 Mae'r first item on the agenda today is to ask members to take item 3 on the agenda in private, are members agreed? The second agenda item today is on article 50 preparedness, which forms part of the committee's scrutiny on the article 50's negotiations process. We have a round table of evidence today, and I would like to welcome to the meeting Alasdor Sim from University Scotland. Claire Slipper, the political affairs manager of the National Farmers Union in Scotland. Paul Buckley, director of strategy and policy at the General Medical Council. Matt Lancashire, director of policy and public affairs at the Scottish Council for Development and Industry. Jennifer Hunter, executive leader with Culture Counts. Chris Yaronsley, policy manager for the Freight Transport Association. Gary Stevenson, chair of the Food and Drink Federation Scotland. Welcome. We have four themes for discussion today. I set out in the committee papers. Our first theme is the impact of the Brexit process to date. Can I open the discussion on that theme by inviting our witnesses to share with us what the impact of the Brexit process to date has been on their sector? Claire Slipper, yes. Thank you. First of all, thank you very much for having me here today. Last time I came to this committee was shortly after the referendum results, where we were trying to process exactly where we were and where things were heading, and to some extent we are still in that state of focus just now. Some background on NFU Scotland, we have about 8,500 farming and crofting businesses who are members, so that's who I'm here to represent today. In terms of the impact of the Brexit process to date, I should make it clear from the start that prior to the referendum, we were of the view of having taken independent advice that staying within the EU would probably be the best case scenario for our members in terms of continuity with markets and support, but we are obviously where we are now. In terms of the immediate impact, the fall in the exchange rate has had some short-term relief in terms of prices, particularly for the sheep sector. When the exchange rate falls, farm grape prices tend to increase, but that is very much a short-term benefit for the sector. What we have seen is that, due to the fall in the exchange rate, we've had quite serious issues in recruiting labour from the EU. This is a problem that we had prior to the referendum, but it's certainly been a catalyst that has sped this up, particularly in seasonal labour for the soft-fruit and field veg sectors. That's something that we anticipate will continue at pace. The on-going uncertainty around Brexit has been very damaging to the confidence of our members. It's been very frustrating that, for the past two and a half years, we've felt unable to progress with domestic policies such as looking at regulation and supply chains. There's been a continued political stagnation as to where we will go with Brexit, and that's very damaging to confidence. Business decisions are being taken by our members at the time of the referendum that will have an impact long into the future. We still don't yet know what exactly impacts there will be. We have seen a fallen investment in the sector and people holding off making big investments or taking business decisions before they know what the outcomes will be. I'll leave it there for now. Thanks very much. Matt, do you want to come in? I suppose that it's just to echo some of the points that have been made. Since the negotiations have started to take place on article 50, there has been a negative impact across businesses in Scotland. I should say that SEDI represents about 1,200 members across private and public sector in Scotland in itself. Business values stability, values predictability. Many of the business leaders that we speak to from oil and gas to the financial services sector to professional services all bang that drum to an extent that they value stability and predictability. What article 50 and the negotiations that it has given us is a lack of that stability because it is the unknown of what we are stepping into in the next few months as well as years. The difficulty and complexity of the deep political nature of the negotiations has generated uncertainty not just for them but for their employees too, particularly people who are from the EU themselves but work in Scotland with some very highly skilled labour in terms of whether they stay in Scotland or move back, even though the assurance is that they have the right to remain post leaving the EU. We have also echoed in the point that people delay post bone council investment decisions around expanding their business, scaling up and developing opportunities that would really progress the Scottish economy. Quite crucially for us at SEDI, investment is a key lever in supporting productivity. We all know that productivity is a massive issue not just for the Scottish economy but the UK economy as a whole. We need to change that quickly to ensure that we still are a frontrunner economy competing with the rest of the world keeping Scotland competitive. All in all, there are deep concerns about the negotiations. It has, as a massive impact, reduced investment. It has made talented people potentially leave the country in terms of not staying here post the end of March. In a nutshell, it is probably not the best thing for business that we have seen in the past couple of years. Kenneth Gibson, you have a question. It is just a follow-on from Matt's comments. In your submission, you have said that the UK Government previously announced that the UK Shared Prosperity Fund will replace the European structural funds programme. However, little or no information on what it will be or how it will operate has been released. More clarity on the design of this and other replacement schemes, particularly the success of CEP, is ordinarily quiet, because you have said that Scotland between 2014-20 was set to receive €5.6 billion from the EU. Have you done any further information on that? When do you think that you will receive any information on it, if not? We have not, to date, seen more information on the prosperity fund in terms of the amount that will be there to support businesses and other organisations in that. We have also not seen, I suppose, the information around how that fund will be distributed and who will qualify in the criteria for doing so. Does it replace funds as such? I would not like to give an answer because I do not know the amount that will be in the fund. I do not know what the criteria will be. I do not know what business will qualify. Is it something that can mitigate some of the impact of Brexit? Yes, I would say that. However, it will not mitigate Brexit as a whole in terms of the impact that we will have on our economy, particularly if we listened to Mark Carney's statement from the Bank of England yesterday. Will the fund be a short-term fix, or will it be more permanent from the information that you have received? For the information that we have received, we are unaware whether it is a short-term or long-term fix, but we have asked the UK Government for more information, and I am sure that it will disseminate that shortly. Does anyone else want to come in on Kenya's question? I want to adjust the generality of article 50's anticipation of your first question. I think that, as other witnesses have said, the uncertainty is really the biggest problem. Our interaction with Europe is hugely important. If you look at academic staff, 17 per cent of them are from the EU, and that mobility of talent and ideas is just essential to being a successful university and a huge part of our community. Today, we have been trying to get on with business as usual in anticipation of a deal that sustains our membership of European research networks and maintains student mobility, but that prospects are uncertain. So far, universities have been getting on with recruiting European staff, getting on with applying for European research funds and recruiting European students. What we have seen so far is that, in general, the people who have made the commitment to come and work at Scotland's universities, although they are nervous at the moment that they are staying, there are some experiences of it being more difficult to recruit staff from European Union countries to Scottish universities, because they are uncertain about the future, but they have certainly not come to a stop. We are still relatively successfully recruiting European students who had so much to our academic mix. The real concern that becomes more and more pressing is what is going to happen next. Are we heading towards a no-deal scenario, in which case the mobility of staff and the mobility of students, our participation in European research networks and the ability of students to go abroad and do an Erasmus study as part of our programme? All those vast uncertainties are really hurtling towards us extremely quickly. The sooner we know what the future is going to look like and what our relationship with the EU is going to be and the closer that is, the better. Thank you, minister. Paul Buckley. I am inviting the GMC to the round table this morning. Echoing comments by colleagues, the main issue for the GMC is the regulation of the medical profession is uncertainty, particularly uncertainty, as to the basis on which EA doctors will be registered by the GMC from the end of next March. Currently, European professionals benefit from what is called automatic recognition. That is, their qualifications are automatically recognised by all member states. That means that the process of getting doctors into the NHS onto the front line is very quick and straightforward. However, what we do not know is what the arrangements are going to be from the