 Rydw i ddybnu ddechrau i ddim yn ddod y ddiddordeb cynnigol. Rydw i ddim yn ddod eich adrwng ar gyfer ein ddiddorol yn y fotoeoeddon dementiaiaeth i ddechrau i ddiddorol y byddai a'r deilurau a'r ddichebwn i ddiddorol y Ddiddorol y Pwg Iul yn gwneud i ddiddorol yn Llywos Pethau. Rydw i ddim yn ddiddorol ar gyfer y ddiddorol a'r ddichorol y byddai a'r deilurau I would invite members who wish to speak in this debate to press their request to speak buttons now. I call on Joan McAlpine to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is fitting and timely that this debate should be taking place so shortly before the UK Government triggers article 50 and starts upon the path of leaving the EU. The committee's inquiry work since the EU referendum on 23 June last year has revealed layer upon layer of complexity relating to leaving the European Union. The committee initiated its work almost immediately after the referendum and I must commend and thank my fellow committee members for the time and energy that they have committed to this inquiry. It has involved weekly, sometimes bi-weekly meetings, as well as visits, events and meetings with stakeholders and visiting parliamentarians. The fact that we are debating four reports today is testament to the hard work of the committee. Also, while we have held different positions on some issues, we have succeeded in reaching broad conclusions in a number of areas. From early in our inquiry, our two expert advisers, Professor Shona Douglas Scott of Queen Mary School of Law and Professor Michael Keating of the University of Aberdeen in the Centre of Constitutional Change, have supported the committee's work and I would like to thank them for the many written and oral briefings that they have provided to the committee and for their expertise and knowledge that has benefited our work. I would also like to thank our clerks with the committee who have worked incredibly hard over the course of this inquiry. An early action of the committee was to commission two pieces of research, the first into the long-term economic implications of Brexit from the Fraser of Allander Institute and the second on the implications of leaving the EU for the devolution settlement from Professor Alan Page of the University of Dundee. Both of those pieces of research have been important in informing the committee's inquiry work, particularly our most recent report on determining Scotland's future, and I thank both the Fraser of Allander Institute and Professor Page for their work. I would also like to thank SPICE for the many briefings that they have published on the impact of Brexit on individual sectors within Scotland as well as the specific briefings that they have prepared for the committee. In conducting our inquiry, we aim to hear from stakeholders representing as many sectors as possible, as well as individuals affected by Brexit. I am very grateful to all those who gave evidence to the committee. Their evidence deepened our understanding and raised our awareness on the implications for Scotland of leaving the EU. We received over 160 written submissions in response to our call for evidence, and the views contained in those submissions are summarised in one of the reports that we are debating today, Brexit, what Scotland thinks. This report shows that for virtually all sectors of the economy, with the notable exception of the catching part of the fishing industry, Brexit is a challenge. Whether the submissions were focused on justice in home affairs, further and higher education, schools and skills, agriculture and food, climate change in the environment, health and sport, or equal opportunities and human rights, the overwhelming message was one of concern and the risks that it identified as lying ahead. There were fears about the risks of leaving the single market, about losing access to EU funding such as Horizon 2020, about the erosion of rights, about the huge volume of legislation that would need to be revised, about environmental standards and about losing the EU citizens that work in so many sectors. There was very little optimism or sense of opportunity in the evidence that we received. The Brexit, what Scotland thinks report, is a comprehensive summary of Scottish interests and in the weeks, months and years ahead, I call on the Scottish Government and the UK Government to recognise those views in all discussions, negotiations and decisions relating to Scotland's future. The report should be a reference point for identifying both what is and what isn't in Scotland's interests. The committee also undertook an early visit to Brussels in July last year, as well as another in January this year. In July, there was still a sense of shock and disbelief concerning the result of the referendum and uncertainty about the next steps. However, by January, the Prime Minister had made her intention to pursue a hard Brexit known and the experts in EU policy and the MEPs that we met were clear about the challenges of the negotiations that lay ahead for both parties. Those two visits were very important for giving us a perspective on the views from Brussels on the negotiations. The visit to Brussels last July contributed to our first report in September. We summarised the initial evidence that we heard and our conclusion that access to the single market was of vital importance to Scotland. The visit in January was invaluable to extending our understanding of the withdrawal of negotiations to agree a new treaty and the need for transitional arrangements. In January, we published a report on EU migration and EU citizens' rights. The evidence that that report brings together on EU migration to Scotland provides valuable and qualitative material on migration patterns and the contribution of EU migrants to the Scottish economy and society. It also considers the rights of the 181,000 EU citizens resident in Scotland, who represent 3.4 per cent of the population, as well as the rights that UK citizens enjoy as EU citizens, whether they live abroad or in Scotland. The UK's withdrawal from the EU has made all of our futures uncertain, but for no group is this uncertainty more keenly felt than those 181,000 EU citizens who live in Scotland and the Scots who have made their homes in Europe. In Scotland, EU citizens have settled in our cities, towns and rural communities. They have helped to reverse the population decline that is so worried about us at the beginning of this century. They have contributed to the growth of our economy by filling skilled and unskilled temporary and permanent jobs, but most importantly they have settled in our communities, enriched our lives and broadened our cultural horizons. In the report, we included testimonies from two EU citizens who have lived in Scotland for many years. Both have made their homes here and regarded Scotland as their home, but they were unclear about whether they could remain in future, particularly given the complexity of the 85-page form and the documentation on health insurance, national insurance contributions, employment and periods spent outside the UK that is required to apply for a residence card. It should not be forgotten that UK citizens living in this country and in Europe will also see a reduction in their rights on leaving the EU. We will become used to moving freely within the EU for business and pleasure, but in future, as a third country, we face the prospect of visa requirements or travel restrictions. We heard from the Scottish Youth Parliament that young people in Scotland see freedom of movement as an opportunity rather than a threat and they want it to be protected. There must be consideration of how the rights of EU citizens in Scotland can be protected and how EU nationals already in Scotland can remain. Therefore, the committee concluded that in the future there should be a bespoke or differentiated solution for immigration policy in Scotland. That would not only allow the Scottish Government to end any uncertainty for EU nationals but also protect Scotland from the demographic risks associated with the reduction in the number of EU migrants. The committee's final report, published at the beginning of March, is entitled Determining Scotland's Future. It covers three key areas—future trading arrangements, intergovernmental relations and the impact of withdrawal on the devolution settlement. The UK Government has chosen to withdraw not only from the European Union but also from the European Economic Area. Witnesses told us that the UK will leave the most successful free trade area in the world and that it will no longer be a party to the EU's preferential trade agreements with over 50 other countries. Never, as we were told, has a country decided to dismantle its existing trade agreements in such a way. Scottish exporters have benefited from the abolition of tariffs and non-tariff barriers. It has become the norm to send Scottish produce across the continent without any border controls. There is no need to satisfy rules of origin for goods manufactured in Scotland and exported to the EU. All of that could go when we leave the EU. By choosing a hard Brexit and by entering the negotiations with red lines relating to freedom of movement, the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and EU legislation, the UK may find that it can only achieve a very limited trade agreement with the EU and Scottish businesses will suffer as a result. Or, as we have heard suggested at the weekend, the UK may be unable to reach a deal with the EU within two years and fall back on WTO rules. The UK will be reducing its trading opportunities by choice. We have heard how, since the Second World War, there has been a progressive move to reduce tariffs and non-tariff barriers in international trade. The EU has made the greatest progress of any region in pursuing free trade, but the UK Government has decided that it wishes to give up these opportunities by leaving the EU and to start from scratch in renegotiating its trading relationship with the world's biggest trading partner, as well as with other countries throughout the world. The possibility of a hard Brexit on WTO terms looks increasingly likely, as UK ministers have described the scenario as perfectly okay. In contrast, the Fraser of Allander Institute submitted a report to our committee that predicts that this would result in a 5 per cent reduction in GDP, a 7 per cent reduction in real wages and a loss of 80,000 jobs. Our latest report also considered the intergovernmental arrangements for agreeing the UK's position on Brexit, for conducting the negotiations with the EU on withdrawal, as well as the future trade relationship, and for intergovernmental relations between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. Those will be the focus of other speakers, so I will limit myself to referring to the role that other sub-states have in relation to trade. During our inquiry work, we heard about the way that Quebec was included in the negotiations on CETA along with the other Canadian provinces, and the influence that the Parliament of Wallonia was able to use to block the CETA agreement temporarily. Both of those examples highlight the comparative limitations of the intergovernmental structures in the UK. Finally, the committee's report considered the impact of withdrawal from the EU on the devolution settlement. As all members will be aware, under the devolution settlement, powers that are not reserved to Westminster are powers of the Scottish Parliament and of the Scottish Government. Under the devolution settlement, current EU competencies such as the environment, agriculture, fisheries, justice and home affairs fall within policy areas that are devolved. The committee concluded that, I quote, "...we believe that any power currently a competence of the EU that is to be repatriated after Brexit and which is not currently listed in schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998 should be fully devolved alongside a funding mechanism resulting in no detriment to Scotland." Scotland currently receives considerable funding under agricultural and structural funding programmes. There is no clarity about how funding in those areas would be calculated in future. The committee considered that there was a very significant risk to EU competitive funding streams, agricultural support and structural funding in Scotland falling withdrawal from the EU. It was particularly concerned that any move towards a territorial funding framework within the UK that is based on population share rather than the allocation system currently in use would see Scotland's agricultural sector, for example, lose hundreds of millions of pounds. Finally, the majority of the committee concluded that a bespoke solution for Scotland to remain in the single market should be explored as part of the negotiations ahead and that the UK Government should provide a response to Scotland's place in Europe before article 50 is triggered. In conclusion, you will see that there are significant implications for Scotland of the withdrawal from the EU and that the committee's reports highlight those. I move the motion in my name. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and let me also start by thanking the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee for tabling reports that we are considering today, and for its work, which has and I am sure will contribute much to the wider consideration in our country of the implications of the EU referendum. There is, of course, a sense in which those implications cannot yet be fully understood and, of course, will not be for a long time. Nonetheless, the implications of the UK's rush towards and achievement of the hardest of Brexit will eventually emerge. The damage that will be done will not be completely visible on the day after the UK leaves the EU, but bit by bit its effect will be felt. Indeed, some of it is beginning to be felt already with increased prices and greater economic uncertainty. What our job is in this chamber is to find ways to mitigate such damage and, if possible, to avoid as much of it as we can. It is a belief of the Scottish Government that that can now only be done by allowing the Scottish people to make an informed choice as to the future that they prefer. This debate is very timely. It will give the Scottish Parliament a chance to reflect on key issues that are covered in the report and inform the wider public of the issues at stake. At the outset, can I say that we broadly welcome the reports and their conclusions? If you give me a chance to make some progress, of course I will take Mr Tomkins in a moment. Let me address some of the conclusions. The overarching findings from the reports highlight a number of common themes, including the economic, social, constitutional and legal implications and challenges that we will face when taken out of the European Union. The committee reports recognise a number of key benefits of European Union membership, the importance of the single market, the way that Scotland has benefited from increasing trade opportunities during the 43 years of membership, the fact that European Union membership and access has been of vital importance to Scotland's economy, the fact that migration is key to addressing Scotland's demographic challenges and the need to guarantee the rights of European Union citizens resident in the UK and recognise the importance of retaining freedom of movement and recognise that the big-spoke solution that reflects Scotland's majority vote to remain in the single market is required for Scotland. In short, the committee comes to many of the same conclusions that we did in our paper, Scotland's Place in Europe. I particularly welcome the committee's recognition of the importance of membership of, not merely access to, the single market and that a differentiated approach is required for Scotland. Of course, our paper, Scotland's Place in Europe, went further. It recommended continuing membership of the single market for the UK as a whole, pointing out the benefits of such membership, but that option was rejected by the Prime Minister of 48 hours before the Scottish suggestions were discussed in the GMC. That contempt for effective process has been the pattern over the past few months. Even now, on this very day, we have no idea of the timing, substance or format of the article 50 letter. The GMCEN agenda is meant to be set and shaped by officials from all the administrations, but there have been endless delays. Papers have been provided late. Discussion of key strategic choices has left off the agenda and work plan, which we thought we had all said should appear. The GMCEN terms of reference set the aim of agreeing a UK approach to and objectives for the article 50 negotiations and oversight of those negotiations. To ensure that, so far as possible, in any negotiation, the outcomes agreed by all four administrations were achieved. Those terms of reference themselves were painstakingly negotiated and, based on the Prime Minister's own commitment to agreeing a UK approach, set out when she came to Scotland and met the First Minister on 15 