 Time is tight, so the next item of business is a debate on motion 8352, in the name of Michael Russell on Scotland and the EU-UK negotiations on EU exit. Can I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak buttons now? I repeat, time is tight. I call on Mike Russell to speak to move the motion minister 12 minutes, please. Presiding Officer, the fifth round of the phase 1 negotiations on EU exit concluded on 12 October. Today provides an opportunity to set out the Scottish Government's assessment of progress on the EU-UK negotiations, which have taken place to date. It also allows this Parliament to consider the process of EU withdrawal and to express its concerns about some recent developments. The context for so doing remains very clear and should be stated at the outset of every debate about Brexit in Scotland. Scotland did not vote for Brexit, and opinion polls indicate that Scotland would still not vote for Brexit. If it is likely that it would be rejected by an even wider margin. Scotland's best interests and the best interests of all who live and work here would be best served by remaining in the EU. That point was emphasised in the media yesterday, following analysis by the LSE on the economic consequences of Brexit. That presented some stark figures for Scotland, even from a so-called soft Brexit. Their calculations showed that over five years, Edinburgh would lose £3.2 billion from such a Brexit. Glasgow would lose £2.9 billion, but Aberdeen would lose £2.4 billion. Even my constituency of Argyll and Bute would lose out to the tune of £170 million, which, given the difficulties of the area, would be a very severe blow. However, if there was a no deal Brexit, the figures would go from dreadful to catastrophic. Glasgow would be down £5.4 billion, Edinburgh £5.5 billion, Argyll and Bute £350 million, and Aberdeen, the worst hit by percentage in the country, £3.8 billion. The economic, social and reputational damage of such an outcome would inflict would be excessive, unwarranted and unwanted. The first conclusion that the chamber needs to draw is that no deal is a no deal. It cannot and must not happen. It is foolish for the UK Government to use such a threat even as a negotiating tactic. Things are bad enough without that. Let us then look, Presiding Officer, at the state of the negotiations. There has been some small progress in the last few weeks. It is dependent. It appears on the Prime Minister, as she indicated in her Florence speech, at last being willing to show a modicum of flexibility. Though negotiations are about dialogue, they are not about speeches. However, considerable challenges remain for the UK, and the devolved Administrations face additional problems as a result of the UK's Government's failure to abide by the agreed terms of reference of the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations. Nonetheless, and I want to be as positive as I can today, I want to pay tribute to the attempts by the new First Secretary of the UK Government, Damian Greene, to improve that situation. I am also grateful to my colleague John Swinney for his involvement, and I am pleased to be able to tell the chamber that all the parties in this Parliament have been able to have constructive discussion about the withdrawal bill. I hope that such dialogue on matters of Brexit will continue. It is encouraging that most of us have been able to agree on the motion in front of us today. Although the Conservatives have not, it is useful that their amendment refers to the likelihood of amendment to the EU withdrawal bill, as the Secretary of State for Scotland did yesterday in his evidence to the Westminster Scottish Affairs Select Committee. On the matter of the withdrawal bill, I can also report that, at last week's reconvene JMC-EN meeting, some progress was made in agreeing general principles that should ensure the role of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Parliaments and Governments in any potential UK-wide frameworks. However, I want to be clear that the Scottish Government remains unable to recommend that the Scottish Parliament consents to the EU withdrawal bill that is currently drafted, and the same is true of the Welsh Government. Neither will be in a position to recommend consent until the bill is amended in keeping with the proposals that are now tabled at Westminster by Labour, Liberal, SNP, Plaid Cymru and Green MPs. Those amendments ensure that the devolved settlement is respected and not undermined. Let me now turn to the wider question of the negotiations between the UK and the EU. The first round began on 19 June, with the fifth round concluding on 12 October. Yet despite all the talking, last week the European Council did not agree that there had been sufficient progress to allow a move from exit discussions to consideration of transition and future relationship. Instead, the council called on the negotiators to make more progress on outstanding issues, including in relation to citizens' rights and the financial settlement. However, in a positive gesture, the EU 27 has empowered Michelle Barnier to make internal preparations for that second phase. The Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, David Davis, is always an optimist, asserted at the conclusion of the fifth round talks that we have come a long way. Even he could not avoid the fact that, in his own words, there is still work to be done. It is the work to be done that remains my concern. The clock is ticking. It is vital that there is certainty for both individuals and businesses now. Businesses are making planning decisions now for 2020 and beyond, and citizens of other EU member states need to plan their own futures. They will either leave the UK or choose not to locate here, based on the rights that they will have and the welcome that they receive. Mr Tomkins is grateful to the minister for giving way. Will he therefore, on the point of business confidence and certainty, welcome the announcement that the Prime Minister made in her Florence speech that it is the UK Government's intention to have a two-year transition or implementation period? I will be coming to the transition issue and I will be welcoming it in a way. It is, however, simply unacceptable. There is so much uncertainty surrounding the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in other EU countries after Brexit. It is disappointing that, in her open letter to EU citizens, the Prime Minister was still not able to give more clarity. The Scottish Government has repeatedly called for assurances that EU citizens will have their rights protected in the place that they have chosen to call their home. We have continually stressed that EU citizens and their families who make a vital contribution to Scotland and to our economy and demography and to our culture and society must be able to feel their at home here. We welcome, of course, the commitment by the Prime Minister to ensure that the system of applying for settled status will be streamlined and straightforward. We believe that settled status should be granted free of charge. The First Minister has made it clear that if a fee is imposed as a minimum, the Scottish Government will meet the cost for EU nationals working in our public services. However, there remain a number of key issues outstanding. Therefore, we urge the UK Government to reach agreement immediately with the EU 27. Let me now come to transition. Again, I am pleased that the Prime Minister recognised the need for a transition period in her Florence speech. Despite she and her ministers ruling it out on every possible occasion up until then, it is good that they recognised that was the wrong approach. At the very minimum, a substantial transition period is essential. To give people and businesses the certainty that they require to get on with their lives and work. However, we still need clarity from the UK Government on how it will work in practice. Mixed messages on issues such as membership of CAP and CFP, coded remarks about some parts that are taking less time, are not helping anyone, except perhaps the extreme Brexiteers. The substance of the transition must be clear, as must the long-term destination. Confusion about those and other issues simply adds to the overall atmosphere of chaos. The UK is due to leave the EU on 29 March 2019, but the UK Government is not only still mired in phase 1 negotiations. It also cannot seem to decide what route it is asking to take after that in order to avoid the cliff edge. As a result, confusion reigns amongst businesses, investors and the public, exacerbated by the stream of contradictions and mixed messages that flow from the internal divisions of the UK Government. Presiding Officer, considering all that and reading the Government's own negotiating and position papers, it is a little wonder that so many, the Scottish Government certainly, but a growing number in the country and out with it, firmly believe that full EU membership remains the best possible option for this country and for our economy. That is what we want. Now, if possible, if you can give me—of course, I am happy to take an intervention. Willie Rennie, whether the minister would welcome the comments from the president of the European Council this week when he told MAPs that it is up to London how this will end, with a good deal, no deal or no Brexit. Will he welcome those remarks? I would indeed. I think that those remarks are to be supported because they happen to be true. We want full membership, now if possible, later if necessary. In the interim, if we find ourselves having to be dragged out, then we wish and will continue to argue for continued membership of the European single market and the EU customs union, not as transition but as destination. Many others have moved or are moving to that position too and we urge all parties who are not there yet and particularly the UK Government to recognise that this is the only way of avoiding severe damage. There would still be damage. We see that from the LAC analysis, but less under this scenario than any other. This month, the Scottish Government published What's at State for Business, a collection of commentaries from companies with real and deep concerns about the consequences of Brexit. The document highlights the importance of the outcomes that are reached in the negotiations and the very real issues at stake. Later, we are going to publish a parallel document about individual citizens' concerns, if you allow me to make some progress. The Scottish Government and this Parliament has a legitimate interest in both in the terms of withdrawal, including transition and the overall shape of the future relationship. Many of the things that we do and the responsibilities that we have will be profoundly affected by withdrawal, by transition and by negotiated future relationship. It is therefore highly regrettable that the UK Government has acted in direct contradiction to the terms of reference of the joint ministerial committee by publishing a series of papers that are purported to set out a UK position without prior engagement with the devolved administrations. Some of those papers largely ignore the Scottish dimension. Some mention it in passing well at any detail. At least one seems to have been drafted in complete ignorance of the existence of a separate Scottish legal system and Scottish responsibility for, among other things, a separate prosecution and police system, an independent Lord Advocate, an involvement in extradition and international justice co-operation. The issue is that long predate the UK's membership in the EU. I made it clear to David Davis and to Damian Greene that I remain deeply concerned that the Scottish Government's views were not taken into consideration in the development of those papers. The EU can put no reliance on commitments entered into as a result of the presentation of partial or simply wrong information by the UK. That should not be happening. There is no reason why the Scottish Government's position should not be fully reflected in any and all negotiating or position papers and in the UK Government's current and future positions. It is therefore absolutely essential that the UK Government involves in a new and fundamental way the Scottish Government in any further developments on EU exit and in the next phase of negotiations, and we indicated that to the GMC meeting that was held in London last Monday. I welcome the fact that that meeting has been reconvened. I have indicated that the meeting set a positive tone for further engagement, but tone must translate into substance. I took the opportunity at the meeting to press the UK Government on the issues that I have touched on today. Going forward, it is vital that the GMC is utilised in the spirit that it was created for regular engagement between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. This is a space in which we can all be heard and in which we can reach a true UK-wide position. We must make sure that that meeting is at the heart of what we do. Over the past 14 months to the day that I have been in the position of Minister for UK Negotiations and Scotland's place in Europe, I have welcomed the support and challenge from this Parliament and its committees. It is now more crucial than ever that our collective and unified voice is heard, the threat to devolution is faced with solidarity and we are clear together that Scotland's interests in our future relationship with Europe cannot be ignored. I therefore move the motion in my name in hope that it will attract the support of the whole chamber. I move amendment 852.1, Mr Tomkins. