OFFICIAL SENSITIVE DETERMINING OUR PRIORITIES FOR THE UK-EU NEGOTIATIONS: TEMPLATE Name of policy area: Gaidhlig language and culture Key contact: Shona MacLennan, Ceannard, Bord na Gaidhlig Please complete this table for the three scenarios outlined below: a) A so called ?hard Brexit? with the addition of powers returning from the EU which relate to a devolved competence being centralised to Westminster and managed as a UK framework. b) A so called 'hard Brexit? with powers returning from Brussels being devolved in line with existing competence and a negotiation between UK Government and devolved administrations to establish appropriate frameworks c) A so called ?soft Brexit? Le. a Brexit deal which is close to, or equivalent to membership of the European Single Market, including through elements of the model set out in Scotland's Place in Europe. As highliqhted previously, your responses under each of these scenarios should be independence proofed. The questions under each scenario are there as prompts, they are not intended to be prescriptive or to constrain discussion. Please add anything that you feel is relevant and provide any feedback on the template itself. This information in this template should be cleared with your portfolio Minister in advance of submitting to DEXA by 30 June. EXIT NEGOTIATIONS (terms of withdrawal) Please consider negotiation priorities under this section, for example: 0 Any ongoing liabilities in respect of EU fees/bill to account for any funding due beyond exit on projects or programmes approved pre-exit. - The balance between future relationship and EU exit if the two were not likely to be adjacent, what bodies, programmes or organisations would we absolutely HAVE to retain access to at the point of transition? A so called ?hard Brexit? with the addition of powers returning from the EU which relate to a devolved competence being centralised to Westminster and managed as a UK framework. Please also summarise any key issues related to independence which you consider may have an effect on this scenario and which may require special and/or early consideration. [Redacted: 529(1)(a)] A so called ?hard Brexit? with powers returning from Brussels being devolved in line with existing competence and a negotiation between UK Government and devolved administrations to establish appropriate frameworks. Please also summarise any key issues related to independence which you consider may have an effect on this scenario and which may require special and/or early consideration. OFFICIAL SENSITIVE [Redacted: 329(1)(a)] A so called ?soft Brexit? Le. a Brexit deal which is close to, or equivalent to membership of the European Single Market, including through elements of the model set out in Scotland?s Place in Europe. Please also summarise any key issues related to independence which you consider may have an effect on this scenario and which may require special and/or early consideration. [Redacted: 529(1)(a)] FUTURE RELATIONSHIP: In terms of Scotland's future relationship with the EU, what are the key outcomes we would pursue to protect Scotland?s interests under each of the following scenarios? Please consider: - why Scotland needs that outcome; why the UK should want that outcome; what accept that outcome Consequences of not achieving that outcome. Any technical or legal barriers to achieving that outcome A so called ?hard Brexit' with the addition of powers returning from the EU which relate to a devolved competence being centralised to Westminster and managed as a UK framework. Please also summarise any key issues related to independence which you consider may have an effect on this scenario and which may require special and/or early consideration. OFFICIAL SENSITIVE [Redacted: 529(1)(a)] A so called ?hard Brexit? with powers returning from Brussels being devolved in line with existing competence and a negotiation between UK Government and devolved administrations to establish appropriate frameworks. Please also summarise any key issues related to independence which you consider may have an effect on this scenario and which may require special and/or early consideration. [Redacted: 329(1)(a)] A so called ?soft Brexit' Le. a Brexit deal which is close to, or equivalent to membership of the European Single Market, including through elements of the model set out in Scotland?s Place in Europe. Please also summarise any key issues related to independence which you consider may have an effect on this scenario and which may require special and/or early consideration. [Redacted: 529(1)(a)] What are our negotiating priorities? It would be useful to attached a ranking or prioritisation to the areas that you specify. This is not intended to be reductionist, depending on your policy area you may have a couple of groups of priorities; many directorates in 8G cover multiple policy areas, so use the most relevant level for you of thinking about this. A so called ?hard Brexit? with the addition of powers returning from the EU which relate to a devolved competence being centralised to Westminster and managed as a UK framework. Please also summarise any key issues related to independence which you consider may have an effect on this scenario and which may require special and/or early consideration [Redacted: 329(1)(a)] OFFICIAL SENSITIVE A so called ?hard Brexit? with powers returning from Brussels being devolved in line with existing competence and a negotiation between UK Government and devolved administrations to establish appropriate frameworks. Please also summarise any key issues related to independence which you consider may have an effect on this scenario and which may require special and/or early consideration. [Redacted: 529(1)(a)] A so called ?soft Brexit' Le. a Brexit deal which is close to, or equivalent to membership of the European Single Market, including through elements of the model set out in Scotland's Place in Europe. Please also summarise any key issues related to independence which you consider may have an effect on this scenario and which may require special and/or early consideration. [Redacted: s29(1)(a)] Key points of interest and tensions with key stakeholders. Please consider any detail any stated preference your stakeholders may have for a preferred scenario and actions they want the SG to be taking as well as conflicting stakeholder views within your policy area or potential divergence with 8G policy positions. [Redacted: 529(1)(a)] OFFICIAL SENSITIVE Please complete this template by Friday 30 June and return to the European Strategy mailbox at: OFFICIAL SENSITIVE ANNEX A IDENTIFYING AND ARTICULATING SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT NEGOTIATION PRIORITIES 1. This section is designed to prompt your thinking around priorities and associated outcomes for your individual policy areas, so that we approach the negotiations across the piece in a coherent and consistent way, with robust evidence to support ourposMon. Within the UK negotiating position on any given issue we need to be in a position to articulate our ideal outcomes and associated key priorities, including any deal breakers. As good negotiating practice, in addition to articulating our ideal outcome. we must also know for ourselves our minimum acceptable outcome or alternative, such as further devolution in a given area. Any position must be accompanied with robust and persuasive evidence which demonstrates: why Scotland needs that outcome; why the UK should want that outcome; what accept that outcome and; consequences of n_ot achieving bo_th our desired outcome and our minimum acceptable outcome or alternative Wherever possible we should also collect and articulate evidence where the EU already has existing arrangements which reflect the outcome we want, for example in agreements with third countries or other international bodies. If no such existing arrangement exists, we need to have a very robust argument as to what the EU would gain by accepting a new precedent in this relationship. Exit Negotiations and Future Relationship: 5. 