안녕, that concludes cortical questions. We are now going to move on to debate on motion 4193, in the name of Gordon Lindhurst, on behalf of the economy, jobs and fair work committee, on its report on the economic impact of leaving the European Union. I would invite all members who wish to speak in this debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now. I call on Gordon Lindhurst to speak to the motion on behalf of the committee. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Those are the cynical disposition and there maybe one or two in our midst today might think this debate unlikely to set the Heather a light. Certainly we've had plenty of opportunity in this Chamber to discuss our departure from the EU but somehow I sense, there could be some more sparks this afternoon. Last September I asked a related question of the First Minister herself and she countered that it was akin to an arsonist phoning the fire brigade. How outrageous. As Mr Taylor pointed out at the time in his Blether with Brian column, there is no such offence, not in Scots law. North of Gretnau we don't do arson, it would be willful fire raising. So you might say I have previous, my bad. Today however I shall be leaving the alleged pyromania to others. My role is to speak as convener of the economy jobs and fair work committee to outline the findings of our report on the economic impact of leaving the EU. The outcome of course of a collective committee endeavour. I've searched all the parks in all the cities and found no statues of committees. It was G.K. Chesterton who said that and who could disagree. We spent a good portion of November, a slice of December and a chunk of January on this inquiry. We received 17 written submissions and took evidence from 35 witnesses over the course of some nine meetings. We also visited and took soundings from 18 companies and organisations in various sectors across the country. We wanted to hear, to understand and to convey the views of employers and employees. We were looking for possible impacts and how to mitigate them, as well as for opportunities. We focused on three broad areas, exports, investing in Scotland and labour market issues. I will offer a flavour of what we found under each of these headings. Other members of the committee, including the deputy convener, when he closes the debate, will no doubt complement what I have to say. For the purposes of the official report, that's with an E and not an I. Colleagues, I may wish to cover those aspects that I can't fit into these 15 minutes of European fame. Evidently, the UK's exit from the European Union is a developing process. The report of the committee can provide only a snapshot of this pre-triggering of article 50 period. The unfolding economics of Brexit is therefore something to which the committee may want to return. For now, though, let's start with exports. Should Scotland aim for the rest of the world rather than for the rest of the EU? Helpfully, Dr Zuleig of the European Policy Centre answered his own question. It is about both, he said, rather than either. Other witnesses told us that much of our trade was invariably with our most immediate neighbours, the rest of the UK. That is known, of course, as the proximity effect. Generally, that is true for food and drink, oil and gas and steel, yet the fastest growing economies of today are those of China and India, where our sales remain low and where the growth potential for our exports could be greatest. Should we be pessimistic at the outlook post-Brexit? James Withers of Scotland Food and Drink saw global opportunities. He described the potential in premium markets and tapping into consumers' desires for quality, authenticity and provenance. Companies represented by the China-Britain Business Council were just a sanguine, hopeful of a free trade deal of some kind. We must strive to encourage a more international mentality. Jane Gotz reminded us that 50 per cent of Scotland's exports are still generated by just 50 companies. The challenge is to promote international thinking and to help our small and medium-sized companies develop. We know that SMEs are central to the success of our economy. What, then, can the Scottish Government and its agencies do better, do differently or do more of? The work of Scottish Development International in securing new markets was praised by Scotland Food and Drink. SDIs spoke of mobilising partnerships, building the narrative and supporting ambition. The Scottish Whiskey Association wanted policy expertise, capacity, a long-term approach and trade barriers to be tackled. Glasgow Chamber of Commerce was highlighted for its international certification services, the uptake in which it had risen 50 per cent in just three months. KPMG underlined the importance of businesses that have exposure to Europe and their need to plan for change. Last March, the Scottish Government published its trade and investment strategy and, more recently, a four-point plan for boosting exports, which covered a new board of trade, trade envoys, a hub in Berlin and doubling of SDI staff across Europe. However, that four-point plan focuses on Europe. In a post-Brexit world, where powers to negotiate trade deals will come back to the UK, the wider international context needs to be considered. The cabinet secretary himself told us that more needed to be done to expand the export base. That was part of the rationale for the on-going review of the enterprise agencies. That was the evidence that we heard. I look forward to what the cabinet secretary has to say about those matters, and specifically about greater backing for SMEs, focus on emerging markets and on-going support for trade with our nearest neighbours. This is a critical time for our exporting businesses, and the committee will keep the Scottish Government's four-point plan under review. We also want ministers to listen to concerns about the quality of accreditation, licensing and certification with countries around the world after Brexit. The last thing that a seafood company in Peterhead needs is a bureaucratic impasse in St Petersburg. Cargo left rotting in the crate on a boat at the Russian port because the paperwork is not correct. Stephen Boyle of the Bank of Scotland spoke about the exchange rate and import inflation. He said that the biggest cost increases were in energy, food and clothing. Three areas that constitute a higher proportion of spending for older and poorer households. Gary Gillespie, Scotland's chief economist, said that inflation was expected to impact further on consumption and affordability. We want the Scottish Government to assess any potential impacts on our most vulnerable citizens and report its findings back to the committee. Inward investment was the second strand of our inquiry. We learnt that Scotland has had its successes. Certain figures point to the fact that in four out of the last five years, we have been the top UK location outside of London for securing foreign direct investment. The International Public Policy Institute told us that such projects were exceptionally important. That for high productivity, high-skill, export-oriented businesses, they mattered as much as domestic investment. At the same time, much of that came from repeat investment. SCDI said that we had been less successful at attracting money from new sources. In the Scottish Government's own assessment, awareness among investors in Asia was relatively low. China did not even feature in Scotland's top 10 sources of investment. We support proposals to strengthen Scottish development international and better co-ordinate international activity, but the right balance must be struck between foreign direct investment and supporting homegrown businesses. We also welcome the commitment to do more to offer core support to more Scottish businesses. Our SMEs need backing now more than ever. The committee will investigate what support is available to companies beyond the start-up stage. The priorities in the Scottish Government's economic strategy may well have been turned on their head by Brexit, and it is crucial to revisit those priorities—not my words, but those of the director of the Fraser of Allander Institute. Formerly, the architect of said strategy when he was head of the office of the chief economic adviser. Professor Roy saw new challenges and opportunities. He asked what levers we can use differently to have an impact on certain sectors. Clearly, the economic landscape is shifting. With those points in mind, the committee recommends that the Scottish Government review its economic strategy. The relationship with our overseas trading partners is going to change. I could not decide whether to end that sentence with significantly or irrevocably, but I suspect that we can all agree on the basic premise. Whether we like it or not, of course, is quite another question, which I shall leave to others in this debate, perhaps. But might there be merit in the Scottish Government also reviewing its trade and investment strategy? I observed the cabinet secretary's body language, but we await his words. The third strand of our inquiry was the labour market, the detail of which, again, I shall leave for my committee colleagues. I hear no howls of protest at that, at least at this stage. What I want to touch on are the distinct needs of the Scottish economy. Some sectors—pollagic fish and soft fruits, for example—are reliant on EU labour from outside the UK for both skilled and unskilled labour. We also have an ageing population, and labour growth is relatively slower in Scotland than for the rest of the UK. Such challenges should be highlighted to the UK Government. Another matter is what an RBS witness termed a form of internal migration, referring to those people of working age already in Scotland who remain outwith the job market. We were told that location and specific skills can act as barriers. Is that something that the strategic labour market group could address? Perhaps the cabinet secretary would be so good as to enlighten us later. One further point beyond my list of three concerns is engagement with the business community. If engagement was not bad enough, I am going to have to force myself to say stakeholders—that most slippery of terms—and there is a serious point to be made here. Time will always be a precious commodity in the private sector, but most people whom we heard from during our inquiry wanted to have their say on the economics of leaving the EU. We would welcome an indication from the cabinet secretary of how he intends to engage with stakeholders. It is a wonder that I can live with myself. My final furlong, Presiding Officer, I am grateful to the committee for the collaborative way in which we undertook this inquiry. For the record, I have no time for Milton Berle's claim that a committee is a group that keeps minutes and takes hours. Well, we certainly spent hours on the subject of the EU, and I am not sure how many minutes we took. I would like to also thank my colleagues on the committee for their pragmatism, forbearance and occasional good humour. I realise that this will result in incredulity. We did not always agree on every detail. This report of ours to abuse a line from Yes Minister was a triumph of the collective will over the political won't. Whether we agree or not with the result of the referendum in June last year, I would say that I have heard nobody disagree that our European neighbours remain close friends and allies, a relationship that will outlast the ending of our membership of the European Union. Scotland has always been outward looking, global in perspective. Historically, we have punched far above our weight when it comes to international influence. Scots invented, discovered or manufactured much of what made the modern world modern. You know the list, of course. TV and the telephone, wave power, the electric light, ATMs in the Bank of England, overdrafts in the stock market, universal standard time and the US Navy. On it goes. Major contributions to science, design, communications, culture, commerce, medicine, industry, technology, transport and beyond. But did you know that we also gave the world paraffin and the theory of combustion? Let the sparks fly, Presiding Officer. I move the motion in my name. I know that Mr Lindhurst feared that his speech might lead to him being charged with willful fire-raising. I think that it is unlikely, but I have to say that there is another charge in the Scottish criminal law that might be laid against the UK Government that of, in the matter of Brexit, culpable and reckless conduct. That is what this debate is going to be about, I suspect. Let me start by saying that the Scottish Government welcomes the opportunity to debate the committee's report on the economic impact of leaving the European Union. I thank the committee for producing a constructive and timely report. In these particular febrile times, it is important to preface any discussion of challenges facing the Scottish economy with what should be called a considered appraisal of its current strengths. Let me emphasise the following facts. Firstly, the Scottish economy is strong. Only a fortnight ago, new figures showed that in 2015, productivity growth in Scotland was four times that of the UK. Scotland is and will continue to be a great place to do business. On this point, the international evidence is rock solid. Our consistently strong performance on foreign direct investment also testifies to that. Due to the Scottish Government's unwavering commitment to sustainable and inclusive economic growth, Scotland continues to be a very attractive place at which to live and work. Of course, there is no room for complacency. The Scottish Government will have to continue to work tirelessly to ensure that the Scottish economy is developed to meet the demands and aspirations of all our citizens. I will not surprise anyone in this chamber to hear me reiterate once again the Scottish Government's firm view that leaving the European Union is likely to inflict significant damage on the Scottish economy. The harder the Brexit, the worse it will be. There is already an accumulating body of research that attempts to quantify the economic impact of Brexit on Scotland and the UK. The research has been produced by highly respected institutions with global credibility. The findings are already well rehearsed in this chamber, so I will not dwell in detail on them again. Suffice it to say that leaving the single market could, after a decade, result in Scottish economic output being £8 billion smaller relative to the scenario that Scotland retains EU membership. In addition, there could be 80,000 fewer jobs and real wages could be £2,000 lower per year. Meanwhile, the National Institute for Economic and Social Research estimates that goods exports could be 35 to 44 per cent and services 60 per cent lower than if Scotland stayed in the EU. Those findings should give even the born-again Brexiteers on the Tory benches pause for thought. In December, the First Minister announced to this chamber credible proposals to keep Scotland in the single market through EFTA and the EEA should the UK decide to produce a hard Brexit. Scotland's place in Europe, outlined in detail why keeping our place in the single market matters so much to jobs, to trade, to living standards and to investment. Our proposals warrant a serious response from the UK Government, but we are still waiting for one. Presiding Officer, as I have indicated, the report being considered by the chamber today is an important contribution to this very serious and significant debate. The Scottish Government will respond in detail to the report's recommendations in due course. We broadly share the committee's concerns on trade, sectors, inward investment, labour market and rising inflation. We are already taking a number of actions that will impact in those areas. For instance, the enterprise and skills review is examining how better we can support efforts to internationalise the Scottish economy, improve the range and quality of data and enhance the supply of skills. The strategic labour market group met for the first time last week, and will among other things consider the impact of Brexit. We are delivering on the actions that are set out in our trade and investment strategy and the four-point plan, including establishing the board of trade and opening the innovation and investment hub in London. We have established a new Scottish business growth group. We therefore welcome the committee's recommendation that resources are finite and must be effectively targeted if we achieve our goal of broadening our export base and reaching out beyond traditional export markets. However, let's not be in any doubt. Scotland can trade with the rest of the UK, the EU and the rest of the world most effectively, if and preferably the whole of the UK, but at least Scotland remains inside the European single market. I welcome the fact that it is revealing that the report does not repeat any of the unreasonably optimistic talk of opportunities, often spouted by the hard Brexiteers. I have still to hear any such convincing business case for Brexit, which reflected in the international view of the matter, particularly in Asia. The reality is that the gungho Brexiteers in the UK Government often seem woefully ignorant of how global trade actually functions in the 21st century. They are presenting no