Good morning and welcome to the 26th meeting of the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee in 2017. I'd like to remind members and the public to turn off their mobile phones and any members using electronic devices to access their committee papers should please ensure that these are turned to silent. Our first item of business today is a decision on taking item, agenda item 3 in private. Are members agreed? Great. Our main item of business today is an evidence session with the right hon. David Mundell MP, Secretary of State for Scotland with the UK Government. Welcome to the meeting, Mr Mundell. I understand that you would like to make an opening statement. Yes, thank you, convener. I'd like to just make a short opening statement. I'm pleased to again be here with this committee to discuss the on-going negotiations of the UK's exit from the European Union. I was last in front of this committee in February of this year, and I think that one thing at least we'll be able to agree on that quite a lot has happened since then. At that appearance, we discussed the Prime Minister's speech at Lancaster House and the 12 principles that will shape the Government's approach and strategy to negotiations. We also discussed the Scottish Government's white paper on Scotland's place in Europe and the introduction of the European Union notification of withdrawal bill. Since then, we've yet again seen significant developments and I remain ambitious and positive about the UK and Scotland's future and these negotiations. Firstly, we've seen significant developments in the talks with the EU. Both sides have approached the talks with professionalism and a constructive spirit, and we should recognise what's been achieved to date. In particular, the Prime Minister has repeatedly emphasised that safeguarding the status of EU citizens in the UK and UK nationals in the EU is one of our first goals in negotiations. Through the citizens' rights negotiations, we've reached agreement on a range of issues with the commission and are now within touching distance of a deal. For example, we already have complete agreement on the broad framework that will be used to grant residents, including who will be considered in scope. On key issues such as social security, we've reached agreement on the bulk of the areas and on reciprocal healthcare, we have agreement on all aspects. The Prime Minister's recent speech in Florence also moved forward the negotiations with two important steps adding a new impetus on the financial settlement and the time-limited implementation period. At the latest European Council, the 27 member states responded by agreeing to start their preparations for moving negotiations on to trade and future relationships that we want to see. I believe that, by approaching those negotiations in a constructive way, in a spirit of friendship and co-operation, the UK Government can and will deliver the best possible outcome that works for the whole of the UK. I'm confident that we'll be able to negotiate a new, deep and special partnership between a sovereign United Kingdom and our friends in the European Union. Secondly, we've seen a positive collaboration between the UK Government and the devolved administrations and devolved legislatures on the UK's exit from the EU. Close engagement with the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament has been and remains a top priority for me. One of the core principles of the negotiations is to strengthen the UK and deliver a deal that secures the specific interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. As the committee would expect, I'm working hard to ensure that Scotland gets the best possible deal from the process of EU exit and takes all opportunities available. There are signs of real progress. For example, the joint ministerial committee on EU negotiations was able to meet again last month and I found that to be an extremely constructive meeting. Indeed, it was the very first meeting that ministerial colleagues from the UK Government and devolved administrations were able to note positive progress being made on the consideration of positive common frameworks and agreed principles that all underpin this work. Indeed, across all policy areas, the UK Government continues to work constructively with the Scottish Government at both ministerial and official levels. As well as being pleased to appear before you today, I'm glad that other ministerial colleagues of mine have been invited to appear before committees here at Holyrood. I will appear again next week with my colleague Robin Walker from the DEXU department at the Finance and Constitutional Committee. Robin will also appear before the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee on the same day. I'll also meet members of the Justice Committee when they visit Westminster at the end of this month. Thirdly, it's vital that voices of Scottish business and other stakeholders are heard clearly in this debate. My colleague Lord Duncan and I, along with officials from the department, travelled the length and breadth of Scotland listening to stakeholders and key sectors, feeding their views on EU exit directly to relevant departments to ensure that Scotland's voice is heard and understood in Whitehall. We have prioritised engagement on EU exit with key sectors across Scotland from farmers in Shetland to tourism representatives on Sky fishermen, Peterhead, financial services here in Edinburgh, soft fruit producers in Angus and decilers on Harris. This work is on-going and with a series of activity lined up to ensure continued engagement with Scottish stakeholders, ensuring that their concerns are recognised and acknowledged as we leave the EU. Convener, the UK's exit from the EU remains one of the most high-profile and engaging issues and there remains much work ahead to deliver a smooth, orderly exit from the EU. I welcome the committee's continued contribution to this work and look forward to our discussion today and our continued engagement. Thank you very much, Secretary of State. This week, in a letter to Baroness Verma, the UK Minister for Exiting the EU listed 58 sectors that have been subject to Government analysis on how they will be affected by Brexit and until now they have remained secret. Last night, in the House of Commons, a motion was passed that they should be shared with the House of Commons Brexit committee. Will they be shared? The Government had previously indicated that such assessments and analysis had been made, the letter that you referred to set out, the detail of which areas they covered. I think that if I can make one clarification in relation to some media reports that there was a Scotland-specific analysis, there is not a Scotland-specific analysis, there is analysis of these sectors and as to how they apply within Scotland. The Government is reflecting on last night's vote. Of course the Government respects the decisions of Parliament and indeed the decisions of this Parliament, but on the other hand, the Government has a duty to act in the best interests of the United Kingdom and the Government still believes that sharing all the information that is contained in these analyses would not be in the best interests of the United Kingdom in terms of being able to carry out these negotiations to achieve the best possible outcome. Thank you for clarifying the Scotland-specific analysis that there is not one because the very strong impression was given when you appeared before the Scottish Affairs Committee that there was one and that you would share it? If it was an impression, it was not one that I intended to give. What I said at that committee was that there was analysis, which covered Scotland, that we had agreed at the joint ministerial committee on EU negotiations, that officials between the UK Government and the Scottish Government would engage in relation to the analysis that we had both done, because the Scottish Government, of course, has done some of their own analysis in these and other areas, but it was agreed that officials would begin discussions about sharing our respective analysis. Why is not the Scotland-specific analysis on the power with these 58 sectoral analyses? The analysis is in relation to sectors that will be impacted on by leaving the EU. Obviously, many of these sectors are very prominent in Scotland, and Scotland's interests in those sectors are part of the analysis. Those are a UK-wide analysis of important sectors. I have a copy of the FOI request to your department relating to the 58th sectoral analysis that you mentioned. In your response to that FOI, the Scotland Office said that they were involved in preparing those 58 pieces of analysis. Can you tell us which ones you were involved in preparing? I am not going to respond in specifics to that other than to say that you would expect us and want us, I would hope, to ensure that, when the analysis was prepared, Scotland's interests in those sectors and industries were fully represented in the work, and that is what we have sought to do. Have you read any of them? I have seen some of the analysis because, obviously, some of the analysis is much more relevant to Scotland than others. There are 58 sectors, as you have alluded to, set out in the letter. Those sectors