 I would say to members, we have no extra time in this debate, no spare time, so I would ask you all to adhere to timing guidelines, please, and I call on Ivan McKee to speak to and move the motion for up to 12 minutes. 12. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Scotland is a trading nation for centuries. Our businesses have travelled the globe to find and develop new markets. The Scottish Government understands the importance of trade to the success of our economy. That is why we take Scotland's role in trade negotiations seriously. I spent a large proportion of my time travelling the country, listening to businesses and business organisations, working with them to support their efforts to increase exports, and I hear their concerns about Brexit on a daily basis. Business is unable to plan due to uncertainty and potential disruption, the threat to livelihoods and jobs, the impact of tariff and non-tariff barriers on trade and on businesses' ability to attract workers with the right skills, the risk to inward investment and no guarantees to prevent vital protections for some of Scotland's most iconic products being bargained away by a UK Government desperate to do a deal. Those concerns are reflected in the recent FSB poll of small businesses, which found that business confidence is decreasing as the threat of anodial Brexit grows. Those concerns should be at the forefront of UK Government thinking in their exit planning. Instead, we hear UK ministers accusing businesses of using Brexit as an excuse. By contrast, the Scottish Government takes business seriously. That is why we need to address their fears by ensuring that Scotland has a voice in our future trading environment. The publication of our recent paper on Scotland's role in the development of future UK trade arrangements forms an important part of the Scottish Government's preparation for exit from the EU. It clearly makes the case that we need to ensure that Scotland's economic and social interests are protected and promoted, that the voice of Scotland's consumers, businesses and wider society are heard and that the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Government and others must have a guaranteed role in formulating and agreeing future trade deals. As members know, the Scottish Government continues to believe that the best option for the future wellbeing of Scotland and indeed of the UK as a whole is to remain in the EU. That position is consistent with the will of the people of Scotland who voted overwhelmingly to remain and they did so for powerful social and economic reasons. The benefits of EU membership to Scotland are crystal clear. The EU is the single largest market for Scotland's international exports. Six of Scotland's top 10 export destinations are in the EU and are further two her trade agreements with the EU. Rather than choosing to put our faith in new unquantified trade deals that have yet to be negotiated, we recognise the value of current trading relationships. That is why we will continue to take every opportunity to put forward our bus case for remaining in the EU, the single market and the customs union. The UK Government's approach is chaotic and is irresponsible. Its proposals now expose unworkable, unacceptable and heading towards a no-deal Brexit. Analysis after analysis, including that by the UK Government itself, shows that continued membership of the European Single Market and Customs Union would be the least damaging option for a UK outside of the EU. Such membership would help to promote businesses, communities and individuals from some of the inevitable damage that Brexit will deliver. Even the most optimistic estimates of potential gains from new markets could not fully mitigate that damage, yet remaining in the single market and customs union is an option that the UK Government still refuses to consider. The risks that we are facing are not of Scotland's making, but, as a responsible Government, we need to make preparations for all possible scenarios, including leaving the EU, the single market and customs union. Mike Russell set out the Scottish Government's coherent, consistent and collaborative approach to preparing for those scenarios in his recent statement to Parliament. Preparations ranging from ensuring a working statute book after exit to the practicalities of maintaining access to essential medicines and ensuring that we have the right staff in place to meet the challenges that Brexit will bring. Scotland's exporters are among our most productive and innovative businesses. Scotland's trade and investment strategy Global Scotland sets out the key actions and commitments that we and our partners are taking to boost export performance and attract inward investment. The measures that we have already taken to improve our trade performance are working with Scotland's exports growing faster than those from the rest of the UK. We have established a trade board, appointed trade envoys to champion export opportunities at home and overseas. We have expanded our global network of offices, doubled the SDI presence in Europe and funded the establishment of local export partnerships across Scotland, working with the local chambers of commerce. Additional support has been delivered through our enterprise and skills agencies to help businesses to prepare for the future. The programme, including help to create a Brexit-focused action plan, project support, online learning and skills workshops. Our £20 million programme for government commitment to support Scotland's export drive, helping the next wave of export-ready businesses. This will include peer-to-peer export mentor programme being rolled out in connection with the CBI. The on-going work to develop our export plan, a trading nation, is rigorously data-driven, taking input from business organisations, industry bodies, trade unions and others to pinpoint where we should focus resources to maximise Scotland's export growth potential. I'm grateful to Minister for Giving Ways for one of five minutes into his speech, and we get to hear very much about the subject of this debate, which is future trade arrangements being negotiated by the UK. Is it the position of the Scottish Government that it believes that devolved administrations should have a right of veto over future trade policy? Mr Fraser would know if he'd read the motion that the first part of the motion talks about the importance of trade to Scotland's businesses, and that's exactly what I've been talking about for the first part of my contribution. If he listens to the rest of the speech, he will get the answer to his question, but the short answer is no, but he will hear the answer as he listens to the rest of my contribution. Brexit may not be our choice, but we are working with business to give them the tools to best meet the challenges that it creates, and we are focused on the decision-making processes that should underpin how future trade deals are made, deals that have profound consequences for our businesses and citizens. That is the purpose of our recently published paper, Scotland's role in the development of future UK trade arrangements. Outside of the EU, the UK will become a third country. I such it will become responsible for negotiating its own international trade deals with the EU and with others. The UK will lose the EU's substantial negotiating power scrutiny and expertise, but within the UK the arrangements currently in place for the development of trade deals are already inadequate, out of date and in need of an urgent and radical overhaul. In affording so minimally my role to the UK Parliament to devolved institutions and to business and civic interests, existing arrangements have failed to keep pace with constitutional developments within the UK. That should be changed now. Even if the UK remains in the EU in customs union, the UK Parliament devolved institutions and others must have a proper voice in the agreement of future trade deals. Current arrangements have also failed to keep pace with global developments, including in the nature of trade deals themselves. Earlier trade deals focused on tariffs and quotas, now they have a much broader scope, potentially affecting a wide range of devolved interests. Their effects are felt across all sectors of society by our businesses and citizens. Democratic scrutiny of those arrangements and the enduring impact that they have must be increased and improved to reflect that. Patrick Harvie I am grateful to the minister for giving way and perhaps by way of balancing the intervention from Murdo Fraser earlier. Now that the minister is talking about the potential impact on devolved areas of future trade agreements, is not it clear that this Parliament and other devolved jurisdictions within the islands should have the ultimate say on whether those trade agreements do impact and curtail or constrain devolved competencies? Ivan McKee Yes, indeed. Mr Harvie makes a very strong point, and he is absolutely correct. That need for change becomes considerably more urgent and necessary if the UK leaves the EU's single market in customs union. Scotland, as we know, often has very different trade priorities from other parts of the UK. Different sectors are important to Scotland's economy. Only one of Scotland's top five EU export sectors appears in the equivalent UK list. Scotland's key sectors need to be protected in the inevitable horse trading that forms a part of any trade negotiations. Scotland has specific protected geographical indications, crucial to our export performance. When UK Government ministers are unable, even at this early stage, to commit themselves to ensuring that protection remains in place in future deals, Scotland's businesses have a right to be concerned. How we trade tells us a lot about who we are as a society and the values that we have. In our approach to protecting our environment, our public services or workers' rights, Scotland's Parliament and Government have consistently shown a different set of priorities, reflecting wider Scottish public opinion. It would clearly be unacceptable, for example, for a UK Government to impose trade deals that opened up Scotland's NHS to private competition or opened up our markets to chlorine washed chicken or hormone injected beef. Scotland is a voice at the table to ensure that our priorities are not ignored. The development, conduct and content of future trade deals will increasingly have very important implications for Scotland, yet the UK Government is making no proposals for trade to change existing and out-of-date arrangements. That cannot be right. So far, the UK Government's record on this is not a good one. Its approach to the EU withdrawal act, the trade bill and the imposition of common frameworks have all demonstrated their willingness to curtail devolved powers. The UK Government has talked a good game about giving the devolved institutions their proper place and about deviving trade deals at work for the whole of the UK, but the reality is somewhat different when put to the test, the struggle to treat Scotland and other devolved nations as anything more than narrow, sexual interests. At best, we are merely offered the chance to comment on already well-developed proposals. Decision-making processes must recognise, respect and protect the economic and social interests of all four nations of the UK. To ensure that Scotland's voice is heard and respected and to protect and promote the interests and ambitions of our businesses and citizens, the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament must have a guaranteed role in all stages of the formulation, negotiation, agreement and implementation of future trade deals. Dean Lockhart Can the minister confirm that the Scottish Government's policy is still to have a differentiated approach to Europe, which would hand back all trade powers to Brussels? Ivan McKee Yes, of course, it is an objective of a different trade policy from that of the rest of the UK with regard to Europe, but that does not mean that what the member said would fall into place, absolutely not. Our paper sets it in great detail what that involvement might look like. It also, and this is crucial, proposes the establishment and statute of a new intergovernmental committee to consider and agree a range of trade issues. That approach would be in everyone's interests. Domestically, it will ensure that negotiations are conducted based on a full understanding of the issues and, wider afield, it will provide reassurance to the UK's current and future negotiating partners that there are consensus across the UK for potentially difficult and lengthy trade negotiations that at once agreements are stuck, they will endure. I want to be a constructive part to the other nations of the UK and a fair trading partner to countries around the world. The benefits are a more inclusive approach to the development of trade arrangements are widely recognised and welcomed internationally. The EU demonstrates the value that it places on such an approach by ensuring that representatives from the Canadian provinces were fully involved in the CETA negotiations. However, we can learn much from those examples of circumstances facing the UK that are unique and so must the response. I want to finish today by emphasising that our paper on Scotland's role in the development of future trade arrangements seeks to open a discussion, recognising that others, including this Parliament, must have their say. I look forward to a wide-ranging and constructive debate this afternoon as the next stage in that discussion. Adam Tomkins, to speak to and move amendment 14059.2 up to seven minutes, please. As members will know, I did not vote for Brexit, but I did think about it. Although I did not agree with everything—and I still do not agree with everything that the Brexit has said in the referendum campaign—they did have some powerful arguments on their side. To reduce the influence in the UK's legal systems of the European Court of Justice is one of the welcome opportunities that Brexit should deliver. Another is to allow us to take back control, as the slogan has it, of our international trading links. Britain is and always has been a trading nation. Our economic prosperity as a nation is rooted in trade in the modern economy in services as well as in goods. The UK has a long and proud history not only as a trading nation but as a global champion of free trade. Why? Not only because it benefits the UK economy, but because it delivers benefits for businesses, workers and consumers alike. Trade is a key driver of growth and prosperity. It is linked directly to jobs. Free trade leads to higher wages, economic growth, business efficiency, higher productivity, knowledge exchange and innovation across the globe. At the same time, free trade ensures that more