coherent plan to see the UK through the tumultuous period, which will start when the Prime Minister triggers article 50, whenever that is. Scotland needs more from the UK than this self-congratulatory bluff about recreating the supposed glories of the past. Of course, some of the issues raised in the report might be at least mitigated if the current UK Government was motivated by priorities other than its obsession with immigration and its intent to drive out many who contribute positively to our economy. It is right that the committee draws attention to the negative impact on labour supply due to that obsession. However, there is an urgency to that matter. Recent statistics indicate that the flow of new EU workers may already be in decline. The UK Government's refusal to guarantee the rights of EU citizens currently living and working in the UK is quite simply disgraceful. As is Government-inspired speculation this weekend about a cut-off date for those who are coming here quite legitimately and in keeping with prevailing European law and UK treaty obligations, we and they are dealing with a UK Government that seems to place a higher priority on dog whistle policies than it does on the prosperity of its people, on the resilience and stability of its economy. We will have to pay a heavy price for such irresponsibility. The committee's report proposes a number of actions for the Scottish Government in meeting the challenge of Brexit. We will hear about many of them this afternoon and the Government is confident that proportionate responses are already under way in areas of concern highlighted by the committee. Those will be set out in full in our written response to the report. The Scottish Government can always be relied upon to do all that it can to defend Scotland's economy. The Parliament, through its committees, as the report shows, is also trying to do so. It is great to be regretted that the same cannot be said for the UK Government. Thank you. I am grateful to the convener of the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee for setting out the parameters of the debate. I would also like to mention the excellent work of the clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre in helping to prepare the report. The remit of the inquiry was wide to investigate the possible impacts and opportunities for Scotland's economy in the context of the vote to leave the EU. In response, the report makes a series of specific recommendations. Before commenting on the specific recommendations, I will first make some general observations arising from the inquiry itself. First, over the course of the inquiry, the committee benefited from very positive and active engagement from the business, academic and other communities across Scotland. Evidence received highlighted that the impact and the opportunities arising from Brexit will vary greatly depending on the sectors and the regions in question. For example, in the financial services sector, which accounts for some 10 per cent of Scotland's GDP, only 5 per cent of business is with the EU, while 20 per cent of exports from the food and drink sector are to the European Union. I would also like to highlight the feedback from business that demonstrated the resilience and adaptability of the business community in Scotland. A number of business leaders confirmed that Brexit would indeed be a challenge, but in their words, dealing with challenges is what business is all about. For many, Brexit is just the latest challenge to overcome. I commend the resilience and the adaptability of the Scottish business community in getting on with their day job. Turning now to the specific recommendations of the report, one of the central lines of inquiry related to the impact and the opportunities of Brexit for Scotland's exporters. Paragraph 17 of the report notes that 63 per cent of Scotland's trade is with the rest of the UK, 16 per cent with the EU and 21 per cent with the rest of the world. Further notes that the US is the top destination for Scotland's international exports. Indeed, we export more to the US than we do to France and Germany combined. When those export figures are subject to further analysis, Jane Gotts of Gen Analytics highlights the very low levels of exporting by business in Scotland. As Gordon Lindhurst highlighted, over 50 per cent of our exports are generated by only 50 companies. The concern was raised that we have a very low level of exporting amongst our businesses, especially small and medium-sized businesses. We share that concern. We must look to expand and diversify our export base in order to make the economy more competitive. Evidence before the committee, the cabinet secretary for the economy accepted that more needs to be done in this area, explaining that one of the reasons for the review of the enterprise agencies is that we realise that we have not done what we need to do on exports or on internationalisation. We welcome the review of the enterprise agencies, but we remain deeply concerned about the on-going significant cuts being made to the enterprise budget, as that will make progress in this area all the more difficult. Scottish Enterprise has confirmed to the economy committee that over 120,000 new businesses are required in Scotland in order to meet export targets. Cutting the enterprise budget by more than 40 per cent over the past five years is not, in our view, the way to achieve that. The report highlights one area where there is significant opportunity to expand our export base. That is by looking beyond the EU market, recognising that some 80 per cent of economic growth is now driven by the emerging markets. As Scotland, Food and Drink, commented, we really need to think beyond Europe. Ashtyaan. Your own Prime Minister said last year that it is not realistic to think that we can just replace European trade with those new markets. Will the member like to comment on that? We are not talking about replacing. We are highlighting the fact that since 2002, exports to the rest of the world have increased by 85 per cent, while exports to the EU in this period have increased by only 8 per cent. That shows you where the growth is going to come from. Indeed, if trends over the past 10 years are continued, exports to the rest of the world will be two thirds more valuable to Scotland than EU exports by 2025. China is now the second largest economy in the world and India is the seventh largest, but our exports to China are a mere 0.7 per cent of total exports and to India just 0.3 per cent. There is a real opportunity here. As SCDI said, I will later post Brexit, there is a good chance to create new free trade agreements with international markets such as China and India—something that we encourage. I will later. All of this evidence on Scotland's exporters led the committee to conclude that more needs to be done to support and encourage businesses, especially SMEs, to export both to the EU and beyond. The committee expects that to be addressed as part of the on-going enterprise. Does the member accept that the clue to the Indian market is to accept the Indian demands for increased migration by talented young Indians? As the Prime Minister has rejected that, no deal with India has been done and was not done last year. How will he change that if migration is the major issue? That would be a matter for negotiation. I am impressed by the minister's crystal ball in anticipating what the issues might be, but India is the fastest-going market for Scotch whisky and that is why free trade agreement with India will be very valuable. The report is far-reaching and covered other areas. In relation to trading statistics, the committee report highlights some gaps in data available for exports from Scotland, but the Scottish Government has helped to publish a frequently asked questions document to clarify the following. Scottish goods, which are exported through ports in the rest of the UK, are counted as international Scottish exports. All the international exports that are relevant to Scotch whisky are counted as Scottish exports, irrespective of the port at which they depart the UK. Perhaps that will answer some questions raised on Twitter about how Scottish exports are counted. The report also makes recommendations in relation to the labour market and the role of EU nationals. There are an estimated 115,000 EU nationals in employment in Scotland, representing 4 per cent of the Scottish workforce in employment. Let me say that evidence provided to the committee was unanimous in recognising the significant and valuable contributions made by EU nationals working and living in Scotland. In looking at options to address a potential shortage of skilled and unskilled workers following Brexit, there was some support for a more effective use of internal migration, given the high levels of the working-age population in Scotland outside of the job market. Finally, the report highlights the importance of Scotland's trading relationship with the rest of the UK. The Fraser of Allander Institute recommended that the Scottish Government should focus on further integration with the rest of the UK market and support expansion of the trading relationship. That view was echoed by a number of witnesses, including Professor Mackay of the University of St Andrews, who said that Scotland's number one priority must always be to keep that trade relationship with the rest of the UK open and fluid. The importance of our domestic trading market was highlighted by Scottish Government figures released last month. Since 2002, Scotland's trade with the rest of the UK has increased by 75 per cent, while exports to the EU in this period have increased by only 8 per cent. In conclusion, the report is a welcome addition to the debate on the economic impact of leaving the EU. As the report makes clear, it is impossible to analyse Scotland's trade with the EU in isolation. You have to look at the relative importance and the growth of that trading relationship relative to others. Once you do that, analysis, the following becomes clear. First, we should work towards Scotland having the best possible access to European markets. We think that the best way to achieve that will be through a UK-wide approach that secures the best possible Brexit trade agreement for Scotland. Second, more needs to be done to expand our trading relationship with the rest of the world. Finally, in the words of Scottish Development International, whatever circumstances play out, it will be paramount that we protect free trade and the open market with the rest of the United Kingdom. We agree with that. Let me again thank other members of the committee for their hard work on this report, and I welcome this report's contribution to the debate on the EU referendum. Thank you. I now call on Jackie Baillie to open for the Labour Party to be followed by Julian Martin. Jackie Baillie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Like the majority of people who voted in Scotland last year, I voted to remain in the European Union. However, I am also a democrat, so I accept that the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union and soon. However, as the chamber knows, I would rather delay triggering article 50, not as a means of frustrating our exit from the European Union, but because I genuinely do not believe that we are ready and the UK's negotiating position is less than clear. Indeed, I understand that the time for negotiation is actually in practice likely to be 18 months rather than two years. We need to get a move on, and we must absolutely focus on planning for our exit. In particular, there is a responsibility on us all to secure the best possible transition for our economy and for jobs. Despite the assertions from the minister, our economy is fragile, growth is down and being revised downward still, employment is down and the number of economically inactive people has increased. I want to spend most of my time talking about exports. The Scottish Government's own export statistics show that Scotland exports more goods and services to the rest of the United Kingdom than it does to the rest of the world. Never mind the European Union. It may laugh, Presiding Officer, but those are serious considerations, and the Government would be better—no, I have heard enough laughter from you—focusing their minds on that, because let me give him the facts from the Scottish Government's own statistics. In 2015, 63 per cent of Scotland's exports went to the rest of the UK. 21 per cent of goods and services were exported to the rest of the world, and just 16 per cent went to the EU. Given that everyone agrees that proximity is a key determinant of exporting volume, it is hardly surprising that our economy relies more on the rest of the UK than anywhere else. We know that the Scottish Government's economic response to Brexit was to invest in the Berlin hub, and I welcome that. Given that we are leaving the EU, surely the SNP must also focus on strengthening our relationship with our neighbours south of the border, and even further afield, in existing markets such as the United States, new and emerging markets such as Brazil and fast-growing markets such as China and India. We heard evidence about the opportunity for expansion in markets beyond the EU. GDP growth in emerging and developing markets is projected to be around 4.6 per cent in 2017. In China and India, growth is forecast at 6.2 per cent and 7.6 per cent respectively. However, growth in the euro market is forecast at just 1.5 per cent. Michael Russell, if I read the opening sentence of paragraph 147 in Scotland's Place in Europe, which says that the proposal within the paper is predicated on maintaining Scotland's Place in the European Single Market in addition to not instead of free trade across the UK. There is no danger to free trade across the UK. There is danger to trade with Europe from the position that she is now espousing, the exact same as the Tory position. Jackie Baillie? I think that the SNP certainly appears more interested in pursuing grievance with the rest of the UK. It is using Brexit as a battering ram for independence, and that will have a severe impact on trade with the rest of the UK. It is increasingly important for the Scottish Government to work with the UK Government on trade promotion in the EU and beyond. Although I and the rest of the committee welcome the Scottish Government's investment in promoting trade using one vehicle, the chambers of commerce, it is a relatively small amount of money that has been awarded. However, we also need to make sure that there is capacity to engage in new trade deals at both government and business levels. For Scotland, I think that we can learn much from the Scotch whisky industry, building on its success and knowledge and truly global reach. However, our Scotch whisky industry is still at risk post-Brexit. Indeed, we know that the most pressing task and the most pressing risk for the sector is losing out to markets further afield in East Asia and South America. Exporting to those markets is currently supported by EU-brokered agreements. Scotch whisky is a major employer in a unionised industry across the UK. Of course, it is a major provider of good jobs in many otherwise isolated communities, as well as across the central belt. Surely, those are exactly the type of jobs that we should be prioritising. I have written to David Mundell today, asking that he meets with the GMB to urge the UK Government to prioritise Scotch whisky, and I hope that the Scottish Government supports such an approach. The committee heard evidence that Scottish businesses are not taking full advantage of export opportunities. That was cited as being due to a lack of access to finance and lack of awareness of opportunities. At present, over 50 per cent of our exports are still being generated by just 50 companies. That tells me that there is a real opportunity and that many businesses that can export their goods and services are currently missing out. Although there is an important role for Scottish development international in paving the way for Scottish businesses to access new markets, there is also an important role for Scottish Enterprise and its account managers to increase the capacity of our businesses to export. At this critical time, the SNP Government has cut the budget of Scottish Enterprise by 48 per cent in real terms since 2009. The very agency that is in charge of economic development within Scotland, which is the same Government that proclaims that growing the Scottish economy is a priority. Let me turn briefly to the financial services sector, because financial services account for a significant part of the Scottish economy and our prosperity. The sector contributes around £8 billion each year and employs something like 90,000 people directly and the same again indirectly. Some of the financial services sector will be affected by the potential loss of passporting rights in the wake of Brexit. We may see jobs move to other financial centres in Europe. Others may not be directly affected, but it could have an impact nevertheless. Then there is the impact on individuals and families. We are already beginning to see households being affected by the fall in the pound in the wake of Brexit, and that is before Brexit itself has even happened. Whether it be increased food costs, increased cost of energy household bills, prices are on the up. Experts