 Welcome to the 21st meeting in 2018 of the Finance and Constitution Committee. I could just remember to put their mobile phones on silent so I don't disturb any of the proceedings. The only item on our agenda today is to take evidence on the European Union withdrawal act from the Secretary of State for Scotland. David Madel, Secretary of State for Scotland, very much warmly welcome you to our meeting this morning. Before we move to questions from the committee, I am pleased to be here this morning. I would like to make a short opening statement before we move to questions. Since I was last before this committee back in May, there have been a number of developments. One of the most significant is that the EU withdrawal bill is now an act. I deeply regret that the Scottish Parliament felt unable to give consent to this important piece of legislation. To the very end, we work constructively with the Scottish Government and Welsh Government to reach agreement. It is, of course, worth being clear that the significant changes we made to the legislation were a result of discussions between officials and ministers in all administrations and, indeed, the feedback from this committee, MPs and the House of Lords. The Welsh Government and Assembly were able to support the final agreement. Unfortunately, the Scottish Government was unable to do the same. Throughout the UK Government upheld our commitment to the devolution settlements and associated conventions and acted within their parameters. We were fully committed to devolution and will continue to seek legislative consent, take on-board views and worked with the devolved administrations on bills according to the established practices. We have worked well with the Scottish Government in the past and we must ensure that we are able to do the same. We have worked well with the Scottish Government in the past and we must ensure that we continue to work well together in the future. The progress that we have made and are making on UK common frameworks is testament to this and I hope is indicative of our future relationship. I am satisfied with the level of engagement. UK officials are in contact with their counterparts in the devolved administrations every single day discussing our preparations for exit. For example, since January, over 30 further deep dive policy sessions between UK Government and devolved administration officials have been held as part of the first phase of engagement on future common frameworks. A second phase of deep dives is now currently under way. Discussions are also progressing on a range of cross-cutting issues, including the approach on trade, the internal market and governance. All of this is being guided by the framework principles agreed by all administrations at the JMCEN, which is now going to proceed on a scheduled monthly basis. Since we have last met the UK Government to set out for our vision for the United Kingdom outside the EU, the Government has also set out its plans for legislating for the withdrawal agreement in a white paper. We have shared information on that paper with the Scottish Government at the JMCEN in July well in advance of its publication. We are also, alongside the devolved administrations, taking forward a review of the existing intergovernmental structures, which I know is a matter of great importance to this committee, and the MOU that is currently in existence, and officials will report back to the JMCP in due course. With the passage of the EU withdrawal act, we now have confidence that our laws will function after exit. The work over the summer to publish a series of technical notices will help to prepare businesses, individuals and families in the unlikely event that we exit without a deal. As we exit the EU, convener, I remain committed to working collaboratively with the Scottish Government, this committee and this Parliament. On common frameworks, when you gave evidence to the committee on 8 November last year, you told us in relation to agreeing common frameworks, and I quote here, very clear that it is not possible to achieve legitimate consent and agreement from the Scottish Government unless we have agreed the process by which those frameworks will be agreed. In further evidence on 3 May this year, you reaffirmed that we are not in the business of imposing frameworks. Why, then, Secretary of State, did your Government proceed without the consent of this Parliament, and more importantly perhaps now, will you now give a guarantee that no common frameworks will be imposed? As we have discussed previously at this committee and in other discussions, there is a degree of conflation of issues there. The EU withdrawal act, as it now is, was about the possibility of freezing existing EU arrangements until new agreements had been reached. That is what clause 12 of that act is about. It is not about the process for agreeing the frameworks. My position on agreeing the frameworks is the same as I have previously stated. I want us to be in a position where we are able to reach agreement on those new arrangements that will apply once we leave the EU. I believe that we are actually making very good progress in doing that. There is a lot of work under way at the moment, some of which I have outlined in my opening statement. That is the big change that I have said before. It is the big change about leaving the EU. Matters that were previously agreed with the EU by the UK will now have to be agreed within the UK. I drew those two matters together, Secretary of State, because it is pretty obvious that everyone knows that, in clause 11, the UK has proceeded to put in place without the consent of this Parliament. Now I am seeking to ensure that you can give a guarantee today that there will be no common frameworks imposed in the future, given that that is the history that we are dealing with. I am now trying to look forward to seeing how we are going to deal with those common frameworks. I am seeking a guarantee from you that no common frameworks will be imposed on Scotland. I do not, to some extent, accept the premise of the question, because no common framework has been imposed on Scotland. The provisions of the EU withdrawal bill, clause 12, as it has become, clause 11, as it was, allow for existing arrangements to be frozen while there is a negotiation of new agreements. It is still absolutely my position, the UK Government position, that we want to reach those frameworks