that have particular relevance to Scotland have taken a close interest. Can you give us any hint of, for example, number two on agriculture, animal health and food and drink? What does that say about the effective Brexit in Scotland? I have set out that the Government is going to respond to the vote in the House of Commons last night in terms of what it says in relation to those analyses. However, I am not going to pre-empt that, because our position remains that putting those analyses into the public domain would not be beneficial to the interests of the UK as we take those negotiations forward. Do you not think that, in order to make a proper analysis of whether Brexit is a good or bad thing, we should have access to all the information? For example, does the report that you have seen on agriculture, animal health and food and drink say that Brexit is good or bad for Scotland in that area? I do not see that the analysis is about whether Brexit is good or bad. A decision across the United Kingdom has been taken to leave the EU and we are preparing to leave the EU and negotiating to get the best possible deal. I know and I respect that there are people who will think that that is, per se, a bad thing and would wish that that was not the case, but that is the basis on which we are proceeding. What the analysis is about and what it backs up is our work to ensure that we get the best possible deal for Scotland and the rest of the UK. When you are involved in these detailed negotiations, I do not think that it is beneficial that you disclose all the information that you hold in relation to your position to the people on the other side of that negotiation. I just think that that is not the best way in which to achieve the best outcome. There have been quite a lot of other analysis by independent academic organisations, most recently the LSE, which, unlike the UK Government, has done a Scotland-specific analysis, showed that leaving without a deal would cost Scotland £30 billion. Does your analysis indicate that that is the case as well? I do not want to leave the EU without a deal and therefore what our efforts are focused on is getting the best possible deal. I recognise all the reports that appear in the media from all sorts of sources that paint all sorts of very dark outcomes, but rather than focus on the worst possible outcome, it is incumbent on the Government to seek to achieve the best possible outcome. That is what I want to do in conjunction with the Scottish Government. If we have reached a point in your meeting with Mr Barney, he said that the clock is ticking, and the clock is ticking. That means that we all need to focus our efforts on the negotiations on getting the best outcome, not reflecting on what the worst possible outcomes could be. I think that some of your colleagues have argued for the worst possible outcome, but I will hand over to my colleague Lewis MacDonald. I would like to ask you a little bit about the relationship between the policy process in relation to the negotiations with the European Union and what the domestic consequences of that are in particular around the EU withdrawal bill. Can you say a little about how the discussions that you take forward on the one hand with Europe relate to what you are discussing on the other hand with colleagues and with the devolved Governments around future arrangements? I think that there has been a step change in the working between the UK Government and both the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly Government. I do not want to detain the committee with the difficulties of the situation in Northern Ireland, but that has complicated things, particularly the operation of the joint ministerial committee, because it is very difficult when you have two political representatives of Governments present and one civil servant who is effectively had to represent the Northern Ireland Executive. I think that we have seen a major step change. I put it on record the involvement of Mr Swinney in the process since June has been very helpful. Mr Swinney is very experienced in terms of negotiations and discussions with the UK Government. I think that he has brought a certain order to the process, which I have personally found very helpful. The basis on which we are proceeding is that we recognise that there are areas in which we are not in agreement, but we have those at one side. We can move on to discuss a whole range of other issues. For example, I acknowledge that the Scottish Government has issues with parts of the EU withdrawal bill, but rather than spending the whole of our joint ministerial meeting discussing that, we had a very productive focus on how we would take forward the work in relation to the frameworks and those powers that will return to the United Kingdom and here to the Scottish Parliament. We have been able to bring that focus in the last meeting of the GMC. What we have also sought to do is by the various position and policy papers that have been produced in relation to setting the backdrop for the discussion in relation to the future relationship, again, there has been extensive engagement on those. That is on-going on a daily basis between officials in the Scottish Government and the UK Government. We have had some process issues, and I will not suggest otherwise in terms of timing of getting things between the Governments. Generally, in relation to those positioning papers, there has been a very good level of agreement on what we would both want to get from the next stage. Clearly, as we move forward, there will be some very big policy decisions to be taken, but those will be the subject of parliamentary scrutiny and parliamentary debate. In addition, as I think you will be aware to the EU withdrawal bill, there are going to be a number of specific bills. There is going to be a fisheries bill. There is going to be an agricultural bill. There is going to be an immigration bill. There is a customs bill, a trade bill. All those will be subject to the usual debate, discussion, parliamentary scrutiny. In terms of the way in which you are making policy within the UK Government, there was an announcement a couple of days ago around Cabinet committees dealing with Brexit. I noted that, for example, you are a member of the sub-committee dealing with domestic preparedness legislation and devolution, which is what one would expect. You are also a member of the overall committee for dealing with European Union and trade. Can you tell us how that structure works from your point of view? How do you influence or engage with your colleagues who are actually in the process of negotiations with the European Union? I hope that the announcement of that change in that structure is a recognition of that influence in a sense, because I have placed at the heart of discussion the need to work with devolved Administrations to ensure that the Scottish Government played a full part in the process. That is a formal recognition of the importance that the devolved Administrations will have in the next phase of leaving and as we move out with the EU. It is making sure that issues that reflect in relation to the Scottish Government in relation to the operation of many of the devolved areas are recognised at the heart of the process. That is what we are looking to do. We are not always going to agree and we acknowledge that. What we also respect is that the decisions in areas that are devolved are not ours in the UK Government. It is not for the UK Government to say who should get healthcare in Scotland or who should access further and higher education, but we want to work with the Scottish Government to ensure that we have a coherent approach, even if we have different approaches. Within that new structure, however, the most critical sub-committee is the European Union Strategy and Negotiations sub-committee, which is chaired by Theresa May. I am looking at the list of members here. Damian Greene, Philip Hammond, Amber Rudd, Boris Johnson, David Davis, Liam Fox, Greg Clark, Michael Gove, Sir Michael Fallon, but no David Mundell. I wonder how you are able to influence the strategy of negotiations without a seat at that particular table. As you set out, that is a sub-committee of the cabinet. The way in which we approach all those matters is that there are decisions of the cabinet ultimately in relation to the strategy and approach. I am satisfied that I have the opportunity with direct access to the Prime Minister and other ministers to be able to ensure that my contribution to that debate is heard and hopefully is acted upon. One very practical example, one of the things that I know you will be discussing with the Scottish ministers, is the future framework for fisheries or, indeed, for agriculture. In terms of this negotiating committee, presumably, the sub-committee will be taking forward the work of identifying what future arrangements the United Kingdom will have with the European Union in those policy areas. What I can update you on is that, on Monday, Mr Ewing and, indeed, his counterparts from Wales and a representative from Northern Ireland are going to meet with Mr Gove, Michael Gove, in order to begin a discussion around what frameworks in relation to fisheries and agriculture might look like. In that direct departmental