July. However, the Prime Minister now refers to the purpose of the committee as merely being for the devolved administrations to make representations to the UK Government and behaves accordingly. The ministers from devolved administrations travel long distances to attend as the meetings are always held in London. UK Government ministers attend to listen to the devolved administrations but rarely have insights of any substance to offer themselves. The GMC process has barely discussed a UK approach, let alone agreed a UK approach to article 50 and the subsequent negotiations. Matters raised by me have been taken away for consideration but not answered. It is clearly the UK Government alone who are agreeing their approach, and there should be no pretense about that. However, the chamber does not have to take my word. As my Welsh colleague Mark Drakeford pointed out in his evidence to the House of Commons dexu committee, St Fagan's community council in my constituency, he said, would be better organised than most GMC meetings have been. He added a sentiment that I entirely agree with, namely that there is a need for greater effort to go into the basic running of this very important forum. All that has bedeviled genuine attempts to get constructive progress. As has the growing insistence to the UK Government, the campaign promise of repatriation of all relevant powers after Brexit was not a promise at all. Instead, a new concept of the UK's single market has been invented to give justification for what is an anti-devolution power grab, which is shamefully being supported by the Tory members of this Parliament against the interests of their constituents and our democracy. Yet we have kept trying. Even now, we are prepared to continue to discuss areas of mutual concern and Brexit issues of vital importance to Scotland, but we must prepare ourselves for the future. We can have little if any confidence in the ability of the UK Government to secure a deal that works for us. That deal, a compromise deal involving single market membership for Scotland and an increase in devolved powers, has been on offer from us for the past three months, but has produced no formal response. The First Minister is rightly determined that we must provide a clear plan for the next two years. She has done that by ensuring that the people of Scotland will get to choose between the Brexit deal as negotiated by the UK and independence on a prospectus that will be brought forward by the Scottish Government, of course. Adam Tomkin picks up on the point that I wanted to intervene on earlier in his remarks. He said, if I caught him correctly right at the beginning of his remarks, that the implications of Brexit will not be understood for a long time. He also said that, on Monday, the First Minister called for an informed choice. Does it not therefore follow from his own logic that that informed choice cannot take place for a long time because the terms of Brexit will not be understood for a long time? Minister? It does not. Regrettably, not only Mr Tomkins but the entire Tory benches do not know what is in article 50. Let me tell them what is in article 50. There is a two-year timescale, and at the end of that two-year timescale, the European Parliament will vote, yes or no. If the negotiated settlement with the EU and the UK can be voted on by the European Parliament, it can be voted on by the Scottish people, and we will put against that a clear option of independence. That will be an informed choice, and then the people of Scotland will choose. Let me carry on, because, as the First Minister, also made clear at her press conference on Monday, we remain open to a substantive and positive response to our paper and proposals, but it is hard to see it coming forward. Indeed, the opposite is still happening. Last Thursday, the Prime Minister's spokesperson ruled out any devolved responsibility for migration within hours of David Davis, with whom I have no issue, in terms of his personal commitment to progress, indicating in the House that that might still be possible. It was done whilst a high-level civil service negotiating group was still in existence trying to identify a way forward. I do not know when next we will have contact on Brexit with UK ministers, as the JMC's schedule for this week has been cancelled. Though I should make it clear that we want that contact to continue, and on many issues such as the Great Repeal Bill, it will be essential. Leaving the EU will be profoundly damaging to our economy, our society and our reputation in the world. The people of Scotland did not vote for that damage and have the right to reject it and to choose a different future. This Government has a mandate for its manifesto for that approach. Each of us on this side of the chamber told our electorate that we believed that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will. That is quite a contrast. There is a contrast between that clear statement, which is now being honoured, which is underpinned by the fact that we are sitting here as an elected Government, and that of the Tories—not so much a minority as the Tories—and that of the—indeed, half the number, if I remember correctly—and that of the Tories in 2050, who will recall—whose manifesto said yes to the single market. So, on mandates, let's be crystal clear. We are honouring a mandate, their breaking one. Accordingly, we now have a plan in place, which will move to the next stage on Tuesday and Wednesday, when this Scottish Parliament will be asked to approve a request for a section 30 order. Those who believe in the 19th century concept of an untrammeled sovereign very British Parliament are now in charge of the Tory party and in the UK Government. They are refusing to accept the help of those who contribute to our wellbeing because they come from elsewhere, who are reluctant to engage our young people from every background to live and learn in other places, who refuse to accept the judgment of courts outside our shores and look backwards with longing to the days of empire. For those people, the very idea of devolution is a threat to that sovereignty and to their myth-ridden nostalgic world view. They want power concentrated at Westminster, they believe that it is the only place in which power should be exercised. I do not believe that. I believe in an independent future and a system that works for Scotland, so there is a choice to be made and that choice will be the choice made by the Scottish people. I gave her slightly longer because she took quite a long intervention. I call Jackson Carlaw, please, to open for Conservatives. I begin with my own tribute to the clerks and officials who serve the culture tourism European External Relations Committee. When the committee first established after the election had a merry discussion about our work programme, it would be fair to say that neither MSPs nor officials anticipated the turn of events, which will no doubt be rehearsed throughout the debate this afternoon. In consequence, the committee has had extensive meetings, open consultations, taken evidence from ministers at Westminster and Holyrood, participated in visits to Brussels and has engaged with diplomats from nations across the European Union, whether in it or not. Throughout, we tried in a world where speculation both informed and uninformed was king to establish the facts as best we could. Those four reports are a testament to the efforts of all the clerks and officials, and of my colleagues and of our convener, Joan McAlpine, about whom I hope to pay a more extensive tribute in my own way later in my remarks. On behalf of Rachel Hamilton and myself, I thank them sincerely. Nowhere in those reports will you find committee members arguing for a second referendum on Scottish independence. All of us campaigned for a remain vote last June. None of us sought the challenge that the majority voted for in the UK's referendum. Beyond the politicking, the committee endeavoured to explore the potential for variations in any final UK settlement, which it might be open for Scotland to secure. Our visit to Brussels last summer suggested that our asmas on horizon 2020 and in other areas such variations might be possible. That advice was caveated. It was dependent, so we were told, by one member state's EU ambassador on the closest possible working relationship between Scottish Government ministers and UK Government ministers. The UK is the member state, and the other EU member states will take their lead from it. So we were told in this phrase, which Joan McAlpine and others have sought to diminish ever since, that, should the relationship be in any way compromised, the shutters will come down all over Europe to any variable settlement for Scotland. Our dismay on Monday was therefore profound. At a stroke, a hugely self-indulgent stroke at that, the leader of the SNP has alienated Scotland from the whole negotiated Brexit withdrawal process. Who at meetings of the JMC or in Wales, in Northern Ireland, Gibraltar, the Channel Islands or Europe, can trust any confidences to the Scottish Government ministers when they have announced so belligerently in advance of any negotiation or agreement that they intend to campaign against it and against our neighbours on these aisles? The member has been told of any one instance when the Scottish Government has betrayed confidences of the Westminster Government, ever. The Scottish Government has now made clear its intention is not to support any negotiated agreement but to seek independence. Of course, it cannot be treated. Can I welcome the cabinet secretary back to debates on Europe? I am delighted that our junior minister is allowing her to participate this afternoon. The chamber does occasionally want to hear from the organ grinder. Scotland's case and a vital case at that will now be all the harder to press to negotiator to secure when the intentions of Scottish Government ministers are not on the deal and prospect. I know that this is a heated debate, but I am mulling over an organ grinder. I am not very happy about it. The boss. The intentions of Scottish Government ministers are not on the deal and prospect but on the separation they intend to make their lives only true work and priority. This is a tragedy for Scotland. In Scotland's destiny continues to be as two million people voted just two and a half years ago within the United Kingdom, then the SNP will have undermined the potential for Scotland to have any varied relationship with the future EU. That is both an abdication and a disgrace. In its conclusion and intergovernmental relations in our most recent report, the committee made a series of strong recommendations. Across the political spectrum, members recognised both the enormity and complexity of the discussions ahead. On the basis of the counter-briefings received, we gently admonished both Governments for allowing a perception to emerge that they had not been working hand in hand. As I have said before, we on this side have noted the reputation of the Scottish Government minister who has assumed responsibility for these matters for being a pussycat at the GMC meetings and a locker room hero when he pitches up afterwards outside number 10 or in this chamber to vent his grievances before us all. We noted the Scottish Secretary's commitment to provide a formal written response to the Scottish Government's submission, together with our expectation that this would be published ahead of the urging of article 50. We sought agreement to the participation of Scottish Government ministers—not at this point—in negotiations that follow in bilateral and quadrilateral talks with international partners on new post withdrawal trading relationships. We talked of a joint ministerial committee on international trade. In other words, we recommended as a committee a Scottish Government-involved heart and soul, body and spirit in the multiple strands of work that are required to negotiate and secure Scotland's interests in the agreement reach to withdraw from the EU. No committee member has argued or concluded that this will be easy. If anything, the extensive engagement that we have had since last June has illustrated not just how difficult and fraught it will inevitably prove to be, but has also identified the considerable exceptional legislative burden for which this Parliament will have to prepare. We were ultimately divided on the prospects of continued membership, as the SNP leader has called for, of the single market. Indeed, I have yet to hear any member state diplomat argue that it is achievable, and all 27 would have to do so. Yet it was this demand that lay at the centre of the Scottish Government's submission. Was it sincere? Was it all along a plan knowingly doomed to be denied support across Europe? Was it always intended to be an unobtainable objective, which the SNP willed the UK Government to acknowledge and reject, sowing yet another grievance but ahead of any EU state delivering the coup de grace? If the SNP were sincere, they would be today working, touring the capitals of Europe, urging EU member states to declare their support for such an idea, but they do not, and we all know why. As according to press reports and senior ministerial sources, the SNP is no longer clear itself what the Scottish Government's actual EU policy would be. It is hard to see how Scotland's interests can be fought for now in these negotiations ahead. Scottish Government ministers have driven a coach in horses through the recommendations in the committee reports and humiliated its convener, Joan McAlpine. Indeed, it is a tragedy, an absolute tragedy, the way that Hershey has been introduced, this loyal backbencher. SNP ministers can clearly no longer be trusted in the work ahead. Their ultimatum and objective is now incompatible with almost all the conclusions reached. There will be debating time of plenty next week to discuss the doomed actions and motivations of the Scottish Government in calling for a second independence referendum. Today, with the Scottish Government's announcement, effectively an abdication of its responsibility in the negotiations ahead, we call on others—those who care about Scotland's place in the UK and the future trading relationships that we will enjoy there—to work together to achieve all that is in best in these EU withdrawal negotiations for Scotland. We can no longer rely on the Scottish Government to achieve that objective. Thank you, Mr Carlaw. I call Daniel Johnson to over labour seven minutes, please, Mr Johnson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Clarity and certainty have become rare currency in politics. The issues that we face are defined by disruption so much that we have up until now taken for granted, and that in turn leads to understandable angst, not just in Scotland nor the UK but globally. The EU underpins much of how our economy, government and legal system work, and not always in obvious ways. Therefore, the prospect of leaving the EU raises questions where previously we had assumed certainty. Therefore, the committee must be commended for the cool-headed analysis that the reports that they have published undoubtedly represent. Those reports are extensive in their scope, they are thorough in their approach and, above all, they are undoubtedly balanced. Many of the topics that are raised by those reports have been covered in previous debates, but I think that it is worth summarising the key points of clarity that I think those reports afford us. The impact of leaving the world's largest free trade area has a fundamental impact on how our economy works and industry operates. Those impacts are counted in jobs and measured in the prosperity of working people. The committee's work is clear and, indeed, sobering. Its report makes clear that, after 10 years, GDP is expected to be between two and five per cent lower than it would have been otherwise and employment between one and three per cent lower. That is as much as £8 billion taken from our economy and up to 90,000 jobs lost from the workforce. Edinburgh is home to the second largest financial services centre in the UK and is a leader for asset management in Europe. Just last week, I visited standard life at their headquarters in Edinburgh. The impact of Brexit on this leading employer of thousands of people in the city was made clear and very real. Germany alone standard life has over half a million customers, customers that they are able to serve solely due to the passporting rights that they enjoy by dint of the UK's membership of the European Union. Crashing out of the EU and relying on equivalence rules rather than full passporting rights makes serving retail, customers and financial services an impossibility. That will force companies to look at relocation, taking with them the high-value, high-wage jobs that the financial services industry provides. Other sectors face similar challenges. The reports highlight the difficulties facing the energy industries, tourism, wholesale and retail trade among others. That will be the real cost of Brexit—jobs, livelihoods and opportunities for industry, businesses and