government, we are preparing for all eventualities, including the unlikely scenario in which the current mechanisms that we use to co-operate with the EU member states are not available when we exit the EU in March 2019. On what basis, you said that the unlikely situation is just wishful thinking. No, I believe that we will be able to reach agreement with the EU and that is a desirable thing to do. We have set out our proposition for those negotiations. As I discussed at length with the Finance and Constitution Committee earlier today, that is the basis on which I want to see us proceed in our departure from the EU. To reaffirm a point that I made with them, just because contingency arrangements are made in relation to a no deal, because inevitably in a negotiation a no deal outcome is a possible outcome, that is not the outcome that the UK Government is promoting. We need responsibly, for some of the issues that we have already touched on, to have contingency arrangements in place in what I consider the unlikely event that emerged. You have mentioned a few times that technical notices are being drawn up and I am wondering when you could let us know when they might be issued? There are 25 notices that are already in the public domain. As I said, it is my understanding that there will be a one covering the civil jurisdiction and judicial matters imminently. When that comes forward, I will send it directly to the committee. However, as they are published, they come into the public domain. There are about 25 that are currently in the public domain. The Prime Minister said yesterday that, as she anticipated, there might be around 70 of them in total. Are there any areas that you are aware of where the UK and EU security co-operation could improve as a result of a new relationship? Obviously, a lot of the questions have been about the idea that it is going to be detrimental. Do you think that we could enhance Scotland and Britain's combined security capability? Our security co-operation has continued to develop over the period. At all points, we are seeking to improve it. Our view is that whether or not we are members of the EU is not the issue, the issue is tackling the threats at hand. That is what we want an outcome that allows us to do. I believe that we can continue to improve the process whether or not we are in the EU on the basis of being able to get the sort of agreement that I have referenced in earlier questions. However, we have been in the vanguard of arguing for things such as the passenger name record, the sharing of lists of people who have travelled by various means between countries or across Europe. That was an initiative that the UK pursued, so there are plenty of things that can be done and can continue to be done whether or not we are a member of the EU. Thank you, convener. Good morning. Good afternoon. Even Secretary of State I will lose track of time and hear myself, but it is on time that I would like to ask you a question. It is just that clock in front of you and in front of you. Imagine that is a Brexit clock and it has got 204 days, which you will no doubt be aware of. There are 204 days to do everything that you have mentioned here today, 204 days to get a specific and new arrangements on the EU arrest warrant, 204 days to get significant or, hopefully, I hope that someone will win the Scottish Premiership. It is unlikely. In 204 days, do you think that you are going to manage to get this in place? I think that we are going to be able to meet the three tranches of the process for leaving the EU. We negotiated a withdrawal agreement, which is essentially about the funding package as we leave the EU and the rights of citizens, although, as we are well aware, there are issues around Northern Ireland. Justice Secretary of State, everything that we are doing in justice, do you think that we can do this? The second part of that process is to have the implementation period, which is the period that would run from March 2019 to the end of December 2020. That period is an important period. The international crime is still happening in 204 days. Under the implementation period, everything, as is currently the case, would remain the same for that period through to 2020. The EU and the UK would operate on the same basis as we do. In that period, the future relationship agreements would be concluded. That is the basis on which I am seeking to achieve, and I believe that it is achievable. The Scottish Government had their Scotland's place in Europe, security, judicial, co-operation and law enforcement. It produced that as a way to move forward. My concern is that, when I used to work in the real world, I sold cars. Negotiation was simple. I had a price in my head that I wanted the person to pay, and they had a price that they wanted to pay. Currently, I do not think that you know what price you want or are using the same analogy of what price you are planning to sell. The negotiation is nil. We seem to have a situation here where you have specific and new arrangements. It might be a third-party arrangement. It might not be. There is nothing tangible, there is nothing solid here. I do not agree. We set out in your equivalents our brochure with our model in July. That is the outcome that we are seeking to achieve. That is what we put on the table, and that is what is currently being discussed. The time scale and the clock are ticking. The time scale means that, within the next few weeks, that will all have to come to a head. It will be clear whether we have achieved the outcome that we set out, but I am confident that we can do that. Thank you. Just to check, Michelle, if you covered everything that you wanted in the benefit costs area. There is one other area, so I could pick that up. Obviously, one of the key points here, Cabinet