people can access a wider choice of goods at lower cost, making household incomes go further, especially for the poorest in society. To take back control of all of this is perhaps the greatest opportunity that Brexit now affords. I make these introductory, indeed, elementary points because they need making. We face today not only a rising tide of protectionism in a number of the world's major economies, but also closer to home, real antipathy, especially on the hard left, to the idea of free trade at all. The Finance and Constitution Committee, taking evidence on the UK's trade bill, has heard from a number of individuals and organisations that international free trade is a threat, not a route map from poverty to prosperity, and that it should be resisted, not welcomed in one minute. That theme was echoed, I thought, in Patrick Carby's amendment for today, albeit that amendment was not selected for debate. There are members of this Parliament, Presiding Officer, who do not believe in growth and who would seek to resist the role of free trade in delivering it. Those of us who are economic liberals who believe in free trade would be making a mistake if we assumed that the argument for it had been won and can be taken for granted. I happily give the way to the minister. Ivan McKee. If Adam Tomkins is so keen on extolling the virtues of free trade with which I agree, why is he supportive of the largest single-back worst that we've ever taken away from free trade, which is Brexit, why are we about to hear a re-reconversion in his conversion back to being a remainder? Adam Tomkins. Absolutely not. Brexit delivers exactly the opportunity for Scotland and for the United Kingdom as a whole to trade more freely with the whole of the rest of the world's economy, including all of the fastest-growing economies in the world, which are outside of the EU. As a trade minister, you might want to have hoped, might know. Presiding Officer, it has always been our firm belief, and it continues to be on these benches, our firm belief, that Brexit can and must be delivered compatibly with the United Kingdom's devolution arrangements. That means respecting what is properly devolved to us, but it also means respecting what is reserved to Westminster. Under schedule 5 to the Scotland Act, international relations, including relations with the European Union, and the regulation of international trade are all expressly reserved to Westminster. Those are matters, Presiding Officer, not for us but for our parliamentary colleagues in the House of Commons. They are matters in respect of which Scotland is, of course, fully represented, but not by the Scottish Government but by the 59 MPs Scotland elects at every general election to serve in the House of Commons. Respecting all this is part of what respecting devolution means. If this constitutional reality had been the foundation on which the Scottish Government's paper Scotland's Role in the Development of Future UK Trade Agreements had been based, that paper would have commanded far greater support, not only across the political parties here but in Westminster and Whitehall 2. I fear that I don't have time. I'm sorry, Mr Scott. However, this is the paper of course of an SNP Government, so of course it doesn't respect the boundaries of devolved competence at all. Rather than being based on the division of powers and responsibilities set out in the Scotland Act 1998, it takes a wrecking wall to the Scotland Act. For example, on page 5 of the document, we read this. The conduct and content of future trade policy negotiations and agreements have very important implications to Scotland and it is vital that the Scottish Government is fully involved in the process for determining them. That's a nationalist power grab, Presiding Officer, asserting as it does that the Scottish Government must be fully involved in the processes for determining policy that is expressly reserved to Westminster. Worse. Not merely content with trampling all over reserved competence, the SNP are demanding a series of five vetoes over the exercise by UK ministers of their powers. According to this document, the agreement of the Scottish Government should be required, not merely sought but required—that's what a veto is, Mr Russell—before any proposed trade deal is prepared, negotiated, ratified or signed. The Scottish Government's motion for today calls on the Parliament to support the idea that we should support international best practice in the negotiation of trade deals. What the Scottish Government proposes in this wrecking wall of a paper goes significantly further than international best practice, even in mature federal jurisdictions such as Canada. In Canada, the provinces are consulted by the federal government about the federal competence of international trade and international relations. The provinces are consulted. They don't have a veto. The Scottish Government is proposing not merely one veto but a series of five vetoes on a matter that is not even devolved. We agree with the Scottish Government that international best practice should be observed as the United Kingdom unfolds its future trade partnerships and negotiations, but international best practice is not understood by the Scottish Government. Indeed, in their paper, it has been misrepresented by the Scottish Government. International best practice has been articulated recently to the Finance Committee of this Parliament by UK Government ministers such as the Minister for trade, George Hollingbury, who said this. I confirm that it is the Department of International Trade's clear intent and desire to take the concerns of the Scottish Government and the other devolved authorities about their trade policy extremely seriously. He said that there are very important industries in Scotland and very important issues to consider. He said that we will continue the contacts at official level, at as deep a level and for as long a time as we can, so that we can shape our overall trade policy such that it reflects the interests of the devolved authorities. That is exactly what international best practice requires. It is exactly what the United Kingdom Government has agreed to. It is exactly what our amendment to today's motion calls for. The international trade will require effective and extensive collaborative working between all parliaments and assemblies and governments in the United Kingdom. The UK Government has already signed up to that. It would be nice if the Scottish Government could as well move the amendment in my name. I call Jackie Baillie for up to six minutes, please. The only word to describe current Brexit negotiations is shambolic. I am perhaps being too kind. We are witnessing a Prime Minister who is out of her depth in negotiations with the EU. Her checkers proposals lies in tatters. The prospect of no deal becomes increasingly a reality and her Tory cabinet are more interested in fighting amongst themselves than in getting the best possible outcome for the country. The chaos and uncertainty is bad for business, bad for the economy and bad for the people of this country. With six months to go, it does not look like it is getting any better. That chaos and uncertainty has manifested itself in the latest business confidence figures published by the FSB and referred to by the minister. Excuse me, Ms Baillie. Would you please stop muttering Mr Fraser if you may get a chance to speak yourself later on, Ms Baillie? I suspect that his muttering is better than his speech. In the third quarter of 2018, business confidence has fallen in Scotland and in the UK. In Scotland it is down from plus 5.1 to minus 13.2, most if not all of it down to Brexit itself. When people hear the Government planning to stockpile medicines and foodstuffs, they begin to understand the severity of the consequences. None of those consequences were ever spelled out as slogans on the side of a bus. We need to avoid rushing headlong into a disaster for our economy and jobs. One of the essential pieces of legislation to try and avoid this is the trade bill. Let me say at the outset that the Scottish Labour Party is pro-trade and pro-investment. We want to see the Scottish economy flourish and grow. That means support for exporting, support for inward investment to create jobs and economic growth. We know that trade is fundamental to economic growth. An outward-looking economy will lead to future prosperity, but we really need to do better now, never mind in the future. Only something like 70 companies account for about 50 per cent of our exporting, and that is simply not good enough. Economists tell us that we do the most trade with our nearest neighbours and we do some £12 billion of trade with the EU. We need to deepen and broaden that activity. The trade bill should provide the framework for how we do trade deals in the future. A strong economy post Brexit will depend on us having a robust and progressive trade book policy that reflects the interests of the devolved administrations, as well as the UK Government. Unfortunately, the trade bill falls short on that ambition. There are two main issues that I want to touch on. The first relates to openness and engagement. What the UK Government is proposing is akin to doing deals behind closed doors. In Scotland, across the UK, we have a wealth of talent and experience in NGOs, trade unions and in business. They should be central and involved in that. If we are being brutally honest, there is little capacity and experience in Whitehall to negotiate trade deals because we have not had to do it for 40 years. Let us look at what CBI Scotland had to say. They call for the setting up of a formalised engagement architecture for the UK that uses trade expertise from Scotland and across the UK, especially from the private sector. I see nothing like that proposed in the trade bill. The second substantial issue is about the impact on devolved competence. It does not really help, and Adam Tomkins will understand this as a constitutional lawyer, that the trade bill and EU withdrawal bill deviates from the Scotland Act 1998 in the definition of devolved competence. That creates confusion and uncertainty and perhaps more work for lawyers. Although competence for international trade agreements rests with the UK Government, we all agree that the complexity and extent of modern agreements means that they will directly impact on devolved competence. There are examples that we have all shared—food standards, animal welfare standards, access to fishing mortars, regulatory and oversight bodies. The list goes on. It is essential and right that devolved parliaments are consulted and that consent is sought. The Tory Government has singularly failed to make clear that its powers do not allow for ministerial overreach and that UK ministers cannot amend laws that are a matter of devolved competence without consent. Instead, we see a sweeping Henry VIII powers, and I know the SNP like those as well, to modify primary legislation. I am very clear that the Tory Government should not be allowed to ride roughshod over devolved areas of responsibility and use their powers to undermine the devolution settlement. That said, I do not expect the Scottish Government to have a right of veto either. The business community, the whole of the country, expect joint working, consultation, yes, robust debate and discussions before and during the process. They want us to come to agreements about what is in the interests of Scotland and the whole of the United Kingdom. To do that, we need government machinery, perhaps a more robust version of the joint ministerial committee, where agreement can be reached in the interests of the whole country. Unless there is formal and agreed machinery, a statutory role for the Scottish Parliament and Government in the UK trade bill, we will not agree to legislative consent. I call Patrick Harvie for up to six minutes, please. Three speeches in and I have already heard something from everybody that I can agree with. Jackie Baillie's excoriating demolition of the chaos of Brexit could not be more accurate. The minister is clearly making the case why the devolved countries of these islands need a meaningful input into future trade agreements. I could not agree with more. Adam Tomkins clearly expressed his regret that Parliament does not today have the opportunity to debate my excellently-worded amendment. I agree with him on that. We have political and ideological differences from left to right of the spectrum and from a more or less concerned attitude on environmental and green issues. There are differences in the consequent trade policies that we would like to pursue. There are those who have a free trade mantra, who assume that free trade is always a good thing in every aspect. Just as Greens often criticise a single-minded and a myopic obsession with GDP growth, which measures only one thing and tells you nothing about the diversity of the impacts that economic activity is happening, we also criticise the idea that ever-growing volumes of ever-freer trade are an objective good. There will be benefits that come from that activity but there will also be social and economic harms that come from that activity. We would like a trade policy that recognises our responsibility. It is not merely to achieve short-term economic benefit for our own citizens or for a fair share of those benefits within the different countries of these islands, but we would like a trade policy that recognises a mutual interest of the people around the world and the need to live within the limits that our ecosystem lays down for us. That might mean increasing the value of trade rather than the volume of trade. It might mean trading different things than we have traded in the past. It certainly means recognising the importance of trade justice rather than merely the opportunity of those pursuing trade opportunities to benefit their own businesses. The need to achieve trade justice is one that is about the relationship with those that we are trading with, not merely the interests of those in this country who wish to increase their exports. There is a range of philosophical, political and ideological objectives when we debate trade and the future of trade within our economy. That difference of views is exactly why the process of agreeing trading arrangements needs to be transparent and democratically accountable. I would like to make a contrast, not with whether we decide things in a multilateral basis in the future within these islands or merely within the UK. Let's contrast it with the way that those things are decided at EU level. There are those who are implacably hostile to everything that the European Union represents. I don't think that they are the majority here. But when TTIP, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, was being