end of March, particularly in the event of a no deal. As far as Scotland's health service specifically is concerned, there are some 20,000 doctors, around 6 per cent of whom are EA doctors, and they make an enormous contribution across the service, but particularly in some of the remote and rural territorial boards. Also, in some particular specialities such as anaesthetics, pathology and surgery, the percentage of EA doctors is of the order of 15 per cent or so. It is a very significant group of the workforce. Of course, for doctors who are already here, their position as far as registration is concerned will not change whatever scenario happens next March. However, the issue is more in relation to the future flow of doctors into the health services across the UK, where it is not clear on what basis those doctors are going to be registered and what impact that might have on their plans to move to the UK or not. Thank you very much. Stuart McMillan, you had a question. Yes, it was for Alasdor Sim. I hosted an Erasmus event here in Parliament earlier on this year, and I studied through an Erasmus event, so I know how important that has led us. I also know that it has been a challenge over the years, trying to get Scottish students to go and study, take part in courses, and we have a chance to go and study elsewhere. In terms of the discussions within universities now, is there any discussion that is taking place regarding not running as many courses where there is an opportunity to go and study within the European Union over the course of next number of years? Broadly speaking, we are trying to maintain confidence that we are heading towards a negotiated outcome with the EU. In that case, one of the priorities that we have stressed to the UK Government, and I think that the UK Government has taken on, is participation in Erasmus. For the reasons that you describe, it is vastly important for talent coming here and for the internationalised experience of our own students. I think that the problem as we face it now is that we do not know whether, in fact, we are crashing out in the 29th of March without a deal and falling out of the Erasmus programme in that way. We do not know if we have a deal where Erasmus will fit in. At least if we leave the European Union with some negotiated outcome, it will provide immediate continuity of people doing Erasmus and things like that, and I would say at least the probability of that being part of our long-term relationship with the EU. On Erasmus, have you given any indication as to how the UK Government is going to evaluate the various schemes? We have been hearing that it may be on a value for money basis. The simple answer is that I do not know. If you look at what the UK Government published in its various statements on Brexit and its no deal note on Erasmus, even the very generalised words of the political declaration point in a direction of continuing relationship with the EU on student mobility, as well as on research co-operation. However, we are in a position of high uncertainty. We touched on the high uncertainty and you have all indicated that confidence and continuity are vitally important. Can you give us an idea of what contingency plans that you have tried to put in place to try to mitigate some of the situations or circumstances that you may find yourself in and how that is being managed, and if you are still working with partners in Europe at the moment and how you see that developing after March? I am happy to say what the GMC's perspective is on this. Our strong advice to the UK Government has been to maintain continuity of supply so far as possible, even in the event of a no deal situation, so that if we were no longer part of the automatic recognition arrangements, we would make sense and would be important for the GMC to be able to recognise European qualifications without having to put those doctors through the very laborious and time-consuming processes that apply to doctors from other parts of the world. That is what we would like to see for a period of a couple of years or so, during which we can work with partners, Governments, Scottish Government and other colleagues to devise a future more flexible registration framework that would apply to the whole of the world outside the UK. That is what we would want in the event of a no deal. We have also been doing a lot of work with our IT systems so that we can switch on a number of different possibilities depending on what the eventual outcome is. That is quite costly. We are also having to recruit additional staff in order to cope for all eventualities. Our registration systems will be able to deal with a no deal outcome in terms of the mechanics, but clearly we are now at a point very close to EU exit day where we do not know what the position is, and we regard it as very important that we get certainty on that as soon as possible. Matt, do you want to come in? Yes, just very briefly to let others enjoy the discussion too. I think that we have seen preparations across businesses sector in Scotland in terms of the divergence scenarios that could take place, no deal, this deal, that deal and still there is something to play for in that transition period, too, if there was a deal of any kind, too. I do not think that it would be as clear cut as if the deal goes through Parliament next week as well. To the degree at which businesses have managed to do that, it is probably more larger businesses, the global businesses that have been able to have the resource and the knowledge base and the capability and capacity to build those scenario planning. What it will mean for trade, what it will mean for exporting, what it will mean for their supply chain, what it will mean for X, Y and Z and being able to put activity into that. Probably not the case for SMEs in Scotland and we are a nation of SMEs in Scotland. Our business base is not entirely SMEs but it is very significant to our economy moving forward. Particularly they do not have the resource time or generally the capacity to be able to build those scenarios moving forward. That is a significant concern on whatever deal is no deal, the deal that we have on the table, whatever anything else transpires over the next few weeks. We have also seen, I think, a lack of clarity going back to the process. Again, that has allowed those scenarios to be built. I think that the only saving gracing that is that UK Government has put out the UK Government technical notices across the different sectors and streams that have provided some comfort for some of the industries and sectors that we work in. However, they do not go the whole hog and detail what the deal will be at the end of the day. Without that clarity, it does not matter what scenario you build until you have clarity of the deal or better off. Thank you very much. Chris Yarosly. Thank you very much. The FTA represents freight and logistics companies across the UK in all modes of transport, so road, rail, maritime and aviation. I just want to pick up on that. First of all, yes, the uncertainty is causing a great deal of problems for our members because they, as always, business needs to know what it is planning for and if you do not know what you are planning for and we do not know what we are planning for, it is impossible to plan for it. In terms of contingency planning, I will pick up on the skills point. We have a declaration from the UK Government that EU 27 nationals will be given the right to remain and work under a settled status scheme in the UK, but the legislation is not there at the moment. We need that to be brought forward quickly, so we have the legal certainty rather than simply a statement of intent from ministers. As we have all sectors, there is a great deal of EU 27 workers in the UK and in the sector, which is the logistics sector, which is already facing extreme skills shortages. Any loss of labour there will cause serious problems for the supply chain. In terms of how do we keep Britain trading on day one, the notices have been useful, but business needs to know what it is planning for. Business does not have the resource to put in place plans for every outcome. What we are doing at the moment is advising our members to plan for the worst outcome because then anything else is a positive on top of that. We do agree that a no-deal exit is simply not acceptable. There is no time left to put in place the legislative framework, the legal framework at the moment, for us to keep moving on day one. We have had an agreement on air services between the UK and the USA that has just been published this morning. However, that is fine for passenger aviation, but that will not cover Bellyhole cargo, which most commercial civil aviation carries, because the security clearances will not be there in place before Brexit Day, so all the Bellyhole cargo will have to be taken out of the planes, for example. At the moment this week, the Government has just opened up its permit scheme, so British hauliers can now apply for permits to use for crossings into the EU after, but that is only going to cover about 5% to 7% of the demand that is necessary. We desperately need, and it is the view of our association that the withdrawal agreement has agreed to allow the transition period to come into play so that we can then get the agreements in place. There is continuity of business post March 29 next year. Keith, was your supplementary in terms of what Chris has just said? Yes, it was very brief. It was just what you said in your submissions, what you just touched on. You said that there is another major concern. Unless an agreement is reached on European law, there will only be 103 international haulage permits to cover the 300,000 journeys made by British trucks to Europe every year. What you are