Secretary, is that the geographical proximity. The closest closer countries are to each other affects how shared the level of threats they face are. If you agree with that as a statement, perhaps you could go into a bit of detail on how that is measured, how it affects Scotland and how that will then affect the negotiations with the EU. Clearly, geographical proximity is very significant, particularly in relation to the movement of criminals and the propensity for them to carry out similar crimes within similar geographies. Again, what we are coming back to is the benefits, not just for us but for the EU member states, to engage in co-operation in relation to these matters. We are seeing that gangs, for example, are operating across countries, across the EU and into the UK. It is to our mutual advantage that we co-operate and work together to tackle those issues. In effect, it is a two-way relationship, as opposed to someone who is a long way away from us, because, if we do not work with us, we will both suffer at both ends, which is why, ultimately, people need to come to the table and will come to the table. I obviously agree with that analysis. I believe that it is firmly in the interests of EU member states to reach an agreement with the UK for many of the reasons that we have set out already in this discussion. I referred earlier to the fact that the UK will be outside the structures, and one of the key ones in this area is the role of the European Court of Justice. The white paper from the UK Government made clear that the role of the European Court of Justice in the UK will come to an end as a result of that. Although it also states that, whether there are disputes in areas where the UK has agreed to be part of a common rulebook, there should be the option of a referral to the European Court of Justice for an interpretation. That seems to be somewhat inconsistent. It certainly does not ring true with the previous expressed opinion about taking back control over our laws. Can you help us to understand how those two things sit together? I think that they do sit together. As you have indicated, any reference to the Court of Justice would be made by our choice. We would have chosen to do that. We would have chosen the arrangements that had been put in place that led to a reference that seemed to be appropriate or desirable. What we have made clear, though, is that the Court of Justice would not have any automatic direct right of involvement in the United Kingdom. However, where we are co-operating with EU member states in relation to frameworks or arrangements that they have set up, it may be appropriate to make such a reference, and that opportunity would be available. Is that that? You would choose to make a reference, you would not be required to do it, and presumably would it stand that you would not be bound by any findings that the Court came up with? It is difficult to see the European Court of Justice or indeed member states of the European Union buying into that model. There are matters clearly in areas that would be on-going if we were part of certain arrangements. The Court of Justice would clearly have an expertise if I put it that way. All the parties may consider that that was an appropriate reference to make. Our position has always been clear that there would be no continuing direct role for the Court of Justice, and that is the case, that is the position that we have taken forward into the negotiations. However, in areas where there was essentially our participation in the European institution, there would be the option for a referral. When you talk about the areas of the common rulebook, you are either going to refer it to the ECJ or you are not. It does not sound terribly discretionary, otherwise the functioning of that common rulebook falls apart. The jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice would have to be agreed, and it would not be up to the UK to decide whether or not, if there was a dispute, that dispute could only be settled through reference to the ECJ. That would have to be automatic. It would be further back in that decision making process by taking forward a provision that could then lead to that outcome. That would have been a choice that would have been made in taking on that outcome in relation to that aspect of the common rulebook. As I said, it does not strike me as terribly discretionary. It would need to be agreed up front as part of the terms of the common rulebook. If there are financial penalties and other obligations or sanctions attached to that, that is not discretionary on the part of the UK. That is signing up to the ECJ involvement in oversight and jurisdiction in those areas that are covered by the common rulebook. It is a step back that I have just set out. It is making the decision to be part of that area of the common rulebook. That is a decision for the United Kingdom. It is not a requirement. Rona, you have still got some further questions. If I could briefly return to the nodial scenario, which is a distinct possibility, I think that we know that. That would obviously have financial implications for Scotland, I am thinking in terms of border security and extra policing, etc. What funding would be made available to Scotland in the event of a nodial scenario? In terms of the arrangements that currently exist in relation to EU funding as a specific, what the Government has guaranteed is that areas of EU funding that were previously committed would continue. Obviously, in areas that we would consider contingencies, there is an on-going dialogue with the Scottish Government, the UK Government. Obviously, the UK Government is responsible for the border force as it exists in that specific in terms of people entering and leaving the United Kingdom. Obviously, if the Scottish