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move amendment in my name. I want to say a few things, first of all, about this idea of no deal. It is absolutely not the UK Government's preferred outcome to leave the European Union with no deal. It is not what we want, and when I say what we want, what I mean is what both the United Kingdom Government wants and what the Scottish Conservatives want is a bold, ambitious and comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU-27. That is in the UK's—I am in my first sentence, Mr Rennie—national interest. It is likewise in the European Union's interests. Given that the United Kingdom starts from a position that is wholly compliant with EU law, it should not be difficult to achieve if the political will is there on both sides. As the Prime Minister said in her Florence speech that the Minister referred to a few moments ago, we, the United Kingdom on the one hand and the European Union on the other, share the same fundamental beliefs—a fundamental belief in frictionless, free and fair trade, a fundamental belief in fair competition, a fundamental belief in strong consumer rights. Given that starting point, it should not be difficult to arrive at the destination that has been outlined. The United Kingdom Government has taken the view that the United Kingdom cannot remain in the European single market because the European Union insists that the four fundamental freedoms that form the core of the internal market law are indivisible and that you cannot take back control of your national borders inside the single market. That is not the British Government's conclusion. That is the European Union's conclusion, and we have to recognise and respect the European Union's negotiating position as well. The European Union's negotiating position is that the four fundamental freedoms are indivisible. That means that if you want to be in the single market, you have to accept all four parts of that. It is worth noting today—the Minister spoke about that in his remarks a few moments ago—that the Scottish Government's motion does not call for the United Kingdom to remain in the single market or in the customs union. I have four people who want to intervene on me now, and I have eight minutes, so I will give a way to the minister. You are just popular, Mr Topkin's Minister. It is absolutely clear that I have argued in my speech, and I have argued before and will argue again. The Scottish Government's position is remaining in the single market. If we cannot remain in the EU, the remaining in the EU is preference. Thank you for that clarification, minister, which is well understood, but it is not in your motion today, which I thought was worth noting. Our amendment says that progress towards the end that I have just sketched of a free trade agreement is being made, but it should be accelerated. It was, of course, the European Union, not the UK that insisted that progress should be made on three preliminary points before we can even start talking about a new free trade partnership with the EU 27. First of all, of course, the divorce bill. Again, this is something on which the SNP front bench has been entirely silent. There is nothing in the motion. There were no remarks in the minister's speech. I wonder if the minister in closing might reflect on what the Scottish Government's position is on the size and means of payment of the divorce bill that the European Union is demanding. Is that an area where the Scottish Government is seeking to support the United Kingdom Government, or is it an area where the Scottish Government is seeking to support the EU 27? The second preliminary area is, of course, Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom has given a clear and unambiguous commitment to protecting the Belfast agreement and the common travel area, a commitment that is happily shared by the EU 27, including Ireland. Both sides have likewise stated explicitly that they will not accept any physical infrastructure on the border, and that, it seems to me, is to be welcomed. The third preliminary point is that there must be a safeguarding of the position of EU nationals. I think that the Prime Minister has been crystal clear about this over and again. First, in her Florence speech last month, she said this, I want all EU citizens who have made their lives in our country to stay. We value you, we thank you for your contribution to our national life. It has been and remains one of my first goals in this negotiation to ensure that EU nationals in Britain carry on living their lives as before. Just two days ago, in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister added this. Let me finish the point, Mr Johnson, and then I'll let you in if I have time. The Prime Minister said this. We are in touching distance of a deal on EU citizens, she said. That deal will provide certainty about residents, healthcare, pensions and other benefits. It will mean that EU citizens who have paid into the UK system and UK nationals who have paid into the system of an EU 27 country can benefit from what they have put in. It will enable families who have built their lives together to stay together, and it will provide guarantees that the rights of those UK nationals currently living in the EU and EU citizens in the UK will not diverge over time. The problem with that position is that it is still treating EU citizens as a bargaining chip. That is not an unequivocal offer, it is contingent on acceptance and it is reliant on other people doing anything, rather than an unequivocal guarantee that the UK Government could give now. We are in touching distance of a deal on EU citizens and citizenship, and that is exactly as it should be. The member would be better advised to welcome the progress that the United Kingdom and the EU have made on that, rather than carping from the sidelines. Now, one part of the Scottish Government's motion, Presiding Officer, with which we on these benches do agree, is the welcoming of the reconvening of the JMCEN. We on these benches like intergovernmental co-operation. We want more intergovernmental co-operation. We think that it's good for Scotland, and we think that it's good for the union. We want it also to be effective, and indeed we know that it will have to be effective if Brexit is to be delivered as it can be and as it must be in a manner that is compatible with our devolution settlements. That is why I very much welcome the communique that we had from the JMC, published after the JMC on Monday last week, with its focus on common frameworks, one of the aspects of Brexit that I think we are going to have to spend quite a lot of time focusing on. On the subject of common frameworks, I note and welcome the statement made by Secretary of State for Scotland David Mundell in the House of Commons just this afternoon when he said that a UK framework does not mean that the UK imposing a framework, it means agreement is reached. That is the position that the minister has shared with me in evidence in the Finance and Constitution Committee, and it is the position that the Secretary of State has endorsed just today, which I think we can all welcome. That brings me, Presiding Officer, to the European Union Withdrawal Bill. This is a bill that is designed to deliver a smooth and successful Brexit, formally known, and I have to say rather oddly known as the great repeal bill. It is in reality a continuity bill. It maintains the authority of retained EU law in the UK's legal systems, and it avoids precisely the legal and constitutional cliff edges that Scottish ministers and indeed the Scottish Conservatives have been warning about. The passing of this legislation through the Westminster Parliament requires our consent and the consent of the Welsh Assembly. The UK Government has made it crystal clear that it wants to obtain that consent, so do I, and so I believe does the minister and the SNP front bench. To that end, a whole series of meetings have been taken place to seek to understand different parties' concerns and to seek to relay those concerns to ministers and others in Westminster. I will just close on this point. Much of the focus on the withdrawal bill has been on Clause 11. It is just worth recording what the Secretary of State, David Mundell, said about Clause 11 in his evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee in the House of Commons yesterday. He said that powers will either be with the Scottish Parliament here or they will be subject to a UK-wide framework to which the Scottish Government is a party. That is what will happen, he said. I think that if we can all agree around that sort of position, we can obtain the consent that I think both Governments want, and for all those reasons, Presiding Officer, I move the amendment in my name. Members of the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee went to Brussels last month, where we met Michel Barnier. The European Union's chief negotiator made many important points and addressed some complex issues, but one of his simplest points was also one of the most telling. When negotiations fail, that usually means going back to the status quo, but in the case of Brexit, no deal would mean something quite different. It would mean Britain becoming a third country with no agreed trading relationship with our main trading partner. It is a simple point, but hugely important. No deal would not mean standing still, it would mean going backwards by some 40 years. Despite the opening comments from the Conservative benches, it is clear that some ministers in the present UK Government believe that the threat of walking away without a deal will concentrate minds and persuade EU leaders to make fewer demands and more concessions. There is actually no evidence of that, just as there is no evidence that there is a whole world out there of friendly countries just waiting to reach more generous trade deals with the UK than they would reach with the EU. Boris Johnson, for example, recently suggested that Commonwealth countries might provide an alternative field for a British economic activity. He clearly did not know that New Zealand and Canada were already lining up with the United States and Brazil and Argentina to demand increased access for their produce to our markets once the UK is no longer covered by EU quotas for farm produce under WTO rules. It is a pity that the foreign and Commonwealth secretary is not a little bit better informed before laying out such wonderful visions or at least a bit more honest about just what trading under WTO rules will be like if there is no new deal with Europe. Even more remarkable was the sight of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, apparently being put in his place by the Prime Minister on preparing for an outcome with no deal. Philip Hammond told MPs that spending now and preparing for failure in the negotiations was likely to be a nougatory expenditure, more commonly known as a waste of money. Theresa May, the very next day, was keen to say that that money was already in place and that her Government would be ready in the event that no deal could be agreeable. It is easy to see why the Chancellor did not want to admit to planning that expenditure. Planning, for example, to build giant lorry parks at Britain's ports to allow our exports to get off the road while waiting to join the queue to go through customs before crossing the Channel or the North Sea. Hundreds of millions of pounds spent, yes, on trade policy but not on speeding up or increasing trade but on slowing it down. It is also easy to see why David Davis is so reluctant to publish the UK Government's assessment of the impact of a no deal Brexit or indeed any Brexit on the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. This week's LSE report on national and regional impact shows that economic output in Scotland could fall by almost £30 billion over five years in the absence of a positive agreement. As the minister mentioned, Aberdeen is predicted to take the biggest hit in Britain after the city of London with Edinburgh and Glasgow not far behind. We heard already this afternoon about comments made by David Mundell this week. He has declined so far to tell us what the Government's own findings are in relation to regional and sectoral impact. However, he does concede that there has been a degree of analysis in relation to Brexit, and he told the Scottish Affairs Committee yesterday that the analysis would be shared with the Scottish Government. I understand this morning that the same assurance was given by David Davis to my colleague Joanna Cherry at the Westminster exit to the EU committee, but it is very difficult to get a clarification out of those. I do hope that, working cross-party, we could persuade the Conservatives to make sure that that documentation does come to Scotland and is published. I hope for the same, and I also hope that Mr Russell will agree that if that documentation does, indeed, come to the Scottish Government, it is something that will be of legitimate interest to the Scottish Parliament and, indeed, to the citizens that we are here to represent, as well. However, of course, the implications of no deal do not stop at trade. A failure to agree would also be devastating for the rights of citizens of other EU countries to stay here and of UK citizens to stay in other EU countries post Brexit. This is the area where Mrs May and, indeed, Adam Tomkins want to tell us that we are closest to agreement, and perhaps when Mr Tomkins talks about being within touching distance, he may be right. However, it is an area that, as Daniel Johnson said, should not have been subject to a bargaining process in the first place, and it is an area that is therefore as much at risk as anything else if that bargaining process is unsuccessful. Whatever progress might be achieved as part of a negotiated settlement will be abandoned if there is no deal, and that will be hugely damaging for our economy and our society, as well as deeply distressing for the individuals and families concerned. Just as the UK Government is failing to make real progress in Brussels, so there seems to be an equal lack of progress at Westminster. Today's Conservative amendment states, and it's an optimistic view of the world. The EU withdrawal bill is likely to be amended to address the devolution issues. It certainly should be, given the force of the many amendments that have been put forward with cross-party support to ensure powers over devolved areas are repatriated to the devolved administrations