debated at European Union level and when member states, including the UK, were supporting TTIP, a great wave of concern grew up across the European Union in this country and in many other countries about the impact of TTIP, about the lack of accountability in some of the legal decisions that would be made with panels of corporate lawyers essentially deciding behind closed doors any dispute resolution mechanisms. The need was brought to have those ideas challenged. The European Parliament was able to do that. People were able to campaign, take their concerns to their political parties, to their domestic representatives at home and to their MEPs. The European Parliament won the case on behalf of the public interest on that occasion. It doesn't always happen that that kind of public concern wins out. However, it was at least a possibility. The UK Government's initial proposals for the trade bill had an absolute absence of those democratic accountability mechanisms in their proposals and they have changed little. They have certainly not changed enough. Of course, Adam Tomkins and others may make the case, trade policy is a reserved matter. Trade policy is a reserved matter end of story. That is not the end of the story. The making of trade agreements may well be a reserved matter but the content of them steps very heavily on to devolved areas of responsibility. That is why we have a need. As Jackie Baillie ended by saying, not only ensuring that there is dialogue between Governments but formalising the mechanism so that parliaments as well are able to hold the decisions that Governments plural make on those matters. That has to mean not just the Westminster Parliament but all parliaments and assemblies throughout those islands. I'll finish by flagging up quite what some of the ardent Brexiteers are looking to do. In preparing for the visit of Liz Truss, the chief secretary to the Treasury, to the Finance and Constitution Committee this week, I was reading a speech that she made at the far-right Libertarian Cato Institute recently. I had to choke back my incredulity at some of that absurd speech. The Cato Institute, which is deeply implicated with those who have made a killing by kicking off the climate denial industry, who have argued against sensible environmental measures to protect the public interest. The kind of free market ideologs who genuinely want a ripping up of regulations, and Liz Truss' speech on that, complaining about a thicket of regulations to protect people, is absolutely dire warning of what some of those people wish to do if we do not have an accountable and democratic means of achieving debate on trade policy in future. I call Tavish Scott for up to six minutes, please. There are many speeches being made in Blackpool today, but the one that will probably lead the news tonight is what President Trump is currently saying in New York at the General Assembly of the United Nations. My concern about a debate on trade here in Scotland, but in a broader sense, is that we are facing once more another binary choice that we face in so many parts of public policy at the moment between economic nationalism on one hand and free trade on the other. I don't suspect that there will be much sucker for Patrick Harvie or anyone else from Trump in New York this afternoon. It's trade his way or the highway to coin a phrase that seemed to have been emanating from Salzburg last week. I also wonder if this debate isn't a little academic for most businesses out there in the real world trying to make a living at the moment. I've, because of oil and gas and one or two other sectors, been very close to a lot of businesses in the last week. I keep asking them what they expect of government, wherever that government may be, around trade policy and about the imminent arrival of something on Brexit. I take Jackie Baillie's point on what we may face. What they ask for is some clarity. If they can't have clarity, they'd at least like to know that their governments are planning on their behalf for whatever the eventualities may be. I've dug through some of those EU exit notes from the UK government. Interestingly, there's no one on fisheries, despite that being an important industry in too many parts of Scotland. However, there is one on trade, particularly on freight. What the freight transport association said on today's programme this morning was that British truck drivers, if there is a no-deal Brexit, will no longer have automatic access to European countries. That will affect between 95% and 97% of the trucks that currently leave all parts of the UK and cross the border into Europe. There is no certainty on bilateral agreements. If you're exporting fish from Lerwick or from Mike Russell's constituency on the west coast of Scotland, if you're one of those businesses, you have not a Scooby-Doo as to what will happen next March. The vision of the M25, the whole of Kent becoming a lorry park, looks more and more serious. I would ask our Government here in Scotland to spend some considerable time planning what the Scottish response would be to those eventualities. It's all very well-producing policy papers on a trade bill. I want to come on to that in a minute. The hard reality for export businesses that the minister mentioned in his opening remarks is what the devil is going to happen under the different scenarios that this country now faces. That is why I think that Government's attention should be concentrating on. The second point that I want to make is on intergovernmental machinery. A number of us under Bruce Crawford's chairmanship in a previous Parliament spent all too much time on. There's nothing much in here on that. I'd encourage the Government to do rather more on that. That document doesn't include anything on any kind of dispute resolution mechanism. That's what happens in most international countries in federal structures or in quasi-federal structures. It's the advice that the constitutional committee under Mr Crawford's chairmanship took over many weeks in the last Parliament. I think that it's the crux of this issue. Had our amendment being selected today by the PO, I'd have talked to that in more depth. It just seems to me that any normal functioning country, and we are not that at the moment, I fully grant you that, but any normal functioning country looks closely at the mechanisms and constantly refines them, yes of course, into how Governments in the different parts of this the UK can work on that. It's not about vetoes, it's about dispute resolution, and that is the experience of international affairs. The Canadian example is clear on that in relation to the role of the provinces and the way in which the federal structure ultimately decides policy. That is the bit that I wish Government would take away from this debate today in the area of intergovernmental machinery. The last point that I want to make is where we are in terms of the Brexit negotiations and why that matters. It's because of those businesses who seek that clarity that no longer exists and never has. No matter how long this goes on and no matter what happens as to whether and what the meaningful vote is in the House of Commons later this year, the job of Government here in Scotland in the context of this trade policy is to make sure that Scottish business has as much clarity as it has, which certainly doesn't exist at this time. That concludes the opening speeches and we now move to the open debate. Contributions of six minutes please were very pushed for time. I give due warning that I may have to cut time off later speakers. I call Bruce Crawford to be followed by Murdo Fraser. In just six short months against her will, Scotland will in all likelihood be leaving the European Union. My constituency of Stirling voted by over two thirds to remain in the European Union. People right across my constituency face being greatly affected by the economic uncertainty and hardship that anything but full access to the single market and customs union will bring. As we all know, analysis by both the Scottish Government and the UK Governments agree and that in itself is unusual that in any circumstances exiting the EU will have a negative impact on the Scotland's economy. In the face of this evidence and the rhetoric from the Prime Minister is any wonder that the notion of a no deal exit from the EU is causing huge concern. The current political impasse could easily lead us to feel deeply pessimistic about Scotland's future relationship with the rest of the world. I concede to having moments of great despondency over the future that we face. No, not for myself but for my children and my grandchildren. Just how do I go about explaining to my grandchildren when they're old enough to comprehend why the UK chose to turn its back on an organisation brought into being? To avoid future conflict and war in Europe. At a few of those moments of despondency during the finance and constitution committee to visit to Brussels last week, I want to move on from that shortly. Particularly so when some Bavarian elected members we met were also deeply concerned and equally emotional about the prospects of the UK leaving the EU. It was a tiny reminder for me that there are many millions of people across the European Union who will feel a deep sense of loss if the UK departs just as keenly as many of us will. But it was also during the same visit that I came to realise that it's time for me to face up to the potential reality of leaving the EU. To do all I can to help to ensure that Scotland has a positive and constructive voice in helping to shape future trade deals. I think that we all need to begin to work as constructive as we can. We need to have a different dialogue to build trust and create a framework within these islands on how we will deal positively with matters of trade in future. I sincerely ask Opposition members to view the contribution of the Scottish Government's discussion paper published over the summer on Scotland's role in future trading arrangements. The paper describes four models that enable substates to have a role in the development, negotiation and ratification of trading treaties, including international trade deals. Rightly, the Scottish Government has indicated no preference for one model, giving all parties an opportunity with an interest in this debate to discuss what is right for Scotland. Whatever your view is, it's time to begin a real debate on how Scotland can be best involved in giving us the tools to make better decisions for the Scottish economy. For my part, I learned a huge amount from the representatives of Germany, Switzerland and Norway in Canada during the committee's visit to Brussels about how to create more positive and sustainable working relationships. I'm sure that my colleagues who took part in the visit would testify to the same positive experience. Interestingly, in Canada, yes, the provinces are involved in international trade negotiations, but they have an opt-in process in Canada for the provinces there, which is a different prospect to any imposition. The most significant lesson for me was a common theme across all countries, with the sheer level of deep engagement of substates and regions in the development of a state government's position. It's clear that early and continual engagement and participation in the development of a state's position was a prerequisite to avoiding conflict and the need for the dispute resolution mechanisms that Tavish Scott rightly touched upon. Yes, that inevitably means investing more time in discussion and exploring the areas for potential consensus, but consensus, and in a great way forward, was the normal outcome, avoiding the need to be involved in time-consuming and costly dispute mechanisms or indeed court proceedings. The fact that the structures for seeking agreement were normally laid down in statute recognising the distinctive role and responsibilities of the state and substate have no doubt added to obtaining successful outcomes, but the imposition of the state's position on substates was glaringly missing from those arrangements. Such was the confidence and trust that was created through regular meetings and discussions that, in some cases, the substates were involved in the actual negotiations themselves, either leading or taking part as observers. Obviously, I passionately believe in Scotland being responsible for our own decisions as an independent country. Others will see devolution needing to be enhanced, giving Scotland a much greater role in trade arrangements while some will be content to accept the simple status quo. However, whatever the shape of Scotland's future constitutional arrangements are, we need to press the reset button on our relationship with the rest of the UK. We can begin that journey today by agreeing that it is time to engage in a positive debate about building a new landscape for future relations, to enable mutual respect and trust to be built, because that will be absolutely crucial for the future. We ought to future generations, my grandchildren and everybody else's grandchildren, to at least try. The starting point for this debate on trade is that we are in new territory as far as the negotiation of future trade deals is concerned. For more than 40 years as a member of the EU, we have had no capacity to negotiate separate trade deals as the UK. As we leave the EU, that new possibility comes into place. It gives far greater opportunity for the people of Scotland, for this Parliament, to be involved in the negotiation process than was ever the case, whilst we were members of the EU. The UK Government plans all future trade deals to go through extensive public consultation, including with the devolved Administrations, before they are needing approval from Parliament to be ratified. In case there is any doubt about that, that means that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government will have a say in the approach to negotiations throughout the consultation period and throughout the entire negotiation process. In saying that, it is important to stress that there are few distinct interests for Scotland, as opposed to the rest of the UK in trade policy. The interests of Scottish farmers in relation to international trade will be very similar to the interests of farmers in East Anglia. The interests of Scottish manufacturers will be the same as the manufacturers in other parts of the UK, such as the Midlands. The interests of exporters, whether of food and drink or anything else in Scotland, will be very similar to the interests of exporters in Wales or Northern Ireland. John Mason, I thank Mr Fraser for giving way. Will he accept that, although the interests within a sector might be quite similar, the size of sectors is quite different and a sector that is very important in Scotland is not so important