 The next item of business is a debate on motion 1, 444, in the name of Angus Robertson, on the impact of Brexit on Scotland's supply chain and labour market. I would ask members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak buttons. I call on Angus Robertson to speak to and move the motion. Cabinet Secretary. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. In 2016, the people of Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union. That vote was ignored by the UK Government. The Scottish Government then proposed a compromise, recognising that two countries of the United Kingdom had voted to remain while two had voted to leave through which the UK would stay within the European single market. That compromise proposal was also ignored by the UK Government. Instead, the Tory Government Westminster under the leadership of Boris Johnson decided on a hard Brexit, the hardest of Brexit and a distant relationship with the European Union. At the 2019 UK general election, the Tories sought a mandate for their hard Brexit approach. The people of Scotland gave their answer. The Tories were roundly defeated and they lost more than half of their Westminster seats. True to form, the Tories once again ignored the wishes of people in Scotland than the pandemic hit. Such is their hard Brexit obsession that even in a global public health crisis, the likes of which we have never seen before, that was not enough to persuade the Tories even to slow the pace of the economic hit that they were determined to impose on Scotland. Over the last few days, we have seen the clearest evidence yet of the catastrophic consequences of that reckless decision to press ahead with a hard Brexit in the middle of a global pandemic. The Tories have taken aim at key Scottish industries. Shainfully, they have also taken aim at the poorest in our society, ensuring that those on low incomes pay the highest price for their disastrous decision to impose Brexit, while people and businesses are trying to recover from the pandemic. The abrupt end of freedom of movement has left Scotland and the whole of the UK with no flexibility to address the impacts of labour shortages in vital sectors of our economy, as highlighted by the current disruption to fuel supplies caused by a lack of HGV drivers. Of course, I will take an intervention. Does the cabinet secretary back the Scottish Conservatives' calls to extend the seasonal agricultural workers scheme? Can the cabinet secretary tell us how many of the 30,000 places have currently been taken up by the fruit and veg sector after his meeting with the Secretary of State for Scotland? The issue of visas and so on is something that I will come back to later in my comments, but I thank the member for her intervention. Last year, the European Union made it clear that it was willing to offer the UK an extension to the Brexit transition period. The Scottish Government published detailed evidence setting out why, given the impact of the Covid crisis, that extension should be agreed. As part of that evidence, the Scottish Government said, Brexit represents an additional risk to the sectors already exposed to those Covid-19 related channels, especially through the international, specifically EU supply and demand exposures, and the impact of removal of freedom of movement of workers on labour supply. I also went on to warn before the Covid-19 pandemic, the road freight sector faced a shortage of HGV drivers and any new barriers to employing EU drivers would exacerbate that. Yet again, the people of Scotland were ignored by the Tories. Unfortunately, the disruption to fuel supplies is only the most visible example among many on the cost of that decision. The end of free movement has created staff shortages across key sectors, including food and hospitality, social care and construction, to name but a few. It wasn't just Scottish ministers who issued warnings only to be ignored. In 2018, the Scottish Federation of Small Businesses, the FSB, stated that, and I quote from the FSB, the UK Government's obstinate approach to immigration is a clear threat to many of Scotland's businesses and local communities. Those proposals will make it now an impossible for the vast majority of Scottish firms to access non-UK labour and the skills that they need to grow and sustain their operations. At the same time, the Scottish Tourism Alliance rang the alarm bells. They warned that the UK Government's immigration plans will, and I quote, exacerbate the existing recruitment crisis considerably, placing our tourism industry and what is one of the most important economic drivers for Scotland in severe jeopardy. More recently, Scottish ministers wrote to the UK Government on 20 July. We pushed for pragmatic and easily-ad haunted changes to UK migration policies and to highlight the impact of the rules and delays around licensing for the HGV sector. Asking for an urgent meeting, all of those warnings were ignored. The Scottish Government has long argued that the current UK immigration system is not meeting the needs of Scotland. We have unique challenges. Unlike the UK as a whole, all of our future population growth is projected to come from inward migration. However, what has also become clear over the past few days is that the UK Government's hostile approach to migration is not meeting the needs of key sectors of the economy across the whole of the UK. On that note, it has been sad to see that the leadership of the Labour Party this week has ruled out bringing back freedom of movement. They have put what they believe are their electoral fortunes in other parts of the UK ahead of the needs of Scotland and the Scottish economy. Meanwhile, the UK Government's proposals for a three-month visa route for 5,000 additional hauliers and 5,500 poultry workers are demonstratively inadequate. It is not an attractive offer to workers and provides no certainty to employers. To quote James Withers, the chief executive of Scotland's food and drink, it is too little and too late. However, there are actions that the UK Government can and must take now. It could instead introduce a 24-month temporary workers' visa. It could ensure a formal role for the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament in shaping the Scottish shortage occupation list. It could review excessive visa fees. After 19 requests to speak with the UK immigration minister on these vital matters—let me say that number again—19 requests to meet the UK immigration minister. Finally, the Home Office has relented. Next week, I will reiterate the urgency of making these changes to the immigration rules when I meet the immigration minister to discuss these matters. The UK Government could easily introduce those improvements if there was a political will to do so. Instead, it has forced EU citizens to apply to the EU settlement scheme to maintain the rights that they already had. It has labelled those who chose to come to this country to make a positive contribution to our economy—cue jumpers—and accused them of undercutting British salaries. The UK Government cannot simultaneously appeal for migrants to come and help, while also demonising those who do come. Migration policy must support fair work, protect workers' rights, pay and access to employment, while preventing exploitation and abuse. The Tories are indeed taking aim at the Scottish economy by removing Scotland from the European Union and imposing a hard Brexit in the midst of a pandemic, making recovery so much harder. They are making the most disadvantaged pay the biggest price. They have decided to combine a disastrous Brexit with catastrophic cuts to universal credit. Indeed, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has warned that the triple whammy of price rises, tax increases and benefit cuts could leave low-income families £33.50 a week worse off. Of course, I will take intervention. I am very grateful. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance says that this Government has the power to maintain universal credit at the higher level, but it is not willing to do so. Will the minister be demanding that she change her mind? Can I say to the Tory benches that, on an issue like this, where there is so much consensus across Scottish politics that what is going on with universal credit is totally unacceptable, what would be really welcome is that members of the Tory party in this Parliament, who we know privately oppose the change of the UK Government, would find some courage and stand up in this chamber and call for the UK Government. That would be really welcome. I would be happy to give way to the gentleman if he would be prepared to do so now. I gave the gentleman an opportunity to make clear his unhappiness about the cut to universal credit. It will be noted that he did not take the opportunity to do so. The UK Government has placed a burden on those who can least afford it. It risks pushing more people into crisis, putting the most vulnerable in our society at greater risk of food insecurity and homelessness. Within our powers, we are doing all that we can to support people who are on low incomes. The Scottish Government invested around £2.5 billion last year in targeted support and will continue that support through the winter. However, the Scottish Government only has limited power to address insufficient and insecure incomes, the key drivers of household food insecurity. The Government's powers related to the energy market are reserved entirely. I have got to make some progress. In the run-up to the 2014 independence referendum, no campaigners boasted about what they called the strength and security of the United Kingdom. They said to people in Scotland that they had to reject independence to remain within the European Union. Since then, we have had years of Tory austerity, Boris Johnson has been elected as Prime Minister and Scotland has been ignored and taken out of the EU. A hard Brexit has been imposed in the middle of a pandemic and today, under Westminster control, we have people queuing for hours in the search of petrol. There are even shortages of some foods. Our world-class food and drink industry, our universities, our manufacturers and our service companies have all been hit by the Tory Brexit of Session. The Tories are about to take £20 a week from working people on low incomes, risking pushing 60,000 people in Scotland, including 20,000 people, children into poverty. I am winding up right now, Presiding Officer. All of that has happened, all of it, against the wishes of people in Scotland. Following the 2014 referendum, all parties represented in this Parliament said in the Joint Smith Commission report, it has agreed that nothing in this report prevents Scotland from becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose. In May, the people of this country selected a new Parliament. I will have to ask you to wind up now, please. It is the people of this country, not Boris Johnson and his band of Brexiteers, who have the right to decide their own future. I move the motion in my name. I call Donald Cameron to speak to and move amendment 144.1 up to seven minutes. Thank you Presiding Officer. I would like to begin by moving the amendment in my name. As a veteran of many debates about Brexit in this chamber in the last session, there was always a familiar pattern to them when it came to how the SNP approached the issue. There was always a denial, firstly, of the democratic decision of the UK as a member state to leave the EU. There was always some scam mongering and precious little regard to the facts. And then finally, and inevitably, there was a call to arms and a statement that the way out of all of this somehow was independence. Presiding Officer, in this new session, as we have just