6. It will be important for the Scottish Government to have a clear position on both the exit negotiations and future relationship with the EU. As the process for negotiations is firmed up and agreed between the UK and the EU, the sequence and timing for when we would need to know this will become clearer. In relation to the Exit Negotiations this could involve: 0 Recognition of ongoing liabilities in respect of EU fees/bill to account for any funding due beyond exit on projects or programmes approved pre-exit. Bearing in mind the balance between future relationship and EU exit if the two were not likely to be adjacent, what bodies, programmes or organisations would we absolutely HAVE to retain access to. It would be useful to attached a ranking or prioritisation to these, so for example continued participation in Europol or the European Arrest Warrant scheme might be considered essential on day 1 of exit, whereas continued participation in Horizon 2020 might be desirable, but not essential (provided that it is to be part of a future negotiation where it may become an essential priority). OFFICIAL SENSITIVE 7. In developing a view of the desired future relationship for your policy area you should consider: 0 What are the key outcomes for your policy area? For many areas this can and should be an articulation of everything we currently benefit from within the EU. Please articulate key outcomes for a desired future relationship in terms of the UK-EU negotiations. As you will be aware the policy and legislation to deal with the domestic consequences of Brexit and repatriation of powers is the subject of a separate co-ordination exercise led by Constitution and UK Relations colleagues (these are the ?intra-UK? negotiations) Please also consider whether there are opportunities for new or re-framed relationships with the EU in your areas. What would these look like, and on what basis would Scotland (rather than the UK) be looking to engage in these? a What are the negotiation Qriorities for your policy area? It would be useful to attached a ranking or prioritisation to the areas that you specim. This is not intended to be reductionist or final. Depending on your policy area you may have a few groups of priorities; many directorates in 86 cover multiple policy areas, so use the most relevant level for you of thinking about this. You might for example identify priorities within the following categories (not exhaustive): 0 Trade arrangements: tariffs and quotas, regulatory coherence (remember to consider goods, capital and provision of services where relevant to your sectors) 0 Regulation: are there important regulatory provisions where maintaining coherence and compliance will be vital do we want to ask to continue to have a say in their development? 0 Agencies, Bodies, Organisations: Are there any advisory, regulatory, scientific, operational or delivery bodies we would wish to continue to be part of (what are the consequences of that an acceptable cost? What if regulation/policy diverges?) 0 Funding Programmes: particularly competitive, direct funding streams like Horizon 2020, (what are the consequences of that an acceptable cost? What if regulation/policy diverges?) . .Directorate: Learninq Completed by: Mick Wilson Please ensure your answers address the direct impact on your Directorate and on any or Agencies for which you are responsible. If an answer is deemed as please explain why it is not applicable. Guidance on RAG ratings is provided on pages 10-12. Current RAG Please include commentary if there has been any material Assessment change affecting organisational readiness, or your RAG rating, since your last response. enema BLOZI a: U) 8. Readiness Questions 0 <1 NEIHHE) 038 ssaugpeau Please note: Information relating to your capacity and capability requirements will be extracted from your latest BUD 1 submissions. la How well do your Directorate governance arrangements - support current and future EU-Exit contingency plans within your Directorate and 06 family? You may want to consider: - whether you are in a position to generate assurance and contribute to the DG assurance process. 1b How confident are you that your resource plans and allocated budgets take into consideration PFG commitments and EU-Exit requirements, and are deliverable? miliqedeg pue Aigoedeg OFFICIAL SENSITIVE How confident are you that you have identi?ed risk to delivery in your policy area by a lack of $6 workforce in other 56 directorates or in public bodies? You may want to consider: - whether you have identified all risks to delivery influenced by challenges within other Directorates or in the wider workforce; what is getting in the way of making progress - what help or advice you would find useful - saouanbasuog annalsg?am 2a How confident are you that all relevant legislation within your policy area which will be affected by EU-Exit has been identified? - 2b How confident are you that you will be able to deliver - mitigating legislative solutions in sufficient time? You may want to consider: whether you have discussed this with the relevant 56 contacts UK contacts; - whether you have identn?ied legislation in another policy area or Directorate which will impact on your responsibilities and vice versa; whether you have identified whether affected legislation will impact on the operation of your - what is getting in the way of making progress; - what help or support you would find useful. 2c How con?dent are you that you have identified opportunities to enhance devolved responsibilities as a result of EU?Exit? You may want to consider: - your awareness of the 56?s work with regard to enhancing devolved responsibilities as part of U?Exit preparations; - OFFICIAL SENSITIVE v'd (I) fl) I?l (ifI ill (1) ill discussions held or still required with DEXA, Strategy 8: Constitution and SGLD colleagues; what is getting in the way of making progress; what help or support you would find useful. 2d How con?dent are you that you have identi?ed risks arising from any Iegislative deficiencies? - Aaglod 3a How confident are you that you have a thorough understanding of those policy issues in your Directorate that will be affected by EU-Exit? You may want to consider: - the impact your policies will have Directorates/policy areas or vice versa; - direct and indirect impact on the work of your whether you have identified all delivery and operational risks arising in your policy areas? on other - 3b How con?dent are you that you will be able to carry out the policy work that is required to prepare for EU-Exit, and to ensure that we have policy continuity at the point of Exit? You may want to consider: - the extent to which you have developed policy options depending on scenario,- - the extent to which you are dependent on other Directorates within the 56, or other factors; - what is getting in the way of making progress -what help or support you would find useful - the impact of the risks you have identified - OFFICIAL SENSITIVE v- I 3c How confident are you that you have identi?ed implications and solutions for non-statutory rules, codes or standards in your area affected by withdrawal? You may want to consider: - whether you have identified where implications within other Directorates/policy areas will have impacts on you and vice versa; - whether you have identified where implications, direct or indirect, will fall on your - what is getting in the way of making progress; - what help or support would you find useful. - 3d How confident are you that you will be able to offer advice to, engage with, and secure decisions from Ministers on policy options? You may want to consider: - the identi?cation of cross-cutting impacts and issues requiring coordination between Ministerial portfolios; - what is getting in the way of making progress; what help or support you would find useful. - 5.3000101) 3e How confident are you of identifying opportunities to mitigate the challenges of EU-Exit by developing new policy proposals (separate from the powers discussed in earlier questions)? You may want to consider: whether Ministerial priorities could be delivered differently; - discussions you have had or require to have with DEXA and Strategy and Constitution Directorate; - what is getting in the way of making progress -what help or support you would find useful. - OFFICIAL SENSITIVE (suoneaudwl eosH 43 How confident are you that you have identi?ed all EU funding streams relevant to your area? You may want to consider - assessments made or required on the impact on funds that you receive or administer; - your summary of funding impact to colleagues in Finance; - consideration of the impact on the work of for which you are responsible; - key risks identified to delivery of Ministers policies emerging from the position with EU Funding streams; - what is getting in the way of making progress; what help or support you would find useful. A small number of stakeholder requests for replacement funding have emerged recently. We have not reached a full understanding, or position, on these at this stage. - 4b How confident are you that you have a robust cost analysis in place to identify overall financial shortfall and potential gaps as a result of EU?Exit? You may want to consider discussions held or to be held with your Finance Business Partner; - identification of specific risks presented by any shortfall; - what is getting in the way of making progress; - what help or support you would find useful. 