in England? I am not sure that size matters, Mr Mason. What is more important is the fact that you have a Government that is aware of the importance of trade and is aware that there are sectoral interests reflected across the whole United Kingdom, regardless of the size that we have to have their interests protected. That is exactly the approach that the UK Government is going to take. It is also worth making the point that we have a closely aligned economy in Scotland with the rest of the UK and that the UK's domestic market accounts for 61 per cent of Scottish exports and nothing should be done that disrupts that internal marketplace. Different countries approach negotiations to trade in different ways, according to their constitutional arrangements. Bruce Crawford has just mentioned last week's visit to Brussels with the Finance and Constitution Committee. Members who met the Norway representatives heard that negotiations to trade is a matter for the Norwegian Government as part of EFTA. There is no direct regional input into that process, but the Norwegian Parliament has a vote on whether to ratify any trade agreement. We also heard from the German lander that, although they have a consultative role in trade policy, ultimately this is a federal matter, and it is a federal government in Germany that takes the final decisions. As Adam Tomkins has said, I need to make some progress. In terms of our devolution settlement in the UK, it is quite clear that this is a reserved matter, but that does not mean that there should not be consultation with the devolved Administrations. As the Minister of State for Trade Policy George Hollingbury said when he came to the Finance and Constitution Committee on 5 September, the UK Government is committed to engaging with the Scottish Government and it will listen to what both it and the other devolved authorities have to say about trade policy extremely seriously. His stated aim was, and I quote, so that we can shape our overall trade policy such that it reflects the interests of the devolved authorities. There are, of course, two ways in which the Scottish interests in future trade policy can be represented. First, we have Scottish members of Parliament in Westminster fully engaged in the process. They have a direct route into the UK Government, and ultimately it will be the Westminster Parliament that has to ratify any trade deal that is agreed. Secondly, as we have heard, there will be consultation with this Parliament and the Scottish Government in relation to trade policy. However, what is clear from the UK Government's approach is that, while there will be a consultative role for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government and with other devolved Administrations, what there will not be is a right of veto over trade policy, because that would not be in line with our constitutional settlement and would not be respecting the devolution process. Consultations should not stop at a Government or parliamentary level. We have to consider the interests of business, particularly those of exporters who want to see frictionless trade across the world. There is also the consumer interest, and there has been extensive engagement from Civic Scotland around the trade bill process. We should be wary of some of the scare stories that we have heard about international trade agreements. It is not the case, for example, that future trade arrangements are going to see us force-feeding our children chlorinated chicken, or selling off the NHS to the highest bidder amongst US corporate interests. Indeed, George Hollongabrieg was very specific on both those points when I put them to him at his recent visit to the Finance and Constitution Committee. UK trade policy is not going to allow either of those things to happen. I think that the minister would be taken more seriously on those issues, frankly, if he stopped the scaremongering and started looking at the opportunities from future trade, rather than scaling people, as he has been doing. The negotiation of international trade is a great opportunity for both the UK and Scottish economies. Giving any evidence to the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee on 10 September, James Withers, chief executive of Scotland Food and Drink said that trade outside the EU is a game-changing opportunity for international exports. Similar views have been expressed by the Scottish Whiskey Association at a whole range of other sectoral interests. Those are the views and the approaches that we should be championing in this Parliament and seeing international trade as a real benefit to be promoted. It is now more than 80 months since the Culture, Tourism and External Affairs Committee of the Parliament published a report on determining Scotland's future relationship with the European Union. What strikes me listening to the contributions today is how little progress has been made since our report warned about Scotland's vulnerability in post-Brexit trade policy. The committee explored future trading relationships as part of this inquiry, taking into consideration written evidence from more than 150 different organisations and individuals, as well as oral evidence from key stakeholders and expert witnesses. The committee recognised at a very early stage the need for Scotland to be involved in negotiating trade deals after the UK has left the EU. The report reached this unanimous conclusion and I quote, We recommend that a means is found to involve the Scottish Government in bilateral and quadrilateral discussions on future trade deals. It goes on to suggest a joint ministerial committee on international trade, although since then it has become clear that the current GMC setup has not respected the devolved administrations and that to be effective and inter-governmental committee on trade must treat as an equal partner within the UK. The committee spent time examining the Canadian approach where every single province sat round the table to negotiate the CETA agreement with the EU. We heard from Christos Ciros, the agent general of the Quebec Government's office in London, who told us that even before the negotiations with the EU on CETA, there has been an on-going permanent mechanism called sea commerce, Canada commerce that brings together officials from the various provinces on the issues that are being negotiated by Canada. We also studied the situation in Belgium, where regional parliaments conclude international treaties in relation to their exclusive devolved competences, and Flanders is a partner to more than 600 treaties in agreement. The UK Government takes the opposite approach to a centralised approach, and earlier this year the British Chambers of Commerce, the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute for Export and International Trade called for the involvement of the devolved administrations and legislatures throughout the Brexit process, including their full involvement in the process of mandate preparation, oversight and critically approval of trade deals. That view is shared by the 27 organisations that make up the Trade Justice Scotland coalition, and in a briefing for today's debate they say that, as it stands, the UK trade bill contains nothing that would give the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament the right to scrutinise or amend trade deals. In other words, Scotland will have no role in the ratification of those deals, as things stand. The UK Government has argued that there is no need. It insists that the preferential trading agreements that the EU has negotiated with 63rd party countries will remain after Brexit. That position is either extremely naive, arrogant or deeply mendacious. Expert trade witnesses who appeared before the European Committee all that time ago told us that the rollover of existing trading relationships was by no means certain. Dr Mattis Margulis of the University of Stirling, for example, emphasised that what we are talking about in the short to medium term is a renegotiation of the market access that the UK currently enjoys, not additional trade deals. He thought that the process would take years if not decades just for the UK to achieve the market access that it currently enjoys. Two years on from those evidence sessions, our expert trade witnesses have been proven correct. Earlier this month, in response to a freedom of information request, the UK Government confirmed that, even at this late stage, it has no clear agreement to roll over any deals that third countries currently enjoy with the EU and, crucially, no set date for asking those countries whether they are willing to do so. We face a complete chaos even if a bad deal is clobbered together at the last minute. The clock is ticking, Presiding Officer. It's ticking for Scotland's exports to the EU and around the world. It's ticking for our NHS, which could be served up to private medical companies in a free trade deal with the US. You don't know what you've got to its gone, Presiding Officer, and as others have pointed out, the European Parliament does offer some protection against the most exploitative of trade deals. For example, the Parliament currently must sign off trade deals negotiated by the EU commission and they have a robust scrutiny whereby individual MEPs are able to look at confidential trade documents that potentially impact on their constituents. During the TTIP negotiations with the USA, 14 separate committees of the European Parliament scrutinised in detail the proposed deal and, as a result of this forensic scrutiny, TTIP was shelved. Who will perform that forensic scrutiny after Brexit without the protection of Europe and the European Parliament in particular? Who can we trust? The Scottish Social Attitude Survey published this year found that 61 per cent of people in Scotland trust the Scottish Government to work in Scotland's best interest compared to 20 per cent for the UK Government. That is why it is absolutely crucial that this Parliament, every single member of it, gets the chance to scrutinise future trade deals and that the Scottish Government, which represents us, gets the chance to scrutinise the impact of those future trade deals on the citizens of Scotland. We are elected to protect our constituents and that includes protecting them against secret international deals that could destroy their livelihoods, their public services and even their health. Pauline McNeill, to be followed by Stuart McMillan. We are six months from the Brexit deadline of March next year and we are not that much clearer about the manner of how the UK will leave the European Union nor do we have a detailed model for trade policy to replace the structures of the European Union. The checkers deal appears dead in the water. No matter what I think of it, the concluding summit in Salisbury last week, Donald Tusk said, bluntly, that the economic aspect of May's checkers blueprint for Brexit will not work. We are only now beginning to realise the full range of implications of leaving the European Union and I have to see in the main it looks bleak to me. Trade arrangements, of course, are at the heart of any deal, the rules and agreements for business to operate across the world and they have major implications for domestic policy and it is probably a central issue for this Parliament. The trade bill, as it currently stands, is unacceptable in its current form and it should be unacceptable to most Democrats. The extensive use of ministerial power without justification leaves it an undemocratic piece of legislation and is certainly not transparent, subject only to minimal scrutiny. We are asked to respect the result of the referendum but I cannot respect the way in which the UK Government has chosen so far to take us out of Europe. There must be respect on all sides. The Brexit plan must give clarity and transparency to businesses but it must also be transparent to elected members who are expected to scrutinise it on behalf of the general public who we represent. This bill is set to replace all the EU's existing trade agreements. I believe that there must be dialogue with all the devolved Administrations. It is a new trade policy arrangement and it will impact on all of the Parliament. I believe that it would be against the interests of a United Kingdom which I believe in not to properly involve and include the nations and regions and assembly across this United Kingdom. For that reason, I want to address the Tory motion, which I think is way off the mark. It asks for this Parliament to respect trade and international issues that are reserved but yet the UK Government did not respect the previous debate that we had about the withdrawal bill and the right for this Parliament to have sovereignty over its devolved powers. There is nothing in the motion that says that the Scottish Parliament should have a say even in what should be distinctly Scottish interests that I thought we might even agree on but it concerns me deeply. I certainly would not be arguing for a veto but I think that it is a totally undermining the devolution settlement and the United Kingdom. If the Tories do not recognise that in the new arrangements it is really important to redefine what we mean being part of a United Kingdom and give this Parliament its say in the creation of the new trade agreements, without that it is very difficult to respect the outcome of a referendum where we have had virtually no say in the construction of these new arrangements. I think that it is very hard for ordinary people to follow how this is playing out. According to The Times this week, Philip Hammond and Greg Clark called for businesses to be given more help to adapt to the new system of immigration. They argued against a cliff edge and rightly so, I think that that is the right argument to make, but they have lost the argument that it would appear that they are not backed by other remainers in the Cabinet and they have simply stopped speaking up for many businesses who are deeply concerned about a new immigration policy which does not address their needs. It is no secret that Scotland has a rapidly aging population and we have many industries which rely on a lower set of skills. The pensioner population is expected to rise by 20 per cent over the next 25 years and that is in marked contrast to the working population. There are differential characteristics of the Scottish nation, which are not the same as the rest of the United Kingdom. That must be addressed in any future arrangement. Last week, the Home Office commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee report, which said that Scotland's economic situation is not sufficiently different to the rest of the UK to justify a different policy. That is simply not true. The proposals in the report suggest that blocking almost all workers coming