 The next item of business is the debate on motion 9732 in the name of Joan McAlpine on the culture, tourism, Europe and external relations committees inquiry into the article 50 withdrawal process. Can I ask those who wish to speak in this debate to press the request to speak buttons, and I call on Joan McAlpine to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the culture, tourism, Europe and external relations committee. You have 12 minutes, please. In opening this debate on my committee's inquiry into the article 50 withdrawal negotiations, I thank all of those who submitted written evidence and provided oral evidence, and those who met the committee during our visit to Brussels last September. I thank committee members for their diligence, and I thank our clerks for their hard work. If one thing has emerged from our inquiry, it is the influence that the EU has on the process of negotiations. The EU 27 decided the sequence and substance of negotiations that the first phrase would cover citizens' rights, the border on Ireland and the money. The EU 27 agreed the second phase would cover transitional agreements and identification of an overall understanding of the framework for the future relationship. The EU 27 stipulated that there will be no final agreement on the future relationship until the UK is outside the EU, so the EU calls the shots and has done from the start. Another key observation is that the EU is an organisation based on law and agreed process, the only practical way to get agreement from so many different states. That can appear cumbersome, inflexible and slow to those on the other side of the table, but that is the way that the EU operates. As we have already observed, the EU is calling the shots, and that has an impact on time, which we know is running out. Mikael Barney, the EU negotiator, told the committee in September that negotiations must be finished by November this year to allow time for the legal text of the withdrawal agreement to be finalised and translated into all EU languages. That must then be ratified in the council and in the European Parliament. The first phase of the negotiations took seven months from June to December, and even today, those commitments still need to be translated into an agreed legal text. The second phase on transition and a future framework must be completed to a similar deadline. The European Council says that negotiations on transitional agreements can only start after the negotiation directives on that matter are agreed by the council in January. We must then wait until late March for the European Council to adopt guidelines on the negotiations around the future framework, and that leaves barely six months for completion. What has been achieved to date? The December joint report from the negotiators of the EU and the UK Governments indicated that both parties have reached a common understanding on the protection of EU and UK citizens, which is good. One of the most powerful evidence sessions that we had was with representatives of the Five Migrants Forum, who spoke of the uncertainty that they and their families had suffered, and that personal testimony demonstrated the human cost of the withdrawal process. The second area of agreement relates to Ireland and Northern Ireland. The joint report says that the commitments and principles that it outlines must, quote, be upheld in all circumstances irrespective of the nature of any future agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom. Any future relationship must be compatible with the overarching requirements of protecting North South Cooperation and the UK's guarantee of avoiding a hard border. The joint report continues, and I quote, in the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the internal market and the customs union, which now or in the future support North South Cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Good Friday agreement. The committee heard from the consul general of Ireland, who said that Ireland's priorities were to, quote, protect the gains of the Northern Ireland peace process, including by protecting the Good Friday agreement in all its parts and avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland, and to maintain the common travel area between the UK and Ireland minimise the impact of Brexit on trade and the economy, and maintain a close trading relationship between the UK and the EU, including Ireland. The third area of agreement relates to the financial settlement, and we do not know what the ultimate cost of the settlement is of leaving the EU, and we may not know that for many years to come. The December joint report is a must-read, and it must be read with the European Council's guidelines agreed on 15 December, which state that the second phase can only progress if all commitments undertaken in the first phase are respected in full and translated faithfully into legal terms as quickly as possible. We still need the first phase to be translated into that legal text that both sides can agree. In stipulating that, the EU, just as it has throughout the whole process, is setting the terms of the negotiations. Mr Barney has been very successful in achieving the terms of his negotiating mandate so far, so we should look carefully at the December guidelines to see the EU road map for the second phase. The EU is very organised. That became clear to us in our meetings in Brussels in September. At every step, the EU has been prepared and published directives, setting out the next move. Many have contrasted that with the UK approach that is illustrated today in the leaked letter from David Davis to the Prime Minister, in which he warns that British businesses are suffering because the UK is preparing for the possibility of a no-deal scenario. The response of the EU commission spokesman today to the leak can best be described as rai. At a press conference, he said, we are surprised that the UK is surprised that we are preparing for a scenario announced by the UK Government itself. We have recently just learned that 130,000 UK businesses face up-front VAT bills for goods imported from the EU. The UK Government has hurriedly promised to mitigate any impacts, but the Treasury says that it is too early to say whether or not the UK would remain in the EU VAT area—another example, perhaps, of UK unpreparedness. To try to be optimistic for just a second, the European Council has reconfirmed its desire to establish a close partnership with the UK, and that is good. However, it stresses that the future relationship can only be finalised once the UK becomes a third country. The EU is ready to engage in preliminary discussions to identify what they call, quote, an overall understanding of the framework of the future relationship. That understanding would then be elaborated in a political declaration, accompanying and referred to in the withdrawal agreement. To be clear, there will be no final trade agreement before the UK leaves the EU. There will, hopefully, and maybe, be a political declaration on the framework of that future relationship. When Michael Barney spoke to us in September, he identified two options for the UK. One would be a Norway-style arrangement, but the UK has rejected that, along with membership of the single market and the customs union. The other option outlined to us by Mr Barney would be a Canada-style agreement, which, of course, does not include services to any significant degree. However, even that will take time. Remember that the first phase of negotiations between the UK and the EU took nine months and resulted in 15 pages of a written, although not final, agreement. CETA, the Canada free trade deal with the EU, which the UK says falls short of their desired outcome, amounts to 1,598 pages and took seven years to conclude, so that you can draw your own conclusions from that. My committee commissioned Dr Tobias Locke of Edinburgh Law School to look at the processes for agreeing the transition, the article 50 agreement and the new relationship treaty. Among the legal and political constraints that he describes the EU as being under, he highlights the principle of the most favoured nation status. Dr Locke explains that the CETA agreement contains a clause according to which the EU and Canada must grant most favoured nation status to each other in the highly regulated field of services. That means that each party must treat the service suppliers of the other party no less favourably than it treats service suppliers of any other country. Hence, if a future agreement between the EU and the UK was to treat the UK more favourably than Canada, the EU would have to accord the same favourable treatment to Canada and the same stands for South Korea and its agreement with the EU. The UK may seek a bespoke agreement but there are many legal and political constraints on the EU, some deriving from its own treaties and procedures, others deriving from its international agreements and that will restrict the kind of agreement that can be reached. To conclude, 2018 could be a year of harsh realities, blowing away the magical thinking that has dominated so much of the discourse on this side of the channel in relation to Brexit. The constraints are many and leave little room for flexibility and imagination. I duly move the motion in my name for this debate. I now call Mike Russell around 8 minutes, please. Presiding Officer, can I start by wishing the chamber a happy new year and welcoming Neil Finlay to his new position? We have forum in terms of facing each other across the chamber, but I am always hopeful of fresh start in 2018. I look forward to working with him in the same constructive way as I work with his Welsh Labour colleague, Mark Drakeford. I also start by thanking the committees of the Parliament for their hard work in scrutinising both the work of the Scottish Government on Brexit and the UK Government. The European Culture Committee, since the date of the referendum, has worked exceptionally hard to study Brexit, to understand Brexit and to bring forward thoughts on Brexit. I think that the convener would probably agree with me that when she took the convenership just after the 2016 election, she was looking forward to immersing herself in cultural matters. She has been immersed in not much other than Brexit since then and has done it exceptionally well. I want to thank the Finance and Constitution Committee. I will come very briefly to their report, which will be debated later this month, I expect, in this chamber. However, I think that their work has been intense as well, since they took on the constitutional remit after I had had, I think, two meetings as convener and given it up. The political experience of Bruce Crawford and the intellectual rigor of Adam Tomkins have brought a very important dimension to the subject. I also want to mention two other committees of engagement in this rural affairs. Edward Mountain has had the problem of having myself and Fergus Ewing giving evidence to him in the same session twice now. I am not sure that there will be a third occasion, but there has certainly been interesting. The Delegate Powers Committee, I would commend the careful approach of Graham Simpson and his team on the issue of the withdrawal bill. The First Minister pointed out at the weekend that Brexit marks an enormous challenge for Scotland in 2018. Brexit is really in political terms and now in economic terms like a black hole, sucking in energy and resource that would be far better used elsewhere. However, at the outset of this contribution, I want to disagree profoundly with something that the Prime Minister said in her new year message. She said that most people just want the Government to get on and deliver a good Brexit. That is wrong on many counts. Most people are now apprehensive and concerned, particularly at the ability of the UK Government to deliver anything. Secondly, most people are astonished at the waste and profligacy of this process, which is absorbing all the energy of the UK Government and more. I think that most people are fully aware that there is and can be no such thing as a good Brexit. The Prime Minister is also wrong when she talks about securing a Brexit that would work for the whole of the UK. The Brexit red lines that she has said out indicate the type of Brexit that she and the UK Government seem to wish. That would be deeply damaging to Scotland in terms of people, in terms of regulation and in terms of money. In terms of people, because freedom of movement is essential within Scotland, particularly within rural Scotland, and the ending of freedom of movement would cause enormous damage in almost every part of Scotland. I visited the Stoddarts, the meat processors in West Lothian just before Christmas. 30 per cent of their staff are from EU nationals and occupy a range of positions in the company, skilled and unskilled, and the company is unable to recruit others, so it has tried everywhere. That is simply one company out of many. Freedom of movement has been tremendously successful for Scotland, and it is not unlimited migration, as anybody who knows about freedom movement knows. There are huge issues in terms of people and issues of citizens of this country who want to travel to Europe and who value their European passport. I do not care whether it is blue, pink or purple. However, I do care that it allows freedom of access right across the EU, and that, of course, will end. Secondly, in terms of regulation, the uncertainty that is being caused is extremely worrying, not just to business, but to almost every organisation in Scotland. It is leading to an exodus of jobs and investment. Thirdly, the issue of money, which will touch home in almost every part of Scotland, in infrastructure spending, in social fund spending and, of course, in agricultural and fisheries spending. Those are matters that are completely unresolved, and even the announcement from Michael Gove that the Oxford Farming Conference last week did not indicate any detail. There are concerns of plenty. We have to express them in this chamber, and we have to find our way through them and round them. This debate gives us an opportunity, Presiding Officer, to express Scotland's priorities at this time faced with those challenges. I believe that there are three priorities for the Parliament at this instant. The first is to secure changes to the EU withdrawal bill. I am very pleased that the Finance and Constitution Committee was absolutely unanimous about that today. There have to be changes not just to cause 11 but to other changes in the bill for any progress to be made. Before this, the Government can bring forward a legislative consent motion. I am sure that before the Parliament will approve a legislative consent motion. Therefore, I think that it is very regrettable that I have to tell the chamber today that I had a conversation on the phone with David Mundell just before lunch today, who confirmed to me that the UK Government will not bring forward an amendment at the report stage of the bill. The UK Government says that it is not ready to bring forward such an amendment, and it is now suggesting that it may bring forward such an amendment at the House of Lords stages. That is unacceptable. Negotiation will continue. I am not giving up on that negotiation, but quite clearly the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament have to prepare themselves for a circumstances that would otherwise be a cliff edge. Therefore, I will be bringing forward later in the week more plans to address the issue of the continuity bill, as suggested by the Finance and Constitution Committee, who wishes to know more about the time scale for that and the intentions in it. Adam Tomkins I am very grateful to the Minister for Giving Way. The Secretary of State confirmed with the Minister this afternoon that the UK Government will not be able to bring forward an amendment at report stage in the House of Commons. The Secretary of State for Scotland also confirmed with the Minister that it is still the UK Government's intention to bring forward amendments to enable that place to give its consent to the legislation before it is passed by Westminster. Michael Russell I think that I indicated that, but, of course, as the Book of Proverbs puts it, hope deferred to make us a heart grow sick. We have spent six months discussing bringing forward this amendment and no amendment has been brought forward. Indeed, the UK Government instructed and whipped its members to vote down on such an amendment at the committee stage. I think that there is some depression about this, but I have indicated that I am going to continue to work with the UK Government on this. In congratulating David Luddington on his appointment, I also indicated that he should address this as a matter of urgency now, because it is a matter of urgency. Presiding Officer, the second issue that we should address is our own red lines. I believe that those are increasingly the issues of the single market and the customs union. Without those, we cannot deliver the minimum that Scotland needs. That was the unanimous view of this Parliament immediately after the European referendum. They are needed more greatly than ever, and we will publish more detail on that shortly. We look to engage the whole of the Parliament in discussing how those issues can be taken