saying is, in effect, that you are being asked to destroy the businesses of your international haulage members? I wonder if you can comment a wee bit further on that. It does seem alarming, 103 permits, and you are saying only 5% to 7%. What would be the actual impact in terms of delivery of goods and services to the UK as a result of that? The permit scheme is based under the ECMT permit scheme, which exists already, but it is just not used because we are part of the single market. There is a multiplier effect, so the 103 gets multiplied if you are using Euro 6, which is the cleanest emission standard you have for HDVs. There is the multiplier effect, so you get to 1,000, but that is it. It is per vehicle as well, so the permit has to travel with the vehicle and come back, so it is not per company, so we are talking about vehicles. That will put a great strain on the ability for UK PLC to trade outside of the UK into the EU27, and that is just on the vehicle. We have not even touched upon the recognition of professional qualifications, so the driver driving licence, the driver professional competencies documentation, all of that still needs to be put in place, but we are talking about having very restricted access to the wider European market. Conversely, coming into the UK, are the other member states prepared for their permits to enter the UK? We are unsure about that, so there could be a bottleneck if it needs to come into use. Thank you, convener. I was interested in cultural accounts submission and what impact the uncertainty is having on your sector. Maybe there are other sectors around the table, but it is more evident. Do you think that the Government has an understanding of what the issues are facing the cultural sector, which is really important to Scotland? Cultures come up in some of the documents, but they are usually under agriculture or aquaculture, not on its own. There are various issues. One of the problems is that we cannot gather evidence for them, so we cannot prove that we have not been booked to play a European festival because we are a UKie artist, because people would just say, well, maybe you just did not get chosen because they preferred other bands or whatever. It is quite hard for us to get the evidence to show what is happening, but we are quite unpopular in terms of if you are a booker in France, would you risk booking British bands when you do not know how much that is going to cost you in visa costs or carny costs? In the same with digital publishing, if you were booking for Grey's Anatomy for the soundtrack, would you be choosing British publishing when you do not know what is going to happen with the digital single market? Lots of uncertainty in terms of everything that we do, in terms of the goods, in terms of services, in terms of people and in terms of the digital stuff. The same as everyone else, uncertainty is really the big problem for us. Some of the recent announcements on goods are quite interesting. They could maybe help us a little, but most of our work is services and digital, so the good stuff really only helps us for vinyl DVD books, which is quite a small area for us. In your submission, you talked about big festivals and that kind of thing. There will be quite a lot of international acts, so there are already systems that would deal with visas, and there will be costs involved if you are booking a band from Canada or America, or that sectors are used to. Is it just as much the degree of uncertainty that they do not know what will be attached to additional costs with Europeans? Is there a difference between decisions that they make about who to book or who to, based on where they are coming from with additional costs? Is that significant? It basically depends on the levels. If you are talking high-level stuff, they have got the budgets anyway. It is more the small to medium level, so it is little folk festivals and things like that. That is the day-to-day work for a lot of people, so it is not really the big festivals or that kind of thing, because they have got the budgets to pay the visas for anyone they like anyway. It is more of the day-to-day stuff, small to medium enterprises are the ones that are hit most from it because they are doing the smaller gigs, but the smaller gigs will automatically have smaller budgets to spend on visas. The problem is that visas are per person, so if you have seven people in the band, it is not just one, it is seven, plus all the equipment. When you do not know how much that is going to cost and you are already quite a small budget, you are probably not going to take the risk on that, if you do not know. Thanks very much, Jamie Greene. Thank you, convener. Good morning to our panel guests. Just a couple of things picking up on the interesting conversation that we are having. The first one is for NFU Scotland. In a previous submission that you have given to this Parliament, you said that leaving the European Union presents the first opportunity in over 40 years to overhaul and rebalance Scottish agricultural policy. That seems to conflict somewhat of your opening statement that you said in a previous analysis that the status quo is better. Can you just try to explain that to me? You are quite right. We do see the opportunity of leaving the CEP and being able to sort of come on agricultural policy at the cap as an opportunity to recast and redesign the way that we support our farming businesses. In my opening statement, what I referred to was in terms of that quantum of funding, it would have been guaranteed if we were to stay within the EU and clearly the whole trading framework and regulatory framework around it supports our farming businesses as well. If we have that in the face of a no deal or uncertainty at the time, the decision would be best to stay within. We are leaving and we do see it as a significant opportunity because as much as the CEP has been useful in providing a financial cushion and certainty for our farming businesses, it can be much better targeted, particularly in Scotland. At the moment, we are doing a huge amount of work to look into the possible policy tools that we could use in Scotland to better support our farmers. There is clearly a bit of big question over funding. The UK Treasury has guaranteed that the same quantum of cash support will be guaranteed up to 2022, which is welcome but is only up to 2022. We need some sort of commitment beyond that point because what we need to do is start moving our agricultural businesses to think 15, 20, 30 years into the future and being supported by policy to do that. We are pleased with the proposals that we have come up with and the reception that they have had from stakeholders and from Government as well, so that that could be an opportunity so long as we are supported by the trading framework and do not come crashing out of the EU because that would be the worst-case scenario. Thank you, that is very helpful. I had another question based on some other comments made, and this one is for the general medical council. Just regarding the pipeline of doctors, it is obviously very important to the NHS in Scotland. I think that you said that 15 per cent of doctors in Scotland currently are EEA origin, is that correct? It is actually 6 per cent, but in some specialties it is as much as 15 per cent. Do you have any statistics on what percentage of doctors are non-EEA, but from overseas? We do. I do not have that figure in my head. It would be of the order of around 20 per cent or so, but we can confirm that subsequently. Given that we are at the moment and again notwithstanding any uncertainty around access from Labour from the EU, what do you think would need to be the heart of any future immigration policy concerning the NHS, both in Scotland and other parts of the UK? Do you think that there are any changes to the visa or immigration services that allow for opportunities for doctors to come from anywhere in the world with the right skills that we need, where they may be finding it difficult? We should be at the heart of future changes. Would that be a welcome change, for example, in a shift in policy? Immigration policy is outside our direct responsibilities. However, earlier this year, when there were a lot of reports in the media that doctors seeking to come to the UK were unable to get a visa and, therefore, the NHS shortages were being exacerbated, we made clear to government that we thought that it was very frustrating, whereas health departments were trying to get more doctors into the system, the immigration arrangements were working against that and the government has now relaxed those arrangements. It is not directly a matter for us, but we have contributed to that debate. Does your organisation get involved with government strategy on supporting a pipeline of doctors from within Scotland or within the UK to ensure that, if there are shortages in the event from overseas, given the timeline that it takes, I presume, to get somebody to qualify to do that type of specialist work? No matter what happens, we do have adequate supplies of workforce from within. We have a statutory responsibility for all stages of medical education, including undergraduate education. We quality assure medical schools, including Scottish medical schools, and the new programme, ScotGem, is just getting under way. The numbers are not directly a matter for us, but quality and standards are absolutely for us, and we work very closely with Scottish Government and all its colleagues to maintain those standards. I think that it is fair to say that we are moving on to the second theme, which is the proposed withdrawal agreement, the political declaration and the alternative approaches to Brexit. Can I ask a quick supplementary of Claire Slipper? When you were