I will draw colleagues’ attention to the prospectus documents that the Scottish Government has published during this session of Parliament, including one on the European Union. It was very well informed by the views of interlocutors in Brussels on a broad range of subjects. If colleagues, or viewers to this evidence session, have not yet read that particular document, I recommend their doing so.

Will the Scottish Government continue to speak with decision makers in the different European institutions about alignment, on what Scotland is planning to do, on what Europe is planning to do and on making sure that European decision makers understand where the balance of opinion is in Scotland? Yes, absolutely.

I remain committed to making sure that the committee receives as much information as you require. If there is a wish that there should be more, or that is should be presented differently, we will look sympathetically at that. We are getting towards the end of the first cycle of reporting to the committee, so we will no doubt have lessons to learn, but I think we are heading in the right direction.

I go back to Mr Brown’s point about scrutiny and how it has operated elsewhere. There is a challenge, which I alluded to earlier in the evidence session, about things relating to Europe being seen by some colleagues as something that happens over there in the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, as was, or indeed in this committee in the Scottish Parliament. We need to understand that things relating to Europe—whether we like it or whether they are aligned—have a relevance for our different committees and for us, as different parliamentarians in different parties. That is true for all of us. I am hoping that our reporting mechanism not only can serve this committee well but can serve parliamentarians more broadly in understanding where things are.

More than I care to remember, Mr Kerr.

I know that Mr Kerr is relatively new to the committee, so perhaps he has not read the reports that have been provided to the committee, as we are now doing—

This is the process that I described at the beginning of the evidence session. A sift takes place in Brussels and in Edinburgh. There was previously a sift—I do not remember whether Mr Kerr was ever a member of the committee concerned, but it was ably advised by four former UK ambassadors and undertook significant work. That has always informed my thinking about this committee, and it is why I have been so keen to make sure that we can find the balance between reporting what is being considered by the Scottish Government and the use of your time and focus on the committee, so that you do not have to spend too much time looking at specific proposals for things, especially those that do not have direct relevance.

If there is a view in the committee, convener, that not enough information is being provided to you about things, I would take that very seriously. We are working very hard to make sure that we get that balance right. However, if the committee wishes to see more material, I am happy to take that away for discussion.

I answered that previously. I think that all levels of government should be open to reform and to considering how we best make decisions, but the idea that, uniquely at a European level, there is legislation and different forms of regulation is one of the canards of the pro-Brexit argument that I do not accept.

We all need to make sure that we legislate proportionately and that regulation is balanced. Regulation is also about safeguards. Whether it is at a European level, a member state level or a sub-member state level, I think that all of us should aim for that.

In my experience of speaking with continental European decision makers, there is tremendous sympathy towards Scotland, as a nation that voted to remain in the European Union in the referendum and that was then taken out of it against the will of the majority of the public and the majority in our Parliament. The default position is that there is a lot of sympathy, and I have heard many people say that, were Scotland to wish to accede to the European Union in its own right and in a constitutionally agreed process, it would be among—if not be—the quickest-ever accessions there have ever been to the European Union.

A significant part of that is because of alignment. More than that, it is the understanding that Scotland would be a significant contributor to the European Union not just because of its important geostrategic or, indeed, economic position, but because it would be a good citizen and one of the most energy-rich parts of Europe, which is another reason that European colleagues are very interested in Scotland’s participation in a wider European context. Of course, that is now mediated through the UK Government, so we are dependent on decision makers in London understanding why hydrogen interconnectivity between Scotland and the European mainland is a priority, and why regulatory agreement between the UK and the European Union on energy matters, including hydrogen, should be a priority. We are still waiting for progress on that.

I have not had a single European decision maker tell me that they are concerned because Scotland has diverged from any European approach in any measure, full stop. I think that the default position is that there is an understanding that the Scottish Government wishes to remain aligned with the European Union and that we wish to see a path back to European Union membership.

There is a very strong and sympathetic feeling among European decision makers towards Scotland. There is also a very strong feeling that they would wish the United Kingdom to return. However, there is also an awareness, given the politics down south where both of the major parties in England are now pro-Brexit, that that is unlikely to happen, even in the medium term.

I have not had any issues that are related to divergence flagged to me as being a concern, because there has not been any issue of significant divergence. There is a warm feeling towards Scotland and a willingness to see Scotland in the EU. I have not heard from a single European decision maker anything that would give me the impression that Scotland would be anything other than very warmly welcomed.

For the record, I should perhaps observe that I am a journalist by profession and a published author.