Government felt that it had to make other arrangements in relation to any aspect of no deal, that would be a matter that they would have to consider themselves. Despite the fact that Scotland did not vote to leave Europe, we would have to bear the cost of possible repercussions of it if there was no deal. Well, I do not think that it would probably be the best use of our time to go back through all the arguments about why it was a UK wide. We would not receive any extra funding if we had to put other arrangements in place. It would have to be clear what those arrangements are and what there are certain arrangements whereby the UK does support funding police or counter-terrorist activities in Scotland. I am not aware at this moment of a specific identified issue by the Scottish Government in relation to an area of policing that they would require additional funding if we left the EU on the basis of no deal. John Finnie. I want to go back briefly to the European arrest warrant, which kicked it off. I share your view that this is a commendable piece of legislation that has had significant effect. Indeed, we heard from the Lord Advocate some very clear examples of the benefit to the Scottish legal system. Accepting that you want the retention of the European arrest warrant, but acknowledging that you have discussed contingencies, could you say what the third party or bespoke equivalent of that European arrest warrant would look like? What format would it take? At the moment, if we can go back to the previous discussion, our focus is on getting the sort of agreement that we want. If it emerges that we are not going to have a deal, we will set out what the contingency arrangements are and the technical notices that I have referenced. If we get to that point, I am very happy to revert to you, but our efforts are focused on getting the sort of arrangement that I set out in my earlier evidence. My colleague George Adam referred to the timeframe, and it is a relatively short timeframe. The reason that I ask is because there are practical implications of this. This is not some sort of academic exercise. There are on-going implications regarding existing inquiries and what ramifications of that could be. There are clearly, unless it is likely that there will have to be transitional arrangements, are you able to give us reference to other treaties that could fall back on if they are European arrest warrant? Is that what other format? You have quoted the numbers. This is very important. This is about how our criminal justice system works. Indeed, it is, but there are a whole host of other very, very important issues around leaving the EU. That is why it is absolutely— Arresting criminals from whom a warrant has been craved, I think, is a very important issue. Well, it is, but I also think that people having a job and a livelihood is a very important issue. There are a huge number of really significant—I am not diminishing your question, I am saying—a huge number of significant issues about leaving the EU. That is why the Government is committed to leaving the EU on an orderly basis with a deal. That is what the outcome that we want to achieve. That is what we are focused on doing. I do not want to leave the EU on the basis that threatens somebody's job, that threatens the prospect of criminals being here in the UK that cannot be arrested or criminals being in the EU who cannot be arrested. I do not want that outcome. That is why the focus of our efforts is on getting a deal. I hear that. It is loud and clear, and I share that ambition to Secretary Stain. I do not want to rehearse the constitutional arguments or the merits of the outcome, but we need to try to understand the practical implications. We are going to be speaking to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. We need to understand the practical implications. Accepting your aspiration for the continuation of the arrest award, what are the fallback positions? As I have indicated, I am happy to set that out. When we put forward our position, which we are doing in relation to the various technical notices that are being released in terms of what would happen in the event of a no deal. Do you envisage that the Hague convention would have some role to play? Of course, the Hague convention would certainly have a role to play. If I may move on to some questions about family law, and we are blessed in the UK and indeed in Scotland in my own area of having a rich mix of nationalities and all sorts of different family relationships. Family law is a very important aspect that needs to be catered for in the UK's plans to remove. It covers things like the jurisdiction recognition and enforcement, which the national court can decide on issues. Can you give us some background to the work that has been done in relation to that, please? Yes. We seek to agree new and reciprocal agreements on civil judicial cooperation based on the current depth of cooperation that we have, which covers civil, commercial and family matters. As you say, the agreement would need to cover which countries courts hear a family law case that has cross-border issues with other EU countries, which laws would apply and how judgments could be recognised and enforced. That is something that we recognise the importance of. Of course, there is the Hague convention, and we will continue to operate the Hague convention areas where we have signed up, but we want to reach that sort of agreement, and that is what we are again endeavouring to do. What reassurance of any can you give to constituents who may be involved in what are protracted and by their very nature, very involved negotiations across different jurisdictions, the status of their cases at this time and in the few months that we have left? The first point to make is, as I said in