 We now move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on the motion number 2203, in the name of Michael Matheson, on the UK referendum on EU membership impacts on justice and security in Scotland. Can I ask all members who wish to speak in this debate to press their requests to speak buttons now? I call on Michael Matheson to open the debate. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to open this afternoon's debate. In the recent referendum, the people of Scotland supported continued membership of the EU. People in every single local authority area in Scotland voted to remain. The Scottish Government and a clear majority in this Parliament support continued membership of the EU. I acknowledge that some of us voted to leave and that is a reality that we must address by listening and responding to concerns behind that vote. However, it is important to emphasise that justice matters in Scotland, including civil, criminal and family law, are largely devolved matters. Scotland has always had its own separate and independent justice system and agencies. Over the past 40 years of EU membership, EU law has become woven into its fabric. Our independent justice agencies and legal professionals engage directly and extensively with their EU counterparts. Those arrangements benefit individual victims, families, businesses and communities here in Scotland and elsewhere in the EU. We find ourselves against the views of the people of Scotland in a position where those arrangements are under serious threat. Business and security measures are essential to how we operate as a modern society and how we engage with other nations. EU membership gives us access to the single market and access to the necessary laws and mechanisms to facilitate that market, to operate for the benefit of people and businesses. Individuals and companies gain access to buyers and sellers of goods and services across national borders and have their rights as employees or consumers recognised and protected. In the event of any dispute, cross-border commercial contracts can be enforced throughout the continent. This legal infrastructure supports the economy and affords opportunity for growth. With 500 million consumers, the EU is the world's largest single market. As well as supporting the single market, EU membership and justice and security measures make us safer and support the international cooperation, which is vital to combat cross-border crime and terrorism. There will be those who will argue that leaving the EU will create new opportunities for co-operation or that we can use alternative mechanisms. However, we already know that those arrangements are less effective, slower and more costly than the benefits that we already have from full EU membership. That is not just my view, but the view of the justice agencies and professional bodies that operate those arrangements on a daily basis. I want to talk in more detail about some of the specific practical measures that will be put at risk if Scotland was no longer a full participant in EU justice and home affairs matters. Leaving the EU puts at risk a range of co-operation across both civil and criminal law, including police co-operation, which assists in tackling organised crime, helping to make the people of Scotland safe and also to live and work across the EU. For example, EuroPoll is central to the fight against organised crime and terrorism. It plays a key role in facilitating and supporting efforts of Police Scotland and other key partners in implementing our serious organised crime strategy. I recently visited EuroPoll in The Hague and was briefed by the director and his team on the resources and support that are available to help to confront the growing threat from organised crime and terrorism. EuroPoll supports over 18,000 cross-border investigations each year and provides invaluable support to law enforcement agencies right across Europe. Whether it is tackling human trafficking or money laundering, we must show solidarity with our friends across Europe. Now is not the time to walk away, particularly with the increase in online threats. We must work together to face those challenges and safeguard our communities here in Scotland. I appreciate the cabinet secretary giving way. He moved on from saying that we need to discuss EuroPoll to saying that we are walking away. Does he accept that we are not walking away? The Home Affairs Minister, Brandon Lewis, said to Parliament yesterday that he will be reporting to Parliament shortly on the future of the engagement between the UK and EuroPoll, so we are not walking away. That will be announced shortly. You should listen to what he said. Now is not the time to walk away, but you should also be aware that the regulations need to be signed up to by January. The execution of investigations takes months in planning and months to then execute in a situation itself. The delay of the UK on this matter and the dithering of the UK on this matter is putting those types of joint investigations at risk. That is why the UK Government needs to move forward on the EuroPoll regulations as quickly as possible to make sure that we minimise that particular risk. We would also like to make sure that we maintain the other aspects of cross-border co-operation that take place within Europe. I know that some members in here will say that alternative arrangements for cross-border co-operation could be taken forward, for example, through EuroPoll, but those arrangements do not offer the same level of opportunity for co-operation or sharing of information that exists currently and should be acknowledged as being sub-optimal when compared with continuing membership of EuroPoll. There are many other measures that may be affected. Eurojust, which facilitates cross-border investigations and prosecutions, and European criminal records information system, which facilitates the sharing of EU-wide convictions in states of residence against individuals to name but a few. I want to turn, in particular, to the issue of European arrest warrants. Serious and organised criminals take no account of borders. An ability to pursue individuals who commit serious crime effectively, apprehend and bring them to court, is vital. It is also important for the protection of the Scottish public that Scotland, along with the rest of the UK, does not risk becoming viewed as a safe haven by those seeking to escape justice. Interested agencies and professional bodies in Scotland are unanimous about the risk. Indeed, when an opt-out was under consideration in 2013, both the then Lord Advocate and the present Lord Advocate, who was then the vice dean of the Faculty of Advocates, gave oral evidence in support of European arrest warrants to the House of Lords. ACPOS, the Crown Office, the Faculty of Advocates, Justice, the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Government have all advised the UK Government of their support for this instrument. Theresa May, when she was Home Secretary, said that European arrest warrants and other EU justice and security measures are both practical and necessary to protect us from serious criminals and terrorists. Yet, within the Westminster Parliament and now within the UK Government, there are those who are actively opposing European arrest warrants. We should be clear that if we leave the EU without putting successor arrangements in place, the advantages of speed and streamlined process that the European arrest warrant provides and which all parties benefit from will be lost. The repeal of the EU justice measures will also impact on several aspects. In their evidence to the current Scottish Parliament committee inquiry into the implementation of the EU referendum for Scotland, the Law Society of Scotland noted that many aspects of both reserved and devolved law have been influenced by EU law and that rights and opportunities have been afforded to individuals and businesses under EU law. That includes civil justice, company law, consumer law, employment law, environmental law, mental health and disability law, equality and human rights and family law. I would like to highlight in particular cross-border commercial impacts and the potential impact on family law. Where a family has links to more than one EU member state, there are benefits of cross-border rules. The Brussels 2 regulations cover cross-border matrimonial matters, parental responsibility and international parental child abduction. That regulation is the main instrument for families involved in cross-border divorce or family proceedings. We have yet to establish from a UK Government our future relationship with the EU and family law and what it will be in the future. It is important that we make sure that we continue to engage with other EU member states to try and ensure that our citizens do not find themselves at a disadvantage. On the commercial side, recent changes to EU rules on jurisdiction and enforcement of court judgments came into force just last year. UK Government opted into those regulations at an early stage, acknowledging the importance of a streamlined regime for resolving cross-border disputes at a commercial level. The Scottish Government's top priority is to ensure that justice and home affairs measures are given the status that they merit in the Brexit negotiations and to achieve the most developed and seamless levels of co-operation as possible in future with EU partners. I am also determined that we should ensure effective engagement and communication with agencies and professional bodies who use and understand the justice and home affairs measures in Europe, as well as with victims and consumer groups and academics to help to build the best possible evidence to inform Scotland's contribution to the negotiation process. I would like to take this opportunity to ensure that our message is heard loud and clear. Scotland voted as a whole to remain in EU and we want to maintain both the benefits of continuing collaboration and co-operation between our justice system and other member states. I understand that the Lord Advocate will be in Brussels later this month to meet with EU justice stakeholders to ensure that Scotland's prosecution interests are properly protected. The collaborative justice board of key justice leaders has also established an EU subgroup that will work to ensure that the interests of Scotland's separate and independent justice system are represented and protected in the post-EU referendum negotiations. Officials will engage directly with the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates in recognising the implications of EU membership and the referendum outcome for our legal professionals and those who rely on their services. We will continue to engage with the UK Government and our counterparts to ensure that Scotland's interests are represented and that we are able to influence that where possible. The UK Government must recognise our interests in this matter and engage with us as full partners. We are not content to be simple consultees in this matter. We must be essentially involved as partners in this process, not treated as by-standers. We in the Scottish Government and this Parliament are looking to protect Scotland's interests generally, as well as arguing for the least damaging impact from the EU referendum for the UK as a whole. That is significant to the security and safety of all of the people of Scotland. I hope that our aim will be supported by all members in this chamber. I move the motion in my name. Thank you very much. I welcome the opportunity to open this debate for the Scottish Conservatives. As this is the first justice debate that we have had in Parliament for a couple of weeks, I want to take the opportunity, if I may, to put on record the Scottish Conservatives, and I am sure that the entire Parliament best wishes to Councils Deborah Lawson and Robert Fitzsimmons, who were deliberately knocked down in Glasgow a week past Sunday. Pc Lawson suffered multiple fractures and Pc Fitzsimmons was also taken to hospital, and events such as these remind us of the bravery of our officers, which they show day in, day out. While those events are thankfully rare, we must never forget that for us to live safely, our officers have to be dedicated to their task, and it is clear that Deborah Lawson and Robert Fitzsimmons were certainly that, and we wish them both a speedy and full recovery. Just last week, the Prime Minister Theresa May reiterated that the country is facing a negotiation of tremendous importance. She continued, It is imperative that the devolved Administrations play their part in making it work. Together with stakeholders, it is therefore both right and sensible to determine the repercussions for or Brexit for Scotland's justice system. It would be remiss to suggest otherwise, given that we have, as the cabinet secretary said, a separate and unique legal system within the United Kingdom. I note that the Scottish Parliament's culture, tourism, Europe and external relations committee, as well as respected organisations such as the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society, have already embarked on the sizeable undertaking. However, let us be very clear. It is the UK Government that is negotiating our withdrawal from the European Union. As the cabinet secretary mentioned in his opening remarks, for the UK to lead the EU framework will impact on the civil and criminal justice in Scotland, as well as policing. I will take interventions from several members, but not from Stuart Stevenson, because I can already tell him what his intervention will be. It will be to ask me three very random questions to which he has three very random answers, and I have a lot to get through. On this occasion, I will not take an intervention from Mr Stevenson. I have sat through many debates in this chamber in my short time as an MSP, and I have his measure very quickly. I will carry on if I may. No one is under the illusion that this will be easy. Together with her cabinet, the Prime Minister has repeatedly acknowledged the challenges ahead. The Faculty of Advocates has emphasised that, and I quote, it appears to us inconceivable that it will be possible to review all that law and determine what to keep and what to remove in time for the last day of the UK's membership of the EU. I would seek to reassure those concerned about the transitional arrangements that, as and when we repeal the European Communities Act, we will convert the body of existing EU law into British law. I would further commend the law society, which is already met with the Secretary of State for Scotland, David Mundell, for underscoring the importance—I will take an intervention from Ms Ewing if she wants to stand up and get involved. I will give you time to put your card in Ms Ewing. I just wondered if the member would be prepared to define the new concept of British law. I apologise. Clearly, in the cluster for Ms Ewing to get her card in, she was also not prepared for that. I did mean UK law, so I apologise if that has offended in any way, and I clarify that for the chamber. I further commend the law society, which is already met with the Secretary of State for Scotland, David Mundell, for underscoring the importance of ensuring stability in law post Brexit. For emphasising that, specifically in connection with legal matters, changes will require to be carefully thought through. I really believe that the UK Government has exhibited judiciousness towards a negotiation so far. Unlike those—oh, well, we already hear, Mr—the minister for removing Scotland from the EU in that cabinet position, Mr Russell, mumbling away there, and I look forward to his mumblings later on today, but we have already heard from the SNP that they are not looking towards what the UK Government is doing, and they are only looking at their own way forward. We need to be mindful that the UK is negotiating with a union of 27 other members, who the Institute for Government points out will play a crucial role in informal negotiations and will almost certainly have to individually ratify any final agreement. For Mike Russell—there's the name—for Mike Russell to stand up in the chamber last week and denounce the UK Government for reaction, inaction and confusion was quite simply childish and, I must say, amateurish. The SNP hasn't been proactive in its approach, as it would have us believe. Well, that tells you everything that you need to know about that intervention. It has not been proactive in its approach, it has been pre-emptive. In the four months since the outcome of the EU referendum was announced, the First Minister almost immediately attempted to embark on a PR tour of the European member states, only to be respectfully reminded by the German Government, the Danish Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Czech Government, the Estonian Foreign Affairs Ministry and none other than the President of the European Council, that, in such self-engrandisement, she has stepped well beyond her remit. Together with her court of cabinet colleagues, the First Minister has once again started to agitate for independence, flaming the flames of Brexit as a cause celeb for the SNP's relentless obsession with separation, meanwhile neglecting the powerhouse Parliament that we have here, that we were all elected to and to use the unprecedented new powers that we have. In fact, in just four months, including the summer recess, we have had no less than three statements in the chamber on Brexit. Today's debate is the sixth such debate of its kind. We had a running commentary from the SNP on the European Union since the 24th of June, and it even launched a consultation on a second referendum bill. Well, no surprise, Mr Russell, once again on that. I am just wondering about consistency. You