area, there will be a direct Scottish Government, UK Government policy discussion at that point. At that meeting or a member of your team? My Lord Duncan will be at that meeting, indeed. I am committed to being in Paisley, in support of Paisley's city of culture application, which I strongly support for the record. I find it astonishing that the Secretary of State for Scotland has not commissioned a Scottish-specific analysis of the impact of Brexit, especially now that I understand that there are up to 70 staff working in the Scotland office. However, notwithstanding that, let's talk about sectors and the MSP for space side, where around half of Scotch whisky production takes place. Can you give us an insight to what the analysis of the Scotch whisky sector is in terms of the impact of Brexit, given the concerns over cheap imitations and the need for continuity of trade relations and agreements? As I indicated to the convener, I have set out what the Government's position is in relation to releasing the details of the analysis. However, what I would say is that we absolutely and fully acknowledge the importance of the whisky industry. We are absolutely clear on the need to protect the geographic indicators around whisky products. We are clear on the need to continue existing markets and open new markets. I am very heartened by the very positive approach that Scotch whisky Association and others take to the opportunities that Brexit could provide for them and the opportunities to actually grow the industry. If you look at the comments that that industry has made, they have been very positive in relation to opportunities. That is what I am focused on. I am focused on getting the best possible outcome for that industry. Clearly, Scotch whisky is the biggest drink export for the UK, and Scottish Salmons is the biggest food export for the UK. Both Scottish sectors and two thirds of Scottish fishing opportunities belong to Scottish waters as well. That is why I am astonished. Also, you are not in the sub-committee, where presumably that sub-committee will be discussing many of the really important industries that have disproportionate importance to Scotland. I have indicated in my answer to Mr MacDonald how, in terms of direct interrelationship between the Scottish Government involving the Scotland office and the UK department, those very important industries' interests are being represented and taken forward. It is not just about what happens at one sub-committee meeting, it is about the overall approach. The overall approach recognises the absolute importance of those industries and the importance of achieving the best possible outcome in those negotiations for those industries. My final line of question relates to the transition deal. There is a lot of debate over the negotiations for our transition deal. Michael Gove, according to Lord Duncan, has said that agriculture and fishing will not be part of any transition deal, suggesting within a year or two that full control over Scottish waters will be returned to the Scottish Parliament. What makes you believe that the other member states of Europe will allow the UK to cherry pick and allow transition for some areas, but you can have our fishing quotas in 2019? Are you confident that agriculture and fishing can be separated from the rest of the issues of the transition deal if there is one? I think that the position that Mr Gove has confirmed is that there have been no firm decisions on agriculture and fisheries during the transition period. Those are matters that are still under consideration. I was pleased that the Scottish Government welcomed the transition period. The specifics of the transition period have not been agreed or fully negotiated, so it would be wrong to suggest that they had or that an approach such as cherry picking was going to be followed. That is just not the case. My final question relates to the powers that we have just discussed in terms of agricultural and fishing. There are enormous expectations, particularly among our fishing community, because every cloud has a silver lining and even exiting the EU has a silver lining in terms of returning our fishing waters to Scottish control. Are you able to give a guarantee to this committee and to the fishing communities that perhaps in 2019, if the transition deal goes the way that you like it, 100 per cent control of Scottish fishing grounds will be returned to the Scottish Parliament? I will say that we are in the discussion now in relation to what will happen in relation to the 111 powers and responsibilities that were on the list that the Scottish Government sent to the Finance and Constitution Committee. I am not going to pre-empt the outcome of that discussion. It is an on-going discussion, but I have set out previously that my principle is one of devolving. I proceed on the basis of a principle of devolving, and that is the principle that would guide me, but there are detailed discussions to be had and they are on-going. So, it is possible that we will not have our waters returned to the Scottish Parliament control? What is possible is to construe every statement in the most negative possible way and present it in such a way. I have been round that course many times in relation to the Scotland Act 2016, when we were told that promises that had been made would not be delivered. They were delivered, the Scotland Act 2016 delivered and the Smith commission in full. I have been very clear that significant powers and responsibilities will come to the Scottish Parliament as a result of leaving the EU, and I am absolutely clear that that will be the case. Jackson Carlaw. Good morning, Secretary of State. You alluded in your opening remarks to the outcome of the most recent European Council, where the 27 agreed to begin preparations on their position to allow trade talks to proceed in the event that sufficient progress has been made by the December Council. Sufficient progress is a determination on issues relating to citizens' rights and to Northern Ireland, about which Governments and many people in this Parliament have had a great deal to say, but it will also concern the progress that is being made on the divorce bill, and you alluded to the Prime Minister's statement in relation to that. I am unclear and I wonder if you are any clearer of the position of the other political parties at Westminster on what they regard an acceptable divorce bill to be. Have you, as Secretary of State, had any intimation from political parties who have a great deal to say on so many different aspects of the negotiation that is under way, what they regard as an acceptable divorce bill, and so far as you have had indications from them, do you find those to be credible and acceptable? I have not, is the answer. I have not had any such representations. It did seem when we were in Brussels that there was an agreement that considerable progress was being made on the issue of Northern Ireland, on the issue of citizens' rights, although there was still some more to be had, and that the budget was going to be an absolutely critical factor in the determination of sufficient progress. Do you place the budget and the importance of an agreement in principle around how that will progress, as being the issue in which a great deal of support around the Government's position ultimately will need to be achieved? A negotiation has two parties, or in this case we could say 28 parties, plus the commission, plus the European Parliament. We cannot assert what either the process is or how it unfolds, or the relative importance that is placed on different issues. We have acknowledged that. We would not have always proceeded on the basis that has been the actual outcome. The more general point is correct, and it goes back to something that I said earlier. We are a key point in this negotiation, and I think that it would be much better for the country as a whole, the United Kingdom Scotland, that we did all pool together in relation to the negotiations and tried to get the best possible deal, not to seek political objectives, not to seek to defeat the Government simply because that was possible on the basis of parliamentary numbers, but to rally round and try to get the best possible deal. It is clear to me that all the other countries involved will be significantly pursuing their own interests. We need to pursue our own interests and we need to do it in as a united and cohesive way as we possibly can. I have only one other question that relates to the 111 powers that are identified, in which I know that there has been sustained and on-going engagement with the Scottish Government. I know that Mr Greene has been involved in those conversations as well in relation to how those matters will proceed. As I understand it, you have said that either those powers will be the subject of a transfer to the Scottish Parliament or to framework agreements in which the Scottish Government will have had its party of agreement, too. Do you regard that as a significant way in which to develop those matters and to arrive at a final agreement? What I have said recently at the Scottish Affairs Select Committee in Westminster is what I would like us very quickly to get to a point where, in relation to the list—111 is a bit an