 The next item of business is a debate on motion 5 2 3 5 in the name of Angus Robertson on Northern Ireland protocol bill. I would invite members who are to participate in this debate to press the request to speak buttons now or place an R in the chat function as soon as possible. I do note that one member who is scheduled to be participating in the debate isn't in the chamber which is more than a little disappointing. We'll expect an explanation for that but I call on Angus Robertson to speak to and move the motion, cabinet secretary, for around seven minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. The UK Government's Northern Ireland protocol bill had its second reading in the House of Commons on Monday. The European Union considered this bill to be illegal. Many in the Commons also doubted its legality. Others warned that it will undermine the United Kingdom's international reputation. Still more pointed out that it fails to bring the Democratic Unionist party back into power sharing in Northern Ireland or advanced trade talks with either the European Union or the United States of America and yet not a single Conservative MP voted against the legislation. I'll focus my remarks on three issues that are of utmost interest to all colleagues in this Parliament. Firstly, the issue of legislative consent, which Conservative members seem to have forgotten about when they told us last week that this bill was none of our business. Secondly, the question of international law, which itself is related to whether the Scottish Government can recommend consent. Thirdly, the potential direct impact and damage that will be caused to people in Scotland should this bill become law. The Northern Ireland protocol is a key part of the withdrawal agreement that the UK Prime Minister signed with the European Union in 2019. Indeed, without the protocol, it is clear that there would not have been a deal at all between the European Union and the UK. Good was that deal, according to Boris Jensen, that when he signed it he hailed it as a fantastic moment and went on to fight a general election on the basis that he had got Brexit done. Yet this bill unilaterally disciplines or affords the UK Government powers to supply the legislation that enforces part of the protocol in the UK. In other words, the UK Government wants to tear up that self-same, apparently fantastic deal and renaig on the UK Government's commitment on international obligations. They want the Scottish Government to recommend consent for the bill that does the tearing up and for this Parliament to agree to that recommendation. To address the first issue very directly, it is inconceivable that the Scottish Government could recommend such a legislative consent motion. That brings me to my second point today, the question of international law. It is the opinion, seemingly, of all except the UK Government that this legislation, if implemented, would breach international law. It deliberately sets the UK on an entirely avoidable collision course, our fellow Europeans in the EU, and leaves the UK increasingly isolated in the court of world opinion. Following the introduction of the bill, Commission vice-president Maror Sefcovitch stated, let there be no doubt there is no legal nor political justification whatsoever for unilaterally changing an international agreement. Let's call a spade a spade. This is illegal. He was not alone in this view. It was a view echoed across European capitals and not just Europe. Senior US officials do not, and I quote, believe that unilateral steps are going to be the most effective way to address the challenges facing the implementation of the protocol. Most important of all, perhaps, is the view from Northern Ireland. More than half of the members of the Northern Ireland legislative assembly have rejected the UK Government's actions as, quote, utterly reckless. So reckless in terms of negotiating with the EU, reckless with regard to the United States, and reckless with the Belfast Good Friday agreement. Legal commentators tend to agree that those proposals could breach international law. That is deeply concerning, but not surprising. Not surprising from a Government that in 2020 brazenly said that its legislation to amend a withdrawal agreement would break international law in a limited and specific way, as if that was okay. Jonathan Jones QC, former head of the UK Government legal department, has described the legal position as hopeless. In reference to the legality of the proposed legislation, let me turn to the Labour amendment. Obviously, the bill would still need to complete its parliamentary passage and be commenced by the UK Government to breach international law. The legal position would depend on conditions at the time, as well as other factors and arguments about which we do not currently have full information. On that basis, I am content that the Government is content to accept the amendment. Let me turn now to the Scottish interests. It is clear that the bill damages even further the UK Government's relationship with our largest trading partner. It causes business and investor uncertainty and risks sparking a damaging trade war. I cannot think of anything more irresponsible, Presiding Officer, than launching this confrontational action in the middle of a cost of living crisis and when the UK is at real risk of entering a recession. For the UK as a whole, it has been estimated that Brexit has so far cost the UK economy £31 billion. Scotland's total trade with the EU was 16 per cent lower in 2021 than in 2019, while its trade with non-EU countries fell by only 4 per cent in the same period. Many of the difficulties faced by Scottish businesses are a direct result of the UK Government's decision to adopt a hard Brexit outside of the Single Market and Customs Union. Where our supply chains interact with EU businesses, be it for materials, for finished goods or labour and skills, this approach has made it harder and more costly for businesses to operate. Catherine Bernard, the professor of EU law at Cambridge University, has warned of even tougher times ahead and the risk of iconic Scottish products such as whisky, salmon and cashmere being affected in the event of a trade war. This is hugely concerning. Scottish salmon exports to the EU alone are worth £370 million and account for two thirds of the sector's exports. Any retaliatory measures for the sector would be expected to impact many of Scotland's rural communities and supply chain operators. Clearly, embarking upon an utterly senseless and self-defeating course of action, the UK Government has provoked an unwinnable conflict with likely catastrophic consequences for many people. It is something that Scotland cannot, must not accept. The protocol, of course, allows Northern Ireland to simultaneously be in the EU Single Market and the UK's internal market. It is disingenuous for the UK Government to claim that the protocol is doing harm to Northern Ireland's economy. Stephen Kelly, the head of manufacturing Northern Ireland, just a month ago stated the exact opposite. I quote him, every piece of evidence presented so far shows a positive impact. This is echoed by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which found that Northern Ireland's economic output has recently outperformed the UK average. Similarly, the chief analyst of the Ulster Bank has noted that manufacturing jobs are growing four times faster in Northern Ireland than the UK average. I will indeed, Presiding Officer. Lastly, just last week, the resolution foundation estimated that Northern Ireland will be the least impacted UK region in the long run because of its access to the single market. For the reasons that I have set out, I reject the amendments by the Conservative benches. Today's motion, as amended, asks the Parliament to take note of these very serious concerns and to urge the UK Government to draw back from its course of reckless confrontation, withdraw the Northern Ireland protocol bill and restart negotiations with the European Union immediately with a view to mutually agreeable and durable solutions. I ask the chamber to support the motion. I now call on Donald Cameron to speak to and move amendment 5235.2 for around six minutes, please, Mr Cameron. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the amendment in my name. I am genuinely grateful to the Scottish Government for bringing this debate to the chamber. It is an important one, not least in terms of the integrity of the United Kingdom, but also regarding our wider relations with the European Union. It is tempting in a debate like this to refight all battles, revisit old arguments, whether on the Brexit vote itself or on the never-ending saga of votes in the UK Parliament between 2017 and 2019. Opinions vary hugely in this chamber, and there were and remain passionate views about the UK's decision to leave the EU even six years later, and there could be no doubting the seismic nature of Brexit and its impact on Scotland and the wider UK. However, simply discussing how we got here is not going to take us forward. In the here and now, there are three issues that I say we should focus on. First, the state of the protocol itself and the problems that exist with its implementation. Secondly, the need for a settlement that protects peace in Northern Ireland and restores power sharing. Thirdly, a genuine and sincere attempt by both the UK and the EU to reopen negotiations. Looking at each of these in turn, the state of the protocol, the protocol is not working rightly or wrongly regardless of what the intentions were in October 2019, whether we voted for it or not, it is not working. There are four key issues at play here, and I touched on them briefly. There are problems with current custom processes due to the checks and paperwork imposed by the protocol, according to the Consumer Council. Over 100 UK retailers have now stopped supplying Northern Ireland. There is undoubtedly an impact on business. The Fraser of Allander Institute and the University of Strathclyde modelling shows an additional average cost of 8 to 9 per cent for goods imported into Northern Ireland. Secondly, there are regulatory issues that place barriers between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which could potentially increase. Part of the problem is that goods entering Northern Ireland need to comply with EU rules, even if they will not enter the single market. On regulation in March last year, I will very briefly have got a lot of... A few on the head slot. So, very many of the EU has addressed and has proposed in joint negotiation the opportunity to do exactly what you are saying, cutting paperwork in half, reducing a number of the inspections and simplifying to a single three-page document on some of the paperwork. Why on earth does the UK Government not do what his amendment says, which is to have a joint negotiation to make any improvements required? Donald Cameron will say that I would like, ideally, for negotiations to continue. On the subject of regulation in March last year, a civil servant in Stormont said that the number of regulatory checks currently required on goods arriving into Northern Ireland from GB equates to 20 per cent of the total checks undertaken by the entire EU, a fifth of checks. Thirdly, there are tax and spend issues. The EU state aid rules still apply in Northern Ireland, meaning businesses there don't enjoy the same support that businesses in Great Britain now benefit from, and businesses in Northern Ireland won't benefit from UK VAT reforms or reductions. Lastly, there are concerns around governance. Unlike other aspects of the EU-UK deal, where disputes can be settled through arbitration, any disputes arising from the protocol can only be settled by the court of justice of the European Union. Those are the issues that the bill seeks to address. That is why the suggested proposals in the bill, the red lane and the green lane, the dual regulatory regime, the governance arrangements at the very least, are worth considering. The green lane in particular should assist on the GB side, especially in Scotland, when goods are exported to Northern Ireland. That may be beneficial to Scottish businesses, too. I am very sorry. I have got two minutes left. I apologise. Various proposals in the bill have been welcomed in Northern Ireland. Stuart Anderson, head of the public affairs at the Northern Ireland Chamber, said that some proposals would be helpful, especially to consumer-facing business. Secondly, I spoke about the need for a settlement that protects peace. Again, whether we like it or not, the protocol is inextricably linked to the political situation in Northern Ireland. We all know about having grown up, many of us, even at a remote distance in the shadow of the conflict that preceded the Good Friday agreement. There is obviously a paramount importance in maintaining stable social and political conditions for all of us. That means obviating the need for a hard border on the islands of Ireland and ensuring as frictionless trade as possible. However, it also means taking action to restore power sharing in Northern Ireland. We cannot magically wish the concerns of the unionist community away. They have a right to be heard and air their anxieties. Of course, Northern Ireland does not involve majoritarianism. Both communities need to be on board. Critically, none of the parties there across the spectrum are saying that the protocol is perfect. It requires flexibility on everyone's behalf, yes, the UK Government and the DUP, but also the EU and the whole range of democratic parties in Northern Ireland. Finally, there needs to be a genuine attempt to reopen negotiations, the point made by Fiona Hyslop in response. I was in Brussels with the Constitution Committee last week. We had many conversations in private, which I will not repeat. However, what was clear was that discussions are stuck and need rapidly to become unstuck. Both sides share responsibility, the UK Government, but the EU, too, has shown inflexibility, both in their approach to regulation of goods that I have mentioned, but they also have to change their negotiating mandate. They reopen negotiator settlements all the time. Where there is a will, there is a way. In conclusion, I close by paraphrasing our amendment. The protocol is not working, as intended. We urge both the UK Government and the EU to come to a negotiated settlement so that those very real problems can be resolved. That is how we protect the integrity of the UK and the EU's single market. That is how we ensure that a stable settlement, safeguarding peace in Northern Ireland and allowing a return to power sharing, can happen, a situation that we all unequivocally should want to see. Mr Cameron, if you have made an intervention and you still wish to participate in the debate, you may need to press your button again. I call on Sarah Boyack to speak to a move amendment 5235.3 for around five minutes. When I was first sworn into the Parliament, I would never have thought that we would be discussing a bill that would actively break international law. Not only will the Tories' Northern Ireland protocol break international law, it also further damages the UK's global reputation as a trusted partner and it risks worsening the cost of living crisis by throwing up further barriers to trade. It will create further divisions at a time when we need to be getting on with our neighbours in Europe and we need to pull together in the face of Putin's war in Ukraine. On one hand, the term to the EU withdrawal bill and the Northern Ireland protocol should come as no surprise to Boris Johnson and the Conservative Government, because they negotiated it, agreed the protocol and whipped their MPs to vote for it. The Northern Ireland protocol is a product of this Conservative UK Government. The fact that it is now seeking to usurp the protocol demonstrates the incompetence of this Prime Minister and his Government past and present. What confidence can we have from a Government that cannot even get the job done right first time around? Yesterday, it was absolutely striking that the Foreign Secretary told the Belfast Tearograph that she has no regrets in voting for the protocol at the time and that the issues that have arisen were unexpected, even though she now says that the problems were baked into the protocol. It really begs the question, what work did she do to look at a protocol that she now thinks is disastrous? What kind of risk assessment did she do? I agree with the key points that included in today's motion from the Scottish Government. My ad amendment focuses on the fact that the bill proposed by the UK Government breaks international law. Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties says that a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. The proposed bill does exactly that. In the bill, the Tory Government is seeking to unilaterally override parts of the Northern Ireland protocol through UK domestic law. At the irony of Donald Cameron's speech, I agreed with his suggestion that the UK and the EU should be sitting round the table and negotiating not what the bill is doing. There is an issue about the doctrine of necessity and the legal principle—we may come on to that in this debate—but it is really clear that the doctrine of necessity only applies when a country is facing grave and imminent peril and that the UK Government's own formal legal adviser, Jonathan Jones, has already said that the EU would be completely unpersuaded by this argument. The bill shows once again that a Tory Government is totally detached from the real issues of the day, hell-bent on furthering its own political agenda with no regard for the reputational risks that it is opening our country up to. A real irony speaks volumes that the former Prime Minister Theresa May warned that unilateral attempts to scrap parts of the Northern Ireland protocol and Brexit deal are not legal. If you look at the protocol, article 16 allows the UK or the EU to invoke restricted safeguard measures unilaterally where serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties arise because of the operation of the protocol. I agree with Donald Cameron that it is time to sit round the table and talk about this. Professor of Public Law at Cambridge, Mark Elliott's analysis of the UK Government's legal position, is that the UK Government has no intention of using this provision. The Northern Ireland protocol was put in place to ensure that the Tory withdrawal agreement from the EU protected the Good Friday agreement. To date, far too many Tory MPs have shown complete disregard for the Good Friday agreement in the Brexit process, and that is seen here from the very top of the UK Tory Government. Scottish Labour will not support legislation that not only does not respect international law, but it threatens the hard-won Good Friday agreement. There is negotiation needed, and the irony—this is a real irony—while the Tory party claims to stand for businesses, businesses in Northern Ireland have been able to work with the protocol, and this bill risks creating new barriers in a cost-of-living crisis. It will only bring more uncertainty for the people of Northern Ireland who are trying to make the protocol work in best faith, surely far better to negotiate on food and agricultural standards rather than raising trade barriers. This bill would break international law and have a devastating impact on families and businesses in Northern Ireland, Scotland and across the UK. The UK Government must focus on negotiation with the EU. That is the route to ensure that international law is respected and that the Good Friday agreement is protected. That means sitting around the table, that means negotiation, and it means doing that in good faith. I will move the amendment in my name. Thank you very much. I now call Willie Rennie for around four minutes, Mr Rennie. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We will support the Government motion today and the Labour amendment. The European Union has a largely unrecognised but central role in the Northern Ireland peace process. It formed a cradle with when which peace could thrive. With Ireland and the UK, both in the EU, it allowed a way forward to develop. The border between north and south could be removed for freedom of movement of goods and people across Ireland and with the rest of the United Kingdom. It was reckless for the now Prime Minister and the Leave campaign to ignore the extensive warnings of the consequences of removing that cradle. The Prime Minister was dishonest to tell people that he had found a good solution, because there is no good solution. Whether the border is north-south or east-west, there needs to be a border and the border costs. The protocol that he condemns today was the protocol that he praised three years ago. The more the UK wishes to diverge from the European Union, the greater the pressure that there will be on that border. I would love to say that there is a good solution to the Northern Ireland problems caused by our exit from the European Union, but there simply is not. There are least worst options and the protocol may be the least worst option, but it is hardly a model for success, which makes it all the more surprising that the First Minister holds it up as a template to aspire to. The chaos, the tension, the disruption is a model according to Nicola Sturgeon. Last April, she was interviewed by the Irish Times. She was very optimistic about the Northern Ireland protocol and, as always, what it could mean for her and her campaign for independence. Yes, I think that it offers some template, she said, and it would address any practical difficulties for businesses trading across the England-Scotland border. To hitch her independence ambitions to anything from Northern Ireland, I have to say, was brave, but to hitch it to the wreckage of Brexit was quite remarkable. Last month, the First Minister warned that the protocol could trigger a trade war with the European Union and tip the UK into a recession. The First Minister's model for Scotland has careers towards a trade war in just 12 months. That is quite some trajectory. That only serves in my mind to emphasise the chaos that would ensue if we were ever to break up from the United Kingdom, and that chaos would only mushroom if Scotland were to join the European Union. More so if Scotland was to likewise dramatically diverge, as it swish, from the UK standards on immigration and on business and on trade. The pressure on the border would be certain to grow, just like the pressure on the border in the Irish Sea if the UK diverges from the EU. It also throws into sharp focus that the SNP is just not ready with a worked-out plan for independence. The Prime Minister is playing fast and loose with the peace process, with international law, with her relations with her trading partners, with good local democracy in Northern Ireland. There is no doubt about that, but he has done so because he is in an impossible position of his own making. It looks like the SNP is trying to make the same mistake all over again. When is an international treaty, not an international treaty? Ordinarily, there should be a punchline inserted at this point, but unfortunately the joke is on us in so many ways that it is both embarrassing and dangerous. I attended the Quality Meet Scotland breakfast meeting last week at the Royal Highland show, where the First Minister gave a very well-received address to the farming and red meat industry attendees. However, what I found incredible interest in that morning was the presentation from Professor John Gilliland. He is the former President of the Ulster Farmers Union and Chair of DEFRA's Rural Climate Change Forum. His talk was interesting for several reasons, but one thing that really struck me was that almost on his first sentence he congratulated us here in Scotland for having a viable working First Minister who was able to work on behalf of the people of Scotland because coming from his part of the world, that was clearly something that they would love to have. The Northern Ireland protocol was supposed to be the tool that allowed them to have that functioning parliament that the majority in Northern Ireland voted for, and yet here we are debating the fact that once again throwaway lines