opened your speech by saying that it was right and sensible to have this debate to consider the implications of Brexit. Now you have contradicted yourself within six minutes. To this debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, and we will discuss it, but the Scottish Government has allocated its time to this. Well, if you want to intervene again, you can stand up rather than speaking from a sedentary position. The point is—I will give way—that the words you used were right and sensible. The point that I am making is that we have had three statements on the EU referendum. We have had six debates in this chamber, while we should be debating policing, while we should be debating the NHS, which I think the First Minister struggled with at FMQs last week. There has been a domination of the Government time on Brexit issues, and I think that people in Scotland want the Government to be focusing on the bread and butter issues and getting that right rather than trying to pick fights to fan the flames for their own separation agenda. As yet, not one piece of legislation has been introduced to this Parliament for scrutiny since the May elections, and that tells you everything that you need to know about this Government's priority. I need not remind members that the developments unfolding around us mark a huge constitutional change, but it seems that, far from advocating that Scotland's interests in these negotiations, the SNP is only advocating on its own behalf. That is a great shame as such an approach distracts from the task at hand. As my amendment today points out, it is clear that Scotland, as part of Great Britain, has benefited from pan-European co-operation in justice and home affairs, particularly in the area of policing and criminal justice, and participation in the 35 opt-ins negotiated by the UK Government. It is my understanding that the UK has already opted out of almost all EU substantive criminal law, but we have benefited from access to agencies such as, as the cabinet secretary said, Europol, as well as information sharing measures, including Schengen. The custom information system that is used in trafficking and drug cases and the problem decisions that provide access to police databases on fingerprints and DNA. The European arrest warrant has also helped to facilitate and expedite extradition proceedings with 48 extraditions to Scotland since January 2011 and 367 from Scotland. Those are sensible measures that demonstrate the importance of a pan-European co-operation in the area of criminal justice. That has been brought to bear by the work of the Scottish crime campus at Gark Cosh, which is often underpinned, as Police Scotland has pointed out. The exchange of information and intelligence with other nations achieved through close working relations and institutions such as Europol and Interpol. The cabinet secretary has expressed concern about the uncertain status of the UK's future involvement in Europol beyond May 2017. The Scottish Government rightly argues that it has played an effective role in providing analytical support, enabling law enforcement and information exchange and producing a threat assessment. However, as I said in my intervention, the minister in the UK Government mentioned to Parliament yesterday that they will be updating the UK Parliament on that announcement in the very short term. I am not here to be a spokesman for the UK Government. The cabinet secretary has his own channels of communication for that, but he will no doubt be aware that the Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, has confirmed that the UK Government will be having discussions on how to continue some form of involvement within the agencies of the EU to help to keep us safe. David Davis, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, has also recently emphasised in relation to Europol that the aim is to preserve the relationship with the European Union on security matters as best we can. We are across that and, of course, are aiming to maintain it. Let us not forget, as my colleague Liam Kerr will shortly emphasise, that there are many other mechanisms for cooperation on matters of security and policing, and those should not be overlooked. Our amendment today looks at the wider issues of security, and in my own area of Murray, our communities, and can lossymouth play a vital role in security and protection of the entire United Kingdom. Lossymouth is eagerly awaiting the arrival— A point of order, Mr Stevenson. The member may have inadvertently described himself as the member for Murray. He said, my own area of Murray. Could you invite him to properly describe himself as a member for the Highlands and Islands? Mr Stevenson makes a point. It is not a point of order. Douglas Ross has plenty of time, Mr Ross. Thank you very much. Another bit of time wasted in this Parliament by Mr Stevenson. If I read out what I said, in my own area of Murray, I live in Murray. I am born and bred in Murray. I think that I can class that as my own area. I represent and I am proud to represent Murray as a wider Highlands and Islands region, but I will mention Murray as my own area whenever I should like. As I was saying when I was so rudely interrupted, Lossymouth is eagerly awaiting the arrival of the new PAs and, having been lucky enough to have flown in one of them recently, I know the huge investment that there will be for Murray, if I am allowed to say that, for Scotland and for the United Kingdom with that defence infrastructure. It is clear that this will ultimately be a bespoke agreement between an independent sovereign United Kingdom and the European Union, rather than a binary choice. It presents an opportunity to engage and implement those measures that foster European-wide co-operation and best serve the interests of the United Kingdom and Scotland, and this is an opportunity, not an obstacle, and it is this that needs to inform our thinking over the months ahead. To finish, democracy is not about rerunning the vote until you get the result that you want. Democracy is respecting the outcome of the vote once and for all. Post-Brexit, the UK Government is working to deliver the best possible deal for the entire country. I sincerely hope that the SNP will support its work in this regard over the coming months across all of all portfolios, rather than run a grievance, grumble and gripe campaign that self-servingly promotes the SNP agenda to the detriment of Scotland's interests. I move the amendment in my name. This is a welcome opportunity to discuss the impact of Brexit on our justice system in Scotland and the security of our communities. Those who advocated leaving the European Union argued that it would make Britain safer in the context of an uninformed and depressing debate over immigration. Many of us who argued for the UK continuing membership of the EU put forward the case that leaving would in fact threaten our security and weaken our justice system, and nothing I have heard following the vote in June has caused me to revise that opinion. Over the past decade, we have made vital progress in our security systems, collaborating with forces across Europe as a member of the EU. We have had no information either for those who argued for Brexit or from the UK Government about what plans are going to be brought forward to secure the progress that has been made through European co-operation on justice and security. It has not been detailed how the potential for greater collaboration, which undoubtedly existed when Britain is within the EU, can be made once we are outside of the EU. We risk being isolated at a time when there is an even greater need for co-operation. I think that it is right, and I welcome that the Scottish Government has brought forward this opportunity to discuss these vital matters. We have heard that Brexit means Brexit, but we have heard little else beyond that. In Scotland, we may not all agree what the right response to Brexit is, but at least we are having a vibrant debate on what the options might be and ideas are being brought forward. The lack of detail and strategy from UK ministers can only raise anxieties over what the final impact will be, not least on justice and security. There is additional complexity as many of those areas are devolved or are unique to Scotland, and in recognition of that, an amendment today calls for work to be undertaken to determine the full extent of leaving the EU on our separate legal system to ensure that Scotland's interests are protected and to fully inform the negotiation process. I am grateful to the member for a given way, because I think that she raises a very important point here, and that is that the unique nature of the Scottish justice system within those negotiations makes it so important that the UK Government recognises that, and it is given its right place in the course of those negotiations and for the Scottish Government to be involved in that process. I think that the member has identified that in her amendment, which we will be supporting here this evening. I am pleased to hear that from the cabinet secretary. I think that it is important that we recognise the separate and unique nature of the Scottish legal system and that the UK Government is well aware of the different implications there might be. It is also incumbent on us to be clear about what those implications are. I note that the SPICE briefing highlights that a specific group has been set up within the justice board to consider the impact of Brexit on the justice system and that Police Scotland has also established a working group. However, I would need to be confident that those groups have the specific skills and expertise to understand the legal implications, and I would appreciate further detail on how that work can be taken forward. I do not want to be in a situation where we will be looking at emergency legislation or having to deal with unintended consequences as a result of this decision. EU membership has strengthened our justice system within the modern world. Through the Extradition Act 2003, both the Scottish and the UK Government brought in measures to ensure that prisoners from other countries within the EU can be returned to their country of origin, either at the conclusion of their sentence or serve it there. That can only be beneficial to security and justice in Scotland. Figures suggest that the average extradition process takes 97 days for non-EU states that takes approximately 10 months. The European arrest warrant has led to the arrest of individuals responsible for sexual offences and murders in Scotland. We simply do not know what the impact of leaving the European Union will be on the UK's inclusion in a system that has been vital to returning criminals whose offences have impacted seriously on communities here in Scotland. As the Law Society briefing says, following a withdrawal from the EU, it is possible that, without the trust and mutual recognition between EU member states that underpins the European arrest warrant, the process for the surrender of individuals will be more expensive, complex and time consuming and would require a new treaty to underpin any alternative arrangements. Extradition proceedings would become more prolonged and, in custody cases, create significant additional costs. At the moment, there are no assurances that the legislative provisions that underpin those arrangements will remain in place or be replicated after Brexit, or how those offenders would be repatriated in the future. We also recognise the importance of being part of Europol, even more important as we consider the changing nature of crime with threats of organised crime, human trafficking, child sexual exploitation, cyber crime and terrorism. We are in the regrettable situation where we are urging the UK Government to accept a new European regulation by January to ensure continuing membership, while we also face restricted membership following Brexit. For all the reassurances from exiting the EU ministers, it is worrying when senior police officers warn that it will be more complex to achieve the same that they can achieve now after leaving the EU, when we would have a restricted membership of Europol and no influence over decision making. Rob Wainwright, the director of Europol, is currently held by a British officer, so his director of Europol has said that the UK could face becoming a second-tier member and that, alarmingly, our access to Schengen information system could be revoked, all of which will negatively impact on our ability to address human trafficking, among other issues. There is also the impact on civil justice matters, which is set to be significant. Rules on cross-border family law cases impact on divorce proceedings, custody cases, access judgments and maintenance support, all hugely important regulations for families affected by those issues and provide protection for children at risk of parental abduction. Another example, the taking of evidence regulations, simplifies rules for taking evidence in one country for direct use in another country. What will Brexit mean for all those areas at return to complex negotiations, the use of consular or diplomatic routes? Can we retain those mechanisms while no longer being a member? There must be clarity on those significant issues. Even before Brexit, the UK Government had indicated its wish to withdraw from the European Convention of Human Rights. Not every judgment of that court has been lauded in this chamber, but any objective analysis would show the conclude that the convention has been of enormous importance in securing and improving human rights across Europe and in indeed assisting the promotion of human rights across the world. The extraordinary decision of the Conservative Party that it wishes to end UK membership of the convention becomes all the more likely, as a result of Brexit, as membership was a condition of EU membership. It also shows just how far the Tories have regressed that they now wish to abandon an institution in which Winston Churchill played a key role in establishing. So much for the Tories' posturing as the party of law and order when a constitutional crisis resulting from their own internal party disputes, setens the future of European action on justice and security, ultimately putting our communities in Scotland at risk of being less safe, not safer. Crime knows no borders. It is increasingly international and serious. An organised crime in Scotland is often connected to activity not just across the UK but across Europe, too. It requires European Governments and justice agencies to work together to counter it, but the progress that has been made in this area through our membership of the EU can only be made harder and less effective by Brexit. We hear very little from the UK Government about how it will mitigate its impact, which is not good enough for communities across our country. They want to be safer from terrorism, safer from the actions of serious and organised criminals, have a legal system that recognises the international nature of personal relationships and business transactions, and one that can deliver justice swiftly. That is all being put at risk by leaving the EU. This is not a situation that has been created by the Scottish Government, but the cabinet secretary needs to continue to challenge the UK Government to protect the vital mechanisms that our justice system relies on. Their priority must be a deal that protects co-operation and the interests of us all, a deal that protects vulnerable people and maintains the UK's position as a partner in dealing with crime, and one that fully responds to the unique aspects of Scots law and its interwoven relationship with EU justice matters. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you. We now move to the open part of the debate and I call on Joan McAlpine to be followed by Margaret Mitchell. I am very pleased to be speaking today on this important topic. It is perhaps an aspect of Brexit that has not been given the attention to date that it merits, so I am pleased that the Government is highlighting it by bringing it to the chamber today. The Law Society of Scotland has submitted written evidence to the European Committee on the implications of Scotland leaving the EU for its members, their clients and the services that they provide. The society's submission outlines in stark plain language the scale of the challenge that the legal profession and its clients face. The cabinet secretary has already alluded to some of the aspects of law that the Law Society pointed to, and I would like to quote them in full. Civil justice, company law, competition law, consumer law, criminal law, employment law, environment law, equality law, family law, financial services, human rights law through the charter of fundamental rights, immigration law, intellectual property law, mental health and disability law. I expect others to focus in detail on aspects of national security and criminal law, as the cabinet secretary and others have already done, so I will not do that here today except to say that it is absolutely clear that the safety of our citizens is threatened if the extensive networks of co-operation on crime fighting, crime solving and intelligence gathering are damaged. I want to look at justice in so far as it relates to the European single market, which is so important to the prosperity of us all. In the realm of business, the Law Society points out that EU law has relevance for employers, for example working time directive and the posted workers directive. European law impacts on business innovation, a key building block of economic prosperity and inventors benefit, for example, from the European unitary patent. European law underpins the European single market, which the UK Government appears determined to leave. The law is designed to ensure fairness and equality for those operating in the market. Producers are protected with laws on food standards and environmental standards. Procures of services are protected by laws designed to prevent corruption and favouritism. Exporters of the common commercial policy, SMEs, as well as large corporations, have recourse to the late payments directive. Of course, a key aspect of the single market is the legal right to set up a business in another member state, an aspect of the acquired rights of European citizens that we are all apparently going to be stripped of when the great repeal axe falls. The helpful spice briefing for today's debate details a number of legal provisions in the Amsterdam Treaty of 1997, which are essential to the smooth functioning of the single market. For example, the insolvency regulation of 2002, which allows insolvency proceedings to be brought in most relevant member state. The 2008-09 Lisbon treaty rather took this further in under article 81. The EU is expected to develop judicial co-operation in civil and commercial matters with cross-border implications, particularly when it is necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market. Previous UK Governments clearly thought that this was of benefit to business, because even though they had the right to opt out of many justice aspects of Lisbon, the UK opted into the European small claims procedure, which means that businesses can apply for cross-border small claims. We now have the European enforcement and payment orders, which create a fast track procedure for the enforcement of cross-border orders for uncontested claims. Post Brexit, our businesses face real headaches with regard to dispute resolution. What will happen, for example, to the Rome 1 and Rome 2 regulations on law that are applicable to contractual and non-contractual obligations? The London law firm Slaughter in May produced a Brexit essentials briefing, which notes that post Brexit, the UK would have to replace European arrangements for disputes resolution or face the prospect of its courts judgments becoming less effective across Europe. If I could quote it briefly, it says, without a replacement, international parties might be persuaded to nominate an EU member state rather than the UK as the forum for their disputes if a pan-European judgment was important to them or alternatively switched to arbitration. The effect of Brexit on justice matters will have a direct and, I believe, a detrimental impact on Scotland's standing and influence. Scotland is a separate jurisdiction with a system of law that is as independent as any other nation in Europe. The treaty of union of 1707, as we all know, protects Scottish law, and our completely separate legal system with its own civil and criminal law, its own courts legal profession and prosecution services, a source of great pride. Of course, most police and criminal justice matters are dissolved, devolved, under the Scotland Act 1998. Because of its long-standing legal independence, Scottish legal institutions have a recognition in Brussels. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, to use one example, participates in the UK Government's Eurojust oversight board. Police Scotland has a presence at the Europol Liaison Office in The Hague. That was very well illustrated today by the cabinet secretary's description office trip to Europol in The Hague. Losing that recognition means a reduction in Scotland's international influence, one of the things that the First Minister has identified as a priority in her mission to protect Scotland's status in Europe. That is why I support the motion today. The development of European law has fundamentally been about collaboration between states and jurisdictions. In Scotland's case, that has enhanced the influence of our justice system and our standing as a country, albeit at one that is a sub-state of the United Kingdom. Scotland, in matters of justice, is already in many ways an independent country but one that collaborates effectively across borders thanks to EU structures. As the motion demands, we must have full involvement in all negotiations between the UK and the EU to protect our independent justice system and, crucially, all those individuals, organisations and businesses that depend on it functioning effectively. I know that we have quite a bit of time in hand, so I mean you can have open speeches of seven minutes now. Isn't that excellent news? Margaret Mitchell, who is followed by Fulton MacGregor, Ms Mitchell, please. Is your microphone on? Yes, it is. The motion seeks to assess the impact of Brexit on justice and security issues. Here it is important to stress at the outset that it would be complete folly and totally impractical for the UK, before article 50 has been formally initiated, to set out at this stage its negotiating position on any aspect of Brexit, including justice and security issues. This debate can serve little purpose other than providing a superficial assessment of the impact of Brexit on the various areas of security co-operation that exist between the UK and the EU at present. What we can be sure of is, as the Prime Minister has repeatedly stated, that there are going to be lengthy negotiations over the course of the two years and more. What the UK Government is going to do is deliver on the vote of the British people to leave the European Union, and it will be ambitious in its negotiations to negotiate the best deal for the British people. Also, what is not in doubt—if you allow me to make some progress, Mr Stevenson—is that it makes sense for EU states to continue to co-operate with the EU UK after we withdraw, because, quite simply, it is in their best interests to do so. In fact, it is for this very reason that EU states currently co-operate on operational law enforcement issues with countries outside the EU. Put another way, what do Albania, Australia, Canada, Colomba, FYR, Macedonia, Iceland, Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Monaco and the USA all have in common? Well, they are all non-EU countries with operational agreements with Europe. In fact, it is widely acknowledged that America has more officers at Europe than most EU member states. Frontex, the EU border, yes? Thank you. I thank the member for taking an intervention. Does she agree with David Armans, deputy director general of the national crime agency, who said that whatever measures we negotiate will be less of a solution or sub-optimal compared to the arrangements that we currently have with EU? Absolutely, I am not. Why should it be? We are in a new position. We are not following any deal that has been made with any other country. We already have those arrangements in place. Why should there be any less when we leave when it is in everyone's best interests to continue them? Frontex, the EU border agency, is another example of an EU agency that has a working relationship with no fewer than 17 non-EU states. It is in negotiation with a further seven non-EU states. Furthermore, despite the UK not being part of Schengen, it still co-operates with Frontex on issues such as human trafficking. Meanwhile, on a more routine basis, security co-operation is to be found in, for example, passenger name records for airlines, which are shared between the EU and countries such as the United States of America, Canada and Australia. Suffice to say that there is no shortage of ways non-EU states are at present co-operating with the EU on security issues, and that will continue to be the case post Brexit. Some argued during the EU referendum that their principal reason for voting remain was because they believed that the UK is safer within the EU rather than outside. However, that fails to take cognisance of the all-too-tragic recent events in Europe, which include the Paris bombings, the atrocities in Brussels and in Germany, the organised harassment of women in Cologne. All of that has taken place against a background off and interrelated with the migration crisis engulfing the EU. So, the unpalatable truth is... Mr MacGregor. I thank the member for taking intervention. I just wonder if the member would comment on the former director-general of MI5's claims that the UK being safer outside the EU are nonsensical and spurious. Margaret Mitchell. He's, of course, entitled to his opinion, but it's difficult to how he could reach that conclusion, given that the unpalatable truth is that Europe has lost control of its internal external borders and that that has provided the opportunity to answer Mr MacGregor's position point specifically. That has provided the opportunity for extremists and potential terrorists to hold EU passports. Presiding Officer, whilst the Scottish Government has wallowed in prediction of gloom and doom about every possible aspect of Britain leaving the EU, there are two obvious advantages of Brexit from a justice and security point of view. The first being the potential for the UK to take back control of its borders and the second is Eurojudges no longer being able to prevent the UK from deporting dangerous terrorists. Furthermore, the UK will remain a member of NATO, and as Major General Julian Thomson, who has spent more than three decades, I think has been very generous with interventions. You have time if you wish, but it's up to you. You don't know how much else I've got to say. I've still got plenty of time, but it's up to you. In that case, Ms Baker. Does the member recognise that much of what she's claiming this afternoon is just that. It's just claims and assertions. There are no guarantees on any of those issues around European membership or at European arrest warrants that she can give this afternoon, and that's exactly the point of the debate, because we're all hugely concerned about the impact that this will be. The member seems oblivious to those concerns. I agree to say that Clare Baker joins the SNP in her glass being continually half full. She seeks to find problems where none currently exists and there's no evidence that they will exist in the future. Furthermore, as I was saying, as Major General Julian Thomson, who has spent more than three decades in the Royal Marines and Commanded British Forces in the Falklands conflict, pointed out the benefits of being a member of NATO far outweith those of being a member of the EU. In terms of defence against terrorists, he states that information sharing between the security services of the Anglosphere and the Alliance between the UK, US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is particularly beneficial for UK security, due to the trust established over decades of working with their agencies. However, in addition to the sharing of tactical intelligence, it can be also brought forward with EU countries and established on a case-to-case basis. In conclusion, according to the UK's former intelligence chief, Sir Richard Deere Love, the UK currently provides more intelligence to the EU than it gets back. To quote Sir Richard, given Britain is Europe's leader in intelligence and security matters and gives much more than it gets in return, it's difficult to imagine any of the other EU members ending the relationship that they already enjoy with the UK. You'd be forgiven for thinking that this is cease to be the Parliament of Scotland if the Conservative amendment is anything to go by. Let me remind Douglas Ross and his colleagues that the Parliament is here to represent the people of Scotland first, last and always. The people of Scotland spoke loud and clear that we want to remain part of the European Union, dare I say it, remain means remain. Over the past few months, since the referendum, the lack of a plan from the UK Government for Brexit has been quite astounding. It has become increasingly likely that the UK Government's lack of preparation is going to result in Scotland being dragged out of the EU with a hard Brexit. The Prime Minister can repeat Brexit means Brexit over and over again, but if the day comes that Scotland ceases to be a member of the EU, we need to know that every possible action to protect the interests of the Scottish people has been taken. I am grateful to Fulton MacGregor. Would Fulton MacGregor accept that Scotland is not a member of the EU and that it is in fact the UK that is a member? Fulton MacGregor. I thank the member for the question. Scotland is known to be a country and, as a country, we voted to remain. That is what this Government and this Parliament are trying to respect. That means that the Prime Minister must engage in constructive dialogue with the Scottish Government and Scottish Ministers and must be involved in negotiations with the EU. Over the past few months, the message from the Prime Minister and the UK Government is that they have no interest in listening to the Scottish Government and I therefore welcome the renewed commitment from the First Minister that she will do whatever it takes to protect Scotland's interests. Presiding Officer, there are not many areas as important as justice for any Parliament to discuss and it is crucial that Scotland's voice is heard during the Brexit negotiations. Scotland has always had an independent justice system, as other members have said, and there must be measures in place to ensure that the security of Scotland post-Brexit. It is of deep concern to me that the current arrangements between law enforcement agencies in Scotland and the rest of the EU are under threat. We regularly see the successes of those agencies in tackling organised crime, particularly surrounding child sexual exploitation, human trafficking and cybercrime. I was glad to hear Mr Ross mention the work of the crime camp in Gartcosh, which is in my constituency. Just this year, Police Scotland was involved in an operation with the Romanian authorities to halt an operation of trafficking of individuals for sexual exploitation, resulting in eight victims being taken into care and the arrest of those involved. It is imperative that Scotland continues to be involved in detecting and stopping large-scale cross-border criminal activity. Douglas Ross mentioned Interpol, and that is an important part of maintaining Scotland's security. I am left wondering, despite what Margaret Mitchell had said, whether his proposal to amend the Government motion to remove any mention of Interpol is, indeed, an acceptance from the Conservative Party that, unless stopped, the hard Brexit policy will see an end to the UK and Scotland's co-operation in combating cross-border crime. Ms Baker alluded to those concerns as well. The ability to share information quickly and coordinate operations with other law enforcement agencies using Interpol is key to detecting, disrupting and detaining criminals throughout Europe. I want to briefly touch on the European arrest warrant. There is a great risk that exit from the EU will result in this fantastic system being unavailable to police and prosecutors in Scotland. That will result in an increase in cost and time in bringing criminals to justice. There is also the impact on victims of crime who will be subjected to months or years of uncertainty. The Prime Minister must take her head out of the sand and start discussing the serious issues. There have been no meaningful plans outlined by her Government and to date, and the sand seems to know more than anyone else about the Brexit plans. Those concerns are very real and entirely justified and have felt the length and breadth of Scotland. The Prime Minister must now invite Scottish ministers to be fully involved in all discussions and negotiations. Thank you very much. It is always the case that Ms McGrath with time enhanced speeches get shorter. I do not know why. Jenny Marra has been followed by John Finnie, Ms Marra. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to start this afternoon by saying that I do not belittle the importance of Brexit and its consequences. Indeed, it is one of the biggest political issues of our time. The continual debates in this chamber since the vote on 23 June, I agree that Douglas Ross is taking focus from issues that are pertinent to our communities and the effect that the cuts are having up and down this country. As I stand here today, there is a debate going on in one of the communities in Dundee about the closure of a local police station that has been admitted and is driven by a cost savings agenda and is going to take police officers out of that very community that they have served for years. I would beseech the Government today that once its programme of these debates has ended, we will get back on to the bread-and-butter issues that members in this chamber are very keen to discuss. I think that citizens of this country want to hear us discussing too. I would like to turn to the tabled motion and amendments this afternoon. What is most striking for me from the Conservative amendment is the list of organisations that the Conservatives are keen to rely on for intelligence. They have cited NATO, the Five Eyes Intelligence Network. While I do not belittle the importance of those agencies in our security and crime agenda, I have to say that the list seems very weak and lacking without the mention of Europol and the incredible work that it does. What is clear today—yesh? Douglas Ross? I thank Jenny Marra for taking an intervention. I will re-read carefully what she was saying about NATO being very weak. However, would she concede that I fully mentioned Europol and the implications for what the Government is planning to do and the announcement to the UK Government as part of my speech? It is not as if we ignored it. Jenny Marra? If Douglas Ross cares to read the official report, he will find that I did not say that. I said that the list seems weak without Europol mention because it plays a central role in crime prevention in this country. He only needs to speak to the crime prevention agencies on this country that are working on child protection, human trafficking and prevention of internet pedophilia to learn exactly that. What is clear today is that hard decisions on Brexit are coming downstream faster than perhaps we could have anticipated. January next year, in just a few weeks' time, the UK Government must indicate if it is willing to accept a new regulation on Europol. In simple terms, we need to decide whether we ask to continue with the Europol system that has, to date, evolved to be more and more crucial, I believe, in European police and co-operation and in preventing and tackling cross-border crime. It is only about three years since I sat, I think, you were there too, in a committee room upstairs at the human trafficking summit organised by the Scottish Government and the Lord Advocate, listening to a key contribution from Europol on how Scotland would take its anti-human trafficking efforts forward. They are absolutely integral to the work that the human trafficking unit of Police Scotland is undertaking at the moment. We all know that human trafficking is a cross-border crime, with cross-border policing and prevention operations becoming more and more important, and ceasing that work and those networks will only let cross-border criminal networks thrive with the structure for a co-ordinated response destroyed. That was one of the many reasons that I voted to remain in the European Union, and it is one of the reasons that I believe that the UK Parliament must and should have a vote on the Brexit negotiations. The voters' wishes across the UK must be respected, but I believe that we must extricate ourselves from the EU with the best arrangements for our citizens at the end of that negotiation. Security and crime, time and time again, have always been one of the top priorities of our citizens. That is why I am pleased to see that Michael Matheson has been to the Hague to find out more about Europol operations and Scotland's place in those operations. The European Counterterrorism Centre, the European Migrant Smuggling Centre and the European Cyber Crime Centre—all centres that are established at Europol—are crucial to Scottish crime prevention and detecting. Just before the referendum this year, Europol assisted Police Scotland and the Romanian Police to dismantle a Romanian organised crime network involved in the trafficking of Romanian victims here to Scotland for sexual exploitation. Europol also supports the effective operation of the European arrest warrant. As colleagues have already articulated in the chamber this afternoon, the European arrest warrant is crucial in Scotland. Police Scotland has arrested 301 offenders according to the figures that I read, while 43 offenders have been returned to Scotland to face justice. That traffic in both directions makes citizens safer through those arrangements. I would like to finish by referring to John McAlpine. I thank the member for taking an intervention. I think that she raises some very important points there in her speech. Does she agree that it is what she has just told us about illustrates why it is important for us to debate the subject in the Parliament today? Jenny Marra, I believe that it is important to debate this, but, as I said at the start, I think that it was perfectly clear to Mr McAlpine and everyone else what I said, that we are having continual debates on this and we must balance that properly with also debating the issues that are current in our communities. If I can finish, Presiding Officer, if time permits, to refer to the amendment from my colleague Claire Baker. I think that it is one of the most important amendments that are laid in those debates, because there is a clear need for a full analysis of the impact of leaving the EU on Scotland's independence justice system, to protect, and Claire Baker said this herself, against any unforeseen consequences and to fully inform the negotiation process. As we all know, Scotland's justice system in Scots law is unique. It will take specific consideration in the Brexit negotiations, so it is only right that the preparatory work is done in advance by the Scottish Government to mitigate any surprises and unforeseen consequences. Loopholes in the law are not something that we want to discover months or years out from the Brexit negotiations, so this work needs to happen now to prevent that, and I am very happy to support our amendment. John Finnie, to be followed by Gil Paterson. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I think that it is very important to debate this. Justice, as we have heard from Jenny Marra, is a top priority for our citizens, and I think that it is the obligation that is placed on any state. However, it is configured as to provide security—the seat of the security of its citizens and provide justice for it. The key to that is collaborative working, and that is what the European project was about. It was about collaborative working, and it was not to set aside the unique nature of Scots law, it was the mix that was important. It is certainly my view that the clear motivation for the European Union referendum was disengagement from that approach, and it is certainly my view that that has led to alienation and, in some respects, disrespect for the United Kingdom and my default Scotland. I think that it has put security at risk. I think that it has been gesture politics, and we continue to hear gesture politics, but we have been there before, and I think that it is only the cabinet secretary who briefly alluded to this, where, just before when it came to the question of the Lisbon treaty, which was agreed in 2009, there was a final decision required by the United Kingdom to be taken no later than 31 May 2014, and that was on 133 justice police co-operation measures. There was quite a convoluted process that was involved in that, but nonetheless, there was a five-year window following the Lisbon treaty—an ample opportunity for the UK Government to engage with the devolved Administrations in whether to exercise the blocked opt-out, because arrangements post-Lisbon were that you could come in on an individual basis, but in advance of the measures agreed in advance of the Lisbon agreement, you had to exercise a blocked opt-out. The important thing there was that, despite letters as far on as April and August 2012 from Scottish ministers, there was very little action, and it was very clear that the Scottish Government's position was that some elements that were, and part of that pre-2009 agreement, were defunct and had limited impact. However—and it is the big, however—there were some very significant measures, and those have been continually alluded to, there were the investigation of cross-border crimes, bringing serious and organised criminals to justice, the European arrest warrant, where the experience in Scotland has been entirely positive. What is at risk if we do not have that? I will miss out the names, but examples that were given to us about that time in the Justice Committee, so Presiding Officer, and indeed my colleague Margaret Mitchell, who will be familiar with that, we heard instances of a murder. The individual was arrested within a day of the extradition request being issued, returned swiftly to Scotland. Importantly, the warrant allowed the seizure of clothing and other property before it could be destroyed, affecting the evidential value, and it led to successful prosecution. As I am sure that colleagues on the other side will say, yes, with that, yes indeed. Grateful to John Finnie for taking an intervention. I would join with him in support for the European arrest warrant, but he did say that it had been wholly successful. Even as somebody who supports the European arrest warrant, I think that there have been some legitimate concerns raised about the proportionality test for those extraditions. I think that that is an area where further work will be needed to be done, without detracting from the support, quite rightly, that is given to the warrant itself. John Finnie. Thank you. It is an interesting point that the member makes, but, of course, if it is at the numbers gain, it has to be seen that it is 5 million versus the entire population of the remainder of you, so it does look disproportionate. The important thing there is that it was the speed and efficiency with which this was undertaken. Another example that was given to us as a similar measure was a violent attack and a murder in 2012, where the individual was arrested within five hours of the issue of the arrest warrant through the European arrest warrant system, but also, and importantly, by direct contact between the Scottish and Polish authorities under the European judicial network. It is not simply the police operations, which are very important for all the reasons that we have heard, but it is also the value of co-operation at judicial and prosecutorial level. There was support from the Scottish ministers, the police, the prosecutors, legal professional academics, House of Lords, the European Union Select Committee inquiry, that took views that the benefits of opting out of a defunct or ineffective pre-lysbon measure did not justify the risk of losing those measures that are essential to tackling cross-border crime. I think that the most telling aspect of what we learnt from that when you indeed presiding officer was that the convener of the justice committee was that the UK ministers did not consult with Scottish ministers or the Scottish justice agencies on that. Although ultimately 35 of the measures were opted back into, I would hate to think that that is a model that we are about to see again. If we did that, that would certainly be bad news for law enforcement, the judicial network, our civil law or contractual laws with head, but it would be very good news for those who would seek to circumvent the laws, most commonly criminals. The benefits of the European arrest warrant are well understood. The issue of taking evidence, I think, was issued by my colleague Claire Baker. Again, there are developments in that, both within this jurisdiction and elsewhere, and there are opportunities that could be lost. The Law Society briefing, and I am grateful to them, talked about the stability in law. They said, that the primary objective of judicial security and the police co-operation is the safety of the citizen. As a guiding principle, there should be no change to the law that would prejudice the safety and security of the individual. We quite simply do not know where we are in a position at the moment where there are lots of guessing taking place. Again, back to Lisbon, the concern there was, if that had not been concluded in time, that we needed reassurance in Scotland about the potential gap in legislation. I think that there is a big gap that is potentially opening up there. It is certainly the position of the Scottish Green Party that will be supporting the Labour Party amendment, because we think that it is very important that there is this analysis. It is also very important that we consider the issue of transitional arrangements. In any piece of legislation, you can agree—you know what has happened in the past, you can maybe agree what is going to happen in the future—it is the transition that is going to be where all the complexity is. It is certainly the position of the Scottish Green Party that will support the Scottish Government's efforts in ensuring the following for the people living in Scotland. That is the democratic wishes to be respected. They have access to a quality legal system that is co-operating with others, and that their security is assured, and that is best achieved by conflict resolutions. We believe that all those have been put at risk by Tory recklessness. I must say that I am a bit disappointed that Jenny Marra suggested that when it comes to this Parliament that we should not be discussing Brexit and we should leave it to the Tories. That is what I took from it. Members, if you want to take an intervention, I think that it is better otherwise what you are saying is not on the record. You are having a weak conversation to the air. Will the member take an intervention? Of course he will. I am sitting down for you. Jenny Marra. I thank the member for giving way. If he reads the official report, he will discover that that is not what I said. I said that it is perfectly, legitimate and important for the Scottish Parliament to be discussing Brexit. I said that it is one of the most important political issues of our time. I said that they need to balance that with issues that are affecting our communities every day up and down this country. Mr Paterson, I thank you for your contribution. I thought that your speech was otherwise very good, but it came across to me that we should be sitting down and letting the big boys and girls get on with us. I think that I would like to start by setting the scene and quoting a part of the Tory amendment. The members on my left are asking this Parliament to acknowledge the vote to leave the EU. Let us get one thing clear, while this Scottish Parliament acknowledges the result of the people of Scotland voting to remain. I will not be acknowledging any time soon a vote to leave the EU, while in this chamber. I am sure that there will be a lot of people worried that Mr Paterson does not recognise the result, but will he agree that it was a fair democratic decision across the United Kingdom that the question was should the United Kingdom leave the European Union, and, while Scotland voted to remain, there were constituencies in which I resided, Mr Stevenson, such as Murray, where the vote was very close—122 votes difference between remain and leave. Therefore, the simple picture that Mr Paterson and his colleagues painted is not quite true for all of Scotland. Mr Paterson. I think that the point that I am making is that here we were before the referendum and, of course, the Tories were out, they are telling us all to remain. It seems to me that you are very quick at doing the surrender speeches and hoising the white flag in that regard. You became complete converse to Brexit, in my view. Presiding Officer, thanks to the members on my left, once more putting their party disunity before the best interests of the people. Scotland faces uncertain times and that includes our distinct justice system and also the wider way that we engage with other EU members in regards to security. I find it interesting that the Tories want to protect a union but equally ignore the act in which the union was formed. The United Kingdom is meant to be a union between Scotland and England and it is right that, regardless of what one of those equal partners says, its views, its democratic will should be considered and not ignored. Despite all the promises made in 2014 by the independence reverendums and that a no vote was the only way for Scotland to remain part of the EU, Scotland now faces the very real prospect of being removed from the EU against our will. Like others, justice and parts of the security are devolved under the Scotland Act and the implications of the Brexit process very much means that Scotland cannot be treated as a simple consultee or stakeholder. The powers that this Parliament has will be affected and, as I mentioned earlier, we are meant to be equal partners. It needs to be highlighted that this Government and our justice agencies are working within the restrictive security powers of this Parliament. With our current powers and the new powers, there will always be that ceiling that this Parliament cannot go beyond. The powers above that ceiling are, in my view, the ones that will ultimately unlock Scotland's potential in engaging with the European international partners, allowing this Government and this Parliament to make decisions to ensure that all our foreign justice and security policies are aligned to support the objective that we have for Scotland outwardly, looking and prosperous. We have a unique and independent justice system, and if Scotland is not formally part of the negotiation process in order to put forward our concerns to the wider EU, then our interests in those matters may not be fully protected. With the invent of the internet, the speed of globalisation and all forms of transport being on our doorstep, it has never been more imperative that Scotland works as part of the wider EU community in order to fight crime and protect our citizens. As part of the EU, the UK is a member of Europeall, and Scotland's police and justice agencies work co-operatively with other member states working on such vital operations such as combating human trafficking, child sexual exploitation and cyber crime. When criminals are identified, Europeall, on behalf of us, all issued the European arrest warrants, which has brought about arrest by Police Scotland to 301 offenders, with 43 being returned to Scotland to face justice. It is my understanding that, under new arrangements, the UK was until 2017 to accept a new regulation, and failure to do so would remove the UK and Scotland's membership of Europeall. I do not need to tell members how to share, of course. Would the member care to tell the chamber with how many non-EU countries does Europeall have co-operation arrangements? Gil Paterson. I am sure that you are going to tell me, because I am not going to kid you on and say that I know what it is. I do not need to tell members how disastrous that would be for information sharing in some of the most serious crimes. If the Prime Minister will not listen to this elected Scottish Parliament to end this uncertainty, maybe she will listen to the member of Edinburgh Central. In conclusion, the Scottish Government has a duty to