arbitrary number, because some of those powers contain a whole range of things, so it is a little bit of an arbitrary number. I would like us very quickly to get to a situation where there is a series of powers and responsibility, as everyone agrees, that comes to the Scottish Parliament as soon as is practable. There is a second area in which everyone agrees that a framework is necessary, and the Scottish Government acknowledges that there are areas in which there will be frameworks necessary. At this stage, there is an area in which there is some continued discussion, but I think that it would be extremely helpful to the process, extremely helpful to giving Mr Lockhead and others confidence in our approach that we were able to achieve. I hope that that can be forthcoming relatively shortly. There is something on-going at the moment, which is called a deep dive, which is where officials from both Governments are working on two areas—the justice and agriculture—to look at what frameworks might look like and what all the technical areas are. That is on-going at the moment. There is a third area of health that is being looked at, because Wales does not have its own justice system, so it is separate from England. That work is on-going at the moment, but I want to see that expedited. I want to see us in a position where we are able to set out in detail what will happen in relation to those various areas. Where there is a framework—a UK framework—does not mean that the UK Government imposes a position on the respective Administrations in the United Kingdom. It means that there is an agreement on what arrangements should apply across the United Kingdom. There is just a quick supplementary point that I want to raise in relation to Richard Lockhead's question. He touched on the transition period. Will the UK Government continue to contribute to the EU budget during that time? If that transition period is agreed, the UK Government would still be subject to all the rules and regulations of the EU, but it would have no political representation or any influence in the decision making during that time. I would caveat the response with the transition period that has not been agreed, but the intention, as David Davis set out when he appeared before the DECSO committee in the House of Commons, was that as much as possible would stay the same, because what the feedback from business and other stakeholders is that they want just one point of change. They do not want to have to go through a change in March 2019 when we entered the transition period and another change as we left the transition period. The intention or wish that we would want in relation to the transition period is that everything would be as much as possible equivalent to the arrangements that exist. Of course, there are some complexities that Mr Lockhead alluded to in relation to the common fisheries policy, the common agricultural policy. When you effectively have left the EU, those issues will have to be resolved. The Prime Minister has made a clear statement in relation to the funding position that would continue in that period as part of the overall arrangements for, as we would say, meeting all our obligations as we leave. The important decisions that you touched on there, such as agriculture and fisheries, we would have no political representation and say how those decisions are made. We will not be a member state of the EU and that is the consequence of the outcome of the referendum and that is a fact. Of course, that would be the same position if we were in after-EA arrangements. That is the basis on which they proceed. I really want to focus on EU citizens. In your opening statement, you said that the UK is in touching distance of a deal with the EU on citizens rights. However, would it not be fair to say that there are still substantial hurdles to be overcome in relation to the rights of extended family and the role of the European Court of Justice in upholding citizens rights? How do you see those hurdles being overcome? I think that the level of agreement that we have managed to reach gives us hope that the outstanding issues can be resolved. I think that we have come a very significant distance. We want to make sure that EU citizens can remain in the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister has always set out her the value, importance and the welcome that she has in respect of EU citizens. We want to be able to conclude those arrangements. Of course, as we have set out previously, we want to be able to ensure that UK citizens who are resident in other parts of the EU also have equivalent rights. However, I am confident that we will be able to get a resolution in that area. I think that it is all very well that the Prime Minister welcomes EU citizens and has offered those platitudes. However, I feel that that is all that they are, because it is not very reassuring to the EU citizens living in this country when they really do not know what is going on. In terms of a no-deal scenario, I understand that this might be something that you do not want to see happen. However, in the Scottish Affairs Committee last week, you said that we understand the need to prepare for a no-deal scenario. That is the responsible thing to do. What does a no-deal scenario look like for the EU citizens living in this country and indeed for the UK citizens living in the EU? A no-deal scenario is, in my view, where we effectively leave the EU on WTO terms but that various other agreements have been put in place. Although that is characterised as no deal, it is effectively a minimalist deal. I would anticipate that, even if we left on the basis of a minimalist deal, we would fully implement the arrangements that have already been negotiated and are close to being finalised in relation to EU citizens. We want EU citizens to be able to remain in the United Kingdom. We want UK citizens to be able to remain in the EU. There are just a couple of other points that I feel are really important and need to be discussed. In terms of settled status, we were told in evidence to this committee that there is a legal uncertainty around that term, and it is particularly problematic because of the uncertainty that it gives for landlords, employers and indeed the NHS in terms of how they will treat people. Are you able to tell us exactly what settled status will mean and how will that compare to the current rights that EU citizens have living in this country? What I will do, because of complex issues, is to write specifically to the committee on the settled status issue. Anyone who has been in the UK for five years will be able to achieve settled status. If they have not achieved the five years, they will be able to remain part of the five-year period to reach that point. However, I recognise the complexity of the issue and the points that you raised, and I will write to the committee in greater detail on that. I appreciate that, but, to be honest, it is all very well writing to the committee, but we are not the ones who need to be informed about what is happening. I think that it is the uncertainty for the people that EU citizens living here that they really need to know what is going on. That would lead me on to communication as well. What is the communication strategy in terms of informing EU citizens of the most up-to-date information that is happening with EU negotiations and about what their future status might be? We took evidence from EU citizens to the committee. They told us that they are dependent on newspaper reports and that they have to check things online with nothing in terms of direct communication. How is that going to be handled from here on in? There is a very specific online opportunity to get the maximum possible information. I will share that with the committee. I accept that that needs to be widely promulgated. I understand the concerns that people have had during this. It is an uncertain period, and I absolutely understand that. That is why we want to resolve it as quickly as possible to bring as much certainty as possible. I would have preferred that we had been able to negotiate this immediately that article 50 was triggered, but the EU did not want to proceed it on that basis at that time. You are absolutely right. It is incumbent on us to get as much information to people as we possibly can. There are always different opportunities and ways to do that, but the website that I will provide details of is very comprehensive. To be honest, I do not think that that is acceptable. That is something that people have to actively go out and try to find rather than direct communication. Just one final point that is vitally important today is discrimination. We have heard direct evidence that people are actively being discriminated against in terms of applying for jobs, for mortgages and for homes. As well as that, we have heard reports in the press last week about the increase in exploitation by unscrupulous employers who are taking advantage of the uncertainty and what that is doing in terms of trafficking and slavery. In terms of all those issues, what work is being undertaken by the UK Government? How aware are you of the problems there and specifically what actions are being taken to tackle that? We are aware that the evidence that