by agreement. If no agreement is reached, will a common framework be imposed? We do not want to be in a position where we do not have agreement. We want to be in a position where we reach agreement. That is what we have sought to do throughout the process that involved the EU withdrawal bill. If we focus on the issues that are being covered, the very important issues to people in Scotland, such as agriculture, fisheries and not the issues of process and whether or not the constitutional arrangements within the United Kingdom need to be changed or whether or not we agree what the interpretation of those arrangements are, I am confident that we can reach agreement. Everybody has a common interest in doing so. If I have raised an issue before, the movement of livestock within Great Britain, the Scottish Government, UK Government, Welsh Assembly Government, I do not see a basis on which they would not be able to reach agreement. I am also interested in the content in the common frameworks, not the process. It is the content that I am concentrating on. That is where there will be agreement or not agreement. I am seeking for you to provide a guarantee that if there is no agreement, none of those common frameworks will be imposed. In the legislation, the process for agreeing the common frameworks was not part of the EU withdrawal bill. We are still going through an evolution of what that process will be, but it will be a process about reaching agreement, agreement across the United Kingdom. We differ, and we have in relation to the role of the Scottish Parliament in determining what happens in other parts of the United Kingdom, because I am quite clear that the Scottish Parliament does not have a veto over what would happen in other parts of the United Kingdom. However, I am determined in relation to what happens in Scotland in relation to devolved matters that that proceeds on the basis of agreement. I have tried to secure that guarantee, but I have not been able to get to the position. I hope to have managed to get to the date. Alexander, you were interested in common frameworks as well. I wonder if there is a timetable for a completion of a common framework that you are able to share. There is not a timetable as such. In fact, it was agreed by the GMCEN that work would carry on across the whole of those 24 areas, pretty much in unison. However, clearly there are some areas where there is a need for a degree of priority because of the impact of leaving the EU, and the two obvious ones are fishing and agriculture. The EU will leave the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy. There are practical consequences of doing that. Very shortly, the UK Government will be bringing forward an agriculture bill, which we have been in discussion with the Scottish Government about, which will rate to some very specific aspects, i.e. the capacity to continue to pay farmers once we have left the EU. It will not necessarily set out detailed policy frameworks. Some aspects of what might be regarded as a common framework would be dealt with in that bill. Some would be dealt with in a forthcoming fisheries bill. However, other aspects might be dealt with in revisals to the existing concordat that exists on fisheries. There is a timetable that lists those 24 areas in an order. There are practical circumstances that mean that certain things will happen ahead of other things. Emma, do you want to ask questions on common frameworks at this stage? Just a quick one about fishing, thank you, convener. Scotland does have a difference in fishing industry compared to the GDP of fishing in the UK. As we are negotiating to look at common frameworks, I am interested that the words expendable have been used in the past with fishing. Can you give us 100 per cent guarantee that fishing will not be expended or that we have 100 per cent guarantee that frameworks will not be imposed on our fishing industry? I think again that there are a number of issues in there. The government is absolutely clear that in leaving the EU we will be leaving the common fisheries policy and becoming an independent coastal state which will have the capacity to negotiate our own fishing arrangements. That position is not acceptable to me and the Prime Minister has made it clear that it is not acceptable to her to leave the EU on the basis that there would be some pre-negotiated arrangement in relation to EU fishing access to UK waters. That is also why we have left the London agreement as well. In relation to matters within the UK, there will be no change to the arrangements and responsibilities that are exercised here in the Scottish Parliament and within Scotland. They fully do recognise the fact that fishing is significantly more important, as you have said, to the economy of Scotland. I met the Scottish Fishermen's Federation this week. I met Sir Ian Wood, who takes an extensive interest in fishing this week. Everybody in the fishing industry is excited by the opportunities that can arise from Scotland leaving the common fisheries policy. That is what we all need to focus on, allowing those opportunities to be maximised. I am absolutely committed to doing that. I want to draw a connection between the issues that convener was raising and the issue of legislative consent. The desire to reach agreement on any of those matters, the way in which agreement is reached, is still a big problem in that. If one party in a discussion holds open the option to impose rather than reaching an agreement, that is a barrier in itself to agreement. I am only going to get reasonable compromise in negotiation if both parties need an agreement instead of holding open the option for imposing something. I am still very concerned that we are almost inevitably going to have further conflicts on issues such as legislative consent in that context. We have just had a huge disagreement about legislative consent. We would like to avoid others. You said that you want to continue to seek legislative consent on devolved issues. Is it not reasonable that we need a clear and mutual understanding of what the legislative consent principle is? In particular, when it says that the UK Government shall not normally legislate in devolved areas, do we need a mutually agreeable understanding of what not normally means? We do not have one at the moment. At the outset, I agree with the principles that you have set out. That is why this week I was very