talking about the transition period, when we were in Brussels, we were told that transition period could be extended. Of course, some withdrawal agreement says to 2022 if need be, but one of the things that came out is that the funding for CAP will change in Europe halfway through that period. In the withdrawal agreement, it says that any policy decisions made here in the UK would need to align in some ways with whatever happens in Brussels, but we would not have any say in shaping that. What is your response to that? There are a few things there, and you are quite right. Europe is looking into the next phase of CAP reform. It reforms every seven years, so that will take place and kick in in about 2021. In terms of what we can spend money on domestically here, whether we are inside or outside the EU, we need legal mechanisms in place to ensure that ministers have the power to make payments, but that is in place and is guaranteed to some extent by the either the Scottish Government's continuity bill or the UK Government's withdrawal act. In terms of the policy alignment, it would depend on if the transition were to be extended. I presume that there would be some form of agreement and we would have to study the wording of that in due course. In terms of the regulatory alignment, we do not want to diverge too much from what Europe is doing anyway, because we are still needing to trade with them. They are our biggest market. Regulation-wise, some form of alignment is what we will be looking for in the short-to-medium term anyway. It is more in terms of the specific policy tools within that framework that you design and deliver domestically here in Scotland. We do think that there could be some leeway to do that quite differently to what is currently done under the CAP. That is the real opportunity that we see. Regulation-wise, if it is across things such as animal health and welfare and pesticides regulation, chemicals regulation, we do not want to be diverging too much anyway in the medium term, because we still need to trade. I understand why some people believe that the only options left now are the deal put forward by the UK Government or a no-deal situation. In that scenario, the deal would be preferable to no-deal. I disagree with that. I think that there are other options, but to look at the deal in and of itself for a moment, does anyone here believe that the deal negotiated by the UK Government will leave their sector in a better place than it is at the moment under current arrangements or in a situation that is just as good? No. The deal will leave us in exactly the same situation because we will enter the transition period. What happens after that is another question, and that is as far as I can possibly answer. Does anyone else want to come in on that? I agree with what Chris has just said. In terms of the political declaration, what it does seem to guarantee is a commitment to free and frictionless trade with the EU, particularly for agri-food goods. That is really important for us. In the transition period, the political declaration seems to set out some sort of joint ambition to achieve that in the longer term through the FTA. I could not possibly comment on what the status of those negotiations will end up as, but as long as the commitment is there, that is really important for certainty within our sector. Annabelle Ewing? On that point, if you are not in the single market, there cannot be frictionless trade. Otherwise, what is the point of the single market? That is the benefit of being in the club. That begs the question for all of you. If the deal got through the House of Commons, which all commentators suggest is not going to happen, let us assume for a second that it did. That is not the end of Brexit. That is the start of a very, very, very long road of wrangling for years and years and years. However, it is quite clear that if an option to remain in the single market is not an option that is being pursued by the UK Government, we will not be in the single market and therefore you cannot have frictionless trade. Given that obvious axiomatic fact, what planning are you all doing on the basis that you will not be in the single market at some stage? Annabelle Ewing got in before me. Potentially we will not have frictionless trade with the deal that is on the table at the moment. It is not an EU single market trade agreement, sorry withdrawal agreement that has been expressed and that has been SCDI's position at the start of the process in terms of what we call for and what we have favoured. It is not just movement of goods and services, it is people and going back to that skills part again and how that actually works. I believe that the UK Government is trying to mitigate immigration and skills concerns with an immigration white paper, which I think is due in the new year, which will be interesting to see how that can support that frictionless movement of people post Brexit too. I think that the other part of this is part of that single market kind of EU thing, is that the access to negotiated trade deals that we already actually have and what happens in that particular perspective under this current deal too. Do we lose that access under this particular deal and I am not sure if that is the case or not. Going back to transition period, it is both Barnier and someone from the UK Government, the energy minister, have both indicated or mooted that there is opportunity to extend that transition period to 2022, which is something that SCDI again have championed in terms of a longer transition to allow businesses to adjust to ensure that there is free movement of people, goods and services as well. It is a longer transition period, but the deal on the table certainly does not look like a frictionless trade deal. One of the issues with single market membership is freedom of movement, which has not been one of the four pillars in the UK Government's decision not to block areas. We had Professor Manning, who is the chair of the advisory committee in front of the committee a few weeks ago, who made an argument that immigration had created a low-wage, low-skills economy in the UK. Immigration was the driver of that, and I wonder if members had views on that position. I can quickly answer the access to highly-skilled labour only supports our economy moving forward. Many of our highly-skilled workers in Scotland come from different countries, whether that is in the EU or not. That is a positive that we need to continue to move on. It is not just them doing a particular role and doing their job. It is the fact that they open up thinking around other cultures, innovation and how an economy moves forward. In the main, having access to skilled labour wherever it comes from only supports our productivity moving forward in the economy in the future. I am pleased that the UK Government is moving on on the immigration paper, but as we all know, the devil is in the detail as to what will be in that. I think that all of us will be looking to feed evidence and consulting in on that. I do not mind if any of you want to comment, because he highlighted that the agricultural sector and tourism sector are sectors that should no longer expect to have cheap labour, and labelled them as areas that were flooded with cheap labour. Members on the table recognise that we all represent areas that are agricultural, that have lots of fruit farms and ffife. There is a real pressure on employment there. How do you respond to that or what are the proposals? How do you see that being resolved in the future? It goes that same. We were really disappointed by the comments and quite shocked by some of the reports that came out afterwards. We fed in very strong evidence to the MAC at the time and continued to engage with them. What we feel is that it is a slight misrepresentation of our sector and how it is constructed. There are two strands to this. There is the seasonal labour aspect and the permanent labour aspect. On seasonal workers, the MAC has recognised that we need a bespoke solution for seasonal agricultural workers. Across the UK, we employ about 60,000 every year on a temporary basis, and about 99 to 100 per cent of them come from outside of the UK. We need a solution for them. To characterise the sector as low-wage and low productivity is something that we dispute very strongly. Even just taking the soft-fruit sector as an example, we have a Scottish agricultural wages board that means that all workers start at a base salary of £7.83 an hour, but many more will be earning possibly two times or more than that, when you add in overtime and higher pay for the more skilled workers. Any of you have said that the seasonal workers' permanent while it's welcome, the figures aren't high enough. Absolutely. There is a trial scheme that has been announced for 2,500 workers from outside the EU to come in during transition. That will be in addition to, hopefully, the free movement of people that will be retained during transition so long as we don't crash out. We know that we had a shortage in the UK this year of about 10,000 workers. Even if the scheme brings in an additional 2,500, we already know that that's a quarter of what we might need next year. That, as a result, is meaning that businesses in Scotland are now holding back on investment. They're planting less crop because a lot of them lost crop this year and lost a significant amount of money as a result. That holds back the real potential of the sector, but one point that I would labour is that, even in soft-root alone in Scotland, it's 0.6 per cent of the utilizable agricultural land area but responsible for more than 10 per cent of agricultural output as a whole. That's in a very livestock-dominated sector, so to talk down the productivity of soft-root and