the people that work in them. On the one hand, the loss of jobs is undoubtedly one of the most severe problems that we are facing while we contemplate Brexit. We are simultaneously facing a critical loss of labour and access to skills. Freedom of movement within the EU has given us the ability to fill skills gaps as needed to expand our economy's capacity and capability, whilst preserving existing standards of employment. The strength of the European Union has been to give us the flexibility to find the skills when we need them, allowing people to come and work from throughout Europe to help our economy to grow and adapt. However, that has been underwritten at the same time by strong regulation, guaranteeing working standards and rights at work. It is not just working standards that the European Union has guaranteed. The EU is a union that has fostered co-operation and developed shared standards across a broad range of areas. On the environment, we have seen the benefits of international collaboration. With the EU taking action at air quality, climate change, water quality, species protection and habitat protection, likewise in health, we have seen co-operation on pharmaceutical laws and public health initiatives. While much Eurosceptic bio has been directed over years at European standards of various types of trade, even after Brexit, we will still have to abide by those rules. If we want to sell our goods and services into Europe, we will have to, but we will simply have no say over them and have to bear the cost of running parallel bureaucracy and regulation systems here. The co-operation is embedded into the body of law that we have come to rely on. European institutions, standards and laws that are embedded and intertwined with law and regulation set in Scotland and the UK. As the committee's summary of evidence sets out 2029 regulations and 1070 directors that our law and regulation rely on will need to be reviewed, that represents a legal and technical challenge without precedent that will continue for years if not decades following the withdrawal from the EU. The importance of the work of this committee has been set out with clarity, the complexity of our relationship, our economy, our laws, our regulations, our society have become interlinked. Over 40 years of development and co-operation in the European Union means that breaking those bonds, those interdependencies will bring with them uncertainties and risks, which this report sets out. However, that also exposes the faults and inconsistencies and the SNP's Scottish Government's logic. It is impossible to discuss these issues and these reports without reflecting on the decisions that were taken by the First Minister over the last few days. The decision to pursue independence is, according to the First Minister, predicated on withdrawal from the European Union, motivated by those costs and uncertainties and risks. However great those risks posed to Scotland by withdrawal from the European Union, it is incoherent to argue that those risks are mitigated by seeking to withdraw from another union. In fact, the opposite is true. Separation would double down on those costs and those risks. Our economic bonds with the UK have been developed over 300 years, our trade worth four times that of European trade, our legal systems, our social institutions intertwined and embedded in fundamental ways. If breaking our bonds with Europe exposes us to risk, the risks and costs of breaking yet more deeper yet more fundamental bonds with the UK can only be more profound. That is the lesson from these reports. Leaving the European Union will have consequences, costs, risks that are pronounced and will be counted in jobs and lost prosperity, but to respond to those risks, those costs, by breaking the bonds that we have with the nations with whom we share so much and have even deeper interdependencies simply makes no sense whatsoever. I now move—can we just calm down a wee bit, please, especially the chorus that is going on in the background? I call Ash Denham to be followed by Rachel Hamilton. I draw the attention of the chamber to the fact that I am PLO to the Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs. While we should no longer be surprised, it is nonetheless alarming to see yet another committee report from this Parliament clearly spelling out how damaging Brexit will be to Scotland. £12.3 billion and 43 per cent of Scotland's international exports go to the EU. That is the economic value in plain terms that a hard Tory Brexit seeks to tear Scotland away from. According to the report from the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee, leaving the EU could cost Scottish GDP between £3 billion and £8 billion and a cut of between 30,000 and 90,000 jobs in the 10 years following the UK's exit. I know that such dire numbers have been reported before, and I am sure that those ones will fall on deaf ears yet again for some in this chamber who would sit complacently by, as the UK Government seeks to wrench Scotland from the world's single biggest market against its will. The SNP, however, has been anything but complacent. For as the committee concluded, a bespoke solution for Scotland must be considered before and after article 50 is triggered. Such a solution is precisely what the Scottish Government has worked earnestly to achieve. As was noted in the committee evidence, the Scottish Government was the first constituent part of the UK to deliver a report to set out quite plainly what it wanted and what the options were. What was Theresa May's approach to Scotland's compromise proposals? Unfortunate and disappointing. Not my words, but those who testified for this committee's report. Dame Marriot Leslie, a former senior diplomat and a permanent representative to NATO, commented, that it was extraordinarily unfortunate that the Prime Minister's Lancaster House speech seemed to set the Scottish Government's paper aside when it had not been considered in any detail at the joint ministerial committee. Mike Russell, Minister for UK Negotiations on Scotland's Place in Europe, stated in front of the committee that it was a great disappointment that the Prime Minister did not wait to present to her Government's outline of plans until after it had been discussed with the joint ministerial committee. It is now beyond a doubt that Theresa May and her Tory recruits here at Holyrood give no care at all for the 62 per cent of Scots who voted to remain in the EU, nor will they give an inch of compromise to protect Scotland's place in Europe. Yet here we stand, looking down the barrel of a gun that is article 50, facing great complexity, great uncertainty and no bespoke solution emerging for Scotland. As the Scottish Chambers of Commerce testified, the Prime Minister has lacked clarity as to where the country is going, where it will end up and what its policies are surrounding new free trade agreements between the UK and the EU. Furthermore, the committee received ample evidence from businesses concerned about the uncertainty surrounding the UK's future trading relationship with the EU. Numerous organisations such as the Royal Town Planning Institute, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Construction Scotland noted reduced investor confidence as a consequence of prolonged Brexit uncertainty. Professor Gordon Masterton at the institution of civil engineers stated that they are operating in a field of uncertainty which represented the worst business and investment risk possible. Professor Masterton urged the committee that this period of uncertainty must be navigated through as quickly as possible, yet the sheer complexity of a UK outside the EU and renegotiation of trade deals will be anything but quick. As Dr Margulis of the University of Stirling pointed out, the process of merely renegotiating the market access that the UK already has, not additional trade deals, could take years if not decades. Professor Anton Muscatelli of the University of Glasgow agreed. He noted that the global atmosphere has grown increasingly protectionist, therefore the UK must not think that life outside the EU will be a bed of roses. Despite warnings from experts, Greg Hans, UK Minister of State for International Trade, still had the audacity to claim that the UK wants new agreements to be the most comprehensive free trade agreements that anybody has yet negotiated in the world. Well, Mr Hans, our world-renowned, comprehensive trade agreement has already been reached. It is called the European Single Market, and Scotland is not prepared to be dragged from it and over a disastrous fiscal cliff against its will. The conclusions and recommendations in this report give more alarming proof of how destructive Brexit will be. Complacency towards those warnings will only yield calamity. While the Tory and Labour members may be okay with that, I am not. The SNP is not. The Scottish Government is not. We will do everything in our power to stand against the recklessness of Westminster. I thank the committee members for their concerted efforts. As has been mentioned, events following Monday's announcements have, sadly, deemed much of our committee's work superfluous. For unbeknown to members of the committee, it was the SNP's Government's desire to use the decision for the UK to leave the European Union as a reason for a call for a second independence referendum. Nowhere in the body of this report will you find any suggestion—not one word, not one iota—that Scotland should be independent. Nowhere within this report has the committee recommended to leave the United Kingdom. Much time in the committee has been spent on, can I make some progress, please, and then I'll take an intervention. Much time in the committee has been spent on discussing options that are not possible. For those reasons, members will note that Jackson Carlaw and I have descended from parts of this report. Mr Carlaw and I descended from the argument and I quote directly from the final report. Moving from full EU membership to the EEA membership would be an easier transition for Scottish businesses than leaving the EU completely, as they would be able to remain in the single market. Membership of the EEA would also allow freedom of movement, which is very important to key parts of the Scottish economy, as well as contributing to Scotland's population growth. It is clear from Brussels and EU experts that there can be no bespoke deal for Scotland. The United Kingdom is the departing member state of the European Union and will negotiate its exit. That means the best deal for Scotland, Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland. I'll take an intervention at that point. I thank Rachael Hamilton for taking the intervention. She said that the Europe had ruled out a bespoke deal. In fact, the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, which she knows we met when we were in Brussels, has a report out in which they say that a differentiated deal for Scotland should be considered. Perhaps she would also note the fact that the purpose of the committee's inquiry was nothing to do with Scottish independence. It was looking at Scotland's future in the EU, so it is not really any surprise that the reports do not refer to independence. Rachael Hamilton, of course, I will make a few time for that very long intervention. You know that Dr Fabian Zoolog said that it is highly unlikely that there will be a bespoke agreement for Scotland, and so did Charles Grant. The hypocrisy of the SNP and Greens to exude outrage of leaving the single market is almost beyond belief. Let me explain. Because, if we had become independent in 2014, we would have left the European Union, we would have left the single market and we would have left the most important trading partner in the single market the rest of the UK. The report specifically makes this point in states that the EU is the largest single market for Scottish exports out with the UK. Professor Michael Keating said that it is not possible if Scotland was in the single market and the UK was outside, there would be a hard economic border between Scotland and England, which begs the question, why would Scottish businesses cut off their noses to spite their faces? I cannot because I took such a long intervention earlier. I am sorry, Gillian Martin. People of Scotland have witnessed another screeching U-turn. The SNP and Greens are now fanatical about the single market, obsessed with the EU and preoccupied with using anything to hold another defice independence referendum. Labour and the Liberal Democrats also agreed to the above language, inadvertently promoting a bespoke deal and one that leads itself to undermine Brexit negotiations. Deputy Presiding Officer, I recognise the motives of the Liberal Democrats because their leader and their party want to rerun the referendum and ignore the vote of June 2016. However, I cannot understand Labour because currently nobody gets Labour. Do they support Brexit? Do they support Scottish independence? Both leaders in that respect have shown utter disregard for both results and confused us on where they stand. Vasilating Labour Party leadership must be to blame for pushing our sole Labour committee member to agree to the idea of a bespoke deal for Scotland in a minute. In turn, backing the SNP to weaken Brexit negotiations and further their cause for independence is a quick intervention. What part of rejecting the need for a referendum and rejecting independence itself does the member not understand? Kezia Dugdale has made the position utterly clear. Would she please not slander in the chamber? Voted for the referendum, so that answers your own point. The second conclusion that Jackson Carlaw and I have descended on was speculation, because within the report it uses that very word. I quote, "...there is already speculation that the EU may seek to agree the principles of the withdrawal agreement before starting the process of negotiating the future trade agreement. Some have said that the negotiations for the trade agreement could continue for years. Thus the UK would leave the EU without a new trade agreement in place. On withdrawal, the UK would also no longer be party to the preferential trade agreements that the EU has with third countries. It is vital, therefore, that transitional arrangements be requested by the UK in the article 50 letter. It is unhelpful to promote further uncertainty in a time of uncertainty. The UK Government has proposed phasing arrangements to ensure that there is a smooth transition. That is not fantasy nor speculation, that is fact. Let us not forget also the enormous benefit that Scotland has from the UK's network of over 100 countries that promote a solid base for securing strong trade deals. Those trading relationships and influence should not be jeopardised. It is better to be at the table than dining alone. To some extent that is agreed in the report. We agreed that together, as one, as a united kingdom, we should continue to participate in strong and productive inter-governmental relations. The report recognises that Scottish ministers have participated in negotiations following the prior agreement of the UK negotiating line and set priorities. Certainly, the participation of Scottish ministers would like to be enjoyed further, although clearly now it seems that the Scottish Government would rather try and disrupt negotiations than perhaps positively engage in them. The SNP Government would seem to want to dine alone. I have a little time in hand for interventions if members wish to take them, but, of course, it is up to members. I call Richard Lochhead, who is followed by David Stewart. I thank my fellow committee members for all their hard work on the support, as well as the clerks, the advisers, the witnesses that appear before us or wrote into the committee and so on, because this is a very important report. As all four reports issued by the committee have been, I think that they shine a light on how EU memberships are interwoven with Scottish society across Scottish society, our economy and, of course, Scotland's recent past. Our future relationship with Europe is going to be the transcending issue of our time. Just as our forebears were very brave in the post-war environment in Scotland and elsewhere in Europe in terms of how they reorganised their relationship with each other and created the European community and, of course, the United Kingdom joined EFTA, followed by the European community in the 1970s, our current generation of politicians equally will have to be courageous, brave and show vision if we are to secure the best and the most secure future for the people of Scotland and, indeed, across the UK and the rest of Europe. This report, of course, highlighted many of issues of real importance to Scotland that have to be taken on board before the triggering of article 50. I think that our reports have found that the work in the reports has been quite challenging given the refusal of David Davis to attend our committee so far. It is pretty outrageous that the biggest challenge facing Scotland since the last wars is our relationship