 I will move on swiftly as time is tight. The next item of business is a debate on motion 4.919, the name of Willie Rennie, on centre and apology on the anniversary of the Chinese agreement. I invite members who want to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons now. I call on Willie Rennie to speak to and move the motion eight minutes, please, Mr Rennie. The debate is about the £10 billion deal with two Chinese companies, one with connections to human rights abuses in Africa, the other promising billions, but has only so far bought a pub in Buckinghamshire. Without any checks, the deal was signed by our First Minister, the Scottish Shambles was born and Keith Brown was the midwife. Today's debate is to discover why our First Minister's signature is so cheap and how this Government and its economy secretary, Keith Brown, got so easily duped by a couple of gents in shiny suits and a knighthood. We seek an apology and to censure the economy secretary for the handling of the shambles. Members will recall all that began last spring. A document was signed between Peter Zhang, Sir Richard Heighgate and the First Minister. It was an agreement between the Scottish Government, Sinofortone and CR3. We were told that it was worth £10 billion. A photograph was taken, but no one in the Scottish media was told. We only discovered it all through the Chinese media—unusually shy for this SNP Government, you might think. They didn't do the basic checks. We did. It immediately flagged concerns about gross corruption for CR3. Concerns about human rights followed soon after. Those are the words of Amnesty International UK in a letter to the First Minister last year about the China railway group. After undertaking detailed due diligence, the Norwegian fund concluded that there is an unacceptable risk that the company is involved in gross corruption. The letter went on to say that other members of the China railway group have been implicated in serious human rights violations in the DRC, including the violent removal of artisanal miners from sites and other forced evictions. Two very serious concerns about human rights and those concerns had been in the public domain for years if only the Scottish Government had bothered to check. The SNP went into defence mode. Defense number one, the economy secretary, Keith Brown, told the BBC that CR3 had already invested in Wales, so it must be okay. Except it hadn't. He was confused. It was Sinofortone that has supposedly invested in Wales, but as we will discover later, that wasn't true either. Defense two, no specific projects had been discussed, yet officials were instructed to prioritise funding building sites in Falkirk for the Chinese. That wasn't true either. Defense number three, it wasn't an agreement anyway, they say. Even though I have seen the document, I have seen the signature, I have seen the picture, it is an agreement. There was an agreement, there were specific projects, but there was no track record in Wales. The Scottish Shambles, as it is known in China, was growing by the day. The response from the Scottish Government to claim that the deal didn't exist, then boast about the deal, they said didn't exist, then accuse everyone else of jeopardising the deal, they said didn't exist. It was a shambolic response to the Scottish Shambles, not just now. Then the oddest thing, everything went quiet for months. We discovered that the deal was off, that there was no more outrage at us from the Scottish Government, yet what was strange was that they hadn't even picked up the phone to the Chinese. If it mattered that much, why was no effort made? That didn't stop the fury about the deal that was off, condemning us while sitting idle in their desks in the Government's tower. I mentioned that Sinofortone had invested in Wales. Two billion pounds for two green power stations in Anglesey and Port Talbot, which would generate electricity from plant waste to power homes and grow prawns and vegetables. There was also a £700 million reported takeover bid for Liverpool football club, and £100 million towards a £3.2 billion Hollywood-style paramount theme park in Ghent, planned by a Kuwaiti family. The group also claimed to be involved in London's Crossrail, Holiday Parks and Cormill in the late district, a proposed science park in Cambridge, and regeneration schemes in Huddersfield and Stoke-on-Trent. Here's the sting in the tail. All of this has come to nothing, zilch. It was all media puff to create an impression of financial strength and credibility. The Independent reported that the First Minister's signature had given confidence in Sinofortone to the people at Liverpool football club who were looking for an investor. Mr Zhang had generated a cloud of publicity in one part of the country to build credibility to sign a deal in another part, which would help with the next deal all the way along the gathered up schemes that they had absolutely nothing to do with. The Scottish Government was part of that sham because it hadn't bothered to check. The only purchase that Sinofortone seems to have completed is the £2 million plough pub in Cansden in Buckinghamshire. Even that was funded with a loan from the taxpayer-backed Royal Bank of Scotland. Richard Hague, remember him, signed the agreement alongside the First Minister. Those are not my words, but he now admits that Sinofortone turned out to be, and I quote, all bollocks. He has walked away, yet the Scottish Government to this day stands by the agreement with Sinofortone and SIA Free. Scottish ministers were naive to lend any credibility to that enterprise. It shows how careless the First Minister was to put pen to paper on a deal with Chinese companies that she knew absolutely nothing about. The reputation of Scotland on human rights has been tarnished by the shambles. The prospect of investment from sound Chinese and other sources has been diminished. The time of officials and businesses has been wasted by a company that had no financial track record and tried to use everyone else to build one. That economy secretary has presided over all of that. He should apologise to everyone for the shambles, and he should be censured by this Parliament for that shambles. I move the amendment in my name. I would like to try, if I can, to do two things—to ensure, first of all, that the Parliament has clear facts on the status of the MOU and what has happened since, and to set out lessons that we have learned from the experience and how we are taking those forward. Willie Rennie mentioned two different things. He mentioned a deal. He said that it was a deal, first of all, and then said that it was an agreement. It is quite clearly a memorandum of understanding that was based on the fact that we want to have further discussions. I would like to make it clear to Parliament that this Government takes full responsibility for the handling of the MOU and for the issues that have arisen from it. I regret that some of those issues have arisen, and I will seek to try and address that as I speak. Given the concerns that have been raised, I want to assure Parliament that no financial commitment was made at any point on behalf of the Scottish Government, and that none has been made since the signing of the MOU. Similarly, there have been no legal or contractual agreements with either of the companies named in the MOU, and finally we have had no engagement with either companies since September 2016. If earlier discussions had at any point resulted in specific investment proposals, then of course we would have undertaken full due diligence at that point, as we do with all investment proposals. Willie Rennie mentioned Amnesty International in the report. That has been fully investigated and, while it made no reference to and did not relate to China Railway No. 3 railway engineering group put to their parent company, we agree that that information should have been known to us prior to agreeing to sign the MOU. The lessons that we will learn from this situation are important ones. In particular, as our amendment makes clear to reinforce, I think that this I would hope is central to the points that Willie Rennie has raised. He has raised it consistently over the last year to reinforce our commitment to human rights. While we obviously already consider human rights issues in all of our engagements with other countries, we will ensure that we do the same in our engagement with overseas businesses, and we