field veg is highly disappointing and something that we dispute very strongly. Alasdair, you wanted to come in. I just wanted to see what the UK Government decides on immigration is absolutely vital. I've said earlier that the mobility of talent, the openness of universities, students and staff talent, really is our lifeblood. I think that we are very keen to see as open migration regime as possible for staff. Also, for students coming from the EU, if you look at what students are doing, who have come from the EU six months after they graduate, at least 40 per cent of them are working in the Scottish workforce, bringing their high skills to Scotland and addressing the gaps that we know that we have in having enough people at high-skill levels in our economy. On the staff's side, one of the things that disappointed me about the Migration Advisory Committee was that, while it made some acknowledgement of the importance of talent coming to the UK, we will distinguish talent by being somebody who earns £30,000 or more. Frankly, if you are looking at creative professional from coming to or from a university, if you are looking at earliest stage researchers, they are not going to be earning £30,000, but they are going to be bringing an enormous amount of talent to our country. The other thing that disappointed me hugely was that, given the very strong support that there is across parties for a post-study work visa, international talent can really contribute to Scotland's economy. After graduation, we were extremely disappointed that the Mac didn't recommend that, and we really strongly valued a cross-party consensus that still exists for that. You fed into the Mac, did you? We fed a great deal of evidence into the Mac, so we felt that the evidence really strongly supported that cross-party consensus. Right, thanks very much. Jennifer, do you want to come in? Yeah, just to say that that's a really important issue for us as well. 35 per cent of Scottish Bally, for example, are non-UK EU nationals. Overall, though, the same is GMC, we're 6 per cent in creative industries in terms of who we rely on, and we have 17 occupations on the occupation list. So yeah, again, just to reiterate that that's really important for us as well, and there's still a huge lack of detail on it. Are there any other comments from our witnesses about the Mac specifically before I move on, Chris? Yeah, thanks chair. We had significant, we fed into the Mac reports as well. We had significant questions about the conclusions that it drew. Just some quick figures, we've estimated that in terms of drivers, we're looking at 13 per cent are non-UK EU, but when you go back in the stream, in the warehousing and other logistics works, you're looking at up to 25 per cent are non-UK EU. So we have got a significant portion, but we do have significant issues with the fact that the tier two visa scheme will have this £30,000 limit because we estimate that 90 per cent of logistics workers will fall below the qualification framework at level two, and 88 per cent of them earn below £30,000, but as somebody else just said, they're not unskilled, they just don't earn as much as other people. Where we have another problem is, unlike the agricultural sector, there is no seasonal aspect, there is no seasonal dispensation for the logistics sector, even though we face seasons, we have the Christmases around the corner where there are serious peaks in terms of the requirements for drivers, and also the fact that they're taking away the preference for EU workers is also problematic because at the moment, qualifications are the same, compared to the rest of world workers in terms of driving licences and professional qualifications, we would hope that that would be looked at again as well. Okay, thanks very much. Tavish Scott. Thank you. After March, presumably, we'll be in the transition period, how do you plan to make sure that your voices heard in Brussels will have no Scottish MEPs, there'll be no Scottish ministers or indeed UK ministers going to council meetings, we'll be outside, but it'll all still be affecting you. Have your organisations thought about how you're going to influence the European system without the normal channels that we've all relied on for decades? We're part of a network of medical regulators across Europe called the European network of medical competent authorities. We're going to continue to be working very closely with them, regardless of what happens in March, so that, while our voice can't be heard directly, it could be heard and amplified indirectly via our colleagues in Europe. Do you think that they'll be comfortable to take your representations and make sure that they're heard in the quarters of power? I certainly think that they would be interested in hearing our perspective and then finding a way of sharing that with colleagues in Brussels. I have a UK farming union's representation out in Brussels called the British Agriculture Bureau, BAB, for short. I spent some time with them earlier this year doing a study trip to look at how third countries, not members of the EU, engage. My strong conclusion from that report was that they engage very well in the network and it's very much about who you know and maintaining those relationships. We'll be maintaining our presence post-exit with the BAB office. It's going to stay there. When they don't have access to or outside of the council or commission, it's just very much about maintaining those relationships that come down to people at the end of the day. Do you think that Claire, Andy English and others will have to up their game in terms of presence in Brussels? Possibly. I suppose that it'll probably be a bit of a succot and sea exercise about seeing some doors may close but others might open and it'll be about finding allegiances, possibly with other countries who might not have usually been the typical bedfellows when we're in. Matt? I think that it'll be challenging. It's the only sense for anyone in this room, no matter what agencies or networks that we are connected to and we'll always try our best to represent our members and Scotland's interests as everyone else around this table would. Without direct, connected representation into Europe, that becomes more challenging because that's just logic and it's as simple as that. Where SCDI has been across all sectors that we represent is that we believe in an open, inclusive, globally connected economy and what we're seeing through the Brexit process is potentially some of that being eroded, which doesn't help to drive the support for our economy, to drive investment, to drive the productivity gap close and upwards or up and downwards, to drive talented people and people who just want to locate in the UK and Scotland because it's just a great place to live, whether that's to work in the rural economy, which is desperate for skills, which is desperate for support in their industries too. In answer, we will be less connected and I think that's a fair and honest assessment. Our members, particularly the larger ones, have global businesses. I suspect that they'll be connected in through their own business networks there, but in terms of Scottish businesses, particularly SMEs, they will struggle to find that representation. Chris? There's a personal point to that question because until last year I lived and worked in Brussels for almost 18 years, so I have the first-hand experience of what it's like. Do you want to ask about restaurants? I can give you a few addresses, yes. The FTA is quite fortunate in its ability that we do actually have a Brussels office. It's actually situated within the CBI's office over there. We have two people running our liaison with the European institutions, but we are also members of wider trade bodies that are on a European level. We have access to people who will continue to have access, so we can look at it that way. It is a reduced level of access. However, I do know from personal experience that the officials who do work in, for example, DGMove and in the Parliament, they do look to the UK as a good example of good, best practice, certainly in road transport, in terms of the quality of our legislation, in terms of the quality of our enforcement, and also the facts that we have some of the safest roads around. They will continue to come knocking at our door, but we will not have that open door to them in the future. However, I think that it's worth saying that I think that our Brussels office is hoping that this is going to be the case, that one of the largest delegations in Brussels is the Swiss delegation, and they are not members of the EU, so that there does need to be access. It will be valuable for associations and companies to maintain direct access in Brussels, because they will need to have a spare, certainly in the next couple of years. If we enter the transition period, the discussions start. That's the beginning of the process, so you need to be there and talking to people, so we will maintain our access in there. I think that another couple of members want to come back in. Yes, thank you very much. In terms of clear submission, you have said that NFUS has set out its grave concerns to the UK Government and the excellent standards of production and herd tune Scotland must be met by any agricultural food imports, and you have said that this is a red line for farmers and crofters in Scotland. Have you had any assurances that this will be adhered to? There have been various verbal assurances that the DEFRA Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for the Department for International Trade recognise the very high standards that we adhere to here and trade on, and the fact that it is our USP and provenance in outside markets. That is welcome, but there is nothing set in