4C How confident are you of developing plans for mitigation to deal with any gaps in funding? 4d How con?dent are you that you will be able to identify areas of agreement/ disagreement with UKG concerning a funding settlement which affects your current funding streams? You may want to consider: any mitigation work which has been or requires to be carried out. - OFFICIAL SENSITIVE (I) (1) (.0 l? ill 4e How far are you able to assess and quantify the risk of ?scal changes from withdrawal on workforce capacity in public bodies and or delivery agencies? - semiogid uoneno?aN 5a How con?dent are you that your negotiation dossier has been developed to include ?nancial and legislative implications? You may want to consider: - the negotiation dossier agreed with if you do not have a negotiation dossier, how well developed plans are to develop this with discussions to date with your Finance Business Partner, Finance Constitution Policy team and reviews of negotiation priorities and strategy in consultation with - what is getting in the way of making progress; - what help or support you would find useful. - 5b How confident are you that you have a deep understanding of your negotiation priorities including analysis of the potential impact of future partnership models? You may want to consider: discussions to date or scheduled with DEXA key contacts within the UKG to progress this? - 5c How confident are you about relationships with UKG counterparts in respect of negotiation priorities? You may want to consider: the effectiveness of your working dialogue with key contacts and counterparts in the UK government; what is getting in the way of making progress; - what help and support would be useful. - OFFICIAL SENSITIVE (I) ll] tr, H) U) H) ("If I ll! How confident are you about the effectiveness of your - current channels of communication with your counterparts partners in UKG in supporting general EU- Exit dialogue? You may want to consider: the effectiveness of current partnership working channels (eg. on development of frameworks, legislation, operational readiness); - channels which are necessary but not yet developed,- - what is getting in the way of making progress; - what help and support you would find useful. How con?dent are you that you can communicate - authoritativer and effectively with funding partners on relevant aspects of funding and EU-Exit issues? sdgusuonelau pue tuawa?e?ug How confident are you around channels of - communication with external bodies and partners on policy and other issues arising from withdrawal? You may want to consider: - how confident you are that you know all of those who will be affected; - work taking place or to take place with colleagues across Directorates with common stakeholders? How confident are you that links are being made with - potential parties outside the EU who may be interested in working with Scotland? You may want to consider: discussions which have taken place or need to take place on potential opportunities with How con?dent are you that current working relationships - with EU partners and stakeholders will be protected post EU-Exit? You may want to consider: OFFICIAL SENSITIVE (i i - whether you will have channels in place to keep track of EU develOpments post EU-Exit; any risks associated with the maintenance of these relationships; - what help and support you would find useful including from the Brussels office and other hubs peduu aoJoleoM 73 How confident are you that you have identified the potential workforce impacts of EU-Exit on public bodies or delivery agencies? You may want to consider: - your engagement with the CEO or HR lead; - how far you have shared emerging issues and risks with the Workforce impact Project; - what is getting in the way of making progress; - what help or support would be useful. - 7b How confident are you that you your public bodies or delivery agencies are planning for the potential impacts of EU-Exit on their current and future workforce? You may want to consider: - discussions which have taken place on impact; - work to identify key risks; - work to develop mitigating actions; - the sharing of emerging risks with the Workforce impact Project; - what is getting in the way of making progress; - what help or support would be useful. - swans/Ks ll 83 How con?dent are you of being able to identify the digital impact on your area as a result of EU-Exit? You may want to consider: - likely change to the usage of Scottish Government i'i' systems and infrastructure due to increased numbers of - OFFICIAL SENSITIVE i 11', U) U) lli (I) i'i sta??, the opening of new offices, or the establishment of new organisations; any new which will be required or any existing systems to be changed significantly; discussions held or to be held with Digital colleagues; what is getting in the way of making progress; - what help and support would be useful. 8b How confident are you that you have scoped which (if any) data or systems not currently hosted on Scottish Government infrastructure or within the UK may be affected by EU-Exit and that you know how to go about accessing the reIevant support organisations to discuss necessary amendments? You may want to consider: - cloud services in your business area which are hosted within the EU and the potential implications for usage and access as a result of U-Exit; - data hosted within the EU and the potential implications for usage and access as a result of U-Exit; - risks associated with this. - S>Isiu 9a Over and above specific risks mentioned in previous sections, how con?dent are you that you have identified any operational risks delays at ports, inability for a function to operate) arising in your policy area? You may want to consider: whether developments in reserved areas have any impacts on devolved functions; the timescale in which any risks would materialise (before, during or after U-Exit; the prioritisation of risks; - what is getting in the way of identifying risks; OFFICIAL SENSITIVE what help and support you would find useful. 9b How con?dent are you of developing solutions to mitigate operational risks? You may want to consider: - whether you have identified who you need to work with - to mitigate risks; - what is getting in the way of developing solutions to mitigate risks; - what help and support would you find useful. RAG Criteria for Assessment Capacity and Capability a Green: "The roles and people required have been identified, articulated, and are affordable, with measures having been put in place to mitigate against any delays in securing the right resource at the right time. Clear and achievable workforce plans are in place which allow capability and capacity requirements to be met.? - ?The roles and peOple required have been identified and clearly articulated. Some work may exist to ensure these are affordable with further prioritisation required; however plans exist to do so. Workforce plans indicate that ?lling these roles will be achievable although work has not yet commenced. Further work is required to buy/build/borrow to meet the capability requirements.? 10 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE Red: ?The roles and people required have not been fully identified or articulated. Significant gaps with affordability exist where prioritisation options within the target portfolio have been exhausted or are unlikely. There is a lack of clarity on the capability requirements and/or these are not readily available.? Legislative Consequences 0 Green: ?All legislation that will be affected by withdrawal has been identified, legislative solutions are being determined, and a programme for proposal delivery has been scoped out and is being followed.? a ?All legislation that will be affected by withdrawal has been identified, with work ongoing to explore possible legislative solutions and a programme for proposal delivery.? 0 Red: ?Legislation that will be affected by withdrawal has not been identified, and/or legislative solutions and a programme for proposal delivery have yet to be considered.? Policy Implications and Delivery Risks - Green: ?Necessary and sufficient action is identified, resourced, and on track.? a ?The action required is not fully known, not fully resourced, or not on track, but plans are in place to remedy this.? 0 Red: ?It is not currently possible to assess what action is required, or to know that it can be achieved.? Fiscal Implications 0 Green: ?All EU funding streams have been identified, robust cost analysis has been undertaken in relation to these streams in the context of EU-Exit a UK funding settlement, and mitigating actions have been identified to cover any fiscal shortfalls that may arise.? "All EU funding streams have been identified, work is advanced on performing robust cost analysis in relation to these streams in the context of EU~Exit a UK funding settlement, and thought has been given to what mitigating actions might be needed to cover any ?scal shortfalls that may arise." 