you took was an important validation of that issues are taking place. Obviously, we both have in Scotland and in the UK comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation and that in itself should be utilised where those cases come to the fore. We are very comprehensive in Scotland and the UK anti-slavery and a real determination in relation to both Governments not to tolerate in any way modern slavery or trafficking. We must utilise those laws and means that anybody who has any information about that needs to get that to the police. It is not acceptable, but we also need to—in relation to the discrimination that you mentioned—financial arrangements and mortgages in housing. We take that very seriously and are looking at what additional measures could be taken in addition to the comprehensive arrangements that are in place. Proactively being done at the moment, because I understand what you are saying about the legislation being there to tackle that, but it is all very well looking at it now, but it has been on-going for a while and it has continued to happen. I think that people need to be reassured that the Government is proactively looking at ways to tackle this and that it is proactive actions that we are looking to hear more about. There is a lot of proactive action going ahead in relation to the modern slavery and trafficking front on that specific. However, I am making it very clear, as I possibly can, that the discrimination that you mentioned in your rap is not acceptable—he and Scotland are not acceptable—anywhere in the UK. If we have comprehensive discrimination laws in both Scotland and the UK, but if they are not adequate, something further would need to be done. Will the final deal, whatever form that takes, be subject to a vote in the House of Commons before 30 March 2019? It is my understanding that it will. It is our intention that it will. It is an attention that it will take place before the vote in the European Parliament. The other questions that I had were just supplementaries to some of the questions on fisheries. I was not clear about the point that you were making on fisheries and agriculture in transition. Will the current regimes that we all understand and love or hate, common fisheries policy and common agriculture policy, continue as they are delivered during that transition period? A final decision has not been taken in relation to those matters because the transition arrangements have not been fully negotiated. I could not give you, at this moment, a definitive position. I do not think that it is a breach of confidence. For example, the Scottish Government wishes for both those arrangements to continue during the transition period. My understanding is that the NFUS in Scotland would wish the CAP position to continue during the transition period, but the Scottish Fishermen's Federation would not wish for the common fisheries policy to proceed during the transition period. Obviously, there are discussions to be had and decisions ultimately to be made, but there is not a definitive response at this moment. I understand that, but you have said what the Scottish Government's position is, but what is the UK Government's position on both the common agriculture policy and the common fisheries policy during the transition period? Is the UK Government's position that those policies should continue during the transition period as they currently work? Our position is, as I have set out, that we are still engaging in relation to both of those issues. I have set out what that engagement has brought forward in relation to Scotland. There is a meeting on Monday that you said earlier on. Is that a meeting to discuss this transition? No, it is about frameworks. I think that Mr Lockhart may have previously been part of it. It was called a quad, which seems to be a very popular term these days, where the three devolved administrations and DEFRA come together. Mr Goh's intention is that that meeting would be the beginning of a discussion around frameworks. Can you clarify when the devolved administrations of the United Kingdom will be involved in the discussions over the transition period as it affects agriculture and fisheries? I would imagine that the transition period would be discussed at the next meeting of the joint ministerial committee on European negotiations, which is scheduled in the next few weeks. The final question that I had was on no deal. I take your point that, obviously, you are not seeking no deal, but no deal is clearly one of the things that could happen. Has all these sectoral analysis that you were being asked about earlier on included an assessment of what would happen to every part of the UK economy if there was no deal or a minimalist deal, I think, to use your phrase? I think that the analysis is not uniform, because there are different elements to the different analysis. It would not be possible to say that all analysis contained are a reflection of all scenarios. The scenario in which there is a minimalist deal is clearly one that is the easiest in some ways to define? For example, it is possible in relation to each of those areas to determine what WTO terms are for the area. Thank you very much, Ross Greer. One brief supplementary on Marigoujawn's point before moving on. The evidence session that the committee took with European citizens has been mentioned. One of the witnesses that we had, a woman from Romania who is here with her family, husband and two young sons, said that she felt like she, other European citizens to her family, had been treated like the dog that the UK had bought for Christmas but did not want any more. Given the level of uncertainty that 180,000 people in Scotland, £3 million across the UK have had to face over the past year, more than a year, do you believe that the UK Government owes them an apology for having put them in that situation? I do not think that to be the case. I am always concerned to hear about people who feel that they have been badly treated or the personal experiences that they had. The Government has made it clear throughout that it was a priority to resolve the issue, and it has been pretty clear throughout that we wished people to stay. We have sought to convey from the Prime Minister, myself and other members of the Government that we wanted people who were here to be able to stay but that it was very important in the discussions to ensure that also UK citizens who were living in other parts of the EU were able to stay there as well. The Government prioritised this within negotiations, you are correct, but you could have simply removed it from negotiations and taken no-attraction to reassure people. Moving on to the form of the deal, your Cabinet colleague Liam Fox said either yesterday or this morning that he is not afraid of a no-deal Brexit scenario. Are you afraid of a no-deal scenario? What we are in is a negotiation to try and achieve the best possible deal. We are not seeking no-deal, but we have to plan for there being a no-deal. That is basically where we are. I do not think that by characterising a no-deal scenario as cataclysmic is a helpful way of taking that forward in terms of getting a good deal, because that is what we want to do. Therefore, the reality is that, yes, if we are not able to get a deal, we will be in a no-deal scenario, and we will look to manage that. We will look to get the best possible outcome from a no-deal scenario. As I said, and I think that Mr Scott characterised, a no-deal scenario is essentially a minimalist scenario. It is not as it is sometimes portrayed that we have crashed out of the EU. It is just that we would be leaving the EU on WTO terms and on a basis of certain specific agreements. The projections that the committee commissioned from the Fraser of Allander Institute for the minimalist deal—no deal—of that range of scenarios projected that Scotland would beset to lose 80,000 jobs and that the average wage would drop by £2,000. It is not helpful to characterise that negatively, but that is simply economic analysis. There was no political spin on that. Surely workers in Scotland would be concerned, would be afraid of a £2,000 drop in average wages. Why are you, as their Secretary of State, not also concerned and afraid of that? I am attempting, because I have set out, to ensure that we do not leave the EU on a no-deal basis. If that is the deal that was presented, would you, as a Scottish MP, be willing to vote for that in the end? What I have said and made clear today is that the United Kingdom has voted to leave the EU. What is incumbent on the UK Government to do, working in conjunction with the Scottish Government and others, is to get the best possible deal. That is what I want to focus on, not on all sorts of negative scenarios, when those are not what is currently in play. I am confident that we will be able to take a no-deal off the table. We have to prepare for a no-deal scenario. It would be irresponsible of the Government not to prepare for a no-deal scenario, but it is not what we are seeking to achieve. What we are seeking to achieve is the new economic partnership with the EU, which the Prime Minister has set out. We hope that we can begin negotiating after the December Council. That is where we are putting our focus. It is