will only sign investment agreements, I will do yes. Neil Findlay On another area where the Government has been seeking to do business in Qatar, there are well-established concerns about human rights, particularly the slaughter, and I use that word advisedly, of construction workers on a World Cup projects, and yet throughout the Government continued to try and build links with Qatar. It does not seem to have learned any lessons there either. Cabinet Secretary. I will just reinforce the point that I just made that I will maintain the commitment to human rights. While we already consider human rights in all of our engagements with other countries, we regularly erase those issues with countries when we meet them. We will do the same in our engagement with overseas businesses, and we will only sign investment agreements where appropriate due diligence, including on the human rights records of companies involved, has been undertaken. I know that Amnesty International has today contacted members stressing two key points in relation to this debate. First of all, that countries and businesses should know that human rights abuses affect their business and their credibility, and we agree with that. Also that the Scottish Government ensures that thorough due diligence is done in all future business relations, including a robust human rights impact assessment. We are happy to discuss with Amnesty International as part of our regular engagement with them and as part of the Scottish Government's overall approach to human rights, how such assessments could work and at what point in the process of investment such an assessment should take place. We are happy to have that discussion with Amnesty International. That builds on the work that we are already doing to give effect to the UN guiding principles on business and human rights. We believe that those lessons are important ones because attracting investment is, of course, an essential part of building a stronger economy in Scotland. We are an attractive location in terms of skills and infrastructure, and the Government and our agencies build strong working relationships with potential and existing investors. This morning, the First Minister joined professional services from GenPact to announce that it is expanding its European operation in Glasgow, creating more than 300 new jobs over the next five years. In recent months, it is true to say that we have seen welcome investment from China, which has not been the subject of such intense discussion, including rock power limited. We wish to invest in renewable developments and Sky Moons digital entertainment to employ 21 people in the games industry. It is also true to say that companies active in the North Sea are also owned by parent companies from China and have been for some years. Earlier this month, I was in Germany to build on our trading links. Next week, the First Minister will undertake a series of engagements in the United States focused on creating jobs, opportunities and economic links for Scotland. In discussing trade, we can also not really fail to note that this morning saw the triggering of article 50 by the United Kingdom Government. I will do yes. Patrick Harvie I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. However, he is moving from the substance of the debate on to the wider arguments about trade and internationalisation. I think that the tone that he strikes in his speech is an important one for Parliament to listen to. Can we expect to hear an acknowledgement and a sense of taking responsibility for what was not done and an apology from the cabinet secretary? I think that if Patrick Harvie reads back the official report, those first two things that I have already done and I will come back to others in my closing remarks. However, the point that I was making about article 50, and it is made in the Amnesty International report, is that Brexit means that there are about to be a number of new deals that otherwise would not be required, a number of deals for, bilateral deals for example. That is the point that I am making in relation to that. It is important that international deals are made in the coming years. We have to be part of that process and we want to remain an open and accessible country in which to invest, but we also ensure that investment meets the very high standards that we all expect for Scotland. I said previously, in response to Patrick Harvie's point, that we do take responsibility for this situation, but I have already said that. We regret that some of the issues have arisen and I will come back in my closing remarks to other points that Patrick Harvie has raised. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Did you move your amendment? I do not think that you did. I am happy to move any amendment. Caldyn Lockhart, to speak to a move amendment 4919.15, please, Mr Lockhart. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The debate about the SNP's mismanagement of a potential £10 billion investment into the economy is one of many examples of how this Government's incompetence has damaged the economy over the past 10 years. Just last week, the Fraser Van der Institute highlighted that, since the SNP came to power, Scotland's economy has grown by an average of only 0.7 per cent a year. We heard just this morning that the SNP's flagship infrastructure project, the Queensbury crossing, has been further delayed for a second time, shattering once and for all any pretense of competence that the SNP Government ever claimed to have. Perhaps later. Chinese companies have experience of investing across the world. In progressing that potential investment into Scotland, they would have quite rightly expected a degree of competence from the SNP Government. Instead, after a few months of dealing with the SNP, after the series of mishaps highlighted by Willie Rennie, the Chinese investors decided to walk away from the deal, calling it a shambles. That is deeply regrettable. The shambles does not reflect badly on the SNP in the cabinet secretary, but it has the potential to damage Scotland's reputation as a place to do business. The shambles also more broadly reflects on how the SNP has mismanaged Scotland over the past 10 years. First of all, we saw the SNP's blatant disregard for this Parliament. We hear from the First Minister that this Parliament is paramount, but then the SNP fails to announce to this Parliament the request for section 30 powers to hold a second independence referendum. It fails to listen when this Parliament votes down the Scottish Government on five separate occasions, and in this instance fails to inform Parliament of the signing of a £10 billion investment agreement, the single largest potential investment in Scotland's history. This Parliament only found out about the Chinese agreement from a photograph that appeared in Chinese trade press. Ridiculous. The SNP tells us that this Parliament is paramount, but of course that is only when it suits them politically. We also saw the SNP's total incompetence as a Government. Before the MOU was signed, there was a failure to do the most basic due diligence on the counterparties. At this stage, the First Minister had already given what is described as confidence to investors that the Government was ready for major-scale investment, and work had been undertaken to identify potential projects for development. All of that without doing any basic checks on the counterparties whatsoever. A simple Google search would have highlighted the concerns subsequently raised and subsequently emerged in relation to human rights, as raised by Amnesty International. After the MOU was signed, the deal was announced in China by way of social media and Chinese trade press, but not in Scotland. There was no ministerial contact with Chinese investors for three months. That left a potential £10 billion investment into the Scottish economy to drift without any follow-up. The SNP only discovered that the MOU had been cancelled by the Chinese investors when they read about it in the Sunday papers. The Scottish Saga also highlighted the classic response of the SNP when things go wrong and blame others. However, this time, even the SNP could not blame Brexit, Westminster or the oil price. The SNP found someone else to blame for the China investment shambles. It tried to blame the opposition parties for wrecking a deal that we did not know about, for daring to ask basic questions about a £10 billion investment when we discovered it on social media and for demanding transparency, parliamentary accountability and competence from the SNP Government. Clearly, too much to ask for. Our amendment to the motion highlights that we welcome international investment into the Scottish economy, whether from investors in China, elsewhere in Asia or otherwise. Provided that it is appropriate for Scotland, it has been subject to proper due diligence, including with respect to human rights, and it is on terms that are on the best interest for Scotland. The member is moving into his last minute. I am just about to wrap up. In other parts of the UK, we have seen how successful investment joint ventures between Chinese companies, investors and regional administrations have benefited the economies. For example, the recent redevelopment of Manchester airport is a good example. We would encourage the Scottish Government to enhance its working practices so that that does not happen again. The SNP often accuses us of talking down Scotland. Let me make it clear that we are not talking down Scotland. We are talking down the SNP. The SNP is not Scotland and we are talking down the SNP for the damage that it has inflicted on the Scottish economy. The latest shambles is just one more example of the mismanagement of the Scottish economy over the past 10 years. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you very much, Mr Lockhart. I will call Jackie Baillie to speak to and move amendment 4919.3. Ms Baillie, five minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This debate is certainly a walk down memory lane, not a pleasant walk for the cabinet secretary, I am sure, because at the time the story was clearly excruciating for the SNP Government. I can, of course, picture the First Minister signing a memorandum of understanding with Sinofortone and the China Railway number 3 engineering group. That was on 21 March 2016, on the face of it. Nothing unusual about that, but oddly the photo appeared in the China Daily, nothing in the Scottish press. I confess I would have missed this as the China Daily is not my local paper. However, what is absolutely strange is that this was from a Government that issues press releases about the opening of an envelope, but we were suddenly remarkably reticent about telling us what was actually going on. The deal was reported as being worth more than £10 billion of investment in infrastructure projects, in clean energy, transport and housing. It is always good to find out what is going on in Scotland and in the Scottish Government from our friends overseas. However, it rather points to a breathtaking, in a second, lack of accountability of the Scottish Government to this Parliament. Let me be clear, I am very much welcome in with investment. I think that it is really important for growing our economy and creating jobs, and we know that trade with China has been done for centuries. It is nothing new, but that does not mean that we should set aside the need to undertake due diligence of those that we are considering working with. There are real issues about the Scottish Government's response. There were clear questions about the credibility of Sino-Fortone. Here was an organisation set up with capital of £2. Yes, £2. The South China Morning Post, which I read when I lived in Hong Kong, told me that little nugget of information. It does not sound like a billionaire Chinese group that would be able to invest £10 billion. Then there were all the projects that they were undertaking in different parts of the UK, and Willie Rennie has mentioned some of them. A science park at Jesus College, Cambridge—it does not exist. It is simply not true. Crossrail in London—again, not true—and who could forget the £700 million bed for Liverpool Football Club? Also not true. Mr Zhang was a chancellor who had managed to fool the SNP and the First Minister. What a farce and how embarrassing. No money, no backing, no credibility, but the SNP did not have a clue because they never bothered to check. They were taken in by some charm and a flashy suit, but it raised pretty fundamental questions about the competence of the Scottish Government if they can be fooled in this way. If that was not bad enough, we heard from the former chair of the ethics council of the Norwegian oil fund that China railway group had been accused of gross corruption. Amnesty International also wrote to the Scottish Government about alleged human rights violations, but the SNP did not know about that because they never bothered to check. Let me welcome the partially apologetic tone of the SNP amendment and acknowledgement for the first time in a year that they got it wrong. Frankly, it is not enough. We need transparency in parliamentary oversight to stop this from ever happening again. Bland assurances are simply insufficient. The lack of transparency is truly damning. It took months before the information about the memorandum of understanding and associated emails were in the public domain. The SNP deliberately misled the Parliament and the public. Remember that they said that Sir Brian Souter, a one-time SNP donor, was not involved in the deal? That was simply not true. I think that it is perfectly legitimate that one of Scotland's well-known business owners would be involved in helping to make introductions, even considering investing himself. However, what is beyond strange is that the SNP, knowing all of that, flatly denied that it was involved. It was simply airbrushed from the agenda. I cannot help but wonder whether it was embarrassed by Sir Brian's involvement or whether it was simply so arrogant that it thought that it could get away with not telling the truth. Even more extraordinary, as those details emerged, the SNP decided, as was said earlier by Dean Lockhart, that it could just blame someone else. There was a surprise for us. It had never done anything like that before, Presiding Officer. Yes, it was the fault of the Opposition parties, it was the fault of the press, and usually it was not the fault of the UK Government. I am embarrassed that the SNP Government was taken in so easily in terms that the Chinese will understand Scotland lost face to have taken the decision that it did. We need due diligence to take place in all cases. The Scottish Parliament should have oversight. We welcome investment, we want to grow the economy but it needs to be open and transparent. I move the amendment to my name. I think that you used the term deliberately misled, which comes close to using a term in Parliament that I do not approve of. I think that I will just let you consider that. We now move to the open debate. Speeches are four minutes, please. I am very tight four minutes. I call Liam McArthur, but I follow my memory, Todd. I thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Willie Rennie has already set out in detail the extent of the SNP Government's complacency and incompetence in its dealings with those two companies. To argue, as SNP ministers and MSPs consistently have, that this is somehow an attack on genuine efforts to secure valuable inward investment for Scotland or doing legitimate trade deals with China is a complete red herring. Typical deflection from a Government that believes that nothing is ever its fault that someone else is always to blame. Let's be clear. If this had been the Prime Minister inviting those two companies into Downing Street, signing the agreement without having done the most basic of checks, only to discover later that between them, they were linked to human rights abuses and gross corruption, only to discover later that the Prime Minister was the latest useful idiot drawn into a string of photo ops, each designed to induce the next, all of which came to nothing. The SNP and its keyboard warriors would be demanding heads on spikes. Yet, because this is a shambles cooked up in St Andrew's house, we were all told to simmer down. The SNP even has the audacity to denounce our criticisms as an attack on Scotland's inward investment record, a claim as artificial as Sinofortone's bona fides. Sinofortone has not registered any accounts since it was established. Its website has been taken down and questions surround its London HQ, which has no record of its existence. It has been reported that the website is down for updating, and the office was apparently a virtual office. Mind you, Sinofortone did not allow such minor setbacks to thwart