0 Red: funding streams have not all been identified, and/or work has not started on performing robust cost analysis in relation to these streams in the context of EU-Exit a UK funding settlement, and thought has not been given to what mitigating actions might be needed to cover any fiscal shortfalls that may arise.? Negotiation Priorities 11 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE (Green: ?Negotiation priorities have been identified, articulated, and costed, with measures having been put in place to mitigate against any uncertainties or unexpected outcomes that arise from the negotiations process.? 0 ?Negotiation priorities have been identi?ed and progress has been made on costing implications, whilst thought has been given to what mitigating measures will be needed to deal with any uncertainties or unexpected outcomes that arise from the negotiations process?. a Red: ?Negotiation priorities have not been identified, articulated or costed, and/or plans to mitigate any uncertainties or unexpected outcomes that arise from the negotiations process have yet to be considered." Engagement and Relationships - Green: ?Close relationships and engagement with key bodies and interest groups, with well aligned interests.? - ?Frequent contact and clear lines of communication, with a developing relationship.? . Red: ?Little to no communication or engagement with key bodies and interest groups, no relationship to speak of.? IT Systems Green: ?Necessary and sufficient action is identified, resourced, and on track.? - ?The action required is not fully known, not fully resourced, or not on track, but plans are in place to remedy this.? 0 Red: ?It is not currently possible to assess what action is required, or to know that it can be achieved.? Workforce Impact 0 Green: ?discussions have taken place on impact and sufficient mitigating actions identified, resourced and on track?; - ?The action required is not fully known, not fully resourced, or not on track, but plans are in place to remedy this.? a Red: ?Discussions have not taken place or it is not currently possible to assess what action is required.? 12 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE From: [Redacted Sent: 01 August 2018 16:59 To: [Redacted Cc: [Redacted Wilson (Mick) [Redacted Subject: BREXIT - [Redacted [Redacted [Redacted From: [Redacted Sent: 01 August 2018 16:28 To: [Redacted Cc: [Redacted Subject: RE: BREXIT [Redacted [Redacted 529(1)] [Redacted [Redacted From: [Redacted Sent: 01 August 2018 14:51 To: [Redacted Cc: [Redacted Subject: - Request for an update on the Recognition of Professional Quali?cations Directive as implemented by SI 2015/2059 [Redacted [Redacted [Redacted [Redacted From: [Redacted Sent: 01 August 2018 14:38 To: [Redacted Cc: [Redacted Subject: [Redacted Importance: High [Redacted Can you let me know whether SG has had any update on what is happening at policy level in relation to Brexit and the directive on recognition of professional qualifications. have an interest from the point of view of teachers but you will be aware that the directive covers a wider range of professions. [Redacted 536(1)] [Redacted From: [Redacted Sent: 31 July 2018 14:55 To: Wilson (Mick) [Redacted Cc: [Redacted Hicks (Clare) [Redacted Subject: RE: BREXIT - legislative programme Mick, Now with additional sentence in red. [Redacted 836(1)] [Redacted Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications within Member States The European Union (Recognition of Professional Qualifications) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/2059) The General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS) Registration and Standards Rules (December 2015) apply the regulations that preceded the 2015 Regulations (same title, SI 2007/2781) to the effect that they allow full registration in Scotland of EEA nationals nationals of any EU member state or Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein) who are qualified teachers in their home state so long as they meet certain formal conditions and requirements. The GTCS is the Competent Authority for teachers in Scotland in terms of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the 2015 Regulations, and as such it has certain important functions relating to recognition, notification, etc under the Regulations. [Redacted From: Wilson (Mick) Sent: 30 July 2018 17:02 To: [Redacted Cc: [Redacted Hicks (Clare) [Redacted Subject: RE: BREXIT - legislative programme [Redacted Thank you [Redacted Mick Wilson Deputy Director. Education Analysis [Redacted From: [Redacted Sent: 26 July 2018 14:51 To: Wilson (Mick) Cc: [Redacted Hicks (Clare); [Redacted Subject: RE: BREXIT [Redacted Mick, Will this do you? Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications within Member States The European Union (Recognition of Professional Qualifications) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/2059). The General Teaching Council for Scotland Registration and Standards Rules (December 2015) apply the regulations that preceded the 2015 Regulations (same title, SI 2007/2781) to the effect that they allow full registration in Scotland of EEA nationals nationals of any EU member state or Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein) who are qualified teachers in their home state so long as they meet certain formal conditions and requirements. The GTCS is the Competent Authority for teachers in Scotland in terms of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the 2015 Regulations, and as such it has certain important functions relating to recognition, notification, etc under the Regulations. [Redacted Thanks David From: Wilson (Mick) Sent: 19 July 2018 12:32 To: [Redacted Cc: [Redacted Logan (Graeme) [Redacted Hicks (Clare) [Redacted Robertson FMG (Fiona) (Director of Learning) [Redacted Subject: BREXIT [Redacted [Redacted We have discussed legislative impacts of Brexit on numerous occasions. [Redacted 529(1)(a)] Mick Wilson Deputy Director. Education Analysis [Redacted OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE From: Mick Wilson Education Analytical Services 6 August 2018 Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills Legislative consequences of EU Exit- Learning ELC Directorates Purpose 1. This submission updates you on our preparations on the legislative consequences of EU Exit following the Cabinet Discussion on 18 June. At that discussion, Cabinet agreed to: a) the basis on which the Scottish Government will work with the UK Government to achieve a proportionate, responsible level of preparedness for EU exit; b) the risk mitigation approach to identifying those areas where preparedness requires planning for a no?deal scenario; and c) the delegated responsibility of portfolio ministers for applying this risk-mitigation approach. Priority 2. s.30(c) Discussion s.30(c) Next steps UK 5. There are two key areas where legislative consequences have been considered: i) 5.363(1) Mick Wilson OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE Deputy Director, Education Analyticat Services X40325 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE Copy List: For Action For Comments For Information Portfolio Interest Constit Interest General Awareness Minister for childcare and early years DG Education, Communities and Justice Colin McAIlister Fiona Robertson [Redacted] [Redacted] David Rogers James [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] Clare Hicks Graeme Logan [Redacted] [Redacted] Joe Griffin Alison Cumming [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] From: [Redacted Sent: 02 November 2018 14:01 To: 06 Education, Redacted Justice Director for Children and Families Redacted Director for Housing and Social Justice Redacted Director ofAdvanced Learning and Science Redacted GriffinJ (Joe) Redacted Robertson FMG (Fiona) (Director of Learning) Redacted Johnston (Paul) Cc: [Redacted Subject: ECJ EU Exit Risk Session - 8 Nov (1020 to 1200) - Further info including 'No deal? challenge questions to be discussed Good afternoon ECJ Directors My name is [Redacted and I will be facilitating your EU Exit Risk? session on Thursday 8 November (1020 to 1200). As per Action 5 from