clear that there are some people who argue for a no-deal. There are some people who argue that we should abandon Brexit and remain in the EU. People have their reasons for arguing both on other scenarios. However, what the UK Government is about is getting the best possible deal. That is what our focus is on. That is what our focus is on in relation to the shape of the future economic partnership that we want to achieve. You mentioned your opening remarks on the respect that you and the UK Government have for this Parliament. Last week in this Parliament, we voted overwhelmingly to call for a no-deal scenario to be ruled out. What is your response to that? I listen to everything that is communicated from this Parliament, but we know, on the basis of the devolution settlement, where we have had this discussion before, where the respective responsibilities lie. I will always listen to what is said in the views of this Parliament. Ultimately, the responsibility for the nature of the negotiations, as I think Mr Barney confirmed to you, was the UK Government. Are you happy with the current progress of negotiations? Do you think that sufficient progress will be made before the next meeting of the European Council in December? There is what is described as an EU task force, which is in situ. On the basis of the formal negotiation process in this period, negotiations and discussions are still on-going. Of course, we would have preferred that there was a decision in October by the council to proceed at that point with discussions about the future relationship, but that was not the decision. However, the decision was to begin preparations for that, which indicates to me and my colleagues in the Government that we should be in a position to take that forward in December. However, there is a huge amount of work to be done. I am very seized of the amount of work that is to be done and the amount of work that we need to do with the Scottish Government and this Parliament in relation to a lot of the statutory instruments and other legislation that will require to come through Parliament. We go back to the clock is ticking and there is a lot to be done in a relatively short time, but I am confident that with the right spirit, we will be able to do it. I would also like to ask you about the divorce settlement. David Davis said that the withdrawal agreement will probably favour the EU in money terms, but a future relationship will favour both sides. Does that indicate that he is willing to be flexible in order to strike a deal and has the Scottish Government made any comments regarding their views on the financial settlement? That is a negotiation. In any negotiation, financial arrangements are always important. I think that we have made what is a generous offer in relation to those financial arrangements. We are seeing through all our obligations that we have currently undertaken everything that countries could expect that the UK would be contributing to various arrangements called agriculture policy and others. I think that the financial arrangement that we have put forward is a generous but appropriate one, but clearly the financial arrangement's negotiation has not been concluded and therefore the Government will have to have the flexibility to continue negotiations in that area. Is that something that the devolved Administrations feed into within the JMC process? The devolved Administrations are able to feed in on any issue that they wish to do. As I have said earlier, I very much welcome the fact and the constructive way in which the Scottish Government has approached the transitional period. That was something that it wanted to see and it is something that is going to happen. It is a basis on which we would listen to what was said in relation to any particular aspect, but ultimately, as I said to Mr Greer, it is the responsibility of the UK Government to conclude the negotiations. Finally, there has been much discussion today about whether there will be a deal or there will not be a deal and will fall to WTO rules. I wondered when your recent visit to Sky was highlighted among the tourism businesses that you spoke to, the opportunities that they felt from Brexit and perhaps the concerns that they had, and what reassurance did you give them that businesses would have certainty? I have to say that their biggest concern was that, during the summer, people had gone round saying that Sky was full when it was not. They wanted to make it clear that there were always opportunities for people to go to Sky. Obviously, one of the biggest issues that business raises is the availability of seasonal workers. We are very seized of that issue and that will be a big part of the work, I hope, of the migration advisory council. Certainly when I meet its chairman later this month, I will be stressing the need not just in relation to the work that they are doing in Scotland to be here in Edinburgh but to get out and about in places such as Sky. However, overall, the tourism minister is optimistic. I have one brief supplementary question about your own line of questioning. That is about the vote that took place in the commons last night. I have read reports this morning claiming that the speaker, Berkow, stated that the vote last night was binding. If that is the case, can you tell the committee when those reports will be published? I have indicated what the Government position is, which is to reflect on the vote and to balance both the respect for the vote but also the Government's requirement to act in the national interests. In terms of the issue of the devolution and the 111 powers that has been spoken about earlier, and certainly the devolution is based upon the principle that everything is devolved to the Scottish Parliament unless it is reserved to Westminster. Earlier this morning in your contribution, you spoke of wanting to have a united and cohesive way going forward and also about the parties coming together as compared to having one set of political objectives. With that being the case, there have been a number of amendments that have been placed on the EU withdrawal bill, placed by both the Scottish and Welsh Governments. With that being the case, if you want to have that united and cohesive way going forward, will the UK Government be accepting those amendments? We have said at the GMC that we take amendments in the spirit that they were offered to be helpful and to make a better bill. We are in detailed discussions with both the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government on the nature of the amendments because there are a number of amendments. We are reflecting on what approach we will take to those amendments. However, I can reassure you that we take them seriously. There is a difference of approach in terms of how the respective Governments think that this process should proceed, but overall our general direction of travel is the same. I hope that we will be able to reach agreement. You have already said this morning that you will always listen to the views of this Parliament, but ultimately it is up to the UK Government to take part in the discussions with the EU. However, going back to that point of having a united and cohesive approach going forward, surely not all the amendments will be rejected. There will be amendments that the UK Government can agree to to have a united and cohesive approach going forward. I hope that we can have a united and cohesive approach. It is in our best interests for everyone in Scotland and everyone in the UK. The amendments to the withdrawal bill are part of that process. There are a number of other pieces of legislation that I have alluded to and a number of other processes. However, I feel strongly that we are in a better position now in relation to being able to achieve that. I want to achieve that. I believe that the Scottish Government is seeking a constructive role. As I say, we are not going to agree on everything, but we are recognising together the scale of the challenge. If we can proceed in that cohesive way, we will get the best outcome. I have a final question. It is about the meeting on Monday. It has already been touched upon earlier today on agriculture. There has been a £160 million shortfall from the UK Government to the Scottish Government regarding agricultural funding. That is the situation now before any type of agreement or any type of framework is put in place regarding agriculture going forward. Will that £160 million come back? Will it come to Scotland where it should be coming to before any framework discussions are taking place? Will that be on the agenda on Monday? The convergent issue is what you have set out as an opinion, not a fact. The issue has been well debated and discussed in the Parliament last week. As you may have seen, Mr Gove is minded to have an independent review on the issue. However, I would be very surprised if that issue was not discussed at that meeting on Monday, because I think that it has been discussed at every meeting of that group in recent times. Will that money come to Scotland that Scotland is rightfully due? You are setting out an opinion in relation to convergence funding. I would very much welcome the sort of independent review in relation to that issue, which Mr Gove has indicated that he is minded to take forward. Secretary of State, if I could just come back to our initial line of questioning, where we talked about your evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee, where you clarified that you had not, in fact, been indicating that there was Scotland-specific research on the impacts of Brexit, although that was the wide interpretation of what you said. Just a few days after that, Mr Davis was giving evidence to the Brexit Committee, and he was questioned on that as well. He also seemed to confirm that there was Scotland specific research and that it would be shared with the Scottish Government, and he referenced your own remarks to the Scottish Affairs Committee. Was he misinterpreted as well?  