The fish processing sector has suffered for two particular reasons since Brexit. The first is to do with getting the product to market—a market that is often, significantly, within the European Union—and the second is to do with the end of free movement. Previously, a large number of EU citizens were prepared to work in fish processing, but many of them have now left, and it is difficult to fill the jobs at many fish processing sites.

The issue relating to access to market will be obviated and the position improved by an SPS agreement. The ability to get product from Scotland to the European Union will be significantly improved. That is a good thing.

Will the agreement deal with free movement and the restrictions on people being able to work here? It will not. In fact, because of the Enoch Powell-type rhetoric that we heard from Keir Starmer the other week, we know that the UK Government has absolutely no interest in making sure that Scotland has the migration policy that we require.

The answer to Audrey Nicoll’s question is that we have a mixture of two things. There is an upside to do with getting fish and shellfish to market. However, there is the downside that the agreement does not deal with free movement. If the UK Government had dealt with the Scottish Government properly in the run-up to the agreement, we would perhaps have been able to obviate all of that.

Yesterday’s agreement between the United Kingdom Government and the European Union is a matter of significant consequence for Scotland. The agreement will bring limited benefits to the wider economy while falling painfully short of the benefits that Scotland would have as a member of the European Union.

At a time of global insecurity, the importance of European nations working together cannot be overstated. The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, captured that well yesterday, stating:

“We are friends, and we are Europeans, we are very like-minded. We share the same interests and the same values.”

Those are the values of democracy, equality, rule of law and respect for human rights. The Scottish Government and the people of Scotland have long held that view.

Yesterday’s agreement was an acknowledgement by the UK Government that we continue to live through the negative impacts of the previous Government’s catastrophic error of inflicting a hard Brexit on the people of Scotland. Sadly, many of those devastating impacts will remain. The UK Government’s release on the agreement stated that it:

“meets the red lines set out in the government’s manifesto—no return to the single market, no return to the customs union, and no return to freedom of movement.”

The Labour Government is trumpeting that it will hold fast to the Conservatives’ hard Brexit, no matter the economic, social and security benefits that we lost by being dragged out of the EU. If it is serious about economic growth, the Labour UK Government needs to drop its red lines on rejoining the single market, the customs union and freedom of movement.

I must say a word about the defence and security partnership that was agreed yesterday. With war having returned to the continent, it is critical that we, in Scotland, can contribute to a strong and united Europe and help to put an end to Putin’s illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It is clear that our common security will be strengthened by acting together. As the president of the European Council, António Costa, pointed out, together, Europe has great potential to deliver.

More generally, many parts of yesterday’s agreement match the priorities that the Scottish Government has set out clearly and where we have called for progress for many years. That is, of course, to be welcomed. For example, progress on commitments to deepen aspects of justice and security co-operation with the EU is overdue.

As with our shared security, our mutual prosperity can most effectively be enhanced by acting together. I have called many times for an agriculture, food and drink—or sanitary and phytosanitary—agreement to reduce the checks on and delays in goods moving between Scotland and the EU. That will reduce frictions and delays in accessing important EU markets for our Scottish food exporters while also reopening the export of our seed potatoes. I would like to see rapid progress on confirming the scope and implementation of that agreement.

On energy, the linking of UK and EU emissions trading schemes is an important step forward, as are the wider initiatives on enhancing climate co-operation, and the commitments to explore rejoining the EU’s internal electricity market, which has the opportunity to reduce energy bills for consumers here. Scotland has a huge offer to make to our neighbours with our resources and expertise to help to build the clean, renewable energy of the future. In that regard, I particularly welcome the reference to closer co-operation on new technologies and the possibility that it could create for Scotland to contribute to Europe’s hydrogen backbone. Once again, we see that the most effective way to ensure security and prosperity for us all is to work together, and it is only through co-operation that we can confront the scale of the climate challenge.

On trade in services in the agreement, I welcome the commitment to further dialogue on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications and on short-term entry and temporary stay arrangements for business.