the 16 August DG ECJ Assurance Meeting (and as per the e-calendar request) the purpose of the session is: a To examine the key EU Exit issues which would impact notjust on ECJ Directorates but the DG ECJ family as a collective, and any public services for which the DG family were responsible. [Redacted asked that the session be focussed on a set of ?No deal? challenge questions to: - Demonstrate planning 0 Consider cross-cutting issues The questions are as follows. In preparation for a ?No Deal? European Union Exit: What are the key risks (and consequences of these risks) for your area What are your plans (current and/or emerging) for managing these key risks and consequences What level of engagement are you having with your UKG counterparts on their No Deal preparations What are your stakeholder concerns What may you need to do differently to prepare for a No Deal scenario It would be greatly appreciated if you could consider these questions prior to the session so you are able to share a brief overview on the day. Kind regards [Redacted [Redacted From: [Redacted Sent: 21 November 2018 08:39 To: [Redacted Cc: Bruce A (Andrew) [Redacted Data protection and information assets Mailbox Subject: RE: Data Protection - No Deal Brexit contingency planning - data flows between UK and Europe - FOR ACTION by 22 November Hi [Redacted Thanks for the e-mail to Andy, i have responded in red below on his behalf. Happy to discuss. [Redacted From: [Redacted Sent: 15 November 2018 12:37 To: Information Asset Owners [Redacted Cc: Data protection and information assets Mailbox [Redacted DG Organisational Development Operations [Redacted Director Digital [Redacted [Redacted [Redacted [Redacted Subject: Data Protection - No Deal Brexit contingency planning - data flows between UK and Europe - FOR ACTION by 22 November Importance: High For the attention of Information Asset Owners Thanks to those who responded to the request below from [Redacted As she said, that request was a first step and there are follow up questions. Scottish Government (and other DAs and UK Government Departments) has just been asked to send this information to the UKG Cabinet Office and DCMS, as part of Brexit preparations and to inform a brief to UK Ministers. It also helps our own contingency planning. Please can: Those that answered Yes to questions 1, 2 or 3 in [Redacted email now answer questions 4 and 5 immediately below: 4. Do you have a plan in place for ensuring that these data transfers will meet the appropriate safeguards required by ch.5 GDPR, and therefore continue, in a ?no deal? Brexit scenario? a Can you provide some detail on your plan to get these safeguards in place, what safeguards you intend to use, and your level of confidence in this current plan? The SNSA processor is based in the UK. However the main server for the data is hosted in Dublin with back?up servers in London and Frankfurt. In the event of a no deal brexit we would intend the main server to move to London with a ?cloned' server also in London therefore hosting all the data within the UK. There would be a reduction in resilience should something happen to the London environment and that is something we are currently investigating. 5. Do you anticipate any disruption would be caused to the services you supply to the UK public sector if these safeguards were not put in place? a Can you identify any specific risks, or organisations that may be particularly affected? 0 If this change was not made we do not think our supplier would be able process therefore the assessments would not be able to be taken by any children or young people in Scotland. Those that did not reply or were only able to reply partially to the request below please check whether you do in fact do anything within scope of the questions and if so, please send a response to all questions. Please can I receive responses by Thursday 22 November copying them to [Redacted If you have technical queries please address them to [Redacted Please note: I am now coordinating this (with Resilience colleagues) as it forms part of 86's resilience and business continuity work. Kind regards [Redacted [Redacted From: [Redacted On Behalf Of Data protection and information assets Maiibox Sent: 05 November 2018 15:24 To: Information Asset Owners [Redacted Cc: Data protection and information assets Mailbox [Redacted DG Organisational Development 8t Operations [Redacted Director Digital [Redacted [Redacted [Redacted [Redacted Subject: Data Protection No Deal Brexit contingency planning data flows between UK and Europe - FOR ACTION by 9 November For the attention of Information Asset Owners You may have seen the recent press coverage of ?no deal? Brexit planning, and the associated information from the UK Government. On 13 September the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) issued a Technical Notice in respect of data protection. In summary: a personal data currently flows freely between EU member states, EEA countries and other countries deemed as having adequate arrangements for data protection (listed below?); 0 UK Gov is confident of reaching an agreement on leaving the EU, and data protection will be part of this and then UK Gov will work towards achieving a decision on the adequacy of UK arrangements for data protection; a if agreement is not reached (the ?no deal? scenario), then flows of personal data from Europe may stop, as the UK will be a third party country; and in recognition of the unprecedented degree of alignment between the UK and data protection regimes, you would continue to be able to send personal data from the the activities in your Division rely on the transfer of personal data to or from Europe, then you must now identify this data, and possibly take some actions in the event of ?no deal?. As the first step please respond to this email by 1700 on 9 November to let us know if your Division: 1. relies on data coming from any EU member state or states for any of your activities; 2. uses a data processor, or processes data for an organisation, based in any of the countries listed below?; and 3. uses a supplier who sub-contracts data processing to a company based in any of the countries listed below?. If you answer yes to any of the above we will have some follow-up questions, so please identify a contact in your Division who can provide further information to the DPIA Team. Thank you. [Redacted Relevant countries: countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. OR Locations with (or nearing) data adequacy agreements: Andorra, Argentina, Canada (only commercial organisations), Faroe Islands, Guernsey, Israel, Isle of Man, Jersey, New Zealand, Switzerland, Uruguay, USA (as relates to Privacy Shield), Japan. From: Wilson (Mick) [Redacted Sent: 05 November 2018 15:23 To: Robertson FMG (Fiona) (Director of Learning) [Redacted Cc: [Redacted Hicks (Clare) [Redacted Bruce A (Andrew) [Redacted Sheppard (Lesley) [Redacted Subject: RE: ECJ EU Exit Risk Session - 8 Nov (1020 to 1200) - Further info including 'No deal' challenge questions to be discussed Importance: High Fiona, Short note addressing the questions below is attached for the workshop on Thursday. The note is intended as briefing for you, and not for submission to Paul/others, necessarily (although i don't think there is anything in it that couldn?t be shared, really). I am not sure if ES will be represented. I am meeting Brian Taylor on 15/11 to discuss EU-exit stuff, as a recent Fol response from them suggested they hadn?t done any planning. I also reattach Learning Directorate?s EU?Exit Delivery Plan for ease of reference (the documents overlap a fair bit). Mick Wilson Deputy Director, Education Analysis Tel: 40325 From: [Redacted On Behalf Of Robertson FMG (Fiona) (Director of Learning) Sent: 02 November 2018 14:20 To: Wilson (Mick) [Redacted Subject: FW: ECJ EU Exit Risk Session - 8 Nov (1020 to 1200) - Further info including ?No deal' chaitenge questions to be discussed From: [Redacted Sent: 02 November 2018 14:01 To: DG Education, Communities Justice [Redacted Director for Children and Families [Redacted Director for Housing and Social Justice [Redacted Director of Advanced Learning and Science [Redacted Gallagher 5 (Stephen) [Redacted Griffin (Joe) [Redacted Rennick NS (Neil) [Redacted Robertson FMG (Fiona) (Director of Learning) [Redacted Russell GE (Gillian) [Redacted Johnston (Paul) [Redacted Cc: [Redacted Subject: ECJ EU Exit Risk Session - 8 Nov (1020 to 1200) - Further info including 'No deal' challenge questions to be discussed Good afternoon ECJ Directors My name is [Redacted and I will be facilitating your EU Exit Risk? session on Thursday 8 November (1020 