such as Stephen Boyle, head of economics at RBS, are telling us that it is our country's older and poorer households that are affected the most. We have already heard how important the UK-wide market is for businesses and our economy. We know that we export more than 60 per cent of our goods and services to the rest of the UK. That is a fact. It comes from the Scottish Government's own statistics. Businesses also tell us that, in addition to Brexit, a key barrier for them to economic growth and to taking investment decisions is uncertainty. The SNP's persistence of using Brexit, as a road to independence, just creates even more uncertainty. Presiding Officer, I hear the SNP front bench rumbling, here we go. This is the reality facing businesses in Scotland today. An independence referendum is not something that our country needs. It is not something that the majority of people in our country want. A second referendum will be bad for our economy. If Nicola Sturgeon is intent on committing economic vandalism by trying to push through her second independence referendum, Scottish Labour will firmly oppose this in Parliament. The SNP is obsessed with division. We believe that we are stronger together, and that is why we will never support independence. We now move on to the open speeches. I remind those who wish to take part to press the request to speak buttons, please. Speeches of six minutes, but I have a little time in hand where I can allow additional time for any interventions. Presiding Officer, I was very certain of my reasons for voting to remain in the European Union last year, but, after hearing the testimony of those who gave evidence from sectors and businesses across Scotland in our investigation, I am even more certain now that the so-called hard Brexit that has been mooted by Theresa May and her cabinet leaves Scotland in a needlessly challenging place, or as a victim of willful fire-raising, if you will. Most compelling for me was the predicted impact that a loss of freedom of movement could have on the Scottish economy. I will use my time in the chamber here today to focus solely on that aspect of our evidence. I believe that the evidence to be even more important, given the telegraph report this weekend, that the Prime Minister is planning to announce curbs on EU nationals moving into the UK from as soon as next month. One stark piece of evidence on the positive effect an increased population can have on a business came from Scotland's food and drink representative James Withers, who talked of Walker's shortbread in my colleague Richard Lockhead's constituency of Murray. Walkers have greatly expanded their business in the last 10 years, and their shortbread can be found in hotels and restaurants all over the world as a result of their increased capacity. That capacity increase has been as a result of having people from other EU member states moving into the area. We were told in the 1990s that Walkers could not expand to take advantage of the opportunities before them due to a tight local labour market. They now employ over 350 Polish workers at all levels in the company who live with their families in the Aberlau area. Jim Walker was quoted as saying that he had huge concerns about his business's future without access to labour from the other EU countries. I think that when Dean Lockhart was talking about maximising our potential in exports, he would do well to consider those words from Jim Walker. During our investigation, the committee members had the option to visit businesses to discuss the potential impact of leaving the EU, and I went to Denham Seafoods in Peterhead. The pelagic fish processing plan estimates that over 80 per cent of the workforce are originally from other EU member states. We spoke to a few of them when we were there. Leanna and Roman are long-standing core staff living in Peterhead with their families, both married to Peterhead locals. Other workers, I admit, have been to Peterhead schools, speaking in Russian or Polish at home, with their parents and Doric on the factory floor with their workmates. Depending on the season, Denham also needs access to temporary workers to enhance their core staff. Without the core staff, Denham simply cannot operate. Without the seasonal staff, Denham cannot operate at full capacity. A similar story comes from Angus Softfruits, who told us that they'd effectively have to move their farming abroad without the vast amount of workers from other EU states that they've relied on for years to harvest their produce. They said that we could scale right back and match our production to the local labour, or we could move abroad. There was already a lot of talk down south about that. Our food and drink industry is the envy of the world. It's one of our biggest exports, and a huge amount of energy is going into maximising Scotland's exports. A hard Brexit has the potential to cut that off at the knees. It's not just those who look to exports that have workforce worries. Our universities face great challenges. Alistair Sim from University of Scotland said this in committee. There are huge issues about what the future is for new staff and international staff. We are proud to have about 4,600 EU staff in universities across academic and professional disciplines. About 16 per cent of the academic workforce are from the EU. To put it bluntly, they face a rather uncertain future. It's a difficult time to attract staff from EU countries because there are no answers to those questions. I'm going to end by talking about one of the sectors that came across very strongly as being potentially severely impacted by a cessation to freedom of movement. It's a sector that affects us all at one point in our family lives, and that's a health and social care sector. Scottish Care gave compelling evidence of the issues that they would face without access to EU workers. I urge members to read the official report of the entire session that they attended. The evidence is too compelling and too plentiful for me to quote here. They are already dealing with a 28 per cent vacancy level. The recruitment issues would be exacerbated hugely by stripping them of the EU labour market. With health and social care partnerships relying on nurses and carers from all over the EU, forgive me if I will give a short shrift to any person in this chamber defending a hard Brexit today who might in future stand up and ask the Scottish Government about bed blocking, lack of care packages for elderly or care homes closing, like the one in my constituency in Tareff, which could not recruit enough people. When they have denied our care sector of the personnel, they need to function to eradicate those issues. They will be entirely hypocritical if they stand up and complain about the effects of that. Our evidence was a ringing endorsement of the value of freedom of movement as given Scotland's economy and communities are shot in the arm over the past 15 years. Freedom of movement is essential as we grow our economy in the future. I urge those with influence at UK Government level, if such a person exists in this place, to make that point as a hard Brexit looms. I call Liam Kerr to be followed by Gordon MacDonald. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. On 23 June 2016, the British people voted to leave the European Union. Britain will leave the European Union as per their instructions, and we must now work together to make a success of it. With that in mind, the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee conducted an investigation into the economic impact of that UK decision, with a remit to investigate how to seize any opportunities arising from the decision and to make recommendations to the Scottish and UK Governments. I want to focus on the report's conclusions in relation to trade. Brexit does afford the UK, including Scotland, a great opportunity. I particularly welcome page 13 of the report, which makes clear that the Scottish Government must now look at options beyond the European Union. It is time to look beyond the confines of continental Europe, a Europe in which our trade is often dictated, negotiated and mediated by the European Union to the wider world and explore those vast, untapped and overlooked markets that are often open to new trade and investment. As Churchill said, we are with Europe, but not of it. Ivan McKee To comment on what John Major said yesterday, that if India was looking for a trade deal that wants to see immigration concessions and that a trade agreement with the UK is not one of China's priorities. Liam Kerr Intervention. Mr Major is entitled to his opinion, of course, but I think that given that Nicola Sturgeon, in 2014, brought up specifically the issue of bargaining chips, it is probably best that you do not go there, Mr McKee. As Churchill said, we are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked, but not compromised. We are associated, but not absorbed. If Britain must choose between Europe and the open sea, she must choose the open sea. We must be drawn to that open sea. The 2015 World Bank statistics show growth in the Arab world at 3.2 per cent, East Asia and the Pacific 3.9 per cent, Middle East North Africa 3.1 per cent, the EU 2.2 per cent. That is why I welcome that next week in London we will see the inaugural Commonwealth Trade Minister's meeting, whose objective is to reaffirm the commitment of Commonwealth member countries to a transparent, free and fair multilateral trading system, and to define an ambitious commonwealth-led agenda for growth, to promote trade, investment and job creation in member countries. That will support the target of increasing intra-commonwealth trade to $1 trillion by 2020. No, thank you. Time is rapidly marching on. Trade talks have already begun with the USA, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The USA continues to be Scotland's top international trading partner worth £4.6 billion. Within the EU, the Netherlands, the largest market is at £2.3 billion. The witnesses in front of the economy committee could not have been clearer. James Withers of Scotland Food and Drink said, the doubling of the SDI resources in Europe will be valuable, but we really need to think beyond Europe. From the Scotch-Whiskey Association, David Williams said to the committee, there is a need for SDI to revisit its international network and to look at where it puts its resources. The SDI said that, upon leaving the EU, the UK will be in a position to engage in quicker negotiation processes to create bilateral trade agreements with other countries that wish to pursue discussions at the time. However, in any discussion of Scotland's trade, we cannot overlook one glaring fact that became more and more obvious over the months that the committee developed and took evidence for this report. Scotland's trade with the United Kingdom is far and away the largest and most important destination for Scotland's exports. Scotland's exports to the rest of the UK in 2015, excluding oil and gas, are estimated at £49.8 billion, an increase of £2.1 billion over the year. That is four times the size of the EU export market, £21.1 billion higher than the estimated total for total international exports. If we break that into financial services, £7.5 billion are exported to the UK, £210 million to the EU. Professor Graham Roy of the Fraser of Allander Institute said this to the committee, one of the biggest focuses for the Scottish Government in future policy rounds should be integration into the rest of the UK market and what it can do to support expansion into it. The recommendation on page 13 of the report is clear. It is vital that this access to the UK market is maintained and the committee recommends that the Scottish Government continues to support Scottish businesses in trading within that UK market. There is nothing, nothing more important going forward for Scotland than its relationship and freedom to trade without barriers with the rest of the UK. The people of Great Britain have spoken and we stand here on the edge of an exciting, invigorating time for our country, for business and our economy. The world is open to British business and British investment in a way that it has not been since the 1960s. Opportunities are presented to us on all continents and with our oldest and closest friends in the Commonwealth, as well as our friends in the EU. The Scottish Government should be banging at the doors of those emerging markets. Scottish business needs and expects that. Who knows? The doors might be open already. The report is clear. It says that the Scottish Government and its agencies must do more to improve Scottish air exports. The Scottish Government must embrace Brexit and look at the opportunities beyond the EU. The Scottish Government must do all in its power to maintain and improve our internal United Kingdom market. Scotland is the only part of the UK with a trade surplus. Unlike the UK as a whole, that has a substantial trade deficit. The UK's trade balance has been in deficit every year since 1998, with the trade deficit in 2015 being £30 billion, widening to £39 billion in 2016. Without Scotland's annual trade surplus, the UK would be in an even more difficult position. In 2015, the Export Statistics Scotland survey highlighted that Scottish business exported £79 billion in goods and services, excluding £15 billion in Scottish oil and gas. Oil and gas UK told the committee that, in the same year, all gas and 75 per cent of oil exports went to the EU. Therefore, on the basis of Scotland's total exports, 19 per cent of trade is with the EU. While Scotland exported around £18 billion to the EU, about 44 per cent of UK exports in goods and services went to countries in the EU worth around £220 billion. Therefore, EU membership, or at least access to the single market, is not just important to Scotland, but it is also essential for the UK. In evidence to the committee, Dr Margulis of Stirling University, I want to echo how much of a Herculean task it will be for the British Government to renegotiate its trade relationship with not only the EU, but the other 50 countries with which the EU has preferential free trade agreements that the UK currently enjoys. On a safe estimate, we are looking at it taking several decades just to renegotiate the access that the UK currently enjoys. The European Treaty's database lists 890 bilateral and 259 multilateral international treaties and agreements that the EU or the EU and the member state have signed or ratified. Dr Margulis highlighted the difficulties for the UK in arranging any new trade agreement. The reality is that the UK has not negotiated a trade agreement since the late 70s and has no capacity to negotiate such agreements. The UK has a much smaller economy than the EU and so does not have the same leverage, which means that when it strikes new deals, they are likely to be not as good as the deal that it currently has. His view is in line with what the Home Secretary Theresa May stated in April 2016. It is not clear why other EU member states would give Britain a better deal than they themselves enjoy. The impact of less favourable terms was highlighted to the committee by a Scottish leather group whose concerns were about the potential impacts of increased trade duties in tariffs. The imposition of tariffs could make already extremely competitive business unprofitable, certainly less profitable, and that in time may render some businesses unsustainable. Equally important to gaining access to the single market is the ease of doing business. The committee heard from companies about the importance of EU rules and regulations, especially the value of effective accreditation, licensing and certification systems. It also highlighted the need to retain the European protected geographical indication status that protects the integrity of products and ensures that they cannot be produced elsewhere for less. In relation to Scotland, Scotch Whiskie has had PGI protection since 2008, and the industry has worth £5 billion to the Scottish economy. The Scotch Whiskie Association, in its briefing, Scotch Whiskie and Brexit, states that "...the industry places great value on Scotch Whiskie's international reputation and legal recognition as a product that must be produced in Scotland according to traditional practice. The UK Government must ensure protection is in place for this valuable industry." Of course, Scotland does not just trade with the EU. We also have 19 per cent of our total exports with the rest of the world, with America alone accounting for £4.6 billion in 2015. Jane Gotts of Gen Analytics, the Scottish Government is to be commended because its reach in international markets is very good. There is representation in all trading businesses through the UK, but Scotland itself has offices throughout Europe, in Asia and the US. Dr Fabian Zulig of the European Policy Centre told the committee that the decision to leave the EU has wide implications for trade. It is not just the relationship between the EU and the UK that will change fundamentally, but the relationship between the UK and the rest of the world. Should Scotland aim for the rest of the world rather than the rest of the EU, it is about both rather than either. Support is in place to grow our exports, but there is a limiting factor, and that is access to a skilled workforce. My colleague Gillian Martin has highlighted the impact on a range