its bold ambitions. What of those ambitions? Plans to invest £2 billion in Welsh biomass up in smoke. Their deal on power stations for prawns, fishy at best. £100 million for a theme park in Kent on the slide. A science park in Cambridge, pure science fiction. The list, Deputy Presiding Officer, not to mention the puns, does go on, as indeed does Sinofortone's antics. The real risk now is that the First Minister's signature in photo op, choreographed by the economy secretary, is being used to lend credibility to Sinofortone's latest dealings. The £10 billion with Nicola Sturgeon has already been quoted to substantiate claims of a possible takeover of Liverpool football club. As a die hard reds fanatic, had that materialised, I would have been supporting more than a simple motion of censure on the economy secretary this afternoon. There was even talk of using UK investment to create a network of football academies across China. Perhaps that is why Keith Brown, in answers to questions earlier this month, suggested that the final contact with the Government with Sinofortone back in September was to help the company to arrange for the Inner Mongolia delegation to come to Scotland to learn about football development. Most jaded members of the Tartan army might argue that this is questionable behaviour under the Trade Descriptions Act. In November, the FFM said that there were lessons to learn. Two weeks later, in response to a topical question from me, Keith Brown could not identify what those lessons were and said that all future agreements would be signed, quote, in the normal way. Now, while I welcome his more candid and contrite tone this afternoon, to most people in Scotland, checking whether companies have connections to gross corruption and human rights abuses after inviting them to the First Minister's residence, after putting pen to paper, after the photo op and announcement in the Chinese press is anything but normal. Deputy Presiding Officer, this debate has belatedly forced the economy secretary to give Parliament some of the answers that we have been desperately seeking for the best part of a year. All we are waiting for now is an explicit apology, and I urge Parliament therefore to back the motion in Willie Rennie's name. I welcome the opening remarks by the cabinet secretary, and I am pleased to hear that lessons have been learned. I am sure that we can all agree that investment into Scotland is vitally important for our economy. The memorandum of understanding was about exploring possible investment, and this Government has a successful track record of attracting investment. In 2015, Scotland was second only to London in attracting investment, creating over 5,000 jobs and boosting the economy. The concerns that are raised about the MOU are serious, and I agree with the conclusion from Amnesty International that all international relations of the Scottish Government should have a human rights component. I am pleased to hear the recommitment from the cabinet secretary, a recommitment to the principles of promoting and protecting human rights. That will involve keeping up ethical standards and encouraging companies in other countries to do the same. However, it has been made absolutely clear that the Scottish Government did not enter into any legal or financial commitments with those companies, nor did it reach agreement or investment. The Government would have of course rightly acted with due diligence had any projects come from the MOU. The Government should absolutely be expected to make sure that the companies with whom they make legal or financial commitments meet certain standards when it comes to human rights. The MOU, which forms the basis of today's debate, collapsed last November, and I agree that some worthwhile lessons need to be learned, but I might disagree on what those lessons are. The Liberal Democrats have suggested that basic checks on human rights record and financial underpinning of the potential investors should be made at an earlier stage, despite it being clear that due diligence would have been exercised to have things progressed. There is an element of hypocrisy in this approach, given that when the Lib Dems were in government at Westminster, they aggressively pursued business links with China, saying that no subject will be off limits. However, I have to say that we are used to this type of hypocrisy from the Liberal Democrats. Even on the topic of human rights—no, I do not have time, unfortunately—we hear one story in the Scottish Parliament and another in Westminster. We regularly hear in this chamber about the concerns that they have about mental health, and yet an inquiry by the UN into the period in which they were in power in the UK found that their Government's austerity policies amounted to a systematic violation of the rights of people with disability. My own experience of working in mental health is that very many of the people I work with— I have to warn the member that I will tolerate a little deviation from the subject, but not the entire deviation. I think that it is a human rights issue. My own experience of working in mental health is that very many of the people I work with were harmed by the UK Government when the policies, when the Lib Dems were in power. Presiding Officer, today is an historic day, the day on which Theresa May formally triggered article 50 on the process of removing the UK from the EU. Instead of point-scoring, we should be thinking about what is ahead for the people of Scotland. Brexit will cause a profound economic shock. In the Highlands and Islands, the area that I represent, people are feeling impact already. I have to warn the member to keep to the topic of the debate. That is two deviations at length. I thought that the debate was on economy. We need to stand up for our agriculture. We need to stand up for our EU citizens. The uncertainty that they are facing right now is a human rights issue and an economic issue. I suggest that we look to the future and choose to build a stronger economy and a fairer society. I will take no promptings from the front bench as to what my job is here. I now move to Alison Harris to be followed by Neil Findlay. An event widely described as a Scottish shambles in a country of 1.3 billion people is not the sort of headlines that anyone would desire for our country. However, thanks to the incompetence of the SNP Government, that is how the Chinese media reported the cat-handed attempt at setting up a deal with the Chinese enterprises in the spring of 2016. To be clear, inward investment is welcome in Scotland. We must ensure that we create the climate to make Scotland an attractive place in which to invest. Chinese investment is as welcome as it is important to the UK. The open competitive economy that we in Britain enjoy is a very attractive destination for Chinese business. Just a few months ago, I was delighted to meet two business people from Han Joe, the e-commerce and logistics capital of China, who, while having registered a UK subsidiary in England, were pleased to be setting up an office in central Scotland, generating both jobs and investment. However, before meeting them, I did what I would do before meeting a company from anywhere—some basic background research. Quite easy to do in this day and age of tapping into Google, and even the Chinese news reports are thankfully in English. Now, if the Scottish Government had done this, the term Scottish Shambles may have remained unknown to millions. Some may speculate that, indeed, the Scottish Government had done research on the companies that it was to do business with, and that explains the attempt to keep this deal secret. Perhaps a rather cynical explanation. However, whatever the explanation, it was ironic then that the deal was not revealed to the world by a Government press release or a bit of investigative journalism or even leaked. No, the much-maligned Chinese media spilt the beans and were very thankful they did, or else we can only imagine when the Government would have decided to have come clean. It certainly did not take long for it to come out that one of the companies with which the Government was reaching an understanding was blacklisted by the Norwegian Oil Fund, identified by Amnesty International as being involved in human rights abuses, evicting families and stripping them of their livelihoods. Having been found out, not showing due diligence—in fact, not even the basic