 The next item of business is a debate on motion 9887 in the name of Fiona Hyslop on Scotland's international policy framework and priorities for 2018. Can I also wish to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons? I call on Fiona Hyslop to speak to you and move the motion. Eight minutes please, cabinet secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move the motion in my name on the Scottish Government's refreshed international framework and policy statement. If the Presiding Officer wants me to extend my speech, he can indicate that that is the case. The Scottish Government continues to have a strong and consistent commitment to international engagement. Internationalisation sits at the heart of Scotland's economic strategy, alongside innovation, investing in our people and inclusion. Scotland has a strong track record of international collaboration. We remain the second most attractive destination for foreign investors to the UK after London, and in 2017, visitors voted Scotland the world's most beautiful country. The Edinburgh international festival goes from strength to strength as a global forum for cultural exchange. Last year, we joined the Under 2 coalition to express our determination as good global citizens to play our part in shared challenges and strive to limit global warming to two degrees. We are alive to the constant need to build on and reinforce those strengths. As a result, we have recently refreshed the international framework and policy statement. Those documents set out how our international work supports this Government's central purpose of creating a more successful country with opportunities for all to flourish through increasing sustainable economic growth. The first objective is to strengthen our external relationships and our networks. Our international work is founded on partnerships with our people, our institutions and our partners inside and outside Scotland. Our second objective focuses on building our reputation and international attractiveness, and that includes strengthening and enhancing Scotland's reputation, boosting our trade and investment and striving to be a leader in areas such as climate change and equality. The third objective is to enhance our global outlook, embedding internationalisation in everything and equipping the people of Scotland to capitalise on the vast number of global opportunities. Fourthly, we will encourage engagement with the European Union and strive to protect Scotland's place in Europe. Scotland has experienced significant social and economic change over the decades since we launched our international framework, but no single event has had a greater impact than the result of the UK's EU referendum. It now threatens to redefine Scotland's place in Europe and the world, affecting our ability to play a full and constructive part in international affairs. The international policy statement and the underpinning framework are more essential than ever to communicate Scotland's open and welcoming approach. Yesterday, the First Minister launched the document Scotland's Place in Europe, People's Jobs and Investment. It presents the latest analysis by the Scottish Government of the implications for Scotland's economy in society if the UK exits the European Union. That analysis is clear. Leaving the EU could result in a hit of up to 8.5 per cent of GDP. EU nationals remain key to our international competitiveness, and the free movement of persons within the single market is helping Scotland to address the substantial and demographic challenges that we face. For us, all outcomes short of full EU membership will have some damage to Scotland's economic and social and environmental interests. The Brexit, which results in the UK being outside the European single market and customs union, will have the most damaging consequences for Scotland. We do not think that that is acceptable, and neither do we believe that the Scottish people think that that is acceptable. However, I agree with the Labour amendment that we need a lasting progressive partnership. Focusing on our wider international priorities, as Scotland's ambitions continue to grow, so does the importance of our country's international reputation and the need to work with others to contribute to the success of the global community. To enhance Scotland's reputation is the place to work, to live, to invest, to study and visit. The Scottish Government and its key partners are working together to offer a coherent and compelling picture of modern Scotland to the world. We will continue to focus on our priority countries—the United States, Canada, China, India and Pakistan—and we will continue to increase our engagement with Japan. Just last month, the Deputy First Minister visited India, accompanied by 11 principals and vice principals from Scottish universities, as well as one college, to explore academic collaboration and investment from India into Scotland. 2017 was an important year for India, as it celebrated 70 years of independence, and the Deputy First Minister addressed over 2,000 members of the Indian community in Scotland at Murrayfield for the Independence Day celebrations in August, as well as hosting key international investors to boost the partnership between Scotland and India. During the UK-India year of cultural exchange, we saw no less than 13 Scottish-India collaborations taking place in India and across Scotland. In addition to our five priority countries, our desire to strengthen engagement with Japan is a manifesto and programme for government commitment. Since 2009, there have been six Scottish ministerial visits to Japan, the last being my visit in February 2017. Since that visit, we have seen another very busy and successful period of collaboration between Japan and Scotland, especially in terms of increased trade, investment and cultural links. Recent successes in Japan include the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the Nippon Foundation and Scottish Enterprise in 2017. Each party agreed up to $10 million of investment over five years for the R&D programme targeting the development of sub-sea technologies, and my meetings with Nippon while visiting Japan helped to play a key role in taking this forward. There will be many opportunities to recognise and encourage stronger engagement with Japan, particularly over the coming years, as we look forward to the Rugby World Cup next year and the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. Closer to home, all points north, the Scottish Government's Nordic Baltic policy statement was published in September 2017, and that refresh policy document reaffirms our commitment to strengthening our links in that region, promoting collaboration and policy exchange. Since that statement was launched in 2014, with strong examples of that, the co-operation with the First Minister's baby box initiative from Finland, our tourism memorandum of understanding with Iceland and our on-going engagement with Norway around fisheries, science and negotiations. Looking ahead, we will continue to promote the aims and objectives of the policy statement through our support for Nordic horizons, our on-going ministerial engagements and opportunities for policy makers to learn and exchange ideas from policy makers in that region. Of course, in November last year, at the request of the Arctic Circle organisation and its chair, Oliver Ragnar Grimmsen, the former president of Iceland, we hosted in Edinburgh an Arctic Circle forum to examine the theme of Scotland and the New North. That was the first time that an Arctic Circle forum was held in the UK. It was attended by more than 300 delegates. Partnerships across the Arctic region will be central in the coming decades to address shared environmental, demographic and economic challenges and opportunities. We are proud to be playing a leading role and have committed to developing an Arctic strategy for Scotland. One of our long-standing engagements in the relationships is with China. Only recently, I represented Scotland as part of the UK's people-to-people dialogue in exchange with the Chinese Government in London. Through our achievements today, we have been demonstrating that our reach is wide and that we have the ability to make a positive contribution as a good global citizen. That includes just trade, and I look forward to hearing from the Greens on their amendment. Of course, it was almost exactly a year ago that members debated the Scottish Government's dynamic new international development strategy, Global Citizenship. That brings greater focus and direction to our international development work. We have made good progress in implementing that strategy, new development programmes in Zambia and Rwanda, a new Malawi funding round and expanding our successful Scottish scholarship scheme for women and children in Pakistan. We have placed great importance on Scotland being a good global citizen. We are playing our part in tackling global challenges as part of our wider engagement with the international community. That includes providing training with the UN special envoy for Syria's advisory group, and we have been supporting 50 women in that area. We are also deeply aware of the importance of the contribution that a human rights-based approach can bring to all forms of our engagement and our commitment to Scotland in values and practice to respect human rights and common dignity and humanity. I will be interested in hearing from the noble Democrats on the importance that they stress on that. I am delighted to present the Government's new international framework and policy statement to the Parliament today. Scotland will continue to seek opportunities across all policy areas for international collaboration to build upon our global reputation to improve the lives of everyone who lives, works, visits or studies in Scotland. I moved the motion at the start of my speech when I asked if I would have extended the time. Could you do it again? Just keep me happy. I now call on Claire Baker to speak to her move amendment 9887.3. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As a Labour MSP, I am very proud of our internationalist history. Our record in government, both here in Holyrood and at Westminster, is one that I can speak positively about. From our fresh talent initiative that started under Jack McConnell to our work on international development, both here and in Westminster, the Labour Party has a good story to tell and it is one that I am proud of. Ahead of the 2015 election, I took part in a number of hustings with some of the people who are here today in the chamber on issues that we will no doubt be debating today. How does Scotland face the challenges of the future? Challenges of globalisation, of climate change, of trade alongside exploitation, of poverty existing alongside extreme wealth. It was clear then and I am confident that it will become clear again over the course of this afternoon that on those issues there is a cross-party consensus in many areas. I hope that we can work constructively on those areas in the year ahead and I therefore welcome the opportunity for this afternoon's debate. At international policy it must be diverse. We must couple promoting our country, our people and our businesses with our moral obligation to use positively our position in the world and as part of the UK to help other countries and continue to be internationalists in our outlook. As an example, we know that the consequences of climate change, of flooding, of droughts, of extreme temperatures and coastal erosion impacts most on those countries that contributed the least to the creation of these tragedies. We must redouble our efforts in reducing emissions and limiting our contribution to climate change. The proposed climate change bill to be introduced this year will be an important part of achieving that ambition. I am proud of our history in helping countries through our international development work. That is a vital area that can often be overlooked, especially at a time of financial constraints for government. It is also an area that is often an easy target for negative media coverage and that is evident right now from certain sectors of the press, arguing that charity starts at home and that overseas aid is either not our responsibility or it simply supports corrupt Governments. However, that aid is vital to the countries that receive it. It is crucial to developing health and education services and supporting infrastructure development. It is less than 1 per cent of our gross national income and, while there is broad political support, there are debates around how it should be spent and how it is accountable. I want to recognise the important work of our aid and development charities, who work closely with local partners to tackle the root causes of poverty and give us confidence that the support is making a material difference to people's lives. While emergency aid will always be a factor, it is vital that we play a significant role in building capacity in education, in employment, in governance and in advocacy. We also have a crucial role to play in empowering women and girls and that should be a key factor in our projects. The fact that, in both percentage and in cash terms, we are one of the most generous countries when it comes to helping others should be a source of great pride and we must continue to meet the 0.7 per cent as set under the UN millennium development goals. Whilst in government, we set up the partnership with Malawi, along with introducing our international development fund, two achievements that I am pleased to see continue under the current Government. Ahead of the election, we pledged to increase the fund in real terms over the course of this Parliament. I hope that, in her closing remarks, the cabinet secretary can commit to the fund and commit to aiming to increase it to ensure that we can continue to help those most in need outside of Scotland, although I recognise the introduction of the climate justice fund. We have introduced the climate justice fund. We now have a £1 million humanitarian aid fund and we increased the funding that we inherited from £3 million. We introduced that initially to £8 million and now to £9 million and now to £10 million, but that all depends on the budget. I hope that she understands the importance of the budget vote in ensuring that we have that increased funding for international development. Claire Baker I recognise the cabinet secretary's commitment to the area and the resources that have been put in. It is important that we reflect on whether we can do more and try to make sure that the contribution that Scotland gives the proportionate to our overall budget. In the last Parliament, we saw clear evidence of the good that not only this Parliament can do, but the people of the country can do. With the humanitarian crisis that was filling our television screens, we saw the Government, local authorities, the third sector, the trade union movement and many of the general public responding in a way that we should all welcome. From Wishaw to Calais to supporting refugees, he came to Scotland to settle and find safe refuge to challenging the UK Government's response. Scotland's actions were encouraging. However, our worldwide human displacement is not just a reality when we face it on the news at 10 or the front pages of our papers. We need to ensure that not only is Scotland in the UK welcoming but that we are able to work with others at the source to ensure that displacement does not occur in the first place. I appreciate that Brexit casts a large shadow over our international policy. Last week, many of those who are here in the chamber today took part in the committee debate on the process so far. Later this week, I was joining conveners and fellow deputy conveners in Westminster to continue discussions on the route ahead. The on-going negotiations are clearly important and it is right that we continue to hold the UK Government to account. Our amendment today highlights the importance of our trade unions who have been active campaigners in the EU with a degree of success and we must protect the gains that they have made. However, it is also important that we do not spend the next two years or indeed the years beyond that, allowing Brexit to define us as a country. While it clearly brings forward challenges, not just in our future trade relationships with our countries in Europe and across the world but also in how our businesses and our culture can adapt to the changes in Scotland, we are still very much open to opportunity and I welcome the overall impression of positivity from the international policy statement that we are discussing this afternoon. There is much more that we can achieve. I move the amendment in my name. I now call Mark Ruskell to speak to and move amendment 9887.1. Five minutes please, Mr Ruskell. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I welcome this debate today and the Government's desire to show ethical leadership in its international strategy. In considering how we achieve this, our identity as Europeans is important and not just our membership of the EU but our alignment with European rights and European values. We will always be Europeans and part of our shared tradition across this continent is one of citizens' movements that highlight injustice and deliver progressive change. Now, in an uncertain post-Brexit future, we need to listen again to our citizens' movements as global trade relationships between Scotland, the UK and the rest of the world are recast in the years ahead. Scotland's citizens and Scotland's Parliament must be engaged at a time when we face an unprecedented democratic deficit over UK trade deals, a democratic deficit that could erode hard-won protections and rights unless we ask the right questions in the right places at the right time. Take the recent CETA trade deal between the EU and Canada, a deal that is being hailed as a blueprint for future agreements, yet one where democratic accountability in the UK has been woeful. There has been no meaningful statement or scrutiny on this deal at Westminster. No committee has sat down to try and understand the implications of the final agreement. There was no debate, there was no vote. There was also no engagement with the Scottish Government or this Parliament. It appears that only one industry body, the Scottish Whiskey Association, was directly involved in all those years leading up to the final deal. If we contrast that with the level of democratic engagement in other states across Europe and even in Canada itself, the Canadian provinces were directly involved in the CETA process. Wallonia was instrumental in galvanising the work of citizens' initiatives across Europe, initiatives that saw millions of people raise their voices against unaccountable corporate courts and the potential for social and environmental rights to be undermined. Up to a point, the pressure that those citizens' movements exerted worked, limited concessions on corporate courts were made. The Canadians in particular have had to learn how important the dialogue with civil society in Europe is. However, this final CETA deal has been far from transparent and future deals need to be democratically accountable. If a US-UK trade deal is negotiated in private with Trump, then expect agribusiness to try and sweep away trade barriers on GM crops and hormones in beef production. Expect US healthcare corporations to try and open up the NHS and for full-blown corporate courts to come back, allowing Governments to be sued for decisions that big business believes harms profits. A UK-India trade deal, if negotiated in private, could spell disaster for the production of generic medicines that are low cost and accessible to those living in poverty globally. For decades, rich countries have been attempting to push new intellectual property laws on to India, protecting the monopolies of big pharmaceutical corporations. The impact of higher prices on the fight against tuberculosis, HIV and AIDS and cancer could be devastating. However, the best way to detoxify those trade deals is to open them up to the light of scrutiny and debate. However, we do see a power grab now at Westminster, with the proposed trade bill transferring vast powers to individual ministers by passing Parliament and citizens. However, I would like to commend the role of Scotland's citizens and civic movements for shining a light on trade deals in recent years. The work of the Trade Justice Scotland coalition demands our attention. Organisations from the STUC, to Friends The Earth Scotland and global justice now have worked together to establish the key principles for just trade deals. Those principles should provide the starting point for all trade deals and the Scottish Government's review of its trade and investment policy going forward. The principles state that deals have to be democratic, open to scrutiny