and not the UK Government. However, the failures and shortfalls of the withdrawal bill did not stop there. Keir Starmer called last weekend for action to improve the bill in six areas where ministers need to act. To remove obstacles to transitional arrangements, again raised by the Conservatives themselves this afternoon, based on the terms of membership of the single market and customs union beyond March 2019, to safeguard against lawmaking by decree, by reducing the sweeping powers that ministers want to have to amend retained laws without full parliamentary process, to guarantee continuation of workers' rights, consumer rights and environmental standards, to protect the devolution settlement in trench fundamental rights and ensure that Parliament, rather than Government, has the final say on whether to approve the withdrawal agreement and how to implement it. All those areas require a change of attitude and a change of approach from UK ministers on the EU withdrawal bill before it is fit for purpose, because we need a Government that wants to deal with Europe, we need a Government that is willing to listen to others in the UK Parliament and in these parliaments, this Parliament and other parliaments to safeguard democracy, and frankly, if Mrs May's ministers are not up to that challenge, we also need a change of UK government. Thank you. Before I move to the open debate, time is very tight, so speeches will be pleased of six minutes. However, I want to allow time for interventions. Please make those briefs. I have to say that it becomes difficult, then I am going to ask closing speakers or the other Deputy Presiding Officer, I will ask closing speakers perhaps to take a minute off their speeches. I think that that is fair to backbenchers. So I will now move to the open debate. I call Mary Gougeon to be followed by Rachel Hamilton. Mary Gougeon, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We are 16 months down the line from the Brexit vote and 7 months down the line from the triggering of article 50, and I suppose we will have to ask what is new. I do not think that many of us are much the wisers to what Brexit will actually look like now as to what we were last year. I sit on the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee, where we have been undertaking an inquiry into the article 50 negotiations, and it is on some of the key elements that we have heard and evidence there that I want to focus on today, in particular the rights of EU citizens. Because while we keep hearing from the UK Government that much progress has been made, there remain serious hurdles that have to be overcome, and that was confirmed by David Davidson as evidence this morning, with no explanation yet as to how that will be done. The rights of future family members, the recognition of professional qualifications, UK citizens' rights to move within the rest of Europe and the role of the European Court of Justice in dispute resolution being some of those issues. However, the one overarching thread that runs through all of that and all the evidence that we heard is the remaining uncertainty and the lack of clarity for all involved. We heard from panels of legal experts, academics and Lord Kerr who played a role in drafting article 50. Dr Tobias Lock from the University of Edinburgh highlighted the situation of EU citizens who are now finding it difficult to find jobs because employers do not know what their situation is going to be in 18 months' time and to find housing, because landlords are reluctant to take them on as tenants. That was not just speculation, but confirmation of that from EU citizens themselves who are living the experience of this every single day. We heard from Eva Smirzinska of the Fife Migrants Forum who told us that she had been directly told that she had been turned down for a job because her prospective employer would have to spend time training her to potentially then be told that they were no longer allowed to employ anyone from the EU and they would then have to let her go. It is just blatant discrimination and discrimination based on an incredibly worrying lack of knowledge, a lack of knowledge and certainty on the side of those working here about their rights as well as on the side of employers who are very badly informed. However, there are even more worrying trends developing. Yesterday, the Guardian published an article that highlighted how uncertainty over Brexit is leading to downright exploitation by unscrupulous employers across the country, citing case after case where workers, particularly those in low-paid jobs, are being mistreated and having their rights abused. A comment from Barbara Drozdovic, CEO of the East European Resource Centre, echoed what we heard in committee. She stated, "...people are worried that they will hire someone and they will have to leave, which is not true, but those employers are badly informed." The other side is that there are employers who, I believe, now want only Eastern European workers because they can treat them badly and threaten them with false information. Margaret Beals, who chairs the Gangmaster and Labour Abuse Authority, highlighted an even more sinister side. People have gone from being unsure about their rights to being tricked into thinking that they have no rights at all by adding yet another layer of uncertainty, but exit has made it even easier for people for people trafficking and slavery to take place. It is not hard to understand the lack of knowledge on rights given the continued uncertainties around the negotiations. Are EU citizens living here directly given the most up-to-date information to help ease that? That was a question posed by the committee to the Fife Migrants Forum, and the answer pretty much sourced that information. On the Government website, we are told that Theresa May wrote directly to EU citizens in the UK prior to her recent visit to Brussels. No, she did not. She published a letter online offering reassurances that she hoped would provide further helpful certainty, but they are meaningless reassurances because there is no certainty and people are losing out on homes and jobs because of it. That is something that is particularly personal to me and my family because I am married to an EU citizen. We have gone from looking at him applying for permanent residency here to being told that it was pointless because everyone would have to apply for settled status. To then be told by David Davis two weeks ago that permanent residents would not have to make a full application for settled status and so we considered making that application again. To then be told online that this would not be valid after Brexit and then by Amber Rudd that there was no point because everyone will have to apply for settled status biometric residence permits. There is something about the use of biometric there that makes me think that this will be anything but a simple process. Even then, what will settled status even mean and what will that process involve? Who knows? Dr Rebecca Zann from the University of Strathclyde stated that this new status is particularly problematic because it creates legal uncertainty for landlords, employers and even the national health service with regard to knowing whether an EU national can be treated and on what grounds they can be treated post Brexit, depending on what status they fall into. My husband is just one of the thousands of EU citizens who have built their life in this country, who have absolutely no say and no control over the negotiations, which will determine not only their future but their families and my family's future here. There was no clear defined plan going into those negotiations. There has been backtracking during negotiations and still no clear idea of what our relationship with the EU will be post negotiations, all of which means a lack of clarity for EU citizens here and UK citizens abroad. That is why, in this Parliament, we have to work together to press the UK Government to immediately guarantee the rights of EU citizens in this country and provide some certainty for their future. Right now, the only certainty in all of this is that no matter what the outcome of the Brexit negotiations is—whether it is a soft exit, a hard exit or a no-deal scenario—Scotland will lose out. The UK Government recognises that British nationals living in the EU 27 and EU nationals living in the UK have been concerned about potential changes to processes after the UK leaves the European Union. However, last week, as we know, the Prime Minister addressed EU citizens living in the UK and reassured those three million citizens that the Government is in touching distance of an agreement. The UK Government wants people to stay and families to stay together. It hugely values the contributions that EU nationals make to the economic, social and cultural fabric of the UK. It knows that member states value equally UK nationals living in their communities. The recent address by the Prime Minister is good news. It is positive and it has made progressive steps, and Brexit will be better because of that. To have pragmatic and progressive talks, to get the best for the UK and Scotland, and it is in everyone's best interest to seek progress. If the SNP had had their way, Scotland would have left the EU and the UK markets, and yes, the UK single market exists and should not be ignored. The UK single market, as we know, is worth four times as much to the Scottish economy as the EU single market. The SNP finds it hard to acknowledge that there have been reassurances made by the Prime Minister, and given to those three million EU citizens living in the UK, they are welcome, their contributions are valued and they are needed. Let me finish this point, please. Those granted settled status will be able to live, work, study and claim benefits as they can. Now, I will give way to Mary Gougeon. Mary Gougeon, I thank the member for taking that intervention. Well, maybe the member has some more inside information than what we do here about what settled status will actually mean, what does that process involve, and what do people have to do to get it, and why then, if people have been reassured, are people losing out on jobs and on homes? Rachel Hamilton. I thank the member for the intervention. I think that the Prime Minister made it quite clear what settled status meant in her recent address and her Florence speech. However, this guarantee to EU citizens will not solve our skills shortage. This is something that the Scottish Government has failed to recognise and address, and we must give businesses certainty. The Scottish Government fails to admit the skills shortage in Scottish sectors existed before Brexit, and it is time for the Scottish Government to admit that Brexit cannot be used to brush over this problem. What is at stake for business highlights, recruitment issues, and many businesses that are fed into that document highlighting those skills shortages? I will. Ross Greer. I am grateful for Ms Hamilton for taking that intervention. Many of the skills shortages are in areas where incomes are not particularly high, so why does the Conservative Government propose setting a minimum income threshold, which would deny many people the right to come live here and unite with their own family? I think that what I am trying to highlight to the member is that the issues of recruitment were here before Brexit. The Scottish tourism sector also reported that many college and university graduates left the sector within the first two years after qualifying. It drew attention that modern apprenticeship programmes encouraged the delivery of level 2 qualifications over level 3 and 4, which limits the ability to develop higher-level skills within key roles. Apprenticeships are also targeted at 16 to 19-year-olds, which does not address business needs. Those issues were recorded in 2015 that still persist today were present before Brexit. However, we need to work to resolve that. No, I will not, if you do not mind. The lack of skills is hindering one of Scotland's biggest economically advantageous sectors at a time when the sector is seeing increased visitors and trade. Why? Because of Brexit. ONS data shows in July that the number of overseas visitors to the UK topped 4 million for the first time. Visit Britain said that, over the first seven months of the year, the number of overseas visits to the UK rose by 8 per cent to 23.1 million compared with the same period last year. Deputy Presiding Officer, the S&P has failed to recognise that sectors such as the service industry have experienced recruitment issues for years, Brexit or no Brexit. Moving forward, we need to look at how we can develop our future relationship with the EU. As well as kick-starting regular joint ministerial committee meetings, the Scottish and the UK Governments should be working hard to secure opportunities for our biggest markets and businesses. The Scottish Government, I believe, should invest time and energy in exploring more opportunities and not trying to disrupt and hinder Brexit negotiations. Instead, that goes for all parties who have taken umbridge with the democratic decision to leave the European Union. It is time for the S&P to change the narrative, to programmatically work together with the UK Government to get the best deal and focus on the opportunities. The UK Government is listening, it has guaranteed EU citizens' rights and we expect the amendments to ensure devolution and the UK's internal market are strengthened and safeguarded. The Scottish Government should now listen too. There is no other issue more important than the Brexit negotiations and the outcome of them. The quality of people's lives, the stability of commerce and business across the UK is dependent on delivering the best arrangements outwith the European Union, as required by the referendum outcome. Leaveers promised better trade deals out of Europe, alternative trade deals. There would be a better world outwith the EU. We have yet to see it. All we had to do was vote for it. The way that I see it now was that Brexiteers