forward. There are some different interpretations of them, and there are some different interpretations of the outcomes of them, but what we need to secure is what the single market and customs union have secured for Scotland in recent generations. Thirdly, it is essential that the UK is continuing to negotiate with the EU that Scotland is involved and consulted in the negotiations. I pay tribute to Damien Greene, who worked very hard to get the JMC off the ground again. I think that he understood the process, and this was one of the issues that we were addressing at the last JMC. It now needs to be brought forward by his successor so that there is a clear means of constant contact and consultation as those negotiations go forward. Presiding Officer, I will very much be in the listening mode today. There are many others issues that need addressed, and if they are brought to this chamber, the Scottish Government will engage with them. We will also continue to discuss those matters with the other parties in the way that we have done up until now, and I would want to do so. However, it is essential that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are involved in all aspects of Brexit and that the views that we have are respected. Presiding Officer, the First Minister was right when she said this week that no Brexit would be better than a bad Brexit. I think that it is increasingly clear that, for Scotland, no Brexit is better than any Brexit, presently being negotiated or brought forward by the UK Government. This is going to be a difficult year for Scotland. The Brexit process does bring us many challenges. I do hope that this Parliament can show unity and resolve in protecting Scotland during that time. That is, after all, its duty. I thank you, Presiding Officer, and I too wish you the best for 2018. Can I apologise to the chamber? I am afraid that I am in the third day during a chronic migraine, which means that most of you are just a blur to me. I hope that you are there, and I will be vaguely aware, I think, if any of you try to intervene. I can only say that I persuaded myself that it is the thought of this debate on Brexit today, which has stimulated this particular attack. I thank Joan McAlpine, who convenes the committee on Europe, on which I sit, because I thought that she did detail what has been an evolving canvas of evidence in the 18 months since the referendum when the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. Because it has been a changing feast and because it continues to evolve almost on a daily basis, today's debate is an opportunity for us just to take stock of where we are. I discovered, looking at all the facts and figures that you do, that my eastward constituency was the seat in the United Kingdom held by the Conservatives that voted to remain by the largest margin of any. Of course, I pay tribute to my own powers of persuasion with my electorate in the fact that they fell in behind my campaign for us to remain in the European Union. However, my view has not changed at all. I think that it is important in this whole conversation and on-going negotiation on the exit from the European Union. For those of us who are engaged in seeking to support the negotiation to obtain the best possible terms for the exit from Europe, it is not necessary to pretend that, in some substantive way, we have changed our view that this represents a better future for the United Kingdom and the one that was otherwise available. I suppose that the only arguments that might have changed that, or I think that might change public opinion further, are some of the speeches that have been made by the President of France, Mr Eunger and others, in the second half of 2017, in which I think that they sought to change even further the political integration arrangements within Europe in a way that I do not know if put in the referendum in 2016 might not actually have influenced some of those who wished to leave and emboldened some who were undecided not to vote to remain. I do not support what some in Europe now see as the on-going and further political integration, but the work of the committee has been really to hear from a whole series of people who, I think that it would be fair to say, it would be rare to find amongst them any who have seen a particularly positive or uplifting outcome for Scotland or for the United Kingdom as a consequence of Brexit. In essence, I think that we could summarise the evidence that we have heard as saying that Brexit is not a good thing, which was the position, I think, most of those who gave evidence held before the referendum vote itself, and that it will be bad for Scotland. The only, I suppose, thing that I would want to say in a sense to counteract some of the pessimism that we have heard is that, of course, those evidence sessions have taken place as negotiations have gone on. When the committee was in Brussels in the late summer, it was instructive that when we were able to meet privately with officials on both sides—we cannot go into detail, I think, because those discussions were private—both sides, as professionals, demonstrated a more pragmatic, on-going discussion and delivery of progress than the more theatrical political environment in which most of us operate. We were told then that it was very unlikely that the test of sufficient progress would be met in October and that both sides fully expected that the test of sufficient progress would be met in December. We were told that the issue of citizens' rights would most likely eventually be resolved with an agreement that protected the interests of both European citizens here and Scottish and United Kingdom citizens in Europe. We were told that the issue of Ireland would probably be resolved, although it would be impossible to resolve finally, I think, until we get to the conclusion of phase 2, because much of it depends on the future trading arrangements that we would have and that the stumbling block would probably be the issue of finance, which, for a long time, seemed to be the stumbling block. We also heard as a committee that that budget resolution would involve the United Kingdom paying as much as £100 million or euros. In fact, the reality is that we have arrived at an agreement on the issue of European citizens. We were told that European citizens were queuing up to leave the United Kingdom as a result of the uncertainty of Brexit, and yet we now know that, in the 12 months after Brexit, the number of EU nationals in Scotland rose by 10 per cent. There are now 219,000 European nationals here. There hasn't been an exodus. Undoubtedly, there will be people who have left because of uncertainty, but the net position is that more EU nationals are now in Scotland than were here before the referendum took place. I think that our responsibility in this chamber is to be as pragmatic and realistic as we can be, and that is not to say that we think that we are in the process of negotiating a superior position to the one that was there before, but that we must do all we can to work to negotiate the best possible deal and judge that, finally, in the analysis of what is achieved. I would like to say directly to Mr Russell today, and I think that perhaps we have been ambiguous about this, but let us be clear. Clause 11 is not acceptable to Scottish Conservatives. I understand the reasons that the Secretary of State has given today. I am not entirely persuaded that the UK Government could not have done more. I do not blame the Secretary of State himself. There are officials who I think the urgency of the resolution of this point has been made very clear to who, in protesting that there has not been sufficient time, could have done more to ensure that there had been sufficient time to get to that final agreement. However, I remain of the Secretary of State's assurance that the UK Government will bring forward amendments to Clause 11 because we wish to work to ensure that this Parliament is finally in a position to support an LCM motion supported by the Scottish Government. Presiding Officer, undoubtedly we face ahead long, turgid, sometimes three steps forward, two steps back, sometimes two steps forward, three steps back negotiations. I think that Ms McAlpine detailed perfectly, accurately and reasonably the difficulties that we expect to face. I would only say that we start from a position of being a member of the European Union and therefore being an equanimity of the regulatory frameworks from which we need to negotiate future and separate arrangements. I believe that we will succeed in doing that. What that final shape of the agreement will be, I obviously do not know at this stage, but I think that our responsibility is not to be theatrically lurid all the time, although I understand and I look forward to hearing from what I regard as being and may I say I will miss Mr McDonald. He has been an oasis of calm representing the Labour Party in those issues. He is now going to be replaced with a sort of radical edge, I think, of rhetoric that I look forward to hearing from Mr Leonard and Mr Findlay. However, I hope that beyond all of that we can ensure that the contribution of this Parliament is to work to get that best possible deal and then to judge it when we see what it is. I thank my old chum, Mr Russell, on his very warm welcome and his happy year. I will reciprocate that to him. I am sure that we will work together over the coming weeks and months on many issues, and I am sure that we will work together to expose the Tory's shambolic handling of Brexit. It is, in relation to Mr Carlaw—I am very sorry that he is feeling poorly today—it is rather unusual for someone to get a migraine prior to Mr Carlaw's speeches, usually during or after, but we wish him a speedy recovery. I think that the reality is that extricating the country from a political and economic union that we have been a member of for around only 40 years is self-evidently a very complex and difficult thing. Negotiations will be long, they will be arduous at times, torturous, but they must succeed for their economy, for jobs, for the environment, for consumers and for all our citizens who live here wherever they originally came from. As with any negotiations, if you enter into them in good terms, with mutual respect and a positive attitude and things, they are much lightly to go better than if you go into them with a belligerent ill-judged and what looks often like a clueless approach. I am afraid that the latter has typified the UK Government strategy to date. 18 months have passed since the referendum and progress has been painfully slowed. I have failed to make the progress that is required. Brexit minister David Davis Davis' bluff and bluster has not taken him very far because we are barely off the starting blocks. It is likely to be March before we even see any beginning to detailed discussion on the terms of the transition phase. Never mind what happens thereafter. If the Prime Minister and David Davis think that the last 18 months have been tough, well, let us wait until they see what is coming when they get down to detailed negotiations on a million and one things that will require to be negotiated. As the excellent committee paper prepared by Dr Locke of Edinburgh University sets out, the legal issues around Brexit are multifaceted and very complex. For lawyers who specialise in EU and constitutional law, the next few years are going to be like Christmas and a lottery win has arrived every day. There are many ways to win the Euro millions jackpot and this may be one of them for EU and constitutional law firms. Although the process of withdrawal plays out in the media every day, it is the legality of Brexit that will cause the most headaches across the board. Dr Locke, in his paper, says that negotiating with EU is not like negotiating with a sovereign nation. Some of the outcomes will have to be ratified by qualifying majority voting. Others by the European Council or by individual countries. We have the role of the European Parliament. Maybe they will veto. There might be legal challenges in the European Court. That could come from a whole number of fronts. Of course, there must be a meaningful vote in the House of Commons. All of those are very real and practical hurdles and that is without the LCM issue here. The multitude of hurdles that there are is going to prove very difficult. Just as we said, it was fanciful for the Scottish Government to claim to be able to negotiate an exit from a 300-year old union with England in two years. It is nonsense to believe that Brexit can be negotiated in a similar timeframe. A stable and sensible transition period is essential to give business certainty and protect jobs and people's rights. That should be a time-limited transition period in which the single market and custom union rules apply. That will provide continuity and retain access to the single market for those businesses. We accept that freedom of movement will end on Brexit, but we want to see a fair and well-managed immigration system that ends the exploitation of labour, safeguards human rights and we want to ensure that all the rights of EU citizens who live here are protected. Those issues have been raised repeatedly by a wide range of organisations that gave evidence to the committee, including the Scottish Food and Drink Federation, trade unions such as Unison and councils such as North Ayrshire. We want a deal that protects workers, consumers, our environment, and it builds a new co-operative relationship with our friends and colleagues across the continent and beyond. That reflects the concerns that were raised, for example, by the Church of Scotland and their evidence to the committee, which is a very good paper. That stands in contrast to—I would not put Mr Carlaw in this vote—some on the Tory far right who sees Brexit as an opportunity for the UK to become an insular isolationist, deregulated economy rid of every bit of progressive less legislation that has ever come our way. Those who are on the progressive end of politics, we must be very vigilant and forceful. We cannot allow the Tories to negotiate our hard-won rights or to take us over the cliff edge. However, we live in a democracy, and we accept the will of the people just as we accepted the will of the people in 2014. We want devolution to work. We want to protect the interests of the country and working people, so I will work closely with the cabinet secretary on the LCM in relation to the withdrawal bill and, of course, on the role of the devolved Governments. For Labour, our objective in these negotiations is to retain the benefits of the customs union and single market while negotiating that new relationship with our European neighbours. I believe that that can be achieved if there is a change of attitude, if there is goodwill and a determination to secure a deal that is in our national interests and the interests of all other states. We now move to the open speeches of six minutes, please, but there is a little flexibility if people want to take interventions. I call Stewart Stevenson to be followed by Rachel Hamilton. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and a happy new year to all my colleagues in the chamber, except that is, of course, for Tabish Scott, who, with his constituents, will celebrate it shortly, rather than on the conventional first of January. My constituents, too, are exceptionalists. Perhaps more than anywhere else, they are taking a keen interest in the negotiations of the UK leaving the EU. That is because they, rather differently from most of Scotland, can see a local benefit from our doing so. That benefit, of course, is the escape from the common fisheries policy and the regaining of control over our fishing opportunities and our waters out to 200 miles, and how they can be exploited by us. My opposition to the common fisheries policy was referred to in my first speech in Parliament in 2001 and was made on the day following my swearing in for the first time. Members have heard me speak of this particular subject on many occasions since, but we only gain meaningful benefit from being outside the CFP if the exit negotiations deliver certain other matters of importance to our fish catching sector. Catching more fish means little if we lose the opportunity to add value to an increased weight of fish through our processing capacity. Gippers can land the increased amount of fish directly to European economic area ports—that probably means Norway—and it probably is the case, and thereby make a game. However, the bigger prize, the bigger industry right now is on our shore, on our shore. It can flourish, the entrepreneurial spirit is strong, but it needs fair and this is essential timely access to export markets. Some products, such as Cullen's kink scotch pie that I sent to Michael Gove for Christmas, are products designed for delivery by time variable means such as the post, and I hope that he enjoyed it as much as I enjoyed one for my lunch at the same day. Others, such as our world-famous langoustines, have in value if they arrive even four hours late. Tariff barriers are currently less critical with the fall in the pounds value, but if it recovers its previous exchange rate, it may once again be an important matter. Access to markets is what matters, and yet we see no sign that it is a high enough priority in the negotiations. It needs to be. Where we have some greater, if substantially less than full clarity, is in migration. Our first processing industry's future depends on people from many nations coming and crucially being able to settle here. About half of the migrants who have come to the north-east in recent years are making a permanent relocation. It is not simply seasonal recruitment, it is permanent employment. Alasdair Allan's evidence to the committee suggests that in fish processing, in food, 46 per cent of people in the UK are EEA nationals. We know that 70 per cent of workers in north-east fish processors have been migrants, and they add huge value to local and national economies, and in particular in the north-east to an area of high employment, where recruitment has long been quite difficult. They are also, of course, in richer cultural strengths, substantial as they have already been. Cabinet Secretary Fergus Ewing has told this of UK minister Michael Gove having a sympathetic ear to the issues around fishing and fish processing and his connections to the north-east of Scotland underpin some of his understanding. For the UK, the industry is a very minor part of the economy, and I share others' concern that it will end up as a bargaining chip trading away benefits that we expect. While I listened with great interest to Jackson Carlaw, I can say that he is in soft focus because I don't have my glasses—no migraine but no glasses—the secrecy and exclusion of devolved nations, Governments and Parliaments from the development of the policy and rules that will follow Brexit, and exclusion from the negotiation itself feeds a paranoia—justified or not—about possible outcomes. However, it also has the practical effect of reducing the resource that can be applied to the shared interests of all the nations of the UK, and for clarity, including when I say that, in what is the greatest challenge to our future in my lifetime. I am pleased to note the consensus that has been referred to already that we cannot yet give our consensus a Parliament to the UK Brexit bill. However, the prospect of cutting off migration is the one that is worrying me most. Historically, the Scots are probably the greatest migrants in the world—the cities of Warsaw, Cracow and Gdańsk. Each of areas is called the Nova Scotia, or New Scotland, as testament to our outward migration in the late 1600s. Indeed, a Scot has been the mayor of Warsaw on four occasions. Today, the 2011 census says that there are 55,000 Poles in Scotland. They are the largest immigrant group. Countries around the world would not exist in their present form without us citizens. Canada is the most obvious answer, and my own family, as in others, continues. A niece, born in Edinburgh, is now a Swedish citizen because of Brexit. Her brother will shortly be a dain. Leaving the EU, and thus leaving the common fisheries policy, while remaining in the single market and with free movement of people, takes most of the boxes for most of my constituents. As he does for Scotland as a whole, as he will do for all the nations of the UK. Rachael Hamilton, to be followed by Mary Gougeon. I would like to take this moment to wish everybody in the chamber a happy new year. Although it is a new year and we are here to focus on the culture, tourism, Europe and external relations inquiry into article 50 withdrawal negotiations, once again we are hearing the same old message from the SNP. Independence, independence, independence. In 2017, the SNP lost 21 seats and close to half a million votes. If there was a clear indication that the public did not want a referendum, that was it. Yes, I will. Ivan McKee. Will the member tell us which SNP members have mentioned independence in his debate so far today? Rachael Hamilton. I thank Ivan McKee for that intervention. I have no need to tell you who actually mentioned the independence referendum. It was across the newspapers yesterday and this morning in your own First Minister. We know that the SNP does not listen and they obviously do not read the papers, but education, health and affordable housing still lack much needed attention. Yesterday, not two weeks after we saw in the new year, the First Minister bought a second independence referendum back to the forefront of his agenda. The SNP's answer to Brexit is independence. That is a crying shame and shows a real lack of ambition for the First Minister and the SNP. Rant over. Since the committee's inquiry started in September of last year, negotiations have been fast, furious, challenging and even frustrating. I have no need to remind members that article 50 simply sets out a process by which the UK, as a leaving member state of the EU, follows agreed negotiating guidelines covering stage 1 of the withdrawal process. Stage 1 focused on issues related to citizens' rights, the financial settlement and Ireland, for which the committee heard evidence. At this point, I would like to thank the clerks for their hard work and to those who gave evidence. I would also like to thank our convener, our deputy convener Lewis MacDonald, who will be missed and I welcome Neil Findlay. In December 2017, the European Council was satisfied that sufficient progress was made on the aforementioned priority areas. That gave the green light for discussions regarding the UK's future relationship with the EU and guidelines were adopted, which focused on the possibility of transitional arrangements. In the Prime Minister's Lancaster House speech, she suggested that the UK would need an implementation phase before its new relationship with the EU was fully realised. That was accepted on 20 December last year, when the commission published a draft negotiating mandate for the transition. That mandate says that the EU would accept transitional arrangement in which laws should apply to the UK as if it were a member state, but the UK would not be able to participate in the decision making or the governance of the union. That means that the UK will not get a say on new EU laws but will have to abide by them. It will also have to accept the four freedoms of the single market and the jurisdiction of the ECJ. In Scotland, we must concentrate on what is best for our people, our businesses, our organisations following our departure on 29 March 2019. Unfortunately, in this chamber, politics is polarised. The First Minister has raised the possibility of an independent Scotland. What businesses and organisations need is certainty. Transitional arrangements are what businesses are looking for to prepare them for our future relationship with the EU. It is also important to note, as a number of members have already done so today, that the Finance and Constitution Committee in the Scottish Parliament has recommended that changes must be made to the withdrawal bill in its present form before the Scottish Parliament can recommend legislative consent to the EU withdrawal bill. It has been acknowledged that clause 11 of the withdrawal bill represents a fundamental shift in the structure of devolution settlement in Scotland. I accept what Mike Russell has said about his phone call to the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, David Mundell has given reassurances recently that the bill will be amended at a later stage, with consideration at Westminster due to resume over the next few weeks. I hope that we can look forward to a shift. I also recommend the cross-party progress so far and hope to see continued work to reach agreement for a common UK framework for returning powers to the Scottish Parliament. Dr Kirsty Hughes set out in her paper to the committee that later this month or next, the Prime Minister is expected to set out in more detail, probably in a speech, the sort of future UK-EU 27 relationship that her Government would like to see. The EU 27 are then expected to agree their position and guidelines for talks on a future trade and wider relationship with the UK at their summit on 22 and 23 March. Once they have done this, talks on a future trade deal and a wider security relationship can get under way. The aim is to complete talks by—it is estimated—Autumn 2018, both on the withdrawal agreement and on the outline framework of the future relationship. So allowing time for ratification on both sides, time is very tight indeed. The UK Government is clear that the Scottish Conservatives are clear that working together to get the best deal for Scotland and the best deal for the UK is the way forward. However, it is the Scottish Government, it is Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister of Scotland that repeatedly wants to disrupt this Brexit process by threatening an independence referendum. Yesterday reminded us all that this Government, all they want is independence. Independence at any cost, the SNP will dismiss the hard work that is done so far. It will say that it is not enough and it will attempt to hold another independence referendum. In the meantime, uncertainty among Scottish businesses will increase. Confidence in Scottish businesses will all disappear. I am in my last minute, I am sorry, and the Scottish economy will suffer. I say that the Scottish Government needs to get behind Brexit, it needs to abandon its threat of this second independence referendum. It is a new year and the SNP needs a fresh start. I have learned one thing from the inquiry that the committee has held so far. It is that we have only really just scratched the surface of some of the major issues that Brexit is going to raise. It is some of those issues that were flagged up during our evidence session that I want to raise today, in particular the session that we held on the role of the European Court of Justice and other legal matters. That is something that, as a Parliament, we have not looked at in any considerable detail so far. The role of the European Court of Justice is one of the most contentious matters in Brexit discussions, and it is one that we need to take a really serious and considered look at. I believe that it is something that has been fundamentally misunderstood and misrepresented both in the lead-up to the EU referendum itself, if it was discussed at all and in the discussions that we have had since. To do that, we really need to look at the kinds of cases that the ECGA actually deals with and how that affects us, how directives and laws are actually formed and the problems that we could then potentially face from here on in. In September, we took evidence from a panel that included the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society of Scotland and Professor Sir David Edward, a former judge on the European Court of Justice, who outlined exactly why the body is so vitally important and the kind of work that it deals with. He said that British companies will still want to send their employees to other European countries. Those employees will want to live in the country to which they are sent with their families. Some will find themselves on the wrong side of local bureaucracy and some will separate. They will need to know which courts will grant a divorce and which will decide on the financial settlement and the custody of children and problems of cross frontier access. Such issues are what the jurisdiction of the ECG is designed to solve for ordinary people in ordinary day-to-day situations. It is not just about trade disputes, that is the most important point to understand in the whole of this discussion. Cases that the ECG deals with therefore are not always necessarily the UK versus another state, which often tends to be the way that it is made out. That is the day-to-day reality, where an issue can be raised in one jurisdiction and it is enforceable in another. I attended a visit to Westminster with the Justice Committee in November to meet with our counterparts there, as well as a number of other committees. Although that deviates slightly from the work that we undertake in the European Committee, it is really important to mention. One of the committees that we met down there was the House of Lords EU Justice Subcommittee. That committee has undertaken detailed work into the implications of leaving the EU for EU citizens here and UK citizens abroad, as well as how that will impact family law, individuals and businesses. They have produced a number of detailed and important reports and held evidence sessions that I urge all members in the chamber to have a look at because they highlight the sheer scale of the issues that we face and go into greater detail than what we have been able to cover here in the Scottish Parliament so far. They also cover matters that, as a public, we were not generally made aware of when the decision was made to leave the EU. One important thing to remember is that it is not as if we have all been sitting here simply helplessly subject to the directives and laws that have come from the EU because the UK has played an important role in helping to develop those very laws. The issue was raised by Lord Thomas of Cungiad, a former Lord Chief Justice, in terms of current work developing law for the digital sphere, where, as members of the European Law Commission working together with the American Law Commission, we have a key role. He said that one of the very big issues that the committee may wish to think about in due course is how we, in a relatively small jurisdiction, set between two very large jurisdictions, the United States and the European community, will have an influence on the fashioning of the law for this new marketplace once we leave the community. That is a very, very large topic. It is the future development of our law that is sometimes lost sight of in the debate. There are the issues with current legislation that we have, which is based on EU directives such as the data protection bill. That was raised by Lord Hope of Craighead, former deputy president of the Supreme Court, who illustrated the problem. The law enforcement directive goes right through the bill, which is designed to give effect to it. The problem for individuals will be that, after we leave the European Union, we will have no direct access to the court if an issue comes up as to the meaning of the directive. That deprives the individual, including a corporation, as much as anything else of the right to have a ruling that will apply not only to itself but to trading partners in the EU. That is a real deficit that is apparently being billed into legislation that will be part of our law after we leave. Those are some big issues on their own, and that is without looking at other fundamental problems. How will those mechanisms for our security and safety continue to operate, such as the European arrest warrant? The European arrest warrant operates in a fundamentally different way. Unlike treaties, it is premised upon judicial co-operation. It is very difficult to see how, if an instrument operates on that basis, it can do so without somebody at its apex to determine the rules by which it works. There is a total lack of debate about the two very different approaches to the problems of the relationship between two judicial systems, the treaty-based mechanism and the one based on co-operation. So where do we go from here? Will we have that overarching body to determine those very issues? Will its decisions be binding? Will they be enforceable? We know that the ECJ will continue to have a role for eight years in terms of citizens' rights, but what about beyond that? How do we deal with trade disputes? Right now, there are more questions than there are answers. With complex questions like those, it is extremely worrying, with effectively less than a year for those key issues to be agreed. We heard from Michael Clancy of the Law Society during our evidence session for the European Committee who said that we and the UK Government have to be careful about simply identifying the initials CGEU and saying that that is something that we do not want in any circumstances. We have to be much more circumspect. We should be and we need to be open-minded about the ECJ, but given the way that Theresa May has continually panned her to the hard drive of her party, my fear is that it is already too late. I call Pauline McNeill to be followed by Richard Lochhead. 