seen, it seems that the SNP, to borrow a phrase, has learned nothing and forgotten nothing. Now I say this as someone who voted remain, but have long believed that we must respect the result of that EU referendum. It is high time that the SNP accepts that the UK public made a decision to leave the European Union, that the UK Government negotiated a fair exit deal, and that we now need to move on. I understand his argument, but does he not accept that the type of Brexit that his party has implemented has damaged our economy? Surely he, as a remainder, must accept that this was not a good decision? Donald Cameron, I do not accept that and for reasons that I will go on, because a lot of this is short term and I believe that, in the long term, the economy will thrive. The SNP Green Government motion brings to Parliament a motion that is strong and hyperbole, but weak on substance. It describes the UK's deal with the European Union as chaotic hard Brexit policy. Let us not forget that it was SNP MPs who voted against the deal that the UK and the EU agreed on, and effectively backed the hardest Brexit policy possible. They do not like it, but they backed the hardest Brexit policy possible and no deal outcome. That would have been crippling for our economy and for Scottish jobs. The motion put sole blame for the recent shortage of certain conspiracies on the UK Government. Without noting the fact, there is a shortage of delivery drivers right across Europe. Before today's debate, I had a look on the main broadcasters of Poland, Germany, France, Italy and the Netherlands. Not one single one of them was reporting a problem in their country in relation to shortages of shops and labour market. Why is it the case that it is happening here, but not in those countries? Donald Cameron, the HDV shortage of drivers is happening in Europe. It is a problem impacting countries right across Europe. Germany and France short of between 45,000 to 65,000 drivers. Poland short of around 124,000 drivers. The Government tries to argue that certain sexual vacancies only exist because of Brexit, without acknowledging that, in many instances, in the health and social care setting, for example, those problems existed long before. Those benches have always acknowledged that there will be short-term issues after the UK's exit from the EU. We have always accepted that Brexit will present challenges as well as opportunities. We have never attempted to say otherwise, but it is simply wrong to ignore the fact that we are in a global pandemic, which is having a definitive and searing impact on our economy, along with all the other causes of disruption in the supply chain. Let me turn to the issue of fuel. It is irresponsible of anyone anywhere to pedal fields that there is a national shortage of fuel, and the UK Government has been abundantly clear that the problems related to HE drivers are about the drivers and not the supply of fuel itself. However, those problems are stabilising, and indeed they are easing, and there is optimism that, by the weekend, we will have returned to a more normal position. Without downplaying the inconvenience to all of us who drive, the picture in Scotland is, in fact, better than the rest of the UK. As of yesterday, 27 per cent of petrol stations in mainland UK were out of petrol, but in Scotland that figure was only 15 per cent. When it comes to the shortage of HE drivers—and the argument that this has arisen solely because of Brexit—let's be clear, the road hauliers association noted that the vast majority of foreign HE drivers left the UK due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and that the pandemic has created a driver test backlog, which has prevented new drivers from getting on the road. In some statistics, in 2016, 89 per cent of HE drivers employed in the UK were UK nationals. In 2021, it is actually the same figure—89 per cent. The number of EU nationals is broadly the same—perhaps slightly lower now than five years ago, but not substantially different. Problems are long-term problems in that sector. For instance, I'm sorry, I'd really like to make some progress, I've only got two minutes left if you'll forgive me. There is a shortage of drivers because, for instance, there is a lot of retirement in that sector. More than a third of HE drivers are over the age of 55. That's a problem, as I've just said, impacting countries right across Europe. We welcome the fact that the UK Government will issue up to 5,000 temporary visas to recruit additional HE drivers, but it's plainly a long-term issue, too. It's not just a question of visas. It's about creating high-wage and a high-skill economy. He points to the problems that are being faced in the HEV sector and says that it's not just down to Brexit. Of course, he's partly right in that. Part of it is to do with a PCS dispute about PCS members saying that the working conditions at the DVLA are not safe. The UK ministers have done nothing about that, which has caused a 54,000 application backlog, which is stopping more HEV drivers coming through. Does he accept that? That's exactly why the UK Government has announced that it will make up to 50,000 additional HEV driving tests available each year, streamline the testing process and help drivers to gain an HEV licence more quickly than before. However, I return to the point that I made. It's a long-term issue. It's about creating high wages and a high-skill economy, better pay and better working conditions. In the short time left, can I dwell briefly on health and social care? It's not been really mentioned yet, but I argued, of course, that staff shortages in this area are apparently caused by Brexit. I have to say that that's one of the most dishonest arguments that I've heard made by this Government. The idea that staff shortages in the NHS and the care sector somehow only crystallised on 1 January 2021 when the transition period ended is absurd. Health professionals and the care sector have been warning about issues around staffing for years. Whether it's GPs, nurses, consultants or care workers, there are deep long-term staffing issues that have nothing to do with Brexit. There is only one cause, and that's the disastrous stewardship of the NHS by this Government over the last 14 years. The most galling thing about this debate is that, while the SNP-Green Government continues to pour doom and gloom over the UK's exit from the EU, it simultaneously failed to mention the catacysmic impact that breaking up the UK would have on our economy. It failed to mention that its separatist agenda would put at risk around 545,000 Scottish jobs, and it failed to mention the start warning from its very own adviser, Mark Glyde, who said that Scottish independence would be Brexit times 10. The people of Scotland deserve better than this. They deserve a Government that focuses on the day job, not constitutional grievance, and they deserve a Government that will work constructively with the UK Government and not against it. In today's debate, we need to focus on how to address the crisis that many of our constituents are facing through the impact of a badly thought-through chaotic Tory Brexit. The Labour amendment proposes removing the last phrase in the SNP coalition Government's motion, because although we deeply regret leaving the EU, people voted for it. To the SNP, I'd say that they know that many of their supporters voted to leave the EU, too. Our amendment starts by recognising that breaking up economic and political unions has deeply damaging consequences and creating borders has costs. We have known Brexit was happening for years, but people have been let down by the Tory Government not thinking through the details of its impact and not acting to eliminate the challenges for businesses and workers that new rules at borders have created. People have been let down by a lack of planning and workforce planning and joint working by both the Scottish and UK Governments, and that has been exacerbated by the pandemic. Many of the shortages of key workers predated the pandemic and Brexit, although they have got worse. We have known that, for those sectors where pay is low and the conditions are poor or unacceptable, the UK Government and the Scottish Government have failed to address those issues, instead turning a blind eye and relying on many people from the EU to fill those roles and to hide those systemic issues. Brexit has highlighted that in stark reality, and it is now time to ensure that not only the wages match the contribution of those roles later in our society, but the conditions are fit for the 21st century. We urgently need union engagement in those sectors and work across all bodies to ensure that paying conditions are not minimally acceptable but are attractive. We support the call for options for temporary workers to be able to access our labour markets and help us to get through the next few months as we recover from the pandemic, but it is not enough. I will take that point. Neil Gray. Does Sarah Boyack accept the principle that was set out by her colleague Lisa Nandi yesterday that freedom of movement should no longer be up for discussion? Why would Sarah Boyack say to him that when Labour was in charge of the Scottish Parliament, we negotiated access to people being able to stay in Scotland after they had graduated from university? We understand the importance of the Scottish Government having flexibility to work with the UK Government. The work that my colleague Alison McGovern is doing that I mentioned earlier in the last set of questions is to go straight to the EU to make sure that we stand up for our musicians, those who work behind the scenes, our artists and some of our greatest exports, to make sure that they get support to enable them to keep in employment. We do not want to keep losing talented artists and people in the music sector who have had to leave the sector, who have had to take other jobs to keep going, so we need real action and leadership from the parties in both these Governments, not just the usual blame passing that we have seen right across the chamber today. The other point that I want to make is that Scotland is a rich country, but those riches are not shared across our country. There is a real irony of an SNP Government not drawing to attention to the voters that their independence plans, while decrying the impact of Brexit, many of their own members voted for, they know that independence would lead to austerity, threatening even more job losses, particularly in our public sector, and it would be like Brexit times 10. Those are not just my views, but those of a former colleague in this chamber, Andrew Wilson and Professor Mark Llyth. We need action now, not rhetoric, and we need access for our constituents to fuel and food because we are moving into winter and, for many of our constituents, lack of government here and in the UK will leave them vulnerable. That is why my colleague Anas Sarwar has asked for an increase in winter fuel allowance payments, and that is why we have called on the Tories to abandon their cuts to universal credit. Our amendment calls on the Tory and the SNP coalition Governments to work together not to constantly invent constitutional stands-off, blaming each other for their lack of action. The people of Scotland deserve better. They need action now to invest in jobs and training in the key sectors where we have labour shortages and give them decent terms and conditions, so that workers in the care sector get a minimum of £15 an hour and support to develop career options, and to use Scottish Government contracts so that we do not see precarious employment, and we need to focus on the day job and a plan for the long term to step up and get invest in jobs that will let us develop