to 1200). As per Action 5 from the 16 August DG ECJ Assurance Meeting (and as per the e?calendar request) the purpose of the session is: To examine the key EU Exit issues which would impact not just on ECJ Directorates but the DG ECJ family as a collective, and any public services for which the DG family were responsible. Gillian has asked that the session be focussed on a set of ?No deal' challenge questions to: 0 Demonstrate planning 0 Consider cross-cutting issues The questions are as follows. In preparation for a ?No Deal? European Union Exit: What are the key risks (and consequences of these risks) for your area What are your plans (current and/or emerging) for managing these key risks and consequences What level of engagement are you having with your UKG counterparts on their No Deal preparations What are your stakeholder concerns What may you need to do differently to prepare for a No Deal scenario VV VV It would be greatly appreciated if you could consider these questions prior to the session so you are able to share a brief overview on the day. Kind regards [Redacted [Redacted OFFICIAL- SENSITIVE ECJ EU-Exit risk workshop 8 November 2018 Session purpose: To examine the key EU Exit issues which would impact not just on ECJ Directorates but the DG ECJ family as a collective, and any public services for which the DG family were responsible. in order to: 0 Demonstrate planning 0 Consider cross-cutting issues Questions for discussion: What are the key risks (and consequences of these risks) for your area Direct risks [Redacted: 329(1)(a)] Indirect risks [Redacted: s29(1)(a)] Xe What are your plans (current and/or emerging) for managing these key risks and consequences [Redacted: s29(1)(a)] is What level of engagement are you having with your UKG counterparts on their No Deal preparations [Redacted: 529(1)(a)] What are your stakeholder concerns [Redacted: 529(1)(a)] What may you need to do differently to prepare for a No Deal scenario [Redacted: 329(1)(a)] Learning Directorate 6 November 2018 From: [Redacted Sent: 22 November 2018 13:43 To: Redacted Cc: dataprotection >[Redacted Subject: RE: Gaelic Medium Education National Standardised Assessments/Measaidhean Coitcheann Naiseanta airson Foghlam tron Ghaidhlig - Data Processor Agreement for signature and information security information Thanks [Redacted I appreciate the quick response. Regards, [Redacted From: [Redacted Sent: 21 November 2018 19:09 To: Redacted Cc: dataprotection [Redacted Subject: RE: Gaelic Medium Education National Standardised Assessments/Measaidhean Coitcheann Naiseanta airson Foghlam tron Ghaidhlig - Data Processor Agreement for signature and information security information Importance: High Dear [Redacted Thank you for your email. In terms of your queries re clause 14 I can confirm: There is no intention to transfer data outwith the EEA Any material change in the data storage requirements for MCNG would require the Scottish Government to revise the Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) also included in your pack and to share for re-signature a revised DPA. I hope this is helpful. Kind regards [Redacted Policy AnalysU/National Improvement Framework Unit Tel: [Redacted [Redacted Learning Directorate/BC North/[Victoria Quay/l Edinburgh/IEHG SQQ Aonad Fream?obrach Leasachaidh Naiseanta/lRaon 2C Tuath/lCidhe Bhictbria/IDL'In Eideann 1 Naiseanta Gaidhiig i From: [Redacted Sent: 21 November 2018 13:37 To: Redacted Cc: Redacted Subject: RE: Gaelic Medium Education National Standardised Assessments/Measaidhean Coitcheann Naiseanta airson Foghlam tron Ghaidhlig - Data Processor Agreement for signature and information security information Hi [Redacted Re clause 14 of the DPA: 0 can you advise whether there is currently any intention to transfer data outwith the 0 how is the provision for transfer within the EEA likely to be effected by Brexit would a new DPA be initiated by Scottish Government at that time? Regards, [Redacted Audit Manager and Data Protection Officer, Stirling Council Chief Internal Auditor, Clackmannanshire 81 Stirling Integration Joint Board Stirling Council Teith House Kerse Road Stirling FK7 7QA [Redacted From: [Redacted Sent: 14 November 2018 11:51 To: [Redacted Subject: Gaelic Medium Education National Standardised Assessments/Measaidhean Coitcheann Naiseanta airson Foghlam tron Ghaidhlig - Data Processor Agreement for signature and information security information Directors of Education MCNG local authority outreach network members I attach a letter and series of attachments for your information. The series of documents contained in this email relate to the data protection and information security processes for the Measaidhean Coitcheann Naiseanta airson Foghlam tron Ghaidhlig (MCNG). The Scottish Government is providing this information as a means of fulfilling its responsibility under the General Data Protection Regulation (2016/679), for ensuring local authorities, as data controllers and service users, have an informed understanding of the risks involved in using the MCNG service. While there is, of course, clear cross-over between the respective data controller/data processor responsibilities and risks this information highlights, and those for the Scottish National Standardised Assessments, I should make clear that the MCNG project is entirely distinct from the SNSA, and data processing and risk and incident handling are dealt with wholly separately. In addition, attach a revised version of the Data Processor Agreement (DPA) for the MCNG. This document has been updated to reflect a change in the sub-sub-processors appointed by our supplier, Giglets, to provide the assessment system?s service desk function. While we are grateful to those authorities who signed the original DPA we provided in June, we now require all local authorities to sign this amended DPA as soon as possible, in order for their user information to be processed by the MCNG, in time for our intended go-live date of the end of this calendar year. I would be grateful if you could review the attached documents, and return the signed copies of the DPA by close of play Friday 23rd November. ANDY BRUCE Deputy Director of the Improvement, Attainment and Wellbeing Division, Andy Bruce Deputy Director, Improvement, Attainment Wellbeing Learning Directorate [Redacted teaming: I Arm Pt' i?itlliil I Vittoria t'hray Edinburgh Elli: (ititi Buitiheann-Stii?iiritih an lonnsacliairlii itaon ZC 'l'untli (little Bliittuiia 1 Dim Eidt?ann El-ib tiQt), This e-mail (and any ?les 01' other attachments transmitted with it) is intended solely for the attention of the addressee(s). Unauthorised use, disclosure, storage, copying or distribution of any part of this e?mail is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient please destroy the email, remove any copies from your system and inform the sender immediately by return. Communications with the Scottish Government may be monitored or recorded in order to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes. The views or opinions contained within this e-mail may not necessarily re?ect those of the Scottish Government. The am post-d seo (agus faidhle neo ceanglan comhla ris) dhan neach neo luchd-aimnichte a- mhain. Chan eil ceadaichte a chleachdadh am an doigh sam bith, a? iOlt't a-steach coraichean, foillseachadh neo sgaoileadh, gun chead. Ma ?3 is gun d?fhuair sibh seo gun ?iiosd?, bu choir cur as dhan phost-d agus sam bith air an t-siostam agaibh agus fios a leigeil neach a sgaoil am post-d gun dail. Dh?fhaodadh gum bi teachdaireachd sam bith bho Riaghaltas na h-Alba air a chlaradh neo air a sgrt?idadh airson dearbhadh gu bheil an siostam ag obair gu h-eifeachdach neo airson adhbhar laghail eile. Dh?thaodadh nach eil beachdan anns a? phost-d seo co-ionann ri beachdan Riaghaltas na h-Alba. This email and any attachments are intended solely for the individual or organisation to which they are addressed and may be con fidential and or legally privileged. If you have received this email in error please forward it to and then delete it. Please check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses as Stirling Council accepts no liability for any harm caused to the addressees' systems or data. Stirling Council may monitor its email system. Stirling Council accepts no liability for personal emails. Stirling Council. This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit This email and any attachments are intended solely for the individual or organisation to which they are addressed and may be con?dential and/or legally privileged. lfyou have received this email in error please forward it to sei'vicetlesk@stirlinagovnk and then