14 months or so from now, Britain will leave full membership of the European Union and its various institutions. We are now honouring the result of the 2016 referendum and, in doing so, we are preparing for that outcome by discussing and negotiating future relationships through agreement. In the coming months and years, we have a relatively short time in which to conclude on how those agreements should be shaped. That cannot be allowed to be driven by the hard Brexiteers in Theresa May's cabinet, those who think that the colour of their passport is a significant issue and that it is a benefit of leaving the EU. Rather, I hope that the more sensible Tories in the party muslin and take the Brexiteers on and ensure a coalition of the parties who see a bigger picture here and that we must all work together in the interests of the country. It is all up to all of us to make sure that, in the withdrawal process, despite our various disagreements, the subsequent arrangements aim to safeguard the economic interests of the UK and all of the parts of the UK, be it Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or, indeed, any region or part of the UK. All of those interests must be served. I must say that the work done by the Estyn and Lefiers Committee has done this Parliament a great service with the work that they have done here. I am sure that I am not alone in saying that it is hard work following the unfolding of the Brexite story in the daily news, and I certainly found the reports that the committee put together quite exceptional. The paper that was written by Tobias Locke is also worth a read, if you have not already. He says, among other things, that, first of all, it is highly unlikely that a deal will be completed fully by 2019. In practical terms, he has suggested that the transition phase is likely to have two broad objectives. The first is to allow detailed negotiations, provided that the withdrawal agreement does outline a future framework in broad terms, and is said by other members, and also to ensure that it allows time for government, business and individuals to make practical arrangements for the new relationships. That is easier said than done, for sure. The European Council has made clear that it envisages a status quo transition. Therefore, during that transition, the UK would have to comply with EU trade policy, custom tariffs and also collect EU customs duties and everything associated with that. In fact, according to Professor Locke and the European Council, the guidelines do not seem to cater for a phased approach to transition. Of course, there are many questions that will remain over the full implications for the UK in that transition period, and we need to return to that on a regular basis. However, the transition period will prove to be, in my view, a key part of moving to the final stages. Whatever fine agreements we reach, as I have said, the UK must consider all the parts of the UK within it, and their differing needs are taken account of. Our arrangements in trade, our relationships with the single markets and all the other important aspects thereof—Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I am sure that others wait with interest in the detail in phase 2 of how such an agreement will honour the Good Friday agreement. I thank the member when she refers to the single market and to the transition arrangements. I agree with her very much that it is very important that we wait for information, but is it not also important that we have from the outset a certain sense of where we are headed and is the member's view that where we are headed should be a membership of the single market? Pauline McNeill As I am saying out my views, we must ensure that whatever the future final arrangements are, that we must have the best arrangements for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on all the parts, and that is what we are discussing going forward. One of the issues that I have already raised in this Parliament many times is an excellent report by the House of Lords, which highlights the asymmetrical structure of devolution in the UK. That is because there are clearly the different problems to solve, and the one that I have finished with there was the issue of the border in Northern Ireland. Scotland relies heavily on immigration and freedom of movement. In going forward, I hope that the Government will recognise that Scotland relies heavily on its NHS and its public services on immigration and freedom of movement. I apologise, Presiding Officer. I hope that you did not hear that. Would all members please make sure that their mobile phones and other equipment is turned off? My apologies to the chamber. I hope that you did not hear any of that. Scotland relies heavily on immigration, but it is something that I have argued, and I believe in it very deeply, that it does not require the devolution of immigration in order to construct a policy that recognises that different parts of the United Kingdom need different things. Jackson Carlaw's contribution was a significant one. I recognise the work that he and Adam Tomkins are doing in trying to represent the Scottish interests here to the UK Government. I think that that shows that there is hope that we can work together. The integrity of the Scotland Act for me is something that I fought for all my political life. I believe that what was not reserved is devolved, and I hope that we should all uphold the integrity of the Scotland Act. However, the most significant political issue of our time, of course, is Brexit. There are hard times ahead for ordinary people who try to follow what we as politicians are doing. They have faced a decade of austerity post the banking crash. We know that, as we move forward in Brexit, there are many problems to solve, and let us remember that the people that we are working for, let us come to an arrangement for them that works for them. Richard Lochhead, to be followed by Ross Greer. Can I first begin by congratulating our committee convener, speaking as a member of the committee, on her opening speech, which very well summarised issues that the committee has been dealing with in terms of the theme in today's motion. I also thank my colleagues on the committee and the clerks for all their work over the past 18 months for dealing with what is an enormous subject, full of complexity and very difficult to grasp in terms of the impact that it has across Scottish society and the Scottish economy. I wish Neil Findlay all the best who is about to join the committee, and I wish a fond farewell to my fellow Aberdeen football club support on the committee, Lewis MacDonald. It is quite incredible to think that this is the first debate of 2018 in the Scottish Parliament. Of course, we have chosen the subject of Brexit quite rightly, because it is the biggest subject that faces Parliament in Scotland at the current time. Also, the fact that it is 2018 means that this is now the final full year of being a member of the EU, if the UK Government gets its way, which is quite a significant thing to say when you think about it. Of course, we are only weeks away of entering the final 12 months of EU membership for Scotland and the UK at the same time. As the convener pointed out, Barney said to the committee that he needs a deal wrapped up by November 2018, which is even closer. It is only a few months away, so it just gives us a scale of the challenge that we face as a country, and particularly the responsibility that the UK Government has to ensure more leadership to ensure that we get a good deal for Scotland and the UK. On the themes that have come across the committee from all the witnesses and, indeed, as parliamentarians and their own constituencies in going around the country, there are, of course, the remaining continuing common themes. First, leave uncertainty. People simply do not know what is going to happen in the future. Secondly, they have real concerns over the proposal that the UK Government seems to be pursuing of a hard Brexit and, indeed, flagging up the prospect of a no-deal scenario. We have to keep at the forefront of our minds as a parliament that Scotland voted to remain within the EU. 62 per cent of Scots voted to remain. Many people, of course, voted to leave the EU across the UK and even some people in Scotland. Some did because of misplaced patriotism, others did because of some false hopes that they were perhaps persuaded to adopt from the Leave campaign, which has since been exposed in the past 18 months. Even those people who voted to leave the EU did not vote for a hard Brexit and they certainly did not vote for a no-deal scenario. Many businesses in this country and ordinary people are very concerned about living standards and the future state of the Scottish economy. I have spoken to many businesses in my own seat over the past few months who are extremely concerned by what is happening. Many of these businesses are export-orientated and many, of course, rely on overseas workers to man and work in the factories in Murray as the situation is the same in many other parts of Scotland as well. What they are telling me at the moment, for instance, looking at EU Labour, is that many people are deciding to leave the country and go back home. Of course, there are less inclarations coming from overseas if people want to work in Scotland. That is a real concern for our business community as they plan ahead. Many businesses will not speak out for obvious reasons, but they are very concerned by what is happening. The implications for trade are very severe, indeed, especially from the horrendous prospect of a no-deal scenario. A hard Brexit or a no-deal scenario is seen as ticking time bombs by the business community in Scotland. We should all view it that way. It is unfortunate that the UK Government is doing so little at the moment to defuse the ticking time bombs. The convener mentioned the David Davis letter, which was quite astounding. On the one hand, we have Philip Hammond, the UK chancellor, putting aside £3 billion in last November's budget to prepare for a no-deal scenario. On the other hand, we have the letter of alarm going from David Davis to the Prime Minister just in the last couple of weeks expressing an alarm that the EU is planning for a no-deal scenario and all the dangers that it is presenting to the UK economy and to the country. Of course, what on earth does the UK Government expect when it is planning for a no-deal scenario? If I return to another industry, it is quite close to my heart, which is the Scotch whisky sector. We have moved from the situation where, shortly after the referendum in June 2016, the Scotch whisky industry was quite relaxed. I thought that surprise and relaxed would be the impact of Brexit on their industry. To the situation today, we are now very, very concerned given the lack of progress in reaching any kind of deal with the EU and the prospect of leaving the single market and leaving the customs union. Of course, they now have their seven asks that have been issued as part of their campaign, and they want a comprehensive customs agreement that minimises cost and complexity, which they say is essential, and they go on about the potential devastating arrangements for imports and exports and the impact that it could have on the Scotch whisky industry. Something that is causing alarm is the press release that was issued by the port of Rotterdam, which did get some headlines in the UK press, but should have got a lot more headlines, where the port of Rotterdam really are setting the alarm bells ringing about the impact of Brexit on EU trade, not just in terms of other EU countries, but also in terms of the fact that many, many goods come from the EU to the UK through the port of Rotterdam. They are talking about congestion in Europe because of the lack of preparation. They are talking about having to hire up to 100 more customs officers to work at Rotterdam. Because of that, they are talking about delays and getting the clearance for goods to be exported or imported through Rotterdam, and they are basically flagging up the potential for absolute chaos in terms of trading agreements and arrangements. That is all as we sit here debating this in early 2018, only a few months away from the timeline that the EU wants to have a deal in place for, so it just shows the lack of preparation. I urge the Scottish Government to continue to keep all the options on the table. There are real, real concerns out there. One, for instance, is the transition period, and the potential for a transition period. On the one hand, the fishermen and the farmers have been told that there will be a transition period. Therefore, on the one hand, some industries will be able to stay within the customs union single market, but others, such as fishermen, will be able to take out of the EU in March 2019. Clearly, that is a cherry picking approach by the UK Government, and there is no basis whatsoever to think that that will be supported by the rest of the EU. In terms of keeping the options on the table, absolutely, the SNP is not facing the same constraints as the Labour Party, who are worried about UKIP making inroads into the housing states in England. They are not facing the same constraints as the Conservative Party, who all their interests are in is maintaining the unity of the Conservative Party. The SNP and the SNP Government continue to put Scotland first, and that is what they should do to keep all the options on the table moving forward to get the best deal for Scotland. I thank our committee convener, our committee clerks, all those who have submitted evidence, and those who have hosted us for committee visits, both here in Scotland and in Brussels. It has really been invaluable over recent months to hear first hand from those who are experiencing this process already. Scrutinising the Brexit process has been a deeply disparating experience. Hearing directly from individuals, families and organisations affected by the UK Government's handling of the process cannot have filled any of us with confidence that a positive outcome is remotely possible. From phase 1 of the negotiations alone, we have seen so much uncertainty and stress caused by the Conservative Government's shambolic approach. It knew full well that the EU would accept nothing less than proper guarantees on EU citizens' rights. Yet we saw month after month of the UK Government dragging their feet, refusing to offer that guarantee, and even trying to rescind some of the rights of EU citizens living here. In that time, we heard from those citizens who felt that they had to leave Scotland, as they did not feel welcome here anymore. Of course, I accept Jackson Carlaw's point about those who have came here since, but for a Government's actions to have resulted in anyone feeling that they need to leave the country, as some have, should be something that fills us all with shame. I have spoken to EU citizens who have already faced discrimination based on their nationality in the job market from landlords, even from the NHS. The most striking piece of evidence that our committee gathered so far was not from a Government minister, representative of business interests, but it was from a mother, originally from Romania, who had made a life here for her family. She felt that EU citizens like her family were being treated like a dog that the UK had bought for Christmas but did not want anymore. That has been a shameful way to treat anyone, not least UK residents who have actively chosen to make their lives here. I welcome the phase 1 agreement, although not how long it has taken us to reach it. There is now less than a year left for the UK Government to negotiate its future relationship with the EU before it needs to begin ratification. Delaying the inevitable concessions has used negotiating time that the UK side simply could not afford to squander, and phase 1 was far simpler than what is to come. It is hard to see how a minority Government can reconcile its own hardbrags at fringe with the commitments that are made to avoid a hard border in Ireland, along with what is necessary to reduce the inevitable economic damage that we will sustain by leaving. That is an opportunity for the progressive opposition to step up and ensure that the UK moves towards a softer Brexit position at least, retaining our membership of the single market and of the customs union. I hope that the Labour Party can join those of us who have been working consistently for this shift. Falling the line of a Tory hard Brexit does not live up to the Corbyn mantra of working for the many and not the few. The only people who will benefit from such an approach are a very few disaster capitalists and outside corporate interests. We should be in no doubt that the next six months will be far more challenging than the last. Phase 2 is where rhetoric will have no alternative but to collapse in the face of reality. The UK has committed itself to ensure no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, which means continued alignment with the rules and regulations of the single market. However, the Government is also intent on leaving the customs union, a policy aim to ensure that the UK can strike its own international trade deals. Even accepting at face value the fanciful suggestion that a technological solution can ensure no hard border despite the UK being outside of the customs union, something that is just not realistic in the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland in that border, the UK will quickly find itself under pressure to diverge and undermine the rules of the single market. As soon as the UK attempts to negotiate a trade deal with the US or any other major economy, regulatory standards will be targeted for removal. We know that already from the EU-US negotiations for TTIP, which proved so unacceptable that they failed after eight years. The US has been very clear that it considers EU regulations to be a barrier to trade. Regulations that reach the framework on chemicals that involves extensive registration, testing, data gathering and, crucially, the precautionary principle. In the US, on the other hand, it is still legal to buy and sell asbestos. Regulations on animal welfare, on minimum ageing for whisky, on hormones and growth enhancers in beef production, on sanitary processing of meat, that is banning-coordinated chicken for those of us not familiar with industry, on use of certain pesticides in agriculture and on subsidies to farming under the common agricultural programmes are all considered by the US to be trade barriers, though the list goes on and on. In all those instances, the EU offers stronger protections for the public and the environment than the United States. The US tried to undermine many of those standards in the TTIP negotiations, and that was with the EU representing a trading block of greater economic power than the US. The UK negotiating alone with the US will be at a severe disadvantage. That is something that was made very clear to us on one of our first committee visits to Brussels, where US trade negotiation tactics were explained. The tactic is that they appear with the draft and tell the other side that it will be signed, because in most instances they are the far more powerful block and they get their way. Just last week, a US under-secretary for trade stood beside Michael Gove and lobbied for the UK to drop EU protections for the sake of trade with the US. At every opportunity, the US will attempt to undermine the regulatory standards that we inherit from our EU membership, yet if we want to continue to trade freely with the EU and maintain a genuinely open border in Ireland, we have to maintain those standards. We cannot have it both ways. When we leave the EU, the Government's policy on leaving the customs union will mean that we also lose every trade deal negotiated by the EU. We will be left isolated. As has already been noted, some of the most recent deal, CETA, took eight years to negotiate. We will leave the EU far sooner than eight years from now. It will be a huge effort just to maintain a worse trading relationship with the EU than we have at present. Let alone negotiate new trade deals with other countries, it is hardly secret that the Brexit process has been far from a triumph for this new global Britain so far. However, without a hard dose of reality quickly, it will get much worse and make the prospect of a no-deal Brexit ever more likely. That is not in Scotland's interests, it is not in the UK's interests and it is what we should all be working to avoid. I thank you very much. I call Tabish Scott. We are followed by Stuart McMillan, Mr Scott. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me also welcome the new year across the chamber and say to Stuart Stevenson who is sadly not here that I can exclusively reveal that he got something wrong today. Probably for the first time in his whole parliamentary career, but there we are, that Apella Archie is not about Christmas for Shetland. It is about our connections to Scandinavia, but I will be happy to give him a lengthy triest on that at a later occasion. I also welcome Neil Findlay to the front bench. It is great to see Neil Findlay joining the establishment of politics now on the front bench. We will watch that with great entertainment. His joust with Mr Russell will no doubt be good fun for the rest of us, although nothing for me compared to watching him have to be nice to the Tories on Brexit. At times, I have to confess that it is a little hard to tell the difference between the Tory front bench and the Labour front bench on Europe these days, particularly after one or two speeches today. To Jackson Carlaw, he is doing well in his migraine, but I thought that his interpretation of the Macron speech was a bit wider than Mark's. What the President of France did was to spot the opportunity that has been created by the fact that there is no British foreign policy now, and to make forward take forward a case that says that, for example, the French language could soon be the one most spoken across the whole of the globe. If that is not spotting an opportunity, I do not know what it is, but it comes about because of the failure of the UK Government to spot what is now happening. Mr Findlay. I think that it will also be very interesting to watch Mr Scott ride two horses at one time with his Shetland fishermen who are very hostile to his pro-Europeanism. Mr Scott. That is entirely true. The Shetland fishing industry or the other fishermen themselves do not support staying in the European Union. Mr Findlay is entirely right about that, but if you speak to people in the fish catching industry, as Mr Stevenson rightly set out earlier on, they need access to the single market, they need membership and membership of the customs union as well, and they do not need the tariffs that we are going to get with a hard Brexit. I take the point, but some of us in politics have to stand up now and again for things that we believe in. I actually believe in the European Union, and I wish we were staying in the European Union, not leaving it at all. As the UK Government reshuffle continues today, politics, but certainly not the country, observes Tory Brexiteer promotions and how that affects the balance of this most disunited of Governments. We are in the final nine months of the EU-UK negotiations. The Prime Minister has spent two days not on defining her Government's position on our future, but on a reshuffle that appears anything but a reshuffle. She could have had a two-day cabinet to thrash out an agreed position, but we can only conclude that on Europe that will never happen. The reshuffle could have heralded the back of Messrs Johnson, Davies and Fox. Why? Why should they be replaced? Because with them in a Tory cabinet, they can never unite on the most important aspect of the UK's future, the type of trading relationship that the Government envisages will govern our relationship with the EU. In Florence last year, the Prime Minister sought to say what she wanted, to build bridges with the EU, or rather to replace all the bridges that she had previously burnt, and to forge a close working relationship like the one that we used to have before she set fire to all the bridges that are now on fire. Today that we learnt that the Brexit Secretary is appalled, is appalled that the EU is planning under way in the event that negotiations fail. Who can blame Mr Barney? The UK Government response today at David Davis letter helpfully leaped to the financial times, saying that the impact of no deal could jeopardise existing contracts won by British business and forced such businesses to relocate to the continent. What does Mr Davis expect, Presiding Officer, or is this the start of an aggressive anti-EU public stance that has been simmering under the surface over the past 18 months? The hypocrisy of David Davis, criticising the EU for planning for no deal, takes a bit of believing on the day that the Prime Minister has considered appointing a specific minister in his department whose only job is to plan for no deal. In the speeches that the Prime Minister has made on Brexit, she always cites the possibility of no deal. Late last year, we found out that no assessment, no assessment worth of paper it was redacted from, had been produced by the UK Government into the sector-by-sector industry-by-industry impact on the economy and businesses of the UK Government's approach. No wonder the UK Government does not know what their approach is. They do not want that objective assessment because it will fall so short of what voters were promised by Brexit campaigners that in the House of Commons vote later this year MPs might just muster the courage to say no. The Chancellor wants regulatory equidistance, or rather the same EU rules continuing, to take pharmaceuticals. It now appears that Philip Hammond is not alone. Other UK ministers are worried not just by the loss of thousands of jobs as the EU Medicines Agency moves from London to Amsterdam, but by the industry's open call for the UK to remain within that regulatory regime. Here is the rub for the Prime Minister. This will keep the UK under the indirect jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, despite ending the European Court of Justice's role in the UK being a Theresa May red line. The agreement on citizens' rights means a continuing role for ECJ2, despite all the protestations to the contrary. Some other red lines appear to be blurring too. Boris Johnson, who spoke as the foreign secretary, said that Brussels could go whistle for any British money. We will now pay £40 billion at least for leaving the EU. So much for the £350 million per week that would go to the NHS, based on the A&E figures for Scotland announced today. We could do with some of that. The one certainty about article 50 is uncertainty, as its author, Lord Kerr of Kinloch-Lard, said in this Parliament last year. I find it odd that we choose to trigger the procedure without having a clear idea of where we are going to go. Indeed, Lord Kerr observed that the Prime Minister's Florence speech ruled out the Norwegian trade relationship model and a Canada-style deal. She refuses to say what will be the long-term permanent relationship between the EU and the UK post-Brexit. We are now offered another speech and another speech. Well, let's hear it. Lord Kerr added, David Davis says that we will continue with exactly the same benefits as we did when we were members of the single market and customs union. That sounds a bit like Jeremy Corbyn, by the way. Michael Barnier is right to say that that is impossible. There you have it. The only objective conclusion is that this UK is heading later this year for no deal. I oppose that, but I oppose leaving the European Union altogether. The test, therefore, for the 650 members of the Parliament in London, if MPs were to vote against such a deal before Christmas, we would remain a full EU member. That is a legal fact. There would be space to reassess. If the Government lose, then the Conservatives would fall. If the DUP vote Tory at that point, despite the impending crisis that would be the Irish border, who knows what would happen? In those circumstances, it is inconceivable that the rest of the EU would insist that the UK should leave on 29 March 2019. Instead, in that classic and merciful way that would dominate its grown-up politics in Europe, a way would be found to suspend article 50. That would be in the EU 27's interests. Then the UK would have to ensure that the people of this country were given the choice. Thank you. I call Stuart McMillan. We are followed by Jamie Greene, Mr McMillan, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First of all, I also concur with the comments from Joan McAlpine, the committee that has assisted the committee thus far. Presiding Officer, I thought that Jackson Carlaw's speech earlier on was very helpful and useful with the wider debate that it is taking place in Parliament thus far. Certainly, it was contrasted, unfortunately, by his colleague Rachel Hamilton's contribution shortly afterwards. The way that it is quite consistent in defending the UK Government, and I understand its position to defend to the health of the Government in Westminster, and it is certainly perfectly entitled to do so. However, leaving the EU is serious business, and it will have serious effects on our economy, everyone who lives here and everyone who wants to live here and contribute to Scotland and the rest of the UK. As things stand, there is not a take to. We are leaving the EU, so whether we like it or not, we have to get the best possible outcome from any talks. Our constituents deserve that. Amongst all the confusing information that is in the public domain, there are a few points that I certainly believe to be very important. First of all, are the guidelines agreed last month's European Council meeting that show that the EU27 is looking for clarity from the UK on the end-state relationship with the European Union? I am sure that I am not alone in the chamber in agreeing with the EU27 on that point. I, too, would like clarity on the end-state, as that will have a long-term effect on Scotland and my constituents. That end-state will be what we have to live with to do business in and also foster social relationships under for some time to come. Nobody is asking for all the cards to be placed on the table, which clearly would give the upper hand to the EU27 in any further negotiations. However, we know what we are leaving, but we have absolutely no idea what the destination will be. That creates huge uncertainty and forces a situation of fear and tribunation. As James Carville, Bill Clinton's election strategist, continually highlighted during the 1992 election, is the economy stupid. Joe McAlpine spoke about some of the financial elements around her contribution. That is crucial going forward with the issue. As a subsequent point, the situation in Northern Ireland is clear that some type of special arrangement between Northern Ireland and the EU is being created. I welcome that. There is therefore no logical reason for Scotland to be prevented. Some will say that we voted as a UK to get out of the European Union, so we have to get on with it. However, Scotland and Northern Ireland both voted to remain with England and Wales to leave, so why can one remain part of the UK have a special arrangement but the other Scotland not? My second substantive point is that of respecting the decisions of phase 1. As previously indicated today, the paper commissioned by our committee and published by Dr Tobias Lock laid out in clear terms, where the European Council has agreed that sufficient progress has been made to move on to the second phase of the R15 negotiations. The European Council has indicated that negotiations can only progress as long as all commitments undertaking during the first phase are respected in full and translated into legal terms. That is important because of the confusion from UK ministers after phase 1 was agreed to. Then there is a situation once again about the end state. Dr Lock indicated that the UK is new relationship with the EU while having to be founded on one or more international agreements between the UK and the EU and that it can only be signed when the UK is no longer a member of the EU, i.e. after 29 March 2019. The fact remains however that the UK Government needs to provide clarity on its long-term aims and ambitions for the UK. No deals can be signed up to until the UK are out of the EU. If the UK Government wants to have that positive relationship with the EU and it leaves, that is in the best interests of both sides, then bringing clarity to this end state is absolutely crucial. We need to remember that it is the UK who are leaving the EU. The UK has not been thrown out, so it is incumbent upon the UK to show leadership and clarity on its ambitions for everyone living in the four UK nations. My third and final point surrounds the EU withdrawal bill. The Secretary of State for Scotland attended our committee on 2 November 2017. In answering a question from Jackson Carlaw, he stated that we should all rally round and try to get the best possible deal. It is clear to me that all the other countries involved will be significantly pursuing their own interests. We need to pursue our own interests, and we need to do it as united and cohesive as possible. The minister at the Michael Russell had some discussion with Jackson Carlaw earlier on. However, if we accept the Secretary of State's comments and consider the validity of his reply, I wonder if any other Conservative members in the chamber can indicate why all 113 amendments that are laid by the SNP MPs are rejected by the UK Government. Those include the 38 amendments that were jointly worked on by the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government. I have looked at some of the amendments, and I can accept that some of them will be consequential amendments. However, there are amendments to safeguard the Parliament's authority over devolved matters. Some would have prevented the UK Government from amending the Scotland Act 2008 and the Government of Wales Act 2006 without prior consent from the Scottish Welsh ministers. Those and others were rejected by the UK Government, and that sounds to me like a rollback of the powers of the devolved institutions. That, despite the Secretary of State, later in that particular session, when I went after questioning by myself, I hope that we can have a united and cohesive approach. That is in our best interests for everyone in Scotland and the UK. The members to the withdrawal bill are part of that process. He also added, I believe that the Scottish Government is seeking a constructive role. If the UK Government genuinely accepts that the Scottish Government is being constructive, then why would it reject every single amendment that was laid, including those jointly worked on by the Welsh Assembly Government? Many of those amendments were supported by the SNP, Labour, Liberal Democrats and the Green MP in order to protect the Parliament's powers and responsibilities. Phase 1 of the article 50 process has been agreed but not yet achieved and delivered. Phase 2 will be tougher, much tougher, and if there is genuine belief that the UK should have that unified position, the UK Government needs to step up to the plate, open its ears to others within these islands, except that there are different aspects of the economic and social life in all parts of the UK and try to build that consensus. Ultimately, a consensus of the Conservatives, the DUP and the UKIP is not a consensus that I would be proud of or wish to support. Thank you, Mr McMillan. I call Jamie Greene to be followed by Ivan McKee. It's been a year and a