the low-carbon economy that we need now, not in 2045, for our recovery from the pandemic that puts the needs of those most vulnerable first. That is what this debate should be about, how we use those powers and using them now. I move amendment 1. There is quite a bit of the Government's motion that I agree with, and some bits I agree with quite strongly, but, of anything, it is a tad simplistic. There is no one single cause of this chaos. Of course Brexit is a major contributor and it demeans the Conservatives for not acknowledging that, but it is the broader immigration policy too. Free movement of people would not have solved on its own the workforce shortages that we are now experiencing as a result of the current chaos. Take the berries and veg fields in Fife. The new growing techniques demand more workers for longer periods as the season has been extended and the sector has grown significantly. The sector has tried to recruit locally, but there are just not enough people locally. The workers used to come from Poland until their economy improved and the workers have been coming from further and further east, year on year, and it now stretches beyond the EU to Moldova and Ukraine. For them, we need a bigger seasonal workers scheme. The recent decision by the Home Office not to extend and deepen the scheme is utterly reckless. The scheme is poorly designed and managed and combined with the pandemic means that many did not even venture across Europe to join us this year. The hit on the fruit and veg sector in Fife stretches to millions of pounds just for this year alone, but the rotting berries and veg left in the fields this year is unlikely to be repeated next year, as the farms just will not make the investment in the crops unless they have guarantees on a workforce very soon. However, it is not just the farms, it is the food processors such as Kettle Produce, which supply the supermarkets right across the country. The seasonal workers scheme needs to be extended to ensure that they are covered as well. The fishing community in Pettinwim boats have been tied up for weeks, not because of the lack of markets, but because of the lack of workers. A once thriving community prevented from catching high-quality prawns and langosteen for the tables of Europe. The short-sighted immigration rules recently prevented a Ghanaian fisherman from working here within the 12-mile limit with more money than he could ever earn back home. That would have been good for him, but also good for our economy as well. The cabotage rules post-Brexit make it unprofitable for HDV drivers of Europe to come to the UK. There is already plenty of work for them in Europe, so why would they bother coming across the channel? However, the Scottish Government also bears some responsibility for the current predicament. The limited nature of the transition funds and the independent training account is worth only £200 when the cost of learning to drive an HDV stretches into the thousands. It means that it is a little surprise that there have been very few extra HDV drivers through that route. I probably should not have been surprised that the First Minister blamed Brexit for all the problems of the social care sector in Scotland. Yes, it makes a contribution, but the problems have been brewing for years, well before Brexit, and it is in large part because the Government does not fund social care so that it can give decent wages for its carers, not just now. There is a big lesson from all of this from the SNP, that it seems unprepared to heed. We need to learn the lessons of Brexit, not repeat them with independence. The last thing we need in the middle of all this chaos is yet more chaos. Breaking up is hard to do, and that is something that we should have all learned by now. We now move to the open debate, and I call Julian Martin to be followed by Maurice Golden. The Minister for Business, Trade and Tourism and Enterprise, Ivan McKee, might remember that I voted for him, if I did not vote for him, sorry, my computer has just gone a wee bit crazy. Can I start again, please? Yes, if we could get the bleeping to stop, I don't know why. The Minister for Business, Trade and Tourism and Enterprise, Ivan McKee, might remember that I wrote to him in June to express my concern on the impact Brexit was having and continues to have on the supply chain, particularly for businesses in the construction industry. There is no doubt that EU exit has had a severe impact on the ability of Scottish companies to function. I know that all too well from speaking to businesses in my constituency of Aberdeenshire East to struggle to obtain mechanical parts and materials such as cement, steel and timber, and, as we know, the costs are soaring, particularly in recent weeks due to the shortage of drivers. The cost of timber has risen from £1.60 per metre to more than £5 per metre, and the cost of steel has risen from £1,000 per ton to £1,500. Fabricators, kitchen and bathroom companies, garages, joiners, plumbers, builders, farmers, civil and mechanical engineering businesses have all been impacted as their overheads go through the roof. The ease of ordering from suppliers out with the UK has become arduous and time consuming, and bureaucracy has multiplied for our exporting companies. The UK Government has been aware of those issues for months. Earlier this year, my colleague Councillor Alasdair Forsyth wrote to former Scottish Office Minister and Tory MP David Jugat on behalf of local tariff-based businesses, and Mr Jugat said by way of a reply that there has almost always been a relatively straightforward resolution to such issues. Okay, so what is the solution to the owners of the White Heather hotel in Tariff, whose manager I met while she was on her way to the local test school, food and drink supplies, because their wholesaler couldn't give them half of what they needed to serve their companies that evening? What is the solution to Kenans in New Deer, who want to expand their waste management facility to help us meet our net zero goals and provide more local jobs, but who can't get the steel in the concrete they need for their building work? We hear warnings every day from retailers of higher food and fuel prices due to Britain's supply chain crisis, a crisis that former EU exit negotiator Michelle Barney this week said was, quote, a direct consequence of Brexit. Who is going to be hit hardest by increased food and fuel prices? Well, yet again it's our poorest citizens, those who have to make a daily choice between heating and eating. Every week in this chamber we debate the drivers and consequences of poverty on so many Scottish people. The drugs crisis, root cause, poverty. The educational attainment gap, root cause, poverty. Health inequalities, root cause, poverty. Elderly malnutrition, root cause, poverty. Adverse childhood experiences, root cause, poverty. Time after time Tory members get to their feet to demand that this Government mitigates the effects of poverty. Poverty they will exacerbate by reducing universal credit and simultaneously increasing national insurance. Poverty they will create through withdrawing furlough. Poverty they will worsen as they remove the energy price cap. And now poverty that they will create through the effects of their ridiculous solution to the Tory party's former existential crisis, which resulted in a needless, hard Brexit. Those benches know what the solution is. Scotland joining the EU is an independent nation state. I have always thought our arguments for that were strong but my goodness the mess that the Tory party has made of their Brexit has ensured that those arguments have never been stronger. I would like to start by reflecting on the tone and intention of the motion. Clearly this SNP green coalition, rather than dealing with the real challenges facing our country, would rather spend their time on another tedious piece of Brexit bashing. It is not to focus on how they can support our businesses to seize the opportunities available to them on the global stage nor is it to debate an approach to working together with Governments across our United Kingdom for the benefit of all our citizens. No, it is instead a catch-all rant against the British Government, which has become a tedious and off-repeated mantra of this SNP green coalition. Their political interests will always come before the country's interests. Happy to hear. Daniel Johnson? Does the member not think that it is somewhat ironic to berate the SNP Government and not have one single reflection of some of the consequences of Brexit, nor to engage with any of the complexities of the labour market or the underlying issues that might be resulting? Thank you. I will address all those points coming up, so you should listen, Daniel Johnson. Otherwise, the SNP would be seizing upon this opportunity. It would be standing alongside Scottish businesses and supporting them as they export to the world. Accessing international markets is a boon to Scottish business. Our food and drink sector is worth £14 billion to the Scottish economy and supports 115,400 jobs. There are massive opportunities for this sector to export to the world. Taking seafood as an example, I don't know what university members are in, but it does appreciate that Scotland's food and drink sector has been absolutely hammered by the restrictions that are put in place at borders because it is precisely Brexit and has been further hammered by the process that we are going through at the moment because of the shortage of driver's logistics problems that it is causing. We should reflect on that. Yes, we are working very hard with Scottish business to exploit opportunities, but, frankly, it is made much, much, much harder by the misguided policies of his colleagues in Westminster in the Tory party. Maurice Golden? Thank you. We heard the ideology. Here is the fact. Taking seafood as an example in the last few months, we have seen a 9 per cent growth in our global exports to non-EU countries. Those are the facts, Deputy Presiding Officer. Just today, the Scottish Chamber of Commerce announced its attendance at the World Expo in Dubai, an exciting time for Scottish luxury products. Since the UK left the European Union, the UK has signed 70 trade deals with countries around the world, including the EU. The UK has also signed new agreements that go above and beyond trade agreements that the UK had when it was part of the EU, such as a new deal with Japan. Now is the time to support Scottish entrepreneurs not to sit and wallow in politically motivated false despair. The Scottish Chamber of Commerce is up for this. Scottish business is up for this. Why is not the Scottish Government up for this? The British Government is standing alongside Scottish businesses the recent announcement of a £24 million research and innovation support for the Scottish seafood sector as part of a £100 million package of measures. This is on top of the furlough scheme, the kickstart scheme, export finance and access to 119 departments of international trade missions. The British Business Bank, to name a few, has stepped up to the plate, so let me say to the Scottish Government to work with the British Government to back Scottish business and support our exporters. Kenneth Gibson, to be followed by Richard Leonard. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Yesterday, the Tories posed as defenders of this Parliament, a Parliament that they actively campaigned against re-establishing. They are blustering it as much credibility as the orange order defending the Vatican. Today, the Tories have exposed their ostrich mentality by simply ignoring the realities of a Brexit that they imposed on an unwilling Scotland. The irresponsible, it will be all right on the night approach and complete absence of forward thinking, let alone planning, has led to chronic shortages of workers in many key sectors, not least in college, as we have so clearly seen in recent days. That has been accompanied by a sharp decline in exports and difficulties experienced in securing imports, all accompanied by an inflation rate almost double that of the eurozone. The damage spreads far and wide. Euro stat analysis shows that UK exports to the European Union declined by a mind blowing 16 billion euros, a 17.1 per cent fall in the first seven months of this year, compared to the same period of 2020, when Covid first struck and lockdowns peaked. Meanwhile, even Lord Wilson, CEO of retail giant next and ardent Brexiteer, has awoken to the inevitable disadvantages now that it is affecting his own business, saying that the HIV crisis was foreseen and widely predicted for many months. For the sake of the wider UK economy, we hope that the Government will take a more decisive approach to the looming skills crisis and warehouses, restaurants, hotels, care homes and seasonal industries. A demand-led approach to ensuring the country as the skills it needs is now vital. Unsurprisingly, next we soon have to increase our prices to the detriment of customers. Collectively, businesses are losing millions of pounds a week and Brexiteer is projected to cost the Scottish economy £9 billion a year by 2030, equivalent to £1,600 for every man, woman and child who lives here. Regarding the hollage crisis, Edwin Atumat, the Federation of Dutch Trade Unions, head of enforcement and research, said that the EU workers that we speak to will not go to the UK for a short-term visa to help the UK out of the mess that they created for themselves. Comments echoed by Juan Jose Gil, Secretary-General of the Spanish National Federation of Transport Associations, who said that the visa offered to foreign truckers would be a non-starter, since Brexit Britain is not an attractive place to work anymore. The reason is extra bureaucracy. Before Brexit, there was no extra paperwork. We just drove through the border. The effect of the British government's offer to go and work in the UK for three months will be nil. What Spanish driver wants to leave his job in Spain to work in Britain, only to return to Spain after three months? The assumption that, just because emergency visas are now frantically being offered, drivers will want to make use of this temporary scheme to raise a high level of arrogance as much as a lack of foresight on the part of UK ministers. In fact, many EU citizens no longer feel welcome in the UK and won't return for loving their money. Yes, happy to take an intervention. I thank Kenny Gibson for taking the intervention. We know that we need to employ and encourage our domestic workforce. Martin Reid was at our committee the other day. He talked about a lack of diversity, a lack of young people going into HGV driving. I think that it is really important that we recognise that there are conditions surrounding people who are interested in HGV driving as well. I do not think that it helps the fact that the DVLA has a backlog of 4,000 new HGV licenses to process and 50,000 licence renewals to process. What does that say about the UK Government's competence when they knew that this was actually coming? Why couldn't they have even more staff actually in place to deal with that important issue? Labour obviously shares responsibility for this fiasco. Its duplicitous policy of constructive ambiguity agreeing with the last person they spoke to destroyed their credibility, not least in the north of England, allowing the Tories to secure a thumping majority at Westminster. After Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer's deadly dull 80-minute speech yesterday, Unite's national officer Rob McGregor said that, if you are a Unite member worried about the cost of living crisis, empty petrol pumps, abhorrent fire and rehire in their workplaces and the end of furlough just hours away, there wasn't much for you in this speech. As for the Lib Dems, their policy of opposition to leaving the EU survived as long post Brexit as their opposition to tuition fees after they joined the Tories in coalition at Westminster. Pumps running dry, emergency visa, calling in armed forces to deliver a fuel, is this the best Scotland can do? Only the SNP and Greens now believe that Scotland should be at the heart of Europe. Support the motion. Thank you. I now call Richard Leonard to be followed by Michelle Thomson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I begin with a few clarifications. First of all, on the title of the Government's motion, Scotland does not have a singular unitary monolithic supply chain. It has a multitude, a rich, diverse mosaic of supply chains, plural, with I'm bound to say more and more of them in the hands of overseas corporations and private equity funds. Secondly, I don't think that we should accept either that working people are simply a commodity in a labour market. We should resist the idea that everything, absolutely everything, including working people, can be marketized. Thirdly, we do not want to return to a world in which your passport and where you were born matter again. We want to see borders coming down, not going up, but we have to be careful to distinguish between that revered principle of the freedom of movement of labour and the unethical worldly practice of the freedom of movement of cheap labour. That is why I say that it is no coincidence that the lowest common denominator that links the industries listed in the SNP motion today, those facing the biggest shortages of skilled workers, is that they include the ones with the poorest pay that rely the most on a higher and fire culture. It includes those sectors with the worst health and safety record, those exploiting the shoddiest employment practices like the extensive use of umbrella companies, employment agencies, outsourcing, subcontracting and zero-hours contracts. We know that some workers have poor terms but even more shocking conditions as well. Look at what the road haulage drivers have to put up with. The very idea, as the Tory amendment this afternoon suggests, that 5,000 temporary HGV driver visas, which expire on Christmas Eve, is the answer to this crisis, is economically illiterate. Worse, when you consider that over 50,000 HGV applications are backlogged at the DVLA in part because of an industrial dispute with PCS, which has been both provoked and prolonged by Tory Government ministers by their own admission, the Conservative position is not only economically illiterate, it is morally indefensible as well. Fourthly, the Scottish Government is today calling on the UK Government to take action and that is right. We are experiencing a form of Brexit which has been steered so much by rigid ideology that it has driven out economic fact and replaced it with political dogma. However, it is not good enough for the Scottish National Party Government to lay a motion in this Parliament solely about the Tory Government and the action that it must take and the failures it needs to address. What about the action that this Government and this Parliament can take and, yes, what about the failures that we need to address? Because this Scottish Government is in charge of economic development, industry, education, training and skills. This Scottish Parliament is not made up of bystanders. We are legislators with powers for change and a £48 billion budget last year. As far back as November 2016, in a debate in this Parliament, I called for a leadership role for the Scottish Government and its agencies, such as Skills Development Scotland, in ensuring that there are no skills gaps. However, I have to say that the evidence is five years on. No such plans exist and no such leadership has been given. What is clear to me is that what we need, what this Parliament needs and what the people who elect us need is an economic plan, a jobs first industrial strategy that is investment-led, people-centred, manufacturing-driven. We need that to make a just transition to a net zero Scotland. We need that to rebuild Scotland's working communities and we need that to counter the economic shock of Brexit. I now call Michelle Thomson to be followed by Liam Kerr, Ms Thomson. In the world of Brexiteers, the Tory and Labour parties and even some reporting outlets, it has become common to lay the blame for trade and supply chain problems on the pandemic rather than Brexit. Problems are presented as a short term shock. Rather than acknowledging real long-term supply chain issues despite evidence to the contrary. Earlier this year, the Office for National Statistics published some compelling analysis. It compared the first quarter of 2021 with the first quarter of 2018. It used quarter one of 2018 as the most recent stable period, both pre-Brexite and pre-pandemic. Brexit uniquely affects UK relationships with the EU while we acknowledge that the pandemic is global in its impact. If the Tory and Labour Brexiteers were right, we would expect UK trade with both non-EU and EU countries to have been similarly disrupted. What has the ONS found? Total trade in goods with EU countries decreased by 23.1 per cent and with non-EU countries decreased by 0.8 per cent. To put it more simply, trade has been negatively impacted 29 times more with EU rather than non-EU countries. That is the Brexit effect. As James Winters of Scottish Food and Drink noted, project fear is project here. The most recent business insights and conditions survey revealed that 39,000 businesses across the whole of the UK believe that Brexit has been by far the most significant factor in the disruption of both importing and exporting. However, as trading patterns change, the elephant in the room is China. The UK has imported more goods from China than from any other country since the second quarter of 2020. Indeed, it is now one of the UK's top five important partners. In fact, imports grew between this comparative period that I outlined earlier, from quarter 2020 to quarter 2021. That presents structural, strategic and environmental challenges that are greatly extending supply chains and making for huge logistical challenges. In other words, the UK Government has swapped our export trading with our nearest friends and neighbours with proximity at hand for flooded imports from China. That is quite frankly based on ideological decisions that Scotland opposed and that the opposition were well warned about and ignored. I, like everyone else here, have significant issues in Falka East across a variety of sectors. Food and Drink, retail engineering, manufacturing are all under additional pressure. Staffing concerns are uniformly highlighted. We know the economy and fair work committee of which I am a member who has already identified a lack of access to labour, and supply chains are a huge issue. We have heard evidence from Martin Reid of the Rho Tollage Association and, of course, we have also heard evidence from Ewan MacDonald Russell of the Scottish Retail Consortium. I am just finishing. Scotland is just starting to experience the impact of Brexit. However, in my time at Westminster, I spoke to many major businesses and they were clear that, when Scotland becomes independent, as she surely will, they will be looking to move major operations into Scotland so that they can access this valuable EU market. Do not forget that. Thank you. I now call Liam Kerr to be followed by Neil Gray. No one denies that the country is dealing with some very serious issues at the moment, but it is utterly facile and disingenuous to suggest that the UK's leaving of the European Union, which the SNP conveniently forgets was a UK-wide democratic