with Europe and yet the Secretary of State for the Exilting European Union has not appeared before a Scottish Parliament committee. Likewise, Liam Fox, the trade secretary, has also not appeared before our committee despite our request as well. To rub salt into the wind, David Davis' junior minister, David Jones, agreed to appear before the committee and then cancelled his appearance and said that he will come to meet the committee after article 50 is triggered. That is wholly unacceptable when this is such a big issue facing the people of Scotland. It shows disrespect, it is discourteous and it is dismissive of Scotland and the Scottish Parliament. Adam Tomkin, how many times has the Secretary of State for Scotland appeared before the committee? Richard Lochhead. The Secretary of State for Scotland has appeared before the committee but we invited the Secretary of State for exiting the European Union on what is described as the biggest challenge facing Scotland since the second world war. As I said, it is discourteous and disrespectful that he has not appeared before us. However, he did appear before a committee this morning in the House of Commons. Of course, he is in the headlines for that, because that is probably why he is too embarrassed to appear before the Scottish Committee. It turns out that he has not quantified the cost to the UK of leaving Europe and being left with World Trade Organization rules, despite the fact that Theresa May has said time and time again that no trade deal is better than a bad deal. Of course, he is being slated in the House of Commons and across the media right now, as we speak, because it turns out that he has not quantified the cost to the UK of going to the WTO rules. He has acknowledged that we will lose financial passports, we will lose the EU Open Skies agreement and, of course, when he was challenged by Hilary Ben, he acknowledged that, if we end up with WTO rules, that the meat and dairy producers in Scotland throughout the UK will be hit by tariffs of between 30 and 40 per cent. As I say, it is absolutely no wonder that he has been unwilling to come before the Scottish Committee, given that those industries, in particular, are disproportionately important to Scotland compared to the rest of the UK. However, our most recent report is a committee that addressed the cost of going to WTO rules as opposed to maintaining links with the single market or the EU. What the Fraser of Allander Institute told us is that there was a GDP in Scotland that would go down by 5.3 per cent, exports down by 11.3 per cent, real wages down by 7.2 per cent and employment down by 3.2 per cent. It is really important—the committee has tried to highlight this—that we try to see this debate about future generations and Scotland's long-term future, not just political banter in this chamber or through this current debate, because there are real issues at stake in Scotland's future and Scotland's future generations. Some of the most powerful evidence given to the committee was from Kirsty McLaughlin. To get her title correct, because she knows what she is speaking about, she is the senior statistician and head of demographic statistics at the national records of Scotland. She told us in terms of the demographic projections that between 2014 and 2039, the working age population in Scotland will increase by 1 per cent compared to an increase of 13 per cent in England. 1 per cent in Scotland compared to 13 per cent in England. With zero EU migration, the projections are the UK working age population will increase by 6 per cent and Scotland's working age population will go down by 3 per cent, down and down by 3 per cent. If we think that that is bad enough, let us look at our projections in terms of the number of Scottish children, which is their future, in terms of between 2014 and 2039 projections. Currently, the projection is that the UK figure will go up by 9 per cent and Scotland by 1 per cent, but if we are post Brexit in a zero future EU migration, the UK's number of children will go up by 3 per cent and the number of children in Scotland will go down by 5 per cent. That is about Scotland's future and its future generations. That is why the committee and many other people in Scotland have found it so important that we maintain our links with the single market, membership of the single market and wider links with Europe. It is also the reason why one of our reports as a committee concluded that the evidence that we have collected shows that the demographic risk to Scotland of a reduction in the number of EU migrants are more acute than for the UK as a whole. That leads us to conclude that there has to be a bespoke or differentiated solution for immigration policy in Scotland in the future, and that was signed up to by members of the committee. Those are issues of profound importance to Scotland's future. Even yesterday morning, I was listening to Good Morning Scotland and I heard James Hick, the managing director of the Manpower Group, who was talking about companies in Scotland not willing to hire as many people now as what they previously were hoping to do. What he said was that the uncertainty of being able to access labour from outside the UK is causing workers who may have wanted to come to Scotland and the UK to not come in the numbers that they were able to and wanted to come in. That is causing major problems in that sector and in others. Again, that is a huge issue for Scotland's economy. I just want to finish on another issue that the committee picked up on. It must be a sentence or two only, please. It is a threat to devolved powers in Scotland. It is really important that we all recognise the differentiation between not taking powers that we have at the moment, and that we enjoy in this Parliament, and stopping powers that should be devolved coming back from Brussels, because the threat is that they are not going to come back from Brussels. When I challenged the Secretary of State for Scotland on whether fish quota, for instance, would come back to Scotland, he said that he was unwilling to make specific commitments. That is a real threat, and that is why this issue continues to dominate Scotland to do the best solution for our people's future in the next two years. I thank all the members of the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee for the excellent and very thorough reports that they have prepared for us today. At sometimes events of a horrible habit of raining on our parade, just as the committee made some useful recommendations around article 50, two major factors have come into play, which have been referred to already. The article 50 bill cleared the comments on Monday, and the First Minister announced proposals for the second independence referendum, but more of that next week. Triggering article 50 takes the UK into unchartered territories. Members will know that no full member has ever left to the EU, so it is very difficult to predict the next steps, but we have a few clues. Full single market membership is not sought by the UK Government and are likely to be granted because of the gatekeeper condition of the four freedoms that would not be met. We know that the European Commission's Michelle Barney is the chief negotiator and needs to take instructions from the remaining 27 EU countries. The European Parliament, of course, also needs to give the go-ahead for talks. The final Brexit deal can be ratified by a qualified majority of the other 27 EU leaders, but any new trade deal requires a unanimous vote of all 27 unlike the approval by national and, in some cases, regional parliaments, as we know from this set-up deal. What would the effect be in Scotland? The introductory paragraph of paper 99.1 on determining Scotland's future relationship with the EU made the valid point that, when we are considering future trading relationships, there are three real models that we need to look at—a future with the EEA and EFTA, a future through the Swiss Bilateral Agreement or a future through the World Trade Organization. I would like to touch on those three models and link them with the evidence that is taken by the committee. Members will know that EFTA was set up in 1960, but of course the UK was a founding member. When Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland joined the single market, they became part of the wider European economic area, which includes all the 28 EU members. However, they are part of a single market, but they are at arm's length with the EU. The advantage of this model is that the UK joined that it avoids the ground zero approach of a sudden dislocation from the single market. However, it is not all plain sailing, as you would expect. Membership of the EEA, as we have heard from Daniel Johnson, is not on par with Scotland's current deal, so financial services would suffer as the three European supervisory agencies on banking, insurance and security markets are not incorporated into that agreement. For an EEA agreement to work, Britain would require full equivalence from the European supervisory agencies. There is another problem, colleagues. Ian Dant, the editor of politics.co.uk, said in his recent book. Even when equivalent status is secured, the EU has extraordinary powers to cap the life support at any time. It could withdraw equivalent status whenever it likes, when just a few days. This imbalance of power is reflected in the way that EEA countries are in a normal servile state next to the legislative force of the EU. They must accept the rules that the EU passes about the single market, but they cannot influence them. However, it is not all doom and gloom. EEA efter countries like Norway pay less than contributions than full EU members. The UK, of course, is a net contributor. Norway also has the benefits of the single market, but only just implements over a quarter of EU laws and also has exemptions from areas of law such as fisheries and justice. Would it not be ironic that the UK would go full circle and rejoin after a 40-year gap and create a two-speed Europe? The second model is the Swiss bilateral. The Swiss deal, as members will know, is very fiendishly complex. They are members of EFTA, but not EEA. They are in the single market, but not the EU, nor the customs union. It is a classic example of the Sleslig-Holstein question, which Lord Palmerston has said. Only three people ever understood it. The Prince concert was dead, a German professor who has gone mad, and I who have forgotten all about it. It started with a referendum. Sounds familiar. In 1992, Swiss voters rejected the idea of joining the EEA, but the Swiss Government thought that this was a good idea, the single market. Six years later, they got their multiple agreement. However, for the Euro bureaucrats, the bespoke model is a fudge and a model. They cannot file it under EEA, or customs union, or Eurozone. It is bespoke with a capital B. Whether Europe will want to go down that road again is open to much debate. Has the member had any indication from the Secretary of State for Scotland, or, indeed, any representative of the UK Government, whether it is a very complicated and challenging model, the Swiss model, that the UK seems to be wanting to go down? My advice to the cabinet secretary is that the Swiss model was a one-off. I think that I was a bespoke. I think that it is very difficult. My own personal preference, certainly in these models, and I will come to that in a second. Certainly, the EEA model is an existing well-trodden path, and that is certainly what I would recommend to Parliament. However, the final model is the World Trade Organization. Again, the UK was a founder member in 1965 and, of course, was a founder of its predecessor body, the general agreement on tariffs and trades in 1948. WTO has got 164 members, which is the bulk of world trade of 97 per cent. We are currently members of WTO, and we default to their rules in the event of a hard Brexit. However, the sting in the tail of WTO rules is the most favoured nation clause. That means that you cannot discriminate in your tariffs, so the UK needs to establish itself within WTO as currently all the negotiations are being done by the EU on our behalf. What the UK needs to do is create schedules and goods and services. It is a full analysis of how we create with the rest of the world, we trade with the rest of the world, or how the other members would trade with us. We can probably avoid some of the problems with complaints from other countries by following EU external tariffs. However, as the convener pointed out earlier, the Fraser of Allander Institute suggested to the committee in terms of long-term economic downturns to the Scottish economy, in terms of GDP, real wages and employment, if we revert to trade rules under WTO. In conclusion, Brexit is the most fundamental political sea change in my lifetime, but I believe that the reports that we have today are a first-class analysis of the issues, and I commend them to Parliament. I will need to read your speech afterwards of all the complicated alternatives that you are giving, because I am one of the list that does not understand the Swiss model. Ross Greer, to be followed by Emma Harper, please. The evidence that our committee has received in recent months has made clear the extent of the confusion and the concern that has been felt across Scotland about what leaving the European Union will entail. With very few exceptions, it is a matter of the scale of the damage, not whether or not we can avoid it. We have heard from charities, businesses, expert bodies, trade unions and individuals of immense experience, as well as from our constituents directly. It is overwhelmingly negative. It is clear that, in their narrow-minded approach to Brexit, the Westminster Government has not given any consideration to Scotland. In fact, it is becoming increasingly clear that they do not know themselves what they are really trying to do. Their approach to Brexit is confused, contradictory and dangerous. On trade, we hear of aspirations of a global Britain trading with the world. At the same time as we are to leave the world's largest single market in a hard Brexit, the Tories want to take back control over national sovereignty at the same time as becoming a global trading nation. Access to single markets means reducing non-tariff barriers. The EU, the world's largest single market, not only constitutes a significant proportion of global trade, it influences trading standards everywhere. The UK will give up direct input into shaping the very regulations that will need to abide by anyway. Indeed, the stated intention of withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice will likely be incompatible with any meaningful future relationship with the European Union. Trading relationships require arbitration. A trade deal with the EU would almost certainly require having the ECJ as that court of arbitration. Taking back control sounds ever more vacuous. The contradictions are now matched by absurd rhetoric. Neo-imperialist terms such as Empire 2.0 are banded about, and just this week we had the international trade secretary trying to rewrite the history of the British Empire at the very same time as he expects to win favourable trade deals with countries still scarred by our colonial oppression. The ignorance of history and of present reality from the Westminster Government is dangerous. Protectionist isolationism is not compatible with a global trading nation, and from what we know, neither of those contradictory visions is deliverable or desirable for Scotland or for the UK as a whole. In the rush to mitigate the damage of Brexit, the UK Government cozy up to the US administration of Donald Trump, and this won't end well. They intend to cut a deal with a man who's been explicit about putting American corporate interests ahead of all else. Our committee heard the evidence quite clearly. US negotiating style is to put down a trade agreement before you and tell you to sign. The only trading block that they don't do that with is the European Union. It's too big. The rhetoric of this Parliament being one of the world's most powerful sub-state parliaments will look tragically empty when we're faced with UK trade deals that we're set to have no role over approving. All the while, our colleagues, such as those in the Belgian state parliaments, can decide the future of the EU's trade deals. The Westminster Government's hard Brexit still hangs over citizens of other European nations living here as well. A threat to them should be seen as a threat to all of us, and to the economic, social and cultural health of our societies as a whole. Free movement enriches Scotland. As we've heard in committee, sectors across our economy face huge problems if it is restricted. Hotel and restaurant staff, research staff at our world-class universities, seasonal agricultural workers and many others are drawn from across Europe. Yet the Westminster Government has refused to give assurances to EU citizens. They've been prompted repeatedly in the House of Commons and the Lords in our committee and in the chamber of this