delete it. Please check this email and any attachments for the presence ofviruses as Stirling Council accepts no liability for any harm caused to the addressees' systems or data. Stirling Council may monitor its email system. Stirling Council accepts no liability for personal emails. Stirling Council. This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Securityeloud service. For more information please visit From: Wilson (Mick) Sent: 23 November 2018 10:09 To: [Redacted Gallagher (Stephen) [Redacted Cc: Robertson FMG (Fiona) (Director of Learning) [Redacted [Redacted [Redacted Sheppard (Lesley) [Redacted Subject: RE: FOR ACTION - EU EXIT ORGANISATIONAL READINESS PUBLIC BODIES Stephen, [Redacted Unfortunately, in our Directors absence earlier this autumn, I'm afraid this request slipped through our net. However, here is our assessment of the position in relation to Learning Directorate's two relevant PBs: [Redacted Cheers, Mick Wilson Deputy Director, Education Analysis [Redacted From: [Redacted Sent: 09 November 2018 11:27 To: Brannen (Roy) [Redacted Campbell (Bridget) [Redacted Chalmers MJ (Michael) (DCAF) [Redacted Director for Housing and Social Justice [Redacted Director of Advanced Learning and Science [Redacted Director of Environment Forestry [Redacted Mitchell (Elinor) [Redacted Pryce JM (Jonathan) [Redacted Transport Scotland Secretariat [Redacted Quinlan (Kevin) [Redacted Robertson FMG (Fiona) (Director of Learning) [Redacted Cc: [Redacted [Redacted Gallagher (Stephen) [Redacted McPherson (Claire) [Redacted [Redacted RE: EU EXIT ORGANISATIONAL READINESS PUBLIC BODIES) Dear Colleagues, I am following up on Stephen Gallagher?s email to you on 18 September regarding EU exit organisational readiness. It would be really helpful to have your comments as requested in his letter as soon as possible in order to inform future developments regarding the organisational readiness of the public bodies you sponsor. Kind regards [Redacted [Redacted From: [Redacted On Behalf Of Gallagher (Stephen) Sent: 18 September 2018 16:21 To: Allison (Barbara) [Redacted Berge (Kersti) [Redacted Black (Graham) [Redacted Brannen (Roy) [Redacted Cackette PH (Paul) [Redacted Calderwood (Catherine) [Redacted Campbell (Bridget) [Redacted Chalmers MJ (Michael) (DCAF) [Redacted Chief Financial Officer [Redacted Chief Parliamentary Counsel [Redacted Chief Scientific Adviser for Scotland [Redacted Director Communications, Ministerial Support 8: Facilities [Redacted Director Digital [Redacted Director for Children and Families [Redacted Director for Housing and Social Justice [Redacted Director of Advanced Learning and Science [Redacted Director of Budget and Sustainability [Redacted Director of Environment Forestry [Redacted Director of Internal Audit [Redacted Director of Marine Scotland Mailbox [Redacted Director of Population Health [Redacted Director, Procurement and Commercial [Redacted Ferrie (Willie) [Redacted Gallagher (Stephen) [Redacted Gillespie (Gary) [Redacted Gorman (Gayle) [Redacted GriffinJ (Joe) [Redacted Huggins (Geoff) [Redacted Humphrest (Julie) (ETSD) [Redacted Hunter A (Alan) [Redacted Kerr (Stephen) (Social Security Director) [Redacted LeitchJ (Jason) [Redacted Lorimer (Elaine) [Redacted MacKenzie (Madeleine) [Redacted McAllan (Mary) [Redacted McLaughlin AC (Ainslie) [Redacted McLaughlin (Christine) [Redacted McQueen (Fiona) [Redacted Mitchell (Elinor) [Redacted Munro (Dominic) [Redacted Neilson (Mike) [Redacted Ogle (Geoff) [Redacted Pryce JM (Jonathan) [Redacted PS/Transport Scotland [Redacted Quinlan (Kevin) [Redacted Rennick NS (Neil) [Redacted Richards (Nicola) [Redacted Robertson FMG (Fiona) (Director of Learning) [Redacted Rogers DA (David) (Strategy and Constitution Director) [Redacted Rogers 5 (Shirley) [Redacted Russell GE (Gillian) [Redacted Sinclair MA (Murray) [Redacted Tannahill (Carol) [Redacted Watt (Karen) (Director for External Affairs) [Redacted Wilson (David) (SNIB) [Redacted Cc: Gallagher (Stephen) [Redacted Subject: EU ORGANISATIONAL READINESS PUBLIC BODIES) Directors I attach a 1 page letter from Stephen Gallagher File: Letter to Directors - Brexit planning public bodies - 12 September 201 (002).docx along with an 8 page template File: Delivery plan guidance - central transition scenario 25 July 2018.docx and a 2-page Delivery plan guidance note File: Delivery plan template - 25 July 2018.docx [Redacted Official Sensitive (when complete) Directorate: Learning Directorate Public Bodies: Completed By: Lesley Sheppard Date of approval from Director: Current EU Funding Programmes Section 1 - Please provide any information you think is pertinent on UK Funding Guarantees, including how you plan to mitigate any funding gap. The Scottish Government participation in Erasmus funding programme is led by Advance Learning and Science Directorate who have submitted the overarching template for this programme. The detailed information they have provided also applies to the Erasmus funding of modern languages. This template provides specific additional information related to modern languages and should be considered in association with the overarching programme template. Scottish schools benefit from Erasmus funding that enhances language learning and global citizenship within the curriculum through supporting teachers to visit other European countries to gain language and cultural experience. In 2017 this saw c.?765k benefit to Scotland for mobility schemes ('key action and c.?884k for other education-related co-operation and research projects (?key action In addition, there were 27 inward visits to Scotland by groups of teachers from Europe. Set up costs for transition and no deal scenarios Section 2 Transition Please provide any narrative that you think is important to help us understand these costs, including how you plan to mitigate any funding gap, clearly linking this to a specific project where appropriate. Section 3 No Deal - Please provide any narrative that you think is important to help us understand these costs, including how you plan to mitigate any funding gap, clearly linking this to a specific project where appropriate. Official Sensitive (when complete) Future policy costs for transition and no deal scenarios Section 4 Transition - Please provide any narrative that you think is important to help us understand these costs, including how you plan to mitigate any funding gap, clearly linking this to a specific project where appropriate. Section 5 No Deal - Please provide any narrative that you think is important to help us understand these costs, including how you plan to mitigate any funding gap, clearly linking this to a specific project where appropriate. EU funding successor arrangements Section 6 - Please provide narrative for each of the funding programmes you have an interest in. On EU and SG Objectives these align very well in relation to language learning because 1 2 adopts the EU Barcelona Commitment on language learning in Scottish schools and our approach to language learning is similar to other European countries. - On qualitative benefits in relation to language learning, we'd want to highlight: teacher professional development - enhancement of global citizenship learning research partnerships share good practice and pedagogical learning which are beneficial beyond just the school sector and benefit the wider education sector, including ITE providers. OFFICIAL SENSITIVE EU EXIT ORGANISATIONAL READINESS DELIVERY PLAN DEPARTMENT Directorate for Learning MINISTERIAL PORTFOLIOS (Please indicate which Ministers have responsibility for the issues covered in this plan, to ensure we can align issues with the appropriate Ministerial bilateral) DFM Mr Swinney DG FAMILY (Please confirm your DG family, for the purposes of alignment with the correct 06 assurance process) DG Education, Communities and Justice PUBLIC BODIES (Please note the NDPB or other public bodies whose activities are covered, in full or in part, by this plan) Education Scotland, COSLA Bord na Gaidhlig and MG ALBA are the principal Gaelic public bodies but many other authorities and bodies contribute to Gaelic development and have been part of funding bids. DIRECTOR or CHIEF EXECUTIVE WHO HAS APPROVED THIS PLAN Joe Grif?n pp Fiona Robertson (Director for Learning) DATE ON WHICH PLAN WAS APPROVED TBA OFFICIAL SENSITIVE GUIDANCE: PLANNING SCENARIOS - TRANSITION AND FREE AGREEMENT: a central planning assumption that there will be a transition period lasting until (at least) 31 December 2020, followed by a negotiated agreement between the EU and UK (see accompanying guidance); 0 NO-DEAL: essential contingency planning and preparation for a scenario in which there is no agreement by March 2019 on the future UK-EU relationship, or the most rudimentary of deals. This should be on the basis of an assessment of risk and potential harm. There are of course variants of both scenarios. To identify what contingency planning and preparation is essential for a March 2019 deadline, please consider: - Potential harm of not having appropriate measures in place. In some areas, the effect of not having the appropriate measures in place will be serious enough to justify preparation for a no-deal scenario. Where there is a particular risk to, for example, public health, economic prosperity or an essential regulatory function if we do not plan for no~deal, then we may responsibly have to make such preparations. The risk of that scenario is increasing but still not the most likely scenano - Changing likelihood of a ?no deal? scenario. This is likely to be dynamic until ratification of the withdrawal agreement by the UK Parliament and approval by the European Parliament. There may be steps taken towards agreement during that period that lower the risk of a no-deal scenario to the extent that such that some preparations are no longerjustified. 