and amendable by Parliaments. They should work in the public interest. While the free trade of goods is in the public interest, public services and government regulations must be outside of deals. Trade must ultimately do good—a race to the top rather than a race to the bottom in standards that protect our health, our rights and our environment, alongside a trade system based on solidarity with the global south, not competition. I commend those principles to the Parliament, and I hope that the Scottish Government can see how its ethical leadership must extend to trade. I move the amendment in my name. I call Alex Cole-Hamilton to speak to and move amendment 9887.25, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am very grateful to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. I am very grateful to the Government for the conciliatory tone that they have attempted to foster. The only other time that I remember having occasion to speak about an ethical approach to foreign policy was at an amnesty international conference in 1999, when a new Labour MP was trying to extol the virtues of the ethical approach to foreign policy adopted by the Blair administration. That was just weeks after Police Commissioner Paul Condon, on the behest of the Home Office, had stifled peaceful demonstrations around a Chinese state visit to the UK. My remarks in that debate followed a course that I shall attempt to chart again this afternoon around one basic precept. It is our duty, as a developed and progressive democracy, to walk softly through the lives of other nations, to share in the benefits of de-restricted and mutually beneficial commerce, but to do so without making ourselves either complicit in or silent witness to the abuse of human rights in those places. I welcome the opportunity to debate this today, and I'm particularly interested in the design and use of the Government's list of priority countries. Because, Presiding Officer, there have been lists like this before, yet they haven't always encumbered Scottish ministers in dealing with countries' adrift of those lists, and sometimes even in those adrift of those values and for respect and human rights shared by all of the parties in this chamber. Similarly, those lists themselves have sometimes caused mild controversies in the past. For example, in 2013, the Scottish Government included Kurdistan in a new list of countries in which it was seeking to work. On further questioning, the Government was reluctant to disclose whether it had discussed the statehood of Kurdistan with other potential trading partners such as Turkey or Albania. A list is welcome, but it needs to be transparent. We need to stick to it, and it needs to be diplomatically coherent. That should, in turn, be underpinned by clear protocols for how government agencies should work in countries that have human rights concerns attached to them. In accepting that approach, Presiding Officer, we must be absolutely clear around what standards we expect countries to meet before we consider working with them as partners. For instance, in respect of emerging economies, what political or human rights hurdles would we expect Indonesia to clear or, for that matter, any of the next wave of global economic superpowers in the tier below the BRICS countries before they could be added to the Scottish Government's list for doing business? I would be very grateful if the cabinet secretary could address that in her remarks and set out the thresholds that she expects such countries to clear. It is important that we hammer this out because this country and indeed this Government have at times fallen short of the due diligence around human rights before. We used our time in this chamber last year to debate the supposed £10 billion memorandum of understanding that the Government rushed to sign between Sinofortone and China Railways No. 3, irrespective of the serious concerns from Norway and many others about the way in which human rights had been abused and sidelined by CR3 in earlier projects. The eagerness to further relations with China was evident in the refusal by Alex Salmond to meet the Dalai Lama on his last visit of Edinburgh, which was an embarrassing failure to recognise and support the efforts of those battling oppression by the Chinese state. The Government also fell short in its dealings with Qatar, despite revelations about the human rights situation there, not least surrounding the World Cup. Indeed, in 2013, my Lib Dem colleagues raised the concerns about the imprisonment of Qatari poet Muhammad al-Ajami, who wrote verses criticising the head of the Qatar Government and was in turn sentenced to 15 years in prison as a result. His case was not pressed by Scottish ministers in their mission to Qatar. It may be that the right opportunity was not forthcoming on that visit, but the ministerial delegation to the neighbouring Abu Dhabi poetry festival on the same trip must surely have provided such a chance. We press human rights issues on a number of our meetings when we can to make sure that we have the influence that Amnesty International, which is referred to by the member, advises that we do. There can sometimes be a dilemma because it is sometimes trying to help countries that have human rights issues to try to change their approach. Some of the issues can be close to home, for example in international development. Some of the countries that we work with may not have the level of human rights adherence that he may wish to see, but, nevertheless, we need to work with him to help that journey, and every country, even this country, has been on a journey. How do you square some of the challenges there in relation to human rights? We are pushed for time, Mr Cole-Hamilton. I am grateful for the intervention. I absolutely accept that such a dilemma exists, but, to this end, the second clause of our amendment calls for ministers to undertake a level of diligence that perhaps previously has not existed, both in dealings with companies and state parties, to ensure that we understand the human rights environment into which we are going. Even though I do not for a minute suggest that we should send those countries to isolation, we should try to embrace them and try to bring them to a standard of human rights observance that we would see fit. There are also further tests of our metal ahead, too, in the nature of our long-standing relationship with the United States, and how we respond to the ethical bankruptcy of the Trump administration. I hope that ministers, as they go forward, to tartan week will reflect on the discussions that we have and expressing our concerns to our colleagues overseas. Finally, Presiding Officer, as I said at the top of my remarks, it is in all our international dealings that we have to walk softly through the lives of other nations. As such, I move the amendment in my name. Now, I call Jackson Carlaw. Five minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I wonder if I could begin by asking if you can get the clocks fixed. They went a bit astray during the meeting. If I could say to you that we are trying very hard to do that, it was caused by a power outage that I do not think will be fixed today. I see. But the one at the back of the chamber is. So I do not mind if you turn away from me now and then. I break parliamentary rules occasionally. I turn my back on you, thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I commend the Government on the motion this afternoon? I have to say that I went off for the weekend thinking that it was an excellent motion and one that I thought was equal to the task that the challenge that now faces Scotland. To come back to find that there were a flurry of amendments at the beginning of the week, my colleagues said that you want to table an amendment to ensure that you preserve your speaking position. I said, vanity, vanity, all is vanity. I said, no, I am quite happy to follow the amendment contributions in this particular debate and have the opportunity to respond to them. So can I say to Claire Baker that I agree with nearly everything that she had to say. We will be abstaining in our motion but will support it if it is carried by the chamber. But only because we thought it then placed an undue influence on Europe in the context of the international discussion that we are having. I'm grateful to the Greens for reminding them that fruit cake just doesn't come with my afternoon tea. And I was going to say to Alex Cole-Hamilton that I was listening with care to what he had to say. But he's talked me out of supporting him, not because I don't think some of the issues he raises are of interest but because he said the last time he participated in a debate on foreign policy. And this is not a debate about foreign policy. That is not a competence of this Parliament. This is a debate on Scotland's international policy framework and it's important not to overstate what the Scottish Government has got the responsibility and the power to absolutely achieve. It is a very important—no, you overran anyway, I think, Mr Cole-Hamilton, so I shan't. So this is not a foreign policy debate nor is it a Brexit debate. So I'm not going to rehearse all the argument. I mean, Ms Hyslop may have tempted me and the First Minister may have tried to provoke me yesterday, but I'm not going to rehearse all the arguments about Brexit. It is, I think, we can all agree, a debate in which we have got an enormous challenge as a country on the other side of Brexit in respect of the international relations and new trading relationships that we develop, in which we all need to be engaged, in which I think the Scottish Government deserves all the support that we are able to offer. If you'd mind, I won't. I've got less time than you did, Mr Ruskell, to try and just say what I have, and I thought you said it and said it badly. In relation to Ms Hyslop, I wonder if she could develop or she could answer a few specific points, firstly, on the government hubs that have been established. I know that we've got one now in London. I know that we've gone in Dublin and the European Committee are going to be in Dublin next week. We're going to meet John Webster, who's the head of the hub and also Robin Barnett, who's the UK ambassador. But there are three other hubs in Berlin, Brussels and Paris that are at various stages of development. I think that in previous strategies there was an expectation, I hope, that one or two of those might have been up