Parliament, each time deciding instead to continue the uncertainty and anxiety faced by more than 180,000 people in Scotland and millions across the UK who have chosen to come and live here. EU citizens who want permanent residency face harassment from the British state. Just recently, a German PhD student was threatened with deportation if she did not produce medical insurance documentation. The UK has constructed a bureaucratic nightmare for these people. If EU citizens do wish to attain permanent residency, they must fill out an 85-page form, produce masses of documentation that have already been mentioned from the last five years of their life, including a diary of every time they have left and re-entered the UK. The situation is so bad that the European Parliament has set up a task force to investigate the UK's treatment of EU citizens. It was also clear to the committee, and I would think to most of us, that the Conservatives are treating Scotland as a whole with contempt. We voted by 62 per cent to 38 to remain in the EU. The Scottish Government published a compromise report. Yes. Rachel Hamilton. Does the member remember that the voting slip said, should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union? Do you remember this? I think that the member should think out our interventions a bit harder beforehand. Of course we all remember the question on the ballot paper. Scotland voted for the UK to remain in the European Union. People in Scotland were told in 2014 that voting no was the only way to stay in the European Union. It has all tragically turned out not to be the case, and yet the Scottish Government offered compromise proposals. It published compromise proposals based around EEA membership, going further than what I would have been comfortable with, but trying to come to some kind of understanding with the UK Government has been roundly ignored. The Scottish Government is not even aware of when article 50 is going to be triggered. That is the level of contempt the UK Government treats devolved administrations with. There is no UK-wide approach to Brexit, as was promised, and it is beyond doubt that leaving the EU will directly impact on the devolution settlement. The Supreme Court has already attested to it, yet the UK Government has refused to apply the sole convention. That is a constitutional crisis of its making. It is clear that Scotland's vote to remain in the EU is being ignored. The UK that Scotland voted to stay part of in 2014 no longer exists— Members, in his last minute, in fact, you need to start winding up, Mr Greer. In its place as a country that is becoming increasingly inward-looking and regressive, it has turned its back on its European partners and tilted back towards a subservient relationship with the new American administration. Scotland must choose whether that is a future that we want to be part of or whether we want to put our future in our own hands. I remind the chamber that I am the liaison officer for the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity. The points that I am about to make are focused on the future relationship of Scotland, UK and the EU with our agriculture sector. The opening sentences from the latest European Committee report say that, in the 43 years that the UK has been part of the European Union, Scotland has benefited from increasing trade opportunities. The EU is now the single largest market for Scottish exports outwith the UK. I am a member of the European Committee, and the committee has heard lots of evidence and expert opinion from witnesses and many thanks are due to the committee convener and the members and the clerks for their diligent work on all the reports and additional thanks go to Professor Michael Keaton and Dr Shona Douglas Scott for their expertise in input as well. I would like to make a couple of points related to agriculture. We need to be quite clear as to what the aim for negotiations for agriculture in the form of trade tariffs and support, i.e., cap replacement will be 24 months from now, March 2019. In our evidence, we heard from Peter Hardwick of the Agriculture and Horticultural Development Board. He told us that, of all the sectors, agriculture proved to be one of the most challenging of trade agreements in negotiations. Agriculture was always concluded at the end because it is the most difficult bit. Mr Hardwick argued that, in regard to trade negotiations in agriculture, he could not see a solution that delivers what the sector needs if it includes tariffs. His most crucial point is that on-going tariff-free access for the export of beef and lamb is essential for us in Scotland. Of course I will. I would like to ask the member whether she would be happy if Scotland was to remain within the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. We have talked about common agricultural policy and fishing policy in previous debates, and I think that the CFP obviously has to have some amendments and changes made. It is not a policy that the SNP or has ever supported. Thank you for your intervention. Mr Hardwick argued that, in regard to trade negotiations, the sector needs no tariffs. His most crucial point is what I just mentioned. This morning, the secretary of state for leaving the EU, David Davis, confirmed what many in the industry have suspected and that there will be tariffs of at least 30 to 40 per cent in the beef and dairy industry. Evidence that the committee heard exposed the potential for a significant risk to various EU funding streams. Horizon 2020 leader funding, nuts 2 and agricultural support is a particular focus for me. It is not yet clear whether the UK Government will provide support and funding policies to the same extent as the European Union supports agribusiness currently. If the future framework for funding is determined by population share rather than the current allocation system, then Scotland's agricultural sector would see a reduction from 18 per cent support to a meager 8 per cent. That translates to hundreds of millions of pounds of support vanishing. Farming and agribusiness in Scotland is vital for our rural economy. Cabinet Secretary Fergus Ewing is correct when he refers to the farmers as custodians of the countryside. Those custodians are folk who grow our food, rear the beasts and look after the land. They are crucial for the rural economy and they actually spend their money locally, contributing to the sustainability of our rural communities. I have been out and about speaking to many local rural and agricultural business folk and farmers since the vote to remove us from Europe. We do have an opportunity to revert to world trade organisation options for trade agreements, but if we do that, we all need to understand that that means no subsidies for agriculture, no support. I have already taken an intervention, I need to proceed because I will run out of time. No support, that is the WTO rules. The only trade agreement that allows subsidy of farmers is the trade deal with the EU and we are about to leave it. Last week, as part of committee work, I was speaking to one of the Conservative members of the London Assembly here in Parliament. I was telling him that Scotland has 974 dairy farms and 48 per cent of them are in Dumfries and Galloway. In recent years, many of the dairymen hail from Eastern European countries such as Romania, Lithuania and Poland. I was really in this information to my Conservative visitor because I was curious what his perspective from London would be as to how we could recruit replacement dairymen if Prime Minister Theresa May fails to guarantee EU citizens the right to remain as residents in the UK, even if the people have been here for five or even ten years. His solution for replacing the dairymen was that we need to just find unemployed people from Sunderland, take them from their homes, ship them to Scotland and expect them to work as dairymen in a job that they have no skills for. That is the answer. Simple, just force folk to up sticks and move from their homes, their families and their communities. It is completely disrespectful to the dairy industry to assume that being a dairyman is an unskilled job. In conclusion, whatever happens during the post article 50 negotiations, I asked the Scottish Government to continuously pressure the UK Government to acknowledge the democratic will of my constituents, your constituents and even the constituents across the chamber who represent the 62 per cent of people in Scotland who voted to remain in the union of free nations. I asked that both Governments keep the Scottish folk and agribusiness informed, included and involved about progress regarding the EU exit. I remain committed to max sicker that the best deal will be achieved for Scotland. I call Alexander Stewart to be followed by Tavish Scott. I would like to acknowledge the work of the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee who have diligently taken evidence from ministers here at Holyrood and Westminster and have travelled to Brussels to engage and discuss many aspects relating to the debate this afternoon. The committee took evidence from individuals, from groups from organisations and looked at sectors such as agriculture, tourism, fisheries and the economy. I would also like to pay tribute to the members of the committee who worked diligently in their endeavours. As I said, individuals gave of their time and their talents to support that committee to ensure that they came up with good recommendations. We have seen that today. The reports have come forward. Individuals worked in good faith to ensure that those recommendations were what the committee believed and what it wanted the public in Scotland and this Parliament to see. However, as many members have already pointed out in the debate, that takes place in the aftermath of the First Minister's betrayal to the people of Scotland who only two short years ago made it clear their desire to remain a strong and integral part of the United Kingdom not quite yet. I will take you later. The committee did so in full acknowledgement of the fact that the then Prime Minister made the pledge to hold a referendum on the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union. In fact, Scotland's future, which was seen by many people as a taxpayers-funded SNP manifesto, published prior to that referendum and talked about if we were to remain in the UK, the Conservative Party's promise of an in-out referendum on the EU membership raised a serious possibility that Scotland may well come out of the EU, and that was within that document. Much like the SNP's whole approach to politics and the way forward, the people of Britain wished to leave, and that has taken place. As I say, we have to respect that in this whole context that we are working with. After two years, the division and the divisive debate that took place along that has left us with a situation. We know that there is a neglect from our public services, and neither of the people in Scotland wants to go back to any of those processes that take place. The Scottish National Party has once again turned to its comfort blanket of independence at any cost, and it is there to ensure that there is utterly abysmal record in Government and that there is lack of attention and lack of involvement. As we have said and discussed, I have a question for the member. How many jobs would have to be predicted to be lost in Scotland before the Conservatives would act and stand up for Scotland? 30,000? 40,000? 80,000? How many? Alexander Stewart. Ash Denham. You need to think about independence. If you were making independence— Speak through the chair, please. Independence would cost tens of thousands of jobs. We have already seen, even over the last few days that I have heard from constituents who are cancelling orders and who are unhappy about the way going forward. That is making a massive impact on our economy now because of your action of your First Minister. As I said, let us think long and hard. Let us look at the world that we live in. We were known in this country to lead the world when it came to education. Education was discussed in this committee on many times. For example, we now do not even lead education in the United Kingdom. It is almost every endeavour and every policy that the nationalists bring forward is to cause division and instability. I have taken one already. I want to make progress. If the Scottish Government really wants to get the best deal for Scotland in the imminent negotiations with European partners, it should take the threat of an independence referendum off that table, because that shows us where we really are. Mike Russell is no longer in the chamber, and his colleagues profess to have done everything within their power to fight for Scotland's interests when they are going forward. They have completely changed that view. They want to ensure that there were unworkable and unpractical suggestions and solutions that they were dealing with when they were sitting with the UK Government. As has been mentioned already, they did not create a big issue at the table, but when they come outside and see the media, that is where they want to create the issue. It is that domestic market that we have that we know is so important to Scotland. It is that domestic market that is four times as good in the goods and services that we have within the EU. Only members situated in the central benches of the chamber could argue that the EU's single market is more important to Scotland than the UK domestic market and keep a straight face. Our Prime Minister, Theresa May, has made it absolutely categorically clear that she will insist on negotiating a Brexit that works for the whole of the United Kingdom. If the SNP stops their posturing and just stops for one minute that they might actually want to work together, we might find some common ground here that might work for the people of Scotland and the people of the United Kingdom. The approach taken by the Scottish Government thus far has been entirely divisive. They want to cause as much difficulty as they can, and that was just a platform for the First Minister to make her announcement yesterday. The opportunities of agricultural fisheries in trade that now present themselves as we depart the political structure of the European Union are immense, and we have seen that. Some individuals who gave evidence ensured that that took the place to conclude, Deputy Presiding Officer. As someone who campaign to leave, I accept that there will be challenges as we go forward. No one has ever suggested otherwise, but no challenge presented by Brexit is solved by independence and no Government should do all within their power to stymie debate as we go forward. As I said, the SNP should add their thought to ensure that the Brexit works for everybody in the United Kingdom, and Scotland can do well from it. I support the recommendations that have come from the report. I have to be really strict with time for the last speeches that were really pushed. I thank Daniel Johnson for making a genuinely pro-European speech. In his first five minutes, he set out exactly what Labour has been missing. If I may say so, if he had been making that kind of contribution, we would not be quite in the mess that we were, given Jeremy Corbyn's complete inability to make a speech in favour of the European Union. I would like to genuinely thank Daniel Johnson for doing exactly what should be coming from his benches in a down at Westminster, and sadly it was not. I would also like to begin by thanking the clerks, as other committee colleagues have, and committee colleagues, too, for pulling together a report. I must confess that I did not necessarily believe that it would be possible at the start of that particular Thursday morning at 8 am, if I remember correctly. Two wider points. There are Dutch elections going on today, Deputy Presiding Officer. If I, as a pro-European, wish anything, it is that Mark Rutter is re-elected and stems the tide of alt truth of right-wing anti-immigration populism. Secondly, when I saw on Twitter last night the flow of requests for money on both sides of the debate. The very next minute, 10 minutes later, into the news at the back of 10 o'clock, there are millions of people who are facing famine in Africa. I just hope that, at times here in Scotland, we remember to look outwards rather than looking inwards, given the destitution that people face in other parts of the world. I just really want to make a number of points about this matter as to where we are now, because others have already commented in my view correctly that committee reports come and go, and some gather dust, and this one gathers dust instantly within three or four days because of what has happened in the last couple of days. However, that was not caused by Nicola Sturgeon or, indeed, by Theresa May or David Cameron, because it was his gamble to buy off the Conservative party to try and mend a historic split in that party that has caused the unholy mess that this country has caused. No, I am going to finish this point, and I will have to give way. It has caused the unholy