I will make some progress before I give way to Mr Kerr.

The Scottish Government shares the committee’s conclusions that that hard Brexit has caused—and is causing—significant difficulties for many Scottish businesses and traders.

The Office for Budget Responsibility reported in its assessment of the UK budget that

“Weak growth in imports and exports over the medium term partly reflect the continuing impact of Brexit, which we expect to reduce the overall trade intensity of the UK economy by 15 per cent in the long term”.

Indeed, the UK Government now states that 60 per cent of the harmful economic impact of Brexit has yet to materialise.

To say that Brexit is done and that one cannot go back is, first, a counsel of despair and, secondly, a denial of democratic choice. People should be able to determine their future, and I am sure that they will.

In passing, I want to make a comment about trade deals, including with the United States of America. The voters of America have spoken, but let us not deny the consequences of what is coming when we face the prospect of trade tariffs of up to 20 per cent. We should be very concerned about that.

In the main part of his speech, Neil Bibby rightly focused on the opportunity for a reset of the UK Government’s relationships with the European Union and with the devolved Administrations. I think that that is a good thing, and I am working with UK Government colleagues to make the most of that. In relation to the prospect of a veterinary agreement—which I think is misnamed, to be honest; we should all be talking about an agriculture, food and drink agreement—I agree that such an agreement could have a profound impact. We will work with the UK Government to deliver that.

I do not have enough time; I must make progress.

Patrick Harvie was absolutely correct to seek further detail about what “reset” means. It is good to hear about a possible veterinary agreement, but what about Erasmus+, Creative Europe and the restoration of free movement for younger people? I agree with Mr Harvie about the importance of mobility.

Willie Rennie said that we should debate Europe more often, but we debated it only last week. I do not think that he took part in that debate, but I agree with him that we should make the most of the opportunity to debate Europe more often. I agree that we should be looking at education and co-operation but I make it absolutely clear that there is no substitute for Erasmus+. That is why this Government is keen for the UK Government to work with European colleagues who are open to the United Kingdom returning to Erasmus+. That is the prize and I hope that Mr Rennie will join the Scottish Government in seeking it.

George Adam was absolutely right to highlight the needless economic suffering—

It was indeed not a point of order, but we are used to such contributions from Mr Kerr.

I turn to summing up. Patrick Harvie reiterated the importance of reminding ourselves that Europe is also about peace. He spoke about the dangers of populism and the Brexit right and we must be well aware of those. Foysol Choudhury spoke about the importance of a veterinary agreement. We agree with him. Finlay Carson did not in any meaningful way address the content or conclusions of the committee report so it will be of great interest to see how he votes later.

In finishing, I once again thank the committee for its important report. As has been noted, the committee plans to continue its work on the trade and co-operation agreement, with the next phase of that work looking at mobility and at trade in services. Scotland has important interest in both areas and the Government will offer the committee its support and co-operation as it continues its work. We will also continue seeking the views of stakeholders—

We will work with them to promote—

—Scotland’s vital interests to the UK Government.

I thank colleagues for their helpful contributions to today’s debate. It is abundantly clear from the committee’s report and from the debate that Brexit is not working. I record the fact that the Scottish Government has worked hard to promote the interests of Scotland in the autumn round of specialised committees that oversee the trade and co-operation agreement. However, it is also abundantly clear that the implementation of the trade and co-operation agreement simply does not meet the needs of Scottish businesses. There is a pressing and urgent need for change. We will continue to be advocates for such change on behalf of the people, businesses and economy of Scotland.

I genuinely believe that the change that we want to see will also benefit our European partners. Young Scots need to have opportunities to work and travel across Europe; our brilliant creative professionals should be able to work across the European Union; the iconic Scottish food and drink sector demands the ability to trade more freely with Europe, and the economy urgently needs EU markets to be reopened for Scottish exporters. So, we will continue to urge the UK Government to be ambitious in its proposals to improve its relations with the EU, especially the trading relationships.