and running. I'd be interested to know just what the Government's current thinking is. I know that there's been a new head just been announced for one of those hubs, but just when you envisage those hubs being in place and established. I thought that Claire Baker made an important point in international aid. We as a nation contribute £13 billion to international aid and, of course, that's taxpayer contribution. In Scotland, we also as taxpayers contribute to international aid through the Scottish Government. In fact, Scottish taxpayers contribute more than any other part of the United Kingdom to the international aid budget. I entirely agree with Claire Baker. I think that some of the press headlines that go with this are quite lamentable. I thought that David Cameron was absolutely right when he insisted whatever the strains of austerity that followed after 2008, that we maintain our commitment to international aid because so many of the problems that we want to avoid or that we might want to prevent can only be done so if we are prepared to invest now in seeking to assist all of those countries. That investment in international aid is extremely important. It's important, too. I remember being invited in a previous Parliament to criticise the former First Minister who went on a trip somewhere and stayed in an expensive hotel. I was slightly ambivalent about it. It is the responsibility of Scottish Government ministers to seek to develop links across the rest of the world that are going to be of enormous benefit to the potential jobs employment, tourism and whatever else in this country. While there may have been some unfortunate photo opportunities from time to time, I applaud the work that Fiona Hyslop, the present First Minister, has done in seeking to get to countries in order to open up those relationships and seek to develop new trading links, which I think in the main are developing potentially extremely useful business and international contacts and relationships with those countries. Although President Trump has been mentioned twice, it is important that we remember that there is a distinction between the presidency and political leadership of a country in any given point in time and the nation and the people of the United States itself who remain our most important trading partner. Finally, we have representatives increased from 20 to 40 across Europe in relation to relations. We only have one in Latin America, and I am just concerned to know that the Scottish Government, in terms of developing opportunities for whisky and other products, recognises that, as well as the particular challenge that is faced in Europe, we do not want to lose sight of the wider challenge across the rest of the world. However, in general terms, Scottish Conservatives support and applaud the work that the Scottish Government is doing to seek to develop and improve and expand our international profile and the relationships and benefits that follow from that. Before we move on a couple of things, I remind members always to speak through the chair, not directly to each other, and to always treat each other with a bit of courtesy and respect. Do you have something that you wish to say, Mr Taxson? I am very happy to say, Presiding Officer. If that was a reference to the remark that I made earlier, I have ensured far worse from the Scottish Greens in many a debate in here. I do not think that comparing people's on afternoon tea is the worst in self. I am in the chair, Mr Carlaw, and it is my opinion that matters in this instance. I have said what I have said and I stick by it. We now move on to the open debate. We are already short of time, so I give you due warning. I may have to cut time from later speakers. Meanwhile, speeches are four minutes, and I call Ivan McKee to be followed by Alexander Stewart. I am delighted to take part in this debate today on Scotland's international policy and framework and Scotland's role in the world. I have to declare an interest as a trustee of Charity Education International, a small Scottish charity working to provide education and health support for rural communities in Bangladesh. In an increasingly interconnected world, how Scotland interacts with its neighbours near and far is of critical importance for our future and our economic prospects, the depth of our cultural experience and the life opportunities of our citizens. How Scotland plays its role as a good global citizen is also of profound importance as working with international partners we seek to influence the world around us in a positive way. I am therefore pleased to see the focus and breadth of the Scottish Government's international framework and policy statement with its emphasis on creating an environment within Scotland that supports a better understanding of international opportunities and a greater appetite and ability to seize those opportunities. Internationalisation is one of the four core themes at the heart of Scotland's economic strategy. Having done business in many countries around the world, I fully understand the importance to Scotland's businesses and our economy of international trade lines. A key purpose of the international policy is to support our businesses and institutions to make them more globally competitive, to be able to co-operate with international partners to exchange knowledge and best practice and to maximise and take advantage of export and trade opportunities. The commitment of the Scottish Government to doubling of SDI's presence across Europe is welcome, as is adding hubs in Berlin and Paris to those in Dublin and London in the upgrading of the Toronto and Brussels offices. Additionally, the creation of a board of trade and appointment of trade envoys is further evidence of the priority given to internationalisation of Scotland's economy. The Government's trade and investment strategy of global Scotland sets out a comprehensive action plan to boost Scotland's international trade, including stimulating inward investment. Building on Scotland's status as the most attractive place in the UK for foreign direct investment projects outside of London. The impact of Brexit has to be mentioned and it will be significant. The latest data published by the Scottish Government shows just how damaging it may be. While we continue to work to secure Scotland's place in the single market, the potentially disastrous consequences that may unfold following a hard Brexit make it all the more important that the Scottish Government focuses on the steps and measures that we can take to mitigate that impact. Making Scotland attractive to tourism and international cultural and sporting events is also a key part of our internationalisation strategy. It should be remembered that the globally competitive higher education sector attracting international students is a major contributor to Scotland's economy and to building our future skills and talent base, notwithstanding highly restrictive UK immigration policy. I made reference at the start of my contribution and support for a charity that delivers projects in rural Bangladesh. Bangladesh is not one of the core countries that the Scottish Government has committed to prioritising. I understand that prioritisation approach, with its focus on Malawi, Rwanda, Zambia and Pakistan. While we remain part of the UK, Scotland's budget for international development is limited. The decisions on where to spend the vast bulk of Scotland's 0.7 per cent of GDP contribution are made by the UK Government through DFID. In that context, it is important to focus our limited spend on specific targets where we can make a difference. That applies not just to the focus of spend but links between Scottish institutions, third sector organisations and businesses with those target countries. In conclusion, I am pleased to support the Scottish Government's international policy and framework. It gives a clear focus and direction to our international work and serves a foundation for Scotland to further develop our international trade, cultural and international development work. I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in today's debate on Scotland's international framework and priorities for the year ahead. The document from the Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism and External Affairs, which was published towards the end of last year, was extremely comprehensive in its approach, and I am sure that it can be supported by many, if not all of us in the chamber today. For my part today, I would like to focus on Scotland's contribution to the world as we strive to fulfil our important objective of being a glued global citizen. At the UK's level, the Conservative Government is one of the few countries in the world that has committed to meeting the United Nations recommendation of spending 0.7 per cent of the country's gross national product. That is much to be welcomed. I am therefore extremely encouraged to see that the Scottish Government also sees that as a very important priority going forward. I am very supportive of the Scottish Government's global citizenship strategy of international development and believe that the focus of developing support through international development fund in our four partner countries is the right approach. The type of funding model that is used for the international development fund, which supports grass-root development organisations, rather than providing direct funding to foreign governments, ensures that the people of Scotland can have a greater confidence in their money being well spent and that that is being directed rightly at organisations and individuals across the world. We look at the four main areas of Malawi, Rwanda, Zambia and Pakistan. As one of the co-conveners of the cross-party group for the Scotland Malawi, it is very encouraging to see the establishment of an international fund of £1 million, which has been much funded by the private sector. Schemes like that are important to develop sustainable economic growth and helping to ensure that our partner countries are able to make the transition from international aid becoming more self-reliant in the future, ensuring that we can support countries to stand on their own two feet is very important. It is incredibly fitting that Malawi is one of our four partner countries, giving the long tradition of links between Scotland and Malawi, which date back more than 150 years. The sheer number of partnerships between the two nations is