to the UK with a new immigration system focused on attracting highly skilled staff. Matthew Fell, CBI UK policy director, said that the plans outlined for low-skill workers are inadequate and risk damaging labour shortages. That is an important point for our Tory colleagues to get across to the UK Government. Jane Gratton, British Chamber of Commerce, said that any sudden cut-off of the European economic area skills and labour would be concerning if not disastrous for firms across a wide range of regions and sectors. Brian Berry, chief executive of the Federation of Master Builders, criticised the ideas, suggesting that they could devastate tens of thousands of small construction firms that rely on labourers from the EU. There is a long way to go before a new immigration system is fit for purpose and fit for our own country. In my final 30 seconds, I just wanted to mention and declare my interest as a member of the GMB, that the trade unions have had an important role in questioning what industries might be under threat. The trade remedies authority that has been set up under the trade bill has to deal with crucial sectors for the Scottish and the British economy. Steel and aluminium are already subject to tariffs from the United States, and the same is true of ceramic and tableware, where high tariffs have already been announced. We need a close relationship with EU trade policy. It is clear that the United States will not give us preferential treatment. I am so sorry that there is not a second in hand. Scotland wants to be a constructive partner to the other nations of the UK and a constructive and fair trading partner to the countries around the world. The UK Government's approach so far must change. It seems to place the interests and involvement of the devolved nations on a par with sectoral interests. The UK Government has also talked about the trade deals that work for the whole of the UK, but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland could, in some negotiations, have very different interests from the rest of the UK. Those differences would be best addressed before reaching the negotiation table. The way that trade arrangements are developed in the UK cannot simply remain the same. The development, the conduct and also the content of future trade policy and agreements will therefore have important implications for Scotland, and the future trade agreements will almost certainly involve devolved issues. For those reasons that I have outlined, it is clear that the chamber needs to send the strongest message possible to the UK Government that there needs to be a guaranteed role in the development of trade agreements for the Scottish Government, but also this Parliament, which would benefit Scottish producers, exporters, consumers and also our constituents and our communities. It is also clear that the best future for Scotland and the UK is to remain in the European Union or at the very least in the single market and customs union, but we must do everything that we possibly can to protect Scotland's interests in future trade deals and in all possible outcomes. It is also clear that the Scottish Government still has significant concerns about some aspects of the UK trade bill, and it will continue to work to have the bill amended. I have already heard today some quotes from the UK Trade Minister, George Holland, when he took part in that session at the Finance and Constitution Committee, but he also spoke in the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, and in that committee he stated, We are absolutely clear that there should be deep and meaningful consultation with the Scottish Government and that we should be open to modifying our proposals on the basis of the information that we receive. I am absolutely committed to that. He also continued by saying that it seems to me that we will get much improved and much more deliverable free trade agreements if we can all agree on exactly what they should end up proposing and how we should negotiate them. The fine detail of what forum that mechanism will take is yet to be resolved, but I give the committee a political commitment that I believe that it is absolutely right that the devolved administrations should have a real input. Mr Hollinbury also stated that I am absolutely determined, as is the Secretary of State, that the consultations that we hold will be meaningful, wide and deep. We will take into account the interests of all interested parties, which certainly includes the devolved authorities. We are not yet set on exactly how we will involve the devolved authorities. That tells me a few different things. First of all, here is a UK minister who actually understands one aspect of this. It is not about a veto that we heard earlier on from Mr Tomkins, it is about having an agreement with the devolved administrations. I will read that point again just for Mr Tomkins' record. I do not know if he looked at this particular part of the official report. He said that if we can all agree on exactly what they should end up proposing and how we should negotiate them, that is not a veto. That is about two Governments working together to try to get the best possible outcome. I have never heard nor I would ever expect any Scottish Government minister to claim that everything that they propose to the UK Government should be listened to. However, a UK Government rife with internal division should attempt to work with the devolved administrations. The Scottish Government has been willing to negotiate, discuss and have meaningful dialogue with the UK Government for the last two years. As the minister stated earlier, the UK Government has talked a good game, but clearly, its actions have been somewhat different. I have heard a lot once again about the aspects of previous trade negotiations. I have also heard about the issue of the quality chicken, the selling-off of the NHS to the high-spidder, reduced food standards, power grab and other negative aspects of the situation that we face. Therefore, bearing in mind that we have had trade arrangements via the EU for the past 40 years, any future trade arrangements will clearly have an effect upon Scotland and our economy and devolved issues. Surely, a common sense approach would have been for the UK Government to genuinely work with the devolved administrations and parliaments to have a stronger negotiating position when it comes to future trade negotiations. The UK wrecking ball approach needs to stop, and a reboot of the intergovernmental arrangements, as Tavish Scott spoke about in his comments, needs to happen to build the trust and the common ground to take forward international trade discussions. If the UK Government does not, then our constituents, our communities and our economy will not be in a beneficial position. I call Gordon Lindhurst to follow by Angela Constance. On the key at Leith is a 19th century painting depicting the important role that the port once played as the main trading route in and out of Scotland. Including the exportation of bottles, £1 million a week from the Leith glassworks at its peak in 1770, according to figures that I've received. I've not either researched them nor was I around at the time to verify them. The picture is a hive of activity with ships being loaded and waiting to sail across the world. Indeed, until the building of the Kiel canal in 1895, there was regular direct trade for centuries between the Baltic Sea and Scotland, the Baltic coast and islands, including in Scottish herring, by one of my own ancestors. Fast forward to today. Leith may have dramatically changed, but the importance of building and maintaining trading relationships has not. Scotland now has a fantastic opportunity to play a key role in a more ambitious UK trade policy as we leave the EU. We are an outward looking country with a distinct culture, providing products and services desired around the globe. The beauty of the sort of open and free trade that the UK has always been in the driving seat for as a member of the EU, where our businesses get the chance to export and show off their products around the world. More than that, our consumers are offered a wider range of products at more competitive prices, where jobs can be created as a result of investment into this country. We look forward to much more of this in the coming years. On paper, of course, the EU negotiating position is formidable. 500 million citizens, one market. However, with 28 different member states having their own interests, negotiations can be made very cumbersome indeed. Just to ask the Canadian Government, which struggled on for seven long years before the EU eventually agreed to a deal that has now provisionally been in place for one year. Only for Italy's new government this summer to threaten not to ratify it, enough to bring the deal crashing down around all member states. Instead, Scotland's voice will be stronger as part of a more agile United Kingdom of closely aligned economies that can mould trading relationships around interests closer to home. I thank the member for giving way. While he argues that the UK might get a better trade deal, would he accept that there is at least a risk that the UK will get a poorer trade deal than the EU can manage? What we will have as a result of leaving the EU is the ability to have a more ambitious trade drive, and we have already made our intention clear. It will free us up to negotiate proper deals. Consultations are already underway, which give all Scots the chance to comment on what they want to see from proposed deals with the USA, Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific countries. Those are the sorts of opportunities that we have not had for some 40 years now as a result of being locked into the EU. Although the Scotland Act 1998 categorises international trade as a reserve matter, Scottish Government officials regularly engage with UK trade department officials. They can offer devolved expertise in a range of issues, and this can be valued by the UK Government and found valuable in its own positioning. It can be hugely important in light of the potential negotiations in front of us, with vast, untapped potential for broadening our horizons, not least because the IMF predicts 90 per cent of growth in the next 10 years will be outside the EU. There are significant gaps where the EU has failed to deliver free trade and investment deals. For example, the lack of a comprehensive trade deal with India with its 1.3 billion people and marketplace—not at the minute, please. I am seeking to make progress. Turning to India, its 1.3 billion marketplace with which the EU has failed to make a comprehensive deal is exemplified in some of the export statistics. Scottish exports to India sit at only £235 million, compared to exports to the small country of Luxembourg of £370 million. That tells us that there is much, much more to be done on the world stage. Negotiating trade and investment deals after Brexit could therefore be a game-changing opportunity for international exports, as the chief executive of Scotland food and drink has said recently. As well as looking to the future, more can be done now as the economy committee in this Parliament found recently. Internationalisation is one of the Government's four key priorities as set out in its 2015 economic strategy. The same report found that Scotland needs 5,000 more companies to start exporting before it can move into the OECD upper quartile. SDI's own evaluation of international activities noted improvement in Scotland's trade performance, but a shortage of exporting firms compared to other parts of the UK. Our committee reports summarised that, while the theory and principles of Scotland's trade and investment strategy are sound, it lacks government commitment and financial backing. In closing, the SNP might like to talk about constitutional minutiae, but it should instead concentrate on how Scotland can give that commitment to helping businesses to export while working with others to make us the great trading nation that we know we can be. The point has been made repeatedly throughout today's debate that trade agreements are not just about how many goods at what price. In today's world, trade agreements reach far and wide, they encroach on public policy and impact deeply on our day-to-day lives, cutting across both reserved and devolved. If we believe in inclusive growth that values fairness and competitiveness, recognising that growing an economy and addressing inequality are not mutually exclusive but two sides of the same coin, then the calls for an ethical, transparent and democratic framework to scrutinise and agree future trade agreements should be heeded and indeed are timely. If we believe in a modern participative democracy, now is the time to be clear about how the UK Government, the Scottish Government and other devolved administrations work meaningfully in partnership to pursue and protect our collective and individual interests. Like it or not, the world around us is changing, and the Scottish Government discussion paper is quite simply making the case that we need now to have better arrangements within the UK to pursue those interests. We all know what is reserved and what is devolved. It is indeed written in black and white. However, life, unlike the print on pages of a law book, life isn't two-dimensional. Making decisions isn't a two-dimensional process. What I know from experience is that two sets of ministers in two different Governments reading out a list of what is reserved and what is devolved doesn't get us very far and actually delivers nothing for citizens. In the real world, reserved and devolved powers interact with each other and sometimes in competing ways. Now that I have a simple solution to that conundrum, I will stick to the terms of today's debate. I was struck by the findings of the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee when they said in July of this year, that we are concerned that so much work still needs to be done 20 years on from the establishment of devolution in 1998. It is clear from the evidence to this inquiry that Whitehall operates on the basis of a structure and a culture which takes little account of the realities of devolution in the UK and that this is inimical to the principles of devolution and good governance of the UK. What that actually says to me is that it is in everyone's interest for Whitehall to get with the devolution programme and that the biggest barrier, as I see it, is that the UK Government still doesn't really get devolution and you need to understand devolution to respect it. I was not a member of the Finance and Constitution Committee when George Hallingbury, the UK's Minister of State for Trade Policy, gave evidence a few weeks ago. I did read his evidence with the interest and I found