of sectors if he does not have access to skilled labour to help our export market to grow. Being a member of the EU not only provides benefits and preferential access to markets for Scottish goods, but we are necessary the skilled labour that we need to take advantage of those opportunities. Finally, the importance of the EU to the UK and Scotland was highlighted by the now Prime Minister Theresa May in April 2016. I quote, We export more to Ireland than we do to China, almost twice as much to Belgium as we do to India and nearly three times as much to Sweden as we do to Brazil. It is not realistic to think that we could just replace European trade with these new markets. I call Pauline McNeill to be followed by Ash Denham. I would like to begin by welcoming the committee report and acknowledging the significance of the work that the committee has done to look at the impact on the opportunities of Brexit. Interestingly, among what John Major had to say yesterday about Brexit, it is worth quoting that he said that a shift to a low tax, more deregulated economy, trading and world trade organisation rules, as some Brexiteers would like to have, mean a fundamental rewriting of the economic rules that would be unlikely to win public support. I think that there is a lot of support for John Major's statement on that. The important aspect of that quote is that it would not get public backing. This hard line, hard core Brexit, is something that we are entitled to challenge. For the most part, I want to address my remarks to the excellent report. To begin with, I think that the quality of the evidence that the committee got was clear and sharp, but there is no point in ignoring that the fact that the evidence throws up that it is a serious and complex issue. The UK exit is an evolving area and obviously needs regular and detailed analysis as we move forward to the final stages to worse new trade agreements. I will come and thread through the report. It exposes that there is a lack of reliable economic statistics and that national statistics are not broken down internally. I think that it is clear that that is something that has to change. The report talks about the important markets to Scotland, the importance of the UK market and the top destination to Scotland or overseas being the United States, the importance of the EU market to the highlands, the new economies in China and India has been talked about and maintaining our current trade links with Europe being a top priority. It is clear from the report of the UK market that proximity is one of the most important determinants in market, not the only one, but we know that our trade with the UK is four times. That does not exclude the fact that it is still important to recognise that our trade with Europe is still £12 billion. We know that there are specific Scottish factors that must be considered in the Brexit. Population in Scotland is growing more but it is growing slower. That is because of the lower levels of net immigration in Scotland and the natural birth rate, which is rising. Labour growth is much lower in Scotland. We have an ageing population that we know about, so it is clear that Scotland needs immigration and we need EU immigration to meet Scotland's needs. That is why the issue of immigration and giving legal certainty to EU workers, as we have said in many debates, is of prime importance. As others have highlighted, we know that our EU workers make up a significant part of their workforce and with a contribution of £7 billion to the Scottish economy. We know where they are, mainly in the hospitality sector, the education sector and the NHS, comprising of 1,400 doctors and 4 per cent of nurses. As many witnesses have said, yes, I will, yes. Liam Kerr. The member's concern for EU citizens here is important and I do acknowledge those remarks, but does she share my worry that the Scottish Government does not accord similar concern to British citizens currently living in the EU? Pauline McNeill. I think that if the member does not really recognise the most significant point for this Parliament, it is the right protection of EU workers who are so crucial to this, and of course we should equally recognise the needs of British nationals abroad. It is not a competition, but it is a tragedy that so far we still get to get that legal certainty. What other members of the chamber have highlighted is not just the fairness of that, but the importance of that to the Scottish economy. The number of EU nationals, for example, in the social care system has gone up by 40 per cent in the last three years, so if you want any evidence of the need for the fact that we rely on immigration, then it is there. I will not rehearse what Gillian Martin has already said about the importance to industries such as walkers and the extent of the Polish staff, huge concerns. Angus Soft-Fruits talked about how the recruited local workers in January in one year and lost them within two weeks, which is some evidence that we cannot simply rely on our own workers to apply for those jobs. A very significant issue that is highlighted by the report and again in the Parliament is the importance of post-study work visas. The importance of that, not just to the economy, but to the university sector. Why the UK Government rejected that in the recent review is something that is beyond me, but I hope that we can revisit that. I think that it is interesting that, very briefly, because I do not have much time, and I have got a lot more to say. I will give you the time back, Ms McNeill. Clare Adamson. Does the member share my concern that the UK Government seems to be able to give differentiated settlements to some places when it has a will to do to, like giving Oxford and Cambridge University the post-study work visa back and denying it to the rest of the country? Pauline McNeill. I have argued for a long time as a Labour Government to introduce the fresh talent scheme in the first place. That was a good one. That is what we should be arguing for, not just for Scotland, but for wherever. I have gone on to talk about that it is not just the post-study work visas that are important. We will have a new immigration system in Britain as part of the Brexit process, and Scotland needs to have a say in that. 16 per cent of academic staff are from the European Union, but that rises to 23 per cent when you look at research-only staff. I think that it is important to recognise that the research staff is very important to Scotland's economy. I wonder if the minister would comment on paragraph 120. Skills Development Scotland talks about the need for a clearer picture of where our skill challenges lie. That is one of the biggest areas for the programme. Professor Wright suggests that there should be a rebalancing from higher education to further education, suggesting more of a focus on technical and vocational skills. That is quite a controversial statement. I would like to hear more on what the minister thinks about that. If that holds true in the evidence, there needs to be further discussion in the Parliament. Finally, as Jackie Baillie says, one of the most significant things that the committee has drawn—I was pleased to see that in paragraph 85 of the report—is that you cannot discount the impact of the cost of living that we are about to face in Scotland throughout the United Kingdom, as ordinary families face a rise in energy, food, clothing and so on. If we do not tackle the cost of living, then we will have a direct impact on the businesses that we are talking about. I was pleased to see that in the report, but I would like, if I could, to get a response from the minister on the previous point. Over the past few months, the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee considered testimony from a range of experts to better understand the potential economic impact of Scotland leaving the European Union. What we have come to learn is that the potential impact is very real, it is very dire and very consequential for many businesses, industries and jobs across Scotland. The evidence points to the EU single market being vitally important to numerous exporting businesses across a variety of sectors. Additionally, the EU provides its members a level playing field in negotiating trade deals, as was the case with the recently concluded EU deal with Canada. Despite recent Tory attempts to minimise the significance of the EU market for Scottish exports, Professor Brad Mackay, chair in strategic management at St Andrews University, testified that Europe will always be very important. We see that first hand in Scotland's largest cities. Recent figures from the think tank centre for cities show that Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow exported a total of almost £7 billion to the EU in 2014, and 61 per cent of Aberdeen's exports alone go to the EU. That does not negate the value of Scotland's trade with the rest of the UK and our partners globally, yet, as Dr Fabian Zuleg of the European Policy Centre stated, it is about both rather than either. The decision to leave the EU has wide implications for trade. Such implications include putting a total of £12.3 billion worth of Scottish goods and services at risk by cutting off single market membership, which trade so seamlessly depends on. While Brexiteers champion a fear of EU regulations, it is the very regulations that guarantee the accreditation, the licensing and certification systems that businesses then rely on for the trade with the EU. Let's be clear, access to the EU single market is nowhere near the equivalent to membership. Almost any country can access a single market, but doing so without EU membership or an alternative such as EU membership comes at a very high price in both money and in time. As Dr Matthias Margulis, lecturer in political economy at the University of Stirling said to the committee, the UK has not negotiated a trade agreement in four decades, so its capacity and leverage in negotiating is lower than the collective EU. He further described the UK's task at renegotiating trade deals with Europe as herculean. He said that the UK must have some realism about where it sits in the global picture. To the detriment of Scotland, Theresa May is, unfortunately, forging ahead on article 50 without even a hint of that realism. The consequences for leaving the EU will not just be hard on Scottish exporters. There are also unfortunate implications for Scotland's labour force and the many EU citizens who live and work here. Yet the Prime Minister has still done nothing to assure EU nationals' place in the UK, painting a bleak picture for the Scottish economy that depends so much on their skills and on their knowledge. What has our society come to when the guarantee of someone's livelihood and legally chosen home has been swept out right from underneath them? As experts and business leaders alike testified, Scotland is very reliant on skilled and non-skilled immigration, and this reliance, coupled with employer challenges to source labour locally, as Gillian Martin has outlined, should be of great concern to this Parliament. Furthermore, the European Council president, Donald Tusk, has made it abundantly clear that the UK's refusal to abide by freedom of movement means that no Alacart entry to the single market would be possible, and all other EU leaders have said the same thing. I will. Dean Lockhart Thank you very much. There are 70,000 young people in Scotland between 16 and 24 not in employment. Does the member agree with Keith Brown that we should be looking to reskill those people to address any gaps in employment post Brexit? As the example from Angus soft fruits has very clearly illustrated in areas like that—I am not saying that this is the same across the whole of Scotland—in certain localities, it is simply not possible to find the labour locally that would be required. It just isn't possible, so I think that we need to look beyond that at other alternative solutions, which would be maintaining freedom of movement to Scotland, because we do need it. For the University of Edinburgh, whose faculty, students and staff are so critical to the vibrancy of the city, a vibrancy that is threatened by Brexit, 25 per cent of the university's academic staff is made up of EU nationals, as well as 17 per cent of its staff in total. Alistair Sim, the director of university Scotland, said to the committee that he stated that free movement of talent is the lifeblood of universities. What will happen to Scotland's universities, which plays such a fundamental role in the robustness of Scotland's economy when its lifeblood is ended? The Scottish people have overwhelmingly rejected the hard-right Brexit disaster that is being forced upon them. Through their voices in the referendum and through their representatives in this chamber and Westminster, they have been clear. The Scottish Government has also been forthright and committed to negotiations with the Prime Minister. It is clear that the best interests of Scotland are being ignored from all sides. Brexit is a threat to Scotland now and it is a threat to Scotland's future. The conclusions and recommendations in the report reflect that. I think that the Scottish people would wish to send a message to the right-wing Tory Government that a hard Brexit is not something that Scotland wants or has voted for. I commend Gordon Winters and his committee for the work that they have conducted in the report. It talked about impacts and mitigation. The convener effectively set out the long list of activities, plans and strategies that should be considered as part of a wider economic strategy. It talked about small and medium enterprises being central. It talked about Scottish Development International and the new markets. It talked about trade and investment strategies in a four-point plan. It talked about trade envoys. What is significant about all those things is that not one single effort has been prevented by the European Union. All of that can be done within the European Union structure just now, but the implication is that the European Union has prevented us from engaging in those markets across the globe already. In fact, I believe that the European Union has lifted this country up. It has given us a bigger trading block on which we can operate and trade throughout the rest of the world. Rather than the European Union being seen as a hindrance, we should have seen it as an opportunity. The rewriting of history by the Conservatives is unfortunate. It is difficult to accept the sunny, optimistic dreams of people such as Liam Kerr, who says that the world is our oyster. We can achieve so much more now that the European Union has been shed from our back. Nigel Farage produced a chart at one point that showed that the charts are only going up of growth across the world. The European Union is always going down, but its growth across the world has been exponentially increasing. If only Britain could have an opportunity to access that, we could achieve so much more. Nigel Farage used to say those things. Now Liam Kerr says those things. He says that it is exciting and liberating. I think that it is reckless and cavalier to dispense with the European Union as a trading block and as an opportunity to trade with, because that is the implication from this document today. The Conservatives are fond of saying that the United Kingdom means more to us in trade than the rest of the European Union. That might be true, and I would not want to leave the United Kingdom. However, it implies that we are going to cut ourselves off from the European Union. That does not matter any more. We can easily place it with trade across the rest of the world. I do not accept that sunny uplands are reckless and cavalier. I do not think that it is exciting and liberating as Liam Kerr highlights. The report, if you read it in quite a bit detail, is quite revealing, not from its conclusions necessarily, but from what it does not say. It is from the emissions. There are huge gaps in our knowledge. It is still asking questions. The report is supposed to come up. It is not a criticism of the authors of the report, but it is supposed to come up with some kind of answers. However, it has more questions. It is like point 73. Some financial services sectors will be more affected by the potential loss of passporting rights than others. I knew that. It does not really tell us enough more how to tackle it. It does not really deal with the solutions on foreign direct investment. It says that how important that would be in the overall balance of their decision making would depend on each individual case. That does not tell us enough lot more as to how we are going to tackle it. We still do not have the answers. Another one, similarly vague, is Professor Mackay. He said that we need to think about the various things that Scotland can do to maintain an attractive and competitive environment. Yes, bloody hell we need to think. We need to think pretty quickly in order to tackle the real threat that is coming down the track. Apologies, Deputy Presiding Officer, for slightly going off track with the language. I know that you do not approve of that, and he is called right. The report rightly highlights the impact on costs, although it does. In terms of inflation, of retail prices, of energy prices, it particularly highlights energy, food and clothing, particularly hitting the elderly and the vulnerable. However, it does not mention mortgages, the fact that they could be rising in the near future, the fact that it could be hitting foreign direct investment, could be hitting jobs. All those things are not mentioned in the report, but they will affect people directly in their pockets. That is something that we should be deeply concerned about. Garib Gillespie of the Scottish Government reinforced that point very strongly in the report. Gillian Martin was quite rightly pointing out the issue about walkers' shortbread and the fact that it has expanded and flourished with the additional workers that it has been able to get access to. Angus Softroots talked about scaling back production if non-EU Labour was not available in the United Kingdom. Kettle produce in my constituency has grown dramatically as a first-class company right in the heart of Fife. That has benefited from foreign workers coming in to this country. Fisher laundry services, great services to the hospitality sector and the Scottish Leather Group. There are endless numbers of companies that have come before the committee, and I have heard directly from myself who have benefited from all those workers coming in to this country. All that is put at risk because of the reckless behaviour of the Conservatives. Rather than standing up here and talking about liberation and excitement, they should be coming here to apologise for the risk that they have posed to the economy of our country. The university sector has been dramatically impacted. St Andrew's university is a first-class institution in my constituency. 