staggering, with more than 300,000 Scots and over 4 million Malawians benefiting annually from their accords. That has been given to us by the University of Edinburgh in their talking about what can be achieved. Those civic links are about working together, rather than simply being about one country funding another country. That is very important that we do that. Last year, I welcomed the immediate introduction of the £1 million annual humanitarian emergency fund, which started during the financial year. It is encouraging to see that the fund has been welcomed by a wide range of organisations. The Scottish Catholic international aid fund has specifically praised the model, including that the panel of non-government organisations is there and in advisory capacity. Humanitarian crises are unexpected and un-stipulated. It is dependent that we ensure that we dedicate funds that will help suffering people across the world. In conclusion, I am very supportive of the Scottish Government's aim of continuing to be a good global citizen. The international development work of both the Scottish Government and many other civic partners to assist our partner countries is vital to ensure that we achieve that objective. Working together makes the difference for not just the present but the future, and we must work for the future of our international colleagues and partners across the world. I call Stuart McMillan to be followed by Pauline McNeill. Strict four-minute speeches, please. I am delighted to be taking part in this debate this afternoon. I welcome the international perspective that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament has had for some time. I am going to focus my comments on Inverclyde and Malawi. I joined the cross-party group Malawi on winning the Green and Inverclyde constituency in 2016. In my local authority area, there are 13 partnerships between Inverclyde and Malawi through the Inverclyde-Malawi Schools Partnership. That incorporates 15 local schools. That partnership assists 6,000 local pupils and also 16,000 Malawian pupils. They learn about each other, about the people, about the other countries and about other cultures. In addition to that, the local partnership allows schools to support the aims of education Scotland international engagement strategy. The 13 partnerships act as a vehicle to support the delivery of and align with a number of international strategies such as curriculum for excellence, learning for sustainability, international engagement, the Scotland-Malawi partnership, global citizenship, language learning in Scotland and the rights-respecting schools. Scotland has long had an international outlook on life and, on many occasions, before, colleagues in the Parliament have spoken of their constituency links with Malawi in particular. I am happy to do the same today for my constituency. Some colleagues have spoken about the business and trade aspect, and it is crucial. That is certainly the third part of the four strategic international objectives. However, I did not want to touch on that today because I knew others would do that. I wanted to highlight this aspect about Inverclyde and why some strategies can come across as being esoteric and something that people do not engage with. However, when you have a partnership in a local authority area of Inverclyde, and you have a partnership with Malawi, it highlights how important the international perspective is. It brings it to ground level where people can understand that they can engage with it and learn and prosper as individuals and as people are going forward. The Inverclyde schools and Malawi partnership has been in existence for more than 10 years, and I want to commend everyone who has been involved with that partnership and for the dedication to the work that they have undertaken over this time. In particular, I want to thank John and Anna Mackendall for their tremendous work. The local partnership is an example of Scotland's wider international outlook. Between 2015 and 2018, the Scottish Government is funding 20 projects in Malawi worth more than £9.2 million, and the new £3.2 million climate challenge programme in Malawi was launched to coincide with the COP 23 in Bonn in November 2017. It is part of the £3.6 million package to further support developing countries to access clean water, sanitation, boost for agriculture production and adaptation. A Scotland, with an international perspective, remains vital to continue prosperity of Scotland's economy, society and its people. Inverclyde provides an example of how an international perspective works. It can also include the local links that we have with Rwanda, where, once again, both countries are benefiting. I am certainly sure of the time that you spoke earlier on, but I am confident that the Scottish Government will do everything that it can to do both activities in terms of the international policy framework and to promote Scotland's voice. With that, I am very happy to support the Scottish Government and all its endeavours, and it will certainly welcome the new international policy framework. Pauli McNeill, followed by Christina McKelvie. There has rarely been a more important time to share international perspective on Scotland's relationship with the rest of the world. It has been an important year on the international stage at an economic backdrop being dominated by Brexit as we head out of the European Union, but a huge number of world events impact on our relationships with the international community. We are US president one year into his presidency who causes daily diplomatic upset. The more recent one, Presiding Officer, is probably not repeatable in front of you in this chamber, but it is suffice to say that the United Nations has called those remarks racist towards South African countries. However, more concerning for me is President Trump's obsession with the undoing of the Randale under the Obama administration. The joint comprehensive plan of action designed to limit the use of enriched uranium until 2030, binding it to use it for peaceful purposes, is important. A former British ambassador Peter Jenkins said that President Trump's hatred of former President Obama drives his determination to destroy this deal. Why is it important? Apart from anything else, European partners have been involved in this deal and its undoing is unhelpful for EU and US relations. Our relationship with the United States is important, but not at all costs and not at the cost of all principles. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said this week that British relationship with the United States is not our most important one, but it was Chancellor Merkel who went further and said that it is time for Europe to wean itself off the relationship. However, those perspectives are important not only to shape our trade and our relationships, but it is about our relationships and our contribution towards stability and peace in the world. Thankfully, there has been a dramatic reversal of fortune for the so-called Islamic State, Daesh, driven from 98 per cent of the territory that it once controlled. That has had an impact on the world. We cannot forget the spread and intensification of the fighting that led to a dire humanitarian crisis with 6.1 million people internally displaced and 4.8 million seeking refugee abroad. I commend the Scottish Government for the work that it has done to date on refugees. A subject that has been closest to my heart this year is the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. It looks like an apocalypse in the Arab world's poorest country, enduring a three-year war, causing a major outbreak of cholera, the worst that the world has ever seen. It was Andrew Mitchell, who I thought was an excellent secretary for international development, who said that the international community is complicit in a coalition that is blockading a country of 27 million people, effectively delivering a punishment to the whole of Yemen and that it needs to be condemned outright. The UK sale of arms to Saudi Arabia has reached 6 billion in profit. It is quite shameful profiteering from a conflict in the Yemen where so many lives have been lost. I am sure that many people will agree with me when I say that there will be no peace and stability in the world until justice for the Palestinian people. The state of Palestine is now recognised by 137 countries in the United Nations, but justice perhaps seems further away than ever with the continuing building of a legal settlement in the occupied territories. I would like to comment on what I thought was an excellent provision in the Public Sector Procurement Act, in which there was a commitment given to strongly discourage public sector purchases from dealing with companies that may be involved with the illegal Israeli settlements. If she was able to say something about that, that would be important. Maybe she could get back to make a few to date, because I think that that commitment is important in its contribution towards peace and how that is monitored. I think that it is certainly important to some people who follow the subject closely. Thank you very much. I call Christina McKelvie to be followed by Tom Mason. Three minutes please. Oh, thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Kenneth White on reviewing Billy Kay's book The Scottish World says, While others have questioned the self-confidence of the Scots, Kay has travelled the world from Bangkok to Brazil, Warsaw to Waikiki and found ringing endorsements for the integrity and intellect, the poetry and passion of the Scottish people in every country that he has visited. He expands people's view of Scotland by relating remarkable stories of the wealthy Scottish merchants in the community of Gedansd, the national geniuses of Scots descent, such as Lermontov in Russia and Greig in Norway, of an American civil war blamed on Sir Walter Scott and initiated in the St Andrew's Society of Charleston, of inspirational missionaries in Calabas and Budapest, of Scottish professors establishing football soccer strongholds such as Barcelona and Sao Paolo, of pioneers such as Sanderman and Coburn and the Scottish roots of many of the great wines of Europe and of our amazing involvement in liberation movements in Malawi, Chile, Peru, Greece, Cossacka and India. Now what a ringing endorsement for a book, but that book captures too, as does the endorsement, the pioneer spirits of the inventors and the adventurers, the Scots who