some of his language illuminating. As an aside, I was rather wickedly amused that Mr Hallingbury got Mr McKee and Mr Mackay mixed up as I thought that only happened to women. There were lots of warm words about the commitment to engage but precious little on the detail other than references that were made to current engagement at official level where Scottish Government officials share their views and expertise. I quote upstream, an interesting word. There were deep dives on technical matters. The role of Scotland's 59 MPs and territorial secretary of state was discussed as well but all of that is a given and it was a poor deflection from the need to change how we currently work. When Willie Coffey asked the minister to give an example of how a devolved administration had shaped policy, the answer from a civil servant was, I'm sure that we could find some such example without identifying one. What is needed, Presiding Officer, is a respectful and mature process where devolved administrations can be guaranteed a meaningful role in policy formation, negotiation, agreement and implementation. There are very clear arguments why this is in the interest of the UK as a whole as well of Scotland, respecting both what we have in common but also our different needs. We have heard from Joan McAlpine that the British and Scottish Chamber of Commerce, the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses, supported the involvement of devolved administrations in matters such as mandate preparation, oversight and approval. The minister has outlined today a desire to be a constructive partner and we need a structure, a system, whether that is an inter-governmental committee or other arrangement that enables different spheres of government to move on and to be able to work together on the substantive issues of the day as opposed to constantly fighting about processes. Presiding Officer, the issue of trust and integrity are of central importance too and it is utterly unbecoming of Theresa May who is, whether I like it or not and I don't like it, the Prime Minister of the entire UK. It is utterly despicable for her to be briefing against Scotland and the Scottish Government when she is in Europe. To conclude, there are many international examples to learn from but many of the countries that we seek to learn from have different arrangements and have different constitutional arrangements and quite often have written constitutions. What I am clear about is that, while we cannot carry pick or shift and lift carte blanche from other countries, we can certainly look and apply learning from others and adapt it to our own experience, guided by very clear principles and transparency. Presiding Officer, as we know, trade agreements are the rules that govern our economic relationships with the rest of the world. For over 40 years, those rules have been shaped by our place in Europe and for over 40 years, as a willing member state, we have ourselves shaped those rules in Europe. Exiting the European Union will inevitably change our relationship with the rest of Europe and the rest of the world. The extent of that change, however, remains unclear. Even now, with six months to go until exit day, no agreement has been reached on a Brexit deal or the rules that would then come to govern our relationship with the EU. As Jackie Baillie said, the Prime Minister's checkers deal is dead, the Cabinet has been in no open revolt and no deal is looking more and more likely. However, the Scottish Government motion today is not about the wisdom of leaving the EU or the options that will have to be decided upon. It is, I believe, about trying to build something constructive when it comes to international trade agreements and this surely is something on which we can all agree across the chamber. I welcome both the tone and the content of the motion. The intention of the UK Government is to negotiate a series of bilateral deals from March 2019 onwards, but until we know the nature of the UK's relationship with the EU going forward, we will not know the extent to which there can actually be an independent UK trade policy post Brexit, and we will not know the full impact it will have on the economy. The Scottish Government's publication on future UK trade arrangements sets out in detail the significance of trade to the UK and to Scotland. Paragraph 23 of the report spells out in sobering terms just what leaving the single market and customs union could mean. A WTO rule scenario leading to a loss of 8.5 per cent GDP in Scotland by 2030, a free trade agreement relationship leading to GDP being 6.1 per cent lower by 2030. For all the reasons of Brexit deal matters, we need to get it right, but we should also be prepared for all eventualities. Promising a transparent and inclusive independent trade policy back in July, the international trade secretary Liam Fox said, to develop and deliver a UK trade policy that benefits business workers and consumers across the whole of the UK, we need to reflect the needs and individual circumstances of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. For Labour, one of our six tests for any Brexit deal that the Government comes forward with is does it deliver for all the nations and regions of the UK. Like Pauline McNeill, I believe that we must apply that same test to any future trade agreements that we sign up to post Brexit. Currently, as we know, all of the UK's international trade deals are negotiated through the EU, but as the report points out, losing the EU's negotiating power, scrutiny and expertise will require a massive step change in the way the UK conducts its affairs in relation to international matters. I know that Jackie Baillie and others have said that that is a key challenge before all of us for decision makers, for trade negotiators, for regulators, for Governments and leaders across party lines. To achieve a massive step change while ensuring that any trade arrangements are transparent, inclusive and meet the needs of the nations and regions of the UK, Brexit is testing political conventions and orthodoxies in this country to destruction. It is time for new ways of thinking and new ways of working to emerge. A new mindset about how the Governments of these islands work together. It requires goodwill and co-operation. It challenges to learn from good practice elsewhere as well as introducing new and innovative practices of our own. In evidence to the Finance and Constitution Committee in April, Kathleen Walker Shaw of the GMB, and I declare I'm a member of the GMB, outlined concerns. She said about existing global and EU level trade agreements predominantly because of their lack of democracy, transparency and inclusiveness of stakeholders. We can better engage with stakeholders by giving our devolved parlance a meaningful say, by the UK Government accepting that devolved administrations are not their competitors or opponents but partners in an endeavour, the like of which none of us have ever had to engage with before. To do that, we need to have a formal structure, clear and binding agreements, mutual respect and understanding and parity of esteem. As Kathleen Walker Shaw also said, that means that the Scottish Parliament and other devolved administrations must have a formal and substantial say on why we are having any trade agreement, what its aims and objectives and scopes are and what its mandate is. As Bruce Crawford said earlier, the Finance and Constitution Committee members have been taking evidence when it comes to trade, and I agree with him that it has been useful for us to hear the experience of officials and representatives of different countries. What struck me is that other countries, especially those with federal or devolved structures, deliver complex trade deals that are acceptable to their nations and regions when they have a robust agreed process underpinned by a genuine spirit of co-operation. That could mean central government and devolved government agreeing a common negotiation position before entering formal trade talks. That could mean observer status for devolved administrations. That could even mean proper recognition for local government as a sphere of government, not just a tier with a significant interest in our future trading relationships. There are no easy answers. What works well in one agreement with one country will not necessarily work well with others, and I know that members have said that. However, surely a new framework of co-operation and understanding is a sound and legitimate basis on which to proceed. Governments and devolved administrations will not always get everything that they want. Kathleen Walker Shaw again pointed out in relation to the Canadian provinces. I know that whether the provinces were able to get where they wanted to be on CETA is an open question. A lot of compromises were made. There is no perfect model. However, even if we do not always get what we want, let us put in place the framework that allows us to try. Let us make a complex process more transparent, more inclusive and let us make sure that it reflects the needs of our economy. We are entering into uncharted and turbulent waters. I hope that the UK Government responds positively to the motion table by the Scottish Government. John Mason, to be followed by Rachel Hamilton. I have become increasingly pessimistic as I prepared for this speech and looked through the discussion paper, which goes through various scenarios, but given the mood music from Westminster, it is not a very hopeful picture. To start with some general comments, I certainly do feel that I can trust the European Union more than I can trust the UK. The EU has ideals but it can also be very pragmatic, while Westminster does not seem to have very much in the way of ideals nor does it seem to be living in the real practical world. The EU has negotiating power, scrutiny, expertise and the fear is that the UK has none of those. The UK has been behaving like a spoiled brat. The checkers agreement was meant to be an opening offer for negotiations, not to take it or leave it final offer. It should have come much earlier in the process. There is probably a majority in the House of Commons for a soft Brexit, keeping us in the single market and the customs union, but it seems that both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn are putting their parties before the country rather than standing up to the ardent Brexiteers in both parties. Labour seems to be saying that we need a federal system. I seem to remember that Gordon Brown said that quite a while ago, but that would require a written constitution for the whole of the UK. Can we really expect that anytime soon, even if Labour were to win a Westminster election? However, a federal system could be an improvement, as it would make it much clearer who had the power to do what, whereas devolution always leaves the real power at the centre. I have to say also that part of me does feel sorry for Theresa May. She just cannot possibly square all the circles that she finds herself in. On the discussion paper itself, I thought that there was a lot of good material. In the introduction in page 10, paragraph 1011, it makes the very useful point of how much we need to increase trade with other countries to compensate if we lose trade with the EU. For example, we would need to triple services trade with China, but that would still not equal one-fifth of the UK's current services exports to the single market. In chapter 1, it talks about some of the key differences between Scotland and the UK as far as trade is concerned. On page 17, chapter 3 makes the point that food and drink is much more important to Scotland, and the fear has to be that UK negotiators will be less concerned about sectors that are relatively important to Scotland but relatively unimportant to the UK. That was the point that I was trying to make earlier to Murdo Fraser. On page 18, tables 2 and 3, paragraph 36 talks about how 92,000 tonnes of salmon worth £600 million are exported from the UK each year, and 99 per cent of that is from Scotland. How seriously will the UK negotiators take that very important sector? On page 19, paragraph 38 talks about the differences between the service sectors, where, for example, if you look at professional, scientific, technical and real estate, they are much more important relatively to Scotland at 45 per cent of our service sector, whereas they are only 30 per cent of the UK's. So the fear has to be that when negotiations take place with the EU or with other countries, if there are no checks on the UK negotiators, they will inevitably do what they think is best for the biggest part, that is England and potentially the south-east of England, whereas Northern Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, Cumbria, let alone Scotland will scarcely be on the radar. That chapter concludes by looking at imports and argues that global production chains can mean products and their components crossing multiple barret borders, so tariffs can become burdensome for both producers and consumers. However, I do accept that there is a challenge in getting a right balance in this. Under EU regulation, it seems that we have been largely unable to favour local suppliers over cheaper imports, and many of us have not always been comfortable with that. Fair trade, for example, has been allowed, and that has effectively enabled Scottish, UK and EU consumers to choose to pay a premium to ensure farmers and others in the developing world get paid a decent wage. There, I would specifically disagree with what Adam Tomkins was arguing, because sometimes free trade drives down wages in the developing world. This model, for example, like fair trade, is a model that I would like to see developed so that not only individuals but a local authority or a whole country can choose to only allow imports that meet certain human rights or perhaps animal welfare standards. The hope would be that such possibilities could be built into future trade agreements even better than the EU has managed, and that is what the Conservatives seem to be arguing. But the fear has to be that the UK will be smaller and weaker than the EU and will fail even to achieve the present standards. I do thank the Trade Justice Scotland Coalition for their briefing. I certainly agree with a number of the principles laid out there, for example that trade should be based on ethical principles. However, I would just caution against being too idealistic and cutting off our noses despite our faces. I fear that if we only dealt with countries and companies which were above reproach, we would not be doing very much trade at all. Again, there has to be a reasonable balance. Finally, in the report in paragraph 56, it talks about the length of time for trade deals. The quickest that the EU has