wanted to leave at all costs, and there is no detailed plan, no thought given to where Britain would then remain. It has to be said that, in my opinion, the single most destabilising event following the referendum is the on-going behaviour of the British Cabinet. It has been an absolute disgrace, undermining each other at every turn while we are trying to negotiate a deal for the citizens of the UK. It is embarrassing on the world stage to recognise and understand the basics of a negotiation strategy that, if we choose to leave, we have to pay our debts. I think that some measure of good faith should have been courted within the EU, and one of those could have started with recognising the rights and the needs of EU citizens who should not have to have lived an uncertainty about their lives going forward. They have rod ridden roughshod over the Scotland act, the way that most of us fought for, grabbing all former EU powers to the centre, no wonder that the devolved nations are up in the arms as their interests are sidling, not even to mention the deep concern of our Irish friends across the waters. I am opposed to a charge incidentally on a fee for those citizens to remain. However, the disentangling of citizens' rights and financial obligations in the process of disengagement of 40 years of standard setting and regulatory convergence under the single market of course is no simple task. However, it does necessitate a transition period to me, that is obvious. It is a recognition that there are real practicalities that have to be untangled. In fact, I believe that we should have argued for a transition period much sooner, even if that means that it perpetuates some uncertainty over the final destination. I am sure that we all in this chamber hope for the best deal that can be achieved, and we rightly demand clarity on the shape of Britain out of Europe. There even seems to be some cross-party consensus on this. Even some sensible Tories are fighting for a sensible approach to Brexit. However, if someone who voted to remain and someone who also argued to respect the outcome of the leave decision, I am beginning to lose my patience somewhat. Frankly, I am not prepared to say that it is all up to the leavers to decide the new relationship. There must be an exception that all of us, whether you voted to leave or remain, must be involved in a democratic process to decide what is best for Britain. I do not believe that that is what is happening. It was Vince Cable who put it quite succinctly when he said this week that Britain's negotiating stance is a disaster. The Brexiteers in the Conservative party have horribly miscalculated Britain's bargaining power or have not stopped to consider the reality of our bargaining power against the EU-27. The tone set by Tories and me and David Davis is flawed. It does not seem to try to gain even the respect of the 27 and the chancellor helpfully believes that they are the enemy. Yesterday, we had the Tory whip Chris Heaton-Harris, who has written to all universities asking what their respected academics are teaching on European affairs on the question of Brexit. I know that number 10 has disassociated themselves and rightly so from that remark, but no wonder, respect to journalists like John Simpson tweeted yesterday, that the daily hate and the press and the behaviour of someone like him who should know better does not make me feel like it is my country anymore. Those are the stakes of this Brexit scenario that we are in. I noticed that the Tory motion does not rule out a no deal and I think that that is unfortunate. As far as I am concerned and as far as the Labour benches are concerned, no deal means the return of a hard border in the Republic of Ireland. It creates barriers to imports. Lewis MacDonald and others have talked at length about the LSE's economic predictions, so no one to a person could be under any illusion about what a no deal means. I for one will be watching carefully how those negotiations are. We were told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Will you not speak for me and for millions of others who stand to lose in the quality of their lives quite substantially if we do not get the best deal for Britain? If we were to honour the vote last June to leave Europe, we had better start recognising that the serious dangers lie ahead for all of us, and the biggest one is no deal for Britain. I call Stuart Stevenson. We are followed by Ross Greer. Mr Stevenson, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I want to pick up the contribution of Marie Gougeon and look at it from the perspective of UK citizens who are living in the EU. They are not relying on specious promises coming from the Prime Minister or other members of the Westminster administration. They are applying in considerable numbers for passports from other countries in the EU to which they are available. Indeed, we have seen the rather unexpected site of Ian Paisley Jr, of the Democratic Union as party in Northern Ireland, handing out Irish passport application forms to his constituents and to others. That precisely tells you how difficult the situation is perceived for many. I have members of my own family and close friends who fall into this category. I have a niece in Sweden. She is now Swedish citizen and the holder of a Swedish passport, because she cannot plan her life on vague promises that cannot be banked. She has to assure her future. Incidentally, it is interesting to compare and contrast her experience of becoming a Swedish citizen with the burrach that we heard described by Marie Gougeon. It took her five days to get to her Swedish citizenship. She has been resident there for over a decade, I accept that, but five days, I thought, was a pretty impressive administrative deal. My nephew, who lives in Denmark, has yet to submit his Danish passport application, but is actively contemplating doing so. Four close friends who have the appropriate Irish grandparents are looking to apply for Irish passports. All across Europe, we have uncertainty for UK citizens not reassured in any way, shape or form, by what is coming for Westminster. So, yes, it is an important point for EU citizens here, but it is equally a significant problem for UK citizens elsewhere. I came to this Parliament sworn in on 13 June 2001, and the following day I spoke in my first debate, which was on the European Committee of this Parliament's report on the common fisheries policy. I was pitched right into debating, on behalf of my constituents, some of the substantial shortcomings of many of the things that come from Europe. Indeed, the European Committee, as its first headline conclusion from its deliberations, said, that we believe that the current situation is untenable. We were talking about the common fisheries policy. In an environment where the EU was funding the building of new Spanish boats, while simultaneously ensuring that the Scottish fleet was substantially reduced, the bitterness that people in the north-east of Scotland and other fishing communities have towards the EU is a perfectly understandable one. Even there, things are changing, because it is clear that what was the expectation of fishing communities looks increasingly less likely to be delivered. Yesterday, we had the Scottish Fishermen's Federation advocating in the strongest possible terms that decision-making on fishing policy and practice must remain in Scotland. Of course, that takes us directly to section 111 of what might be termed the Great Repeal Bill, although Mr Tomkins has given us another title for it, which we might adopt if we wish. However, the bottom line is that even the most euroskaptic are realising the limitations of what is happening. Michael Gove appears to have promised continuing, quote, relative stability to the Danes and to the Dutch—absolutely at odds with what fishing communities expected. The negotiations thus far are nothing short of a muddle. The EU, with 27 countries that had to agree a common line, was able to do so pretty rapidly. The UK cabinet with 23 members has not been able, after a substantially longer period, to come to any meaningful agreement as to where we are going to go. Let me give a few hints as to how negotiation might be done. One of the leading training companies in negotiation is based in Glasgow, and services are used all over the place. They have a simple system called limit. Three lists are things that we would like to get, things that we intend to get and things that we must get. The way that you do it is that you sit down and you work out what is on your list. You do not disclose your lists publicly. You close them bit by bit through the negotiation process. There is not the slightest sign that anything professional is happening in the negotiating world. Let me end by welcoming the fact that the Tories and their seven paragraphs of their amendment have provided four that I can agree with. That is a welcome move forward. I send everybody's interest that negotiations succeed. We want progress to be accelerated, and we welcome the reconvening of the job to the ministerial committee. Fundamentally, we are looking to see the great repeal bill amended, because until it is, no progress, meaningfully, will be possible. UK is now six months into Brexit negotiations, and progress has been slow. The prospect of a no deal Brexit is increasing in likelihood and in profile throughout this period, particularly in the past few weeks. We should be clear on what that means. No deal would mean leaving the largest free trade area in the world, one with more than 50 operational trade deals, and reverting to world trade organisation default rules. It is the worst possible outcome. Despite the bluster of the Brexit years, it would be far worse for the UK than for the European Union. Tariffs would be imposed on goods and licensing restrictions on services, causing economic havoc almost immediately. Customs checks would return, leading to chaos at our ports and borders. That is the territory of overnight crisis. The Fraser Valander Institute estimated last year that a no deal scenario would lead to a long-term £2,000 drop in average wages and also 80,000 jobs in Scotland, as well as £8 billion wiped off the economy. The minister has already mentioned the numbers in this week's LSE report. We have already suffered a decade of wage erosion, as inflation has undermined the value of pay packets across the UK. Now, inflation is almost 3 per cent, at a five-year high, and expected to rise further as the impact of Brexit takes hold. How much more can workers take? Of course, the situation is far worse for residents here, her citizens of other European nations. In addition to the broader economic threats, they are used as bargaining chips and see their rights under threat. It is disgraceful that the UK Government has continued to refuse to genuinely guarantee the rights of European citizens. Theresa May claims that it is necessary to protect UK nationals living in the EU, but that is just nonsense. UK nationals living in the EU have written directly to the Prime Minister, begging her to stop treating citizens' rights as an immigration issue and guarantee the rights of EU citizens living in the UK. Spain, the EU state, with the largest number of UK nationals, has already taken steps to unilaterally guarantee the rights of UK nationals. This fear and anxiety was created by this Conservative Government and it continues to be stoked by this Government. The offer that it has put forward on EU citizens' rights falls far short of being acceptable. It tears up current laws on family rights and instead imposes a minimum income threshold on family unification. Basing the right to a family life on your ability to secure a high income. Do those with the least wealth not deserve their rights not deserve their right to a family life? It also includes restrictions on leave to remain, preventing people from leaving the UK for more than two years. Those are rules that saw women originally from Singapore, married to a British man of 27 years, the mother of two British sons, deported because she'd been in Singapore too long caring for her elderly mother. Why does this offer to EU citizens have to be so bad? This is a product of Theresa May's deliberate efforts as Home Secretary to create a hostile environment in an attempt to restrict and reduce immigration. Her cat-handed policies have targeted everyone from turning doctors and nurses into immigration enforcers to sending the racist go-home vans to areas with high ethnic minority populations. It was Theresa May's own former colleague George Osborne who revealed that she single-handedly blocked a guarantee for EU citizens in the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote. I've seen first-hand the impact that this has had on real people. Last month, I met EU citizens living here in Scotland at the Language Hub in Glasgow. They told me of the new discriminations that they're encountering already. They've been singled out, asked to prove that they're entitled to NHS healthcare when attending maternity appointments because their names sounded a bit foreign. They've seen flats advertised to rent for UK nationals only. They've struggled to find jobs because employers have become reluctant to even interview or to even consider EU citizens. That is the hostile environment that is being created by Theresa May, one that many non-European nationals have been suffering through for years. All of that, of course, is made even worse by the EU withdrawal bill. The bill provides far-reaching powers to ministers to change the law, including acts of Parliament covering basic rights through secondary legislation. That means changes to the law by ministerial discretion without even a vote in Parliament, as the explanatory notes accompanying the bill explain. Healthy democracies do not permit a Government this kind of power, especially without appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. However, that is par for the course with a Government that, only this morning, took the position in committee through