and promises from Boris Johnson have proven to be nothing more than his usual speak first think never routine. It did not matter so much when he was editor of the spectator, but it absolutely does matter now when he is the Prime Minister, and now he is destabilising an entire country and threatening a trade war with the EU. It appears that there is so little respect from the Tories for international treaties, whether they were signed in 17 or a six or 2020, that they think it's okay to just ignore or break them and carry on regardless of the consequences. In the words of Mara Sefficovic, the UK Government has tabled legislation confirming its intention to unilaterally break international law. Whilst it is bad for the people of Northern Ireland leaving them without a functioning executive, it is also extremely damaging to us here in Scotland. It causes serious potential for a trade war with the EU during a Tory-inflicted cost of living crisis and puts at risk the vitally important trade of goods between Scotland and Northern Ireland. I know that the Tories are having difficulty this week with the concept of a political leader delivering on a promise made during an election campaign, but let me remind them what their own party leader said to the Democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland in 2018. We would be damaging the fabric of the union with regulatory checks and even customs controls between Great Britain and Northern Ireland on top of those extra regulatory checks down the IRC that are already envisaged in the withdrawal agreement. I have to tell you that no British Conservative Government could or should ever sign up to such an arrangement. Less than a year later, Mr Johnson put a border in the IRC. I have no problem with damaging the fabric of the union, particularly in relation to Scotland, but I have a huge problem with a London-centric Tory Government that thinks that it can play fast and loose with the politics of Northern Ireland and the economic impact their decisions are having on Scotland. Boris Johnson does not care about Northern Ireland. He did not go there and make that empty promise because it was something he believed in. He did it because he was expedient for him, his party, his Government and at that moment in time. In October 2019, the Prime Minister assured the House of Commons that his protocol is a great success for Northern Ireland and the whole country and fully compatible with the Good Friday agreement. Now the UK Government is saying that this legislation to unilaterally override the protocol is necessary to preserve peace and stability in Northern Ireland. The man has more faces than a dice. I do not raise that because Northern Ireland protocol was the best solution for Northern Ireland. Like the majority of the people of Northern Ireland and Scotland who voted to remain in the EU, I think that recognising and enabling the democratic wish would have been the best solution for Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, as I said previously, the Tories have a problem with recognising democratic mandates, and I return to Merah Mara Seffaikic. The protocol was the solution that agreed with the UK Government to protect the Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions, avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland and protect the integrity of the EU's single market. We know that there is some practical difficulty in implementing it. That is why my team and I have been engaging extensively with all stakeholders on the ground, resulting in a set of solutions put forward in October, showing a genuine and unprecedented flexibility. It makes you wonder if Boris Johnson's vote fast is more about him realising that if the Northern Ireland protocol works in Northern Ireland— You need to wind up, Mr Fairlie. It applies in Scotland too. Perhaps he's got more to lose than he realised. I now call on Paul Sweeney to be followed by Paul MacLennan again up to four minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I rise to support the amendment in my colleague Sir Blyat's name and also to support the Government amendment. Because, as the member for Ayrgyn Shots and I know only too well, we were, as veterans of the 2017-19 House of Commons, had a front-row seat to the tragic and horrible spectacle of the constitutional vandalism perpetrated by the Conservative Party on this country. As someone who was nine years old when the Good Friday agreement was signed and has only ever really known peace in Northern Ireland, to see that threatened in my generation's prospects threatened by that is absolutely appalling. I quickly became apparent to me in wrestling with the difficulties of that Brexit vote in 2016, of how do you make sense of it? How do you deliver a workable solution? There was only ever really three options. It was either for the whole of the United Kingdom to remain in the customs union and single market, or it's certainly very closely aligned to it, or to have a hard border somewhere, either in two locations, between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, or between the island of Ireland and Great Britain. The fact that then the Conservatives, Theresa May and then later Boris Johnson, made three promises, which were logically incompatible—I kind of summarise it as the Brexit trial Emma—that promised one was to leave the single market in customs union, but to have no border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, and also to have no border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. I'm afraid that that was simply impossible to achieve, so something had to give. The fantasy that this could be squared off was something that was impossible to deal with in that Parliament, and that led to the disastrous outcome of the 2019 general election and the no-deal Brexit that we ended up with in all but name. Option A was the 2019 withdrawal agreement to what ended up with the Northern Ireland protocol that Johnson negotiated with the EU, but it broke a promise to have no border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. He lied to the DUP, his erstwell partners, in sustaining the Conservatives in power, as the UK agreed to a de facto customs border in the IRFC, with checks on goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Now, Johnson brazenly and outrageously denies that he agreed that, and thus to try to cover his tracks, threatens to renege on the deal. If the UK does renege on the withdrawal agreement with the EU, ultimately that undermines the good Friday agreement by forcing a return to a border on the island of Ireland, and thus breaks promise 3 with not having a border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. That effectively results in a no-deal Brexit, an economic disaster for the UK. The US, of course, would never sign a trade deal with the UK if it does this, but the UK will then try and claim that the EU is to blame for this disaster and this border. That is the most outrageous lie perpetrated on the people of this country, who perhaps voted in good faith for what they thought was against EU bureaucracy and everything, but they did not fully understand the implications of this problem that would be faced with Ireland. Of course, Theresa May's 2018 deal with the Irish Backstop, that deal pretended to achieve a fantasy which would square it off, but in reality it actually would have kept the whole of the UK de facto in the EU customs union in single market for goods if no other solution could be found. It would have broken, of course, the promise to leave the single market in customs union. It was held hostage effectively by our back benches. That was rejected by the UK Parliament despite, and I am proud to have said that I worked as much as possible with colleagues across parties to achieve as much as we could to incompromise to get that agreement to remain in the customs union in single market, to try and achieve that alignment. Ken Clark's proposal, for example, tried to work as much as we could, but the vandals in the back benches of the Conservative party put paid to that, leading to