decision, is the primary cause. Even the most cursory glance through the news shows that there are myriad reasons underlying the current situation. For example, as Donald Cameron highlighted, HGV drivers are retiring during a Covid pandemic that has shut crucial agencies. Gas price rises throughout Europe and Asia, which is caused by global events and challenges in renewables generation, and there are a record number of them. Rachel Hamilton? I think that Martin Reid from the Roadholias Association has been misquoted in indeed not even quoted at all because he said in committee that roughly 75,000 HGV driver tests that they normally do a year were not happening because of the pandemic, and there were only 50 per cent of people passed. That left 40,000 tests short. Those benches need to realise that the restrictions that were put in place by government caused issues like that, with 40,000 places short. I am very grateful for the intervention. What was going on to say was that there are a record number of construction and engineering vacancies, but, according to Randstad, that is due to a surge in demand for workers specifically rather than a post-Brexit fallen supply. The utter hypocrisy of the Government's motion is revealed by the fact that, since the UK left the EU, we have concluded over 70 trade deals worldwide, yet the SNP voted in favour of none of them. One of those deals was the deal with the EU to prevent a hard or no deal Brexit. The SNP voted against it. No, I won't. The SNP's talk on immigration rails against the very points-based system that the SNP's white paper in 2014 advocated. This is the second time this week in which the SNP, in a desperate attempt to divert attention from record ambulance waiting times, Scotland having the lowest number of hospital beds in a decade and the worst drug death rate in Europe, brings a debate attacking the UK Government. The people queuing outside petrol stations, waiting on a hospital bed or waiting for goods to be supplied want to see solutions, such as the downstream oil protocol, such as more than 10,000 new visas being issued by the UK Government. The UK Government is stepping in to ensure that the country has enough CO2, the UK Government's health and care visa to make it easier for healthcare professionals to apply, the extension of the seasonal workers scheme and, I think, the people of Scotland want to see our Government's work together to sort these things out. I won't, because I only have four minutes. If the SNP wants a proper debate... There's a wee bit of time in hand, Mr Kerr, if that is up to you. There is. In which case? I'm grateful for the gentleman taking the opportunity of an intervention. He's just called for the UK Government and the Scottish Government to work together. I agree with that. Could he explain why the UK Government's immigration minister declined 19 requests to meet the Scottish Government? Liam Kerr? I think that the question would be more pertinently put to the UK Government minister quite clearly. I mean, I can't quite understand why I would know, but I do agree with him. I do agree with him on the point that our Government should work together. But this is why it's so bizarre that the Minister proposes as his solution the separation of Scotland from its largest trading partner and entering the EU. Now, leaving aside that the people of Scotland clearly signalled that they didn't want separation in a democratic vote—another one that the SNP chose to ignore—and leaving aside the years and years that that would take, even where it is possible, thus offering no solution to the very issues raised in the motion, it completely fails to mention that even Mark Blyth, one of Nicola Sturgeon's own economic advisers, said that sketching would be Brexit times 10. In fact, he says, if your argument is that we need to do this because of Brexit, Scotland separated from England is the biggest Brexit in history. If pulling apart 30 years of economic integration with Europe is going to hurt, 300 is going to hurt a lot. What Scotland needs more than anything is a Government that acknowledges the issues that have many causes, that solving them requires thoughtful and considered interventions and seeks to deliver those solutions in collaboration with all those who can. What Scotland doesn't need is more grievance, division, misinformation and misconception simply to divide us. Donald Cameron's amendment seeks the former, and that's why I support it. I now call Neil Gray to be followed by Ross Greer. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. To respond to Liam Kerr, I struggle with the case for the union if its strongest argument is that the disastrous negotiation of Brexit is the best case that they have for keeping the union together. However, there's no fuel crisis. We're going to suspend competition law to allow fuel companies to collude and share market information, but there's no crisis. Petrol stations have had to close because there is no fuel, but there's no crisis. We're going to make a massive U-turn on visa rules to allow EU-HGV drivers to have temporary access to work in the UK, but there is no crisis. We're going to call in our British army, but there is no crisis. Food prices are expected to rise by 5 per cent before Christmas, but there is no crisis. By Jov Gove, it's got nothing to do with Brexit. Grant Shaps finally admitted earlier this week that Brexit is undoubtedly a factor. Of course it was. We know that the EU workers from many countries, many industries, including HGV drivers, returned to their native countries because of the hostile environment exacerbated by Brexit and the end of freedom of movement. No other European country is suffering the food and fuel shortages being suffered across the UK, as the cabinet secretary pointed out. It didn't have to be this way. I sat in the Commons for many years and listened to Theresa May to box herself in with her self-defeating red lines. We warned her over and over again, and she didn't need to pursue this form of Brexit that she started, and Boris Johnson rebadged and made worse. The Scottish Government tried to help to find a compromise at the time. It could have kept a more open relationship with the EU. It could have listened and engaged with the Scottish Government to pursue a customs union single argument, a single market deal that would have kept freedom of movement in place and spared us much of the labour market challenges we now have. However, she was too scared to stand up to the extremists in her own party and was totally beholden to them by boxing herself in with her own red lines, by failing to listen to the needs of employers, by failing to listen to anyone who warns about the impact of stopping freedom of movement that we see the crisis now before us. To acknowledge Willie Rennie's point about the challenges going beyond freedom of movement, imagine if Michael Gove had honoured his promise during the Brexit referendum to campaign to see Scotland with control over immigration powers. Perhaps if he had followed through on that promise, at least we could have cleared up a bit more of the mess from Westminster and have a fair system that reflects our needs. I very much thank Neil Gray for taking in intervention. Will he support the Scottish Conservatives' calls to extend the sole scheme to support rural Scotland? Neil Gray? It's something that needs to be considered. Aside from the Brexit failures, the Tories are culpable of, in other ways, regarding the HGV crisis. We know that there is a backlog of 54,000 licence applications. I understand from local employers in the urgent shots who have been impacted that most of those are licence renewals. That is because UK ministers have failed to deal with the concerns of PCS members who say that their working conditions are unsafe. That dispute has dragged on for months and I failed to see what UK ministers have done about it until 11th hour desperation when it's too late and now look where we are. The Tories are desperate to try to distance themselves from any responsibility for the mess, so let's use a measure that they normally love to use. The Tories love looking at the markets as a barometer of success. I wonder what they reckon. The pound suffering its biggest fall against the dollar and the sharp fall against the euro means. I suspect that it means that the markets are saying that they are losing confidence because of Brexit and the UK Government's failure to which is to the detriment of the people of Scotland. Why won't the Tories just apologise for being wrong instead of the screaming defensiveness that we see today because they are embarrassed? It doesn't show once again that Scotland could do so much better with the powers of independence. The debate brings with it a weary sense of deja vu. For five years now in this Parliament, we've discussed Brexit and for most of that period its potential consequences. Committees held inquiries, collected huge volumes of evidence and published report after report. We debated those issues on Government time and on Opposition time on a regular basis. I say all of this to underline the point that the disruption and damage being inflicted on this country by the UK Government was both foreseen and entirely avoidable. If this had happened under a Labour Government at Westminster, I have no doubt that the Conservatives would be lodging votes of no confidence in calling on the Prime Minister to resign over issues such as fuel shortages and empty shelves in supermarkets. The Rhotology Association has barely been out of either this Parliament or Westminster in recent years warning of the potential and now very real effects of the Tories' post-Brexit immigration policies. By the end of the debate, we've probably quoted every last word that Martin Reid said to this Parliament's economy committee last week, so I'm just going to add another section of his evidence. He said that a number of the EU nationals who came here did so as self-employed or agency workers. The changes to tax status and so on meant that they either renegotiated high rates or just stopped because there was easier work to be had on the continent without the bureaucracy. The motion calls for a temporary worker visa to be introduced immediately and to last for 24 months because, let's be honest, how attractive is a three-month visa and the temporary work that that would entail? To a driver from mainland Europe who would have to contend with the UK's shambolic and bureaucratic customs and borders arrangements, here's what one driver based in Germany told ITV News yesterday. He said, I don't want to work on a temporary visa because I think of the future. If the Government offers a 12-month visa, I could plan for my life, but three months is not an option at all. I'd collect about £12,000, but what next? It's not just the HGV drivers impacted by this hostile system, as we've heard already, and as the motion references, sectors from hospitality to agriculture are suffering from the same labour shortages, which are in turn causing similar levels of disruption and outright harm to our wider society. Some of those are inconvenient but probably manageable if only short-term. Inverclyde Council in my region, for example, has notified parents of a significant reduction in what they will be able to provide in their school canteens, though, as you would expect, they are going to prioritise children and young people who are in receipt of free school meals and those with specific dietary requirements. Other impacts will be far harder to undo. A friend of mine runs their own small business in a rural community shop. Disruptions force them to cancel contracts with suppliers whose goods they've sold for a long time. They simply can't afford the significant