respond to the democratic wishes of the people of Scotland and will take all possible steps to protect Scotland's interests. If we find that our interests cannot be protected in a UK context, independence must be one of those options that Scotland must have the right to consider. I commend the cabinet secretary's motion to the Parliament. I call Liam McArthur to follow by Gordon Lindhurst. I start by associating myself with the remarks of Douglas Ross in relation to PC Lawson and Fitzsimmons and Echo's comments in relation to wishing them a speedy recovery. I participated in my first weekly debates on Brexit last week. Now I have the second opportunity in as many weeks. As I suggested in the debate last week on the environment and climate change, I did so willingly and enthusiastically, but I think that Jenny Marra made this point reasonably in her remarks. Against the backdrop of no lack of issues in the wider justice and policing field that are unrelated to Brexit, there must be the focus of our attention. A week goes by without further concerns being raised around the situation that Police Scotland finds itself in since the centralisation of that force. The courts and judicial system are clearly under real pressure, and as the Justice Committee heard last week, not helped by the Scottish Government's decision to close sheriff courts. Tomorrow, we will turn our attention in this chamber to the Offensive Behaviour Football Act 2018, a blunt rushed piece of legislation that, in my view, the Government is showing insufficient respect for this Parliament for civil liberties or the complexity of an issue where it has taken its eye off the ball. However, that is not to diminish in any way the challenges that are presented by the Brexit vote. As I did last week, I attribute the lion's share of the blame to the Tory party for their failure to deal with internal dissension in that party. I feel that it is a decision that was both inward looking and a backward step. I thought that Clare Baker made a very valid point in relation to the debate leading up to the Brexit vote that was tarnished by the focus on immigration. Regrettably, for someone whom I have the utmost respect, Margaret Mitchell was endangered at times of reprising some of the argumentation that we heard in that debate. For the record, it should be recalled that the 77 bombers were British citizens. The bombers in Paris and Nice were French and Belgian citizens. It reminded me of a quote from Professor Malcolm Anderson, the emeritus professor of politics at Edinburgh University. He said, There is a significant difference between being secure and feeling secure. Although people may feel more secure if we take back control of our borders and have British border police checking all foreigners coming into the UK, their security may in reality be better protected by the free movement of persons in an EU that can join to closer co-operation between police and security forces in partner countries. Turning to the concerns that have been raised, I do not think that anybody disputes and I think that it is implicit in the Tory amendment this afternoon, that one of the areas where closer co-operation collaboration has and should continue to work is injustice and policing. I thought the excellent spice briefing was striking and demonstrating the incremental nature in which co-operation has been built, which is highly appropriate in such a sensitive area for public assurances. It is needed in publicly reflecting the point that John Finnie made about seeking collaboration and co-operation, an area where there are very distinct legal systems being brought together. Looking ahead, there is a lack of clarity about what precisely Brexit will mean and how, if at all, this can be salvaged through new agreements of falling back on other existing treaties. To my mind, it does seem to me to open up uncertainty, delay and obstacles that are wholly unnecessary in return for little or no benefit. Turning to the specifics in terms of policy and criminal justice and policing, I do think that collaboration has allowed mutual recognition of criminal judgments and judicial decisions, providing the underpinning for the European arrest warrant referred to by others. I think that, again referring back to the conversation earlier with John Finnie, what I was not talking about was proportionality in terms of numbers, but more proportionality in terms of the threshold so that the threshold is triggering extradition, possibly from the UK to other member states, to some have appeared lower than they are the other way round. I think that that is something worthy of further discussion. John Finnie. Thank you, Presiding Order. I am grateful for the member who has taken intervention. Yes, I do understand and recognise that, but, again, that just further evidences the need for dialogue and co-operation on an international basis. I thank John Finnie for that intervention, with which I wholeheartedly agree. That collaboration has allowed the exchange of information between law enforcement agencies and judicial bodies. I think that what, at best, we are being promised is a restricted access to Europol and Eurojust. For the exchange of intelligence, the assessment of risk and the joint action to combat the threat of serious and organised cross-border crime, as well as terrorism, I do not think that it is best served by the route that we are going down at the present time. Turning to civil justice, again, I think that that collaboration and co-operation has allowed a determination of which courts—member state courts—have jurisdiction over a civil or commercial case. In instances of cross-border family law, which are increasingly characteristic, reflecting the make-up of our societies in the 21st century, it allows for a determination of which court is responsible for divorce, custody and access, ensures recognition and enforcement of decisions in other countries, and, again, as Claire Baker intimated, allows some sort of redress where partners take a child across-border against the wishes of another partner. It also allows rules around maintenance to be agreed. In terms of commercial law, again, it streamlines and speeds up the process around insolvency and small claims. Nothing of what has been promised to date by the UK Government seems to offer anything like as good a deal. UK citizens hold out the prospect of no longer being protected by decisions of the European Court of Justice. I recognise that this has been a bit of a bet noir for many in the right-wing press and politicians alike, but it is a bullwork and has been a bullwork in safeguarding the rights of EU citizens against an overwieldy state in recent decades. In conclusion, I think that the spice briefing quite fairly recognises Scotland's separate legal system and all that entails. It means that specific Scottish issues will arise in relation to negotiations with the EU in the field of justice. That needs to be acknowledged. I think that it needs to be respected and reflected in what now follows post-vote in June. As I said earlier, there are no lack of issues in urgent need of addressing with regards to justice and policing in Scotland. Hopefully, we will have an opportunity to turn to those in due course. Dealing with the mess created by the failure of the Tories to deal with divisions in their own party is something that we could have well done without. However, in the context of where we find ourselves now, I am happy to confirm that Scottish-level Democrats support the terms of this motion and the amendment in the name of Clare Baker before us this afternoon. Deputy Presiding Officer, today we find ourselves yet again debating the potential consequences for Scotland, supposedly due to imminent departure from the European Union. I have previously mentioned in the chamber the stated objective of Police Scotland to continue protecting the Scottish public irrespective of the politics being played out. I welcome preparatory action announced by Assistant Chief Constable Steve Johnson of Police Scotland ahead of the start of formal negotiations on those matters. There will no doubt be areas of discussion during those negotiations between the EU member states and the UK Government. Justice and security is an area in which the UK, including Scotland, is particularly strong. Not only that, but the issues at stake are not negotiable. It is people's lives and wellbeing rather than tariffs and trade. It is, always has been and will continue to be in the interests of all sides to adopt a reasonable and responsible approach in the months and years ahead. Security is one area where cooperation spans borders. Threats to Europeans have come into very sharp focus in the recent past. That was already mentioned by my colleague Margaret Mitchell. The UK's familiarity with counterterrorism goes back decades now to the extent that we have security services that are the envy of the world. Of course, countries today do not always work on their own given modern-day trends where terrorists disregard geographical limits and operate in cyberspace. However, and as Richard Walton, former head of the Metropolitan Police Service counterterrorism command pointed out just after the EU referendum, our security does not depend on engaging with the institution of the EU. Rather, the EU institutions and their agencies are but one platform from which information sharing takes place, and the practice will still continue outwith its structure. The EU member states depend upon the vital information that UK agencies pass on to keep other EU citizens safe. My colleague Margaret Mitchell already quoted from that particularly striking comment by Richard Dierlove, who ran MI6 from 1999 to 2004, and the quote continued. If a security source in Germany learns that a terrorist attack is being planned in London, the Bundesamt for Fassingschütz is certainly not going to withhold the intelligence from MI5 simply because the UK is not an EU member. I would ask my parliamentary colleagues to give our European allies some credit for reasonableness and intelligent thought on matters. They are not simply going to refuse to discuss matters on a reasonable basis. John Finnie? Would the member accept that history has peppered with lots of instances where the difficulties that have arisen have been because security services have not shared information, notably the United States? Mr Lindhurst. The member makes a very good point. That is something that has happened, of course, even within our own country, even within the United Kingdom, even within Scotland. I think that that is something that has carried on in spite of whatever efforts have been made to ensure proper information sharing, but I take his point that it is very important that security services do share information, and that should and no doubt will continue. If I might carry on, let us bear this matter in mind when we consider other areas of crime and justice as well. As a result of the establishment of the principle of freedom of movement, member states have co-operated more fully in justice matters. For example, what has already been mentioned, the European arrest warrant. If we look at its use in Scotland, we see that in 2015, for example, there were 78 extraditions from Scotland under an EAW and the conclusion of court proceedings, but only nine took place into Scotland in the same year. Whether or not the UK remains party to the EAW post-Brexit may or may not be a matter for discussion, but it is clear that co-operation to expedite extraditions for criminals who have crossed borders is as much a priority for the EU member states, if not more so, than it is for Scotland. In areas that the UK has opted into, including in civil justice, negotiations will no doubt take place as to how matters develop going forward. Scotland, with a different legal system, as has already been noted, than the rest of the UK, may be affected differently and will be involved, as it always has been, in adding its voice to the discussions. The Scottish Government has previously noted its backing for the mutual recognition of court judgments, but it has also been supportive of UK opt-outs on justice and home affairs measures which it considered would not have correctly translated into Scotland's private law. Scare mongering, as to the consequences of Brexit on the judicial system in Scotland, is entirely premature. The European Union is not a nation state. It relies upon the already existing, pre-existing and continuing to exist national legal systems such as the system that we have in Scotland. That will not change when we leave the EU. Leaving the EU will of itself not alter one of the many acts of Parliament or regulations which have effectively transposed EU rules or regulations into our law. Deputy Presiding Officer, let me conclude by saying that there may be much work to be done in the negotiations on leaving the EU, but the UK and Scotland add a great deal of value in the area of justice and security. I am certain that EU member states will both recognise that and the moral imperative of working together to keep our people safe irrespective of the political setup through which we relate to each other. Of course, as a witness said, giving evidence to the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee today, we are in danger of becoming obsessed with Brexit. Meantime, the nationalist Government sits there gripped by Brick-Cytus. However, I do retain hope for the SNP as hope indeed springs eternal. I want to touch upon a couple of comments that have been made by other members. Douglas Ross, in his opening comments, spoke about being right and just seven months later. He was complaining about the number of EU debates in the chamber. Liam McArthur touched upon that number of debates as did Jenny Marra. However, I am quite sure that one debate a week is not overly excessive. I do not imagine that anybody could accuse the Scottish Government of being overly excessive with having one debate a week. Certainly, in terms of any other debate that takes place in the chamber, it is entirely up to the members themselves as to what issues they want to raise. If they want to introduce an EU element into their contribution, that is a matter for them to tell up to them. However, having one debate a week, I do not think that it can be considered to be overly excessive. I will take Mr McArthur, who he was in first. Douglas Ross, which one is it? Sorry. No, it was Liam McArthur. Thank you very much for the recount. I hear what Stuart McMillan is saying, and expressed that it perhaps does not sound unreasonable. However, in an agenda that has three sitting days where the number of debates in total has been relatively limited, the proportion of Brexit debates that we have had has been significant. That does not diminish the importance of the issues that we are discussing, but over the course of the last eight weeks since we returned after the summer recess, the passage of time and the issues that we have not had an opportunity to debate as a result, given the dominance that the Government has in determining the Parliament's agenda, I think that it is perhaps getting to the point where— Can I just say that that is getting to the point where it is more of a speech than an intervention, Mr McArthur? No, no, do not get up again. Please, no, please sit down. I thought you said that we had planned your time down, please sit down. I was in the interest of helping. Always, but still it was more of a speech than an intervention. Mr McMillan. Thank you. I quite enjoyed Mr McArthur's speech, but not a bit. I think that we will have to agree to disagree on that particular point, Mr McArthur, but I am quite sure that the population of Scotland, if they felt as if that this Parliament was not considering the implications of Scotland and the UK leaving the EU, whether it is on this particular issue of justice or whether it is on any other issue, I am quite sure that the population of Scotland would be rather angry and very disappointed and, no doubt, we as politicians and also this Parliament would be laughed out of court by many people across Scotland. I think that it is imperative that this Parliament has the opportunity to discuss the full implications and full range of implications of Scotland leaving the EU. It is also an opportunity for members to put matters and put issues on the record so that the Scottish Government and the UK Government can consider those issues, particularly when it comes to the negotiations that are going to take place for us to leave the EU later on. However, there is no doubt that Brexit will have differing impacts throughout the UK, which, as we know, is a multi-jurisdictional state. In Scotland, there will be a specific impact on justice, and the UK, as the EU member state, is the entity that signs up to both EU treaties and individual EU justice measures. However, Scotland has always had a separate legal system within the UK with its own civil and criminal law, as well as its own courts, legal profession, police forces and prosecution service. In addition, most police and criminal justice matters are devolved under the Scotland Act 1998 and are in most aspects of civil law. Since Scotland has a separate legal system, specific Scottish issues will arise in relation to negotiations with the EU in the field of justice. Safeguarding an independent justice system demands that Scotland is involved in all negotiations between the UK Government and the EU to ensure that there is not just a consultee. It is currently unclear what the consequences of Brexit are going to be. Much will depend on the outcome of the future negotiations. Consequently, by their nature, current reaction to the decision to leave the EU may involve elements of speculation and are also subject to