May's resignation Boris Johnson becoming Prime Minister and the whole thing unraveling. In reality, what we saw through 2017-19 was the most appalling constitutional vandalism, and we are trying to wrestle with the consequences of it. That is why we should reject it and reject everything that the Conservative party has visited on this country, the misery that they have visited on this country over the last five years. Thank you very much. I now call Paul MacLennan to be followed by Claire Adamson for around four minutes, please. Just to clarify that, I was told that I wasn't speaking today because it was cut, so I do have a speech and I'm prepared to make the speech, but I was told that I wasn't speaking today after a number of speakers was cut. You're on my list, you've been called to speak, and I will take that as permission. I just wanted to clarify that, so I'll thank the Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It's been a long six years since Scotland voted by the margin of 62 to 38 per cent to remain in the EU. Indeed, Paul's have shown that support for rejoining the EU is now higher than that. Let's remind ourselves of what the protocol does. It creates a border in the Irish Sea for goods passing from the UK into Northern Ireland, which remains an EU single market for goods that we've heard about the benefits from Northern Ireland of that already. It also removes the need for border checks on the Irish land border. On Monday, Boris Johnson secured a 74-vote majority for a bill to rip up the Northern Ireland element of his Brexit deal, and he authorised its approval. More than 78 Tory MPs either abstained or were excused from voting. Those included Theresa May, far more Northern Ireland secretaries Julian Smith and Karen Bradley, and far more Attorney General Jeffrey Cox. Theresa May led criticism of the protocol bill, condemning it as illegal and warning that it would damage Britain's standing off the world. Theresa May said of the bill, and I quote, This bill, in my view, is not legal under international law. It won't achieve its aims and diminishes the standing of the UK in the eyes of the world. Simon Hoare, Tory chairman of the Commons Northern Ireland committee, said that the bill appeared to be a muscle flex for a future leadership bid by Liz Truss, the foreign secretary. The EU has warned Britain against unilaterally ripping up the protocol, and they would respond to the bill by restarting legal proceedings against the UK and threatening to use all measures at its disposal, including a potential trade war, if London acted to unravel the protocol. In regard to the impact of Brexit, the Centre for European Reform and the CER modelled the economic performance of the UK that remained in the EU using data from countries like the US, Germany, New Zealand, Norway and Australia, whose performances were similar to the UK before Brexit. It then compared this with real performance of the UK economy since the referendum six years ago. The CER concluded that, by the end of last year, the UK economy was 5.2 per cent or 31 billion pounds smaller than it would have been had at state in the EU. Investment by business and government was 13 per cent lower, and goods trade 13 per cent lower also. Last year, the Prime Minister promised the UK was on the way to becoming a high-wage, high productivity, low tax economy. The evidence suggests that so far it is delivering the opposite. John Springford, deputy director at CER, commented that if the economy is 5 per cent smaller than it would have been otherwise, then we are all 5 per cent poorer. It also means that taxes have to rise to fund the same quality of public services that we had before. I quote, that has given us a backdrop to the chancellor's decision to raise the overall tax burden to levels that we have not seen since the 1960s. Resolution foundation think tank in the reporting collaboration with the LSE had said that quitting the EU would make Britain poorer during the 2020s. It also specifically highlighted the impact on the fishing industry, and I quote, which is largely based in Scotland, is expected to decline by 30 per cent, and some workers will face painful adjustments. In conclusion, Brexit has proved disastrous for the Scottish economy, and now the UK Government is risking a disastrous trade dispute with the European Union. Scotland is in the midst of a Tory cost of living crisis, and the UK is hurtling towards recession. The total trading goods and services, the trade deficit, is widened by £14.9 billion to £25.2 billion and quarter one of this year, reaching the largest deficit in the records, began in 1997. That is a devastating impact of Brexit. The UK Government needs to withdraw an online protocol bill and restart negotiations with the EU immediately. There is, of course, a solution on the horizon. Scotland will retain its independence on 19 October 2023, starting negotiations to rejoin the EU and become part of the European family as an equal partner. I now call Claire Adamson to be followed by Ross Greer for around four minutes, Ms Adamson. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I want some power that gives the gears to see ourselves as others see us. Presiding Officer, having visited Brussels twice recently, as mentioned by my deputy convener, in his many months to the parliamentary partnership assembly, and also in a fact-finding visit for the committee, I have seen at first hand how Europe and the wider world sees the UK, sees us. In short, the UK is seen as not to be trusted. If it enacts a Northern Ireland protocol bill unilaterally, it will be viewed internationally as a rogue state. That bill represents a huge threat not just to Northern Ireland but to Scotland's economy, our competitiveness and our consumers. That is our constituents. Scotland exports such as whisky, salmon and cashmere could be affected, industries that are already having to contend with post-Brexit chaos. The most recent national institute of economic and social research quarterly outlook states that the closer links with the EU through the trade and potential labour mobility have benefited Northern Ireland post-Brexit. Northern Ireland is shielded because it was given compromise, a compromise sought for Scotland but denies as we are tethered against our will to Brexit. The question from a Conservative colleague is, qui bono, who benefits from these decisions? The decision to leave the EU, the subsequent decision not to progress the implementation of the protocol and now the decision to unilaterally introduce this bill. A bill that rips up a protocol that was agreed and a protocol that Boris Johnson is totally acolytes were hailing as a triumph at the time. It was negotiated in good faith between Westminster Government and the EU commission, but by reneging on the first serious international treaty post-Brexit, the Tories will do irreparable damage to the UK's international standing. The commission has announced new infringement proceedings against the UK Government over the alleged failure to implement the staff border and control posts at the Northern Ireland ports and to provide real-time data on the movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Can I say to Mr Rennie that this was suspended infringement proceedings that have been re-enacted because of the bad faith of the UK Government? Having been in the room during the PPA, I heard the representation from the EU and the UK delegation and the EU are incredulous that having solved the medicines issue and negotiated using what is there within the protocol to solve the difficulties that the UK seem not even to have responded, as Ms Haslop said, in her intervention responded to the new proposals from the EU to make this work, to get round that table. It is the UK that is the problem in this negotiation being taken any further. Mr Simke-Vitch's comments have been laid bare. He has told us how that would be an illegal and it could provoke a trade war. The UK Government, in its bad faith, is willing to put horizon at further risk, is willing to put the good Friday agreement at further risk, is putting the commerce