I thank Ruth Maguire for bringing the debate to the chamber, and I thank Jackie Dunbar and all members for their contributions. I join them in supporting the day of the imprisoned writer. It is essential that we continue to stand in solidarity with imprisoned writers around the world and add our voices to calls for freedom and justice.

Threats, surveillance, attacks, arbitrary arrest, detention and, in the gravest cases, enforced disappearance or killings are too often the cost of reporting the truth. The protection of journalists and writers should be a global priority for safeguarding freedom of expression. The right to freedom of thought and expression underpins all democracy and is founded on human rights and the rule of law. However, those rights are increasingly being challenged. Reporters Without Borders has recorded, this year alone, 577 journalists or media workers being detained or disappeared, with an additional 49 losing their lives. Of those, 117 are women, of whom 11 have been killed or have disappeared.

The United Nations special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression noted in her report, “Journalists in exile”, which was published this year:

“In recent years, political repression has become the predominant factor forcing thousands of journalists to leave their countries ... Many have fled their home country to save their lives or to escape detention and imprisonment on trumped up charges.”

Over the past year, an unprecedented number of journalists have been killed while reporting on conflicts. They have made the ultimate sacrifice in their pursuit of reporting the truth, and this day is a day to remember each and every one of them. Their stories serve as a sobering reminder of the price that far too many people pay for standing up for basic democratic values.

I am sure that we, as a Parliament, all agree that those who are imprisoned should be released without delay, and that the murders and forced disappearances should be investigated fully so that those who are responsible are held accountable. Scotland’s long-standing commitment to human rights and freedom of expression is crucial in our pledge to support journalists and writers worldwide in their struggle for fair, open and democratic societies.

The number of imprisoned writers that I referred to earlier reminds us that, even though freedom of expression is a fundamental human right and is central to our ability to function both as individuals and as members of society, it cannot be taken for granted.

Many journalists act as human rights defenders—for example, when they report on human rights abuses and bear witness to acts that they have seen. They face major risks as a result of their work, and many of the fellows and alumni of the Scottish human rights defender fellowship have experienced those risks for themselves.

Our two current fellows stated:

“Journalists, and human rights defenders reporting or activating campaigns on issues such as corruption, human rights abuses, and systemic injustices are routinely targeted, which has bred fear and self-censorship.”

Through the delivery of our fellowship, we will continue to provide a place of protection and safety in Scotland, creating the conditions for human rights defenders to carry out their work effectively on their return to their home country.

As we mark the day of the imprisoned writer, we must remember that journalists and writers continue to be killed, injured and imprisoned around the world, especially where there is conflict but also at the hands of brutal dictators.

The shocking murder of the courageous journalist Anna Politkovskaya in Moscow in 2006 was an early warning of the dangers that are faced by independent-minded journalists who operate in Putin’s Russia—dangers that have manifested themselves in Chechnya, Syria, now in Ukraine and, of course, in Belarus, too.

Journalists are the eyes of the world on conflicts wherever they occur. The fact that 137 journalists and media workers have died while covering the middle east conflict since October 2023 is a stain on the international community’s conscience.

We must acknowledge our duty to stand with those who are brave enough to raise their voices; to do everything in our power to maintain freedom of expression throughout the world; and to call for justice for victims, no matter where they are.

I have already indicated three times that I am not taking interventions because my time is short, so no, I will not take an intervention.

George Adam was absolutely right to highlight the needless economic suffering and on-going damage that is captured in the committee’s report—a report that was agreed to by Conservatives on the committee.

Martin Whitfield talked about low-hanging fruit. I agree that securing a veterinary agreement would be a major prize, but I once again say that Erasmus+, Creative Europe and mobility are all on the table and that I look forward to the UK Government articulating those points as soon as possible to the European Commission, which has made offers on those issues.

Kevin Stewart, echoed by Keith Brown, spoke about seed potatoes and seafood, two really important challenges that must be sorted.

If Conservative members disagree with the evidence and conclusions in the report, I have no doubt that they will vote against it today. I will be interested to see how they choose to—[Interruption.]

I thank the convener and members of the committee for their on-going work on examining the effects of the trade and co-operation agreement in Scotland.

In debates on the impact of Brexit, we should never forget that people in Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain within the European Union. We should also remember that the TCA is a hard Brexit. It removed Scotland from the EU—and its huge European single market and customs union—and brought an end to freedom of movement, which was so important for our country. It did not need to be that way.

Will Neil Bibby give way on that point?