delays and the huge amounts of additional administrative work that have resulted from Brexit. That is an existential threat to their business, one that they don't know if they'll be able to survive. At the other end of the scale from small businesses who are left vulnerable to wider supply chains, completely outwith their control, I want to address the role of large corporations in this crisis and touch on the points that Richard Leonard made very well. The UK was short of something like 50,000 to 60,000 HGV drivers before most Brexit-related barriers came up earlier this year. A range of factors contributed to that. In many cases, European drivers and haulage firms were already moving away from UK routes in anticipation of exactly the kind of challenges the UK Government has now put in their way. However, we cannot ignore the role of wages and conditions in the road haulage sector over a much longer period of time. The one thing that I welcome from this current situation is the sudden spike in wages offered to drivers. Far too often, in a capitalist economy, resource scarcity drives up the cost of goods and services, but far too rarely does a labour scarcity drive up wages. In that case, that's exactly what it's doing in a sector where it's long overdue. Offering decent wages won't solve that problem on its own, for exactly the reasons described by the driver that I quoted earlier. The consequences of Brexit cannot be easily swept away. The only way to undo the damage of Brexit is to rejoin the single market and the customs union and eventually the European Union itself. I look forward to the day in which Scotland can take this step as an independent state rejoining the European family of nations. As a dual national and an immigrant, I want to spend my short time today speaking about the urgent need for Scotland to have the right to a bespoke immigration system that will help to deal with the chaos caused by the disastrous Brexit that we never voted for. As a former community wellbeing spokesperson for the convention of Scottish local authorities, I negotiated on behalf of all of Scotland's councils for a more flexible immigration system that can address the needs of Scottish economy, our workforce, our shortage occupation list and our ageing population and to accrue more policy levers to encourage more people to move to Scotland. Calls that were roundly ignored or rebuffed by the UK Government. I also argued that flexibility cannot stop at a national level. The system must be able to accommodate Scottish local authority areas and their specific needs. A position that was clearly set out in the COSLA leader's report in November 2018 on councils' work to tackle depopulation and Scottish council leaders have endorsed continued lobbying of the UK Government for an immigration system that recognises Scotland's needs and continues to make the case that a reduction of inward migration to Scotland from EU countries will adversely impact on Scotland's economy. Sadly, we are now living that very reality with empty shelves, wasted produce and fuel shortages. So far, the only Brexit bonus that I can see is the shortage of fireworks. I have deep-seated concerns that an immigration system with the express aim of reducing net migration, where the bar is consistently raised to the exclusion of particular jobs and sectors, causes untold harm to our economy as a whole but also to specific regions and towns. My constituency has seen its own share of net outward migration over the past four decades and I will continue to support work being undertaken by west coast local authorities seeking to address the significant demographic challenges that they face and their calls for Scottish visa system. Inward migration is crucial to Scotland's economy and the appetite for the continuation of free movement of people is entirely evident in Scotland, as the election result in May emphatically endorsed that aim. We know that it would be the most advantageous system for Scotland, despite what Labour's Lisa Nandi proclaimed last night on Newsnight. Despite the Prime Minister's scrambled last-minute plans to introduce short visas to attract HDV drivers, the current system is not fit for her purpose. Incidentally, perhaps some of the UK's retention of drivers issues is that we do not collectively demonstrate their worth by providing them with a network of safe, free places to park up, grab a hot shower and access to hot food, as is done in mainland Europe. Our immigration system currently has a salary threshold that is too high and is a barrier to many occupations in our key sectors, including agriculture and hospitality. There should be more focus on the value and the need of a job rather than on an arbitrary salary threshold, but we should always make sure that we keep fair work principles at the heart of it. Points should be awarded based on the part of the country in need of increased population, right down to local authority areas and regions. I know that UK Tory ministers develop a nervous twitch when this is talked about and proclaim that such a system would be too complex, but, as a Canadian, it would be remiss of me to neglect to explain how such a system is entirely possible and, in fact, works beautifully. Canada is a federation made up of 10 provinces and three territories that all have very different economies and demographic needs. Canada's hugely successful provincial nominee programmes offer pathways to Canadian permanent residents for individuals who are interested in emigrating to a specific Canadian province or territory. There you have it, the art of the possible. I believe wholeheartedly that the best way to serve Scotland's needs is via independence and all the levers of control, but, at this exact moment, there is zero justification from Westminster to retain all the control of immigration while Brexit bites hard. Scotland's people deserve better to support the motion. I now move to closing speeches and I call on Daniel Johnson to wind up for Labour. A generous five minutes, please. Thank you very much. I do not think that we have done the subject in front of us any justice at all. I think that we have had two parties in particular in this chamber present this as a binary issue, both equally guilty of ignoring salient and important issues that we have to address if we are going to tackle the twin crises that we have created by Brexit and indeed Covid. Starting with Angus Robertson's opening remarks, there was much that I had sympathy with and much that I agreed with. I find it completely unacceptable the intransigence of the UK Government. I find it unacceptable that the Scottish Government has had to ask 19 times to speak to them and I agree with his analysis. The creation of borders where once there is free trade has stopped people moving, has prevented people from doing vital jobs in this country we need, has prevented goods arriving, has forced prices up, has increased bills and has increased bureaucracy. Those are the consequences of creating borders where previously there were none. However, I think that it was telling that it took Mr Robertson 10th minute, and he had to squeeze in independence because he was so busy trying to sound reasonable, he had to squeeze it in at the end. I think that it says something about the justifiability of that argument that he had to squeeze it in at the end, because he knows that all he is offering is just a moment. Their prescription for the disease is more of the disease. What they want to do is identify a mistake and repeat it. That is simply incoherent, but can I say to my Conservative friends across the chamber that it does them a great disservice to say, well, we thought Brexit was bad then. We thought that it was going to be a bad idea, which is why we argued for it, but now we think that it is going to be okay that actually these are just temporary inconveniences that we will get through and there will be wonderful opportunities for time to come. Indeed, I thought that there was a great deal of irony in what Liam Kerr was saying, pleading for focus from the Government to look at the issues in detail and completely ignoring the issues that Brexit is creating themselves, because simply what has happened this afternoon is a gross oversimplification on both sides of the chamber opposite, because Richard Leonard is absolutely right. Indeed, Ross Greer highlighted the complexities of the issues at hand. Absolutely, Brexit has exacerbated the issues of the HGV drivers, but look at what they have to put up with in the words of Richard Leonard. It is a job that has seen their wages decline against median ages for the last decade. That is why a third of HGV drivers are looking to retire. That is why the average age is 55. That is why less than 1 per cent are under the age of 25. That is not just Brexit that has caused that issue. It is poor terms and conditions. It is training and it is support. It is focusing on those things that will solve those issues. It is also why it is not just in this country that it is from Poland that is short of 120,000 HGV riders. Germany is short of 60,000 HGV riders. The USA is short of HGV drivers. I do not think that their shortages in the USA are being caused by Brexit. If you listened to your own colleagues this afternoon, as Richard Leonard talked about, it was about employment. It was about zero-hour contracts. It was things that are in control of the Westminster Government. For Ms Boyack, it was post-study work phases, a brilliant intervention by Labour, taken away by the Tories at Westminster. Why on earth would you be content to leave the key issues about migration in the hands of a Government that does not care about Scotland and does not care about Scotland's migration needs? That is an entirely false choice. The issues that we are discussing are immediate in that. The issues that we are facing need to be dealt with in weeks and months. The reality is that whatever the merits of independence that you like, you cannot claim that it is going to be resolved that quickly. You are talking about years and decades. The Institute for Government was very clear that it would take Scotland a decade or more to regain entry to the EU, that it might take years of negotiation even to succeed. To claim that the way of solving the issues of today, the ones facing families in their immediate way, are solved by independence, is frankly disingenuous, a gross oversimplification, because you cannot claim that independence is quick or easy. It is not. You do your own argument, your own belief, a gross disservice by trying to claim that it is. The reality is that we face serious issues now. furlough is ending. We have potentially a shortage of jobs. We have businesses with £4.5 billion worth of debt, small businesses with £4.5 billion of debt. High street fruit fall is down by 20 per cent. The hospitality industry is struggling. We need to be serious about how we support those industries. We need to look at what we can do now, not to talk about fantasy land politics, which might happen years and decades down the line. We need to look at how we use the powers of the department here and now to protect wages, to protect jobs, to protect families and to protect livelihoods. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I think that everybody in this chamber, whatever their political views might be, and my goodness, they are diverse, and however we all voted on Brexit, we fully acknowledge all of us that we are currently facing one of the most difficult periods there has ever been in British politics and in Scottish politics. Yes, it is true that Brexit has been difficult. For some people, it has been deeply troubling. It has been very emotive, and it has also been very divisive in exactly the same way that the independence referendum was in 2014. However, as we try very hard to take an objective stance in the current debate, I think that we should remember two things, and the first of them relates to Daniel Johnson's point, that we have a democratic duty as politicians to deliver what people voted for, even if we do not personally like the result of that vote. Secondly, as Maurice Golden said, voters want us to focus on the outcome that works for them, and I believe that they want Governments to co-operate, most especially during the dark days of the Covid pandemic, and to listen carefully to those sectors on which our economic recovery depends, most especially in business and industry. We should also acknowledge that, in 2014, when the people of Scotland made a decision to stay in the United Kingdom, and in 2016, when the people of the UK made a decision to withdraw from the EU, they made those decisions when the terms of the plebiscite were agreed beforehand. That agreement embodies an acceptance by both sides that the result of the referendum would be respected. I have said many times in this chamber on Brexit debates that I was personally very disappointed with the result of the EU referendum, and I will be the first to acknowledge this afternoon that Brexit has exacerbated some of the current issues facing Scotland, but neither is it fair nor accurate to say that Brexit is the sole cause of all the current pressures within the economy. Indeed, it is completely disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Willie Rennie and Richard Leonard made very balanced speeches. I do not agree with some of the things that they said, but they both argued that this is not a simplistic approach. Brexit has undoubtedly had implications for visas and therefore for some movement of labour, but there are several other reasons why the current situation and the benches on this side of the chamber have cited the comments from key figures in the haulage industry who have made it very clear that the industry has been suffering from labour shortages for some time, partly because of the age profiles of its drivers and partly because the Covid situation, understandably, has meant that fewer drivers have been able to be away from home or, in some cases, wanted to be away from home. It has obviously had an impact on the ability of those training and testing the drivers to provide the necessary certificates and licences. Those issues are by no means unique to the UK. The driver shortfall across Europe is 400,000 plus, including in countries that remain in the EU, countries such as Poland and Germany, which are suffering many of the same issues about workforce and recruitment difficulties. It was Liam Kerr, who pointed out the hypocrisy of the motion in the SNP's excoriating attack on the UK Government. The Government has secured 70 different trade deals, yet the SNP did not vote for even one of them, including the deal that was finally agreed with the EU to avoid a no-deal situation. The SNP continued to forget conveniently that that final deal, with all its imperfections, did have the support of key players in Scotland, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, the heads of the UK's four national farmers unions, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, more sectors such as the Scottish Whiskey Association and major companies such as Diagio. Those are not people who are arguing about abstract and finer points of the constitution, but about what is best for them in their sectors in terms of the stability of the future, securing jobs and investment, especially at a time when our economy is so fragile. The Scottish Conservatives believe that the Brexit deal after all the torches negotiations was the only viable means of an orderly exit from the EU, but the SNP persists in claiming that the current situation is far better for fostering a debate about another independence referendum. We have heard several times today about some of the warnings that their advisers are giving. There is little surprise in some of those warnings, given that the divisions that have been created with the 50 years of UK into EU integration, economic integration, that has been a difficult period of upsetting that, but just what would it be if we had a separation from the United Kingdom? Not one single piece of respected independent economic analysis can I see that provides any evidence whatsoever that, breaking up the union, we provide Scotland with the same economic benefits and stability that it has now, not the sums that point to fiscal stability, not the same drivers of economic growth, particularly those related to economies of scale that the UK brings, not the same opportunities for investment and not the same safeguards that the UK can provide via UK spending. My goodness, how much we have guaranteed that in the current pandemic. I say again that you cannot keep demanding reruns of referenda just because you do not like the outcome. I happen to think that that view is shared by a large proportion of the electorate who are fed up with the constant tone of grievance, which sadly has become the defining element of the SNP. I now call on Ivan McKee to wind up for the Scottish Government. If you would take us to decision time, please minister, thank you. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I'm delighted to be closing this debate for the Government. I would just like to go round the chamber and round up on some of the contributions that we've had and start with Donald Cameron. I'm hiding behind the fact that it's Brexit that has made those problems so much worse. When he talks about HGV drivers, yes, there are other challenges, of course there are, but Brexit has made that worse. It's made us unable to access the availability of labour from across the whole continent of Europe, and that has caused those problems. He won't accept that. He won't accept that Brexit caused the problems, in line with many of his other colleagues who made the same points. Brexit deniers as they are, but even Grant Sharpe recognises Brexit. I hear that he mentioned a lot, and there is no doubt that it will have been a factor. He can accept it, but the Conservative benches here today cannot accept that Brexit. It deniers to one side of us. On the other side of us, Sarah Boyack, Labour's position on supporting Brexit, apologising for Brexit, won't recognise Scottish reality and the people of Scotland recognise that. Sarah Boyack is absolutely nothing in my speech that supported us Brexit, and if you look at the numbers, more than a million people in Scotland voted for Brexit. I wasn't one of them, but I bet a lot of them were SNP supporters. You've just done it again. You've just apologised for Brexit. What you said was that Brexit is here to stay and you're going to get on with it. The Labour Party is no longer opposed to Brexit. That's a reality of it. People in Scotland recognise that and I poagist out. 68 per cent of people in Scotland think that Brexit is going badly and 13 per cent think that it's going well. Labour is on the wrong side of this issue. Willie Rennie, who still opposes Brexit, recognises the impact on the economy of Scotland, on investment in Scotland, on exports from Scotland, in key sectors in agriculture, in food and on fisheries. That gives me the opportunity to highlight the Brexit balance sheet that was published today by the National Federation of Fisherman's Organisations, which far from the benefit of £148 million that Boris's Tory Government told the sector would happen, has actually been a cost to the sector over a five-year period of more than £300 million. That is a reality that is recognised by Fisherman's Organisations in terms of what the Tory Government Brexit delivered to the people of Scotland and across the UK. Gillian Martin, thank you very much for voting for me. It's much appreciated. Gillian highlighted some hugely important issues, because it's not just about what we see in the fuel for-cots, it's not just what we see in our empty shelves in the shops. It's also the material shortage that the labour shortage has caused up and down the country across so many sectors. I see that through the work that I'm doing with the construction sector and other sectors on a daily and weekly basis, caused largely by Brexit, caused by that shortage of drivers, caused by the inability of us to be able to access that European Labour pull to be able to help to deal with those challenges. Maurice Golden, another Brexit denier, has told what we are doing to support exporters. Deal with the problems that his Government has caused, made that so much worse. The facts that Michelle Thomson highlighted, the impact on exporters is the impact of their exports to the EU is precisely because of the actions of the Tory Government in that hard Brexit that they've taken. He talks about trade deals, which are some wonderful about what the UK has done to replicate the deals with third countries that were already in place and that we benefited from as a member of the EU. All they have done is replace those deals. The Japan deal is effectively almost entirely a replication of the deal that the EU had with one or two minor tweaks, and the Australia deal basically throws Scottish agriculture under the bus. That's a reality of where we are. Let me tell you, Mr Golden, that your Government got into this mess, you ignored our efforts to warn you about it and to help to fix it for the constructive approach that we took. Minister, could you resume your seat for a second please? We don't refer to you because it would be referring to me just to point that out through the chair. Thank you. Apologies, Presiding Officer. Mr Golden, you got us into this mess. Mr Golden, you and your Government ignored our efforts to warn what would happen in our constructive approach to help us to fix this problem. Mr Golden, you created this mess. Mr Golden, you and your party own this mess. Is the minister taking Mr Golden? Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think it's deeply disrespectful to point in the way in which the minister did. It's disrespectful to you. But, Deputy Presiding Officer, can I ask Ivan McKee if he recognises that I am not and never have been part of the UK Government? I recognise, Mr Golden, that you are not part of the UK Government, but you are an apologist for it. Kenny Gibson, as always, I recognise the reality that Brexit has made it much more difficult for workers, particularly because of that not-welcome message, the hostile environment message that is emanated from the UK Government, of which Mr Golden is not a part of. It has made it so much more difficult for people to make those decisions to come to this country because they know when they get here that they are not welcome. Yes, I will. Rachael Hamilton I thank Ivan McKee for taking the intervention. Can he tell the chamber how many people out of the 30,000 have taken up the source scheme? The minister would be responding initially to Ms Hamilton. If the member is talking about the agriculture visa scheme, I will tell you exactly what is happening. Lee Abbey from the NFUs came out and said that the 22,000 number that Alasdair Jackson has been talking about is completely inaccurate and out of date. More than 20,000 workers have been recruited so far through that scheme in what is a very difficult process because of the paperwork and other hurdles that are in its place. He says that the 30,000 number is far, far from being enough and that operators are already turning away clients as a consequence of not having enough people to be able to carry out the work that is required. I will turn to Richard Leonard's contribution. Much of which makes some fair points. I will tell you