of our country at risk, while our voice is silenced, because in the PPA, the Senate, Stormont and Holyrood do not have a voice in that room, so everybody sits there talking about Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland did not have a voice in that room. This is untenable and it is a democratic deficit that is only going to get worse. Thank goodness we have a path out of that spirit. I have been a member of the British Irish Parliamentary Assembly for six years now. It is an institution that predated the good Friday agreement by a couple of years, but it fulfills the role of inter-parliamentary dialogue that is required under strand three of the agreement. It is one of the institutions of the peace process. It has been a privilege through that to get to know some of those who secured that peace agreement in the first place. They put themselves at immense risk to secure that better future for their families and their society. Brexit has defined all of the six years that I have sat on PPA to the immense frustration of most members when there are so many other issues about the relationships on these islands that we could have been discussing. It has been like Groundhog Day every meeting, trying over and over again to square the circle of an open land border between two markets and an open sea border between different constituent parts of the UK. There has been little to no understanding from the UK Government of the fact that the peace process is just that process. It is still on-going. It was not an event in 1998. The good Friday agreement is an international treaty, not an internal political agreement in the UK between different parties and combatants to that conflict. The protocol is the least worst solution. It is not the problem. Brexit itself was always the problem here, but the protocol is the solution that the Brexiteers chose and signed up to it. It was part of their oven-ready deal. The protocol is working economically for Northern Ireland, as has already been pointed out, on a range of measures that is outperforming the rest of the UK. It is causing political instability. That political instability that was being caused by the Democratic Unionist Party leading political loyalism down a dead end—the DUP, by the way, who barely engaged with the British Irish Parliamentary Assembly. I spoke to Jeffrey Donaldson, the leader of the DUP, earlier this year about the session. To be fair to Mr Donaldson, he is the one DUP member who I have seen engage properly with the institutions of the peace process. When I asked him about the DUP's proposed alternatives to the protocol, all I got back was vague talk of technological solutions. We have been there before. That was most of the discussion with Brexiteers for the last six years. If that was purely about resolving economic issues, there are technological solutions. The border between Norway and Sweden is an excellent example of a high-tech solution to a customs border, but we know that that is not a solution in the north of Ireland because it would require immense amounts of physical infrastructure, something that is clearly not compatible with the peace agreement. The DUP has whipped up political loyalism. It is now being punished by it as a result of that. A number of loyalists fairly understandably feel that they have been sold out as part of this process. Northern Ireland is changing. The institutions are premised on a unionist nationalist divide. They are going to need reconfigured now. Political unionism has lost its majority and it is highly unlikely to get it back. However, political nationalism is not much closer to securing a majority of its own. A different configuration is required for storming, but there is no space for that discussion as long as Brexite makes this crisis permanent. If polling is correct, Irish unity is perhaps closer than ever. That is not an issue for us to weigh in on, but I highly doubt that it was an intended consequence by those who led us here from Downing Street. However, the situation in Northern Ireland is being made worse by Tory Brinkmanship. At best, it is about strengthening their negotiating hand with the EU, though that would be a shameful way of going about it, because it plays into the hands of the people who do not want peace, who never wanted peace in the north of Ireland. However, more likely, it is just about holding on to the keys to number 10, Boris Johnson constantly feeding the Brexiteer wing of his own party in wider support base, a constant diet of confrontation with Brussels. If it is about negotiating strength, there is another profound mistake being made there. The EU faces immense challenges to the rule of law in Poland and Hungary. They cannot credibly deal with those that they fully intend to do without taking action against a partner who is also breaching international law and agreements. Brexiteers think that this issue sits in isolation. It does not. The same mistakes have been made over and over again since 2016, and mistakes have been rooted in British exceptionalism. The risk of a trade war here is real. That would result in huge suffering on top of the cost of loving crisis. The UK would not win that trade war. We are on the precipice of recession anyway, and that would tip us over. The solution to this was here from the start. The UK is staying in the single market and a customs union. Boris Johnson was elected on a promise to get Brexit done, but he is guaranteed that it will never be over. The UK Government intends on doing this on the basis of the necessity principle, but the necessity principle is a justification for breaching international law. It is an admission that that is exactly what it intends on doing. The EU still wants to negotiate, and that requires the UK turning up and having proposals. It does not want a trade war. We can't afford a trade war. Today, the Parliament will state overwhelmingly that this is not happening in our name. There is still time for the UK Government to withdraw, but if not, the Conservatives must own the consequences of their actions. Thank you very much, Mr Grahame. We now move to the final speaker and open debate, Fiona Hyslop, for around four minutes. Why is this important and what is at risk? Why affects Scotland and how it must be resolved, the key questions. The risk of an EU trade war and its implications are very real, as others have already warned. The EU has willingly not implemented a number of things that are part of the withdrawal agreement in the spirit of co-operation. However, if it now chooses to implement the letter of it because of the UK's behaviour, it will have wider consequences. I am hearing, for example, that the European Commission's Copernicus programme will now cease to involve UK researchers and academics in working on satellite monitoring of climate change impacts on seas and polar ice and forestation. The UK is knowingly prepared to risk this participation as well as risk a trade war. Of course, Northern Ireland is currently the best-performing part of the UK, precisely because it continues to have easier access to the single market. Simon Coffney, Ireland's foreign minister, has stated clearly the situation of the protocol bill. 74 per cent of people in Northern Ireland want an EU-UK agreement on protocol implementation, not unilateral legislation, in breach of international law. It will damage the Good Friday agreement, not protect it. It is a breach of international law and will damage the UK's reputation. It is against business and majority opinion in Northern Ireland and it is unnecessary UK unilateral action when partnership and compromise is on offer from the EU, blunt but accurate. Theresa May, in her searing contribution on Monday, said in thinking about the bill that I started by asking myself three questions. First, do I consider it to be legal under international law? Secondly, will it achieve its aims? Thirdly, does it at least maintain the standing of the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world? My answer to all three questions is no. That is even before we look at the extraordinarily sweeping powers