made the world. Whether it's a contribution to building modern Japan by Scots born trader Thomas Blake-Gover or the Glover or the fantastic contribution to mathematics and science of Mary Fairfax Somerville. How many countries will be raising a glass, Presiding Officer or a song or a recitation to our barred Robert Burns in the next few weeks? Too many to count, but do we really see ourselves as others see us? We do, as Scots, have a great reputation around the world and maybe it is time to accept, in many cases, especially in historical business and our adventures, we have a dark reputation too and we should take some responsibility for that, but how do we use that? How do we build on those foundations? How do we make a positive ethical relationship with our fellow human beings? We do that by being open, internationalist and innovative. We promote our land, our arts, our culture, our business and we protect, promote and enhance Scotland, the brand. Whether it's taking Scotland to the world or welcoming new Scots to our land, we have a good story to tell, one that seeks fairness, a human rights-based approach to internal policy and seeks that policy in the lands that we want to work with. I welcome the Scottish Government's international policy framework because it is a basis to build that positive and ethical relationship that many of us have spoken about in the chamber today. We are fellow nations, but we are fellow human beings. Being instead, I think, from some of the hateful direction that we see in some other policy, including some from the UK Government, which I believe is lost in this way. Maybe that framework would be a framework that they could work with. We should send them in, but we should stop the world, because Scotland is getting on. The last of the open debate of speeches is from Tom Mason. Three minutes, please. As we seek to broaden our horizons, we have a great chance to promote Scotland than all we have to offer as a nation. I would like to take this opportunity to focus on one engagement strategy where more work is required—that is China, which I am familiar with. The strategy is due for renewal this year, and I believe that it gives us a great chance to develop a template for our international policy and can be used across the world. The existing strategy set out in December 2012 seeks long-term sustainable partnerships that cost many different sectors, sent to around four key priority areas. There have been successes, targets to double the number of Scottish businesses with access to Chinese markets and increased direct exports to China above the Scottish Government's export target of 50 per cent by 2017, being met during the life cycle of the current strategy. We must recognise, however, that there are also challenges that need addressing. Official statistics show that, for the first two years of this strategy, the number of new Chinese registered businesses in Scotland was only five. In addition, a pledge to double the number of Scottish students gaining qualification in Chinese has been missed by a sum margin, going from 309 in 2011-12 to just 365 in August last year. We cannot hope to engage with the Chinese business culture without knowledge of the language and detailed communication with our partners. It is imperative that we understand the different cultures across China itself. There is a danger that we concentrate only on key cities of Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong for getting the vast waves of business enterprise across what is a gigantic country. That means identifying clearly where our industries have particular strengths and focus on them. It would also help to look deeper into maintaining postgraduate internships for foreign nationals to allow relevant companies access to their Pacific knowledge and language. We should also recognise that investment with China must be sustained for the long haul, as the Chinese business culture is based on trust. It is not achieved without long-term commitment. My remarks might be quite narrow in subject matter, but there is a wider point here. The principles that underpin our engagement with China are pragmatic and sensible. I firmly believe that, if we use the opportunity that we have to refine our strategy to draw China, we will have a template that can be used to enable successful co-operation with selected countries, and that would be very encouraging to see. We need to be collaborative as we do so. Our international policy should complement not contradict that of the wider United Kingdom and its trade activities. We now move to the closing speech. She is really tight for time. Alex Cole-Hamilton, up to four minutes please. To my fingertips, I am an internationalist. It is the sense of internationalism that forges the central pillar around which my entire political party is built. As stated by Pauline McNeillan, an excellent speech is more necessary now than it has perhaps ever been. In my first speech to this place, I stated my belief that our withdrawal from the European Union was a doctrine of isolationism—pure and simple. I believe that still, and so it is, and it breaks my heart. Brexit turns off the face of our country against the shared efforts of our European neighbours to tackle those challenges that we all face that will never recognise any national borders. We have adopted that doctrine of isolation, but human traffickers will never recognise such isolation, terrorists will never recognise such isolation and climate change will never recognise such isolation. Those are international problems that demand international solutions, so anything that furthers our country's efforts to strengthen our approach to international policy should be welcomed. I embrace the debate in that spirit today. I agree with that. In that vein around Brexit, support the clause in the amendment in the name of Claire Baker about a new and lasting relationship with Europe. For my party, that new and lasting relationship lies in renewed full membership of the EU, either through scrapping Brexit or through re-entry at a later date. I hope that Labour will clarify its position on that in its closing remarks. I understand that diplomacy and international trade can be difficult. The cabinet secretary was absolutely right to make that point to me in her intervention. It is easy for Opposition members to take shots, and I have done so this afternoon. However, I recognise the dilemma that it is important to embrace countries that you would seek to foster change within, but it is also possible to maintain alliances and trade partnerships but simultaneously to push for change within those countries. I point to the decision of Vince Cable in 2012 to prohibit the export of propofol to the United States, which is a key ingredient in lethal injections. My amendment sets out the need for protocols to define relationships where agencies operating in this Government's name in countries in which human rights abuses are commonplace understand the rules of engagement to which they have to conduct themselves, and to move forward and to press those nations to change their behaviour. I am afraid that, cabinet secretary, I have only got a minute or so left. I had some excellent contributions today. I always enjoy listening to Jackson Carlaw, but I do not for a minute believe that he ever intended to support our amendment. I think that his grasping at Symantex was a convenient excuse to not have to back it. Alex Stewart made some excellent points about Malawi, and that theme was picked up by Stuart McMillan and Ivan McKee, when they pointed out excellent local links to international aid projects around the world. Something that speaks to a philanthropy in these islands that can be measured out in the second-biggest international aid budget on the planet. It was a tradition that was picked up eloquently, I thought, by Christina McKelvie in her speech. We shall all be judged on how we conduct our business overseas and with whom. Debates like this afford us a chance to lay out the standards to which those charged with representing Scotland must be held. However, we must walk softly through the lives of other nations, but in so doing, as I said at the start of my speech earlier on, we should not, at the same time, bear a silent witness to the subjugation of the people in whose countries they live. The Greens welcome the opportunity to debate this motion today and the excellent amendments on the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party. To Jackson Carlaw, all I can say is rather a fruitcake than the eaten mess that has taken this country to the brink in recent years. The policy statement that we are debating—an excellent document, an excellent series of documents, highlights trading goods and services as central to our wider internationalisation, as Mark Ruskell has covered—speaks about a global Scotland, our commitment to justice and our potential for ethical leadership. Our international health initiatives and the global presence and prestige of our university sector are both lauded, and rightfully so. Those are aspects of our society and our economy that we can be very proud of, but good things cannot happen in silos. Objectives cannot be met without policy coherence across everything that we do. There are notable sectors of our export economy that the statement does not mention. One of those is the arms industry in Scotland. Firms-based here manufacture weapons and equipment that bring carnage, death and destruction across the world. Raytheon and Fife make missile systems sold to the Saudi Air Force. Those missile systems have been repeatedly linked to alleged war crimes and the indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas in Yemen as covered by Pauline McNeill, including hospitals and funerals, by the Saudi Air Force. Banning arms sales is, of course, unfortunately a reserve power for now, but the Scottish Government provides funding for the arms trade through its enterprise agencies, including for Raytheon. They received £91,000 of public money last year. Other recipients of Scottish Government funding include CELIX, who have supplied equipment to, among others, the Saudis and the Assad regime in Syria, and Chemring, who sold CS gas that was used against civilians in the 2011 Arab Spring protests in Egypt and the 2014 democracy protests in Hong Kong. £17 million has been given to companies involved in the arms trade since 2007. It is hypocrisy to, on the one hand, hold international