pleased that the Scottish Government moved forward to bring forward legislative consent in relation to the Offensive Weapons Bill, which is proceeding through the UK Parliament at the moment. For example, it covers asset attacks and these vial offences. Legislative consent was force coming, and we have sought legislative consent. Legislative consent motions have been lodged in a range of other areas involving lasers, involving some changes to ability to park on the pavement in Scotland, which I know is a matter of great import to people here in Edinburgh. You are smiling because you recognise that that is not a hugely divisive issue. No, I accept that that is not a hugely divisive issue, Mr Harvey, but it does support the fact that the whole process has not broken down. There was some suggestion that the whole process was going to break down because the UK Government had a rough shot over it. That is not the case. We do have it clear that, between the Scottish Government and our most independent observers, there is a difference of opinion as to what the Soul Convention meant. I have quoted at me that the Soul Convention was an absolute provision. The Soul Convention had been breached simply by the fact that we had proceeded. It had not. It was very clear back in 1998, when the original convention emerged, that the Westminster Parliament would always be able to legislate on devolved matters. The fact that it is working all right on relatively low-level, non-contentious, non-divisive issues, that is the easy stuff. We have a lot of very contentious, very divisive issues that we are going to have to debate over the coming months and perhaps years. We need a mutually agreeable process that can deal with those. Can I put it to you that the UK Government's position on what this caveat of not normally within the consent mechanism means is incoherent? The situation in Northern Ireland, for example, is that there is no normal devolution process at the moment. The Assembly has not been meeting for a year and a half. It does not look likely to meet at the moment. You have a majority of Supreme Court judges in a recent case saying that the existing law on abortion is incompatible with human rights law. You have a large majority of public opinion in Northern Ireland supporting reform in precisely the situations that were considered in that Supreme Court case. You have the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women saying that the situation in Northern Ireland constitutes a grave and systematic violation of human rights. Even though we do not have a normal devolution functioning system in Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland says that the issue is devolved. Because of that, the Government believes that the question of any future reform in Northern Ireland must be debated and decided by the people of Northern Ireland and they are locally elected and therefore accountable politicians. Contrast that with Scotland where devolution is working normally, where the Scottish Parliament is legislating normally, there is a willingness to say that you can legislate on devolved issues. Do not we need to reach a consistent, coherent understanding of what this caveat means? It surely cannot just mean that when a devolved assembly does something that the UK Government does not like, you will overrule it. It cannot mean that. I deal with a number of points. From the look on the convener's face, I will not dwell too long on Northern Ireland other than to say that we do have an asymmetric system of devolution within the United Kingdom. There are those people, and I respect the view. I do not agree with it. I respect the view of people who are federal and greater symmetry within the system. Northern Ireland has very unique issues. One thing that we would agree on is the Government's priority to get the Northern Ireland executive back up and running, because that is the best way in order to take forward issues there. The devolution arrangements for Scotland are different from those arrangements for Northern Ireland and, indeed, for Wales. They are set out in the Scotland Act, as variously amended, from which the sole convention emerged. I do not agree with you that, over the last 19 years, there have not been contentious and difficult issues that have been debated and discussed in this Parliament, that this Parliament has not taken decisions at various times, which UK Governments of different persuasions did not agree with. At no point did they interfere with those decisions. This was a case where the UK Government put forward proposals in relation to the management of our departure from the EU and the certainty in our legal system after we left the EU, on which we could not meet each agreement. We did not overrule any action of the Scottish Parliament. We legislated in a devolved area without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. What does not normally mean? It means that, for 19 years and continuing, we will seek the consent of the Scottish Parliament to legislate in those areas. That is what we are absolutely committed to doing. Whether or not we have a problem here, we need to try to find some way to resolve that problem. The Scottish Government has said very clearly that, as far as Brexit-related legislation is concerned, it will not recommend consent in any of that legislation until there is a resetting of the sole convention process. That is where we are. What is the UK Government's proposal to break that log jam? My position, Mr Crawford, is that we have made a decision in September 2014 because we had a referendum on whether Scotland became independent or remained part of the United Kingdom. I remember taking part in the debate with Professor Tomkins on the same side. There was an extensive discussion by members of the audience about the sole convention and Westminster's relative powers to the Scottish Parliament. We have had that debate. That is part of the debate around the existing constitutional arrangement. I respect your position, which you have argued consistently for many years in relation to changing the constitution of the United Kingdom. I am being very narrow in this. I am not about anything to do with independence in 2014. This is about the current arrangements of devolution. If we have a Government in Scotland saying that it is not going to recommend to its Parliament any consent in any Brexit legislation because they believe