that the bill would give to ministers. Joanna Sherry MP, in an important intervention on Liz Truss, referred to a gaping hole in the UK Government's legal defence. As the International Law Commission has stated that where a state has itself contributed to the situation of necessity, the doctrine of necessity cannot be prayed in aid, but the UK Government is arguing the self-defence of necessity for something that they themselves deliberately instigated. International standing matters, the rule of law matters and the rule of international law matters on a global scale. Is the UK a trusted partner who will honour their agreements? Former Labour Welsh First Minister, Carmen Jones, wrote the following in an article only last week. Britain is beginning to look more and more like a kind of rogue state. The Prime Minister can break the law with impunity without consequence. Ministers, when challenged, want to remove the source of that challenge, the state wants to pick and choose what parts of international agreements it wants to abide by and what it wants to ditch. All that gives the impression to the world of the UK slowly falling apart and cannot be relied on to keep its word. To go back to my questions, why is this important? International agreements rule of law UK reputation. What is at risk? The on-going peace in Northern Ireland and the restoration of power-sharing democratic government there? Why does it affect Scotland? Scotland is proportionally more reliant on EU exports. Our food, drink, agriculture and other industries will be damaged if the EU implements the customs rules that the UK has signed up to but the EU has not yet fully implemented. How must that be resolved? Serious diplomacy, not arrogant posturing and politicking, discussion and negotiation between both parties, the EU and the UK together. I welcome the sentiment of what Donald Cameron was saying. Brexit is still with us. It is causing economic loss, curbing exports to the biggest market in the world and staffing shortages in key industries exacerbating inflation. Worst of all, it is undermining and rejecting the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland who voted for parties who want the protocol to continue and it is damaging to the upholding of democracy and the rule of law and the UK's international reputation. Support the motion. Thank you very much, Ms Hyslop. We move to the wind-up speeches and I call Sarah Boyack for around four minutes to the point. Thanks very much, Presiding Officer. It is extremely disappointing, as many speakers have said today, that we are debating a proposed bill that would break international law. But I think that there were some really good points that need to be re-emphasised. I think that one of them was incompetence. Several speakers across the chamber have highlighted that the challenges with the operation of this protocol are actually challenges of the Conservative Government's own making. They negotiated and voted for the protocol and they are now taking a wreck and ball to their own deal but also critically to our own relationship with our European neighbours. The irony is that there is a way out of this mess and that is through negotiation because times change, experience needs to be learned from and dogmatically sticking to previous decisions in the face of more capabilities is unrealistic. But so too has changed via a wrecking ball. I thought the points that Claire Adamson made about the deal on medicines was really important. There is a willingness to work together and if you look at the Northern Ireland businesses and the dairy farmers in particular, there are issues that they would like to see addressed. Sorting out problems would require both the European Union and the UK Government to work together to make compromises. That is how negotiations work and it is through sitting round the table and having those kind of realistic discussions that you actually get progress. The rule of law has also been mentioned several times on the illegality or rather illegality of this bill and it is clear that the bill would break international law. But I think that one of the things that worries people across the chamber today is about what happens next on the Good Friday agreement. It was built on the parity of esteem for both communities and the UK Government needs to now outline what it is going to do to respect the Good Friday agreement because that is what the protocol agreement was meant to do. It is on them and they need to talk about it. Several MSPs have rightly raised the risk of trade war and I think that that is something that is really concerning our businesses at the moment. The adversarial manner in which the Tory Government is acting could lead to retaliatory measures from the EU and that would affect all of us. It would increase the uncertainty that businesses are already dealing with and many businesses are currently struggling. People up and down the country are going to have to face the consequences with miserly help at this moment from the UK Tory Government. It has actually been reported that the Treasury has drawn up an economic impact assessment for this disastrous course of action. I think that the UK Government needs to publish that analysis now and reflect on it because it is writing us out potentially of organisations and opportunities to work together in research and development, horizon and other programmes. There is so much that is at risk from this proposed bill. That is why we cannot support it as Scottish Labour. It is to be expected over the coming months that we will have debates about independence being the only solution for Scotland. In reality, the issues facing communities and businesses in Northern Ireland would simply move to Gretna and Berwick under the SNP green independence plans. The points made by Willie Rennie about the risks of independence were well made. There is a gap between what you have as your ambitions and a reality check. Brexit shows the tragedy of advocating something and not owning up to the divisions that it potentially creates. It is a warning for all of us, and Paul Sweeney's reflections on trying to find workable solutions when he served in the UK Parliament are really important to us. There is a gap between promises and reality of separation, and what we need to be thinking about is interdependence, constructive dialogue and negotiations to put the interests of all our constituents first. That should be everyone's priorities. A future Labour Government would scrap this bill and get around the negotiating table with our European neighbours. We are never going to agree on everything, but we have to work together, respect each other, rebuild the trust and goodwill that is being demolished by the Conservatives and provide certainty for communities in Northern Ireland and across the UK, but put the effort in, make the effort to work together and actually be honest about the challenges that we face, and that is not happening at the moment that we urgently need change. We all want to see a resolution to the situation in Northern Ireland. It is in the interests of all parties, all four nations of the UK, as well as the EU, that would come together to address issues that have become apparent in the Northern Ireland protocol. In its current state, it is stifling trade, has caused major issues around the supply of essential medicines and is an active problem in resolving the delicate matter of power-sharing at storming. It is something that threatens to destabilise the good Friday agreement, one of the very things that the protocol was created to protect. That is not to say aspects of the protocol to work, and it was a necessary starting position to break the previous deadlock, but, like any deal, it requires fine-tuning in order to best protect the interests of all involved. The bill that has been brought forward addresses many of those issues. Practical measures such as the green-lane, red-lane system creating a two-tier regulatory system are proposals that should and will be considered by the EU. As Donald Cameron alluded to in his remarks, retailers who have no