strategy that talks about being a good global citizen, showing ethical leadership, following a do-know-harm approach, while simultaneously providing public funds for the leaders of an industry built on war, death and misery. The Government's international framework stresses the importance of policy coherence. To quote the document, it is at the heart of this approach. If this is to mean anything, this public funding of arms manufacturers must come to an end. One arm of the Government cannot operate in a matter utterly incompatible with the all-government approach that has been committed to. The statement also highlights the dangers of climate change and our commitment to climate justice—very welcome. I welcome the climate justice innovation fund in particular, and the commitment to cut emissions across the board. Again, that is incompatible with the Government's other policy priorities, namely on oil and gas. Is it climate justice to expand North Sea oil production? On Monday, the energy minister welcomed Shell redeveloping an oilfield in the North Sea as great news, and the Government remains committed to the maximum extraction of North Sea fossil fuels, despite the irrefutable reality that to burn more than 20 per cent of known reserves would result in a disastrous and irreversible climate crisis. How many projects in Malawi, Zambia and Rwanda should the climate justice innovation fund contribute to, in order to justify the exploitation of the new oilfield? The reality is that every last one of those projects, as well as every effort to expand renewables here at home, is utterly redundant if North Sea reserves are extracted and burned. You cannot claim to support climate justice and continue the oil and gas industry. That is not a matter of ideology, it is simply science, and the Government knows it to be true. This is Scotland's year of young people. It is also one of the final four or five years in which we can stop climate change. If we do not, my generation and those who come after us will live through an era defined by the greatest crisis in human history. I ask the cabinet secretary what side of the Government is on, the side of climate justice, of those whose lives are being devastated and destroyed from Puerto Rico, West Africa, to hear at home in Europe, in Scotland, or on the side of Shell, Statoil and Exxon? That has been an interesting brief debate this afternoon with many issues that are too broad and complex to address in the short time that I have. In the opening, I highlighted the importance of project work for charities working at the front line. Stuart McMillan and Alexander Stewart raised the local partnerships and the important civic links that they have in their areas. Identification of priority countries is important, and that deep connection provides opportunity for long-term change. SCIAF raised the importance of a thorough and partial needs analysis to ensure that interventions are effective. I ask the cabinet secretary if there is scope for the development of thematic priorities in international development. I recognise the crucial importance of attracting trade and investment, ensuring that conditions are in place to ensure that we can create jobs and economic growth that we need. We also believe that such deals must be transparent with full parliamentary scrutiny. The problems that are not being done are highlighted by Mark Ruskell, showing the real risks of not enabling this level of scrutiny. That is why, in 2016, Labour launched a Just Trading Initiative, which will work with global trade partners to develop best-in-class free trade and investment agreements that look to remove trade barriers and promote skilled jobs and high standards. For too long, we have seen one-way trade deals concluded behind closed doors that promote profit often for foreign investors before public interest. That is why we oppose the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, and we must ensure that we do not undermine our democracy or sign up to a deal that could potentially drive privatisation in our public services, but one that puts jobs and workers first. I welcome the amendment from the Greens today, and I will support that just as I supported Mark Ruskell's motion for a member's debate. Further trade deals must safeguard the right to regulate in the public interest to protect public services and ensure that public bodies are able to make procurement decisions in keeping with public policy objectives. They must adhere to human rights and be built on social justice and not undermine or infringe in our labour standards. Although the document commits to put policy coherence for development at the heart of its approach, there is an argument that this has not been developed as strongly as it could be. Perhaps the cabinet secretary can say more about this and how the Scottish Government plans to take this forward, the agenda and her closing. The Liberal Democrat amendment highlights concerns raised around public agencies, operating in countries where there is a cause for concern. We need to ensure that robust procedures are in place for working relationships with partners and investors, that decisions are transparent and justifiable. As a Parliament, we have always strove to ensure a high standard of human rights and pass significant legislation in Scotland to illustrate that. We must do all that we can to demonstrate the same standards in our international relationships. The cabinet secretary did outline some of the dilemmas and compromises that this can involve, but a greater transparency over decision making can increase understanding. Pauline McNeill has long been an advocate for refugees and people living through conflict, and she made important points this afternoon around the crisis in the Yemen and the crisis that is with the Palestinian people. She also raised some questions around the public sector procurement policy, and perhaps the cabinet secretary can respond to those points in her closing. Presiding Officer, Scotland's future must be underpinned by a dynamic economy that is equipped to compete in the globalised world. For that, we need to ensure that our schools, our colleges and our universities are equipped to provide education and training to compete with the best in the world. Scotland and the UK are able to maintain its leading role in research and play a part in Erasmus, Horizon 2020 and its successor programmes. That is an increasingly competitive market for us to maintain our current reputation. We must work hard here in Scotland to ensure that we are keeping up with countries around the world. The cabinet secretary might want to say a wee bit more about the hubs as highlighted by Jackson Carlaw and what degree of importance we have placed on education going forward. Along with the rest of the UK, Scotland must be open to business to enterprise to growth, but that must be fair, it must be just and it must work for the many, not the few. Scotland is already an established world leader in certain sectors. I am pleased that Mark Russell mentioned the Scottish whisky industry. The Scottish whisky industry is the most prominent and likely to grow at an incredible rate. Post Brexit, Scottish whisky will be able to infiltrate international markets such as India and reap the rewards. The chambers seem excited about Scotland's future. Post Brexit, we will have incredible opportunities with the wider world that we have never had before. The future is about opening up Scotland to the rest of the world and today's debate has set out some of the opportunities out there. Ivan McKee spoke about internationalisation and spoke of his own experience and the importance of establishing trade links. The programme for government highlights some exciting projects, too. It seeks to build on relationships with China, Japan, the USA, Canada and the Nordics. I will quickly give way to Gillian Martin. Thank you very much for taking my intervention. I would be really interested to know what we have not been able to do before that we will be able to do as a result of Brexit in terms of international relations. Rachel Hamilton I think that that is typical of Gillian Martin to talk down the Scottish whisky industry when we have huge benefits out there. That is a consensual debate, almost, and we are talking about the work that Scotland's international policy is engaging in relationships with other international countries. A few of those relationships that I talked about before have fallen down and fallen by the wayside, but it is encouraging to see a renewed effort to re-establish and grow them. For example, Japan is an incredible country that shares our love for whisky. Those are bonds that can be encouraged and explored further. The cabinet secretary reminded us that the Deputy First Minister visited India and hosted key international investors to promote Scottish-Indian collaboration, and we look forward to further engagement. On this point, I have sympathy for the issues that Alex Cole-Hamilton raises when he talks of the standards that we expect from countries that we may consider doing deals with. He raises his concerns regarding previous conversations with Sino Fortune and asks that the Scottish Government practice due diligence at which we trust that it will do. Claire Baker agrees that we should maintain our commitment to international aid. She also talked about globalisation and climate change with such issues important to us as flooding drought, reducing emissions, and that must be at the heart of our conversations. She also said that international development work is vital to countries who receive it, and, of course, aid and development charities play such an important part in delivering this objective. Stuart McMillan and Alexander Stewart spoke of Scotland's good citizenship strategy, and the good work that is being carried out in Malawi, Rwanda, Zambia and Pakistan, and how funding through the Scottish Government, alongside private funding, can help countries to become more sustainable. Alexander Stewart said for them to be able to stand on their two feet. Pauline McNeill spoke passionately too about how the impact of humanitarian crises cannot be underestimated, and neither should the importance of world peace, because where would we be without world peace? We would not be able to develop and negotiate future trade deals. S&P members predictably talked of the end of world Brexit predictions, and, of course, opening our doors to others does not