questions were asked—and being far from transparent by trying to keep the whole matter quiet, the Government resorted to type. They blamed everyone else but themselves. In preparation for this debate, I re-read the comments of the First Minister at the time. She warned against creating a climate that has seemed to be inhospitable to investment. However, that shambles has been damaging to Scotland. The message that she is sending out is that the Scottish Government is open to backroom business deals. It has embarrassed and caused concern with our friends and prospective investors, not only from China but elsewhere. I call on the cabinet secretary to change the procedures for checking background details. Due diligence must be carried out early to avoid similar fiasgos. Let's be honest. Every lawyer, accountant, bank, building society has to carry out such basic tasks. Surely, it must apply to the Government as well. Thank you very much. I call Neil Findlayed, followed by Patrick Harvie. Presiding Officer, I nearly choked on my cocoa pops when I recently read that this Government is one of the pioneers of the global open government programme. At the heart of the issue raised in the motion, has the Scottish Government's continued efforts to maintain secrecy and avoid scrutiny? A Government that goes out of its way to avoid answering parliamentary questions, that repeatedly refuses freedom of information requests and even fails to record minutes of meetings between some senior lobbyists and the First Minister. I had to check that it was not April 1 when I read that statement. The Chinese agreement only came to light when the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, was quoted on one of the company's websites as welcoming the deal, yet her Government failed to make any statement or even release a press statement. The First Minister is not usually so reticent in her media appearances. The level of secrecy that surrounded this agreement from the day Mr Sturgeon signed the controversial memorandum of understanding to the demise of the deal is not what anyone would expect from such a global pioneer of open government. It is important to be reminded that the apparent purpose of this Parliament in the Parliament website states that it exists to define debate, decide and legislate on issues of importance to the people of Scotland. In doing so, it holds the Scottish Government to account and is answerable to the people of Scotland. Transparency and accountability were supposed to be designed into the fabric of this building and the DNA of its precedence, but this Government shies away from robust challenge in questioning time after time after time. Of course, do not expect any internal scrutiny of ministers by their own backbenchers as the speech from Marie Todd spectacularly exemplified. Areas for potential Chinese investment include affordable housing, energy, industry, business parts, transport, etc. Something also called community, whatever that means. There are many parallels with the Government's courting of the Qatari Government. The former First Minister, Alex Salmond and the current transport secretary went around the gulf with some questionable individuals, including Tory MPs or Nicholas Somes, trying to flog infrastructure opportunities to the Qatari sovereign wealth fund, boasting of an expected return of 8 per cent. All at the same time, as construction workers, many of them poor migrant labourers, were being slaughtered at an appalling rate on building world cup venues. Of course, we all remember the inaugural Scotland v Qatari football match, which will not be held again. It seems that the word inaugural, like generation, is taking on a new and foreshortened meaning. The Chinese deal is not a one-off. Is it any surprise, given the dual uncertainty of Brexit and another referendum, that the Government needs to scour the globe for investment from often questionable regimes? Did the SNP decide to hold her nose or turn a blind eye to human rights or other abuses, court and businesses and organisations that have been shunned by other countries? Was it genuine or chosen ignorance or was it incompetence or naivety? Whichever it was, it was not good enough. It is not that we do not have the personnel. We now have three ministers in the external affairs portfolio, with what looks like only Mike Russell doing any work, so why can't we get one of them doing something on those types of issues? The third due diligence must be conducted in all future business relations, which includes a robust human rights impact assessment. I just say to anybody who is pulling faces about what is meant by being a deviating, read the amendments that members are speaking to. Mr Finlay was speaking well within the amendment that was before us. That is the difference. Check the amendments before you complain. I now call Patrick Harvie to be followed by John Mason. Mr Harvie, please. John Mason with the last speaker in the open debate. The Liberal Democrat motion raises very serious issues and they have raised them consistently. Human rights cannot be an afterthought in dealings with other countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, as Mr Finlay mentioned, or perhaps increasingly in the future the US. Issues of human rights and ethical business must be central to the discussion. The Government is due criticism for failing to do that and for checking on the credibility of the company involved. I think that an apology is due and I do not think that I have heard it in the clear terms that I think it is required. I do not think that I am disclosing any great secrets when I say that it is normal practice for Opposition parties and the Government to discuss in advance the wording of motions and amendments if they are seeking to build a majority. I think that that is not only healthy in a period of minority government but it is absolutely necessary. The Lib Dems did not make that effort to do that. They have raised repeatedly serious points on that issue, highlighting failures of government action that are not acceptable and which must not be repeated. Today they take that further and begin to risk appearing more interested in climbing a ministerial scalp than in changing government practice. I note that they also did not approach the economy jobs and fair work committee to ask if it would examine those issues within its remit. The timing also seems odd. I do not see a clear rationale for taking the one-year anniversary as an opportunity to censure the minister. I am afraid that I do not have time within four minutes. The Government did discuss with us what its amendment should say. We proposed a much clearer way of allowing the Government to take responsibility. The Government chose not to take our suggestions on board and I regret that. The Government's amendment, as it is lodged, also begins with a rather defensive tone. Setting out the case for international investment and its track record on seeking it is simply not the issue for debate today. Keith Brown's speech said that the Government takes responsibility. I think that we need to hear something clearer in his closing remarks. I do think that an apology is required. I would ask him to reflect on the approach taken by Nicola Sturgeon as deputy First Minister when she came to the chamber to apologise back in 2010 for an error of judgment. She did it simply and sincerely. It was widely accepted by all sides and I think that she gained credibility by doing that. The Greens will oppose the Conservative amendment, which quite bizarrely removes the criticism from the companies but leaves it on the cabinet secretary. Either both are justified or neither, it seems to me. We will support the Labour amendment, albeit with one or two reservations about wording. There is far more to welcome in it than to criticise. Personally, I am minded to abstain on the Government amendment and on the motion itself if we hear a clear, simple and direct apology from the cabinet secretary in his closing remarks. I am not willing to instruct my colleagues on how they should vote. I think that that is being brought in the sense of a disciplinary decision for Parliament. I think that each member should make their own decision on the basis of the facts and the arguments that have been put forward. Let me be clear that if the censure motion passes, I will regard that as a light wrap on the knuckles. It has no status in our standing