David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, that the UK Parliament may not even get a vote on the final Brexit deal until after we leave. Again, it is not a position that a healthy democracy should be in, not healthy respect, particularly in a country that has a constitutional tradition of parliamentary sovereignty. It is paramount that the UK Government rules out a no-deal scenario and immediately provides assurances to EU citizens living in the UK. There are 180,000 people living in Scotland and 3 million across the whole of the UK who need and who deserve that assurance. In the not much longer term, however, we need to move forward towards the full devolution of migration and asylum policies to ensure that, in Scotland at least, basic rights can be respected, we can build a system that we are proud of for the kind of welcoming country that we want to be and a system that supports our economic needs. We know in Scotland, through decades of depopulation, that immigration has been a fantastic way to revive communities and reverse that trend. We still aspire to be a welcoming, outward-looking nation. Will the Brexiters tell us to look inward, throw accusations at those that they perceive as lacking in patriotism and try to keep the public and sometime Parliament in the dark? This Parliament, at least, can send a message that we still live in the real world, that we stand up for the interests of all those that we represent and that we will not consent to this process going any further forward until the UK Government does the same? I call Willie Rennie to be followed by Richard Lochhead. From day one, this was bad news, also because most of my funding has come from the EU. When the Government announced that the status of EU citizens would be part of the negotiations, my decision to leave became final. If I would talk about our dogs that way, my spouse would kick me out of the house. Those are the words of a professor, an EU national, who previously lived in Scotland for more than 10 years but has already moved elsewhere in the EU because of Brexit. I am ashamed that someone of such standing and education believed that he has been treated like a dog by our Government, like a dog. We should treat people like we would like to be treated ourselves. The words of the professor are included in a report by the Royal Society of Edinburgh Young Academy of Scotland. He is one of many who has spoken about the personal and professional impact of Brexit. It is a heartbreaking read. The report shows that much damage has already been done. Many are leaving or want to leave. The assurances that were on the verge of an agreement by the Conservatives have something that we have heard for months, but you would not be surprised that people are rather sceptical about the words from the Conservatives on those matters when nothing turns up in words that gives them any kind of reassurance. No practical agreement, but it is the damage that could yet be inflicted that I fear too. The negotiations have been a car crash in slow motion. You will remember that Liam Fox told us that EU negotiations would be one of the easiest in human history. Now we know why he has been given a department with no responsibility. It is little wonder that if you treat people from other European countries like this, Brexit discussions with those very same countries have not gone well. What have the Conservatives got to show for 15 months of negotiations? The EU has shredded our £350 million a week invoice for the NHS and sent one back to the tune of billions. The Conservatives once claimed that EU would be desperate to trade with us. Now they are openly praising a no-deal option. Adam Tomkins complains that other people are raising the no-deal option. It was not us that raised the no-deal option. It was members of his party, including ministers, who raised the no-deal option. If it is not on the table, why on earth did they raise it in the first place? To claim that a no-deal option would be a good idea is to abandon the EU health insurance card, the Erasmus scheme, the European research area, the Uratum, the European arrest warrant and so many other benefits. No deal would mean that Canada would have a better trading relationship with the EU than the UK. In fact, there are 44 different countries that have some form of agreement with the EU, including South Korea, South Africa, Mexico, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. If there is no deal, all those countries, thousands of miles away, will have better relations with the EU than the UK. A former member is only 20 miles away, and Adam Tomkins mumbles from a sedentary position, which should be no problem to reach an agreement. Why on earth are his own ministers raising the possibility of a no-deal Brexit? Because they are trying to use it as a threat, but they never use a threat that does not have credibility. It must have credibility before you raise it or that lack of credibility reflects on the negotiator. That is exactly what has happened with this Government. The impact of a no-deal Brexit would be significant. Barnsmuir farm is near Creil. At peak, it needs 270 workers to harvest the fruit and vegetables, but they have been struggling to get the workforce that they need already. Their workers have paid a pay cut because of the fall and the value of the pound. The distance from home and the Scottish weather has become more important when you do not get paid as much. They are wondering whether Britain really wants them when they hear that immigrants are a problem. The growth at Barnsmuir has come with the advance of technology and the availability of good workers. Longer picking seasons mean a greater demand for pickers. Even if every available east-fife worker was to step forward, there would still not be enough of them to meet the demands of the seasonal work. In 10 years, the food and drink sector has grown 44 per cent to £14 billion. That is going to raise to £30 billion by 2030, but if they do not have the workforce to feed the industry, that simply will not happen. We have heard about the LSE report and the dramatic impact of £30 billion. We know that universities such as St Andrews have a great alliance on university staff from EU countries. A fifth of the research grants come from the EU. It would be a devastating impact if we did not have any kind of agreement on all those areas. That is why, to raise the prospect of a no deal is irresponsible. If the Conservatives want an alternative option to a bad deal, they should let the British people decide whether their deal is good enough or not. For such a monumental decision, it should not be left to the shambolic Conservative cabinet to determine whether their deal is acceptable. Once the detail is known, there should be a referendum to endorse or otherwise. The option of remaining in the EU should be on the ballot paper. Donald Tusk, the president of the council, has said that that is possible this week. He made that clear to MEPs. I urge the Government to give the British people the right to turn back if they choose to. Let us start treating people with respect. I must close, Mr Rennie. Give them the final say. I have Richard Lochhead to be followed by Peter Chapman. It is quite remarkable that, as we debate this today in late 2017, we remain as much in the dark today as to what our Brexit deal will look like as we were the day after the EU referendum back in June 2016. Theresa May set peace speeches. They seem to come and go, but we do not seem to move much forward. Despite some comforting words that we have heard from UK ministers, the EU nationals in this country do not feel any more secure or that they have any more clarity or certainty since last year, as eloquently highlighted by Mary Gougeon and other speakers. There is no certainty for companies wanting to decide their investment plans or contingency plans for 2018 and beyond, as highlighted by Michael Russell. I commend Douglas Fraser's article on the BBC website that has just appeared in the last hour or two, giving it insight to the debates that are taking place within the business community at the moment. He quotes Karen Briggs, the head of Brexit at KPMG, who says in the article, "...we are seeing businesses quietly stockpiling inventory and exploring alternative sources of talent, whilst nervously pushing bigger financial decisions into the new year." She goes on to say in her quotes that things are probably a lot worse in the financial sector. She says, "...here the conversation has moved on from high-level analysis and impact plans to much more detailed work on setting up an EU presence and the very human issues associated with moving people overseas." The theme of the article is about the concerns in the business community. Over the lack of progress, the three T's, as the article refers to, transition, trade and talent. As we approach the end of 2018 and as the exit day of March 2019 gets closer, there is as much confusion today as ever about the UK Government strategy. Last week, we heard David Davis say that no deal must be an option, but Amber Rudd says that no deal is unthinkable. Liam Foxx says that we have no need to fear a no deal scenario. Chaos and confusion reigns in the UK cabinet. I honestly think that we have got the worst political leadership in the House of Commons in history since the House of Commons was built in 1341 by King Edward III, the King of England. However, the worrying thing is that the prospect of no deal is now being talked up by UK ministers. May famously say that no deal is better than the bad deal, but for Scotland no deal is the worst deal, leaving the single market, the customs union, leaving our EU nationals in limbo and reverting to world trade organisation rules with tariffs crippling some of our key sectors in Scotland, particularly the food and drink sector that is highlighted by Willie Rennie. That will damage our economy. If barriers to trade are erected in March 2019 and the free movement of labour has stopped, then that would be a hammer blow to firms across Scotland. I know that that will be a hammer blow to firms, particularly in my constituency and in the food processing sector. Jim Walker of Walker Shortbread and Aberlour just said a few weeks ago the impact of the UK's decision to leave the European Union in 2019, with all that means for our ability to trade freely with Europe and to draw on a wider pool of labour, is a source of considerable uncertainty. We have seen the price of imports in the food and drink sector rocket due to the plunging pound that has taken place since the EU vote. We also have to know the scale of the damage. Does the UK Government have those impact assessments? They are not disclosing them, they are not putting them in the public domain. Perhaps David Mundell, the Secretary of State for Scotland, could help Scotland in this regard and use his 70 strong propaganda unit in the Scotland office to stand up for Scotland and argue for those assessments to be put in the public domain. However, we know that a hard Brexit or no deal will cost Scotland very, very deal. In fact, potentially billions of pounds of Scottish taxpayers' cash is going to be used to buy our way out of the EU when 62 per cent of the people of Scotland voted to remain within the EU. We are going to set to pay that for the privilege of then losing hundreds of millions of pounds of EU funds. Then there is the economic damage that will arise from leaving the single market, so that is a triple financial whammy that will hit Scotland because we will be taking out the EU against our will and Scotland did not vote for that. This Parliament's energy should be spent on rebuilding our economy after the economic crash in 2009, as we have all been doing over the past few years. However, now we face years of dealing with the fall-out of a hard Brexit or no deal and all the damage that will leave within its wake. We should really be spending our time addressing the challenges of the 21st century that faces our society in our country. The lack of progress between the UK and the EU is going to make that a lot more difficult, and the lack of progress also between the Scottish Government and the UK Government is going to make that a lot more difficult. Scottish ministers are quite rightly seeking amendments to the EU withdrawal bill to protect the evolution in our powers. As Stuart Stevenson said, even the Scottish Fisherman's Federation are expressing concern about a power grab to the UK Government. We know that it will dress up international fisheries negotiations as foreign affairs and grab that power and keep it reserved. Likewise, our farmers are being told that there should be a UK framework for agriculture because the UK Government, as confirmed by Damian Greene, does not want Scottish farmers to have the advantage over English farmers, and that will be their motivation in that as well. My final comment is that, to address those challenges, we have to make more progress in gaining new powers to the Scottish Parliament, as Ross Greer said, particularly over immigration. Over the next 25 years, the number of pensionable age and over in Murray, in my constituency, is projected to increase by 33 per cent. At the same time, the population of the working age people is expected to decrease by 3 per cent and the number of children by 8 per cent. That is worse than the situation that is facing Scotland, but the situation that is facing Scotland is still also a huge challenge. We need powers over immigration, and that is why immigration is a much bigger feature of the Brexit debate in Scotland than it is in the rest of the UK, where the figures of the democratic trends are not nearly as challenging as what they are facing Scotland. I wish the minister the best of luck. I hope that the Parliament will rally around the motion today, and I hope that we will show more unity in addressing the threat to Scotland from Brexit than what we see in the UK Cabinet at the current time. I call Peter Chapman to be followed by Clare Haughey. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Once again, I refer members to my register of interest as far as farming is concerned. I would like to bring a bit of positive thinking into this debate today, which seems to have been brought to the Parliament by the SNP as another opportunity to continue criticism of the UK Government. I acknowledge that Brexit vote brings uncertainty, but I also welcome the opportunities that it has to bring, and I wish that the Scottish Government could do the same, and for once, to positively focus on the future of Scotland and the UK post Brexit. In what a boost it would be if Mike Russell, Willie Rennie and Richard Lockhead could cheer up a bit about Brexit, the whole three of them remind me of Ricky Fulton's character, the reverent I am jolly, all doom, gloom and despondency. I move on. One of the most important sectors of Scotland's food industry is our fishing sector, and that industry has the potential to flourish post Brexit, and the Scottish Government should be grasping that opportunity with both hands. The Scottish Fisherman's Federation has been extremely vocal about the sea of opportunity that exists post Brexit. The SFF has stated that the catching sector of the Scottish fishing industry is united in its conviction that exit from the EU presents a unique set of opportunities for Scotland to reinvigorate its coastal and island communities. That Government needs to listen to the fishermen of Scotland. Scotland's seas are some of the most productive, valuable and diverse fisheries anywhere in the world, and our ability to claim our 200 nautical miles of the EEZ will allow Scotland to monitor and control our fisheries free from the dead hand of Brussels, ensuring that our own fishermen can increase their catch. Surely not even the SNP can think it's fair that 60 per cent of the fish in our waters are caught by foreign boats. The increased fish landings that we can expect to see also means the growth of our fish processing sector, reversing the decline that we are currently seeing and creating more jobs around the country. The sea of opportunity is real, and at this time the Scottish Government showed its support. Absolutely. Gillian Martin, Mr Chapman, you come from an area that has quite a lot of fish processing plants. Have you visited them and found out what percentage of employees come from other EU countries? Can I remind members who should always speak through the chair, Peter Chapman? Absolutely, I have. I recognise that many of them come from the EU, and that is why we are working hard to allow them to continue to come in. I understand as far as farming is concerned that the industry-faced on the news that would be leaving the EU, especially here in Scotland, with less favoured area land making up 85 per cent of our farmland, maybe we have more to worry about. However, Michael Gove has been clear that funding for our farmers will remain at current levels until at least 2022. That is fine. However, the big prize is that, with a blank sheet of paper, we can design a system of support that is far better targeted to our farmers' needs. It must be easier to apply for, easier to administer, and it must deliver the support to those who supply and grow our fine food, and at the same time it needs to protect our environment. Fergus Ewing has a duty to bring forward plans as to what this new mechanism looks like to date there has been nothing but a deafening silence. Clearly, he must do better. It seems that he wants the powers but not the responsibility. I believe that we need an overarching UK structure within which Scotland's farmers can continue to do its own thing. We want to get the best possible deal for our farmers to retain the same powers over agriculture here in Holyrood and protect our single UK market, which, despite Joan McAlpine's recent daft assertions, is worth four times more than our trade with the EU. Scotland has many fine farmers, hardworking, technically efficient, with high standards and open to change. Change is imperative as the farming industry moves beyond Brexit and into the future. We have the opportunity to help this key industry to evolve, invest in new ways to help to improve productivity, efficiency and resilience. A continuing focus and good environmental practice in the move away from the CAP system is also important. Every farmer I have ever spoken to wants to retain high environmental standards, but first and foremost, his aim in life is to produce high-quality food and be paid fairly for it. He needs to be profitable to be environmentally aware. You cannot be green if you are in the red. Finally, the Conservative Government is striving hard for a good deal with our EU neighbours, delivering the best possible access to our markets and tariff-free trading, and that is exactly what we want to achieve. However, the option of a no deal must remain a possibility. Listen to somebody who knows about doing deals. Running my own business for the last 40 years means that I have done lots of deals and I know that you can only get the best deal if the other side thinks that you might walk away. I believe that it is only since we have talked up this possibility that we have seen some real movement from the EU. I am glad that I have had the opportunity to speak positively in today's debate, highlighting the opportunities that are present in these key industries in Scotland. However, I must make it clear that I strongly disagree with the Scottish Government's current position in a time when the UK should be united and strong in our desire for the best possible deal for everyone. The SNP is continuing to berate and undermine the UK negotiations. Every opportunity. I would just like to say that— No, Mr Chapman. You must close, please. I will close. Can I say to your colleagues that it is up to the Presiding Officer to decide on the length of the speeches? Thank you very much, Mr Tomkins. We move to the last contribution in the open debate, and that is Clare Haughey. I hope that the chamber will forgive me for approaching this debate from a health perspective. As such, I do refer members to my entry in the register of interests as a register of mental health nurse and to my honorary contract with Great Glasgow and Clyde NHS. Apart from the most hardened of Brexiteers, surely no one can deny the potential that Brexit will have anything but a profoundly adverse effect on our health sector. Indeed, in an article published in the Lancet last month, the authors concluded that no matter whether Brexit is soft, hard or failed, it will still pose a substantial threat to our NHS. Our health sector and, of course, all other sectors must be protected during the Brexit process, and that is why it is vital that the Scottish Government's voice is heard and has meaningful influence alongside the other devolved nations in the negotiations. Although matters pertaining to health are largely devolved to the Scottish Parliament, there are still many important areas that are reserved to Westminster, such as embryology, surrogacy and genetics, or xenotransplantation, or the working hours of healthcare staff through the provisions of the working time directive. There is no escaping the fact that our health service can be directly affected through any negotiations. It is incredibly worrying that the Government leading this process is one that appears utterly clueless, is rife within fighting and is in complete denial about the possible effects of Brexit, particularly on our NHS. Through an answer to our written question table to the Tory Government by MP Justin Madders, the UK Government confirmed that it was not able to disclose the number of officials in the department for exiting the European Union. Who were health experts? If they do not know such basic information as who in their workforce are experts in health, then how can we trust them to prioritise such a sector during these negotiations? The Tory Government's biggest mistake during this process so far is clearly that it has not guaranteed the rights of EU citizens living in the UK and vice versa. It is not only the Scottish Government who are demanding Tory's safeguard, the rights of EU nationals, the partners and dependents living in the UK, but leading charities like Cancer Research UK. It is absolutely appalling that, rather than doing so, the Westminster Government is pushing ahead with plans to force EU nationals to apply and to pay for settled status. There are up to 20,000 EU nationals who work in Scotland's hospitals, in the social care sector, in schools and in our other public agencies. The contribution that they make to Scotland is overwhelmingly positive. Those EU nationals have made Scotland and the UK their home, so the Prime Minister should do the honourable thing and abandon that proposal. In our speech on Monday, during the European Council statement, the Prime Minister stated that the fee for this will cost no more than a UK passport. Will currently an adult's passport cost £72.50, while the child's passport costs £46. For a family of four on the UK Government's living wage, they will need to work 32 hours, a full week's wages to pay to apply for settled status. In stark contrast, this Scottish Government will ensure that EU citizens who work in the Scottish public sector will have their fees paid for them. The SNP Scottish Government treats EU nationals with compassion and care, and the Westminster Tories treat them as bargaining chips. As widely reported this week, almost £30 billion will be wiped off the Scottish economy in five years if the UK Government failed to reach a deal with the European Union, as per the research undertaken by the London School of Economics. Through those figures, my rather gloom constituency's local authority area south Lanarkshire would be worse off by a staggering £1.3 billion, as such no deal is not an option. Further research carried out by the Brexit healthcare alliance, an organisation comprising of patient groups, charities, NHS bodies, medical research and industry groups, found that a no-deal Brexit that ends healthcare arrangements between the UK and the EU could end up costing national health services across the UK £500 million a year. It also found that travel insurance for trips to Europe may become unaffordable for people with existing health problems, while the NHS could face additional pressures if British citizens living abroad were no longer able to access reciprocal healthcare. The Nuffield Trust estimates that an extra 190,000 people could require hospital beds in the UK if such healthcare arrangements are scrapped, creating incredible demands for doctors, nurses, healthcare professionals and support staff. Another major issue that requires attention is our future relationship with the European Medicines Agency post-Brexit. Notwithstanding the fact that it is the largest EU organisation based in the UK and that it employs 900 staff, but thanks to its existence, UK residents have access to new treatments and drugs up to six months earlier than some other countries like Canada and Australia. Through the EMA, pharmaceutical companies only need to submit a single application, which, when granted, allows that particular treatment to be licensed throughout the EU and the EEA. Having no deal and ending a relationship with institutes like the EMA is not an option that we can consider if our population is to have timely and safe access to new drugs and new treatments. We need a deal to ensure that EU nationals can continue to live in Scotland and to work in our NHS. We need a deal to ensure that reciprocal healthcare arrangements are in place and we need a deal to ensure that our economy is not irreparably damaged. We now move to the closing speeches. No, that is not acceptable. No interventions from the gallery. Thank you very much. I call Daniel Johnson. Up to six minutes, please, Mr Johnson. The very fact that there is a need for this debate is telling in itself. The fact that we have to have a motion setting out that we cannot contemplate a no-deal scenario, despite the economic consequences, is quite unbelievable. The fact that we have to say that we do not want to trade on citizens' rights is quite, I would have said before now, uncontemplatable. The fact that we have to say that bringing forward a bill that tramples on the devolution settlement that brings forward either two unseen powers to ministers to amend legislation as they see fit is quite unbelievable. And above all else, the fact that we need to assert that there needs to be democratic accountability on the final deal is something that I did not think that we would have to do. Indeed, I campaigned for a remain vote and while I could contemplate the outcome might be otherwise, what I found much more difficult to deal with is the nature and the path that the Conservative Government has taken since that vote 18 months ago. Indeed, perhaps it's most telling that some of the new words and terminology that we've had to get to grips with. And my favourite one in recent days has been wingsprout is summarising the position that those people who believe in hard breaks and believe that we should launch ourselves off the cliff, expecting the wings to sprout to save us from the cliff's blow. And it reveals a telling truth that they believe in faith over fact. Indeed, I think that the whole Conservative Government has adopted that position, split between those people who are true believers and the doomsayers resigned to the inevitability of the poor outcome. I hear the conciliatory words coming from the Conservatives in this place today, but the reality is that their colleagues are part of a discredited Government, devoid of leadership and without a plan for Brexit. But we have a moment here. It's been 18 months since that vote and a year and a half left. There is time to change, time to take a different course of action and pursue a different plan. We can talk in numbers and economics about the reality of Brexit, but it's the human cost, the human impact of this, which I think are most telling. I couldn't have put it better than Mary Gougeon. I think that her story about