that a bit of the system is not working, the sole convention, that is quite rightly pointed to not normally, we have a problem. We have to find some way to sort that problem, or otherwise, unless you are prepared to guarantee today, it is potentially the UK Government is going to go ahead with other Brexit legislation without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. That is not good. That is not our intention. It is not our intention. I do not think that it was a helpful statement to make, but we have yet to see what that emerges from my reading of Mr Russell's evidence yesterday. It was not 100 per cent clear to me that that was an absolute position. We are in the middle of detailed discussions at the moment in relation to both those agriculture and fisheries bills. I remain hopeful that the Scottish Government will come forward with legislative consent in relation to those bills. We have to deal with the situations that we find ourselves in, but I think that we can continue to find agreement if we focus on the issues, not if we remain in a position that is clear of having different views of the constitution of Scotland. I think that all we are doing in these circumstances is parking a problem for the future that is going to keep coming back in the open. We have to find some way to resolve that, otherwise we will be back in these conflicts time and time again. That probably takes us into the area that Adam Tomkins was interested in. Before I get into the area that I wanted to explore with the Secretary of State, perhaps I can just pick up directly on what you were just talking about with him. The view that has been very forcefully expressed by the convener and Mr Harvey is that there is a problem with the steel convention that needs some kind of fix. Is it the view of the United Kingdom Government that there is a problem with the steel convention, or is it the view of the United Kingdom Government that steel was adhered to in the passing of the withdrawal act? I am absolutely clear that steel was adhered to in the passing of the act. I think that a lot of the complaint in relation to it is about a difference in a wish for our constitution. It is not that people do not like the steel convention or that there is a problem with it. It is just that that is not the constitutional arrangement that they want to be applying in the United Kingdom at this time. As I understand it, and I do not want to put words in your mouth, the position of the United Kingdom Government is that the United Kingdom will continue to adhere to the steel convention. The United Kingdom Government will continue to seek the consent of the devolved parliaments and assemblies of the United Kingdom where UK legislation relates to devolved matters or relates to the powers of the parliaments and assemblies and that the United Kingdom Parliament will not normally be invited to legislate on matters touching on devolution without that consent. That is absolutely the position. What is the UK Government's reaction to not just the convener of this committee and Mr Harvey and others very forcefully expressing a contrary view but to the Scottish Government itself expressing a contrary view that steel is broken and needs to be fixed? As I said in my opening remarks, I am disappointed at how things emerged during the EU withdrawal bill as it then was discussions. I think probably at some of the discussions that we had at this committee it would have been a lot clearer earlier on if we had understood that the Scottish Government did have this absolutist position in relation to the interpretation of consent within the sole convention. I do not think that the interpretation of the sole convention is correct. I do not think that farmers, fishermen and people affected by the environmental measures that are going to come to Scotland after we leave the EU. I do not think that they are really focused on us being involved in one of the repeated analysis of the sole convention. They are interested in what the measures are that emerge. I think that if we can lift our horizons from the constant constitutional row, we can actually move forward on these issues. That is why I am much more confident that we can reach agreement on the frameworks, the substantive policy issues, because that is the track record. Although Mr Harvey might suggest that the offensive weapons bill is a rather easy and minor thing to deal with, it is a significant piece of legislation to protect the public on which we have been able to reach agreement. Indeed, I would share that view. I do not know, Secretary of State, how much you have been able to look at the evidence that we took yesterday from Michael Russell, but he was asked at the end of that session exactly what he means when he says that the Scottish Government is no longer going to co-operate with the sole process. It turns out that he has not ruled out the possibility that there will be a supplementary legislative consent memorandum with regard to the trade bill. He has not ruled out the possibility that there will be future legislative memorandums. Indeed, I understand from the standing orders that there is a requirement on the Scottish Government to produce legislative consent memorandums. What he has suggested is that he will not be putting before the Scottish Parliament legislative consent motions. It seems to me, and I would be interested in your view on this, that if that is the case, the Scottish Government will continue to publish legislative consent memorandums, but the Scottish Parliament will somehow be denied the opportunity to vote affirmatively or negatively on legislative consent motions. All that we are left with is that the UK Government will not know whether the Scottish Parliament consents to UK legislation touching on devolved matters or not. We will know the Scottish Government's view. That will be in the memorandum, but we will not know the Scottish Parliament's view because that could only be determined by a vote on the motion. If the Scottish Government is not going to put those motions before the Parliament, we are just left in a situation where the UK Government, as it were, can carry on because the Scottish Parliament will be denied the opportunity, should it wish to take such an opportunity, to say that it does not give consent. Is that your understanding of what Mr Russell said yesterday? First of all, I would say that that would be a very