mess that we are now in, and I suspect that history will be very, very unkind on David Cameron's premiership. If Adam Tomkins wants to argue with that, he is welcome to. Mr Scott, the question, if I may, is whether it is now a Liberal Democrat policy to have fewer referendums or more referendums, because he seems to be wanting to have another referendum to reverse the result of June 2016, despite the fact that he thinks that holding that referendum was a mistake. So which is it? Should we have more referendums in this country or should we have fewer? I haven't even mentioned referendums yet, and Mr Tomkins is off on one on it. I'll deal with that in a few moments. Mike Russell began by saying that leaving the European Union was profoundly damaging, which is, indeed, absolutely true, not just for Scotland, of course, but for the whole of the United Kingdom. A number of times, the committee has heard evidence from London about the damage to the financial centres of London, which link, of course, to Edinburgh and Glasgow and Aberdeen, not least of which, because of recent mergers that have just taken place across financial services, is very considerable indeed. Mike Russell also said that some of the impact is already beginning to be felt and mentioned democracy and mandate. There are two gentle remarks to Mike Russell, although he is not here, on democracy. I saw him on television last night talking about democracy and the importance of democracy. That is, of course, true, and he makes a fair point, but he must make a fair point, too, about this Parliament passing motions on Highlands, Islands Enterprise, on the Scottish Funding Council and on education policy as well. Let's just be tight on our definition of when Parliaments say things and when Parliaments don't say things. We have all got a mandate. I have a mandate as well. I was elected in Shetland on standing up and making the case of the European Union and standing up against a second referendum of independence. Mike Russell and his party quite understandably believed that. They stood on their mandate to make that case, but they very least need to recognise and respect the fact that most of us on the other side absolutely did not, and we are therefore going to make that case. I fear most of all in all of this, the Scotland leaving the UK and the UK as a whole leaving the EU. That would be the worst of all worlds. I fear that not for me because, frankly, by the time all this happens or if it happens or whatever happens, albeit at that stage that Gordon Wilson was in last night on the telly, where he is trotted out as an old man of politics to opine on the latest development and conducts that very elegant old statesman U-turn to then support his party. All that will get him to that point. It's more difficult for a liberal because, anyway, at some point we'll all be in that particular place. I fear being out of Europe and out of the UK for my children for the next generation because my kids are pro-Europeans. I go to school classes regularly around not just in Shetland but with the education committee that I'm honoured to be part of in this Parliament to other schools across Scotland and meet young people who are European in their outlook. I think that this huge decision that the UK Government has taken has already been sent profoundly damaging, but it is why, when all these remarks about clarity are made, it is why that if we are to have and the Greens are going to vote for it so assuredly next week, that will happen. There will be a parliamentary majority in this place for a second referendum. Why there needs to be a decision made with the full knowledge of what has happened? Therefore, to say, as the First Minister said, that the referendum must take place within a precise period of time before the outcome of Brexit is known. I believe that it's wrong and wrong for this reason. Anyone who knows anything about the torturous negotiations of the European Union know that nothing is agreed to or is agreed to. It will be only at the very last minute that that is understood and that is known. Therefore, it is only right that the people of Scotland, if they are going to be subjected to another referendum on this nation's constitutional future, it is only right that they know exactly what has happened in those Brexit negotiations. Call Stuart McMillan to be followed by Ross Thomson. Can I remind you that we're very pushed for time? Thank you very much. First of all, I would like to commend the reports to the Parliament and express my thanks to colleagues from across the chamber, our excellent clerking team, our advisers and everyone who has provided evidence. I do believe that those reports will help many in trying to understand some of the key issues that Scotland and the UK face as we venture headlong into this Brexit process. As yet, article 50 hasn't been triggered, but we know that it could happen any day now. I would like to echo the comments of some and ask the Prime Minister to at least respect the 25th of March as the anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. Please, Prime Minister, do not trigger article 50 then or any day before or after. Let those Europeans who actually do care about the EU enjoy their day. Respecting the 25th of March will garner some credibility for the UK Government, but it is certainly at the moment very much in short supply. I say short supply, as comments from the Foreign Secretary will not help. Boris Johnson's attempt at claiming the EU and Hitler were ill-advised to say the least. Napoleon Hitler, various people, tried this out and it ends tragically. The EU is an attempt to do this by different methods, but fundamentally what is lacking is the eternal problem, which is that there is no underlying loyalty to the idea of Europe. That type of comment from the Foreign Secretary of the UK is ill-advised to say the least. Alexander Stewart has left the chamber. He has just spoken to Hitler on about being divisive. I would argue that the comments from the Foreign Secretary are utterly divisive when it comes to that type of comparison. Rachel Hamilton commented on that, too, regarding the time of uncertainty. The comments from the Foreign Secretary unfortunately aid that issue of uncertainty when it comes to the economy. It certainly takes away that element of respect that the UK Government has currently got in the EU. Our committee has produced four excellent reports, and I have no hesitation in highlighting them when I talk to constituents that will go to businesses that are anyone with an interest. With political interests in Scotland at such an increased level, which I welcome and I am sure MSPs from across the chamber will welcome, I hope that we can highlight the various points in the reports, but during an evidence session on 22 February, our committee took evidence from the right honourable Greg Hans MP, the Minister of State for Trade and Investment. During questioning from our colleague Emma Harper, MSP, Mr Hans stated that, in 2015, Scotland secured a total of 119 foreign direct investment projects, which makes it the second most attractive region in the UK behind only London. It is somewhat like letting the cart out of the bag regarding the UK Government's position and thinking about Scotland, saying that Scotland is not a region, Scotland is a nation. I gently asked the minister at the time to reconsider his comments, and he replied with what can only be described as a super silly reply. I do not blame him. I generally do not blame him, however. It is the culture of the Westminster bubble that considers Scotland as an irrelevancy at worst and an annoyance at best. I will take your intervention. To the member for giving way, Scotland is of course a nation. We all are agreed on that on all benches in this chamber, but, as a matter of European law, Scotland is classified as a region. Stuart McMillan Mr Tomkins, Mr Hans, the minister, was talking about foreign direct investment in a UK sense. In that aspect, Scotland is a nation, but please, Mr Tomkins, tell that to your ministers down in London. Please tell them, because they do not know, they do not respect Scotland. The people of Scotland did not vote for a Brexit, and only one of the nation's 59 MPs has now backed the UK Government by voting for the trigger of article 50. I do not want Scotland to lose the estimated 80,000 jobs within a decade or cost people an average of £2,000 in wages, as indicated by the Fraser of Alun report, which our committee commissioned to undertake research. I do not want Scotland to be ignored any longer. If Scotland can be ignored on an issue of such magnitude and importance as a membership of the European Union and the single market, then it is clear that our voice and our interests can be ignored at any time by the UK Government. We are not going back into our box, and the politics of the past is no longer acceptable to the electorate in Scotland. The recent report that our committee published entitled Determining Scotland's Future Relationship with the European Union is one that I believe clearly highlights the position of many people across Scotland. Our key recommendation, calling for a bespoke solution for Scotland, is not something that many people would wish to argue against. It has caused a debate, however, but clearly not at the UK level as it appears to have ignored the compromise suggestion by the Scottish Government in December. Rachael Hamilton spoke earlier on about a bespoke solution being highly unlikely. I am sure that, decades and decades ago, when people first thought of going to the moon and sending rockets up into space, people probably thought that that was highly unlikely, but did it stop them from trying? No, it did not. We should not stop trying, looking for a bespoke solution for Scotland. That is not a compromise suggestion to make Scotland different. It is a compromise to help our economy and help the people who actually live in Scotland. The further recommendation was to explore the EU membership with the EU-27 before and after the trial of article 50. There have been many comments in recent months about the opportunity bregs that it provides, but I would argue that the opportunity for Scotland and the UK to have that differential position. Our committee recognised that there is no direct precedent for achieving any type of solution of this nature, but there are already a variety of differential agreements within the EU, and the Furrow Islands and Denmark are one example. I am conscious of time and you are going to stop me, but I would like to say that I would like to... No, please, Mr McMillan. I support the motion tonight. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr McMillan. Before I call anyone else, can I say that it is a presiding officer's quite strict rule that members should stay in the chamber for at least two speeches after their own, unless they have asked the presiding officer otherwise and been given permission to do so? I am sure that Mr Alexander will apologise when he comes back into the chamber, and meanwhile I call Ross Thompson to be followed by Christina McKelvie. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would also like to thank the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee for its work and for bringing forward this debate. Most strikingly, the committee's report calls for engagement from across Scotland. This is encouraging and demonstrates the importance of bringing people together to establish facts, challenges, solutions and opportunities from exiting the European Union. However, after Monday morning's announcement from the First Minister, it is all but apparent that this type of constructive engagement is the last thing on the Scottish Government's agenda. The Government would rather pursue another divisive independence referendum than explore the numerous opportunities for Scotland that Brexit presents. It could not be clearer that the Government's so-called compromise proposals were never genuine or sincere. Instead, they were just another move in the Scottish National Party's independence game plan. However, as the Prime Minister herself has said, politics is not a game. The lives of our people are not a game. The prosperity of our businesses under industries is not a game. No, thank you. The security of people's jobs is not a game. The future of our country is not a game. I have lost count of the people who have contacted me from across Scotland since Monday to express their dismay and anger. That anger is particularly potent from the north-east fishing communities. As a convener of the committee mentioned in her opening remarks, she stated the challenges facing fishermen. The report reflects the evidence that the committee has heard. However, it is clear that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation has been unequivocal in its support for the UK Government's approach to leaving the EU. Bertie Armstrong, the chief executive of the Fishermen's Federation, has reiterated that the Scottish Government is making the wrong argument at the wrong time when it comes to independence. Imagine the palpable frustration from fishermen who now fear that the SNP will sell out their industry and coastal communities by dragging them back into the EU, back into the common fisheries policy. Alec Neil is absolutely right. The SNP and any pro-independence campaign will haemorrhage votes in the north-east if they continue to disregard the legitimate views of leave voters. As David Stewart highlighted in his own remarks, a theme in the report is about efta membership and that being an option for Scotland. Maybe it was the wise words of wisdom from Alec Neil that have led to the total and utter chaos that we have seen in the SNP today, with reports that it is now considering ditching its policy on supporting full EU membership in favour of a Norway-style deal. Just a day after the First Minister demanded a second vote on independence, senior nationalist sources told the Daily Telegraph that Nicola Sturgeon would try to join the European Free Trade Association. This is despite only yesterday Mike Russell stating in this place that the SNP remains in favour of full EU membership. Even senior SNP figures can't seem to agree on what relationship they should have with the EU. What makes this whole fiasco even more extraordinary is that the First Minister herself stated in July last year that the efta option would leave Scotland with no influence. In fact, I quote—and I hope that Alec Neil and his Brexit colleagues are listening—and the quote is to end up in a position that is highly possible, where we have to abide by all the rules of the single market and pay to be part of it, but have no say whatsoever in what the rules are would not be taking back control—to coin a phrase that we have heard more than once recently—it would be giving up control, having an influence in the world that we live in matters for all of us. That is Nicola Sturgeon. Although the Prime Minister attempts to negotiate bold, ambitious free trade deals with the EU and others, the Scottish Government continues to overinflate the importance of the single market, conveniently sidestepping the fact that the UK's biggest trading partner is the rest of the UK. However, the SNP's contempt for cold, hard facts, economic reality and the benefits of Brexit should come as no surprise to anyone in this place. The Scottish Government has abdicated its responsibility— Excuse me, Mr—I think that it is quite clear that Mr Thomson is not taking interventions. Can we have a wee bit of calm, please, Mr Thomson? Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Deputy Presiding Officer, the Scottish Government has abdicated its responsibility to promote Scotland's interests in the negotiations to come, and instead we will be actively and aggressively— Mr Raffer, please. Sorry, Mr Thomson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We will be actively and aggressively talking down the UK Government's efforts to achieve the best deal for the whole of the United Kingdom. It is up to the rest of us to stand up for the democratic decisions that we have all made as a country. The Scottish Conservatives can and will do just that. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The last of the open speakers is Christina McKelvie. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Reports, reports, reports—by the time that Prime Minister triggers article 50, there will already be a library full of views, considerations, discussion minutes and research files. Some are genuinely useful and intelligent like this one. Others pull together thinly veiled propaganda that represents, as my colleague Stephen Gethan's MP said, a dereliction of duty. That is what happens when there is a vacuum, when a Government completely fails to provide readable, accessible, objective information. The other thing that happens is that a vacuum creates a space in which some very extremist people develop the status of heroes. Vacuums are dangerous. First, I congratulate the committee for being accessible and readable in this report. Together they have distilled down a wide range of very different perceptions into a document that is very practical and real. We hear the voices, we get the issues and we digest and respond. Colleagues have already spoken at length, and at length we have had anger from the Tory benches whether it is righteous or not. We will remain to be seen, but at length regarding the difficulties up ahead in securing sustainable trade deals post Brexit, we are standing on the cliff edge, about to say goodbye to all the riches Europe has brought us during these last decades, and the Brexiteers, while they are waving their hats, cheering for the end for those four fundamental trade freedoms, the freedom of movement of goods, the freedom of movement of workers, the right to establishing freedom to provide services and the freedom of movement of capital. To not even give EU nationals reassurance on Monday is a disgusting act in itself, and it is not the country that I live in. While they cheer under the delusion that they are going to be living a land flowing of milk and honey, they are blind to the end of everything from a legal guarantee of human rights and social protection, the support of major national partners in the event of war and an end to cap payments. It is like setting fire to your own house and cheering the destruction as the roof blows up. Those four freedoms have a series of associated social protections, particularly in the freedom of movement part. We in this Government and across Europe are working hard and indeed have been very successful in our drive to protect against human trafficking, discrimination, violence against women and girls and LGBTI bullying and abuse. Very many support groups such as Women's Aid, Enable, Engender, Money Advice Scotland, Stonewall and many other organisations, including disability rights groups, follow carefully what we are achieving and commend us for it, this Parliament. As convener of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee, I am participating in those important changes constantly. We have set ourselves goals that represent who we are and the kind of country that we want to live and play a part in. We are global citizens, who happen to live in a forward-thinking, innovative, protecting and compassionate society. That we are, citizens of Europe, puts us into that huge and desperate group of some 60 million people. The vast majority of whom share our ideals and values. I look forward to the prospect of a passport that no longer says citizen of the European Union. I look forward to one that says citizen of Scotland and the European Union. When it comes to the very nasty aspects of today's reality, terrorist bombs in France, Belgium, Germany and even Glasgow, cruel and destructive actions against refugees, not just across Europe but by this Government in the UK, human trafficking, torture, FGM, I could go on and on these things we tackle together with the strength and the impact of not only 28, maybe soon to be 27 countries but with the central core of legislation that protects workers' rights through the working time directive, through holiday leave entitlement, maternity rights, equal pay and sickness benefits, and of course the right not to be discriminated against or even tortured. However, let's take one of those rights, the right to healthcare whilst on holiday. In committee today, when asked, David Davis said that he could not confirm if UK citizens will no longer have access to the EHIC health card. He said and I quote, probably I haven't looked at it. That seems to sum up this UK Government entirely probably but I haven't looked at it. As reported widely today, the Westminster Government is ill-prepared for dealing with the implications of leaving the EU at any level. Some of its members have overtly lied to the public and others have misled. There is no such truth to be found because the truth is too awful to talk about. That's why Davis has admitted that he has no plan A, B, C or even Z. The way forward is certainly paved with good intentions, I hope, Presiding Officer, but an awful lot of challenges. Scotland will make its presence fell, we will demand recognition at the negotiating table and we will fight for the representation of our people. Ultimately, Scots will make their own decision about the kind of society that they want to be part of and how they want to make that work. I know which side I'll be on. We now move to the closing speeches. I'm disappointed to see that not all members who took part in the debate are back in the chamber. Meanwhile, I call Daniel Johnson. Up to six minutes, please, Mr Johnson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This has been a contentious debate, a fraught debate, and I think that that is not surprising given the subject matter that we are discussing and the context in which we are having this debate. However, there are some common threads, so let me begin with consensus. First and foremost, let me reiterate my thanks to the committee. The committee's work and the clarity and hard work that has gone into the reports are valuable and useful. Richard Lochhead said that the EU has been to the context for the current political generation. Whatever our perspectives, his point that we need to think about the future generations is absolutely right. There are three principal points that have been discussed. One is about the impact of economy and jobs, the impact on people and the options that we have. Before I go any further, I would like to thank Tavish Scott for his kind words about what I said. Whatever option this country takes, either the UK or Scotland, is incumbent on all of us who are pro-Europeans to continue to make the case for Europe. I, for one, am committed to making the case for the UK's participation in Europe and, indeed, the case for the European Union beyond whatever happens through article 50 and the exit of the UK from the European Union. That is my personal commitment. Let me talk briefly about the impact on jobs and money. I do not want to cover the ground in depth, but clearly there is going to be a huge impact on jobs. That has got to be our fundamental consideration. Again, I think that there was consensus on that, but we also have to recognise the compromises that are made, moving from a situation of deeper co-operation to the compromises that we need to make through trade deals. There are also areas in which we have not discussed the impact on universities and the funding for research, which has a profound impact both on jobs directly but also on the wider benefits. Indeed, agriculture has been mentioned by one or two members, but it is an area of huge complexity and one that requires our attention. We should also reiterate the brutal impact that was outlined by the Fraser of Allander numbers. A number of speakers have mentioned it, but the prospect of crashing out of the European Union on WTO rules with the impact of GDP of a decline of 5.3 per cent, exports down by 11.3 per cent, employment down by 7.2 per cent are circumstances that we cannot accept. John McAlpine, I thank the member for taking an intervention and I agree with the points that he has made about WTO rules. Does he also agree with the chief economist of quality meat Scotland when he pointed out that a carcass of lamb under WTO rules, the tariff on it will increase by 49 per cent so that a carcass selling for £80 will go up to something like £119 under WTO rules? Daniel Johnson? I would not pretend to know the detail, but I think that those are exactly the sorts of tariffs and conditions on trade that we need to look at. I will touch on that later. We also need to look at the people impacts. I think that Christina McKelvie made a very impassioned speech, but the actual real impact is people's lives that we are talking about. There are people who have made their lives in this country who are being treated by the Government as a bargaining chip. I think that it is absurd that the UK Government did not accept Harriet Harman's amendment. I am basically ensuring that people who are already here can stay here. What is the cost? There is no concession there. I understand the need to bargain about the rights of EU systems in the future, but the ones who are already here, surely we can extend them those rights. However, that is about Scotland's options going forward. I thank my colleague Dave Stewart for his very thorough explanation of the three different options. There are costs and downsides to each of them. Even the EEF model is not without complications of downsides. The cost of financial services sector will be profound. The Swiss model is probably unrepeatable, and the WTO rule, I think, I have already mentioned. Indeed, Ross Greer pointed out quite correctly that the concept of global trading nation means accepting the restrictions and tariffs placed upon us. However, we also need to look at the Scottish Government's so-called alternative model. I think that it is important that we do explore every opportunity to maintain our links, access and membership of the single market. However, to simply present their option as a concrete, sure model that we can just take off the shelf is not the case, the committee's own report makes that clear. Dag Werner Holler from EFTAS, and I quote, said, There have been no concrete, direct discussions either between EFTAS states or between the fair islands on that matter in any substantial way. To stand in front of us and claim that there is an option there that can be taken easily, swiftly and without cost or consequence is simply a nonsense. Fair, you will find it's right, the paper of Scotland's place in Europe, references to the difficulties of moving forward on any of those options, including the UK option. I'm sure the member would like to be fair about that. I'd be happy to send the references to him. Let me be fair, that is what the paper says, but it's not the words that are uttered by the Government ministers when describing the paper. It's presented as a certainty, and that is unfair. It is dishonest. It is also dishonest to talk about the jobs and economic costs of coming out of the year without acknowledging the costs and implications of coming out of the United Kingdom. If there are costs and implications and risks from coming out of the EU, from destroying those bonds that we have for the rest of the European Union, those costs, those risks are many times, many fold over if we are coming out of the UK. That is the realistic honest assessment that we have to have if we are discussing independence. No, Mr Johnson, I'm afraid that you have to close. We've pushed for time. That is why Labour rejects independence or rejects the need for a second independence referendum. I call Adam Tomkins up to six minutes, please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd like to start also by praising the committee's work and by thanking all of the members from all parties who serve on the committee, as well as the parliamentary staff. The committee's work is impressive in terms of its quantity, and it's also impressive in terms of its quality. It's rich and it's full, but, as David Stewart eloquently put it in his remarks earlier on, events have a horrible habit of raining on our parade or raining on the committee's parade. I do rather share my friend and colleague Jackson Carlaw's sympathy with the convener, Joan McAlpine, at having the rug pulled out from underneath her by the First Minister on Monday. From the richness of this work, I wanted to try and pull out, if I can, in these remarks three broad themes, each of which I think has been reflected in the debate that we've had this afternoon. The first is this theme of opportunity versus risk, and Richard Lochhead put something very strikingly in his speech this afternoon. He said—and he was right to say it—that the creation of the European Union was an act of political bravery in the immediate post-war era of European politics. He's right about that. What we now need, Deputy Presiding Officer, is to be equally brave and equally bold in our advocacy of the relationship that we, as an United Kingdom, should have, not only with the rest of Europe, not only with the European Union but with the rest of the world. It seems to me a big argument to be had about that. It's a big argument to be had about what Brexit means and what Brexit should become. Ash Denham cited the evidence to the European Committee of my boss at the University of Glasgow at Muscateli, in which he said that we live in a world in which protectionism is on the rise, and liberal unionism—liberal internationalism—is struggling to make its voice heard. The view of my party very much is that Brexit must not mean a surrender to nationalist protectionism. Brexit should not mean that we put up walls between ourselves and our nearest neighbours. Brexit needs to mean that we pursue what the Prime Minister has described as the freest possible trade in goods and services with the European Union, the fullest possible access to the European single market, and the greatest possible participation in the European single market. There are some members of this Parliament who would like to describe this as the hardest of hard Tory Brexit, but that's not what hard Brexit is. You cannot simultaneously say that what the Prime Minister is seeking is hard Brexit and then say that coming out of the EU and trading on WTO terms would be the hardest of hard Brexit, because those are not the same things. The Prime Minister does not want—the British Government do not want Brexit to mean trading on WTO terms. What we want is the freest possible trade in goods and services with the European Union, the fullest possible access—not at the moment—to the European single market, and the greatest possible participation in it. We must be brave and bold in articulating that vision of free trade. The question is asked in Scottish politics at the moment, what kind of country do we want to be? The kind of country that I want to be is the kind of country that is one of the world's beacons for free trade, for the freedom and the liberty and the prosperity that comes with free trade. It seems to me that that's the argument that we should be making here in Scotland. It's the argument that we should be making throughout the United Kingdom. In terms of the answer to the question, what does Brexit mean, that is my view about what it should mean, and it's the view that Ruth Davidson and Theresa May each share. I'll give way to the minister. Michael Russell. I can hear the member's articulation and I understand the articulation. Can he point to any difficulty in being that type of open, bold and expansive nation within membership of the EU? It seems to work for Germany, which exports far more than we do. What is it about the EU that holds that back, because nobody has yet defined that? Adam Tomkins. The answer to that is that the membership of the European Union, indeed membership of the European Economic Area, prevents a member state from making a free trade agreement on its own terms with any other country in the world. It does. The European Union is a trading bloc. It has never been part of the European Union to be a proponent of free trade with the rest of the world. I want the United Kingdom to be, and my party wants the United Kingdom to be, a beacon of global free trade. Now, the second theme that I wanted to draw out in my last minute, and therefore the last theme that I want to draw out, is the idea that what the SNP produced in December was a compromise deal, a reasonable compromise deal. This is a myth that just needs to be nailed. The idea that we could have a differentiated deal for Scotland being in the European Economic Area, but the rest of the United Kingdom being outside of the European Economic Area, without there being any material change to the nature of the border between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom just isn't going to work. Now, you don't have to take my word for this, you don't have to take my party's words for this. This is what Svain Rowald Hansen, the head of the Norwegian Parliament's EEA, and after delegation said it. It's what the deputy leader of the Norwegian Parliament's foreign affairs committee has said. It's what the Welsh First Minister, the minister is quite fond of quoting from Welsh ministers, but the Welsh First Minister, Carwyn Jones, has also ruled out Scotland getting a special deal from the European Union. Professor Michael Keating of the University of Edinburgh has said, and I quote, that it's not possible. If Scotland was in the single market and the UK was outside, there would be a hard economic border between Scotland and England. Not my words, but Professor Keating's words. I'm out of time. I'm sorry. Mr Russell is finished. I know you're terribly disappointed, but he's finished. I now call Fiona Hyslop up to seven minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for their excellent report and their thoughtful recommendations, and the convener, Joe McAlpine's equally excellent exposition of the content and offer. The committee offers a welcome and measured voice in the debate about Scotland's future