change. Although there are differences of opinion, there are arguments that new arrangements have the potential to be more complicated, expensive and also tank-consuming than the existing regime. There are also important questions as to what Scotland's role will be in the process, given that Scotland has its own legal system with its own civil and criminal law, as well as its own courts, legal profession, prosecution services and police force. Although the Scottish Government does not have international relations powers that would rule out international treaties with the EU, it is permitted to observe and implement international obligations, including under EU law. In an earlier contribution, Claire Baker stated that crime knows no borders. It is a fact that every single member in this chamber needs to recognise. It appears likely that Brexit will have a vast impact in relation to the remaining areas of EU police and criminal justice policy, such as mutual recognition of judgments, exchange of information and participation in EU agencies, as regards the EU agencies that UK can enter into agreements to co-operate with Europol and NeuroGist, such as other non-EU countries. However, as the director of Europol, Rob Wainwright, has recently made clear that such agreements do not allow the UK to have direct access to databases, to lead investigation teams or to take part in the management of those agencies. We must remember that both Europol and NeuroGist have had British directors. The importance of the exchange of information and intelligence was recently stressed by Assistant Chief Constable Steve Johnson, who was responsible for organised crime and counter-terrorism in Police Scotland. We have also heard of various examples today by members of how that co-operation across the EU has helped Scotland and helped justice. Europol plays an important role in helping to keep our citizens safe from organised crime, terrorism and helps to make our communities safer places to live and work. The European arrest warrant is an essential tool in the fight against crime and terrorism in the EU. More than 500 cases have been heard in Scottish courts as a result of the European arrest warrant since 2011, and it has also seen nearly 400 people extradited from Scotland to face courts in Europe. That is a perfect example of working together with our friends and allies in Europe, which helps to keep us safer, and that that has been put at risk thanks to the irresponsible actions of the Tory Government. It is really unacceptable. Those who used the Paris and Brussels attacks to claim that Brexit is safer and that it is not just populist in the worst way, are just plain wrong. Internal security is not only linked to shing and borders. The attacks in Paris in November 2015 and Brussels in March 2016 were carried out by European terrorists and all the European passports. The main problem that Europe has to face right now is internal. To protect our own security, we should work on the prevention of radicalisation and the recruitment of European citizens by terrorist organisations and closing the borders of the UK even tighter. We will not change anything. In a globalised world where capital, humans and merchandise can go nearly anywhere, it is not feasible to fight alone. All security experts agree that we need to go towards a systematic exchange of information. Our secret services need to work hand-in-hand with each other. Rob Wain writes that the director of Europol confirmed that the UK would be more vulnerable to attacks and organised crimes if Brexit were to happen. Access to databases from Europol, the participation of Eurodact, the passenger names record, all of those are tools used under European law in countries that are not members of the EU can contribute with a system of opting in, but no one can answer that for certain. It remains a blurry issue and obscured by uncertainty about post-Brexit terms. The UK Government must confirm that it will do everything it can to ensure that this vital cross-border co-operation and law in order continues. In conclusion, the Scottish Government has a duty to respond to the democratic wishes of the people of Scotland and will take all possible steps to protect Scotland's interests. We must also keep all our options open, which means exploring in the first instance options that would allow different parts of the multinational UK to pursue different outcomes. Lewis MacDonald, to be followed by Liam Kerr. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. There are a few better examples of how the European Union has changed and developed in recent years than in the field of justice and security. The EU began life as a customs union, a free trade area that grew into a single market. Its focus was, at first, an economic one. However, as Joan McAlpine said, for a single market covering so many separate jurisdictions to work, the need for a common approach by law courts in those jurisdictions to an ever-wider range of issues quickly became clear. Once that was acknowledged, it made sense to develop ever greater judicial co-operation, not only on issues affecting trade and investment, but increasingly across the field of civil law. The very real threats that are faced by all European countries, mentioned by many members today since the turn of the millennium, have made the case for co-operation on policing and criminal justice—an unarguable one in fighting international crime and terrorism, in particular. Membership of the European Union, as opposed to talking to them from outside, allows an even closer degree of partnership working among police forces in EU member states than working through Interpol alone. That is bad news for criminals and it is good news for law enforcement. Likewise with Eurojust, which co-ordinates the work of prosecuting authorities, as the cabinet secretary said, across boundaries, to a degree that simply does not happen with other countries outwith the EU. Most obviously, of all the European arrest warrant, which transcends national boundaries in order to catch and return fugitives from justice to stand trial in the country from which they have fled, far more quickly, as John Finnie gave some very good examples, and, as Clare Baker showed, far more quickly than extradition agreements with other countries around the world. All of those are other areas of co-operation, which were supported by every party of government in both Scotland and the UK before the Brexit referendum. All those areas remain in the national interest today. It is deeply concerning that ministers in the current Tory Government have not yet signed up to the new powers that are already agreed for Europe due to come into force in May next year. As long as we are in the European Union, we should surely take advantage of its benefits on co-operation across the police forces of Europe. If nothing else, I hope that the Scottish Tory Party will support that sign-up today and use that opportunity to urge its colleagues elsewhere to take the necessary steps to maintain full membership of Europe for as long as we are members of the EU. I am sorry that Douglas Ross is not in the chamber at the moment, because he was keen to tell us that the UK minister is about to make a statement on this issue shortly. I hope that either he or one of his colleagues will tell us today that they want that UK minister to stand up in the House of Commons and pledge to sign up to the new powers for Europe in order that we can enjoy those benefits over the immediate period ahead. Perhaps we will hear something of that later on this afternoon. Of course, although I would far rather give way to the Conservative front bench, I am very happy to give way to Mr Matheson. Michael Matheson. I have noticed that he is not present. One of the central points about making a decision on Europe is the time and resources that are necessary to take forward joint investigation teams. The delay of the UK Government in taking that forward means that officers from Police Scotland who are seeking to engage with other EU states through Europe are already finding themselves in a position where other member states are saying that they may not be a member of the organisation coming at the end of next April and therefore we are not prepared to start to engage in that discussion at that point. That is why we need a quick decision on this matter rather than for the delay. I think that the point that Mr Matheson makes is a very strong one. I have noticed that Mr Ross has indeed returned to his seat. Perhaps we will now hear that the Conservative front bench in this Parliament believes that the UK Government should sign up to the new powers of Europol that have already been negotiated. There is clearly an opportunity for him to make that clear today if he so wishes. The Scottish Government has, as we have just heard, already made that case and that is welcome. However, of course, we also need to hear from Scottish ministers how they propose to take those issues forward beyond the issue of Europol's new powers and what they are proposing to their UK counterparts as the basis for our future co-operation with EU member states. Scotland has continued as a number of members have said us a separate jurisdiction with its own system of law and justice through hundreds of years of economic and political union with its nearest neighbours. It is therefore essential that the Scottish Government engages fully in the formulation of the United Kingdom's approach to negotiations in the justice field, not least to ensure that what is ultimately agreed recognises Scotland's distinct position. Stuart McMillan I thank Lewis Macdonald for taking the intervention. With Mr Macdonald I agree with me that having those debates is an opportunity for the Scottish Government to listen to the issues and the concerns of all members so that when they aren't having those discussions with the UK Government, they can put those forward to the UK Government. Lewis Macdonald It is vital, as Jenny Marra said, that this is one of the most significant political events in our lifetimes. It is vital that this Parliament fully considers that. As Jenny Marra also said, it is equally important that the Parliament and the Government maintain a very clear focus on areas for which they are directly responsible in our communities, and I hope that we will have those debates in this Parliament going forward as well. However, what I think is important in formulating the Scottish Government's approach to negotiations with UK ministers is wide consultation about the implications of Brexit, about what the justice system needs and how best to achieve what it needs, given the political context set by the referendum. We have heard from Mr Matheson about that consultation today, but I hope that we will hear more at the close of the debate, not only about the various stakeholders with whom ministers have consulted, but also about what the Scottish Government has concluded from those consultations and what it will propose to UK ministers to protect Scotland's relationships in Europe. There are, after all, plenty of thorny issues for ministers in both Governments to address. Bespoke has become a much-used term for Tory ministers, but of course UK participation in European justice arrangements is already bespoke. The Treaty of Lisbon allows the UK specifically to opt in or opt out of most of those arrangements, more or less at will. Of course, as we know, UK Governments of all parties have opted in to some of the critical issues that we have heard about today. It was concerning to hear from some of the comments from the Tory benches in this Parliament today, which appeared to make light of the vital forms of co-operation that have been supported by Tory ministers in the past. We can only hope that, in the UK Government, Wiser councils will prevail because some of those things that all parties have signed up to in the past remain just as important today. Even if Wiser councils do prevail in Theresa May's Cabinet, the issue will become just how difficult and disruptive and time consuming it is going to be to keep the arrangements that we have already signed up to while leaving the European Union itself. It has been said and it is true that co-operation on policing or the courts is not confined to EU member states. Norway, Iceland and Switzerland are members of the Ligana convention, for example, which supports the enforcement of judgments in the civil courts. There are plans to extend a form of the European arrest warrant to Norway and Iceland. Other countries, such as the US, Canada and Australia, have co-operation agreements with EUROPOL or EUROJUST, but, as with access to the single market, which Norway and Iceland are members of and Liechtenstein, third-party agreements do not allow external partners to decide the rules of engagement or to play a full part in the policy process. If we were to join Margaret Mitchell's long list of external partners of EUROPOL, for example, as Stuart McMillan said, the police officers here would lose access to some of the powers that they currently have. In particular, British, Scottish and English and Welsh and Northern Irish forces would no longer be in a position to provide senior managers for EUROPOL to influence the direction of the organisation itself. All of that has very serious implications for the police and courts in Scotland and across the UK. We need to know from UK ministers whether and how they propose to retain the benefits of our existing European arrangements on justice and at what cost. We need to know from Scottish ministers what proposals they will make to UK ministers in this field and what scope there is for continuing Scottish engagement with European partners going forward. Those are not abstract issues, Presiding Officer. They impact directly on people's lives. That is why we need a focus on what can be done now and in the longer term to protect the victims of crime and to protect the integrity of our justice system. Security is one of the fundamentals of society, and we need not be internationalists to accept that this chamber should note the international co-operation that is necessary to combat cross-border crime and terrorism and promote Scotland's willingness to continue to collaborate with European partners. The United Kingdom must seek a continuously strong relationship with those agencies that keep our people safe, but we must go further. Inblazened upon the steps above Britannia Royal Naval College in Dartmouth, it is upon the navy, under the good providence of God, that the wealth, prosperity and peace of these islands do mainly depend. As true today as 211 years ago this week, when the British fleet prevailed at Trafalgar, all but ending Napoleon's ambitions to invade these islands. John Finnie Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am very grateful to take an intervention. Does that include having an aircraft carrier and an aircraft that can go on it? Liam Kerr I am grateful to the member for the intervention. I am coming on to the defence of these islands very shortly. Napoleon's ambitions were ended protected as Britain was by her best ballworks, her impregnable floating wooden walls. The walls long ago ceased to be wooden, but they do exist. They exist in our place as part of the United Kingdom at the top table of NATO, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, allowing the UK's voice to be heard on a global stage alongside China, Russia and the USA. In our membership as the UK of the vital Five Eyes Intelligence Network with the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. As the UK maintaining a well-resourced GCHQ, which has foiled seven serious terror plots within the UK in just one year. Of course, the UK's Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force, which through the UK Government's strategic defence and security review, we have pledged to support by spending a minimum of 2 per cent of Britain's GDP on defence in every year of this Parliament, with at least a 0.5 per cent rise in defence spending every year. We commit more to a common European security than any other NATO member other than the United States. Of course, as we sit here today just down the road in Barrow and Farnes, they are cutting steel for the wooden walls of the 21st century, HMS Dreadnaught and her sister boats, to be based at Faslane and built to carry the next generation trident replacement weapon system, not only securing the future security of this country, but also the economic security of the surrounding area, securing over 6,000 jobs at the Faslane base alone and many more in the surrounding area. Let us not forget the order for eight new type 26 frigates for the Royal Navy, guaranteed by the UK Government to be built on the Clyde, creating hundreds of jobs for the local population. Where the amendment calls for our security to be preserved, this is what we resolve, the maintenance of these great cornerstones as part of the United Kingdom. United, a divided Europe is bad, not just for this continent and or this island, but for the world. That is why, despite Michael Matheson suggesting that we are walking away post Brexit, the United Kingdom will be Europe's closest ally and friend. It is why France and Great Britain signed the Lancaster House Treaty in 2010, as a result of which the two countries hold regular joint exercises and collaborate on next-generation military technology. It is why, since 2002, as part of the Combined Task Force 50 and Operation Enduring Freedom Horn of Africa, British ships have sailed with our NATO, European and other allies off East Africa protecting the world's shipping from piracy. It is why we see a Europe sheltered and protected through NATO as our best defence against the key threats that we face collectively in 2016. As the Prime Minister said, security co-operation existed long before the EU and it will exist long after. For many of our European cousins, especially those to whom the war or occupation is not a page in history book but a lived experience, seeing ancient enemies sitting around a table under a common flag must be a sight they prayed for and never thought to see. But look at what is happening in Europe. Only last month, the president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, announced to the European Parliament that the time had come for a joint European military headquarters and battle group to be formed, a permanent EU facility for a joint European defence force, seeding UK command and control of our military to Brussels. Stuart McMillan brought up the French attacks. The French and the Belgians are still arguing about intelligence sharing between them, with the French accusing the Belgians of allowing homegrown terror to grow unwatched and untapped in the communes of Brussels, while the Belgians accuse the French of refusing to share vital information that may have led to them intercepting the Paris and Brussels bombers before they struck. One French intelligence chief said that the Belgians just aren't up to it. Our security is dependent on Scotland's membership of the United Kingdom. If Scotland separates from the United Kingdom, would it commit to spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence? Would it commit to joining NATO if that organisation insisted on allowing nuclear submarines into its waters? If Scotland separates from the United Kingdom, it would not be part of the Five Eyes Network. It would not hold a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, nor would it automatically benefit from the treaties and alliances signed by the UK with other sovereign nations regarding defence and security. It is clear that the security of our nation is dependent on our membership of the United Kingdom, allied to working with and supporting our European partners, not dependent on membership of the European Union. Our amendment today acknowledges the good in the Government's motion, but we go further. We ask that the chamber acknowledge the greater value of being part of the United Kingdom to our security and calls on the Scottish Government to positively engage in shaping the UK's negotiating strategy for leaving the European Union. We move to the last of the closing speeches. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Let me gently disagree with Liam Kerr. The person that really defeated Napoleon was a guy called George Scoville. George Scoville was Arthur Wellesley's code-breaker. He broke Napoleon's Legrand Schiff and, thus, from the Polinsular Wars in 1812, the man who became Lord Wellington actually knew exactly what Napoleon's plans were. Perhaps in the modern world, the use of access to and protection of data is going to be equally important, and there are important things on the European stage that relate to that. GCHQ, which was the home of public key cryptography crooks and cocks with the original inventors—although now it is attributed to the 1977 MIT patent that went in the name of Rivest, Shamir and Edelman—the secrecy of GCHQ meant that the UK was denied the commercial advantage and the intellectual opprobrium of the world for the invention of the software and the algorithms that continue to protect our data to this very day. We, of course, will not be in a position, if we cut ourselves off from the world in the way that appears to be the case, to develop both the means to make and the means to break cryptography, because when we are dealing with crime, we need to be able to break into the codes and encryptions that criminals use. Equally, we need to be able to produce robust protections for our data, because that is at the very basis of our national security, more than the old arguments about hardware. The future will much more be about fighting cyber wars and cyber crime. With people coming to our universities from across the world to share their intellect and their ideas, we are in a position to develop the kind of protections that we need. With the cutting of ties with European institutions and the setting up of barriers allowing the free movement of people, we will not have the intellectual and multinational capacity to fight the world in the internet. The internet is one of those things that, de facto, knows no boundaries whatsoever. It creates commercial and intellectual and cultural opportunity, but it equally creates threats to which we need to respond as well. The internet is, of course, a place with fewer rules than we would probably put in place if we developed it from scratch today. It enables people to spoof from whom emails come. It enables phishing attacks by spoof websites, and with the moving of Wi-Fi out to domestic things such as fridges and lights, the internet of things is now called. It creates further vulnerabilities that require international collaboration. Only last week there was an attack by a bot that had infected many of these domestic pieces of equipment via the internet and domestic Wi-Fi and brought down the domain name server that allowed people to access Twitter. There might be some of us who think that having Twitter off the air for four or five hours is probably a very good thing indeed, but it is indicative of the threats that there are in the future from the kind of activities that can take place on the internet. So, do not let us pretend that the world of the future is one where barriers are going to be more controllable than they were in the past. They will be more permeable than at any time in the recent history. Of course, terrorism is not a new thing. The founding of the special branch of the Metropolitan Police in 1883 was, in response to the Irish Republican Brotherhood, a domestic terrorist organisation in the United Kingdom, which included Ireland at that time. International terrorism, of course, existed too. Winston Churchill attended in January 1911, the Sydney street siege, where Latvian revolutionaries who had been conducting a series of bank raids had holed themselves up and special branch and the army were there to dig them out. Churchill claimed that there were lead bullets in his astrakhan coat as he peered from behind the wall to see what was going on and got himself shot at. Whether that is true or not is perhaps a matter for some debate. In more recent times, we had the Balkam Street Streege in 1975, which again was Irish terrorism in London. We had the Badderminehof gang in Germany, entirely domestic. We had the Red Gang in Italy, entirely domestic. Terrorism is something that both crosses boundaries but equally can grow in communities that are not socially adept at responding to the changes that there are. We have just been through the fifth central government organised referendum, the first being of course in 1975, although there was a referendum on the League of Nations in 1934, but it was organised by the churches, although everyone in the UK did vote. This particular referendum, of course, is one that we are now discussing, the impacts on the justice system. Let's just go back and think what that referendum was about. The question on the ballot paper was a simple one. Should the United Kingdom remain, I paraphrase, remain a member of the EU or should it leave? That was it. It was not a referendum on immigration. It was not a referendum on the single market. It was not a referendum on the European Convention on Human Rights. In fact, it was not a referendum that made any reference in the terms of the question that we were asked to justice matters, economic matters or a wide range of matters. Therefore, we should not read into the result that it tells us that we should leave the single market. It does not read into the result that we should unsign the European Convention of Human Rights, which, as Clare Baker rightly reminded us, was very much the brainchild of Winston Churchill, then a distinguished Conservative member and former Prime Minister. Not even can we look at the vote and decide what it means. Margaret Mitchell told us that we should not reveal anything about our negotiating hands. If we go into the chamber where the negotiations take place with a blank sheet of paper, I predict that we will come out with a blank sheet of paper. In closing for Scottish Labour today, I would like to begin by welcoming the opportunity to debate the serious consequences of the referendum on EU membership and reiterate our support for the Scottish Government throughout the negotiations to protect our shared interests, and in particular the national interests of security and justice. The Government motion clearly spells out the benefits that we have come to expect as being part of the European Union, from membership of the European arrest warrant to consumer protection laws and to family law regulations. Today, we will support the Government motion. I am pleased that the Government has indicated support for our amendment, which calls on the Government to undertake a full analysis of the impact of leaving the EU on Scotland's independent justice system. Throughout the upcoming negotiations, we know that the Scottish Government will be a serious and willing partner in protecting our interests, and the Prime Minister and her army of Brexiteers must respect that. Presiding Officer, earlier we heard from Claire Baker, Jenny Marra and Lewis MacDonald, who all shared our deep concern for our membership of EuroPoll and EuroJust. As Jenny Marra also said, Scotland has a unique justice system, and we must ensure that that is protected and there are no unintended consequences. Police Scotland needs our support to continue with cross-border investigations and to access the shared resources that fight cybercrime, drug smuggling, selling and terrorism and human trafficking. Those crimes and their perpetrators have no recognition of or respect for borders or legal jurisdictions. Prior to the referendum in June, many security experts warned of the potential dangers of retreating from EuroPoll, EuroJust and other cross-border agencies and agreements. Rob Wainwright, the director of EuroPoll, warned in the days leading up to the June 23 vote that leaving the UK would result in Britain becoming a second tier member, risking the shared resources used by police forces across the UK. Mr Wainwright has also commented that the UK became the first non-Shingon nation to gain access to the Shingon information system last April, after negotiating a special deal with British police now using the database on a daily basis. It could take years to strike a new agreement, according to Mr Wainwright. Philip Aman from EuroPoll has also commented that British police will find it more complex to achieve the same that they can now achieve after leaving the EU. We know that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has recently met the director, and we extend our support to encourage the Home Office to accept the new and expanded remit of EuroPoll. One of the problems with the EU result is uncertainty. Until the Brexiteers show us any sense of direction or any sense of a plan, the rest of the country will continue to rightly demand answers. Scotland has a unique position in the UK, given our different legal system. That is why the SNP Government must be clear in advance of any negotiations what its goals and objectives are and lay them out to Parliament. We need to know which aspects of EU justice law our system makes use of and what impact the Scottish Government expects to see if we lose those powers. As a Parliament, we must unite and speak as one voice to ensure that we do not put our security at risk. As a former Home Secretary, Theresa May knows that Brexit will put key protections at risk, making it harder for Police Scotland and security services to do their jobs. We must ensure that the security of our country is not jeopardised by this Tory gamble. On civil justice, I would ask that the Scottish Government inform the chamber how it plans to secure protections on human rights, maintenance rights and cross-border family law. The last Labour Government made hugely significant strides in protecting our rights through the human rights act. We now have the hard rights in the Tory Government determined to strip them away and leave many people more vulnerable than at risk. Labour has also helped many single parents to receive the support that they need through the child support agency and, with a more diverse society, many more families have parents of different nationalities. In the unfortunate event of the disintegration of that family unit, it would be a tragedy for a family to lose out on maintenance support if one parent were forced to leave the UK. There are still many complex issues to arise from the EU result. For the Scottish Government, lots of strenuous negotiations will take place with what appears to be a Tory Government willing to risk many safeguards and the human rights of our citizens. When people were asked to vote in the EU referendum, many were misled by the arguments of the leave campaign that sought to split communities and families on issues around immigration and EU contributions. Scottish Labour is committed to maintaining our access to the single market and the criminal justice mechanisms that protect Scotland and the UK. Finally, no matter how the country voted, I believe that nobody did so to put our security and our justice system at risk. Now the challenge is for the Scottish and the UK Governments to work together to minimise any impact Brexit will have on the security of our people. In closing, can I reiterate our support for the Government motion and ask that you support Claire Baker's amendment? I close today's justice debate as an unapologetic Brexiteer, a proud Scot and, yes, a committed unionist, because nothing that I have heard in this chamber has shaken my underlying optimism and my belief in the boundless capacity, skill and potential that our legal and criminal justice system has to cope with the challenges ahead and to overcome them. Maybe I have more confidence than the Scottish Government, but I do not believe that we are too wee or too small to make a success of Brexit, both in terms of the justice portfolio and more widely. However, if we are going to achieve that, we need to stop dithering and start looking at putting the correct transitional measures in place and exploring the opportunities that do exist. That is not just a task for the UK Government, but it is also a task for the Scottish Government, particularly within the justice portfolio, because, as Mary Fee has eloquently said, Scotland has a separate legal system, and I think that the SNP is trying to pull the wool over the people of Scotland's eyes, because if we are leaving considerations about what is best for the Scottish legal system, which is devolved in responsibility to this Parliament, to Westminster to decide, I just think that that is a little bit pathetic. I am sure that Mike Russell will fill us all in and show the UK Government exactly how it is done when it comes to setting out detailed, principled goals and objectives on how we plan to take matters forward for the Scottish legal system and criminal justice here in our country. Stewart Stevenson? I know that Margaret Mitchell said that we should not reveal the negotiating hand for the UK to any degree whatsoever. Is he taking a different position in relation to Scotland's position? Oliver Mundell? Yes, I am. The Scottish Government is in a different position to the UK Government. The UK Government has to go into a room with 27 other member states and make the case on behalf of the whole United Kingdom. The role of the Scottish Government and where it can make a real difference for the people of Scotland is about setting out clear goals and objectives that it wants the UK Government to deliver on so that we as a people beyond just this Parliament can then measure whether or not the deal that is done delivers for the people across Scotland. I think that we have already been shown the way. I have sat through this whole debate and heard countless members make reference to the briefing paper prepared by the Law Society of Scotland. It is a sad indictment on this Parliament that we are relying on professional bodies to provide the bulk of the information and to bring forward the detail and to identify the issues, and then we effectively hear the same speech over and over again where people trot out a list of grievances, a list of problems, but we hear no constructive solutions whatsoever. Maybe we will be surprised when we get to the closing remarks and we will hear some constructive suggestions that we could take forward, but we have not heard them yet. That follows on from a miserable month. I will make a little bit more progress. I am hearing from those who think that everything is awful and that, if only people would listen to them, everything would suddenly and miraculously be fixed. I just think that, although the Scottish Government has been running round, like chicken licking, telling the people of our country that the sky is going to fall in, the reality is that business people and professionals and the hard-working people across our country have shown how it is done and got on with their day job. They have not blinked and they have not buckled. More than ever before, I think that the SNP's contempt for Brexit is not driven from a genuine concern that the European arrest warrant system or EUROPO are under threat, but it is, as Douglas Ross stated in his opening remarks, all about self-interest. If they are going to have a credible voice and really stand up for the people of Scotland and speak out on those issues relating to what are legitimate concerns