disappointing outcome. I have always placed equal importance on the views of the Parliament and the Scottish Government. As we have gone through this process and other processes to ensure that the Parliament was fully engaged in that, I think that it would be extremely disappointing if it would have got to a situation where the Scottish Parliament itself was not able. I think that it would be very disappointing if it would have got to a situation where the Scottish Parliament itself was not able to express a view because, from time to time, even Mr Russell concedes that the Scottish Government does not have a majority in the Scottish Parliament. Of course, that is not my view that we should not have any further debate on legislative consent motions. It is my interpretation of what Mr Russell said yesterday, representing the Scottish Government. It seems an evolving position. Can I move away from the detail of Stewell into the broader... Before you know it, Patrick, you have got a supplementary point on that specific point. I think that there is just one thing that is important to add to that point, both for the record and for the benefit of anyone who may be listening. Members of the public who may be listening to this discussion, questionable judgment for them to do that. The Scottish Parliament is not and will not be in a position where it is unable to have those questions put. I am sure that Mr Mundell can empathise with a minority Government, but the Scottish Government cannot dictate to the Scottish Parliament what issues it wants to decide. The Parliamentary Bureau will make those decisions. Can I just reinforce to you that you are asking for us to move beyond these constitutional and process-y kind of questions? Surely the way for us to do that is to reach an agreed, shared understanding of what the Sewell convention means. The way that phrase is not normally to be interpreted rather than the UK Government simply satisfying itself that it agrees with itself. I do not know if you want to make a comment on that. That was a statement rather than a question. I have noted Mr Harvie's views. I respect his views, but I do not agree with them. Sorry to interrupt you, Mr Duncan. I wanted to move away from the detail of Sewell towards the broader issue of intergovernmental cooperation. You said in your opening remarks that you are now embarking on deep dives round two or deeper dives. Can you just flesh that out a bit for us? What is being dived into in these exercises and how is the process of cooperation working? Is it working at official level or is it working at ministerial level or both? I think that it is working at both levels. In relation to the deep dives, what it primarily has been about is identifying within those 24 areas which might require legislation and which might be subject to other forms of agreement. In fact, moving certain areas from the overall heading in terms of the 24 legislative framework areas into the other 80-odd areas where there was not going to be a legislative framework and indeed those powers which will come directly to the Scottish Parliament. It is about a refining down to what might be required to be dealt with by primary legislation, secondary legislation or indeed be the subject of less formal arrangements such as the Fishing Concordat, which I mentioned in response to Emma Harper's question. That is what it is about. It is about a refining down, and that is where a lot of the work has been. Since we last met in this committee, we established the ministerial forum, which is an offshoot of the GMCN, which is a less formal environment that allows the discussion to be done. It allows the discussion between ministers of various issues. My colleagues Chloe Smith from the Cabinet Office and Robin Walker from DEXU represent the UK Government at that. We have had a number of meetings of that forum with Scottish Government ministers. That reports back into the GMCN. We have taken on board a legitimate point, which was raised by Mr Russell, about ensuring a regularity of meetings of the GMCN. We are now going to proceed on a scheduled basis for meetings of the GMCN. That is very helpful. Final question for me on this. To what extent, if at all, does the distinction between reserved powers and devolved powers play into how the process of inter-government cooperation is working? Yesterday, we took evidence, both from George Hollingbury for the UK Government and from Mike Russell, the Scottish Government, on the trade bill. The trade bill is seeking legislative consent from this Parliament, but most of the trade bill, and the core of the subject of the trade bill, is clearly about reserved competence. It is about international relations, international treaties and international trade, all of which are clearly reserved under the Scotland Act. We heard from the Minister of Trade that, notwithstanding the fact that we are talking about essentially reserved competence, he wants a co-operative and consultative approach with the Scottish Government and with other devolved administrations in the anti-kingdom. Then we heard in contrast to that from Mike Russell that he wants a whole series of vetoes that he himself can exercise as these reserved competences are rolled out, because whereas a year ago he was saying that Brexit must be delivered in a manner that is compatible with the devolution settlement, now he is saying that Brexit must be delivered and that the devolution settlement cannot bear the weight of Brexit. I think he said yesterday and there are bits of the devolution settlement that now need to be changed because he doesn't like them and in particular he doesn't like the fact that international trade is reserved. Is that distinction between that which is devolved and that which is reserved getting in the way of effective intergovernmental co-operation, for example, on the future common frameworks that might relate to trade? It's not on a practical level. Again, this is an example where the Governments have worked well together in relation to trade matters. I've travelled to a number of overseas markets, for example. I was in Tokyo earlier in the year. The UK Government, the Scottish Government are working very, very closely with the Department of International Trade, the Scottish Development International are working very hard together to secure the best outcome for Scotland. That's what you want to see and achieve. If you speak to those