legislation or set in stone that would actually maintain that as a principle. There is an agriculture bill that is currently going through the UK Parliament. The elements of that, which are UK-wide, and an amendment that we are pushing quite strongly with support of some SNP MPs, is to put a principle in the bill that would basically ensure that no free trade agreement could be struck with a third country that would not have a principle of equivalence in terms of regulation and standards in there. Now, you can have a debate about whether it is appropriate to have an amendment of that sort in an agriculture bill when really it is an issue to do with trade, but it is essentially a probing exercise to see what sort of response would get out of the Government by doing that, but there is also a trade bill going through and we would like to see that put in there. But there is a big exercise that I think we as an industry need to do with governments about looking at how you actually match up equivalence in terms of what we do here, in terms of our high standards of production and how you might match that up with a third country, such as Canada or the US, from outside the EU. I think that if we can present to Governments where the real issues or the friction might be, then they could be more inclined to put something in place to ensure that those standards are upheld. To answer your question in short, there is nothing set in stone that will guarantee that as a principle. Because there are real concerns, obviously, that standards may be allowed to slip in exchange for trade deals. You are also, for example, with the United States. They will chlorinate chicken examples when used at many times, so I am just wondering if you think there could be a possibility that your industry could be traded off if you like in exchange for deals elsewhere. Is that a concern that you could actually have? It is a huge concern and a concern that we raised even prior to the referendum in the T-Tip negotiations. It is certainly a possibility and notwithstanding what happens with a transition agreement and whether or not we crash out of the EU, there is a concern that UK Government will be looking to do trade deals with third countries based on expedience and things might get forgotten about or traded off. That is an important role that we need to play in fighting for the interests of our industry and displaying what it is that we deliver and how catastrophic it could be if we allow cheaper imports that are produced to a lower standard to come in and flood our market. The earlier answers regarding the settled status. If you do not have the staff to produce the products and produce the items to go to market, then the issue of trade becomes a secondary issue and then the other aspect of the car park is going to become the outside of Dover. Surely the issue of the status of the workforce could have been and should have been one of the easiest issues to be dealt with at the very latest stage of the process? Do not disagree. It is to produce something that you need people and such. I think that that is the uncertainty that businesses feel across all sectors, whether that is in the rural economy or more urban economy as a whole, but particularly in the rural economy where businesses struggle to attract and retain people within that economy for various amounts of reasons. In terms of where we go with our immigration policy next, the ball is in the UK Government's court and they suggested that there is a white paper due in the new year. Until we see that white paper, until it is an organisation that represents Scottish businesses, we cannot either challenge or agree or support or reinforce or whatever it is within that paper that we feel that we have to work with. I think that a good suggestion might be that more information is brought quicker about that white paper and what is in it and certainly more effort to perhaps share some of that information with colleagues around the table from UK Government would help ease some of the concerns of our members across sectors, but the speed of that is obviously with Brexit being the focus of the civil service at this moment in time and rightly so because it is a massive change to everything in the UK and Scotland. It is going to take some time to get our immigration paper together and understand what is within it, but it is critical now that that has moved forward. Quickly, more conversation needs to be focused on it going forward, where it is no deal or a deal that we have on this table at this moment in time. It could march to 30 if we need to know where we are heading in terms of our skills supply from overseas. Another part of this is that we have to look at some of the opportunities within that. If we look towards a digital economy and we look towards new trade deals as well, how do we support that activity in terms of skilled educated people as well as non-skilled labour that supports a variety of jobs in care and in tourism as we move forward to? Chris, do you want to come in there? Yes, we fully support that. We do need more guidance and also firm words on paper from the UK Government. Going back to one of the challenges that our members are facing in terms of this aspect, we know that there is going to be this settled status scheme. They are starting to trial it, it is starting to come in, but our members are very wary about it because, literally going down to this level of employment law, it is the same as asking, are you going to start a family? Are you going to get settled status? It presupposes, and a lot of our members are really worried about the legal implications of those questions that they are now being forced to ask their members of staff because, if that person says no and then they lose their job, could they then take that company to tribunal saying, well, you got rid of me because I didn't give you that guarantee that I was getting settled status. It's a very legal problem at the moment, but our members are telling us that this is one of the aspects that they are really worried about in terms of this whole process. Okay, thanks. Annabelle? Yes, it's not directly on what Chris has just said, but the issue of trade, and obviously, at the moment, we have the benefit of some 40 trade deals being part of the customs union. In that context, it's really, I suppose, initially a question for Claire. The position, important position of geographical indications, you know, where do you feel that that issue currently stands and where do you feel that issue is going? Because that is crucially important, obviously, to the Scottish food sector, food and drink sector. I just wondered if you had any intelligence on where you think that that is going, because, obviously, we lose the benefit of the 40 trade deals that we are currently parted to, where geographical indications are protected. Yeah, so current advice from UK Government, we wrote to UK Government about this a couple of months ago to highlight the exact concerns that you've raised there. They have given us a level of reassurance that all GIs that are held at the current time will basically be carried over with no changes needing to be made, so that will be upheld. In terms of how the trade deals are carried over, I'm not quite sure, but the principle of maintaining those geographical indications will remain. Post-exit, a new scheme of UK GI will then be developed. It had been our preference for the UK Government to simply adopt the EU's GI scheme, because we felt that that would be less of an administrative and bureaucratic burden on anyone making the application, but the reassurance, I suppose, that we've received from UK Government is that it will be essentially like for like and that there will be very, very similar schemes in the UK and in the EU. The UK Government is convinced that there won't be any additional cost in terms of time or money for anyone making the application at the current time, so that does provide a level of reassurance. More widely, we were very concerned that in the recent negotiation of the trade deal, the UK Government essentially forgot to submit a list of UK GI's into that trade deal. We made a lot of noise about it at the time and it was connected retrospectively, but I think that that just showed a level of misunderstanding, I suppose, of what the primary concerns would be for food producers and food exporters. I hope that that sort of mistake wouldn't happen again, but again that's for the farming and food lobby to make sure that these things are prioritised in the negotiation of any new free trade arrangements. Indeed, but timing is an issue that I would have thought as well. Even if the deal goes through, there is an extension of the transition period 2022. At some stage, we do lose the benefit of those 40 trade deals that are already in existence where the GI is protected. What do your members envisage happening? In terms of a certain date, there will be a gap. What do your members envisage happening? It won't be possible to conclude 40 trade deals in the next four years, presumably. Presumably. We don't have the sort of expertise in-house to be able to say with any certainty about what might happen in terms of those being carried over or renegotiated. All that we know is that what we have on the table here in terms of the draft withdrawal agreement is a transition period. It's a starting point, a pathway to hopefully end up with free and frictionless principle with the EU and carrying over those trade deals. We just have to use that as a starting point and make sure that we make a lot of noise about the interests of our members. It expands on Annabelle's point. It has been mentioned a couple of times now about the transition period, giving your sectors an opportunity to prepare. Gizbus