I would not place your interpretation on those remarks. Essentially, he said that the matter had been discussed at the GMC, and that what I had said would be followed through on. That is how I read the various exchanges. You said that, when Christine Jarden asked you, will it be shared between Governments, and you said that it will. I have just said that officials are discussing sharing analysis. You are saying that there is no piece of Scotland-specific analysis on the impact of Brexit. We now know that today, but we know that there are 58 sectoral analyses, some of which are entirely related to devolved matters such as health, fisheries, agriculture and higher education. Will you be sharing them with the Scottish Government? I want us to proceed on the basis of shared analysis and a shared factual basis. I think that that is the best way to proceed. Officials are in discussions about the respective analysis, because the Scottish Government has carried out various analyses. I am not aware, but I may be wrong that they have published them, maybe they have. You may have published them a few weeks ago. I have shared them with yourself. Those 58 pieces— I am not sure that that is a definitive statement in terms of all analysis, but I will check that out. I will write to you on the basis of updating where officials are in sharing analysis. Is that the 58 pieces of sectoral analysis? I will write to you on where officials are in sharing of those 58 pieces. Right, but so far you cannot confirm that they will be shared with the Scottish Government. What I have confirmed is that the Scottish Government and the UK Government officials are in discussions about those analyses and I wish to share the analysis and to have an analysis that we have agreed on. In response to Stuart McMillan's point about the impact assessments, you talk about working on behalf of the UK, the national interest and the best interests of people here in terms of trying to protect a negotiating position. Governments and parliaments across the UK are elected to represent the best interests of the citizens who elect them and all the citizens who live here. Surely it is within the best interests of all the citizens in this country and across all the nations of the UK to know how they, their lives, their businesses and the industries that they are involved in, are going to be affected. In the best interests of the citizens of Scotland and the UK to get the best possible deal for Scotland and the UK in negotiations with the European Union, and it is not the best way to achieve that outcome by sharing absolutely every piece of information that you have, not just with your own citizens but with the people that you are negotiating with. So you do not agree then that people should understand how this is going to impact their businesses and their lives? We had a referendum on whether we should remain in the EU. Those issues about how leaving the EU would impact on people were the subject of the discussion in that referendum. When we get to an end point in relation to these negotiations, of course people need to and will understand what the implications are, but sharing all the analysis, all the facts, going naked into the negotiations with the 27 other countries will not achieve the best possible outcome for Scotland and the rest of the UK. People were not given all the factual information at the time of the referendum and for you to say that you do not agree that people should know how their lives are going to be impacted, to me it is quite frankly ridiculous. Well, I am sorry that you feel that. You, like everybody in this room, had an opportunity to play a part in the referendum. We are not rerunning the referendum. The decision has been taken that the United Kingdom will leave the EU. We need to proceed to do that and get the best possible outcome. That is what we are seeking to do. Obviously, we are not in agreement on that point. We have heard that we had about the parliamentary vote that took place yesterday. The Government is reflecting on that vote and will, in due course, set out how it intends to respond. I just have to say that the responses that you have given today give me absolutely no confidence that a good outcome will be achieved. I think that people are entitled and people have a right to know how that will impact their lives and that information needs to be forthcoming. We are just not going to agree on that, are we? We have gone slightly over time, so I would like to thank the Secretary of State for Giving his evidence to us today and we shall now move into private session.


My name is Sam Vaknin, and yes, I'm the author of Malignan Self-Love, Narcissism Revisit. Can't help it, try it. Perhaps the only thing worse than catching Covid-19 is having to spend time in social isolation with a narcissist. It's the equivalent of a hostage situation, and it provokes the monopoly of psychological reactions, which are typical to victims in hostage-taking situations. They teach this in the FBI Academy and in various police academies throughout the world, hostage negotiators. So the first time a hostage situation had been described was in Stockholm, hence the Stockholm Syndrome, later transformed and discombobulated into the Trauma Bonding Syndrome. The Stockholm Syndrome is when the hostage bonds and gets attached to the kidnapper, because the kidnapper is perceived as the only source of power and the only source of benevolence or malice. It is up to the hostage to convert the kidnapper to her cause, it's up to her to co-opt the kidnapper so that he prefers to be benevolent rather than malevolent. And so the kidnapper and the hostage bond in what is known as Trauma Bonding. Trauma Bonding is a dynamic that occurs in social isolation with the narcissist. The spouse or mate or intimate partner of the narcissist tries to be on his good side, tries to cater to his needs, walks on eggshells as she tries to not provoke him, to not enrage him, to not irritate him. And of course, God forbid, to not contradict him or disagree with him, point out his weaknesses, his frailties, his mistakes, his defeats, his failures, you know what I mean. So there is this intricate dance macabre between victim and perpetrator, abuser and abused, prey and predator, narcissist and his spouse or intimate partner, whereby one of them becomes more and more submissive as time passes and the other one leverages this submissiveness to exert control in a conspicuous and ostentatious manner. And so it's all about control really. In a state of isolation, the victim is cut off from all support networks, friends, family, domestic violence shelters, law enforcement agencies, it's all gone out the window. Neighbours, no one is there to save the victim should anything untoward, unsimply or even dangerous happen. And so the victim is left to her own devices and at the complete mercy of the narcissist. This is a new situation because even in extreme cases of narcissistic abuse in normal environments, non-pandemic environments, the victim always has options. She can always adopt coping strategies. She can always revert or refer to outsiders for help. She can go to the court and get protective orders. She can run away to a domestic violence shelter. She can call a hotline in a situation where both of them are cooped together in a confined space, in each other's hair. Of course, the narcissist also spies on his spouse or intimate partner. What is she doing? Who is she calling? Which websites is she surfing? What secret messages she's sending? Under such an intense environment, in such a pressure cooker setting, the narcissist becomes unusually paranoid. He begins to develop paranoid and persecutory ideation. And so he begins to regard his spouse or intimate partner as a potential enemy, as a persecutory object, as we call it. And he begins to construct defenses. He begins to spy on her. He begins to limit her movements. He begins to follow her around. He begins to pop in and make sure that she doesn't do anything to compromise his safety, perhaps. Or worse, his life. Paranoia is an inevitable outcome of such confinement. And we see it also in other settings, such as hospitals or prisons or in the army. And so the narcissist develops paranoia and there is a process called displacement of control. When we cannot control our external environment, when we're at the mercy of a dictatorship. Or worse, at the mercy of a pandemic. A pandemic is indiscriminate. It recognizes no authority, rule of law, borders, reasoning, mores, conventions, whatever. A pandemic kills. So you're at the complete mercy of a pandemic.  