orders. I have disagreed with Keith Brown on a range of issues, and no doubt I will continue to do so in the future. However, I want to be clear that I would not see that in any way as a resignation issue. If the Liberal Democrats or anybody else take it to the next stage and bring a motion of no confidence on the facts as they stand, I would certainly vote against that. I also ask all members who back the Lib Dem position and all those who will be back in the Government to reflect on the criticisms that are due of both positions and on the words of Nicola Sturgeon when she apologised for her lapse of judgment on the need for our political culture to give space for those apologies and to accept them on good faith. I hope that Keith Brown takes that approach in his closing speech. I also found it a little bit surprising that out of all the angles that we could have been examining the economy on, the Lib Dems have chosen that particular one. However, I am happy to take part in the debate. Just as I might disagree with many individuals on many issues, many of us would clearly disagree with China on a whole range of matters, in particular their record on human rights, including with the Christian and Muslim minorities in that country, with Falun Gong, with organ harvesting. All of those have left a lot to be desired. Again, on a personal level, my starting point would be that I am willing to talk to almost anyone and, as you get to know them better, you form a judgment about them and whether you want to have a longer-term friendship or not. It is the same for nations and organisations. You might know certain negative factors about a certain state or business, but until you speak to them and get to know them a bit, do a bit of digging, it is difficult to form a proper judgment. We have had a short briefing, which has been referred to from Amnesty International, and I very much agree with it. The key points being that we should do due diligence on all business relations, including emphasising human rights, and Chinese companies and authorities must know that human rights abuses will affect their business and credibility. For me, the question is at what stage do you do the due diligence process? Is it before you even talk to someone initially or before you go ahead and sign a deal? I would suggest that, for myself personally or with an organisation or with a country, that it normally should be the latter stage. By all means, let's talk to people, share our views and concerns, consider if we have much in common, but let's be careful who we actually sign legally binding deals with. John Mason says that he would do due diligence before signing a deal. Is a signing of a memorandum of understanding a deal? That was exactly the point that I was going to intervene on Jackie Baillie, but she didn't have time. I would like to go on and look at what a memorandum of understanding is. I didn't do huge research, but in Wikipedia it uses words like, indicating an intended common line of action, often used in cases where parties do not imply a legal commitment. That is something of the key. When you look at this memorandum of understanding, all three pages of it, you can see how vague the whole thing is. We will see if we get time. The memorandum of understanding is intended as a statement of intent and a platform to share confidential information, not abinding legal agreement. Again, it says, nothing under this MOU shall be taken to represent a commitment of funds on the part of either party if it is very quick. Mike Rumbles. Even the minister has agreed that they made a mistake. Are you seriously suggesting that they should not have done due diligence before signing the memorandum of understanding? John Mason. I think that there are lessons to learn and I am happy that the Government has said that and will continue to do that. However, my main argument here is that you have to judge at what stage you are going to do a thorough investigation. If a company is taking over another company, it has initial chats and then it will go on-way and look at the detail. I am clearly going to run out of time. Pension funds have been mentioned in the motion. I used to be on Strathclyde pension fund. Do you just not invest in companies that are dodgy or do you engage with those companies and try to get them to behave a bit better? We took the latter course. There are a lot of dodgy companies out there from Russia, the United States, Qatar and other places. We have to learn from experience, but let's not throw out the baby with the bad water. We live in a pretty unpleasant world, so let's be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr Mason. Keeping to time, why do you have speeches called Richard Leonard? Close for Labour. Four minutes, please, Mr Leonard. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This is an important debate for this Parliament, but it will also be an important vote for this Parliament. We are grateful to Willie Rennie and the Liberal Democrats for tabling it, because the memorandum of understanding containing the signature of Sir Richard Haygate, Dr Peter Zhang and the First Minister of Scotland is not merely a matter of good or bad business, it is a matter of good or bad government. As others have said in this debate, it is a question of transparency and competence, but it is about so much more than that. It is about the power of this Parliament and our ability to exercise control over the executive, because what this demonstrates is an executive that is both arrogant with power and stricken with moral cowardice, a Scottish Government that is prepared to ride roughshod over parliamentary consent, but worse than that, one that is prepared to go behind the backs of the people and appear to mislead them with further cover-up. It represents an abuse of privilege, an example of power without responsibility and a telling reminder that the whole point of democracy is to hope this kind of misuse of power to account. As we have heard in the debate this afternoon, the people of Scotland and their Parliament were told that Brian Souter, a Knight Bachelor of the Order of the British Empire and over the years a substantial financial backer of the party of government, was not involved in the Chinese deal. Then it was admitted that he was involved in the deal when a press release was drafted and then blocked by the Office of the First Minister. We only found out about the memorandum of understanding itself when reference to it was published, as Jackie Baillie said in the English language newspaper China Daily. Of course, it is now a matter of public record that Sir Brian Souter was involved in. He was even quoted on the sign of foretoon website as saying, it is a very positive step for Scotland to attract investment of this nature. The question for the Scottish Government is, how come Sir Brian Souter knew about the secret deal, but the rest of us did not? The lure of private profit, private financial speculation and private profiteering for the building of affordable homes for public transport, for public energy supplies sounds wrong, it feels wrong and it is wrong. We do not want a country which is simply open for business and not open for democracy. We do not want corridors of power which are closed to the working women and men of this country but open to baronets and tycoons. I do not say this to the cabinet secretary lightly and I hope he listens. When he goes to Ineos in Grangemouth tomorrow morning, I hope that he will not be briefing Jim Ratcliffe or his associates before he briefs this Parliament tomorrow afternoon about the contents of the ministerial statement on unconventional oil and gas. I hope as well that he will express the concerns noted by others that the 40s pipeline system and essential artery of our infrastructure being sold by BP to Ineos over the next few days is something that he should take a strategic interest in and in so doing oppose that move, because it comes right to the heart of this debate this afternoon. The problem is, like with the Chinese deal, there is too little transparency, too little accountability, too little scrutiny, too little moral courage too, so let the lessons be learned from this sorry episode. Let's have inward investment deals, but let's have ethical inward investment deals, and let's reassert the principle of democracy in the realm of our politics but in the realm of our economics too. Thank you very much, Mr Leonard. Pauline Redden mounted, of course, the Conservatives for a minute, please, Mr Mountain. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I'd like to thank Willie Rennie for bringing this debate. It's been an interesting afternoon and I've enjoyed listening to the points that have been raised. In fact, this debate has reminded me of an old and classic movie, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. In fact, I think that sums up the whole issue, and I'd like to examine each of those headings in a moment. Can I just say at the outset what has surprised me is the fact that the Chinese papers seem to know more about what was going on in this deal than the Parliament did, and indeed Brian Souter and the RBS involvement was kept fairly secret and under the table. I'd like to look at the headings that I mentioned to see if this deal was, in fact, no more than a spaghetti Western. So I think that everyone welcomes the investment in Scotland and the memorandums of understandings with companies can be good and should be welcomed. And I think that what it proved at that stage, which I hope will remain in the future, was that Scotland is open for investment, and China is investing elsewhere in the UK as we've heard. And the sadness, I think, is that, and a good point, is from the Government's point of view that they've finally come clean today. And I'd say another good point about this debate is that Keith Brown has finally said today that in future they will consider human rights as a result of this deal. And the other good point of today is the fact that this is good to see this Parliament is holding the Government to account. So what's bad? Well, I reckon what's bad is the total lack of transparency. Full details of all the information on this deal to me is still hidden. I don't go as far as saying what Willie Rennie says that we were duped, but I do think that there has been some wrong information and smoke and mirrors have played a part. It's also bad that there's been no disclosion to the Parliament. And I think it's outrageous that this Parliament should only find out about the deal when you could read a Chinese trade paper and all credit to Jackie Baillie for being able to do that because it's beyond my ability to do that. The Parliament should be kept informed. I also think that what is else is bad is the incompetence of the SNP. If this deal was so good, how come they ditched the Chinese in May, in fact, have had no comment or contact with them since August? Surely that's no way to manage an economic deal. Surely they could have pulled out the stops if it was worth so much and actually made contact with them. The SNP's policy is to double the number of Chinese investors in Scotland. That was from 2012-11. We haven't seen anything of that, and that is also bad. Jackie Baillie talked about walking down memory lane and it being too powerful for Keith Brown. I want to remind you what some other people said, some of the bad things. Liam McArthur said that the Government was complacent. Jackie Baillie said that it just brought back painful memories to her and all said to Keith Brown. Dean Lockhart accused the SNP of being incompetent when it came to the economy. Mary Todd made a useful intervention about article 50. I'm not sure what that's got to do with China, but there we go. Alison Harris mentioned that the deal wasn't transparent. Neil Findlay mentioned the fact that there was no accountability. Patrick Harvie mentioned the fact that there was a lack of ethics in this deal. John Mason just clarified the fact that this was a deal. If this wasn't a deal, it was a memorandum of understanding. The ugly side of this is that there has been no diligence. The SNP have run away from it saying that it wasn't me. It was everyone else in this Parliament for questioning it. I want to sum up by saying that this is a Scottish sound shambles. You've got 10 seconds. I think that by definition of the events that I've described, that this deal fits into the mould of the good, the bad and the ugly. Unfortunately, the bad and the ugly outweigh the good. I now call on Keith Brown to sum up for the Government, cabinet secretary. Five minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me again start by stating this Government's absolute commitment to promoting and supporting human rights. We fully support the European Convention of Human Rights, the Human Rights Act and the human rights safeguards contained in EU law, and we want those rights to continue. Along with the Scottish Human Rights Commission and other partners, we are committed to developing a co-ordinated plan of action in Scotland to give effect to the UN guiding principles on business and human rights. Let me also say that our approach to trading investment aims to promote and support those rights both here and in Scotland in terms of fair wages, union recognition and corporate responsibility and internationally. It should come as no surprise to members that we share their concerns about China Railway Group, which is a parent company, of around 45 subsidiaries around the world, including one of the signatories to the MOU, the China Railway Engineering Group number three. As we have already stated publicly, at the time of the MOU, we signed, we were unaware of the Norwegian Government pension funds concerns about China Railway Group or Amnesty International support into the Congo international mining corporation, one of its many subsidiaries. Therefore, acknowledge that it is important for us to do as much as we can to check the human rights record of investors and to work with organisations such as Amnesty International to assist with that. We agree with Amnesty that all international relationships of the Scottish Government should have a human rights dimension. I also want to confirm to Parliament that we recognise that it is important to undertake appropriate due diligence. Again, the MOU involves no legal, contractual or funding obligations on behalf of the Scottish Government. There have been a number of useful points made by members across the chamber during the debate. One in particular that I want to pick up on is one that was made by Jackie Baillie when she asked for a parliamentary process that would be able to examine the diligence that is undertaken. I do not know the answer to that. I do not know what the mechanism would be, but I would undertake with Parliament and Opposition parties to look at how that could be done. There are issues of commercial confidentiality, but I undertake to do that. I would also say in response to the points that Patrick Harvie has taken, I take full responsibility for the handling of the MOU, and I am sorry for the issues that have arisen from it. I can assure Parliament that we have and will learn lessons from the experience of the MOU. We will consider human rights issues in our engagement with overseas businesses, and we will only sign investment agreements where appropriate due diligence, including on the human rights record of companies involved, has been undertaken. As well as the appropriate scrutiny that today's debate has offered, I think that across parties we have agreed it, and it has been said by a number of members that attracting investment is critical to Scotland's economic future. I would like to see, in the spirit of what I have just said to Jackie Baillie, working across parties on that. It would be good for Scotland and good for investors. I take some confidence in our strong track record in attracting such investment, and again from today's very welcome announcement, an example of that investment by GEMPAC bringing 300 jobs to Glasgow. What we are about is not investment at any price, but investment that is based on consideration of human rights issues and appropriate due diligence. In all good faith, it is very important that the business community, who impress upon me regularly, also does in terms of opposition spokespeople that they like to see the Parliament where it can come to a consensus. That is the basis of the offer that I have made to Jackie Baillie. If we can give that evidence of consensus, we are trying to take things forward in a way that both respects this Parliament's fantastic track record in terms of human rights, but also tries to take maximum advantage of the businesses and the investment opportunities that are out there, then we will get to the right place. I say that in good faith, and I undertake to initiate that discussion with Opposition spokespersons across the chamber in the medium term. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Paul-on Willie Rennie, please, took close for our Liberal Democrats, Mr Rennie, till just about five o'clock. For the last year, we have been accused of being hypocrites, running down Scotland, against investment, against jobs, against Scotland's economy, indulging in cheap point scoring and many, many other things. It was a little point in the economy secretary coming before the Parliament today and acting all contrite, but not apologising for one of those insults over the past year. If it was not for this party and others in this chamber, he would not be here today to make those points. It is our debating time, not his debating time. It has taken a year for him to express any regret. I am grateful at last, after 12 months of seeking some form of contrite behaviour from the economy secretary, that he has deigned to come before us and say that he has got some things wrong and that he will learn lessons. That is a good thing, but it should not come to this that it is an opposition day debate before he does that. I am grateful. I want to build a consensus on those things. I am in favour of having foreign direct investment into our country. I take deep offence when people say that we are against it for daring to ask simple questions that he should have asked of those supposed investors, but they did not bother to do so. This is not some kind of normal memorandum of understanding. This has got the signature of our First Minister on it, so it is not just some bog standard timid agreement. This is something bigger than that. Surely our First Minister's signature merits some kind of authority and some kind of investigation and some kind of due diligence before she puts pen to paper, but not in this case. I want an absolute cast-iron guarantee. Cast-iron guarantees are something that this Government likes to give. If they are going to indulge in any discussions with any foreign investor, they do the checks before they ask the First Minister to put pen to paper. I welcome the contrite approach today from the economy secretary. Obviously his advisor did not write Marie Todd's speech, because Marie Todd used all the old lines that was issued in the press release from earlier this week—the abuse that was being thrown at this party for daring to ask the questions. I was amused, I have to say, by Patrick Harvie's contosions on that. He was saying that he was going to allow his own MSPs to make their own mind up on this particular debate, even though his own MSPs were not in the chamber to hear the debate, but that meant that nothing surprises me from the Greens any more. John Mason had gone into the in-depth research of looking into Wikipedia to find out what a memorandum of understanding is. That is perhaps the level of due diligence that the Scottish Government should have done. However, what we need now is a proper set of rules that the Scottish Government complies with. A set of rules that protects this country's reputation for foreign direct investment of a place that is reliable to come to, that it can take its word, but also for credibility on human rights. There is no point in having all the documents, all the international standard human rights concordats, if you do not apply them in action and they have not imposed them in this particular case. Scotland's reputation has been tarnished, home and abroad, on human rights. Just let us recap some of the colossal mistakes that were made in this case. Concerns from their own departments, because we had the freedom of information submissions, they were ignored. Warnings from Amnesty International, they were ignored. Advice from the southern, the Norway sovereign wealth fund ignored. I am surprised at that, because they love Norway. I would have thought that they would have at least paid attention to that. Let us go back. Simon Hume Kendall, from the London equity group, who was doing a £250 million deal, said that it was all strange. He said that they came with a lot of ideas and hope and promises and they were desperate to sign an agreement. Nor sooner had they got the TV and the press out than they had faded into the right. That is the kind of people that this Government has done an agreement with. What we are asking for today and I think that it would not be unreasonable is for once this debate is over, for a new document to be published by this Government, setting out what it is going to do in the future. The economy secretary has undermined our country's reputation for all the strategies and the plans on human rights, for all the rhetoric and foreign investment. The SNP has fallen short when they apply that practice. A deal was signed with people that they knew little about. One company had connections with human rights abuses and there had no serious financial track record. What is worse was that the Scottish Government was used to building that credibility in a series of PR stunts across the country. Instead of confessing their mistake, for a whole year the Government Minister deflected, blustered and blamed everyone else. While that debate has forced him to adopt a different tone, what we have seen is, by proxy, the arguments from old, from Marie Todd being used again today. The First Minister must properly apologise for this catalogue of errors. I would urge the Parliament to censure the Minister for dragging our reputation through the mud. That concludes our debate on censure and apology on the anniversary of the Chinese agreement. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 4.940, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press their request to speak, but now I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 4940. No member has asked to speak against the motion and therefore put the question to the chamber that we agree motion 4940. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item of business is consideration of four parliamentary bureau motions. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 4941 on First Minister's portfolio general and top level questions, motions 4942 and 4943, on approval of SSIs and motion 4944 on the destination of a lead committee. We have moved to decision time. The first question is amendment 4920.1, in the name of John Swinney, who seeks to amend motion 4920, in the name of Tavish Scotland, education be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to division and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 4920.1, in the name of John Swinney, is yes, 68, no, 53. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 4920, in the name of Tavish Scotland, as amended, on education be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The third question is a preemption on this question. If the amendment in the name of Keith Brown is agreed, then the amendment in the name of Dean Lockhart falls. The question is that amendment 4919.2, in the name of Keith Brown, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Willie Rennie on censure and apology on the anniversary of the Chinese agreement, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to our vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on the amendment in the name of Keith Brown is yes, 63, no, 55. There were three abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 4919.3, in the name of Jackie Baillie, which seeks to amend the motion 4919 in the name of Willie Rennie, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to our vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on the amendment in the name of Jackie Baillie is yes, 58, no, 63. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that motion 4919, in the name of Willie Rennie, as amended, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to our vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 4919, in the name of Willie Rennie, as amended, is yes, 64, no, 54. There were three abstentions, and the motion as amended is therefore agreed. I propose to ask a single question on parliamentary bureau motions 4941 to 4944. If any member objects, please say so now. I am not object, so I will put the question. The question is that we agree motions 4941 to 4944 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. That concludes decision time. We will now move to members' business in the name of John Lamont. We will just take a few moments to change seats.