0 Amount of work required to prepare the policy, including any lead?in time needed to put in place arrangements for implementation, engagement with stakeholders, ministerial clearance and so forth. In some cases, the resource cost involved in preparation for a no?deal scenario, or the extended lead-in time required on any scenario, will clearly outweigh the risk of not being prepared. Acceptability of the UK Government?s proposals as a contingency. Where the OFFICIAL SENSITIVE proposed approach to readiness in a no?deal scenario is acceptable to us, less work may be required by the 8G to develop a separate policy solution. GUIDANCE: STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES The Constitution and Europe Programme Board is tracking the delivery of the following strategic objectives. Where prompted, please note how activities in your plan contribute to the relevant objectives. influence the UK Government?s negotiating positions and the surrounding debate, both on the EU-UK relationship and other international agreements Secure the repatriation of devolved powers and reach agreement with the UK Government on financial arrangements; Negotiate UK frameworks to replace EU law where necessary and securing an improved system of UK intergovernmental decision-making more generally Design and implement economic and social policies for post-withdrawal scenarios and supporting the public, private and third sectors in their preparations Influence UK migration policy and mitigating the impact of EU exit on the Scottish labour market, organisations and individuals where possible Identify and mitigate other risks, including to funding, the provision of public services and continuity of supply of goods and services Legislate to deliver a functioning devolved statute book on EU exit, to support all of the above OFFICIAL SENSITIVE SECTION 1: OBJECTIVES, ACTIONS AND MILESTONES 0 Please provide a brief description of the specific objectives in your area required to deliver the strategic objectives above (as applicable) 0 Please provide a brief description of the activities required to deliver your objectives 0 Please list the significant milestones relevant to delivery of your objective, with target dates - Please include any major requirements of your or other public bodies 0 Please indicate which of the strategic objectives above you are contributing towards - Please indicate the lead Deputy Director for each entry and, if you work to more than one Minister, which Minister is responsible for the topic. 0 Please add rows as necessary but each entry need be no more than a few sentences or bullet points. DIRECTORATEIPOLICY ACTIVITIES MILESTONES AND LINK TO LEAD OBJECTIVE TARGET DATES STRATEGIC DDIMINISTER OBJECTIVES REDACTED - REDACTED REDACTED 6 Deputy First Minister] Lesley Sheppard REDACTED REDACTED 5 DFM/Clare Hicks REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED Bruce OFFICIAL SENSITIVE REDACTED REDACTED 1,2,3 and 4 DFM/Clare Hicks SECTION 2: RISK - Please provide a summary of the key risks, controls and actions associated with your objectives 0 Please use the standard SG template (link enclosed in covering email, and below) - You may wish to simply lift relevant extracts from your existing risk registers. You should also feel free to provide a copy of your current risk register if it is in the standard corporate format and covers the issues in this plan but please highlight any entries that are not relevant to the delivery plan process and which we should ignore - Please cover risks pertinent to both scenarios 9?8a9?l-e9e36284006d Teaching workforce and recognition of teaching qualifications Unless current EU members of the Scottish teaching workforce are allowed to continue doing so after Brexit, there is likely to be an unacceptable level of teacher vacancies. If there is no deal, there is lack of clarity over whether EU passports will become invalid immediately because the discussions on the legal position of migrants are being carried out at UK level. Prospective language teachers currently on their compulsory year abroad receive funding from the ERASMUS programme. There is lack of clarity on their position under a no deal scenario, coming as it does halfway through their period abroad. Discussions are carried out at UK level. There is also lack of clarity on the availability of ERASMUS funding in future years, given the end of the current framework in 2020. Negotiations are taking place involving Advanced Learning and Science Directorate, UK Government and the EU. Access to school education Continuing access is dependent on residency issues for EU nationals being successfully and speedily concluded Gaelic EU funding has allowed growth and development of projects and programmes associated with the development of Gaelic. The withdrawal of this has the potential to reduce growth in both direct and indirect support for enhanced use of Gaelic unless other 5 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE sources of support can be found. Currently, other funding sources, such as HIE, have contributed and these would be under much greater pressure should not be available. The risk is that Gaelic related infrastructural growth will be curtailed SECTION 3: RESOURCE AND OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS - Please identify any significant additional costs within 2018/19 under the transition or no deal scenario where readiness objectives cannot be met from existing baselines or one-off consequentials. These should be discussed with Finance Business Partners prior to submission of the delivery plan. 0 To ensure that we have a broad understanding of the implications of readiness for EU Exit, please summarise any maior organisational or operational requirements which may arise from your objectives, for example in relation to: 0 Accommodation and facilities (eg. new building) 0 Signi?cant changes to ICT systems, or a requirement for new ICT systems, eg. case handling systems, online payments systems, data hosting/exchange arrangements with external organisations 0 Public sector procurement and contracts 0 New delivery bodies or increased public sector capacity 0 Please give an indication of timing and costs where possible. Relevant SG colleagues will follow up to provide further support and advice, with more detailed financial information to be collected following submission of this plan. OFFICIAL SENSITIVE REQUIREMENTS TIMESCALE INDICATION OF COSTS RESOURCE, CAPITAL 0R FT Gaelic language REDACTED Teaching workforce REDACTED REDACTED OFFICIAL SENSITIVE SECTION 4: GOVERNANCE 0 Please summarise the governance arrangements in place within your Directorate or DG Family to oversee delivery of your EU Exit objectives - Please include any specific Boards or other fora that have been set up - Please include reference to any SROs appointed for specific packages of work - Please record the mechanism through which you currently provide assurance to the DG around readiness for EU Exit. - You do not need to provide duplicate details of the governance arrangements for the 8 Constitution and Europe Programme Projects (Negotiations, Legislative consequences, UK frameworks, Fiscal implications, Capacity and capability, Public Sector Workforce Impacts, Trade, and Communications and Engagement) or the Constitution and Europe Programme Board 0 Please, however, record any links between your own governance structures and the Constitution and Europe Programme infrastructure REDACTED