managed is three years, so the question is how long will the UK take. In conclusion, the ball is very much in the UK Government's court. It has taken far too long to get to where we are, but it must be willing to negotiate not just to make demands of the EU as we would expect from a colonial power. Finally, I would appear to the London leaderships of the Tories to please consider what is best for the country, not just who will win the next election. I thank you both for having your speeches cut to five minutes each to allow the debate to go on properly. For more than 40 years, the negotiation of trade agreements has been the exclusive competence of the EU. We know that when we exit the EU, we will have far more involvement in our future UK trade agreements than we would currently. As my colleagues have mentioned, our amendment seeks to amend the motion to highlight the significance of co-operation between all parts of the UK as we move forward with Brexit. The UK Government has repeatedly committed to working closely with Scotland to deliver a future trade policy, which works for the whole of the United Kingdom. The SNP continued to sound aggrieved about this and will not work collaboratively with the UK Government to help to forge those future trade deals in order to reach the best outcome for Scotland and the rest of the UK. Our amendment is unequivocal. We are calling on all parliaments, assemblies and Governments in the UK to ensure that the UK's withdrawal from the EU is delivered compatibly with the UK's defolution arrangements, respecting both those that are devolved and reserved. I will take a short intervention, if you do not mind. Joe McAlpine says that the UK Government is so focused on securing trade deals. Why hasn't the UK Government set a date for agreeing the roll-over of current preferential trade agreements that the EU has negotiated on the UK's behalf? I thank Joe McAlpine for that intervention. What we need to focus on here is the engagement process of the consultation and the process that takes us forward with the free-take trade agreements that involves Scotland and the other devolved administrations. Any future trade deal will have massive potential for Scotland, we believe. The Fraser Valander Institute has already stated that Brexit will encourage companies to consider trade on a much more international scale and over a longer timeframe. The opportunity to take Scotland global and showcase our products abroad could be positive for our economy. At the moment, Scotland exports £370 million to Luxembourg, but just £235 million to India, and we trade 80 per cent more with Ireland than we do with China. Only three of the top countries in the world by size of population appear in the top 20 of Scotland's exports. I see that Mike Russell is putting his hands in his head. I think that there is huge potential and clearly that Mike Russell cannot see this. Going forward with Brexit, we have the chance to change this, and I just wish that Mike Russell was slightly more optimistic for Scotland. Scotland punches well above its weight in producing many fine-quality products. For example, take food and drink, mentioned by many others today. The IMF predicts that 90 per cent of growth in the next five years will be outside of the EU. James Withers has been quoted today of Scotland's food and drink. He said that this is a major opportunity. Martin Bell, Deputy Director of Trade at the Scottish Whiskey Association, welcomed Scotland's future trade possibilities. He said that, and I quote, the Scottish whisky industry welcomes the opportunity to share our priorities for future UK trade negotiations with these key trading partners. Many Scottish companies do not currently export internationally due to perhaps a lack of finance, awareness of opportunities and international savvy. That is despite many companies trading with England and other parts of the UK that already require packaging and logistics. Shankar Singram, director of the international trade and competition unit at Free Trade Think Tank, the Institute of Economic Affairs, said that the UK's narrower range of offensive interests made it more likely to succeed where the EU had failed to negotiate access for Scotch in growth markets. I'm sorry, I'm limited time. My time's been cut. I'm sorry, Mr McKee. I believe that both the Scottish and UK Governments have a vital role to play in ensuring that companies have the necessary tools to promote their products for export. Their role of government is therefore not only to provide financial support but also to increase awareness of that support that's already available, as well as providing easily accessible advice on internationalisation. The UK Governments made it clear that, as we leave the EU, our high standards for consumers, employees and the environment, and in particular animal welfare, will be maintained. Healthcare and food standards will not be compromised in future trade deals. We've heard George Hollenbury being quoted today, but he said that the UK is absolutely clear that we will not be dropping our phyto sanitary or food standards. Those are things that will not be negotiating away in freed trade deals. Let me be clear, Presiding Officer. Mr Hollenbury went on to say that the UK will not be signing agreements that allow the national health service to be challenged by foreign investors. Similarly, any food issues can be dealt with in such agreements and we have made clear commitments about how we will deal with such issues. To conclude, Presiding Officer, we must never forget that Scotland's export is nearly four times as much to the UK as it does to the EU. A fact that members sitting on the other side of the chamber show complete disregard too. Thank you. No, sorry, I must conclude. I call Willie Coffey and then we move to closing speeches. Mr Coffey, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. When I visited Brussels last week with colleagues from the finance committee, the one thing that I learned from a visit was that our colleagues in Europe, whether it was the German lender or the Swiss cantons, embraced a process where their federal governments fully involved all their devolved administrations and only proceeded in matters when agreement was reached. The lender themselves have full responsibility for education and cultural policy and the federal government has to get consent from the lender in certain matters, otherwise they cannot proceed. We met representatives from three of the lender, from Baffaria, the biggest, from Turingia, one of the smallest, and from Brandenburg in the former East Germany. Despite the clear differences in size and scale and the challenges that were faced by Germany when the East came into the EU overnight in 1990, the common thread that holds it all together was their basic law and the lindow agreement. That is, if international treaties contain any provisions that affect state competencies, then the federal government has to obtain the consent of the lender. And in return, the lender can actually conclude treaties with foreign states with the consent of the federal government. That system has been in place for many years now and it has served Germany particularly well. I can remember the surprise in the Swiss ambassador to the EU, Mr Brooker's face, when we asked him how disputes were resolved and both he and his colleagues looked at one another and said, we don't have any, because they engage in detailed discussion with colleagues and all interested parties, including holding public referenda from time to time. The Swiss canterns all retain a high degree of autonomy. They enjoy fiscal autonomy, have their own constitutions and control everything that is not specifically reserved to the federation, for example, healthcare, education and domestic security. The division of responsibility between the canterns and the federal state is respected and it can't be overturned by central government interference. The point of all of this is that these countries work hard at getting agreement in advance and they benefit from it as a result by avoiding disputes and talk about vetoes. Contrast this approach with the position here in Scotland. Our government, our parliament and citizens are not to be part of the process. No real engagement or participation, no scrutiny and we are to have no right to reject any proposal that might cut across our own responsibilities. We asked Mr Hollingberry, the trade minister, if his government was planning to include anyone from the devolved administrations on his new trade remedies authority that will try to resolve issues that may arise. The answer was basically no. We could have the situation where this body is dealing with issues that clearly cut across the devolved powers of all of the parliaments and assemblies, yet there may well be no one serving on the authority with any knowledge of the devolved powers at all. Any trade agreements must surely be supported by all of the devolved administrations too and not simply be foisted on us. Colleagues have described some of the possible scenarios that could happen in relation to our prized Scottish produce, such as Scottish beef and salmon, not to mention whisky, and even one of my local products in here is the wonderful deloc cheese, which enjoys PGI, our predicted geographical indication status, the strength of the European Union in protecting our PGI products and even our NHS should not be underestimated. Any trade deal that the UK enters into must never diminish or trade away the protected status of our brands simply to get any deal that it seeks. Scotland must have a clear role to play in the process and the UK Government, rather than opposing it at every step of the way, should rethink their position and embrace an approach that fully involves the devolved administrations. They have to trust us and we have to trust them in order to get the best deal all around. I think that that was really the point that Bruce Crawford was making earlier in his speech. That will only come about if the UK agrees to the same level of involvement for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that we see across Europe, which was explained and illustrated to us so graphically last week while we were in Brussels. The UK Government seems to want to be the boss here and where to take whatever they want to dish out because trade is reserved and that's that. That arrogance flies in the face of the approach that's taken in Europe that I've just described. It's a recipe for another disaster, as if we needed one on top of the Brexit chaos that we're currently in. Those in charge of the UK really need to move into the 21st century and stop behaving like colonial governors that they once were. Surely we can move forward and embrace some of the modern thinking that we've experienced in Europe last week to make sure that trade agreements are in all of our nation's best interests. I move to closing speeches. I call James Kelly to close for Labour six minutes, please, Mr Kelly. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I think that in terms of this afternoon's debate, there have been three important themes as far as I'm concerned. Trade, the role of devolved institutions and dispute resolution. At the outset, the importance of trade and our trade in relationship with the EU remains absolutely critical, even post-Brexit. We trade £12 billion to the rest of the EU and the disaster of Brexit, the impact of that, has got real drastic consequences for the country. How Adam Tomkins can talk about the importance of economic growth and support economic growth when the prospect of a no-deal Brexit will mean that we don't have consistent rules and regulations and policies with the rest of the EU. That will undermine some of that £12 billion trading bloc and therefore it will cut economic growth and that will affect under the new budget arrangements. That will affect the tax coming into the country and ultimately result in public spending cuts. Jackie Baillie was right to point out that the Tories are in tatters over that. They seem to have spent most of the time since June 2016 trying to put together an agreement that will bring together the Tory party without any respect to what the rest of the 27 EU countries think. I am then surprised when the EU does not agree with its first cut of it. Pauline McNeill was right to point out that the way that it is drafted currently, the powers are restrictive in terms of the involvement of devolved institutions and therefore you could end up with a lack of scrutiny around trade deals. The deal has been done behind closed doors and that is not good for the overall prospect of the deals and it is not good for the involvement of devolved institutions. What is required, as Neil Bibby pointed out, are transparent and inclusive arrangements for proper and robust trade deals that will make a contribution to the Scottish and UK economies. In terms of the role of devolved institutions, Patrick Harvie was right to emphasise the importance of a proper process, one that sets out clear rules and mechanisms. In that, it is important that devolved institutions have the ability to negotiate variations from the UK trade deals, where they are appropriate for public institutions in Scotland and other devolved institutions. If you take the living wage as an example, there are over 400,000 people in Scotland who have not paid the real living wage. In a previous Parliament, I attempted to mandate that public bodies would have to pay the living wage and it was voted down by the SNP on the basis that I felt it was against EU law. Under new trade arrangements post Brexit, there will be the opportunity to fix that problem if the ability is built in there for devolved institutions to derogate on issues such as the living wage, where the trade agreement affects public bodies. That is an important aspect. The other point that came out in the debate was how to resolve disputes. I thought that Tavish Scott made some vital points on that. I regret the fact that the Lib Dems were not able to put forward their motion. I think that the way forward is not for the House of Commons or the Scottish Parliament to have the power of beetle. In that regard, I thought that Bruce Crawford made a really substantive contribution, reflecting on the finance and constitution committees that were tripped to Brussels last week. One of the lessons that a number of members reflected is that this issue of intergovernmental relations has been long-standing. It is not just something that has happened because of Brexit. James Kelly? Clearly, the importance of intergovernmental relations is absolutely vital. As I was going on to say, what we learned from last week's trip to Brussels is the importance of co-operation, the importance of clear rules and a mechanism of discussions at an early stage, and ultimately about all parties seeking to try and reach a consensus on the agreement, even if they start out in a place of disagreement. From that point of view, there is a lesson for all of us. We cannot have a situation where the UK Government is simply shouting down the Scottish Government, trying to put the Scottish Government in its place. Equally, the Scottish Government needs to move on to a footing where it is prepared to work and make an arrangement if it is feasible with the UK Government. I think that that is what has got to be reflected on the way forward, Presiding Officer, as clear rules, agreement and seeking consensus. Closed, we can serve to six minutes, Mr Lockhart. We have heard a number of concerns expressed by members across the chamber this afternoon about the future prospects for Scotland's trade. I rarely find myself to be on the optimistic side of a debate, but I would like to address some of the concerns raised by having a look at Scotland's current trading position. 