response to Mr Adam's question, the scenario that we are working towards is that there will be an implementation period and that that will operate until 2020 in relation to the continuation of the existing arrangements as we leave the EU, which means that there is an extended period by which a number of those issues will be developed. I would like to say to anybody who is currently involved in an on-going legal matter across jurisdictions that we want to do nothing that would prejudice your current legal rights, and that is what we will seek to ensure. Second estate, would it be possible to come back to the committee as you said that you would do in relation to the European arrest warrant with some of the fallback elements that would be covering? Yes, indeed. It may be that I would write to the committee, but once we have set those out I would certainly do that. Are you able to give an indication of a timeframe for that? These are very live matters for some individuals. There will be, in relation to civil legal matters, as I indicated in some of my earlier evidence, we will be making a technical notice available relatively soon, and as soon as that is available I will let the committee have that. Indeed, any other area that we have covered in today's proceedings or indeed in which I know that the committee has an interest, I am very happy to share those as well. Just following up from that Secretary of State, it would be possible to include in that the approach that has been taken in relation to commercial law. Obviously, there is a read-across in terms of hate convention, but there is some clarity about what the UK Government's intentions are in relation to how the issues that are in commercial law would be covered in those scenarios would be helpful to us. Yes, I would be very happy to do that, Ms Macam. Cabinet Secretary, you know that in this particular area of family law, child law, divorce, all of that, we had a very lengthy session on that, and I think it's fair to say that it was very far from straightforward. Even rules within the EU, which it was thought were working well, in evidence we had, actually weren't working so well. So I think a full analysis of that would be good, but I think that we all took some comfort from the fact that the hate convention seems to be something that is always going to be a fallback provision for most of this kind of work. I can give that, which I did for Mr Finlay, an absolute commitment to adhere to what we signed up under the hate convention. Yes, because it's certainly abduction, divorce, matronaio property, all of these are very real problems for everyone. When we had our visit to the House of Commons and we met with the House of Lords committee, they were very exercised about family law and the implications of that. So I think that some detailed work coming back to the committee explaining how all of that is going to be very much appreciated in the short time we have available today. I don't think that we could begin to look at that with any degree of success. Perhaps pressure again, though, before we leave the priorities and negotiations, just to explain, I think that it would be helpful to the committee just how, at present, the UK currently provides the UK with assets or expertise or the kind of capabilities, because what we do just now seems to me important to assessing the value that the EU will see in the co-operation that's going forward just now. Is that— How things currently work with the EU in the area of criminal, civil or whatever policing? That's a matter in which I would probably be better if I did write to you in terms—just as I think Ms Mackay asked in relation to Scotland, we could write to you in relation to the UK contribution overall to these various EU bodies and initiatives. I'm very happy to do that. We do have a close partnership just now. If we examine that more fully, I've got more details than that, that would be very helpful to the committee. We're moving on to our second theme, Maurice. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Secretary of State. In relation to discussions with devolved administrations, can you give me some idea what the current level of dialogue is between the ministers, officials and the Scottish and UK Governments, particularly in relation to the policing and criminal and civil justice matters? There's always on going your dialogue on these matters and the UK Government is closely—works closely with the Scottish Government so that yesterday, the First Minister was able to have a full briefing on the issues around the identification of the two Russians who were involved in the incident in Salisbury. We want to work closely with the Scottish Government and Police Scotland and the other agencies here on these matters. It's very, very important that we do so. In relation to the discussions about leaving the EU, you'll be aware that Mr Michael Russell is the principal point man, if I can use that expression, in relation to discussions with the United Kingdom Government in relation to the negotiations. The way that operates is through the Joint Ministerial Committee for Exiting the EU. We have established in recent months a ministerial forum, and that is a basis whereby other ministers can engage from Scottish and Welsh Governments with the UK Government. That's headed up by my colleague Chloe Smith from the Cabinet Office and Robin Walker from DECSU. As I understand it, that forum has either has or it is intended will have a discussion of justice issues specifically. Has that been producing some very reasonable discussions in the forum? Indeed. Discussions within the forum have taken place on a very constructive basis. What sort of things have they been discussing in particular? Well, they've been discussing some of the issues that we've