stores in the Republic of Ireland are still required to meet EU standards just to ship their goods to Belfast for sale exclusively in Northern Ireland. That is clearly unworkable in the long term. The same can be said for the transport of medicines. My region, the south of Scotland, is home to the major ferry port at Cairnryan, Scotland's largest export point for goods to Northern Ireland. If the protocol is not amended, it will continue to affect exporters in the constituencies of every MSP in this chamber, so it is in all our interest to support a re-evaluation of the deal's implementation. However, there are also political considerations to be made. Both parties to the agreement pledged to uphold the Good Friday agreement. With the breakdown of power sharing at Stormont and the threat of a hard border on the island of Ireland, it is fair to say that the Good Friday agreement is under strain. The UK Government maintains that the amendments that it proposes to the protocol will support all three strands of the Belfast agreement, and it is clear that they are in need of support. Strand 1, relating to the Northern Ireland Assembly, remains unresolved, and Strand 2, which forces co-operation between north and south, is under pressure. It is also clear that the third strand, which deals with east-west relations, is strained. For those changes to be implemented, Presiding Officer, it requires the agreement of both the UK and the EU. Northern Ireland urgently needs a Government. The people of Northern Ireland require stability and certainty, and the UK and EU have a duty to uphold their prior obligations in the form of the Belfast agreement. Those should be our common goals going forward, and I hope that an acceptable compromise is reached that addresses the many concerns that I have arisen in both sides regarding the protocol. I now call on Neil Gray Minister to respond on behalf of the Scottish Government, around six minutes please. Scotland did not vote for Brexit, and that requires consideration, as we reflect on the impact that it is having on Scotland, including as the protocol chaos rumbles on. Today, we have heard much about the parlous state of UK-EU relations, and much of the UK Government's approach to the bill. We have also heard a great deal about the negative impact that their approach could have on the Scottish economy, both our trading routes and our interests in the trade and co-operation agreement, as referred to in excellent speeches by Jim Fairlie and Fiona Hyslop. To take just one example of how the bill carries with it wider implications Scotland's leading researchers are already suffering the uncertainty of Brexit in previous years, face being frozen out of horizon Europe. Collateral damage of the UK Government's ideologically driven agenda. Horizon Europe is globally unparalleled, offering a 95.5 billion euros research and innovation programme from which Scotland has benefited greatly in the past. The UK Government's response is potentially smaller domestic replacement details to follow. The same paralysis is what we face across the trade and co-operation agreement, with all questions and queries about progress tracing back to the impasse on the protocol. Let's be forget, this is the protocol negotiated by Boris Johnson less than three years ago, which he held as a fantastic moment. Now, of course, the UK Government ministers claim that there are issues with the protocol that were unforeseen and unintended, but in the next breath, to justify this bill, we are told this week by the foreign secretary that the problems are, I quote, baked into the text of the protocol itself. Both excuses cannot be true. If they are indeed baked in, you'd be forgiven for asking whether the Prime Minister even read his own oven-ready Brexit deal, and such are the contortions and linguistic gymnastics that are required for the UK Government to try to justify the embarrassing ideological nonsense that it is directly contradicting themselves. Those are, of course, extremely serious issues that will be causing much consternation to many sectors in Scotland, but we must also keep in mind the wider context here, referred to by Paul Sweeney and others. That is the need to respect the Northern Ireland peace process and the rule of law, rightly referred to by Willie Rennie. Possibly, the one area that I could possibly agree with in Willie Rennie's contribution. Adherence to the rule of law is what underpins our democracy and our society. It's fundamental, a fundamental value that we hold dear in Scotland. Knowingly breaking it by passing this legislation could have far-reaching economic, legal and political consequences and should not be taken lightly, covered by Paul MacLennan. As Ross Greer said, UK ministers, justification for trashing the protocol is that there is necessity. As Theresa May said on Monday night, the very existence of article 16, which allows negotiations on aspects of the protocol, negates the legal justification for the bill, as offered by Fiona Hyslop. Before closing the debate, I want once again to stress the frustration and anger felt in European capitals as a result of this bill and the unfathreable and unforgivable damage it does to bilateral relations as stressed well by Sarah Boyack and by Claire Adamson. We have seen the UK Government's actions condemned in Brussels, Berlin, Paris, Dublin and Washington DC by presidents and prime ministers appalled that a Western democracy would cast aside an international agreement that signed in good faith less than three years ago. This is not just about the Northern Ireland protocol, but it is about our nation as part of the UK, which is perceived on the international stage. It is also for the evidence of the importance of Scotland being able to take charge of our own affairs in future as an independent nation, regardless of how the bill ultimately fares at Westminster. I call on all responsible members of both houses at Westminster to speak up in defence of international law. The damage done by the UK Government's actions will not easily be reversed. It also begs the question for what. What end is the UK Government pursuing with this bill that justifies the extraordinary means? It cannot truly be the economy, as outlined by the cabinet secretary. The Northern Ireland economy is enjoying better growth as it has continued access to the single market. We are told that they are seeking to unlock the political impasse in the Northern Ireland Assembly to protect the Good Friday agreement and restore power sharing at Stormont. If that truly is their aim, then they are falling at the first hurdle. The DUP is still refusing to share power with Sinn Fein and more than half of those that were elected last month to the legislative assembly. The very body that the UK Government claims it is protecting has made their position very clear in a recent letter to the Prime Minister and I quote, we strongly reject your continued claim to protecting the Good Friday agreement as your Government works to destabilise our region. Your claims to be acting to protect our institutions is as much a fabrication as the Brexit campaign claims you made in 2016. The Brexit referendum was supposed to answer the decades-long Tory party's psychodrama on the relationship with Europe. Instead, six years hence, since that referendum, Scotland is still being held back by the Tory incompetence and ideology. The majority in Scotland want nothing to do with breaking the protocol, breaking international law by pursuing this bill is not the answer. If the Scottish Conservatives are true to their word on negotiation, there is a route to article 16 and renegotiate the terms of the protocol. However, in the meantime, they should consider removing this bill, ensure that they do not break international law and get back around the table to negotiate with the EU, so that we all enjoy a more fruitful future with a better relationship with the EU. Thank you, minister. That concludes the debate on Northern Ireland protocol bill. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business, to allow front-bench teams to take their seats.