the challenges that she's facing in new married life, I think, are telling. The fact that anyone gets coming to grips with new married life, with all its excitement but also new things, has to deal with the uncertainty of citizenship is quite unbelievable. Indeed, it's something that I've experienced in my constituency. I held a meeting recently on Brexit, and one lady who was from Spain but lived in Scotland for the last 20 years put it very well indeed. That these are our rights. They are not the Government's rights to be trading. They are our rights and you cannot take them away from us. Now, I'm sorry if Adam Topkin feels that that is carping from the sidelines. I call that standing up for principle, and it's something that his Government should listen to. More than that, I think that Willie Rennie put it very well. Pursuing such an approach isn't just wrong in terms of citizenship. It undermines the very Brexit negotiations that the Government seeks to pursue, because it frankly shows a degree of lack of faith, a lack of trust that erodes the negotiations themselves. However, we shouldn't be surprised because we are a quarter of the way through, and where are we? We have begging phone calls from the Prime Minister. We have the Government flying at the Cabinet to Florence to listen to speeches. We see the pound devalued by a quarter making us all poorer, and businesses writing to the Prime Minister seeking urgent clarification and transition deals by Christmas, otherwise they are going to have to put their contingency plans into place. This is a shambolic approach to Brexit. There are three elements that you need for negotiation. You need trust, a clear and realistic plan, and you need a coherent team. This Government has none of those things. They have lost the trust through their approach to citizens' rights. They have no clear and realistic plan because they are playing a game of chicken with a no Brexit deal that has no credibility. The reality is this, while the Government may be playing a game of chicken, the reality is that we are on a push bike and the EU is on an HGV. The realities, the consequences of a no Brexit deal for the UK are just simply not commensurate with those of the EU. The impact on our economy will be so much greater and do so much more harm that it is simply not a credible position to adopt. However, most importantly, it is not just the trust with the EU countries, it is trust with our family of nations within the United Kingdom. The fact that they are contemplating a deal that undermines the devolution settlement is most worrying of all. The structure of reserved and devolved powers that is so carefully and cleverly put together in the Scotland Act is one of the things that we should be very proud of in Scotland with our devolution settlement. The fact that the Brexit bill contemplates undermining that, I find deeply worrying indeed. Many people have described at length the cost of a no Brexit deal. The £30 billion set out by the LSE is one thing, but it is also the time that it would take to set up new trade deals. The fact that our trade, half of which is in services, would mean that setting up those trade deals will not just take a matter of a year, two years or even three, but will take five years or more in order to set up. It will take us well beyond the trajectory of any proposed transition deals. The reality of this is that, despite the conciliatory tone of the Tories in the debate and in their amendment, Peter Chapman somewhat let the cat out of the bag. No deal is an option. It is contemplating it. It is looking at coming out of this with no deal whatsoever, despite the cost that it would have on our economy, on our people. The reality is that we must reject a no deal Brexit. We must protect our current trade arrangements. We must protect the devolution settlement. We must have an absolute red line and the democratic authority of bringing the final deal before the UK Parliament to be voted on democratically. Can I begin where the debate started with the contribution from the minister, Mike Russell, and can I thank him for the contribution? I actually felt that, after a few more belligerent exchanges between us over time, that this afternoon's contribution was actually measured and constructive. I believe that that is largely because both he and the Conservatives of this side either represent or work with Governments who are actually charged with achieving an outcome in this process. However, we voted in the referendum last year that we achieve a deal that is in the best interests of Scotland and the United Kingdom. I quote back to Mr Russell what he said. Scotland did not vote for this outcome, nor would Scotland probably vote for it again. I did not vote for us to leave the European Union, and let me be quite clear, because I hear this question put from time to time to people. I still would not vote to leave the European Union if the referendum that we have had behind us still lay ahead. However, I listen with interest to the contribution from many, because I cannot think of any treaty negotiation in my lifetime, which one quarter into the negotiating period, all parties have come and said that this is going absolutely splendidly. We are absolutely convinced that we are all in agreement and that this is all going to arrive at an outcome that we can predict at this stage, which is going to be a fabulous success and that everybody is going to be satisfied. I cannot remember the negotiation of that character that took place. Indeed, I am old enough to remember the discussions that we had and what was probably the largest negotiation that we were involved in before this one. That was the entry into the European Union in the 1970s. I can remember the language in due course. There was a considerable challenge. Small progress has been made. There is a shocking lack of clarity. How can Mr Heath possibly think that he is ever going to negotiate an entry agreement into the European Union, said Mr Wilson? I will achieve a far better outcome if I have too many times down memory lane with you, Mr Stevenson, to go there again just now. That was the language that was employed then and that an agreement was reached. I accept that this is an extremely fraught and difficult negotiation. Let me also say that I do not believe that the deal that will finally be negotiated can possibly enjoy the support of everybody, because there are many people who do not want to leave the European Union. There are Liberals who voted for the referendum to take place but who, as a smug political elite, did not believe that people would ever then reject the advice that the Liberals gave and have subsequently sought to walk away from the fact that Liberal MPs at Westminster voted for the referendum to take place, which has put us in the position that we are in today. Mr Rennie. Willi Rennie. As part of this smug political elite, I can ask him a question. Does Jackson Carlaw believe that negotiations are going well? Jackson Carlaw. It actually matters little what I believe, but the European Committee were in Brussels, and I think that there is an interesting difference between the political theatre, which I understand the Labour Party wants to pretend. It would all be being conducted much better if Jeremy Corbyn were at charge, not a proposition with which many people can readily support. The SNP, who, in fairness, voted against the referendum and never wanted us to be in this position at all, stood against the referendum of the people curiously when they want a referendum and so many other matters to be put to the people, have a different position. We were in Brussels and we had an opportunity to meet the diplomats who are actually involved in the negotiation. Mr Barney believes that we will get to a deal, however difficult it will be. We met privately with other people who are intimately involved in negotiations, diplomats and others, and it is impressive to see the actual progress that is being made. So I understand the political theatre, but I also believe that there is an underlying drive towards getting an agreement, which, as I have said, unfortunately will not in the end please everybody. However, there are two or three things that I do want to come back to. The issue of the European citizens, I have heard many people repeatedly say again that there should be a unilateral declaration. That is not going to happen. We are now at a much more advanced stage. The Prime Minister said that this would be our first priority. It was the first issue that we raised. It is the issue in which both sides now agree that we are very close to agreement upon. A unilateral agreement does not secure the future of British and Scottish nationals elsewhere in the European Union. It is the security of all people, whether here or in the European Union, that it is important that we secure. However, Mr Tomkins made two important points that it is worth returning to. One is that, in the whole of this debate this afternoon, while I have been in Europe or with anybody else, there is talk of progress in EU citizens' rights and progress on Northern Ireland. Where there is a stumbling block is on money. No SNP, no Labour, no green, no liberal had anything to say about the divorce bill whatsoever, or what their opinion is on what would be an acceptable sum within the negotiation for us to arrive at. It is telling that the Scottish Government has been silent on this. We have been advised by informed sources in the European Union that Nicola Sturgeon has been supportive on the view that there is not a great difference of opinion between the Scottish Government and the UK Government on the monies that are involved in this negotiation, but it would be helpful if that silent support, if it is true, was made more public. I also want, in conclusion, to refer to the point that Mr Tomkins made about the whole discussion about the withdrawal bill and clause 11. It is a couple of months now since Mr Russell made an appeal to all sides in this chamber and to which, I believe, Scottish Conservatives responded to work to understand the concerns of the Scottish Government with the withdrawal bill and to seek to arrive at a point where all parties in this chamber felt that they could lend it their support. We accept that, at the heart of all that, the Scottish Government's principal concern is with clause 11. It is important to draw attention to the remarks that Mr Tomkins made in identifying the comments of the Secretary of State for Scotland, that the powers, the 111 powers that the Scottish Government has identified, will either end up with the Scottish Parliament or be subject to a UK framework to which the Scottish Government is a party. There has been an acceptance, an acceptance of a key point that Scottish Government ministers made to us and to others that these new frameworks must be agreed and not imposed. I believe that there is progress between those who are involved in trying to arrive at an agreement, even though there is a lot of work still to be done here as there is within the European Union. However, just to simply indulge in political theatre is to highlight the irrelevance of those who chose to make their contribution in that regard to the debate this afternoon. What is important is that we understand further what the actual position of many in this Parliament is on the key budgetary negotiation about which so little was said as we reached the agreement that none of us actually saw but which we all need to ensure that we are able to achieve? I call Mike Russell to close the debate. I would appreciate eight minutes, please, minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I start by saying that there has been, with two exceptions, which I shall come to later, an interesting solidarity in this debate, even in some elements of the Tory party? People in this chamber realise how damaging and no deal would be. Even those Tories who have tried to justify it, I cannot honestly believe, could expect anything other than severe damage as the figures show. The chamber recognises how destructive the current EU withdrawal bill would be if it were not changed. I welcome the different tone that has come from at least two of the three people on the Tory front-bench about the matter, because it reflects the seriousness of purpose, as Jackson Carlaw indicated, of focus on outcomes, which we have to be focused on to take the issue forward. Everybody in the chamber realises how inhuman the current approach to EU citizens is, and the fact that that could be rectified at a stroke of a pen. It is a pity that I think that Jackson Carlaw says that it won't be done, but it could be done. I think that it's interesting how we all realise how wasteful and purposeless this activity is. Brexit is taking a huge amount of time and effort that could be well applied to other subjects. If I can just bring up the final point that's made, Jackson Carlaw and Adam Tomkins raised the issue of money, saying that it was the key issue at this stage. I think that we all realise that. The Scottish Government has taken a useful stance in saying that we do not think that interfering in this matter would be helpful to anyone. We have said that there is a legal as well as a moral obligation. The UK Government did not say that there was a legal obligation until recently, but we have been trying to be useful and helpful in not intervening in some areas where that would be a purposeless activity, which would make things more difficult. That's also been our situation in terms of the Northern Irish settlement. We have very clearly said that we agree with the intention to resolve the Northern Irish situation by having no border, particularly no hard border, but it would not be helpful for us to get involved in that in a detailed way. We won't get involved in that in a detailed way at this stage. I think that we've shown responsibility in these matters. I hope that that might be welcomed on the Conservative benches. I have to say that, regrettably, we can't support the Tory amendment. As Stuart Stevenson has