22 per cent of academic staff from the European Union is 31 per cent of research staff. 20 per cent of research funding is £8 million from the European Union. St Andrew's university is similarly affected to Edinburgh University and is also affected by that. Those are the dramatic impacts that we can see in businesses in our communities. That is why I say that we should reject leaving the European Union as much as we should reject leaving the United Kingdom. I recognise that there is a very relaxed atmosphere in here, but do not get too relaxed again, please, Mr Rennie. I remind the Parliament of my role as parliamentary liaison officer to the cabinet secretary for the economy. I thank the economy committee for arranging the debate on this critically important subject and for the work that they have done in putting this report together. The whole Brexit debate is like the reaction to a natural disaster or the aftermath of an unexpected financial crash. We talk about what we can do to deal with the negative consequences of a bad thing that has happened to us. We treat it like an act of God, something that is visited upon us and which we have no choice but to persevere with, regardless of the impact that we will have on our businesses and our living standards, working to salvage what we can from the wreckage. However, of course, that pain is entirely self-inflicted. The report is clear on the impact of Brexit. Evidence shows that access to a single market is vitally important to many exporting businesses in a number of sectors in Scotland. Let us at least be grateful that not every single business in every single sector will be trashed as we rush towards the exit door, and it recognises the damage that Brexit will do to personal finances across the country. The impact of cost rises on Scotland's older and poorer households is of particular concern to the committee. The report holds out the occasional glimmer of the possibility of a silver lining, an unintended consequence of the otherwise unrelentingly bad outcomes from the course of action that we are embarked upon. There are lentless search for something that is not quite a disaster to soothe the pain of the cliff edge looming ever closer. Searching desperately for someone somewhere in the world to say something about doing is a favour by taking advantage of a restricted negotiating option to drive a hard bargain with UK PLC going forward. Then concluding that the reality is that most trade, even in this global world, is still regional, so Europe will always be very important. The damage done by Brexit will hurt our economy in ways that the report only begins to document. The 80,000 job losses heading Scotland's way, which those on the Brexit benches consider no doubt a price well worth paying. Lost in all of this, the plain fact that it does not need to be like that, the Tory party focused on keeping Brexit in its box by aping its politics and a Labour party lacking a sense of purpose or direction to call Brexit out for what it is. Neither, no surprise, with Scotland's interests at heart. Of course, the Brexit negotiation hasn't even started yet. Today we hear a pass-conserve to Prime Minister warning of the disasters yet to come of the unrealistic expectations of the UK Government in the article 15 negotiations. A UK Government, as is becoming increasingly clear, has not the first idea of how to go about negotiating its exit from the EU or securing trade deals with third countries. Reliant on massaging the ego of President Trump with a state visit to the UK in the hope of securing any kind of deal with the most protectionist US administration in the past 100 years, and the ridiculous spectacle of scouring the globe, hiring international trade experts because the UK has none in order to try to salvage something from the train wreck of a policy that was supposed to reduce immigration. How ironic. My experience of working in exporting businesses across Europe managing manufacturing facilities in Poland and in Croatia both before and after in both cases that entered the EU has given me an understanding of the hard reality of operating outside the single market and the many tariff and non-tariff barriers that will hurt Scottish business if Brexit goes ahead. The British Chambers of Commerce recognised that too, pleading for an extension to the exit timetable to mitigate the impact of the cliff edge on their members. The committee's report also considers the labour market impact and education and health and social care in the hospitality and food sectors. The impact of loss of skills and personnel will be significant. The committee notes that a alliance in some sectors of the Scottish economy on EU labour was skilled and unskilled. There are significant skills gaps in some sectors, particularly in certain regions of Scotland where there are insufficient people to fill vacancies. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce made it clear today that not only is a differentiated solution on EU immigration possible for Scotland, it is also essential for our businesses. All of that is on top of the self-inflicted pain to the economy and the human stories, the uncertainty that is heaped upon EU citizens living, working and running their businesses in contribution to Scottish society. Some people understand their value. A recent report from Poland highlights the expected economic benefits to the growing economy of Poland of the return of Poles thanks to Brexit. Young skilled workers and their families, the lifeblood of any economy, a boost to the Polish economy and to its demographic challenges, all at the expense of a UK stumbling towards a disaster in dragging Scotland with it. With that, we lose a generation of children who have made Scotland their home, a demographic impact that we can afford to do without. Who knows what talent they may take with them, youngsters with ambition and with a future? Poland in particular is a fine history of exporting talent. The next Frederick Chopin, the next Marie Curie, Skłodowska, perhaps the next Robert Lewandowski, talents that we can afford to do without in Scottish society. Scotland has the options to escape the lunacy of Brexit, our proposal to ensure that our continued place in a single market needs to be taken seriously by the UK Government, but whatever their response, Scotland will take whatever steps are required to predict our place as an international trading nation and avoid the disasters that are highlighted so clearly in the report of that that the people of Scotland can be sure. I am glad that there is a little bit of sunny optimism on this side of the chamber. It is pretty miserable in the middle there the way you paint it anyway. I should start by pointing out that I joined the committee on the final day of its deliberations of this report and therefore I missed the evidence sessions that took place prior to that. However, I think that I was present through enough of the discussions to understand the key points and make a contribution this afternoon. Although he has maybe left the chamber now not to be accused of, was it culpable and reckless debating, the legal term that was used by Mike Russell? I want to direct my remarks today to speak a little bit about inward investment and the labour market. Since the UK voted to leave the European Union, discussion has focused on what trade deals will exist in post-Brexit Britain. Like my colleagues on this side of the chamber, I am still optimistic about the opportunities that will flow from being able to trade more globally. Looking closer to home, it is of vital importance that Scotland has an environment that is not only welcoming to businesses and entrepreneurs wanting to establish themselves here to create jobs here, it needs to be appealing to them. I was pleased to see that in their 2016 attractiveness survey, Ernst and Young stated that Scotland's perceived attractiveness for foreign investors remains at a reassuring level. However, the report also warned that continued improvements to infrastructure and skills development will be necessary in order for Scotland to attract more direct inward investment in the future. We must not underestimate the importance of inward investment. We know that investors like certainty or, to put it another way, they do not like uncertainty. The uncertainty that concerns investors at the moment is the threat of another independence referendum. Scotland neither wants nor needs another referendum, and it is time that the Scottish Government took it off the table and focused on growing the economy, as we have heard. One of the findings of the committee's report was that Scotland must do more to attract investment following the recent poor figures compared to the rest of the UK. In order to achieve that, the Scottish Government's trade and investment strategy acknowledged that. I should say that more needs to be done to raise awareness that Scotland is open for business. We have a proud and distinguished history of entrepreneurship, invention and creativity in such a competitive global market. It is more important than ever that we encourage investors to look in our direction. I think that it is simply a paper hitting the microphone. I do not get sabotage. I was pleased to note that the Scottish Government's strategy identified, as it described, the relatively low awareness of Scotland among investors in Asia, whereas China, India and Japan all featured in the top six of countries of origin for foreign direct investment projects in the UK in 2015. In Scotland's case, those were replaced by Norway, Canada and Australia. Clearly, there is more scope for inward investment in Scotland. I look forward to monitoring the progress of the Government's strategy, as well as their four-point plan, through the work of the committee. Fundamental to Scotland's trade and investment is a thriving economy, and at the heart of that is a skilled workforce and labour market. In the course of the evidence sessions, the committee heard from various witnesses about the dependence on European labour, and we on this side of the chamber are fully recognised the importance of immigration to Scotland's economy. I am in no doubt that immigrants will continue to make a positive contribution to the prosperity of our country after Brexit. Keith Brown, when he appeared in front of the committee, recognised that the need to re-skill Scotland's people, an issue that was picked up by my former employer, KPMG, in its Rethinking Manufacturing Report. It carried out a survey among manufacturers with operations in Scotland, and 60 per cent of respondents felt the need for a better educated workforce. The survey found that boosting workforce skills and quality education to be one of the key priorities for the manufacturing sector's continuing growth. That is a view that is shared much wider than the manufacturing sector. We need to look at how we align the needs of our economy and the skills that our people, particularly young people, are equipped with, and we should reflect on how we propose to re-skill and upskill our people to meet those needs. To conclude, I believe that Scotland has a bright and more global future out of the European Union, but we are only going to realise the opportunities if we have a Government in Scotland that is prepared to knuckle down and work constructively to secure the best deal for our people and our economy, something that we seem to be lacking at the moment. Although I am not a member of the economy committee, I am glad to take part in this debate today, because the economy committee report is one that I believe is vitally important. It outlines in clear and concise terms exactly how Brexit will affect certain areas of our economy. I would say that the conclusions of the report were made clear. If Scotland leaves the EU, leaves the single market and no longer has free movement of people, that will have a seriously detrimental impact on our economy and on the country. The report articulates some of the very real fears that many businesses and organisations have about Brexit and the eventual outcome of any Brexit negotiations. None of us have to venture far even within our constituencies to find those who are seriously concerned about what is happening. Last week, I had the pleasure of sponsoring an event in the Parliament for the east of Scotland European consortium, which is an organisation comprised of eight local authorities on the east coast of Scotland. I really would like to thank all those MSPs who took the time to attend what was such a hugely informative and successful event. The event was held to showcase to members of this Parliament the sheer breadth and variety of EU-funded projects that have been happening in our local communities. Not only that, but also the massive reach and impact that those projects have, not just at the local level but nationally too. Also, and as vitally important, those projects did not just showcase the extent to which EU funds are integrated into what we deliver. They highlighted the importance of the free movement of people, the importance of the EU in research and development and the sharing of knowledge and skills. One such project that is important to highlight was one that was showcased by Aberty University in Dundee. The project, led by Professor of Systems Biology James Bown of Aberty University and Professor David Harrison of the School of Medicine at St Andrews, is a simulation tool known as civet. I hope that I am getting the pronunciation right as I go along. This is a remarkable project and one that has the potential to revolutionise and completely transform the way in which new, life-saving cancer treatments are developed. Using video games expertise and technology, it is an interactive, animated tool that simulates cancer cells, allowing virtual experimentation with various anti-cancer drugs. You can see in real time how different drugs and different doses affect the cell, allowing clinicians direct visualisation and interaction with the process for the first time. Now, I only wish I could go into more detail about the sheer level of work that was involved in developing it, but the mathematics and the algorithms that are involved were far too complex for my brain to comprehend, let alone to explain to anyone else something that I think is probably best left to the likes of Stuart Stevenson to explain. Don't encourage him, Ms Evans, don't encourage him. But that technology isn't limited to cancer cells alone. It can be transferred to many other different systems, and the team that developed it is currently looking to see if it can be used to try and safeguard the UK's water, energy and food security into the future. It's important to remember that this project didn't come from one team alone. It came after three years in development from mathematicians, medics, biologists and those involved in developing computer games technology—a truly multidisciplinary effort. It was developed by those from Scotland, the EU and wider international community. The report that we are considering today highlights exactly how important that mix of talent is. Alistair Sim has been quoted a few times by other members today talking about the free movement of talent being the lifeblood of our universities. Something that is now distinctly under threat if media reports yesterday about what the Prime Minister's announcements on EU migration proved to be true. EU nationals make up 16 per cent of academic staff in Scottish higher education institutions and 23 per cent of the research-only staff. In the north-east and in particular Dundee, between the two universities Dundee and Abbarte, almost 200 jobs could potentially be at risk. That's not to mention the students themselves. As well as problems around migration, opportunities or lack of opportunities for funding will also hit our universities hard. One of the biggest funds available to our institutions is Horizon 2020, a transnational fund worth €80 billion for the current funding period 2014 to 2020. In the last funding period, Scotland benefited to the tune of £636 million from that fund or its predecessor, the EU framework 7 programme. Again, to put that in context, in the last programming period, Dundee University was involved in over 20 research projects and had secured €65 million of funding, as well as €5 million for the small and medium enterprises involved. That is just one fund that our universities benefit from. Unfortunately, there isn't enough time today to properly delve into or cover all the areas that are in this report and which need to be investigated, because there are such sections, such as those that Mr Lindhurst and his opening comments mentioned, and by Jackie Baillie as well, about the impact on households, which could be huge. I was surprised to see that, when we have something that could have a massive impact, it only gets two paragraphs within the report itself. Although I understand that the committee report cannot possibly list all the evidence given, I was surprised from reading the evidence itself and reading the final report that some important elements seem to be missing. However, in terms of the report, it is imperative that the Scottish Government look to the conclusions from the report and use that evidence from each of the sectors to urge the UK Government at every available opportunity to listen to the evidence, to listen to our constituents and to listen to Scotland. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would start by enjoying my other speakers and congratulating the work that the economy committee has done. There is no doubt that the Brexit issue is a major issue. If you look at all the issues that have been dealt with over the history of devolution, the potential impact on that is more serious than any that we have faced since 1999. It is right that a committee of Parliament should look at the impact on Scotland's economy, and I congratulate them for the substantial amount of work that they have carried out. I would like to look at a number of aspects from the report. I think that one of the key factors, if you are looking at economic activity, is inflation. The report makes the point of the impact on import inflation. We have not even started the article 50 process yet, but because of the fall and the value of the pound, we have already seen an impact on import inflation. Some of our companies require to purchase quite a lot of raw material from abroad. In doing that, they are already seeing an increase in their cost base, which not only impacts on their ability to sell on to other markets, but has a potential impact on employment. That is a real concern. It is also not just a concern for the private sector, but there is a link into the public sector. We purchase quite a lot of material from abroad, and those prices are going to go up. That will have an impact on NHS budgets. The overall impact of the report will have an impact on household incomes, particularly among the poor and the elderly. We have to look at the wider impact on that, because it is not just inflation and the fact that the goods that people are buying, the energy that they are purchasing, is going up. If some of the forecasts are correct, people have quoted a figure of potentially 80,000 job losses. That will have not only an adverse effect in the Scottish economy, but it will directly feed into Scottish Parliament budgets. Therefore, the cuts that we have seen in recent budgets are likely to be replicated further down the line as a result of that important inflation. That is something that has quite dire consequences for us. In terms of the labour market, it is quite clear that EU citizens make a major contribution. A 115,000 EU citizens are employed in the Scottish labour market. That makes up 4 per cent of the contributions. A number of people have quoted local examples, such as the Scottish Leather Group, which 25 per cent of their employees are EU citizens at a number of 900. The skills that they bring make a major contribution to that group. In terms of skills, I think that there is a wider debate to be had about the skills shortage in the economy. However, there is no doubt that if there is a drop in the number of EU citizens coming to Scottish universities to learn, some of those citizens who graduate from universities take up these skills posts and make a major contribution to the economy, so that there is no doubt that that is a concern. On exports, you cannot get away from the figures that £78 billion of exports, nearly £50 billion of that goes to the UK, £12 billion to the EU and £16 billion to the rest of the world. The reality is that our major market is the UK. A lot of people rightly have talked up the benefits of our trade with the EU, but you cannot run away from the fact that our major single market is the UK and it would be sheer folly to break away from that. In terms of where does this leave us, how do we move forward? It is quite clear that, even at this stage in proceedings, we need to speak out loudly and clearly against the impact of a hard Brexit. We need to have access to the single market and we need access to ensure that EU citizens are able to play a full part in our country and in our economy. It is clear that, because of those trade figures and the importance of proximity that the economy committee pointed out, it would not only be a mistake to break away from the UK, but it would also be a major mistake to embark on a second independence referendum with all the uncertainty that that would bring. The final point that I would make is that we need to look properly at a Brexit action plan, which accelerates from both the UK and the Scottish Government infrastructure spending to, for example, support city deals. If you take the area, I represent Glasgow, it would be great to see the Glasgow Airport rail link brought across quicker, because that would improve connectivity and make a contribution to the economy and make it more robust from the potential shortfalls that we face. I think that we have to protect the position of EU citizens and finally we need to reject from both the UK and the Scottish Government austerity budgets. At this time, when we see all the pressures from inflation, drop in economic growth, drop in employment, the last thing that we need is austerity budgets, we need to use progressive taxation to extend our budgets and protect the elderly and poor households that the report spoke about. Gil Paterson will follow by Rachael Hamilton, who will be the last speaker in the open debate. Mr Paterson, first I declare an interest that I own a business that relies heavily on imports from the EU. Ever since the economy committee was formed in this session, there has been concerns over the statistics, particularly in regards to the Scottish economy, that they are not peculiar or dependable to adequately assess Scotland's economic output. Leaving the European Union has raised enormous questions over how Scotland will trade with the EU. Even currently there is questions over what the value of Scotland's exports to other countries and I only imagine how much worse that will get, causing further exports from Scotland to be unreported. During one committee session, we had the pleasure of having representatives from the Scottish Whiskey Association, Scottish Engineering and Scotland Food and Drink Limited, all of which highlighted the problems with statistics stats showing Scotland's export power. The Scottish Whiskey Association highlighted that the figures in the Scottish Government's global connection survey do not always tally with the figures of HMRC. Scottish Engineering gave the example of the north-east manufacturer of flotation devices, which were going to the likes of West Africa, South America and nevertheless the Office of National Statistics categorised the manufacturer as a non-exporter because it was selling its components to major extractors, including the likes of Shell, BP and through intermediaries. Scotland Food and Drink Limited gave a stark comment saying that although the figures are flawed, provided that they are consistently flawed, they will get a sense of direction. However, they take the figures with a huge pinch of salt. If I can quote James Withers of Scotland Food and Drink Limited directly, he said, "...it seems crazy to me that if someone buys a Scottish stake in a supermarket in Shanghai, we can tell them what farm it came from, but we cannot track whether it is a Scottish export using our way of measuring that in the UK." Scotland Food and Drink are almost certain that £1.1 billion of food exports undervalues what we export precisely. They believe that we are also undervaluing the export salmon, which is our number one food export, and at the UK's number two food export. I fear that Scotland's situation has been coming very similar to the Rotterdam effect, where trade in goods with the Netherlands is artificially inflated by those goods that dispatch from or to arriving in Rotterdam, despite the ultimate destination or country of origin being located elsewhere. In our case, it would be the likes of Felix Stowe, and trade in goods from England is artificially inflated with Scottish products. Does he agree with the Scottish Government's release the frequently asked questions about exports that all international exports relevant to Scottish whisky are counted as Scottish exports irrespective of the port at which they depart the UK, and all Scottish goods that are exported through ports in the rest of the UK are also counted as international Scottish exports? Is there something that is not clear in that statement, Gil Paterson? I will come on to that, but I think that we are talking about direct exports when you come to your quotes. In Biwell, I will come on to that later on. That uncertainty is damaging to individual companies, but it is also those industries that benefit from their skills. I own a business that my son runs, which has millions of pounds in turnover of highly-specialised coatings for the industrial and automotive industry. Just about 100 per cent is produced in the EU, all of which comes via an English port, and a substantial amount is stored then shipped from England from holding companies. I am not sure—my business is not sure—if any of that produce is registered as a Scottish import from the EU. I should say that a lot of that material is not manufactured in the UK, and a lot of it sees itself outwith and is re-exported back out of Scotland as a finished product. Is that considered as a UK import from the EU, or is it classed as a UK export to Scotland? I have no idea what the definition is. In normal circumstances, none of that would matter. However, when day after day, week after week, figures are being bandied about that potentially is damaging to the Scottish economy, then clearly something needs to be done. No business, no matter their size, would be without the vital numbers for their performance. Never mind a country. With the stats that are collected by the ONS, I find it hard to believe that the figures for different parts of the UK are not already available and assembled accurately, and that is with confidence. Rather than the surveys that are for Scotland at the moment, for Scotland with Brexit, it is vital that the stats are spot-on. I commend the committee's report to the Parliament. Paul Rachel Hamilton, the last speaker in the open debate. Thank you, Ms Hamilton. I too, like Mary Evans, am not a member of the committee. However, I am pleased to be involved in discussing the findings of the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee investigation today, particularly into the impact of the decision to leave the EU in the context of Scotland's economic strategy. I would like to focus on a number of recommendations made to the Scottish Government in that report. Although the Scottish National Party does not, like it said, namely the importance of trade with the rest of the UK, I am going to say it. As well as opportunities rising from the decision to leave the potential growth of Scotland's export markets, a quote from Professor Graham Roy of Fraser Valander Institute sums up the debate today. The delivery of the economic strategy cannot be exactly the same prior to Brexit as afterwards, as I am sure we all understand. Like many, Professor Roy believes that there will be some new challenges and new opportunities, but, like only some of us in this chamber, he also understands that it is necessary to reassess the economic strategy now that we are leaving the European Union. On point 1 today, which the SNP has scoffed at repeatedly to a number of members in the chamber, the UK market is Scotland's largest trade market, standing at £49.8 billion or 63 per cent of Scottish export. It is vital that access to this market is maintained. I will take an intervention from Gillian Martin now. Thank you, Rachael Hamilton, for allowing me to... At no point has the SNP ever said that they do not want to trade with the rest of the UK in any circumstance. However, has there ever been a point at which the rest of the UK would not trade with a Scotland that perhaps stayed in the EU? Is that the issue? Is that what has been proposed here? I thank Gillian Martin for that intervention. I presume that you are talking about coming out of the single market. Charles Grant has said that it is extremely difficult, and Fabian Zoolog has said that it is highly unlikely that one could leave the single market and one could stay in the single market. If you look back on the official report, you will see that the SNP and the backbenchers have been scoffing at the remark today. The committee recognises the importance of this market and recommends that the Scottish Government continues to support Scottish business in trading with the rest of the UK. As a priority, the SNP Government must maintain the integrity of the UK single market, which is four times more important to Scottish business than the EU single market. The SNP Government should now not risk erecting new barriers to trade with the UK with forcing a Norway-style plan agenda. Fundamentally, this Government has a duty to play an active role in making the best of Brexit. Can I just finish my point, Mike Russell? That means getting out into the world to make the UK a beacon of free trade. I will give way on that point. Does she believe that it is either trade with the UK or trade with the EU? If that is her contention, what does that mean in reverse for the UK? I think that that is quite a ridiculous point from Mike Russell. I think that it is about time that you actually got behind the United Kingdom's decision to leave and made a successive Brexit. Scotland's trading future says that if the annual growth trend over the last 10 years continues, the rest of the world's export will be two thirds more valuable than our EU exports by 2025. We must therefore promote Scotland's famous exports such as whisky, which has been mentioned numerous times today. We should indeed be proud of the amber nectar, as I am sure that we all are. Scotch whisky is Scotland's biggest export to the world and the single biggest net contributor to the UK's balance of trade in goods. Last week in the Culture, Tourism and External Affairs Committee, I asked the Minister of State for Trade and Investment, Greg Hans, how he will make the best use of these trade opportunities for Scotch whisky. Mr Hans talked about the importance of trade for Scotch whisky, stating that 93 per cent of Scotch whisky that is produced is exported. Last year, the total value of that export trade reached £3.999 billion, just a few bottles short of £4 billion, up from £3.845 billion in 2015, and a single malt whisky export to top £1 billion for the first time in 2016. The US remains the biggest market of all for the value of sales, which has risen from £749 million to £854 million. The minister also talked about UK Government trade talks with Taiwan, the fourth largest export market for Scotch whisky, and how the UK Government wishes to build on that trading relationship. They are keenly aware of the industry's importance to Scotland and work to negotiate the protection of Scotch whisky as a registered geographical indicator in Canada. On my second point, the Economy, Fair Work and Fair Work Committee recommended that the Scottish Government must embrace Brexit and look at the opportunities beyond the EU. That is taken from recommendation 60 on page 13. Future GDP growth in emerging and developing markets, as I have said before, is projected to be around 4.6 per cent in 2017, compared to 1.5 per cent in the Euro area. Specifically, growth in China is forecast to be 6.2 per cent in 2017 and 7.6 per cent in India. The Scottish Government must help to facilitate opportunities for small to medium-sized businesses to enter those markets with huge potential. There is a world beyond the EU. It is time that the Scottish Government started to recognise and invest in that world. The SNP should take advice from David Williamson from the Scotch whisky Association, who gave advice to the committee and said that there is undoubtedly a need for SDI to revisit its international network and to look at where it puts its resources. He also spoke of the opportunity to engage in quicker