mean that we have to close doors. It is therefore key that we continue to explore in harness ways we can work with the rest of the UK to grow and develop the relationship. For example, Michael Gove's plan of agricultural reform will enhance the environment and support innovation. The climate, therefore, to learn from each other could never be stronger. Of course, Europe will remain a close and key ally, and, of course, despite us leaving the European Union, we will still remain in Europe. It is not just our geographical position that will ensure that, but it is also our shared values and close friendships that we have made with our overseas friends. It will be silly and foolish to throw away years of friendship. Luckily, we have no plans to do so, and we will remain friends with crucial economic and trade relationships. Jackson Carlaw has asked the cabinet secretary to give further detail on the information about the hubs. For example, could the cabinet secretary advise when the opening of the Brussels trade hub will—why it was delayed for six months from autumn of 2017 to spring of 2018 and confirm that it will not be delayed any further—and also the number of Scottish development international staff working in Europe? Only one worker was hired. Can the member confirm that this promise will be kept? I believe that Scotland's future is filled with opportunities, notwithstanding Gillian Martin's comments where she has more of a doom and gloom prediction, but with the prospect of new trade relationships and innovation within some of Scotland's key sectors. Once again, I reiterate that opening doors does not mean closing others. It is with that sentiment that I hope that the Scottish Government takes this forward when going out into the world and does it to due diligence in doing so. I call Fiona Hyslop to wind up the debate. Will you take us up to decision time, please? Thank you, Presiding Officer. How do you answer for all the world and all the world's issues in such a short time? I think that we have had a very good debate. I thank all members for contributing on our Government's new international framework and policy statement. We would look to accept Labour's amendments, noting that, of course, Europe is one—although a very crucial one—of four strands of the international framework. In relation to the Liberal Democrats amendment, accepting that we would not be expected to micromanage the public agencies in relation to their international activity, we cannot accept their amendment, as we are obviously appreciating the importance of human rights protocols. The international framework and policy statements will ensure that those four strategic objectives that I set out in my opening remarks together with internationalisation as part of our enterprise and skills review. Excuse me, Cabinet Secretary. Can we have a bit of courtesy in the chamber, please? Those are all aspects that ensure that Scotland can operate on an international basis across a whole range of our Government and, indeed, wider Scottish interests. The international framework that we have debated today also sets the direction for our global citizenship, our international development strategy, referred to by a number of members—Alexander Stewart, Schupper, Millan and Ivan McKee. Importantly, our ambition is for Scotland to co-operate globally in the achievement of the UN sustainable development goals, both domestically and internationally. As one of the first countries to sign up to that, the First Minister has said that at the launch of the international development strategy, Scotland cannot act with credibility overseas if we are blind to inequality here at home. We are using the experiences and expertise gained from tackling challenges at home in areas such as human rights, health, education, renewable energy and climate changes, all set out by Claire Baker in her opening remarks, to ensure that Scotland can play a unique role in working with partners to find solutions to the common challenges that we all face internationally. Our international strategy sets out a vision of Scotland contributing to the fight against global poverty, inequality and injustice, and promoting sustainable development through the SDGs. We will do that by encouraging new and historic partnerships with countries that are affected. We will also engage and encourage individuals in Scotland to make sure that they can use their professional expertise in doing so. Of course, that is the year of young people. We will look to inspire the youth of Scotland and be inspired by the youth of Scotland to realise their good global citizenship role and to prepare for them to pass down that role to future generations. We also note that today, in the Scottish Parliament, the Trade Justice Scotland Coalition will launch the principles for just trade, and those discussions are very timely. The Scottish Government recognises the principles of just trade, that it should be democratic, work in the public interest and do good, and that was referred to in the Green amendment. There were a number of different points made by members. I would say to Ross Greer that we are not in a situation that there should be no defence or no oil companies based in Scotland, and there has to be engagement with the Scottish Government that is appropriate in their regard. Clare Baker and, indeed, Pauline McNeill raised a number of issues. I cannot really go through all of them during this point, but I will ask Alasdair Allan to address some of the issues around public procurement and, indeed, themed aspects of international development. A number of members wanted to seek updates on the development of our new innovation investment hubs. We are looking forward to opening Berlin. We have appointed ahead. We are looking to have some kind of formal opening around the spring in order for us to maximise the Berlin-Glasgow European Championships, which is in our inaugural European Championships. That is a great opportunity to seal some of the connections and links with that city in particular. We are scoping localities for Paris. I spoke to the head of our Brussels hub today, and the development of the transformation of Scotland's house into an innovation and investment hub is progressing well. We will continue to promote the best possible outcome for Scotland in representing our interests internationally. We have expertise in this country across a range of areas, whether it is on climate change, renewables or our excellent food and drink industry and others. As we seek to work not just with businesses but with the aspects that Claire Baker raised in relation to our trade unions and with Civic Scotland, we have a great opportunity to make sure that Scotland can play its role on the world stage. As a Government, we will ensure that the framework and policy statement remain relevant and ambitious as the international environment changes and evolves. That includes making sure that every part of Government can contribute to that. Part of my role is to make sure that across Government, for all Cabinet Secretaries, the international aspects of health, yes, of our economy and in other areas. The community's Cabinet Secretary will host a global social enterprise forum, which is part of our contribution to world thinking in an important area. Every single part of Government can contribute to the international framework. It is my responsibility to help to facilitate that and to make sure that that happens. We want to work with partners from all walks of life in Scotland and beyond to ensure that Scotland can be internationalist and progressive in that internationalism. As a good global citizen, we will make sure that we have much to offer and much to gain on the world stage. I urge everybody to embrace some of the content of the dialogue of the amendments that we have had, but in particular to support the motion in my name, making sure that Scotland can take forward our international framework and our very vital policy statements. Thank you very much. That concludes our debate on Scotland's international policy framework. The next item of business is consideration of motion 8.437, in the name of Derek Mackay, on a financial resolution for the civil litigation expenses in group preceding Scotland Bill, and I call on Annabelle Ewing to move the motion. We come now to decision time. There are six questions today. The first question is that motion 9894, in the name of Annabelle Ewing, on the civil litigation expenses in group preceding Scotland Bill at stage 1, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that amendment 987.3, in the name of Claire Baker, which seeks to amend motion 987, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on Scotland's international policy framework and priorities for 2018, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to our division and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 987.3, in the name of Claire Baker, is yes, 80, no, 0, and there were 30 abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 987.1, in the name of Mark Ruskell, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Fiona Hyslop, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to our vote again and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 987.1, in the name of Mark Ruskell, is yes, 80, no, 30, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 987.2, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Fiona Hyslop, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to our division and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 987.2, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, is yes, 79, no, 31, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 987, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, as amended—no, sorry, not as amended—yes, as amended—on Scotland's international policy framework and priorities, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to our vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 987, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, as amended, is yes, 79, no, 30, there were no abstentions. The motion as amended is therefore agreed. The final question is that motion 8337, in the name of Derek Mackay, on a financial resolution for the civil litigation expenses and group preceding Scotland will be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time. We'll move to members' business in the name of James Kelly. We'll just take a few moments for members to change these.