relationship with Europe. Indeed, this is the fourth report. I spoke this morning at the opening of the Scottish Tourism Alliance conference at the launch of Scottish Tours and Week. This is a sector of great importance to Scotland and one that has benefited from Scotland being part of the EU in this single market. The challenges that it faces bring into sharp focus a number of the committee's points, in particular recognising the benefits that Scotland has enjoyed from freedom of movement and the valuable contribution that our fellow EU citizens make to our economic prosperity, with over 20,000 employed in the tourism sector alone. As Christina McKelvie pointed out, those are the same EU citizens that the UK Government voted not to protect in the House of Commons on Monday. The UK ministers like to pretend that they have the same approach to EU nationals as the Scottish Government, but they don't. We want their rights protected and guaranteed. The Tories want to use them as bargaining chips. Ross Greer pointed out how difficult it has been, and the committee report says, to complete an 85-page report to become a resident of the UK. More broadly, migrationists keep addressing Scotland's demographic challenges and to our future prosperity. As Richard Lochhead in his speech set out, the growth of our population is crucial to the growth of the Scottish economy, and EU nationals play a vital part. There are Scottish jobs and Scottish businesses that rely on EU nationals. Our ability to create a more productive and fairer Scotland depends more than ever on trading with Europe and the rest of the world, and on attracting investment and talent into our economy. As Tavish Scott said, I would like to thank Daniel Johnson for his opening speech, or at least the first half of the opening speech, as it set out the European proposition very well. The greatest risk to Scottish jobs and our economy is a hard Brexit, or worse still for the UK to leave the EU with no deal at all. Joe McAlpine cited the evidence in the report that the world has never seen the dismantling of a trade arrangement in this way. Ash Denham pointed out that the evidence for the evidence that rebuilding the trade deals that we currently have will take years, let alone build anything in addition. I tried to look at what I might want to quote from the Conservative benches. I looked at Alexander Stewart, but I had only written one word. It says bitter. Turning to the more substantive contributions on the committee's evidence, if we were to find ourselves in a scenario where Scotland is operating under WTO regulations outside the single market, as David Stewart set out, the Fraser Valander Institute concluded that 10 years after Brexit, Scottish GDP would be 5 per cent lower, exports would be 11 per cent lower, real wages 7 per cent lower and the number of people employed 3 per cent lower. Richard Lochhead pointed out the agricultural issues that we faced in terms of tariffs of 30 per cent to 40 per cent. In Emma Harper quoted Mr Hardwick in a second, agricultural deals will come at the end because the most difficult deals tend to be the agricultural ones. Of course, she referenced the dairy labour market. Remember, the UK Government has no mandate from any part of the UK to specifically leave the single market. You can be out of the European Union but still a member of the single market. Indeed, the Conservative Government at Westminster was elected on a manifesto, which I quote, says, we say yes to the single market. That is just one of the reasons why the decision of the Tory Government to ignore the compromise proposals of the Scottish Government is democratically wrong. Yes, the compromise proposals are technically and legally challenging, but we have been told that they are possible if the political will is there. The UK is determined to drag the UK out of the single market. Yes, indeed. Finlay Carson. The member agrees that the single market is underpinned by various policies, two of which are the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy. On that basis, would the minister suggest that the Scottish National Party in this Government wants to stay part of the common fisheries policy? Fiona Hyslop, I would say to the member that he guarantees that the UK Government will not trade the fisheries policies in position of Scotland for benefits in terms of their trading operations. In terms of where we are going now, the UK Government has not moved an inch towards compromise agreement. We now clearly have a choice to follow the UK towards a hard Brexit or become an independent country. The First Minister has set out a plan to protect Scotland's interests. We will do all we can to protect Scotland during the UK's negotiation to leave the EU. We have a responsibility to do that. When the terms of Brexit are known, we will give the choice to the direction that Scotland should take before it is too late to change course. Before people make that choice, we need to have the challenges and opportunities of independence set out—how to secure our relationship with Europe, build a stronger economy and a fairer society. I want to move on. I and my minister of colleagues continue to be active in engaging in Europe and beyond us. Jackson Carlaw has urged us to do, and I think that he was a bit graceless to his convener. I might want to reflect on his remarks. Since the referendum, we have met with the EU institutions and all 27 member states. Only last week, Fergus Ewing met Commissioner Hogan and Minister Creed during a visit to Brussels. Keith Brown visited Berlin and Hamburg. Across Europe and across the world, Scotland's predicament has been met with interests, understanding and open years. Europe is listening to us. Scotland is at a crossroads. At stake is the type of country that we want to be. We want to be outgoing, welcoming and a European nation. We embrace the values of democracy and let us not be driven against our will to a damaging hard Brexit. Let us give the people of Scotland the opportunity to choose their future for themselves. I now call Lewis MacDonald to wind up the debate on behalf of the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee. I would like to start by adding my thanks as deputy convener to the committee clerks, the researchers from SPICE, the committee's advisers and all those who have assisted us in our work, and also to thank all those who have contributed to the debate today. I would also make special mention of the elected members of the Welsh and London assemblies who came to Scotland to discuss the issues of common interests, as well as the elected representatives who met us during our visits to London and to Brussels. Today's debate has focused particularly on our most recent report, determining Scotland's future relationship with the European Union. While we did not achieve complete consensus, it is striking that all five parties on the committee were able to agree to a broad range of conclusions on the basis of the evidence that we heard. The report is only a fortnight old. In some respects, its conclusions and the committee's recommendations have already been overtaken by events in the way that the minister made clear at the outset of today's debate, but the tenor of those reports remains relevant for the period ahead. While committee members agreed about the benefits of the single market for Scotland and for the UK as a whole, we did not endorse the Scottish Government's proposed mechanism for Scotland to remain in the single market if the rest of the UK left, but neither did we reject it. What we said instead on our quote was that, a bespoke solution that reflects Scotland's majority vote to remain in the single market should be explored with the EU 27 as part of the negotiations ahead before and after the triggering of article 50. It is worth remembering that that phrase was agreed by us all as part of that committee. A majority of the committee believed at the time that we agreed the report that a differentiated solution could be found within the EU to accommodate Scotland in the single market or in its connection with the single market, but no collective view was expressed as to what that differentiated solution might be. However, we were explicit in saying that a bespoke solution for Scotland within the UK should continue to be explored after, as well as before, the triggering of article 50. Whether anyone still believes that such a bespoke solution for Scotland within the UK is possible, given that the events of this week are, of course, a debate for another day, but suffice it to say at this juncture that nothing in the evidence that we heard from Scottish ministers led us to expect a fundamental change in their approach before the triggering of article 50. It is important to note also that the committee welcomed the intensification of discussions at official and ministerial level on the proposals that were made by the Scottish and Welsh Governments. We called on UK ministers to respond to the Scottish Government's proposals before invoking article 50, and we asked them to say whether or not the Scottish Government's objectives for differentiated solutions would be set out in the article 50 letter to the EU. Those were reasonable demands, again commanding all party support on the committee, even if their force has been somewhat weakened by this week's wider developments, and our call for the Scottish and UK Governments to work together on those matters still stands. So, too, does the call that we made by majority for transitional agreements to be requested by the UK Government in the letter triggering article 50. The convener mentioned that, in Brussels, we met members of the constitutional affairs committee of the European Parliament. They were clear in their discussions with us in their view that a withdrawal agreement would be negotiated first, and then that would be followed by a separate agreement on the UK's future trade relationship with the European Union. Our committee's report on migration on citizens' rights recognised the contribution of EU citizens living in this country, called for them to be reassured as to their future status without further delay, and acknowledged the case for a differentiated approach to the issue of free movement and migration within the UK. Now we now know that the UK Government has chosen to leave the future of EU citizens in this country to be dealt with as part of the withdrawal agreement, which will also have to deal with other difficult issues, EU staff and pensions, UK payments as part of current EU programmes and the location of EU agencies. But even if the divorce deal dealing with all those difficult issues is done within a two-year timeframe, a future trade deal between the UK and the EU clearly will not. The Canadians, whom we also met in Brussels, took two years to agree the scope of what would be included in their trade deal with the European Union, and then another five years to agree the terms ratification and implementation follow thereafter. In view of such daunting timescales, the majority of the committee took the view that the UK Government must seek to agree transitional arrangements as part of the article 50 process to maintain something like existing terms of trade while a long-term agreement is put in place. We also heard in Brussels from lawyers with an expertise in those areas that world trade organisation rules permit transitional arrangements for up to 10 years after which the default position of WTO terms and tariffs would come into force. Clearly, avoiding such an outcome dependence on WTO rules would require a final deal to be reached during a transitional period, which in turn would have to follow from the withdrawal agreement. The committee has heard from nobody at all out with the UK Government who believes that such transitional arrangements might not be necessary. On powers repatriated from Brussels, as the convener said, we concluded that any such power that is not currently reserved should be devolved alongside a funding mechanism with no detriment to Scotland. Different parties, of course, have different views on what should happen with the repatriation of other competences, but an agreed starting point for that debate is the one laid out in this report. There are many EU funding streams, but regional policy through structural funds and agricultural support are the main ones that are delivered through a territorial funding framework. The question was raised of whether there should be a UK-wide framework to support disadvantaged regions or to support less favoured areas on an objective agreed across Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales. If so, if that is to happen, I think that it is the clear implication of this report that such a framework has to be devised by the UK Government and the devolved administrations working together rather than simply be determined by the UK Government alone. Whatever the timescale for article 50, we agreed unanimously in the committee that the respective Governments should deal with European partners on the basis of an agreed approach. Current practice in relation to the council of ministers is described in the report in these terms. Scottish ministers have participated in negotiations following the prior agreement of a UK negotiating line and centre priorities. This principle should apply, we said, to the withdrawal agreement and any new free trade agreements. We also said that, as those negotiations proceeded, a means should be found to involve the Scottish Government in discussions on future trade deals, whether that would be by creating a joint ministerial committee on international trade or in some other ways. Just as importantly, we called for the written agreement between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to be augmented to ensure that committees of this Parliament are fully informed by ministers on both the EU withdrawal agreement and any future trade deal. Here again, events this week may have put some of those recommendations in a different light, but they remain unanimous recommendations of all members of the committee. Those reports have not sought to lay down red lines, whether to the Scottish Government, to the UK Government or indeed to the EU 27. What they have done is proposed that, if the will is there, a means can be found to square the circle of Scottish support for a close relationship with Europe and freedom of movement with the UK-wide decision to leave the EU, a decision that is not challenged or denied in those reports. They called for a response from UK ministers to the Scottish Government's proposals before the triggering of article 50. They also called on both Governments to continue to work together for a mutually beneficial outcome once that critical point has passed. It does not express a view on the merits or on the weaknesses of the Scottish Government's proposal. The committee divided on the merits of the UK Government's approach, but we agreed on almost everything else. Those are serious reports. They deserve to be taken seriously by all parties and by both Governments. How far developments this week suggested that is happening, I will for the moment leave for others to judge. The only thing that we can be certain of today is that we will face continuing uncertainty tomorrow. I commend the approach taken by the committee in those reports as the right approach to that uncertainty in the period ahead. That concludes our debate on reports on the implications of the European Union referendum in Scotland. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 4609, in the name of Jovis Patrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press their request to speak button now. I call on Jovis Patrick to move motion 4609. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 46010, in the name of Jovis Patrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable at stage 1 of the seatbelts on school transport bill. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press their request to speak button now. I call on Jovis Patrick to move motion 4610. The next item of business is consideration of a Parliamentary Bureau motion. I would ask Jovis Patrick to move motion 4611, on First Minister's questions, portfolio in general questions and topical questions. That will be taken at decision time. Before we come to decision time, members will wish to join me in welcoming to the gallery Mr Ackbar Can, Secretary-General to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. There are two questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that motion 4570, in the name of Joan McAlpine, on reports on the implications of the European Union referendum on Scotland to be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The final question is that motion 4611, in the name of Jovis Patrick, on First Minister's questions, portfolio in general questions and topical questions be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time. We will now move to members' business on Commonwealth Day, in the name of Stuart McMillan, and we will just take a few moments to change seats.