people on the ground, they have no idea of the constitutional minutiae that we are arguing. They are looking to bring businesses to Scotland to invest in Scotland or to sell Scottish products around the world. That's our approach. That's what we want to achieve. We don't delineate in that way. Ultimately, in terms of reaching trade agreements, those are reserved matters within the devolution settlement. In the UK, it will be the entity that negotiates those matters. However, we have absolutely committed, and Mr Hollindra did yesterday, that Liam Fox has done, the Prime Minister has done, for engagement with the Scottish Government, the Welsh Assembly Government and, hopefully, the Northern Ireland Executive in reaching those agreements. That's the approach that we take. I think that that can be perfectly well accommodated in the devolution settlement. However, again, it comes back to focusing on the issue in hand. The issue in hand is to get the best possible trade deals for Scotland and the UK and to achieve the maximum amount of inward investment into Scotland internationally. I'm afraid that that isn't determined by constitutional minutiae. It's determined by the effectiveness of your trade policies. On the constitutional details, we're looking at the wider aspects of Brexit. One of the issues post-Brexit, we've heard quite a lot about, is concerns about access to migrant labour. There's been a major issue in places like Prestur and Fife, where farmers have been concerned about access to seasonal workers. I noticed there was an announcement this morning, I think, from the Home Office, around a seasonal agricultural worker scheme. I wondered if you could outline briefly for us how that's going to work. Yes, I can. It's a pilot. I would begin by paying tribute to my colleague Custin here, the new MP for Angus. As you know, Angus has such a central role in the soft fruit industry. Custin has sought to highlight that along with others. The need for an ability to bring in non-EA nationals, because I struck myself when I met the industry about the need for non-EA nationals to be able to come into the UK. Regardless of the issues around Brexit, the number of EU nationals coming in to support the horticulture and agriculture had been dropping for a range of reasons. This scheme will allow 2,500 places for visas to support agriculture and horticulture. It's a pilot and, as such, I believe it's a first step in moving forward with the support that the industry has sought and requires. Of course, EU nationals will still be able to come to the UK until the end of the implementation period in December 2020 on the same basis as they do today. The scheme will come in from next spring? It's in the spring 2019, but I'm very happy to write to the committee with the exact details of it. On the wider issues, Neil. Thanks, convener. Good morning, Secretary of State. You said earlier that a no deal was unlikely. However, it's fair to say that over recent months since the checkers proposal, the likelihood of a no deal has become more likely. The international trade secretary said that the chance of a no deal was actually 60-40, which makes it more likely than not, according to those maths. Do you believe that the international trade secretary is wrong in that guess? In percentage terms, how unlikely do you think a no deal Brexit is, given that you think it's unlikely? I'm not going to accept your invitation to guess what I want to do is to get a deal. I don't want there to be a no deal scenario. I want there to be a deal. I believe that the checkers proposal, which the Prime Minister has put forward and which was outlined in the white paper that was published in July, is the best opportunity to get a deal that is good for Scotland and good for the United Kingdom. That deal, which I think is that proposal, is worth noting because we have previously discussed in this forum the Scotland's place in Europe, parts 1 and 2, that many of the aspects of the proposals put forward by the Scottish Government are actually covered in the checkers proposal. I think that the checkers proposal is the best way to achieve a deal and I think that it would help to get a deal if everyone across the United Kingdom fell able to rally behind the Prime Minister in her negotiations for that deal. I want to see a sensible and serious deal with the European Union, but it obviously appears as a difference of opinion between ministers on how likely or unlikely a deal will be reached. The UK Government has obviously said that it is planning for a no deal, and presumably Scotland's office is planning for a no deal as well. We know that a no deal would slash GDP by almost 8 per cent, which would be a catastrophe for the UK economy. Can you tell the Secretary of State for Scotland, tell the committee what areas of the Scottish economy are likely to be at greatest risk from a no deal risk, given that you are planning for a no deal? To be fair, Mr Bibby, you are characterising it correctly. We are not seeking a no deal Brexit. We understand, as any responsible Government would, that a no deal Brexit is a possibility. Therefore, it would be irresponsible not to take contingency arrangements to deal with that possibility, since the point at which we leave the EU is only months away. That is why, over the summer, we have produced a number of technical notices that relate to areas of both the economy and civil society that would require to make contingency arrangements, so that people have the ability to prepare for a no deal. There will be further such notices issued. However, we are not promoting a no deal because I recognise, and I have said previously, that a no deal would not be good for Scotland. That is why I do not want to be in a position of a no deal. If we get to the point—as I have said to you, I remain confident that we do—that Parliament gets the opportunity to vote for the checkers deal or a no deal, I will be absolutely in the column of those voting for checkers. I would hope that the Labour Party and the SNP, if they genuinely do not want a no deal, would do likewise. You have said that you are not seeking a no deal, you have said that you are not proposing a no deal, but the Prime Minister yesterday, and you have repeated that, have said that you are planning for a no deal, you are making contingency plans for a no deal. You have also said that a no deal would not be good for Scotland. If you are planning