half since the United Kingdom made its decision to leave the European Union. In that time, we've been faced with a number of obstacles, and this was always going to be the case. Any major constitutional change of the scale has a unique set of challenges that undoubtedly will test a nation's resolve. When the UK first joined the EEC, as it was known then, the new-found trading benefits that saw our southern ports grow, which massively boosted those respective regions, saw a reorientation to a cross-channel-focused trade heading southwards, which equally took its toll on our northern regions of the islands. Indeed, the European project itself did not come easy to member states. The experience of the 1970s tells us so. A centralised approach to European-wide industrial sectors was not an apolitical exercise, because even then, national governments were reluctant to let go. In practice, at the time, many nations sought to preserve their industries, one against another. Although customs buyers were removed, the psychological buyers were not. In the midst of a recession, governments then fought to hang on to their national privileges, subsidies and protectionist barriers. Those differences of opinion over the economic ideology of the European Union remain today. Those on one side who see it as a neoliberal panacea to building a bold, free, multi-state economy, and those on the other who prefer the road of wider social economic redistribution and see it as a means of doing so, is not as simple as being in or out. Perhaps it is the in or out of walked question that caused over a million Scots to mark a cross in the leave box. One EU member state is seeking to do what no other has done before, to leave and make it work. I am pleased that the UK and the EU has made what is widely acknowledged and accepted its sufficient progress on the first phase of talks. That will ensure that there is a distinct set of circumstances in Northern Ireland that will be respected by both sides. There has never been any desire to see a resort to a hard border between the north and the south, but anyone who has any real experience of the troubles will know that this was about much more than simple trade and customs borders. Those are deep, complicated and historic difficulties, which merit, in my view, a distinct solution to suggest otherwise as cherlish and simplistic. As we start the second phase of negotiations, it is in everyone's interest to tackle these difficult issues one by one and find a mutually acceptable solution. When I look back at 2017, my personal view is that perhaps much of the debate was often wasted on partisan politics, which I think got in the way of any common ground that was to be had in tackling those issues around our exit from the European Union. However, we are about to enter the second phase of talks, and my hope is that the tone of discourse becomes more practical and constructive. However, I do disagree with Mike Russell that this is a waste of government, political or even civil service time. A profoundly important and difficult decision was made by the British people, and its delivery merits the attention of both respective Governments. However, on a positive note, I believe that there is some common ground with the Scottish Government. I believe that there is a clear desire for a pragmatic deal on trade, which is of benefit to all of the UK. We both recognise the immense contribution that European migrants have made to Scotland and, indeed, the rest of the UK. I think that we both want to build a constructive and positive relationship with Europe that is beyond simply being trading partners or even historic political unions. As someone who has lived and worked in Europe and, indeed, a number of European countries before I got into politics, my experiences of Europe are very personal, but my career shift has taught me that as politicians, we are very used to telling voters before elections that if they vote a certain way, the outcome might be disastrous. However, as Democrats, it is our duty to move on from campaign rhetoric, accept the outcome of that vote and do your best to make it work. Now, could things have been preempted differently? In my view, yes, perhaps. Before the EU referendum took place, there could have been clearer plans set out as to what should or could happen if a vote to leave resulted. Perhaps the result to leave came as a surprise to many, and there will be no doubt the content of many a future auto-political biography. However, I respect that there are diametrically opposed views on Brexit even today. That being said, wherever the outcome of those negotiations, we must work together to ensure that trade with Scotland's largest market is not disrupted at all, and that is the UK domestic market. Now is not the time, in my view, for pity points scoring. Today's debate, for the most part, reiterates my faith and, I hope not my naivety, that this Parliament will work constructively with the UK Parliament to deliver the best outcome that we can achieve as we enter this new era of politics in Europe. Stuart McMillan I am not getting my glasses on, so I do not hear so well. The member wants to make a salient point. I am very happy to do that. Oh, that is a test. Is it salient? Let us find out. I thank Jamie Greene for taking the intervention. Jamie Greene, at the moment, spoke about the Parliament that wanted to work with the UK Government. Surely, the UK Government needs to work positively with this Parliament and the Scottish Government at the same time. Mr Greene, was that salient enough for you? Very salient, thank you to the member. In closing, I agree, and I think that Mike Russell reflected that in his opening comments. He acknowledged the work that Jamie Greene had done through the setup of the GMC and expressed the hope and desire that the new minister will continue that. I have every faith that that GMC will continue to work with all governments and parts of the United Kingdom moving forward, and I do hope that all members and parties approach those discussions constructively. I take you have now concluded. I have included. That is excellent. I call Ivan McKee to follow by Donald Cameron. Mr McKee, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank Joan McAlpine and the committee for bringing Brexit back to the Parliament today. It is important that we debate this issue in this Parliament, as the Brexit shambles rumbles on to its next chapter. It is also important to first remember the catalogue of chaotic events that led us to where we are today. A Prime Minister won an election and did not expect to win, and, as a consequence, had to call a referendum, he did not expect to lose. When he lost the referendum, he lost his job, and a new Prime Minister had supported Remain and got the job of delivering leave. She, in turn, called an election that she could not lose, in which she managed to lose her majority, and now finds herself unhocked to a party committed to leave that represents a part of the UK that voted to remain. However, it is forcefully opposed to any borders in or around the Ireland of Ireland, a circle that cannot be squared while meeting its requirement of a hard Brexit. On the latest episode of the leaked letter from David Davidson, I must say for the record that I am not surprised that the EU is surprised that the UK Government is surprised that the EU is preparing for an outcome that the UK Government has itself advanced and continues to do so. Let us be clear that no deal is the worst possible option, and it pretends for political reasons that it does. There is nothing except to further trash the last vestiges of credibility that the UK Government still has. With an official opposition that is adopted, Shoddinger's Brexit is an official policy position, both in and out at the same time, in favour of all the benefits of the single market without being in the single market, as close as possible to the single market without recognising that you need to be in it to get the benefit of it. However, at least the new Scottish branch office manager going by stumbling performance on the radio this morning understands that being in the EU is not a requirement for single market membership, something that the UK Labour leader seems unable to grasp. To be fair, Labour's policy of creative ambiguity is one that may well get them through, but the time that anyone gets round to opening the box to see where their Brexit position is alive or dead, it will be too late. So, on both sides, lack of clarity and direction. As we heard from Joan McAlpine from the work of the committee's investigations into the article 50 of withdrawal negotiations, the control and influence that the EU has over the negotiation process is profound. The EU designed the framework within which the negotiations will take place, both in regards to the first phase, covering the Irish question, finance and EU citizens rights, and now with regards to the second upcoming phase. At every stage, the EU has been prepared and clear in its objectives in contrast to the UK Government. The second phase can only take place if all measures agreed in the first phase are written in legal terms and translated into all member languages, a process that has, as we heard, barely begun. That includes the EU guarantee of avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland. Negotiations must be finished by November 2018 to allow time for ratification in the EU Parliament and the Parliament of the 27 member states. Something that this Scottish Parliament has no say in, and the UK Government tried to stop the Westminster Parliament having a say in. And, as has been made clear, there will be no final trade agreement before the UK leaves the EU. So, let's take a stop off where the UK Government is at this stage. There is no clarity in objectives, there is no route through the mess of contradictory red lines and political needs and wants. There aren't the skills to negotiate ideal or even to understand what is possible in this regard. And even if all of those were in place, there is no time to deliver on any of this. Where it ends up, time will tell, but we move month by month closer and the exit date is now barely 15 months away. The transition that follows, perhaps designed to kick the can down the road, does not delay the UK's exit from the EU. But when you have no idea where you are going, buying time is perhaps the only logical option. Meanwhile, the Brexit process consumes all the time focus and resources of the UK Government. To the extent where the Prime Minister cannot even manage a reshuffle without it descending into a chaotic parody, a Prime Minister so weak that she invites ministers in for them to tell her what job they want to do, not the other way round. So, let's face reality, there is no such thing as a good Brexit. Brexit will hurt Scotland's economy, it will cost Scotland's jobs and growth, it will hurt our standard of living, it will place in great uncertainty the future of those from other EU countries who have made Scotland their home. It will limit our freedom of movement to live and work in other EU countries, but it will at least have blue passports. Presiding Officer, the work of the committee has made it clear the truth of what we suspected all along. The UK Government is stumbling through this process without direction or clarity. It is an episode that will not end well. Our job in the Scottish Parliament is to stand up for the people of Scotland to clearly state that whatever the question is, a hard Brexit is not the answer, that the people of Scotland did not vote for this, do not deserve to have the shambles visisted upon them, that membership of the single market and of the customs union are essential to the future of Scotland, and that is what we should continue to argue for. Thank you. Thank you. I call Donald Cameron. The last speaker in the open debate, that obviously means we then move to closing speeches that you have been warned. Mr Cameron. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am very pleased to be able to take part in this debate, which is, of course, a debate of the Culture, Europe and External Relations Committee, but has members of other committees also speaking, as Mike Russell has noted, not least members of the Finance and Constitution Committee, whose views are particularly pertinent given their recent report on the withdrawal bill, as reported in today's news. My own committee, the Environment Committee, likewise has a significant interest in Brexit, given the raft of environmental legislation and policy that currently sits in Brussels, and it was to Brussels that the Environment Committee went in late November to meet EU officials, as well as the missions of other countries, Norway, Switzerland and Canada, for instance, to discuss various matters. Two immediate observations struck me on that visit. First, that no one should underestimate the enormity and complexity of what we are trying to achieve by disentangling ourselves from the EU, not least in the face of both the ideological purity with which the EU views its fundamental principles, as well as the diversity of views that 27 member states inevitably possess. My second observation was that, notwithstanding all the above, the EU is a pragmatic beast and will endeavour to reach a practical outcome for both the EU itself and the UK. That second point was amply demonstrated by the accord that reached between the Prime Minister and the EU President last month. As we all know, the UK and the EU concluded that sufficient progress had been made to advance to the second stage of negotiations. Agreements have been reached on some of the most controversial questions already, namely citizens' rights, the Irish border and the financial settlement. In short, many of the legitimate issues that this chamber has grappled with, the UK Government has likewise confronted, has listened and has acted upon and has reached an agreement with the EU about. The Prime Minister has always been acutely aware of the concerns raised, both here and in Westminster, regarding EU citizens' rights. Accordingly, a negotiated settlement with the EU has now been achieved to ensure the protection of the status of EU citizens post Brexit. Many people today and at other times have raised concerns over the Irish border. Again, the Prime Minister has restated the principle that there should be no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Those are a few examples, but I am confident that when this Parliament and Westminster raise proper and legitimate concerns in the future, the UK Government will listen and act when it comes to further negotiations. What transpired in December in Brussels represents significant and substantial progress. From that, I believe that we can take heart that likewise in the future, trade agreements that require to be negotiated will resolve in due course. It may not be easy, in fact it will certainly not be easy, and it will take time, but I am sure in the end a deal will be struck. In terms of the withdrawal bill, I would echo the views of Jackson Carlaw. Clause 11 requires urgent and substantive change. It does not respect the devolution settlement and it is no surprise that it has deeply troubled members of this Parliament of all political stripes. I welcome the fact that this has been recognised by the UK Government, and I know and believe that that Government is committed to respecting the devolution settlement. We on these benches will continue to take a constructive and pragmatic approach to help the SNP and the UK Government to reach a solution. One issue that was raised by Marie Gougeon during the course of this debate was the role of the ECJ. One of the unique experiences that I had as an advocate was to appear in the ECJ four years ago, acting somewhat surprisingly for the Scottish Government. I lost, unfortunately. But I had the current Lord Advocate as my senior. The serious point is that the vast majority of cases that come to the courts are between member states, the commission and often large companies. There are relatively few involving individuals, but I take Marie Gougeon's point about the implications for those individuals that it does affect, and she is absolutely right that the court has a role in family disputes. One of the fundamental principles of EU law is that an individual can rely on their EU legal rights and seek redress in domestic courts. If the withdrawal bill achieves its aim of importing EU law into the UK law, that will continue. What I would say is that our courts routinely decide matters with reference to international law where it is relevant, and I believe that that will apply to ECJ jurisprudence to you. Since I have been a member of this Parliament, we have had a number of Brexit debates that we have all taken part in. We should not, of course, downplay its importance. It is a critical moment in our history, and it requires proper discourse. However, every time that this issue is discussed, it seems that only members on these benches here talk about the positive future for Scotland outside the EU and the opportunities that do exist. Before Mr Russell reaches for his playbook of character taunts, I am afraid that I do not have time. Before Mr Russell reaches for his playbook of us being unalloyed optimists, will it be Pollyanna, Pangloss, or Mr