is an opportunity to prepare, but the question then is prepare for what? Given the way that the negotiations have gone over the past couple of years, and CETA and TTIP have just been mentioned, both of those sets of negotiations took eight or nine years and then TTIP didn't actually come to anything. How are your sectors able to prepare over the next two and a half years when we're not at a point to know what comes after that? I could come in on that, if you want. Again, it's just about the bigger companies and the ability to prepare. There are technical notices and there is the Scottish Enterprise guidance and Creative Industries Federation guidance for preparedness. Again, if you're a big company, you can have the staff to work on what you're going to do. Again, the small companies and the freelancers don't have anyone, so they are unable to prepare mostly. They're going to have to just kind of see what happens. The bigger companies can do things like, well, we know that we've got seven staff that we can't replace if they go because we're unlikely to be able to get seven staffs that can all speak three languages each. There are some things that you can do to prepare, but the majority of the industry being SMEs, there's nothing that they can really do. Doctors is concerned. The political declaration talks about the need for there to be appropriate arrangements for the recognition of qualifications following the implementation period, which is effectively a blank sheet of paper. What we would want to do during the two years, if that is what happens, is to make the best use of that time to develop a future framework for registering doctors. We're on record as making clear that we don't regard the current directive as a perfect instrument. We think that, in some respects, it's too permissive. In other respects, it's too restrictive. We think that there are alternative approaches that would work better for everyone, and we would want to use that period to engage closely with UK Government, with Scottish Government and others, and then, in Europe, to try and get an agreement that the future framework for recognition of qualifications needs to retain what's good now, and there's lots of things that are good, but there are some areas where it needs to move on, and we would want that to be part of any future arrangement. In this transition period—I hope that we have one, because the prospects of crashing out are just so appalling—we'd be looking to negotiate stable arrangements for the future relationship with the EU in our areas. For instance, making sure that we buy into the Horizon Europe programme to sustain our research co-operation, so that we continue to be in Erasmus Plus, and also, I think, vitally picking up on GMC's point, so that there is mutual recognition of qualifications, because it's incredibly important to our students if you're trained to be a doctor, an architect or a vet or whatever, that your professional qualification is something that's portable across borders. I think that we'd also be looking during this transition period to be working with Scottish Government on what are the arrangements that we can put in place policy-wise domestically to ensure that we can continue to attract EU students on a sustainable basis, so that we continue that openness to talent and people coming into that supply pipeline of skills that we really need in the Scottish economy. Can I just say one aspect to this? There have been doubts raised as to whether a trade deal can be achieved, which solves the problem of the Northern Ireland border and the commitments to that. We then have the backstop arrangement put in place, where there's a UK-wide customs backstop, but there's a deeper backstop for Northern Ireland, which means that Northern Ireland's a full member of the single market when the rest of the UK, including Scotland, is not. I wondered whether any of you in your sectors had looked at the impact of that in your sectors, for example, whether that would give Northern Ireland an economic advantage over Scotland in particular. Can I just say that last night, on the news of fishing sector, they said that Northern Ireland is one sector that is not represented here, but they said that it would certainly give Northern Ireland an advantage over the Scottish fishing industry. I know that I represent the south of Scotland, as you know. I often hear farmers talking about existing competition in terms of dairy and dairy products from Northern Ireland. I'm thinking that, in terms of farming and food production, I would have thought that Northern Ireland would indeed have an economic advantage. I was looking back to my notes to see what my colleagues in Northern Ireland have said about that, but I suppose that you're quite right. Worst comes to worst, and that backstop option does kick in. It will certainly have implications for trade flows and movement of animals and goods within the UK. That would be a bit of a concern for our producers here. In terms of what is currently on the table, my colleagues in Northern Ireland that Ulster Farms Union have welcomed it. They believe that it delivers what they've been asking for in terms of continued access to the GB and the Republic of Ireland market. I suppose that the hope is that it gets rolled to the wheel and that it finds some sort of solution to the trade issue after transition, but it's all to play for the people. I think that it goes back to the start of this, where the withdrawal deal itself isn't a customs union as such. It isn't that. The Northern Ireland problem has been a critical aspect of that moving forward. Does it make it economic advantageous? I wouldn't like to say that I don't know the Northern Irish economy as well as the Scottish economy, but I think that it goes back to what certainly SCDI has been asking for within the withdrawal agreement that was a customs union, and that is not within the whole of the UK, and that is not within the deal itself. Thank you, convener. Just following on the line of questioning, it's pleasing that the NFU and the Northern Ireland are supportive of the withdrawal agreement, but for the purpose of this session in this panel, going back to the theme of this line of questioning, is what is the panel's view on the withdrawal agreement. Business, of course, was asking for transition industry. The idea that we could simply leave the EU and go straight into the new world was a daunting prospect for many industries, and there was a collective amount of recognition that there would need to be some form of transitional period. Does this withdrawal agreement offer that transition that it was asked for? Secondly, we could pontificate on the political wishes of what should happen next, but if the reality is that it's this withdrawal agreement or we leave at the end of March and become overnight a third country, and you can call that what you like, a hard Brexit, a cliff edge, that's for a headline's purpose, but from a practical point of view for your industries and your businesses, what would be the preference to move into transition or to become a third country at the end of March? No deal, the impact would be disastrous for the Scottish economy, and whilst there are obviously things in the deals that the deal right now that people will support, as well as people would be a bit more cautious around, I think where we sit right now is that there's a scenario which is no deal, having no deal is just disastrous in the Scottish economy, the deal itself that we've got on the table is something that I think we need to probably gather support around and try and move forward, because, as I say, going into no deal territory is probably not responsible for the state, the Scottish economy, and that moving forward and businesses within that moving forward, too. So we are in that situation, no deal, I would like to say, where we would be in a couple of years' time having this conversation again. Chris? Yeah, it's quite simple from our perspective. We support the withdrawal agreement, because contain within the withdrawal agreement is the transition period. We don't know what we're transitioning to at the moment, but it gives us that period of time in which to do, which doesn't exist at the moment. One of the other key elements of the withdrawal agreement is that it deals with the issue of citizens' rights, both EU27 in the UK and UK in EU27, which then will give a legal firm status of EU27 citizens in this country, which enables them the government to pass legislation for its immigration papers, but it gives legal certainty for people, but also for companies for a period of time in which we can then find what the new world order will be and we continue to hold out. We will hold a UK Government account on that, because they promised us friction and trade in the future, and that is what we will demand that they deliver us. Paul? We don't have a view as such on the merits of the withdrawal agreement's largely political question, but we do have a view on the impact, and we do absolutely see the value of there being a two-year implementation period. The alternative, whereby from the end of March we treated doctors from the EEA as if they were from, say, South East Asia or other parts of the world and had to go through various laborious assessment and testing processes that could take six to twelve months or so to get them on to the medical register, a sudden lurch into that position would pose significant risks for the medical workforce. Can I just put it out there that, as has already been said, the political situation is that this particular withdrawal agreement doesn't look as if it's going to get through the House of Commons. Therefore, there have been alternatives that have been put out there, for example, the membership