said, there are things in it that are very welcome, things that one can agree to, but we cannot agree with the element of no deal in the amendment. We want to see concrete progress on the issues of amendments to the bill, but I am glad that the other parties can agree on the resolution, and I think that that takes us a big step along a difficult road. Now, there have been some tremendous contributions in this debate. I want to pick out at the very beginning that, from Marie Gougeon, she gave us the human face of what the situation is to do with EU nationals. It is a very, very difficult situation, and Willie Rennie pointed that out too in the quote that he gave from a professor in Scotland. It is a very, very difficult personal situation that people find themselves in. Finding a way in which we can support those individuals in Scotland has been difficult. The Scottish Government continues to develop its support mechanisms. People usually go to UK websites to get support. We want to make sure that they get more support in Scotland itself, but we also want to talk positively about the nature of migration, and that is what we are going to do. We have been trying to do it across the country and we are going to do more of it in the next few months to show how important migration is to Scotland. As Ross Greer pointed out quite correctly, migration also builds communities in Scotland, particularly in places where population is falling. Migration is an alloyed good to Scotland. We are going to say that regularly and often. I was struck by Marie Gougeon's point about the exploitation of EU citizens. That is a shocking development, and that is an issue that the UK Government could deal with, with a stroke of the pen. I am urging it, even now, to use that pen. There are a range of other useful and important points made, but there is no status quo. A no deal plunges the UK into a completely unknown set of circumstances, a point that Pauline McNeill made, too, with particular reference to Ireland, because it would create the hardest of borders in those circumstances. Richard Lochhead made some very important points about the financial sector. I have met people in the financial sector who are preparing to leave, who have made decisions to leave, and that is exceptionally worrying, too. There were good contributions that I disagree with. Adam Tomkins made a number of points, which I think were important. I just do not find myself in agreement with them. I have to say that the point that he made about the sequencing of the talks is inaccurate. There was an agreement between the UK and the EU that the talks would follow the sequence exactly as laid out. Of course, the EU believed that it was laid out in article 50, and that is what has been taking place—the divorce bill, the legal and moral obligations, the issue of Northern Ireland, the EU citizens, and the issue to do with the ECJ and some other issues like the current base in Cyprus. That is the sequence that was agreed. Nobody imposed that upon the UK Government, and working that through is what the UK Government said that it would do. I have to say that there were two outliers in this debate—two Tory MSPs who clearly did not get the front bench memo, even though one of them is sitting on the front bench, which is a bit surprising. Both were depressing contributions, I have to say. Rachel Hamilton does not understand the difference between a unified and a uniform market. However, more importantly, as somebody with a business background, she does not understand the extraordinary difficulty that Brexit is already causing for people even in her own area of expertise. I have had many representations in the hospitality sector and yesterday I was meeting the soft-food sector. There is a developing crisis in the labour force. To say that that existed before Brexit and in some way was of no consequence at all is an absolute misrepresentation of the facts that are being given by business themselves. Then we had the contribution from Mr Chapman, who is becoming the Doric Donald Trump. I know, he says, how to do deals. I have to say that I thought that it was an arrogant and unpleasant contribution. It was a contribution on behalf—well, I heard it. Some members did not hear it. I would advise them to look at it again. I would be surprised if they would come to any other conclusion. It was a speech on behalf of the haves. It should be contempt for the people that we have talked about often today here, who have been suffering the effects of Brexit. We are told by Mr Chapman that we simply have to cheer up. That is the deal where to have. On this occasion, there will be no deal. You cannot cheer people up if, in fact, they are suffering the labour shortages that hospitality and other sectors—no, thank you, Mr Mundell. You cannot cheer up in those circumstances. You cannot cheer up if you are an EU national, like Marie's husband, who is being told that they do not have the right to stay here. You cannot cheer up if people are losing jobs as a result of Brexit. Those are not reasons to be cheerful. If Mr Chapman wants to come and tell us to cheer up, let him come to this chamber and let him tell us the truth about what will happen, even in the sector that he is purporting to represent, because there are fishing communities in my constituency. We are looking at the issue of lorries full of fish and shell fish that will rot on the docks. They are looking at the decline of the market and they are realising that they have been sold a dogfish, perhaps one would say, because they have not been told the truth about Brexit and certainly not by politicians such as Michael Gove, who was mentioned warmly by Mr Chapman. I have to say that if Mr Gove were to tell me that the sky was blue, I would go outside to check. No, Presiding Officer. Fortunately, not all the debate was like that. The debate was a constructive debate. We have a great deal of work to do together to take this issue forward. I am glad that we have agreements on the key issues such as no deal, the issues of the inadequacies of the withdrawal bill and I am grateful for the sensible part of the Tory front bench that has brought that forward this afternoon. I think that we have the potential for making progress here. I just hope that people like Mr Chapman will listen to the wiser voices on their benches and not get carried away again as, as I said, the Doric Donald Trump. That concludes our debate on Scotland and the EU-UK negotiations on EU exit. We move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of two business motions, motion S5M-839, setting out a business programme and motion S5M-8400 on a stage one timetable. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the either motion to press their request-to-speak button now. I call on Jovis Patrick to move both motions on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau. Move together. Thank you very much. No member has asked to speak against either motion. The question is that motions S5M-839 and S5M-8400 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The next item of business is consideration of a Parliamentary Bureau motion. I would ask Jovis Patrick on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau to move motion S5M-8097 on approval of an SSI. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press their request-to-speak button now. I call on John Finnie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We have been here before on this particular issue. We have been here with an organisation called the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, most recently an organisation called the European Organization for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere. It relates to a body called the Unified Patent Court. We are told, or we will be told by the minister, that this is about the Vienna Convention. I would be more interested in a parliamentary convention that Government ministers do not request anybody, anyone or any premises that are not subject to Scots law. We know from the information provided at the Justice Committee, and I quote, that it shall also be exempt from devolved and local taxes in respect of salaries, wages and emoluments. The minister did say that we do not know how many officials in Scotland such exemptions could apply to, but we subsequently learn—and I am grateful to the minister for it—that the current forecast is that there would be six part-time judges who may operate on occasions in Scotland. However, I am interested in the cumulative effect of all the various statutory instruments that have been brought here. In relation to the financial effects, we are told that there are no financial effects on the Scottish Government or local government. Clearly, that is simply incorrect, and perhaps at some point we will learn what that cumulative effect is, the number of people involved. What we did learn and may be a pointer to the future is that temporary premises in respect of the organisation would not be in violet. Police could enter those premises without a warrant, and that is a welcome reduction in respect of this particular organisation—one privilege less—and hopefully a model for the inevitable future orders that will be brought to the Parliament. Finally, I thank the minister on a lighter note for clarification on another point, namely that the European Patent Office will not accept a patent that is filed in Gaelic in a sense of another campaign coming on there. However, I would ask members to reflect on the message that supports the proposal that is sent to our constituents and to vote against it at decision time. The draft international organisations, immunities and privileges at Scotland amendment 2, order 2017, confers various legal immunities and privileges upon the Unified Patent Court, or UPC. The UPC is an international judicial body supported by 25 EU member states, including the United Kingdom. On 19 February 2013, the UK Government signed the intergovernmental agreement to provide for a unified patent court within participating European Union countries. The protocol on privileges and immunities was done in Brussels on 29 June 2016. The order before the Parliament today fulfills Scotland's part of the obligations that entail from these international agreements. Equivalent provision in respect of reserved matters and in respect of devolved matters in the rest of the UK is being conferred by legislation at Westminster. When respect of parliamentary passage is complete, both orders will go before the privy council. Although the order is limited to the issue of privileges and immunities, I would like to say a little about the background to the UPC itself. The UPC will be a court common to the contracting member states and, thus, part of their judicial system. It will have exclusive competence in respect of European patents and European patents with unitary effect. Unitary effect means that a patent does not need to be validated in each country where the holder wants patent protection. Instead, the patent will provide uniform protection up to 25 EU countries. The Prefectory Committee of the UPC has stated its aim of bringing the agreement into force in the spring of 2018. To meet those deadlines, the UK and Germany must deposit their instruments of ratification late 2017. The decision to sign up to the international obligations, providing for UPC, falls within the reserved responsibilities of the UK Government and the Parliament at Westminster. The specific purpose of this order is therefore to provide immunities and privileges on the UPC and its officials in the course of official activities in Scotland in order to reflect the equivalent Westminster order and the terms of the protocol on privileges and immunities. The order provides that judges, registrar and the deputy registrar shall have immunity from suit and legal process in the course of performance of official duties. This immunity can be waived by the presidium of the court. Immunities and privileges are therefore limited in that they apply only to official actions and they can be waived. They do not give an individual carp launched to commit criminal activity. An assault, for example, can still be prosecuted in the normal way. The immunity is therefore analogous to a bit more limited than that which has been for generations conferred upon diplomats working in foreign jurisdictions. As with diplomatic immunity, all individuals benefiting from privileges and immunities in Scotland are expected to respect Scotland's law. The order will help the UK to fulfil its international obligations in respect of Scotland and is therefore the duty of the Scottish Government to bring it forward to the Parliament. Thank you very much, minister. The question on this motion will be put at decision time. There are three questions today. The first question is that amendment 8352.1, in the name of Adam Tomkins, which seeks to amend motion 8352, in the name of Michael Russell, on Scotland and EU-UK negotiations on EU exit, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to division and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 8352.1, in the name of Adam Tomkins, is yes, 30, no, 86. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that motion 8352, in the name of Michael Russell, on Scotland and EU-UK negotiations on EU exit, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to our vote again and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 8352, in the name of Michael Russell, is yes, 86, no, 30. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed. The final question is that motion 8097, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on approval of an SSI, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to our vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 8097, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, is yes, 107, no, 86. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time. We'll now move to members' business, in the name of Tom Arthur, on Scotland's music industries, but we'll just take a few moments for members to change seats.