I turn to some of the issues that have been raised in today’s debate. I again repeat my appreciation for the work of Clare Adamson and her committee colleagues on their report, which is what we are debating this afternoon; it is not a general, free-ranging debate on Brexit. Clare Adamson was absolutely right to underscore the overwhelming evidence that the committee was given on the damaging impact of Brexit. It is also worth noting the fact that the committee’s report and its conclusions were agreed to on a cross-party basis. All parties on the committee supported the conclusions of the report.

Stephen Kerr opened his speech by saying that he thought that the report was “thorough, balanced and fair”. He then went on to speak in a way that was totally detached from the contents of the report, the conclusions of which, ironically, were supported by his colleagues. On a number of issues, what we had was, frankly, a reality bypass. We were told that what we are currently involved in is not a hard Brexit.

The issue of Scotland remaining as aligned as possible with the European Union has been explored and worked on at length in partnership with the committee. There is a range of ways in which we are able to do so, and we are best able to do so not by using the powers that Willie Rennie outlines but by finding other ways. I am happy to share the reports with him. I do not know whether he is putting in a bid to become a member of the committee. He would be very welcome there, and I am sure that he would learn, as other colleagues in the chamber would, about the efforts that are being made. I think that there is agreement between the committee and the Government that the reporting mechanism on the issue is working well, but I would be happy to discuss it further with Willie Rennie.

The Scottish Government has consistently called for alignment with European Union law, including so-called dynamic alignment, and in devolved areas, we are seeking to remain aligned wherever meaningful and appropriate. Perhaps unsurprisingly, maintaining regulatory alignment with the world’s largest single market is now seen as increasingly relevant to economic growth by the UK Government as well as the Scottish Government.

That brings me to the important part of the committee’s report about what opportunities exist to improve trade relations with the European Union. We know that many Scottish food industries are suffering due to lower exports to the European Union. For example, fruit and vegetable exports between 2019 and 2023 fell by a whopping 45 per cent.

When it comes to imports, research by the London School of Economics and Political Science’s centre for economic performance suggests that UK households have paid £7 billion to cover the cost of post-Brexit trade barriers on food from the EU, pushing up average household food costs by £250 since December 2019.

What can be done to improve the UK-EU trading relationship? We urgently want the UK Government to deliver on its declared aim to reset its relations with the rest of Europe. We welcome the statement in early October in which Keir Starmer and Ursula von der Leyen jointly declared their wish to strengthen the UK-EU relationship. However, we need to see concrete progress.

I will highlight four areas where the situation needs to improve for trading goods. First, as we discussed last week, we urgently need a comprehensive SPS agreement—an agriculture, food and drink agreement—between the UK and the EU that includes animals, plants and related products, food and drink, veterinary medicines and wider agricultural goods and products, as well as pet travel.

Secondly, we seek a mutual recognition agreement on conformity assessments, so that businesses do not have to comply with two different systems of safety assessment.

Thirdly, we want consistency in customs processes between the UK and the EU for smoother trade flows. It is simply not sustainable that, as the Scottish Chambers of Commerce stated, more than 40 per cent of firms that export under the Brexit deal say that they

“face difficulties adapting to its rules on buying and selling goods”,

nor is it acceptable that 60 per cent say that trade with the EU has got “more difficult” in the past year alone.

Fourthly, we would like to see talks move forward on linking the UK and EU emissions trading schemes. That could help to avoid the negative impacts of the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism, which will have significant consequences for goods being traded across the UK-EU border.

Of course, the best trading relationship would be European Union membership. However, improvements can still take place, particularly if the new UK Government is more realistic about what would be required to unlock such improvements. I believe that much of that agenda will find support in the chamber, and I look forward to hearing colleagues’ views during the rest of the debate.

I am seeking to be helpful in the spirit of our cross-party agreement.

Does Mr Bibby agree that it is estimated that the price of the veterinary agreement is a 90 per cent reduction in the necessity for border checks, which would be hugely welcome not only for exporters from Scotland and the rest of the UK but for importers from the European Union?