negotiation process to create bilateral trade agreements with other countries that wish to pursue discussions at the time. In summary, the report highlights opportunities available to Scotland to pursue and the importance of the value of the UK single market. Scottish whisky has been mentioned many times today, but it is a case in point on the huge growth available to fantastic Scottish exports. The UK Government is working hard to get the best possible Brexit deal. The SNP Government should join in. Thank you. Before I move to the closing speeches, I have one culprit. Still not in the chamber for summing up. I'm speaking slowly. Is he about to come in the door? No, he's not. That's Mr James Kelly. I expect a little note from him with his apologies for not being the rules of this chamber. I now call Richard Leonard, please, Mr Leonard, to wind up for Labour. Seven minutes are there abouts, please. With this report written on a cross-party basis, the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee has laid down some important challenges for industry in Scotland, for the trade union movement in Scotland, for this Parliament and for the Scottish Government. After this afternoon's debate, people watching may be surprised to hear that we were able to reach a consensus on the committee so that many of those goals were shared and all of the recommendations were unanimously supported by all members from all four parties on the committee. For my part, I want to emphasise that there is a golden thread running through the report. That golden thread is that the economic impact of leaving the European Union is not just a matter of business interests, it is a matter of the people's interests. That is how it should be viewed, because, first and foremost, that is what this Parliament is here to do to represent the interests of the people. My definition of the people includes those who live and work here but may bear a passport and hold citizenship from another state. Are they not human beings with the same hopes and fears as the rest of us? Do they not lose sleep with worry, like we would in their shoes? Do we not consider them to be equal to us? So, in my opinion, the Conservative Government should stop using them as bargaining chips in a tawdra negotiation with Brussels and agree now that all of those EU nationals who live here should be able to stay here. This is not just a simple test of our commitment to economic efficiency and to the creation of a resilient labour market, it is a test of our common values and our universal humanity. The committee also heard evidence that a change in the currency exchange rate as a result of last year's referendum decision will hit different households in very different ways that there will be an unequal burden, with the poorest households being hit the most as the price of energy, food and clothing rises, so that fuel poverty, food poverty, widespread and institutionalised poverty will grow and inequality widen unless action is taken. However, I reflect, Deputy Presiding Officer, that poverty is not so much a simple lack of wealth as more a fundamental lack of power. As a start, we are calling in this committee report on the Scottish Government to carry out a full impact assessment to analyse how households are affected by import inflation according to wealth, income, class, gender, age and location. I hope that this is something that the cabinet secretary can agree with in his closing remarks. There are some other vitally important recommendations in the report that we have been debating this afternoon. For example, we believe that the Scottish Government, beginning with the intelligence that already exists in the enterprise agencies and in Scottish local government, should map out existing production and service supply chains and work with businesses to maximise opportunities for import substitution. That is precisely the kind of proactive approach that the Scottish Labour Party has been calling for right across the economy. We simply cannot leave it to the market. We need strategic government intervention and economic planning and action, including skills and workforce planning. I hope that, as a matter of course, the trade unions, representing the workers across the economy in primary industries, production industries, manufacturing, construction and commercial services, are involved in this mapping exercise from the very start. I hope, too, that this kind of intensive trade union engagement also goes alongside the business engagement that the committee has called for in a further recommendation in the report. It is important to recognise that Scottish Enterprise, the day after the referendum result was announced, started contacting account-managed companies to get their views. The Scottish Government needs to spread its net far and wide to engage with businesses of all sizes in all sectors in all parts of the country. That demands that work is properly resourced, too. When the cabinet secretary gave evidence to the committee in November, he said that the Government had not considered reviewing its economic strategy in light of the decision to leave the European Union. That is why I am conscious that the committees call on him to now review the Government's economic strategy, the cross-party call backed by senior members of his own party, will perhaps be the most difficult one of the recommendations for him to accept, but he should accept it. For him to do so would raise not lower the esteem with which he is held in Parliament. It would not be viewed as a sign of weakness, but a sign of strength. He should accept the recommendation to review the strategy because the change to our status with the European Union clearly represents a significant alteration to our terms of trade and the internationalisation element of the strategy. It represents a significant alteration to our access to research and development funding and, potentially, to hire education staff and students to the innovation strand of the strategy. It represents a significant alteration to likely investment patterns, including inward investment but outward investment, too. It signals the need to reforge the link between investment support and our indigenous industrial base. It might well represent a significant alteration to the inclusive growth part of the economic strategy. For example, it may open up the possibility of using public procurement as a much more deliberate lever to see higher standards of employment rights, including but not limited to the living wage. We were told by the cabinet secretary productivity, the labour market, import substitution and a reinvigoration of export strategy are all rested in his review of the enterprise and skills agencies. Can I suggest to him that, even at this stage, he reviews the Government's economic strategy first before looking at the institutional framework needed to deliver it? We are told regularly that the Scottish economy is resilient, but, as this report has shown, 10 firms in Scotland account for 45 per cent of all business research and development, 70 firms account for 50 per cent of the value of all exports over a third of our economy is now overseas owned. You must wind up, please. It was in no small part to address these long-term features that this Parliament was created, so I hope that this Parliament and the Scottish Government has the honesty to stand firm and tackle some of the long-standing problems of the economy. If it does that, like this report, it will get widespread cross-party support. I call Jackson Carlaw to close for a conservative. Seven minutes are there about, Mr Carlaw. I come to the debate this afternoon as a refugee to the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee, having sat on the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee. I come here in a consensual mood with an open mind. I thought that it would be useful as we ourselves come to the conclusion of our own report to come and hear what the work of this committee has done and contributed to the debate on Brexit. I came here, as Gordon Lindhurst said, in expectations that the Heather would be set alight, as he said three years ago, although it was just three hours ago. In what you and I have sat through on many occasions, which is a very long and dispiriting afternoon's debate, because I heard the same speech made— Please do not pay me an aid of your debate. I heard the same speech made 10 times by backbenchers on the Scottish National Party, initially with the odd additional things thrown in and subsequently without even the effort of that. What we were told is that the committee has been considering its work since in November, December and January. I thought that you have had quite an easy time of it because the European Committee has had an additional two months in September and October to add to that. I noted, with interest, that we had heard from quite a lot of the same witnesses. Repeatedly, I heard quoted people from the Fraser of Allander Institute, from various other universities, and I recognised both the names and the evidence that they gave as being evidence similarly heard by us. I have to say, having read the report and listened to the debate this afternoon, that whatever else—I agree and understand that there is obviously a political division on that—I think that the inquiry that the committee has undertaken and I can congratulate the committee and the clerks and everybody involved in it has been an opportunity presented by Brexit to review our international trading relationships, our policies, our objectives and the structures that we have that underpin those. I have noted constructive comments from the cabinet secretary Keith Brown, acknowledging that there are areas in which the Scottish Government needs to work and think afresh as we go forward. Indeed, I am relieved to hear from UK ministers that Mr Brown has thought to have been making a more constructive contribution to the national UK debate. We did, of course, hear from Mr Russell. Mr Russell used the language culpable and reckless conduct. Of course, he knows all about that. He was sacked summarily by the First Minister from his job in education for culpable and reckless conduct when he had responsibility for that portfolio. However, he is back again here as a junior minister. I sometimes wonder—this is now the second debate that I participated in where the cabinet secretary for Europe said nothing. She seems to have been reduced during nothing other than smiling benignly at Mr Russell, and I understand that Mr Russell regards the role of ministers and the Government to smile benignly at him in all of those debates, but it does make call into question what the responsibility of the cabinet secretary actually is. The reality is that Mr Russell has obtained a reputation for being a pussycat in the conference room at GMC meetings in London and a locker room hero when he swings on to the street outside Downing Street afterwards. It all could be this, could be that, could be the next thing, could be something else, coupled with—I think he said—this Government will do all it can do to defend Scotland's economy, which is why, of course, it has made us the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom, a real guarantee of economic growth. However, the most ridiculous thing Mr Russell did was in response to Jackie Baillie, because it reminded me of the independence debates when the Scotland's future document, which was a wish list of assertions by the SNP, was held up as a Bible of unarguable truth. Mr Russell held up the Scottish Government's document to the UK Government and said that because it says in there that the Scottish Government values its trade with the rest of the United Kingdom and would do nothing to put obstacles in its way, well, that assertion actually should be taken by everybody as meaning that there would be no difficulty whatsoever in the programme for government that the Scottish Government has put forward. In a second, because I will give Mr Russell the opportunity to answer this, but I have yet to hear any diplomat anywhere in Europe say that he believes that the differentiated trade arrangement, which the Scottish Government favours, is workable, viable or achievable without interrupting the relationship between the rest of the United Kingdom and Scotland because it would require a hard border. Mr Russell may want to say this, that and the next thing, but we have heard from one set of diplomats from one of our European neighbours who made absolutely clear that that would be necessary. Mr Russell needs 27 member states to agree that there would be no need for any interruption in the trading relationship between Scotland and the United Kingdom. It only takes one to disagree, and his whole economic case falls like a house of cards. I asked and didn't get an answer to some moments ago. Is Mr Jackson saying, is it the position of the Scottish Tories that it is either trade with the UK or trade with the EU, because the entire case, not just of the Tories but of Labour, is now bent on that stand at the same time? My answer to Mr Russell is no. I believe that the trade with the rest of the United Kingdom is absolutely fundamental. It is four times greater than our trade with the rest of Europe, but we want to do all we can to maintain access to the single market and the European economy and we want to maintain access to the UK economy for the rest of Europe. It is because there is a mutual interest that has to be served between Europe and the rest of the United Kingdom that it will be perfectly possible, not without difficulty, to negotiate an appropriate trade arrangement. I want to come to Gillian Martin because I have heard this and Mr Kelly made the same point. I think that it is important to say that when it comes to the rights of EU citizens here in the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister said that she wanted to agree this and to agree it early. We heard evidence in the European Committee that the European Parliament was stunned into silence when it became apparent that Chancellor Merkel was not prepared to agree this. He had thought that the obstacle was the United Kingdom. He then realised that it is not the United Kingdom, it is the rest of Europe who are not prepared to arrive at an early agreement on this. That is why, when article 50 is triggered, it will be the policy of the UK Government to come to the earliest possible arrangement that secures the future of citizens here in the UK—I am in my last few seconds—to secure the future of Scots elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I should just say in passing that I have worked for John Major for five years. I have been a fan of his for 27 years. In all those 27 years until five minutes ago, I had never heard any nationalist say a good word about him. Of course, expediency is always a claim of the Scottish National Party. This is the moment at which, frankly, refighting the referendum is a waste of Scotland's time. What we now need is Scotland's interests to be represented in the negotiating notion taking place. It is quite clear that the Scottish Government has got no interest in representing Scotland's interests. That only has an interest in arguing a case for another constitutional fight. Thank you, Mr Carlaw. I call Keith Brown, Cabinet Secretary, up to nine minutes, please. Thank you also to the committee for the report. As Richard Leonard was the first person to mention, there is a substantial degree of consensus in the report. I think also quite rightly mentioned as well the fact that we have discussed and quite rightly issues of trade and business and commerce, but the issue of individuals, especially those who are EU citizens here in the UK and here in Scotland, deserve some mention. The idea that we have to wait on what Germany does before we can actually give people the comfort to know that their futures will be looked after is a complete nonsense. Talking of complete nonsense, just to mention, Jackson Carlaw, in a very short space of time, managed to overstate the number of SNP speakers, overstate the length of the time of the debate and overstate his case once again in terms of Scotland being the highest tax part of the UK. Let's not rely on Jackson Carlaw to get any of the facts right in this debate. Despite that, I think there were some very good debates and I know it's invidious to point out individual ones, but I thought that Gillian Martin, Ash Denham, Pauli McNeill and Ivan McKee made some very good debates, very good contributions during the course of the debate and some good points were made. I think there's also a good introduction to the debate from the convener, although I would point out that Stephen Boyle works for the RBS rather than Bank of Scotland. He's probably quite important to him. He also mentioned Alexander Graham Bell. I noticed today, walking to Bute House, that the place where Alexander Graham Bell was born 170 years ago this coming Friday, just round the corner, and he was quite right to mention that as a fantastic example of Scottish innovation, something perhaps we don't mention often enough. There was a key point that was made as well by the convener in relation to that. He cited a witness to the committee who said, Shall we aim for the rest of the world or the EU? The witness came back and said that we should aim for both. Let's just change the question a little