for a no deal for Scotland, and you believe that a no deal would be bad for Scotland, can you tell the Secretary of State for Scotland what areas of the economy will be hardest hit by a no deal? The interests of transparency, because people and businesses need to know and fully understand Scotland the impact of a no deal. That is what the technical notices that have been published and will continue to be published about allowing people to prepare for a no deal situation. The no deal is a contingency, because it is self-evident that if you are negotiating a deal, one possible outcome is that there would not be a deal at the end of it, not because that was your aspiration or what you wanted to achieve. My view is therefore that, in order to avoid a no deal, what we need to be doing is putting our energies and focus into trying to get that deal and to rally around the Prime Minister in her negotiations. I think that if we were united in the United Kingdom in this Parliament and Westminster Parliament in terms of our push for a deal, that would strengthen the Prime Minister's hand in getting a deal. For those people who want to avoid a no deal, that, in my view, is the best way to do that. Rather, we can all set out the worst case scenarios. We do not want to be there. We want to be in a position where we have a deal. Mr Mundell, are you seriously asking us to believe that the chequers proposal is not a dead duck? Yes, I am. You cannot get it passed at your own party. Your colleagues recently said that chequers is rubbish. Mr Barney is reported, speaking to the German newspaper Frankfurt, to her citing that he was strongly opposed to Prime Minister May's chequers proposal. He even said that the British offer in customs was illegal. Are you expecting us to believe that chequers are still live and on the table? Chequers are still live and on the table. You have just said that various comments are either attributed to Mr Barney or he does make certain statements. Mr Barney does not ultimately decide what the deal between the UK and the 27 other member states should be. That will be an agreement between the UK and those member states. As Dominic Rab set out yesterday in his evidence in the UK Parliament, negotiations have been proceeding on a constructive basis. I do not suggest that the proposal that we have put forward will not require the EU to make some adjustments to the way in which it has previously operated. However, we have put forward a credible proposal that we should argue for. Mr Barney is the European Union's chief Brexit negotiator, and that is what he said. He basically said that chequers were a dead duck. He is reported to have made certain comments, but Mr Barney is not the final decision maker in relation to these matters. In relation to reaching an agreement, this is a negotiation between the UK and the EU. I think that it would be very good if everybody in the UK was on the side of the UK in those negotiations so that we can get the best possible deal for the UK and for Scotland. Will you support a no deal, or will you say quite clearly that you will not support it under any circumstance? I am saying very clearly, and I have said it to Mr Bibby. If there is a vote in the House of Commons on chequers or no deal, I will be voting for chequers. Mr Cofi, I would like you to tell me that the SNP will be doing the same. Chequers are not on the table. That is an assertion. You are asserting that, based on newspaper reports, not on being in the room within the discussions, not having followed through the various important events that are coming up, the Salzburg meeting of the EU 27, the October Council of the EU, are the forums in which the decisions will be made. It is simply an assertion that chequers are off the table. It is very much still on the table. I will not promote a no deal scenario. I am very clear that I do not promote a no deal scenario. I would hope that SNP, Scottish Labour and Greens would also be in that position of not favouring a no deal scenario in contradiction to the Prime Minister's position, because that seems to me to be exactly where you are. If there are any people around this table who are favouring a no deal scenario, it is not me. You have made it clear that you want to see a deal. However, you have also acknowledged that it is a live possibility that there could be a no deal, and you have said that the Government is working on scenarios for that. In terms of common frameworks and the funding arrangements that would flow from common frameworks being agreed, would those funding arrangements not be compromised if there is a no deal? I do not think that there would be compromise as such, but there would have to be urgent clarifications if we were moving forward in that scenario. We have made it clear, for example, in relation to agriculture, that the level of agricultural payments will continue until 2022. We have made it clear that all existing EU funding arrangements that had been entered into at the point that we left the EU would be honoured. Clearly, there are certain arrangements that might have to come into place in post-March 2019 that, at the moment, would be scheduled to come into place on 1 January 2021 at the end of the implementation period. Clearly, there would need to be some adjustment and clarification, but I do not think that there would be a threat to funding. If anybody who has received EU funding or is in the process of doing that up until the point of leaving, I do not think that they would need to be concerned about the continuation of that funding. The examples that you give are transitional arrangements effectively, but if we got into a situation where there is no clarity around the rules or the basis on which we have left the EU, how can we then work out the funding arrangements going forward from the common frameworks? The funding arrangements in the medium to long term will be the subject for debate and discussion. To be fair to the Scottish Government, Fergus Ewing, for example, has issued various papers and discussions on the future of Scottish agriculture post-EU and how agricultural support would be provided. There is going to be a debate and discussion in the future in relation to a whole range of things. The UK Government is going to bring forward a consultation on what we term as the shared prosperity fund, which is the replacement mechanism for structural funding. There will be an opportunity