touched on today and how the outcomes that we want to achieve. Obviously, the Scottish ministers rightly and the Lord Advocate make clear—as I do—in Scotland's distinct civil and criminal legal system, which is a very important part of being recognised within the negotiations and discussions. However, there are a number of other serious issues that are under discussion. I want to explore how the common frameworks and the area of justice are being developed. What areas of justice policy are likely to be covered by common frameworks? What discussions are taking place between the UK and the Scottish Governments in relation to justice policy post Brexit? Can you envision or give us some idea of how will Scotland's separate justice system be respected within that system? The point that I've said is that Scotland's separate justice system is already respected within the system and that's not going to change. The area of justice is not going to be subject to a legislative framework because of that different legal system that currently operates. Clearly, it is desirable to have consistencies across the United Kingdom in relation to, for example, recognising a divorce in an EU member state. It is desirable that the arrangements in Scotland, England and Wales, are the same, but it is not essential. That is the basis that we have proceeded with our distinct Scottish legal system over many years. What we would hope to achieve in a number of areas is agreement that we can operate on a similar basis across either Great Britain or the United Kingdom, but justice is an area where there will not be a single or legislative framework as such. What we would seek to do is, in many cases, build on existing agreements that are in place. Fundamentally, the co-operation that we currently have in place and the way in which it works seems on the whole to work fairly smoothly. You would envisage that moving forward in much the same way. I would envisage building on that existing co-operation. If there is a distinct change to the relationship with the EU in terms of how we cooperate from a justice point of view, will you build into that any differences that exist in our legislative systems? Will it be a question of making an arrangement and then we will have to fit in behind that? No. Any arrangement that was made between the United Kingdom and the EU would be done on the basis of agreement within the United Kingdom. In the white paper, it talks about health security. At first glance, I think that that is maybe nothing to do with justice or security. However, when we think of the cyber attacks that I know in Lanarkshire health board, there were issues there. Could you perhaps give the committee a little bit more information on how that would fit into the justice and security aspect of things? You are right. Health security is about the protection of public health from initiatives to cause widespread public harm. That is what it is about. It is about co-operating in relation to the potential threat that somebody or some third party would seek to cause damage to public health by releasing nerve agents, toxins or whatever. The reality is that that is as possible in Glasgow as it is in London. The event that we were discussing earlier took place in a relatively small city. Those events could take place anywhere, and what we are committed to doing is to work with both the NHS Scotland and Police Scotland and the various counter-terror agencies to ensure that the inside or outside the EU is as well placed to counter them as possible. It gives the committee some comfort that those areas are being actively looked at and it is very much on the agenda. There is a group of representatives from the four health services in the United Kingdom that meet together on a regular basis, which is a number of operational issues that they consider, but that is a sort of issue that they would also look at as well. Slightly down that same vein, what is the thing about the security agencies themselves? All those negotiations are taking place at a political level. We talked about how the 27 member states feel, how the commission feels, how our Governments feel, but what about the security agencies themselves? Have we had any feedback from them? Obviously, they have built up these systems, they work internally with each other, and not just within the EU but across the world. Where is their voice in all of this? Are they giving clear messages in terms of what they expect and hope that countries will do? I think that they do give clear messages, and the clear message that they want is to see the maximum amount of co-operation between countries in relation to tackling those issues. We are talking about a European context, many of those issues are of global nature. Is their voice being listened to by all the member states, ourselves and the commission? I certainly think that we place very significant weight on what our security services would say and do. Obviously, the Prime Minister shares the national security council, which is one of the Government bodies, but I know that she personally places enormous weight on the advice that she gets from the security services, and I am sure that that is the case in other countries. I thank you again for your time. It has been much appreciated that we have been able to go into some of those issues in detail, and we look forward to the additional information that you have promised the committee. I will be very happy to provide that when it is available. Thank you very much. Our next meeting will be on the morning of Tuesday, 11 September, when the committee will hold a similar session to today's meeting with the Scottish Government's new Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the Lord Advocate. I formally close this 21st meeting of the Justice Committee.