about the future of the justice system, they need to acknowledge the complexities within the electorate and that some of those complexities might actually get in the way of their slow march towards independence. For a start, what the Brexit debate has done is to break seemingly unbreakable alliances within the separatist movement, revealing that there are great many people who passionately believe that Scotland should go it alone, but that means leaving behind not just the United Kingdom, but the European Union. I find it bizarre—I am sure that many members will agree that I feel compelled to stand up and speak out on behalf of SNP voters who, like me, voted to leave the EU, whose views are being completely discounted as the Government pushes ahead with independence as its priority, rather than listening to some of the legitimate concerns that people have about the European Union. Gillian Martin How many SNP members have been in touch with you to speak for them today? Oliver Mundell That is a nice simple answer, too. I would like to get back to my day job, but instead what I find is that I have SNP supporters and two SNP—well, it is quite unusual that they would want to come and speak to a Conservative MSP. I think that most people would acknowledge that. Oliver Mundell I find that odd. I am still answering the last one. I certainly want to get on with my day job of pushing forward on the issues that matter to constituents in Dumfrieshire rather than solely focusing our time on those issues. I think that Jenny Marra and Liam McArthur—although they will probably want to disassociate themselves with many of my remarks—agree with them on the points that they have made about focusing on some of the issues that matter, because, quite frankly, the Scottish Government's record on some of those issues relating to justice is very, very poor. We are hearing of police stations being closed, and there are eight of them in Dumfrieshire and Galloway. It is about proportionality of the time. If we were hearing something new or something different, or we were hearing constructive suggestions about how to take the process forward, it might be worth having this series of debates, but instead we just seem to be on loop making the same tired arguments that were hashed out during the referendum process. Stuart McMillan Thank you very much. Fourth time lucky. Certainly, Mr Mundell, thank you for taking the intervention, but, surely, Mr Mundell can agree that, with the whole plethora of issues that are being raised because of the UK leaving the European Union, it is absolutely imperative that members of this Parliament have an opportunity to have their say, but also raise the issues and concerns that, as you have done today from the two people from SNP, you have apparently contacted you. That is one of the platforms to do that. It is imperative that this Parliament, this chamber, has that opportunity to raise those issues so that the Scottish Government can talk to the UK Government about those issues. Oliver Mundell I agree, but, like his colleague before, Mr Paterson, I think that it is about proportionality. It is about how much time do we want to spend talking round and round on the same issues without making any positive suggestions or taking the debate substantially forward, because that is essentially the same debate that we have been having on the EU. You cut out the words environment and you insert the words justice here. It is not taking matters forward. We have the same minister coming to this chamber to answer the questions on each of the things, and, as people have said before, it is getting a bit like Groundhog Day, but I will make some progress. Stuart Stevenson raised an interesting point about ignoring his party. I think that here in Scotland people want the relationship to change. He said that the result shows nothing, that you cannot read anything into the question that was on the ballot paper. It does not answer lots of things, but it shows that people in Scotland want our relationship with the EU to change. Instead of talking about the benefits of allowing Scottish courts— 38 per cent, if you want to intervene, I would be happy. Have to close, please, Mr Mundell. Over a million voters voted to leave in Scotland. I know—I have said before—that the SNP wants to airbrush them out of history, but that is more voters than putting their cross next to your party leader on the second vote list. You must close now, Mr Mundell. So, in short, what I want is rather than hearing that the EU is a utopia and that everything that the EU ever did was great and that it has a divine right to exist, I want to hear from Scottish Government ministers— Mr Mundell, you must close. I want to hear from Scottish Government ministers what their detailed plans are for justice. Mr Mundell, when I say that you must close, I would ask you to please close. I call Mike Russell for up to 11 minutes, please, Mr Russell. Can I start by commending Oliver Mundell on his speech? I do so genuinely, because I think that he has lifted this debate certainly beyond the depths that he had sunk into on his own benches, because I think that he has addressed the key issue. I want to be quite genuine about this. I am a passionate believer in the EU, and I will not resolve from that just as I acknowledge his position in saying before the vote that he wished to leave. That is at advance on some of his colleagues who now are rewriting history on their position on this matter. I am a solid believer in the EU, and if he had been in his chamber to hear me argue for it before the election, he would have heard the same thing after the election. We have had half a century of peace in Europe. I think that that is a remarkable achievement. It has prevented war. It has been economically beneficial for the whole of these islands. You only have to look at the position of the UK before accession and the position afterwards to see the remarkable effect that it had, and that cannot be denied. It has been an enormously positive force in terms of social protection and human rights, and it can continue to be so. I could go through all those advantages, and we would be happy to do so in a debate, but I also want him to acknowledge. I am dealing seriously with his points, and I think that he would need to be dealt with seriously. He has to acknowledge, and there will be a difference between us, that the democratic imperative that this Government is responding to in terms of the Scottish electorate. The Scottish electorate voted 62 to 38 to stay, so we are responding not just to the mandate that we had in the election in May, in a manifesto in which we specifically said that Scotland being removed from the EU against its will would be a matter to trigger or could potentially trigger an independence referendum, but we are also responding to the mandate in the referendum and we are responding to this chamber in preparing the options. We will come to this chamber with that preferred option. The First Minister has already said so. We will bring that option, but it has to be informed by debate, discussion and research, and that is one of the purposes of those debates. Oliver Mundell. We might also accept that the SNP manifesto talked about a material change in circumstances, but was it not also implicit when Nicola Sturgeon toured round the television studios and has commented several times on that issue, that where there is a material change in circumstances, there also needs to be a material change in support, in the fundamental level of support for the proposition of independence, to have a mandate here in this Parliament to take that forward? Michael Russell. We have not yet brought to this chamber an independence referendum. If we bring that independence referendum to this chamber the independence referendum bill, we will have to confront that issue of support. However, the manifesto, specifically referred to the issue of Scotland being—it is rather difficult to have a serious debate if one member sitting behind Mr Mundell keeps waving his hands in the air. It would be very useful if we could address the serious points that Mr Mundell has raised to which I am responding, because he has raised the level of this debate, and I pay tribute to him for that. If that bill comes to the chamber, then we will be able to discuss that. However, it was in the manifesto that there is a commitment to honour the decision of the Scottish voters, and this chamber has asked us to address these issues. That is why we are having these debates. I do rather regret that the tone has still been from the Tories while we bother from those debates, because the debates are vitally important. We would have been criticised had we not come to this chamber and offered to this chamber the opportunity to consider the key devolved areas, to debate and discuss them, to put them in the context of Brexit and to make sure that we understood—I understood—taking forward the task of representing Scotland in those negotiations. I understood the issues that members were concerned with. I am worried this afternoon, because it appears that the mainstream voice of the Tories on justice is not Mr Mundell, who spoke very well, but it is now Margaret Mitchell, and that should certainly worry every member of the chamber. Margaret Mitchell was the original Brexiteer before the election and is now the Brexiteer who is speaking for the Tories on those matters. However, I think that our councils in terms of justice may prevail, because we have to recognise the real issues at stake, and they are, with the greatest respect to Margaret Mitchell, not the issues that she raised. The issues that Liam McArthur raised, that Clare Baker raised, and that the Cabinet Secretary raised are the real issues of this debate. I just want briefly, Presiding Officer, to go through what those are, because Brexit puts at risk a range of co-operation across both civil and criminal law, including police co-operation, which exists in tackling organised crime, helps to keep our citizens safe and also, and this is vitally important, to live and work across the EU. When Liam McArthur draws attention to the issues of terrorism, as he did very well, he then went on to draw attention to the issues of family court issues, the commercial law issues, the issues of bread and butter, in doing business in and living across countries in the EU. Those are the legal systems in the legal protections that people take advantage of day after day. Members of the Labour Party also draw attention to those. Unless we are in a position to ensure that those continue in the way they are continuing, then the disruption will come, not, I believe, in matters of security or terrorism, because those are often matters of domestic activity and domestic protection. They will come when individuals are not able to get resolution and commercial disputes, are not able to sign and enforce contracts, are not able to have resolution in matters of family law and divorce and very difficult personal matters, and there is no reason why those matters should be disrupted. That is at the very core of this debate, because what this debate is about is a series of choices. We hear from the born-again Brexiteers that, in some sense, this was inevitable and that it has had to happen and these changes had to take place. That is absolutely not true. We now have to consider the balance of advantage. Where does the advantage lie? Is there a greater advantage in not being part of or only being an associate part of those legal arrangements, or is there a greater advantage in being part of those arrangements? The European arrest warrant is a very important case in point. Yes, there are countries that outside the EU have negotiated their own arrangements—Norway and Iceland, for example—but the time that they have taken to negotiate and set up those arrangements has been far, far longer. The way in which those systems operate for those countries is much less satisfactory. We have heard again and again about case studies in this chamber, in which action has been able to be taken almost instantly, and that is not just because of the procedures that exist. It is about the ability of individuals to co-operate. When you have, for example, the Eurojust with the prosecutors sitting together in the same building as the international court, they are able to build and develop relationships that allow justice to be well served—not just to family justice and commercial justice, but in that case to criminal justice to be well served. Why would you disrupt those arrangements? For anything that happens, any weakening of those arrangements will disrupt them. I give way to Oliver Mundell. Oliver Mundell. I thank the minister for his kind comments in relation to my remark. I will be slightly less kind in reply. I think that he is just doing the same as what I had identified, which is identifying the issues. Still, we have not heard a single constructive suggestion on how the Scottish Government is going to protect those rights. constructive suggestion—I am putting to Mr Mundell in the chamber—is a constructive suggestion of first recognising the difficulties that exist, not sweeping them under the carpet, not saying that they do not really matter to us, but saying that what structures could be put in place to avoid that. We will bring to the chamber, as the First Minister's committee herself, our preferred alternative. However, there is a better alternative, which is not to have gone down this route in the first place. That would have been the best alternative not to be in this position. I give way to Mr Mundell. Oliver Mundell. Does Mike Russell not accept that that ship has now quite simply sailed? Mr Russell, that ship has 62 per cent support in Scotland, that is the majority support in Scotland, that is the voice of our constituents in Scotland who are saying that they did not want this to happen. Of course. I think that there is a big difference between saying that the majority of people in Scotland did not want to leave the EU, which I accept, and saying that now 62 per cent of people in Scotland want to disrupt the Brexit process and are backing this current plan to stir up tensions. I do not regard stirring up tensions as representing the issues and interests of the people of Scotland. If the Tory party understands representing the interests of Scotland as stirring up tensions, no wonder that they are so bad at their day job, because that is their day job. Their day job is to protect the interests of their constituents and the interests of Scotland, and that is what we will do. That is what this Government will do, because never, ever on the watch of this Government will we let down the people of Scotland, and their vital interests lie in making sure that whatever settlement is reached, it is a settlement that ensures that their life is not disrupted. Not disrupted in terms of prosecution and certainly not disrupted in terms of the protections that come from the European arrest warrant, from family law, from commercial law. We have an opportunity in this chamber of making sure that we develop a distinctive position. That is what these debates are about. Those members who criticise those debates are trying to walk away from their responsibilities. I would encourage them to stick with their responsibilities, because it is only by those debates and by the discussion that we are having that we formulate the robust position that Scotland must have in order to get, not the best, because the best unfortunately appears to be alluding us at the moment, but to get as much as we possibly can for Scotland in the discussions ahead. That concludes our debate on the EU referendum. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 2258, in the name of Jo Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a revised business programme for tomorrow. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press their request-to-speak button now, and I call on Jo Fitzpatrick to move motion 2258. No member has asked to speak against the motion. I put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion 2258, in the name of Jo Fitzpatrick, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The next item of business is consideration of a parliamentary bureau motion. I ask Jo Fitzpatrick to move motion 2259, on the suspension of standing orders. Thank you. The question will be put at decision time. To which we now come, and there are four questions. I wish to remind members that if the amendment to the name of Douglas Ross is agreed, then the amendment in the name of Clare Baker falls. The first question is that amendment 2203.2, in the name of Douglas Ross, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Michael Matheson, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 220.3, in the name of Douglas Ross, is, as follows, yes, 29, no, 93. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 2203.1, in the name of Clare Baker, which seeks to amend motion 2203, in the name of Michael Matheson, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote, and Parliament may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 2203.1, in the name of Clare Baker, is yes, 94, no, 29. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 2203, in the name of Michael Matheson, as amended, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 2203, in the name of Michael Matheson, as amended, is yes, 94, no, 29. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed. Our final question is that motion 2259, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on the suspension of standing orders, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. That concludes decision time. We will now move to members' business. I would ask members to change seats for this debate.