to debate and discussion as to what form that would take. I think that people will welcome those debates, because, although most people I encounter have welcomed structural funding, they do not necessarily welcome the whole bureaucracy that has gone with it. There will be changes in any event. If there was a shortened time period, things would most likely be done in a shorter time frame. In terms of the actual funding as committed, there would be no change to that whether or not there was a deal or no deal. If we go into a situation where there is a no deal, you say that there will be various papers being issued, there will be debate and discussion, but that debate and discussion will lack clarity because we do not have the proper set of rules set out for us leaving the EU. We have set out in the technical notices generally what would happen. The principle approach of that in those notices to date and I am sure will continue to be the case of continuity, so that in general existing arrangements would remain in place. We have made commitments in relation to funding as committed, so that no one who has a commitment of EU funding will lose out. We have gone beyond that in relation to agriculture to say that we will continue the existing funding level to 2022. If we left the EU with no deal, discussions about new arrangements would take place in a shorter order. A brief follow-up, if I can, convener, on a deal. The Secretary of State has been very clear that the checkers proposal is substantially better than no deal. Mr Coffey was trying to invite you to say that you ruled out no deal and there were no circumstances in which you would accept that. I am sure that in your professional life you have been involved in negotiations, certainly in your life in politics, you have been involved in many negotiations. What impact would ruling out no deal have on the UK Government's negotiating position in Europe? I think that the Prime Minister has been very clear from the start that it was not possible just simply to accept any proposal that was put forward by the EU and that remains the position. I have been very clear that I could not accept a proposal that threatened the integrity of the United Kingdom and some of the proposals that the EU has put forward have done that in terms of what they have suggested would be the arrangements for Northern Ireland. There is a point at which we cannot accept a proposal that would threaten the integrity of our country. That is why we are clear that we are not going to accept an arrangement on any terms. If we accepted that we would have to have a deal, all that does is undermine the opportunity that we have as the United Kingdom to get the best possible deal with the EU. It undermines our negotiating position. I agree with that analysis, but the other way in which a no deal could come about is by opponents of the Prime Minister's position voting for that in Parliament. That is why I would say to Labour MPs or Green MPs that if they do not want no deal in Parliament, they should vote for the deal that the Prime Minister brings forward. The quick clarification about the 2,500 workers that would be seasonal. Is that for the whole of the UK? It is for the whole of the UK, yes. What proportion would Scotland have? Would it be 10 per cent? It would not be a fixed proportion. It would be based on the industry. As you are aware, a large proportion of the industry is in Scotland. If we even got 10 per cent, that would be 250 workers. Would that cover what we would need for our fruit grown season? It is not going to be divided up in that way of 250 for Scotland. There will be an opportunity for the industry to come forward to apply for these visas. It will be focused on farms, but it will be for non-EEA residents. From my discussions with the horticultural industry in particular, that was their requirement. EU residents will still be able to come in the implementation period until the end of 2020. That will be for non-EEA workers. The feedback that I had strongly from the industry in Scotland was the group of people that would want additional people. I have a question about a no deal. As the stories throughout the summer, if we are planning for a no deal, is that why we are encouraging people to stockpile medicines? Should we be doing that? I am concerned that there are 28,000 type 1 diabetics in Scotland. Many are pump users. The supply chain associated with the manufacturing distribution comes from Puerto Rico, Netherlands and other countries, where everybody is dependent on the supply chain. I have a constituent that contacted me because his anti-seizure medicine comes from Denmark. It is very specific. It has specific doses. Patients are dose specific. He is worried about his driver's licence being maintained if he cannot get his meds. Is it a scared mungering story or should we be asking people to stockpile medicines? I think that some newspaper reports have amounted to scared mungering. What the Government is committed to doing and working with the Scottish Government and the NHS Scotland are closely involved in that is making contingency arrangements to ensure that there is a supply of drugs for your constituent and others. At the level of NHS Scotland to make sure that, in the event of a no deal, they had sufficient medicines available, not to encourage individuals to stockpile, but to make sure that those who were providing or prescribing the medicines had sufficient medicines available. That was the subject of a technical notice. I had concerns yesterday about protected geographical indicators for food products. It is not just Scotland, it is the rest of the UK. The First Minister announced £200,000 to promote Scottish lamb. If we are going to promote and protect the provenance of Scottish produce, would PGI status be part of the negotiations to protect that? Can you confirm that we can protect our PGI status for Scottish produce? Our intention is that the existing arrangements will remain exactly as they are with the EU, that in any future trade deals that we had we would have such arrangements and that we would also make arrangements within our own laws here in the Scotland United Kingdom to ensure that protection, but we are determined to achieve that. Next week, I can confirm that the Cabinet Secretary for Government, Business and Constitutional Relations will also begin his evidence on the EU withdrawal act. I close the meeting.