McCorber? Let me deal with that head-on. I am an optimist, but, more important, I am a realist. The most realistic outcome here is, without doubt, a negotiated deal that will allow us to get on with delivering a Brexit that will benefit the people of Scotland. Thank you, Mr Cameron. We have a little time in hand, so I call Claire Baker to close for Labour seven minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I very much welcome today's debate on the work of the Culture, Tourism, European External Affairs Committee and taking forward an inquiry into the article 50 withdrawal process. I look forward to working closely with committee members in the coming year. I am sorry to disappoint some members of the chamber, but it is myself who is intending to join the committee, not Neil Findlay, who will be taking part in the debates coming forward with the committee. The debate this afternoon has been a serious, wide-ranging discussion. It takes place in an ever-evolving landscape as set out by the convener, Joan McAlpine. I believe that the process of exiting the EU, firstly, is highly regrettable, but secondly, is the most challenging set of circumstances that we have faced in many years. But we must do the best we can in the interests of our constituents. The complexity is not to be underestimated, and I do appreciate the work of the members of this Parliament, whether that is committee members, Government ministers or party leaders, and working to try to achieve the best set of circumstances possible for Scotland and the UK. Of course, there are many opportunities for disagreements, for accusations, for political positioning and misrepresentation, but I do hope that that does not hinder our ability to work together in the best interests of jobs, our economy, our legal system as highlighted by Mary Gougeon, our human rights and environment and all the areas that will be affected by this decision. It is imperative that, whilst those debates continue, we focus on ensuring that we are playing an active part in securing the best possible deal for our constituents, with the security of jobs and the economy at the heart of any deal. I recognise the concerns that there are over how Scotland's interests will be sufficiently protected. As Michael Russell said, Scotland must be involved and must be consulted. And while the UK Government is leading the negotiations, we are dependent on the work of this Parliament, the Scottish Government and the Secretary of State for Scotland and the role played by the GMC in ensuring that, as much of the, I believe, clear benefits of EU membership are continued within the reality of leaving the EU. It is not surprising that the Finance and Constitution Committee have today concluded that EU withdrawal bill is incompatible with devolution and it is imperative that the Scottish Secretary urgently brings forward changes to the disputed part of the bill regardless of the future promises. Turning to the work of the committee, I do not underestimate the challenges there are and have been in monitoring and scrutinising the article 50 withdrawal negotiations and the implications for Scotland. I hope that the new year will bring greater clarity over an understanding of the impact on specific sectors which has significant implications for our economy and jobs. At the end of last year, GMB Scotland published a report that they commissioned from the Fraser of Allander Institute. They make an important point that most independent analysis has concluded that Brexit will weaken the UK and Scotland's growth prospects in the long run. However, the implications look quite different for particular sectors and companies and much will depend on how policy makers respond. That process will require flexibility and, when necessary, a robust response from government to support sectors that may need additional focused support and support sectors that may be able to exploit new opportunities, as described by Stuart Stevenson. It is difficult to see beyond the challenges that will be in anticipated new tariffs and changes to the labour market, but, as the Fraser of Allander report recognises, much will depend on the future policy responses of government and we must be prepared to respond positively. The STUC is calling for investment plans to be established, investment plans that are determined by employers and trade unions for sectors that are most likely to be affected as part of the solution. A persistent criticism of the withdrawal process has been the lack of clarity over negotiations, the limited ability of Parliament to scrutinise what decisions are being made and whether they are in the interests of the country, along with the lack of preparation from the UK Government on the impact of withdrawal. Those are all valid criticisms. At the end of 2017, we did finally see the talks between the UK Government and the European Union move forward with the conclusion of phase 1. That was able to address some of the issues of concern as outlined by Ross Greer, especially the guarantee that the rights of EU citizens in Scotland, along with the rights of Scots living abroad, have been secured. We know the value of EU migrants to our country, not just the £4.4 billion contribution to our GDP, but also to our way of life and our society. However, while those guarantees are welcome for those who it covers, there are still concerns of the potential skills shortages that Scotland could face in the future. There are estimated 115,000 EU nationals in employment in Scotland, representing 4 per cent of the Scottish workforce. Farmers have warned of produce rotting in fields because of a lack of people to harvest it. We have many EU-skilled nationals working in our health and our social care sectors, and with an ageing population this demand will only grow. We must therefore ensure that we have an immigration system that works for our economy, as argued by Pauline McNeill in this debate. I was previously on the cross-party working group looking at post-study work visas building on Jack McConnell's fresh talent initiative. We need to ensure that we can find workable solutions in a new immigration policy that accommodates the needs of our economy. Presiding Officer, as soon as one hurdle is cleared in these negotiations another quickly approaches. The recent briefing paper from Mr Tobias Locke for the committee outlines the complexity of the negotiations and the decision-making process. It highlights the tension between the political and the legal process. While politicians are occupied with the political debate it can often be forgotten that this is a tightly bound legal process which governs what might be politically achievable. Now we must work to retain the benefits of the single market in a way that supports our economy. We must look towards a transition period to be put in place to ensure that any outcome seems the jobs of those working in the Scottish economy protected. To crash out of the EU without such a deal would be disastrous and would risk causing the most harm to the most vulnerable in our society. The committee has heard of the impact the Brexit uncertainty is having. Trade unions are reporting that Brexit is being used to justify low pay offers in the private sector. The STUC have raised concerns over Brexit leading to increased austerity and are emphasising that pressure must be put on the UK Government to maintain and improve workers' rights, health and safety provisions and wider social protections post-Brexit. Evidence highlights the importance of retaining the human rights act and of remaining a signatory of the European Convention on human rights. The debate today is a staging post on the work of the committee. I have welcomed the opportunity to reflect on their progress so far and the challenges ahead. Thank you. Thank you very much. Colin Adam Tomkins will close with the Conservatives seven minutes, please, Mr Tomkins. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to start by thanking Joan McAlpine and the European External Relations Committee for bringing this debate to the Parliament this afternoon. I think it's been a useful start to the year's proceedings. In the same spirit that I think Joan McAlpine also gave her speech in, we heard it also from Michael Russell, from Neil Findlay and from Jackson Carlaw. I'd like to be positive, or at least start positively, and say that I think we start 2018 in a much better position than we started 2017 in when it comes to Brexit and debating Brexit and thinking about Brexit. At this time last year, there had been no progress at all even on phase one and now, as we have heard, phase one has been completed satisfactorily. At this time last year, the Scottish National Party was talking only really about a differentiated deal for different parts of the United Kingdom, which in my judgment and I think in the judgment of a lot of members would have been disastrous for Scotland and indeed for the whole of the UK. At this time last year, the UK Government had not even yet begun to set out what its negotiating position would be and we now have very clear set of negotiating positions from the UK Government set out amply by the Prime Minister in both her Lancaster House speech in January last year and again in Florence in September. So there is much, I think, to be positive about. On phase one, we have not merely a conclusion but a conclusion that I think we should welcome, particularly with regard to the statements around Northern Ireland. It is incredibly important that there is full regulatory alignment between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland so that the north-south elements of the peace process can continue. And it follows from that that it is incredibly important that there is close regulatory alignment between Ireland and therefore the whole of the EU and the whole of the UK. Just as this time last year we were opposing the SNP's proposals for a differentiated deal for Scotland, so too would we oppose any proposals for a differentiated deal for Northern Ireland. What goes for Northern Ireland must go for Great Britain 2, must go for the whole of the United Kingdom. And if that means that there needs to be close regulatory alignment, post Brexit between the United Kingdom, all of it, and the European Union, then that, in my judgement, is all to the good. To mention surely the implication of what he's saying is that we should therefore in the UK continue to recognise the rulings of the European Court of Justice. Adam Tomkin I'm going to come on to the European Court of Justice in a few moments because I wanted to respond to a number of remarks given by Mary Gougeon in what I thought was a really important contribution to this afternoon's debate, although Donald Cameron did steal some of my thunder, which is why I rudely intervened on him. We've also, I think, seen a much more constructive approach between the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government in the last three or four months than we did in the first half of 2017. And for my part, I very warmly welcome that. We will debate formally in this Parliament in a few days' time. The finance committee's report published today on the withdrawal bill, and I'm the deputy convener of that committee, so in that debate I'll have to play a role as deputy convener. So let me take that hat off for a moment and just speak as a Scottish Conservative member of this Parliament about the withdrawal bill. I am deeply frustrated and disappointed that the United Kingdom Government has not yet brought forward the amendments that it knows it needs to make, particularly, but not only, to clause 11 of the withdrawal bill in order to obtain this Parliament's consent. It is imperative that that legislation is passed by Westminster in order to secure a smooth Brexit. It is imperative that that legislation is passed by Westminster with this Parliament's consent. Both the Scottish Government wants that and the United Kingdom Government wants that, and it doesn't have to be difficult. We have been talking publicly and privately about a series of solutions to the clause 11 problems for months. A solution is on the table, a solution around common frameworks, a solution around respect for the devolution settlement. It is not beyond the width of either Government to ensure that that solution is accelerated and brought forward sooner rather than later. We had hoped and indeed we had been led to expect that this is a problem that would have been fixed by report stage in the House of Commons, and it is frustrating that it is being kicked into the House of Boards. But I remain optimistic. I said that I was going to start positive. I am still going to be positive. I remain optimistic that a solution to this problem will be found. Indeed, I think that the solution has already, to all intents and purposes, be found. I certainly pledge myself and on behalf of everybody here, I pledge my party to continue to work with the Scottish Government, with Scottish Government ministers and with the United Kingdom Government to ensure that we get that solution sooner rather than later. I did want to come to one or two of the points that were said during the course of the debate and particularly in Mary Gougeon's really interesting and in some respects excellent speech about the European Court of Justice. The European Court of Justice will play, will play, look, the European Court of Justice will continue to play a role in the United Kingdom law and all of the jurisdictions of the United Kingdom after Brexit in the manner that was described a few moments ago by Donald Cameron. But the European Court of Justice is also part of the problem. The European Court of Justice is part of the reason why so many people in the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union because the European Court of Justice is a court which for 50 years has not enforced the rule of European law. It has enforced what it wants European law to become and one of the real difficulties with the European Union I was a Remainer I still am. I voted to remain in the European Union and if I could vote again I would still vote to remain in the European Union but I would vote to remain in the European Union despite the European Court of Justice and not because of the European Court of Justice. Time after, I'm afraid I don't have time, time after time after time in all sorts of fields from citizenship to free movement of goods to competition law. The European Court of Justice has deliberately gone out of its way to bend the rules of European law so that they don't say what the nation states of Europe have said they should say in the treaties. And if the European Court of Justice hadn't done that and I think we probably we might not be in quite the predicament that we are in at the moment. That's the only point of negativity I wanted to introduce into my remarks this afternoon Presiding Officer. I want to end on a final positive which is to endorse the view that a number of members have expressed from across the chamber particularly Donald Cameron and Jackson Carlaw that we must be pragmatic as we move forward. Yes, we must mitigate against the risks of Brexit and we must not be naive or complacent about what those risks are but there are also opportunities to seats. And one of the things that I think we haven't heard enough about in this Parliament yet are what kind of fisheries policy do we want to pursue for Scotland post Brexit? Because it will one way or another be our choice either subject to a common framework or not. What kind of agricultural regime do we want to pursue for Scotland? What kind of agricultural subsidies do we want for our farms and crofts in Scotland? Because these are questions that we haven't we haven't had to think about for the last 50 years because they've been thought about for us by the European Union. So yes, mitigating risks but also seizing opportunities and if we can do that constructively and if we can do that together across the political divide then I think we will get the Brexit that we all deserve. Thank you very much. Thank you. I call Michael Russell to close to the Government Minister eight minutes please. Thank you Presiding Officer and I want to start by agreeing with Adam Tomkins and indeed he was very keen to have a positive contribution and I'll do mine so I'll get my negativity out of the way absolutely immediately which is to commend recommend that Rachel Hamilton gives up on her absolute obsession with the union. She is a woman utterly obsessed by the union. She cannot make a speech without the union being absolutely the centre of that speech. I would commend in approach to 2018 that she gives that up tries to widen her horizons because they are terribly terribly narrow. Now let me move to the positive part of what I'm going to say. I do believe that this has been a better debate and I think Adam Tomkins is right to say that it's a much better debate than we were having 12 months ago but I want to be absolutely clear what the Scottish Government's position is on differentiation because it's not precisely as described by Adam Tomkins. The position that we have is that the single market and the customs union are essential for the future of Scotland. It would be preferable certainly that every part of the UK was in the single market and the customs union and I do take the