bit. Shall we aim for the rest of the world or the EU instead of that? Shall we aim for the rest of the UK or the EU? Of course we should aim for both. We have said that continuously. You have to ask yourselves why the Conservatives want to try to misrepresent that case, but of course we should maximise our trade with the rest of the UK, the rest of the EU and, of course, the rest of the world. It is worth bearing in mind one or two of the points, because we did hear some talking down as ever of the Scottish economy, not least by Dean Lockhart. It is worth bearing in mind, for example, that productivity growth is currently four times the UK rate. Our young people and women are more likely to be in work than their counterparts across the rest of the UK. Indeed, our youth unemployment rate is the second lowest in the EU. As Mike Russell set out at the start of the debate, the Scottish economy is inherently strong. We have substantial national resources and natural resources. One of the most highly educated workforce in Europe is a long-standing reputation for innovation. I have just mentioned Alexander Graham Bell and an internationally recognised brand that others would love to have. We are also world leaders in key industries of the future, such as life sciences, financial services and financial technology, creative industries and sustainable tourism. Is it not appalling that the UK Government decided that those financial services, education and oil and gas are low priorities in their discussion about Brexit? That tells us the extent of the contempt that the UK Government has for vital industries here in Scotland. We have also shown our resilience. Our GDP per head has recovered more strongly than the UK, 2.1 per cent above the pre-recession level compared to only 1.2 per cent in the UK. Dean Lockhart. Just on GDP growth, you will be aware that growth in Scotland is 0.7 per cent for the past year compared to over 2 per cent for the rest of the UK, the UK being the fastest-growing economy in the G7. We are not talking down Scotland, we are talking down the SNP's policies that have damaged Scotland. That is an important difference. In giving evidence to the committee, you quite rightly said that more needs to be done on exports and on internationalisation. Can you please explain how is slashing the enterprise budget by 40 per cent going to achieve that? Of course, what Dean Lockhart does, I am quite sure deliberately as well, he conflates the enterprise budget, as he calls it, with the budgets of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. He should go back and look at the budget papers and why didn't he propose an amendment if he sought to change that, but of course that was not done. On the point about GDP, I acknowledge the figures that Dean Lockhart mentioned. I have acknowledged every point where we have to do more. What he should acknowledge is that, since the recession, we have increased our GDP by 2.1 per cent compared to 1.2 per cent in the UK. Since taking office in 2007, the number of registered businesses has grown by 15 per cent to an all-time high, and spending on business R&D has increased by 41 per cent. Our energy and manufacturing industry is leading the way in smart, low-carbon technologies of the future, and our approach to promoting the circular economy is recently won an award at the World Economic Forum in 2017. Quite rightly, the committee calls on some actions that will respond in depth to the committee in due course, but just to mention some of the actions that we are taking, the £500 million Scottish growth scheme, targeting high-growth innovation and export-focused SMEs, which answers some of the points that members quite rarely made about the ability of our SMEs to export. That policy marks a new departure for the Scottish Government. It is an exceptional response to exceptional economic circumstances. 100,000 business premises in Scotland now pay zero or reduced rates. That is not often heard when the Tories talk about the highest part of the UK, which of course is a fallacy. The real question is that the Tories know that that is wrong. They know that council tax in Scotland is, for example, £400 on average less in Scotland. They know that in the UK you do not get free tuition fees or free prescription charges. The question is why do they want to keep telling the world that Scotland is the highest tax part of the UK? That is a really important question. It would be interesting to hear the response from the Conservatives. We are also boosting connections, so having the overall level of air departure tax to support growth and improve Scotland's connections with countries across the globe, delivering £400 million of investment to deliver superfast broadband to 95 per cent of properties by the end of 2017, and 100 per cent by 2821. We now have the highest number of foreign direct investment projects on record, and our rate of growth in FDI is more than double that of the UK. We never hear that from the Conservatives. When do the Conservatives ever celebrate Scottish success? It is always about talking Scotland down. What is really interesting is the change in the Conservative position over recent months. It started as, I think, its remainders, rather than the Romanians that they have called themselves. It started off as remainders, and then they changed, and they said that they must accept Brexit. In Ruth Davidson's terms, we must maintain our membership of the single market. That was absolutely imperative, but that changed very quickly. Forget about membership of the single market. It is only a case of access to the market. That was a change that took place, but today we have seen a further change. It was evident in Liam Kerr's remarks and in Rachael Hamilton's remarks when he talked about forgetting about Europe. Look beyond Europe. Look around the rest of the world. Forget Europe. That is not the issue. We have moved through all those different iterations of Tory policy in the past few weeks and months a dizzying series of U-turns that leaves the mimicking of Farage and Nuttall. We have also heard, of course, not least from Jackson Carlaw about the words of a former Prime Minister, but it was the previous Prime Minister that I am interested in, given all the U-turns that we have had. She would say something like, UKIP, if you want to, but we will stand up for Scotland, constantly changing your position the whole time. Then we heard a speech from... Sorry, does Rachael Hamilton want to come in? Rachael Hamilton. Thank you, Keith Brown, for taking that intervention. I would like the member to refute his remark there about the ignore... What were the words that you used that we ignored Europe or forgot about Europe? I do not think that that was mentioned once in my speech. Cabinet Secretary. There is a world beyond the EU. Liam Kerr twice said that we should look past the EU, or what's that effect. Then we had a contribution from Jackie Baillie, which gave a speech that was absolutely interchangeable with any speech that we heard on the Conservative side of the debate. It ended, of course, with the ultra-unionist rallying call. Almost chillion, we will never support independence, says Jackie Baillie. That's the only point at which there was any passion in the speeches that she made. Just a reminder about passion. We heard this from her leader last week when he said that, despite the fact that the fight was finished, he said that the fight starts now. Everyone else had gone home for tea, but he said that the fight starts now. This week, we learned about the Labour Party whipping people against its own amendment to vote with the Tories in the House of Lords. That's what the Labour Party calls fighting and standing up for Scotland and the rest of the UK and absolute shambles. Of course, they also, like the Conservatives, have had so many U-turns in terms of what they have done in this debate. So, while those others are desert in the field and not standing up for people in Scotland, whether EU nationals or others, we will continue to stand up for the people of Scotland. I welcome back to Pauline McNeill. I don't have chance to do this now. I welcome back to Pauline McNeill on the point that she raised. You haven't got time, cabinet secretary. You must conclude. I will do. The Parliament should be in no doubt that the Scottish Government will do everything possible to prevent Brexit, threatening the prosperous and inclusive society that we are working so hard to build. Thank you. I call John Mason to close on behalf of the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee. Mr Mason, till 5 o'clock, please. I think that we have had a useful and interesting debate, despite what Jackson Carlaw obviously feels. We did discuss at committee if we needed another debate on Brexit, because we have, it has to be said, had a number of such debates. However, I think that we felt that we had had so much very interesting and useful evidence at the committee that we did want to give it a wider airing, and it should be in the public domain. I think that that has been beneficial this afternoon. I thank all those who took part in providing the committee report eventually—obviously, the committee themselves—and mentioning Liam Kerr, who was on the committee, but got removed. That was not meant to be funny. May I thank the witnesses? We had economists, businesses, the STUC, the NHS, many different people. The companies that we visited between us, we managed to visit 18 different companies around Scotland, which was extremely useful as well. I thank the clerks and spies for their assistance, too. If, in the time that I have, I could mention three areas of the report, which I think that the convener did not have time to touch on really, although they have been mentioned elsewhere. Then I will do an in-depth analysis of all the 19 speeches. First of all, on the statistics, that has come up a number of times, and it has been a common thread on our work, not just on this report, but wider as well on the committee. We have had quotes, such as from Dr Margulis, that are difficult to know the extent of the Scottish economy. We need better stats to allow us to understand more the potential risks and opportunities for the Scottish economy from Jane Gotz. The whole question of the Rotterdam effect, which has been referred to, and does that distort the stats? I am reassured that the cabinet secretary for the economy has said that he is looking at statistics, and we, as a committee, will be looking at them, especially in regard to exports. Secondly, on financial services, I think that Willie Rennie said that he was somewhat surprised that we discovered areas where one part of the sector was different from another part of the sector, but we were initially thinking that certain sectors of the economy were going to be hugely hit and others would be unaffected. As a committee, we came to realise that, even within a sector, there would be subsectors that were more affected and subsectors that were less. That was certainly true of the finance sector, where we had some very good evidence, I thought, explaining that some of the banks and some of the financial institutions are very much concentrating in Scotland or the UK, whereas others are linked in more with institutions that are working in more in Europe and might be more vulnerable. Thirdly, the labour market, which we have had quite a lot of comment this afternoon, but it was again some very good evidence from fish factories, fruit picking, Scottish leather groups, Scottish engineering, Scottish care and universities. The variations in those sectors appear to be much more affected by EU skills and unskilled workers and other less so. The whole question, which has been raised of internal migration, what are the barriers for unemployed people from Glasgow going to pick fruit and angus and such like? I will go on to some of the speeches that we have had. To be fair, there has probably been at least one good point in every speech. I thank my convener, Gordon Lindhurst, for some of the points that he made at the beginning, and he is especially mentioning the proximity effect, which clearly means that the UK and the EU are probably always going to be very much more important markets than the likes of China and India, which despite being very big and despite the potential for a lot of growth, are still very far away. He, I think, was the first obviously speaker to mention important inflation and the effect that that will have in the vulnerable, which was maybe not the main thrust of our report but was a very important part and I think had an impact on us, as somebody else said. Mike Russell mentioned some of the figures early on, like the potential loss of £8 billion to our economic output, £80,000 jobs, £2,000 per head, really serious effects. The point, too, that we could trade most effectively with the rest of the world if we were in the EU, and there is no point in missing out on stating those things, even though they may not be possible going forward. Dean Lockhart made the interesting point that only 0.7 per cent of our exports go to China, 0.3 per cent to India, and I think that that can assure the level of increase that you would need if they were to become really, really significant. The point was made, too, I think, by intervention, that India may require the likes of freedom of movement if we want to have a good deal with them. Jackie Baillie correctly stated that the UK negotiating position continues to be unclear. She talked about strengthening a relationship with the UK, and I have to say that I am not sure how we could further strengthen our relationship with the UK, but maybe somebody can clarify that. Jackie Baillie stopped talking about dividing itself off from the rest of the UK. That might help. If I am not mistaken, all the references to independence this afternoon have either come from the Conservatives or Labour. I do not think that we have been doing the day job concentrating on that report, but other parties have been doing other things. However, I agree with Jackie Baillie that when she made the point that EU-brokered agreements had helped our whisky and exports, we could therefore be in a weaker position without the EU to argue for us. Gillian Martin gave quite a moving speech at times and spoke about the practicalities of Walker's shortbread and how dependent they are on denim seafoods, angiosoft fruits and especially Scottish care, with the care for our vulnerable people, are dependent on EU workers. Liam Kerr gets my top mark out of 19 for optimism. He talked about this, I think, quoting, vast, untapped and overlooked overseas markets. That is pretty grand. He also quoted favourably that we are with Europe but not of it. I have to say that I am not the youngest person in this chamber, but I do not identify with that statement. The idea is that we actually want the open sea rather than having friends to work with. Gordon MacDonald talked about the Scottish surplus as compared to the UK trade deficit, which I think was important. The difficulty in negotiating treaties when the UK is a relatively small economy compared to the EU being a relatively large one. I thought Pauline McNeill's speech was good, the need for better statistics, the fact that EU workers are important not just as a legal certainty but because they are real people potentially losing their homes. Gillian Martin made that point as well. Ash Denham talked about access not being as good as membership of the single market. The impact on the universities. Willie Rennie talked about the gap in knowledge in the whole area. We want to reiterate that, because the economy committee has come back to that again and again about the lack of statistics. Asking for my apology for the conservatives, which I do not think I have heard. I have to skip through some of the rest. Ivan McKee, the pain is self-inflicted. Bill Bowman talked about inward investment, which is correct, but I was a bit puzzled that he wanted more investment infrastructure and skills because I thought that his party actually wanted less taxation. Mary Evans talked about specific EU-funded projects. I have to confess that we did not, as the committee, look an awful lot at EU funding. I begin to wonder if maybe that scenario we should have looked at, but we did not too much. I think that other committees will look at that going forward. James Kelly struggled to find very much about the report in his speech, as he talked mainly about independence. Gil Paterson talked about how we measure exports, the Rotterdam effect, absolutely. If we sell to England and the Netherlands, they may sell on. Rachel Hamilton talked about scoffing at UK trade. I did not hear any of that during the debate. Richard Leonard talked about Jackson Carlaw and some useful points. Finally, Keith Brown, not to talk down the Scottish economy, we have a highly educated workforce and we have an international brand that others can be jealous of. That concludes our debate on the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee report. We are going to move straight to decision time. The question is that motion 4193, in the name of Gordon Lindhurst on behalf of the committee, on its report on the economic impact of leaving the European Union, be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. That concludes decision time. We will now move to Members Business, the name of Kenneth Gibson.