Narcissists cannot countenance that narcissism is about control, actually. And so the narcissist displaces his control. He cannot control the virus, true enough, but he can control his spouse. He can control his intimate partner. So he switches, he shifts his need for control towards the person he cohabits with. And from that moment, he micromanages this person. He controls this person to the minutest details.  We see such displacement of control in other mental health disorders, for example, eating disorders. An eating disorder is a displacement of control. The patient usually has no control over other aspects of the life, other dimensions of her existence. So what she does, she controls her weight and food intake. That's her way of displacing control. Alcoholism is a similar psychodynamic. It's all about displacing control. So narcissistic abuse is amplified and enhanced by the need to displace control. The narcissist for the first time perhaps in his life, in a pandemic, feels utterly helpless. His very omnipotence, his very grandiosity is all powerful and all-knowing being. They are challenged by the virus. The virus is his mortal enemy because the virus exposes the narcissist as a mere infinite being. Not Godlike by any means. The virus enters his lungs, he dies absolutely like everyone else. It's the great equalizer. It's an equal opportunity pandemic and the narcissist is never equal. He is never common, he's never like anyone else or everyone else. It's humiliating, it's destabilizing. It can push the narcissist to the verge of psychosis. There are many narcissists in such situations displaying psychotic micro-episodes. So narcissists need to control. It takes it out, all of it, out on his spouse and intimate path. At the same time that the narcissist is in such dire need of reasserting control and reconstructing or buttressing his grandiosity by reasserting control, at the same time he doesn't have narcissistic supply. It's very difficult to obtain narcissistic supply when you're in social isolation. There's only that much you can do over the internet. You can make YouTube videos every day, hint, hint. You can post on Instagram three times a day instead of once. You can correspond and chat with a few people. That's more or less it. But the narcissist obtains narcissistic supply within a pathological narcissistic space. Within his neighborhood, in his workplace, he needs human interactions. Ironically, the narcissist is pro-social. He works with other people because he is critically dependent on input from other people, on feedback from other people, for the regulation of his inner landscape, of his inner psychodynamic processes. He has no ego, so he has no ego functions. He outsources his ego functions to other people. And in the absence of these people, he disintegrates. He goes through a process called decompensation and he acts out. He loses it. Got a long story short. He flips. He becomes technically, at least, insane. And he takes it out on his spouse, an intimate partner. He cannot obtain supply from the outside. He rages at her. He punishes her for the situation. He has to punish someone. He has to. He's never responsible. He has alloplastic defenses. He always blames the world. Someone else for his defeats, failures, mistakes, mishaps. And of course, the pandemic is not his fault, really. In this case, it's not wrong. It's really the universe that is out to get him. And his spouse, an intimate partner, is an extension of the universe. She stands in for the universe. She represents the universe. She is the reification of the injustice done to the narcissist as a victim of an impersonal equalizing pandemic. And so he punishes her. There's a very strong punitive component in his relationship to his spouse. And this is one aspect of myriad manifestations of aggression. Because when a narcissist is frustrated, like all of us, by the way, in 1939, there was a psychologist by the name of Donald, and he suggested the frustration-aggression hypothesis. And so when we are frustrated, very often we become aggressive. A narcissist is no exception. The narcissist gets frustrated because he cannot obtain supply, because he's not in control, because he's not all powerful, because his grandiosity is challenged, because he feels like everyone else, so he's very frustrated. And because his partner, his spouse, his mate cannot resolve these issues.  He parentifies his significant other. He parentifies his intimate partner. And like every child, he expects his parent to solve the situation, to resolve, to propose something, to kind of make a go-way. And when his partner fails to do so, there is a childish response equivalent to a temper tantrum, if you wish. There is enormous disillusionment, a breakdown of the idealization and idolization of the intimate partner.  This is coupled with objecting constancy. In other words, if the mother is transformed via a dynamic called splitting, a defense mechanism called splitting, the mother, as represented by the spouse or the partner, is transformed from an all-good mother to an all-bad mother. She is suddenly evil, persecutory, frustrating, out-of-getting, hateful, vengeful. He suddenly sees her all black, all wrong. And so it's a sequence. He loses control. He loses supply. He expects his unconsciously. He expects his spouse or intimate partner to solve it. She fails. She fails. She is bad. She is bad. She should be punished. Aggression. And aggression can wear many forms. It could be sexual aggression. He could suddenly demand sex endlessly. Or on the contrary, withhold sex. It could be physical aggression, beating, violence, literally. It could be verbal aggression, which is the most common form of psychological aggression, perniciously and in subtle ways undermining the sanity and the functioning of his spouse, for example, via constant gaslighting. It could be silent treatment. It could be even overt threats. You just wait until this is over. I'll show you. So the narcissist creates a toxic brew, a toxic environment. And this is the only thing that grows exponentially, not the pandemic. Gradually, it becomes impossible to survive in such an environment.  It is counterproductive to adopt any of the classical strategies because they will only enhance the narcissist's frustration. If you mirror the narcissist, it will render him violent. If you go gray rock, the narcissist will perceive it as intentional frustration and will become even more aggressive. If you provide too much narcissistic supply, it will enhance his paranoia. He will think that if you're becoming too solicitous, too complementary, if you flatter him too much, he will begin to suspect that you're trying to manipulate him. It will enhance his persecutory and paranoid ideation. So the only technique in such a situation is background noise. Background noise simply means that you are there for the narcissist.  He asks your question, you answer only that question. You don't initiate, you don't diverge. He demands something, you provide it. He doesn't talk to you, you don't talk to him, you never initiate it.  You respond fully, you don't disengage, you don't challenge, you don't disagree, you don't criticize. You don't provide advice, you don't volunteer, you don't initiate, you don't exist.  You become a non-entity, but a responsive non-entity, kind of a smartphone app, if you wish. Smartphone apps don't initiate, they don't attack you. They have pushed technology but up to a limit. You can change the settings, you can control them. So you should be the same as a victim. You should be there for the narcissist but not too much. You should respond but within bounds. You should take care of needs but without initiating. You should not nag, definitely. Stay away, keep out of sight. Remember, the narcissist has no object consistency. Out of sight, out of his mind, out of mind. Out of mind, you will not become a target of aggression. Where the physical space is confined, where there are children which necessitate contact, play background noise. There's no other technique that works. Everything else will provoke the less savoury aspects of narcissism and of narcissistic abuse.  Should social isolation continue for much longer, narcissistic abuse will be transformed into very ugly manifestations. I'm very afraid of an epidemic of domestic violence in the physical sense. I'm very afraid of the effects that this might have on children. I'm very, very worried about what's happening because for the first time that I'm aware of, victims have been told, instructed, coerced and forced to share a living space with their abusers and all their options have been taken away. And none of the strategies we, all of us, including me, have developed. None of these strategies is relevant. The victim cannot go no contact. She should not go gray rock. She should not mirror. She should not provide supply. She should not definitely withhold supply. None of these techniques work. The only technique available is background noise and again it is limited in time. Sooner or later the narcissist will target his spouse or intimate partner simply because he has no one else to interact with. Not because she had done something, but because she's there.