of the EEA, the Single Market and Customs Union. If we move to that, if the deal collapses, would that be a solution that witnesses would find attractive? Just very quickly, from the outset, we said that it's a matter of record our position was that if we have to leave the EU at all, we'd want to maintain a Single Market and Customs Union membership. Just to go back to the previous question, we realise that that isn't an option that is politically palatable for the UK Government at the moment. What we're commenting on at the moment is what is on the table and that is the withdrawal agreement. We've said, just to go back to Jamie's question, if it was between this or a no deal, that we'd have to take the transition and the withdrawal agreement. In terms of other options, we'd have to consider them on their merits, but it's not currently on the table. What we're very concerned about is that it's so politically fraught that we're damned to comment on any other outcome than what we currently have on the table. If that does come about and there is an alternative arrangement put on the table, I'll have to consider it, but the other point that I would go back to my previous comments right at the start is that an elongated period of uncertainty and not knowing where we're headed to, has been so damaging to confidence within our industry. If there were to, say, be an extension to article 50 and further political toing and froing as to where we end up, I think that that wouldn't be palatable for our members either, that we need to move on from this and get a deal in place. I think that the very worst possibility is no deal. I mean our policy objectives of maintaining student mobility, maintaining openness to the mobility that we've done from the EU, maintaining our really close research partnerships that do work that really researches how to make the world a better place and improve society. I mean, these can't be achieved under a no deal scenario, so by whatever route needs to be taken between now and the 29th of March, we need to get into a scenario in which we at least have a transition period and a period to negotiate our future relationship with the European Union and its programmes. The politicians are better placed than us to chart their way through that. If any other witnesses want to come in before I go back to members. Just to say, the freight industry's role is to deliver in the best way in the conditions available. We will continue to work and we will put in place the supply chains necessary for the legal framework that is presented to us. We don't want to get involved in the political discussions because that is not our job, that is the job of the political class. We have been promised that we will have frictionless trade in the future, so it is your job as politicians to give us that and deliver us that. I don't think that frictionless is a word that's used. It's not in the document, no. No, it was the aspiration and it was promised, but it didn't actually appear in the document. Does that concern you? There are many words that appear in the document, but they might appear in future legal texts, but you don't need to have the word frictionless, specifically in there to have frictionless trade. I don't think that we'll survive a sort of a jurist-linguist view of a legal text having frictionless because there'll be many questions about what does that mean. You've put other words in to get to the same score. I understand that the legal text is not going to change, but Annabelle? On that point, and I made the point before, as a matter of EU law, we have frictionless trade at the moment because we're in the single market and if we're not in the single market, we can't have what we have at the moment. That's clear, that's just it. In that regard, the word frictionless is not appropriate because frictionless is what we have now and that will be taken away unless we're in the single market. Sadly, that is the position. Just picking up on some of the comments that were made, and I think that it's a point that I already made, the idea that if this deal gets through the House of Commons, which has been noted, commentators feel is highly unlikely, the idea that we're always all clear and all fine is not. This is the beginning of the two-ing and fro-ing. You know what I mean? This is years and years of wrangling. This is not certainty. This is not the new dawn. This is more of the same for years, for years and years and years. I think that it's important just to remind ourselves of the reality of that situation. It's not the stopping of the two-ing and fro-ing, far from it. I think that that should be something that all your members are very well aware of. This is not the end, but just the beginning of a whole new period of uncertainty. I'm highly aware of that. What the key message would be is that our members are very clear that they only want to switch one time. We can't have a transition period to one situation, but then possibly another change of legal frameworks in a couple more years. Whatever we move to, that has to be a key message from our members. They want one time only. That could equally apply to whether the deal doesn't go ahead. I think that it's a UK cabinet secretary who has said that there's no majority in the House of Commons as far as they're concerned for no deal. We're in quite uncharted territory, I think. However, if the option were to remain in the single market, presumably in terms of the one point that you've just made, Chris, that would be a switch that would be welcome. Stuart McMillan. I will touch on the point in the air, but I think that it's worthwhile to remind everyone that Scotland doesn't appear in a document either. It's not just frictionless, but I'll go back to something that Chris said earlier about promises. It's been quite clear that, throughout this process, the Scottish Government has not been listened to by the UK Government. Even at the very beginning of the process, the Prime Minister and the UK Government stated that all the devolved nations would be incorporated into some type of a deal going forward, but that clearly hasn't been the case. How are you sure that any promises that the Association has been given will be followed through? The way to judge that is to take what they have said to us and what we are given at the end of it and make that balance judgment at that moment. As Annabelle said, further discussions will take quite some time. It will take years and years and years. What damage will be done to your association, trade and the economy in that period of time? We start from a position where we are, in terms of EU trade, one and the same. Theoretically, the negotiation should be concluded in a way that does not bring in too many barriers to trade from that position. That should hopefully be concluded within the transition slash implementation, whatever you want to call it, phase. Whether that is extended is another question that is for other people to answer. We are also aware of what we do need to be aware of is how any decisions taken on that affect the rest of world trade, which happens at the moment. We do need to be aware that any new legal framework vis-à-vis the EU, as we come out of trade agreements signed by the EU of which we are now part of, if they are not rolled over, for example, for a lot of the UK, there could be potentially damage if we do not get that correct as well. The rest of world trade needs to be kept in the back of the mind in terms of as new trade policy with the EU is put forward. It is a tough question to answer, let us just say that. We are keenly aware of what our members need and they tell us quite vocally what they need and that is what we advance to government. I think that the transition period will continue to impact on businesses and organisations, as Annabel suggested. I think that most businesses recognise that as well going forward, too. There is also an essence in businesses around opportunities, too. We must not forget that as part of the Brexit discussion in terms of opportunities, perhaps in UK industrial strategy, opportunities with the new Scottish National Investment Bank, opportunities that exist in our economy, too. While Brexit is the front and centre of businesses and the economy's mind, we also need to remember that, around the sides of Brexit, there are big opportunities for Scottish businesses to take and grasp and we need to support them to achieve those, too. Also, being mindful of Brexit is the key thing. Alexander Stewart, you wanted back in, because I am aware that there is very little time left. We have talked about the dangers and threats that every one of your organisations and individuals and structures are dealing with. Do you see any opportunities for your organisations and structures in the whole process? We touched on that earlier, but the opportunity to leave the CAP and design and implement a new agriculture policy fit for Scotland is a real prize from the process. Of course, it will depend entirely on the trading framework, our ability to recruit non-UK workers and, of course, having a budget in place. If we get all those things, we can do what we do in terms of food production here in Scotland so much better if our Cabinet Secretary is able to design and implement measures that fit the profile of Scottish agriculture, so that is a real opportunity. Similarly, we would want to use whatever emerges to design a new, more flexible framework for medical regulation with much greater flexibility. That is something that we were saying long before anybody was even thinking about Brexit. Are there any closing comments? In that case, we will wind up. I thank all our witnesses for coming to give evidence to us today. Thank you very much. I will move into private session now.