that the minister is responsible for many of the sectors that he is talking about. I am determined to do what I can to work with the sector and the unions in the sector to raise wages across those sectors. We recognise that everybody should earn at least the real living wage as a minimum. I am delighted to support the United Hospitality Charter for the hospitality and tourism sectors as they seek to take that agenda forward. I am keen to work with anyone else who has that agenda. I also must remind them that many of those problems that we are having to work around to try to reach a resolution precisely because we do not have the devolution of employment law to the Parliament, a policy that Labour supported as a consequence of the Smith commission. Liam Kerr talks about working with the Government. A common theme that comes from the Conservative benches today is why you do not work with the UK Government. My colleague, Mr Robinson, has already highlighted his efforts to work with the UK Government 19 times. He has tried to work with the UK Government and got nowhere. I could talk for an hour about the times that he has tried to work with the UK Government in the rebuffed, as at every attempt. A latest example being Alistair Jack saying that under no circumstances must the words, real living wage, appear in our green pots proposal, and therefore putting us in a position where they will not work with us to take forward green pots, to support Scottish workers, to lead us towards net zero and to deliver for Scottish business as a consequence. Liam Kerr. The trade deals that he was talking about, since his case appears to be that the trade deals replicate what we had. Why did the SNP vote against him? The Government supports free trade. The Government understands that there are challenges there, and there are winners and losers in the sectors that are impacted. The Government supports free trade and we recognise the value of free trade with the European Union as a single biggest market. We understand the importance of that. Business understands that the Conservative Government and the Conservative members in those benches do not understand that. That is why they have taken for this Brexit that puts those huge barriers in the way of trade. When it comes to supporting trade, it does it in the position that it supports a line with business that wants to trade freely. It is the UK Government and the Conservative Party that has put itself in the position where it is erecting those trade barriers, which makes it so much more difficult for business in Scotland and across the rest of the UK. Neil Graham is a very valid point. Brexit did not need to mean what it ended up being. It did not need to mean stopping freedom of movement. That was a choice. It was not a choice made at the ballot box in 2016. It was a choice made after that by the UK Government. The Tories decided that they were going to stop freedom of movement, leave a single market and cause the problems that happened today. Just to reiterate, Brexit did not have meant leaving the single market or ending freedom of movement. Ross Greer highlighted the message again of the hostile environment, a message that is now coming home to hurt us and the knock-on effects that that has had on business. Elena Whitham makes a hugely valid point about the importance of immigration policy to tackle Scotland's population and other challenges. Our approach in Scotland at 180 degrees is opposed to the UK Government's direction of travel and its attitude to immigrants and immigration coming into this country. That is why independence and the ability for us to have the ability to set our own immigration policy is hugely important. She also makes the point that immigration could be devolved tomorrow. In Canada, the work is a very effective system whereby it has devolved immigration across the provinces, and that works well. We would call for other parties in here if they are not going to support independence immediately, at least to support our colleagues for the full devolution of immigration policies for us to be able to take that forward. Turning to Daniel Johnson, just for the avoidance of doubt, I am in favour of independence. Mr Robertson is in favour of independence. All the members behind me are in favour of independence. More than half of the people of Scotland are in favour of independence. It now appears that Daniel Johnson is only objection to independence. I am grateful to him. That is not my confusion. My confusion is that you fail to set out a single way how it fixes any of the problems now or how it can be delivered in a time frame that deals with any of the issues that you have identified. I am almost finished. I will tell you how it helps. It helps us when we have our own immigration policy when we are able to decide about—do you want to listen to what I am going to say? It helps us to set out our own immigration policy so that we are able to bring in people to tackle those challenges. It helps when we have our own full control of our welfare policies so that we can mitigate the impact of what is happening to the poorest nurse society as a result of Tory Government welfare cuts. No, the member may not come in because the debate is now closing. It allows us to have our own policies to be able to take forward what the people of Scotland want, which is for us to be a full member of the European Union, Turnback Brexit, and that would enable us to resolve many of the challenges that we have seen as a consequence of what is happening just now. Minister, you must close. I am closing—I will get a few seconds left—but it is interesting to say that, apparently, Daniel Johnson's only objection now has to independence, is that it might take too long. That is welcome. Minister, I will decide when time is up and it is up now. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance because, two days ago, the First Minister promised Parliament that the Covid vaccine passport app would be available for download on Thursday. That is Thursday. When I last checked before coming into this chamber, there was no app, so less than 12 hours before it comes into effect, an essential part of the scheme is not ready. This has been an utter shambles from start to finish. It is simply outrageous. So, since the Deputy First Minister is sitting in this chamber, and since people and business are waiting, can I ask the Government where is the app? And if they can't answer, how do we use your good office to get an answer? Can I respond to Mr Hoy's point of order, which is actually not a point of order? The matter raised is not a point of order for me, but I am sure arrangements for demonstration of the app will be taken forward by the Government. Presiding Officer, I am very grateful for you allowing me the opportunity to make a point of order. Mr Hoy asked the question, where is the app? The answer is available on the app store as we speak. In response to Mr Swinney, although that might be helpful, that also was not a point of order. Points of order are about procedural matters. I am potentially hopeful that we may actually have a point of order in the chamber this evening. Maurice Golden Thank you, Presiding Officer. On a procedural matter, on 22 September, Lorna Slater, the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity, promised to update Parliament on the coalition's plans for an incineration before the end of September. The most appropriate way of doing this would be via a statement to Parliament. Instead, at the last possible minute, on the last day of the month, we have a Government-initiated question, a format that does not allow full scrutiny, and has yet to be answered. MSPs across the chamber have questions that need answered, such as whether waste will be imported to Burnham Scotland if a moratorium will end on incinerators in planning, as promised in the Green Manifesto, and if there will be a moratorium at all to name but a few. The timing and manner of this announcement is designed to avoid that scrutiny. I seek your guidance on how we can ensure that ministers bring significant announcements like this to Parliament in good time and in a format that allows full transparency and scrutiny. I thank Mr Golden for his point of order. I understand that the minister took to update Parliament and, as he will know, updates can be provided by way of Government-initiated questions. Should any member wish, however, to further scrutinise the matter of any GIQ answer, they are, of course, able and free to request that a statement or debate be included in the business programme, and the member may wish to pursue that with his business manager in advance of the next meeting of the parliamentary bureau. Point of order, Alex Cole-Hamilton. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I will keep this brief from 5am tomorrow morning. Covid ID cards will begin their roll-out in Scotland. This will set a dangerous precedent. Private medical information can now be demanded by a stranger who is not your clinician in exchange for access to parts of our society. The draft regulations only published late yesterday make it clear that door to expansion is wide open. Serious and consistent concerns have been raised in this Parliament about scrutiny. Where even are the assessments of data security, equalities and privacy, which would normally follow such regulations? In your view, the Parliament has had the chance to meaningfully scrutinise this major policy change. I thank the member for his point of order. The question of whether the Parliament considers that it has had sufficient opportunity to consider a particular subject is a matter for the Parliament itself. However, if any member believes that a particular item of business should be scheduled, there are a number of mechanisms through which they can make that request, including speaking on the business motion. Point of order, Michael Marra. I have said that the poorest and most disadvantaged of young people in Scotland have been ignored by the Scottish Qualifications Agency and by this Government. Today, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has taken the extraordinary step of statutory action against the SQA to force it to reform its policies. The implications of that are potentially huge. It could open up the SQA to legal challenge from thousands of young people across Scotland whose life's chances have been harmed. Will you, Presiding Officer, require the minister to make a statement to Parliament that the earliest possible opportunity to explain how much of this situation is due to ministerial direction? Why did the SQA withheld that information from Parliament only yesterday? The minister can put on record why this Government can have any faith in the leadership of our national qualifications agency. Thank you, Michael Marra, for his point of order. As I have previously said, the future business of the Parliament is a matter for the bureau in the first instance. His business manager, Michael Marra's business manager, may wish to request a statement on this topic through that channel. We have concluded the debate on the impact of Brexit on Scotland's supply chain and labour market, and we will now move on to the next item of business. There are three questions to be put as a result of today's business. I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Donald Cameron is agreed to, the amendment in the name of Sarah Boyack will fall. The first question is that amendment 144.1, in the name of Donald Cameron, which seeks to amend motion 144.4, in the name of Angus Robertson, on the impact of Brexit on Scotland's supply chain and labour be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote, and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.