point that he makes about regulatory alignment across the UK and particularly I think that issue is being presented now in an interesting but difficult way and I'll come back to that point in a moment because something arises out of Marie Gougeon's and Donald Cameron's contribution on law which I think is an interesting divergence of views between a political culture in the UK and a political culture in Europe. But if it is not possible if that is not what the Prime Minister is going to deliver then differentiation will be the minimum that is essential. And I don't want any misunderstanding about that because we cannot envisage circumstances in which Scotland is separated from the single market and the customs union in the way being talked about. That would be disastrous. But let me start with the generous I think contributions from Jackson Carlaw from Donald Cameron from Adam Tomkins about the issue of clause 11. I do hope that that debate has been atonic to Jackson Carlaw better than any migraine tablet because I at the high standard of debate will no doubt have excited him that he will have forgotten the pain that he is suffering. But I do think his statement and I've written it down that clause 11 is not acceptable to the Scottish Conservatives and the Donald Cameron's point that changed the clause 11 is urgent and Adam Tomkins' very honest view that this has to be a change that's made and his disappointment that hasn't made is very helpful. I just hope that they are being listened to. The necessity here is action and we must see action and a clause must be negotiated. It cannot be imposed but we stand ready to negotiate. But if that does not happen I repeat what I said in my opening speech we will move to a continuity bill and I'm happy to discuss that at a future date and indeed it is referred to within the report of the Finance and Constitution Committee. So we will have to see what transpires over the next few weeks. The clock is ticking on this. According to the Scotland Office this afternoon I see they don't believe that such an amendment could be rushed. My definition of rushed is not six months after the publication of the bill. I think that the timescale has been more than adequate and indeed there was a perfectly good amendment on the table drafted by ourselves and the Welsh Government. There are only a few more weeks that this bill will be in either the commons or the lords and therefore there needs some urgency to be applied and I look to David Littington particularly to bring that urgency here. I also want to comment in the start of this on the contribution of Neil Findlay and I agreed very substantially what Neil Findlay has said, something I never thought I would hear myself saying in this chamber. Clearly life is going to change from now on either from Mr Findlay or myself or both of us. There are one or two things that I disagree with but I'm not going to labour at the moment. I think that the issue of the single market and customs union may come between us. I can't really understand why there should be freedom of movement for capital and not for workers and I think that is an issue that we will have to address. But I do think that Mr Findlay highlighted this central dilemma in the political systems that exist between the UK and the EU. And it's one that David Arlen Green the legal commentator drew attention to some time ago and I've thought about it a great deal since I read his first comments on it. Which is that in Europe there is a political discussion and then a legal solution and it's the law that is then applied and particularly that is true in the negotiations where there's a very legalistic approach to negotiations. But the UK political system is based on politics continuing fudges from politics ways in which you try and get the best out of a circumstance and you don't ever tie anything down completely. And the problem is that those two things are incompatible. At the end of the day when you have to write down an agreement it has to be legal. You can't fudge that agreement. And that's what we're going to see in the Northern Irish situation undoubtedly. Because you can't fudge the agreement about what's inside a lorry when it crosses a border. That has to be absolutely clear. And as time goes on we'll find that there are innumerable issues which have to be resolved with legal clarity. And that's why I think the contribution from Marie Gaugione was so important today and again like Adam Tomkins I want to commend it. I don't agree with the in full anyway with the interpretation of the problems of the ECJ that Adam Tomkins has put forward. And I think an honest assessment of the ECJ would bring you to an interesting conclusion. The argument is always that the ECJ is against the UK and that it judges all the time against and this was a leave argument I'm not saying that Adam Tomkins argued but it was a leave argument that it was prejudice against the UK and the UK always lost cases. The UK actually lost about 75% of the cases brought against it by the EU. But France lost 90% of the cases. And the reason that is is because the EU brings these cases when it thinks it's going to win. Not when it thinks it's going to lose. And in fact the UK brings cases and wins them. Cases, for example, against France on issues of agriculture. Cases that the city of London has found advantage from because the rest of Europe has been found to be out of step. But this tabloid view of the ECJ and its horrors was rightly worked against in the evidence that David Edwards and others gave to the committee. And Marie Gougeon is absolutely right to draw attention to it here because the people who suffer from this are individuals. Despite Donald Cameron's optimism about the way in which this will operate, it is individuals who require the Brussels Convention on Family Long in order to live their lives. We'll find it harder to rely upon those European systems. Now, Presiding Officer, there have been one or two other exciting and memorable events in this debate, but none as Tavish Scott pointed out as important and monumental as Stuart Stevenson getting something wrong. It was an epoch making moment. And he drew attention, Tavish Scott drew attention to this in his speech and Stuart Stevenson missed it because he wasn't in the chamber so let me have the pleasure of repeating it. I commend Neil Monroe and the Parahandy Stories to Stuart Stevenson. I'm sure that he has them by memory. Indeed, Neil Monroe was probably his great-uncle. But the reality is that there's a story about the two new years and the fact that the two new years are kept at Cairndog. And the two new years are also kept at Burkhead where I think the confusion has arisen because that is also a fire festival. But the old new year is not part of Uphillia. It was perhaps a ceremony that arose out of the Christmas celebrations but it's not a new year celebration. So I think we will all remember this afternoon for the error from Stuart Stevenson though Mr Findlay has another reason to interview. Mr Findlay. Members would agree with me now that Mr Stevenson has got something wrong it only leaves the cabinet secretary as the only member of this parliament who has never got anything wrong. Mr Russell, you must conclude. I'm sorry to be negative. Mr Findlay contradicts himself there was a time when, according to Mr Findlay, I could get nothing right. So in all these circumstances, I think Mr Findlay has unfortunately shot himself in the foot. Presiding Officer, I just want to say this has been more positive, this has been more memorable. Ivan McKee's description of this process is essentially a previously in an episode of a soap opera was a wonderful contribution but the heart of this is the dilemma we're going to face during the year and the dilemma is this. We have a very hard process. I do not believe that there are good things to be had from it. I have to be honest about that and the Scottish Parliament is going to have to work together on this. This has perhaps been a slightly encouraging start from it but there's a long way to go. Thank you. I now call Lewis MacDonald to close for the committee till 5.14, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Today's debate has reflected the many different ways in which the economy, the institutions and the cultural life of Scotland and the United Kingdom are intertwined with those of our nearest neighbours and with the European Union itself. The work of the committee over the past 18 months has shown that the Brexit process and the creation of a whole new set of relationships outwith the EU will be complex and difficult and will throw up unintended and unexpected consequences. That is confirmed too by the report that Dr Tobias Lock prepared for the committee on the processes of agreeing a transition of negotiating a future relationship and of reaching a final agreement. As well as being a huge undertaking in themselves, those processes risk growing attention and resources away from the many other challenges which face Governments and Parliaments every day. It is now accepted that, of course— Michael Russell. It was remiss of me not to pay tribute to the member's contribution when he was a spokesperson on Brexit for the Labour Party and the work that I did with him, as well as the contribution that he's now making in the committee. I wanted to put that on record. Lewis MacDonald. It's very kind of Mr Russell to do so and I would like to take this opportunity to thank other fellow committee members who have made such comments in the course of today's debate. Indeed, in case I don't have time at the end, given your attention to these matters, I would like to thank John McAlpine, as convener, and all the members of the committee for the hard work that they have done and for the work that lies ahead. Of course. John McAlpine. Can I also congratulate the member on his contribution to the committee and, indeed, the forensic approach that he's taken to all our inquiries, which has made such a difference to some of the reports that we've produced? Can that be the last bit of the love in you, please? Thank you. Mr McDonald. Clear danger of turning into an even more consensual contribution than deputy conveners of committees I want to make, but I very much thank the convener for those comments, too. And I would say that in the work that the committee has done over the period, we have discovered layer upon layer of complexity in this Brexit process. We went to discuss, for example, with Michel Barnier in Brussels in September, the question of transitional arrangements and discovered at that time that while he was ready to talk about transition at that time, the United Kingdom Government had not at that stage asked him yet to do so and no formal request for such transition had been made, but that has now arrived. We have now reached that point. There will be a negotiation over transition. The transition will run from March 2019 to the end of the current multi-annual funding framework period that the United Kingdom is now fully committed to funding and therefore to the end of December 2020. And as Mr Barnier told us in September, that means that in a transitional period, an implementation period, if you will, the United Kingdom will continue to be subject to EU law. All regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judiciary and enforcement instruments and structures will continue to apply as will indeed the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, the rules of the single market and the customs union and the freedom of movement of people, goods, capital and services. Britain, in other words, will continue to have the obligations of a member state without the powers, as Lord Kerr of Kynllachard told the committee, a transition offers a stay of execution in that the rules of engagement for British business in Europe will continue over the next three years, instead of only the next 15 months, but it is too soon to know whether that deferral will help mitigate the impact of Brexit on the British economy. Too soon to know because transition will be useful only once we know what it is we are going to transition to. And this is one of the issues that the committee has pursued. The UK Government has indeed now discussed what kind of relationship it wants to see between Britain and Europe. That discussion was held just before Christmas, but they have not yet spelled out just what their desired outcome might be. Those reports which did emerge spoke of aiming high, of aiming for a bespoke agreement, but did not say what that would look like. Working to achieve a bespoke agreement surely has to start with a clear view of the intended outcome, which we currently do not have, at least we do not yet have in the kind of detail that would allow international treaties to be negotiated and agreed to. So, like others elsewhere, the committee also pursued the question of what detailed sectoral analysis had been done of the impact of Brexit. We were forced, as others have been, to conclude that no such analysis exists. Without such analysis, it is difficult to understand how anyone can aspire to design a bespoke agreement without knowing what the desired outcome is going to be. As Tobias Locke also highlights in his report, a new treaty will need ratification by member states. Each will need to do so, in line with its own constitutional arrangements and the agreement with Canada last year showed just what a torturous process that can be. We have, of course, had a duty to seek to understand the positions taken by both parties and what they might mean. That, I think, comes to the heart of the debate. As things currently stand, the UK Government's red lines rule out freedom of movement, the jurisdiction of the European Court and substantial financial contributions to the EU, while ruling in regulatory divergence and an independent trade policy. Those red lines would appear to mean, as Michelle Barney told the European Council last month, that the UK-Canad have a trade relationship on the model of the European Economic Area, or of the Swiss bilateral agreements, or of the association agreement between the EU and Ukraine, or of the customs union between the EU and Turkey. If that is the case, then a bespoke agreement must surely mean something more like the third party trade agreements reached with countries like Canada and South Korea, much less access than we enjoyed today, particularly where services are concerned. Michelle Barney emphasised the point to us last September. The balance between rights and obligations means that Britain cannot have the same access as Norway, but only the obligations of Canada. So it will be for the committee next year, this year and next year, to seek to establish just what UK ministers are seeking to achieve and what they think a bespoke agreement actually means. It is important to make the other point as well, and Ross Greer in particular highlighted this, but others did so too. If the single market is indivisible, there cannot be one set of rules governing access to the single market and customs union for Great Britain and another set of rules for Northern Ireland. The convener has already quoted the UK Government's commitment at the end of phase 1 to protect the Good Friday agreement with no return to a hard border, with full alignment with those rules of the internal market and customs union, which now or in the future support North South Cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 agreement. If Northern Ireland is indeed to be fully aligned with all or most of the rules of the single market and customs union, then the rest of the United Kingdom surely must be too. Adam Tompkins' closing remarks on those matters were in line with much of the evidence that we have heard by the committee in recent months. The choices to be made are the reasons why clarity about the objective being pursued by the UK Government matters so much and will continue to be of critical importance to the work of the committee and Parliament as a whole. On the one hand, red lines implying that Britain will diverge from European standards, leave the customs union and seek separate trade agreements with third countries. On the other hand, commitments given on Ireland, which can only be delivered by continued alignment with single market regulation across a wide range of areas, continued access for Irish citizens in the UK to European justice and free movement across both the Irish border and the Irish sea. That is the choice that the United Kingdom will have to make this year, either to seek a future aligned with Europe, protecting access to the single market and maintaining existing rights and obligations or else setting out in a quite different direction. So this Parliament will continue to scrutinise the actions of both UK and Scottish ministers in dealing with these matters and in seeking to ensure that the right choices are made in the months ahead. Presiding Officer, as I will be stepping down at the conclusion of this debate as deputy convener of the committee, may I thank you for your indulgence, may I thank Dr Katie Orr and the clerking team and all those who have supported the work of the committee and all my fellow members of the committee over the last 18 months. A good job done so far, I think, in difficult circumstances but clearly a big job still to be done.