61 per cent of our trade is with the rest of the UK, 17 per cent is with the EU single market. In fact, the value of our exports to the EU has declined since 2010, meanwhile our exports to the rest of the world have been increasing in recent years and now represent 23 per cent of our trade. Given that 90 per cent of the future world economic growth in the next 10 years is going to be outside of Europe, it is vital that we help Scottish business gain further access to those fast-growing markets. To explore how we can take advantage of those trading opportunities, I want to briefly deal with continuity of trading arrangements before moving on to future trading agreements. At the moment, more than 5 per cent of our total trade is governed by existing EU free trade agreements with third countries. One of the key objectives of the UK trade bill is therefore to roll over those existing EU deals as smoothly and as quickly as possible. To address some of the concerns that James Kelly raised, the UK Minister for Trade Policy George Hollingbury made it clear in his evidence to the Finance and Constitution Committee that we must ensure that those trade agreements continue to be in place on the day we leave the EU. The intention is to alter those trading arrangements as little as possible and continuity is all about giving certainty to business, consumers and our trading partners. Speed will be of the essence. My colleagues have made it clear today that the proposals contained in the SNP's trade paper would undermine those objectives. Requiring the agreement of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament for the rollover of existing EU trade deals is not only incompatible with the devolution settlement but it would delay the process. It would defeat the commercial necessity for continuity, certainty and speed in rolling over those existing trade deals. Does the member expect that the UK Government is going to roll those deals over if we are heading towards an audio Brexit? The UK will replace the EU with the third countries using the existing trade agreements in place, so that would be the way that would work. I now want to turn to how future trading agreements will be negotiated, agreed and implemented. A number of members, including Gordon Lindhurst, Rachel Hamilton highlighted that withdrawing from the EU will give us the opportunity to shape our own trade opportunities and expand our trade with some of the fastest growing economies in the world, including China and India. Our current exports to these markets are marginal. For example, less than 2 per cent of our exports go to China and less than 1 per cent go to India. However, when it comes to the question of how Scotland should approach future free trade agreements, the countless policy papers issued by the SNP have painted a confusing picture. On the one hand, in the trade paper that we are debating today, the SNP argues that the specific needs of Scotland's economy must be fully reflected in future deals negotiated by the UK Government. For this reason, it is proposing a veto at every stage of the preparation, negotiation and ratification of any UK free trade agreement. On the other hand, the SNP's policy of a differentiated approach to Europe of remaining in the single market would hand significant powers over future trade agreements back to Brussels. That would mean that all future trade agreements for Scotland would have to reflect the widely conflicting interests of 27 other EU member states, with the specific needs of Scotland's economy being marginalised and diluted and with no veto rights for the Scottish Government or this Parliament. The SNP's position in relation to Scotland's future trading arrangements is contradictory, confusing and lacks credibility. Our approach is to get the best future trade deals for Scotland as an integral part of the UK economy. Murdoff Fraser made the point. I need to make progress. The needs of Scotland's key economic sectors are closely aligned with the rest of the UK. Whether it is financial services in Edinburgh and London, manufacturing in Glasgow in the Midlands or fisheries in the northeast and Cornwall, the needs of the Scottish economy are closely aligned. The best way to achieve that is for the Scottish Government to work closely with the UK Government to ensure that Scotland's interests are reflected in future deals. There is work to be done in this area, but the finance committee heard many examples of how Scotland's trading interests can be fully reflected in future UK wide deals. The Scotland office is actively involved in developing trade policy. Scotland's 59 MPs represent the interests of our trade policy in the UK Parliament, and there are monthly policy roundtables held at senior official levels to discuss trade policy. There is scope for consultation. There is scope for scrutiny and there is scope for amendments to future trade policy, but there should be no veto. Scotland's trading future can be positive. If the Scottish Government works together with the UK Government to enter new trade deals with fast-growing economies globally, but only in a manner that is compatible with the existing United Kingdoms devolution arrangements, I support the amendment in Adam Tomkin's name. Michael Russell will close with the Government, Cabinet Secretary, until decision time, please. I would have accepted the Green and Lib Den amendments had they been called, because they are very compatible with the consensual debate that we have had this afternoon. I am grateful to all members, apart from the members on the Tory benches, for understanding that the paper that we published, the Scotland's role in the development of future UK trade arrangements, was a consultative paper. It was designed to start the process of discussion, and I am very glad that that consultation has been successful, unlike my use of the microphone. It has been a positive debate in that regard, and I want to start with Bruce Crawford's contribution, because it was a very significant one and a number of members have mentioned it. He said that the normal approach, and that is what clearly the committee heard in Brussels, would be to seek consensus and to have robust formal structures to rely on. The issue of formal structures was raised in this debate, I think, in every side of the chamber, by Jackie Baillie, by Tavish Scott, by Neil Bibby and by a range of others. Of course, the Taoiseach addressed the issue of formal structures underpinning trust very successfully at the British Irish Council. I have quoted him here before. When he talked about the way that trust works within the EU, it works because there are formal structures that can be relied on. All that this paper seeks to achieve is a normal approach to modern trade arrangements. A number of members have made that point as well. Trade arrangements have changed in 40 or 50 years. It is important that citizens are consulted and the expectations of citizens in terms of high environmental standards, high welfare standards are reflected in trade agreements, a point that Patrick Harvie made well in his opening remarks. The only people who have stood against normality in this debate are the Conservatives. They have seen it as unacceptable to have any involvement of the type that is in the paper. Indeed, they think that it is unacceptable even to discuss it. It is, you might call it, an eat your cereal approach. They have given up on debating what needs to change. It is really fascinating what we heard in the Tories this afternoon. I am going to talk about that because it shows what is now happening in the Brexit debate. The position that the Tories are taking with regard to the single market is abnormal even in their own history. Let me quote a Lancaster House speech, not the Lancaster House speech, but a Lancaster House speech of April 18, 1988. Just think the speech goes, the person delivering it said, for a moment what a prospect that is, a single market without barriers, visible or invisible, giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the world's wealthiest and most prosperous people, bigger than Japan, bigger than the United States. On your doorstep and with a channel tunnel to give you perfect access to it, it is not a dream, it is not a vision, it is not some bureaucrat's plan, it is for real. That was Margaret Thatcher in 1988. That is the first and only time that I should ever quote her with approval in this chamber, but it does show that the Tories have turned their back not just on the modern world, they have turned their back on their own recent history, they have turned their back on the Iron Lady and they have turned their back also even on their own positions that they held a matter of weeks or months ago that group think has taken over in the Tory party. In 28 June 2016, Adam Tomkins told this chamber, leave should mean that we remain in the EU single market. That was Adam Tomkins' view several days after the referendum, but as Brexit now sinks into the swamp along with the Prime Minister, these are the last defenders of Brexit, these are the born again Brexiteers. Adam Tomkins told us today, trying to carry favour with the Brexiteers, that he did think about voting for Brexit. If you read the official report, that's what he said. He wants to, in his own words, take back control of our international trading links. The obvious question is asked, who would that be? On what terms? I have to say that another member, Gordon Lindhurst, who wouldn't take an intervention on this point, then argued that this was India. Let's look just for a second at India, the reality of the Indian trade agreement with the EU, which has not been able to be finalised for two reasons. One is because India wants to have continued tariffs in Scotch whisky, and the second reason is that the UK would not accept demands for access and migration, a point that was made by the Indian ambassador to the UK when he said that they weren't in a rush to do the deal. That's the reality. This is a chimera that all these countries are waiting to do a deal. Dean Lockhart was David Cameron's favourite Tory candidate some time ago. There he is. He's arguing now that we are about to hand back to Brussels control. That comes from a man who voted to remain, who campaigned to remain. We are talking about collaborative work by sovereign states. What we're actually having is knee-jerk Brexiteers on the Tory benches. It is utterly shocking because it is very damaging to Scotland and to Scottish interests. What is taking place? Will people of Scotland looking round know that they cannot look to the Conservatives to defend them because they have sold the Brexit pass completely? The reality is that they are doing so also by misrepresenting the issues. There is no veto in this paper. There is consultation. There is no ban on consensus. There is a requirement for consensus. Brexit preparations for business are going ahead apace. As Jackie Baillie pointed out in relation to the trade bill, legislative consent, which will be refused presently because of the sewer issue, should also be refused because there has been an unbending approach to listening to the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government on issues such as membership of the trade remedy authority. We have a serious paper for serious discussion. I am grateful to all the members in all the parties except the Conservatives who have taken that point and who wish to support that debate. I think that we now see what Brexit has done to the Scottish Conservatives. The Conservatives dropped the word Scottish. They are simply Conservatives defending the Conservative status quo, defending the most incompetent, the most ruinous, the most disastrous Government that any of us can remember. A Government that is now in its final days, one hopes, just let us hope, it does not drag the rest of us down with it. The Tories sneer at this but let them remind me of those words of Margaret Thatcher that I quoted. There was a time when trading was seen as important. Now nothing is important except the survival of the Conservative Party. Thank you very much. That concludes our debate on Scotland's role in the development of future UK trade arrangements. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 14085, in the name of Graham Day, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting out a revised business programme. Can I ask if any member objects and I call on Graham Day to move the motion? I move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. No one seems to object. Therefore, the question is that motion 14085 be agreed. Are we agreed? We are, thank you. We are going to turn to decision time. Just ensure that members have got their new cards inserted correctly. The first question is that amendment 14059.2, in the name of Adam Tomkins, which seeks to amend motion 14059, in the name of Ivan McKee, on Scotland's role in the development of future UK trade arrangements, be agreed? Are we all agreed? No. Or not agreed? We will move to a division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 14059.2, in the name of Adam Tomkins, is yes, 29, no, 84. There are no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The second question is that motion 14059, in the name of Ivan McKee, on Scotland's role in the development of future UK trade arrangements, be agreed? Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to our vote again and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 14059, in the name of Ivan McKee, is yes, 84, no, 0. There were 29 abstentions and the motion is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time. We will move on now to members' business, in the name of Stuart McMillan, on iHealth Week 2018. We will just take a few moments for the member and for ministers to change seats.