One of the gravest consequences of Brexit has been the loss of people’s ability to move across Europe—for business, for study and for travel. Therefore, I am glad to see that the agreement contains a commitment to work towards a scheme to better enable young people in the UK to work, study and travel in the EU and vice versa. However, that pales in comparison with the benefits of freedom of movement.

We have for many years urged the UK Government to reassociate to the Erasmus+ programme to allow Scottish students the opportunity to study abroad and to allow Scotland to welcome the EU’s students. The announcement that the UK and EU will work on the UK rejoining the exchange programme, subject to agreement on financial terms, is welcome. Sadly, a similar commitment to rejoin the creative Europe programme has not been agreed.

It is clear that the UK Government has finally sought progress in many of the areas where we, in Scotland, have called for action and where, frankly, it has been self-evidently in the interests of us all to co-operate with our neighbours across Europe.

Let me bring a note of realism and then propose a better way ahead. The fact that the agreement was reached without the explicit engagement of the devolved Governments on the negotiation detail—not least on fisheries—is not just an affront to devolution; it has put at risk and will continue to put at risk the benefits of any commitments for the people of Scotland.

Although it is true that the UK Government did give read-outs of some areas of progress, it reached an agreement on fisheries without any recourse to, involvement of or approval by the devolved Governments. In fact, all three interministerial meetings between the UK Government and the devolved Governments covering environment, rural affairs and agriculture, where fisheries should have been discussed, were cancelled by the UK Government.

The meeting scheduled for 10 March was cancelled by the UK Government. The meeting scheduled for 31 March was cancelled by the UK Government. The meeting scheduled for 12 May was cancelled by the UK Government. A call scheduled this last weekend, while negotiations were under way between the UK and EU, involving UK minister Daniel Zeichner and Scottish Government minister Jim Fairlie, was cancelled by the UK Government. An additional call scheduled this last weekend, involving the senior Scottish Government civil servant on European affairs and the UK Government Cabinet Office was cancelled by the UK Government.

In the one face-to-face meeting that did take place in the immediate run-up to the summit, involving me on behalf of the Scottish Government, alongside the Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive, the fisheries issue was not even raised by the UK minister Nick Thomas-Symonds—and there were certainly no prospects of a 12-year lock-in deal. I had to raise the issue, I had to ask for documentation and I had to ask for draft proposals—the sort of information that is shared between the European Commission and EU member states—and I said that the UK Government still had a number of days to provide that. It did not do so.

The shortcomings of that approach have been echoed by other devolved Government ministers in Wales and Northern Ireland. Last year, we were promised a reset of relations by the incoming UK Government: a reset with the European Union, and a reset with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Excluding devolved Governments from meaningful consultation, repeatedly cancelling communications and sharing important details only after agreement has been reached in devolved areas is not a reset. It is not good enough.

The Scottish Government stands ready to engage constructively as more detail is added to yesterday’s agreement. The Scottish Government must be more closely involved as the UK Government develops its future priorities for working with the EU. The truth is that the commitments made yesterday can stem only some of the harms of Brexit.

While the Prime Minister proclaims that he has respected his own self-imposed damaging red lines—not rejoining the customs union or the free market or introducing freedom of movement—we say that that is preventing us from taking exactly the measures that we need to create greatest benefit in our relationship with the rest of Europe. While we stand ready to engage constructively, I say again that no agreement can deliver the security, economic and social benefits that we lost with Brexit.

I know that it is very difficult for members of the Conservative front bench to hear this, but it is a fact that what the Labour Party has done is agree to a 12-year roll-over of the deal that was agreed by the Conservatives. Therefore, I will take no lessons from the Conservatives or the Labour Party on the fishing deal.

Tim Eagle asked an important question, and I share his concern. Where is the detail of the deal? Where is it? We asked for it. We asked for what might be negotiated, but we did not receive that. We have asked for what has been negotiated, but, short of a line that literally acknowledges the shortcomings of the deal—that hundreds of millions of pounds should be paid to fishing communities, which I have to conclude is because the deal is bad—we have no details of how it will be allocated or where it will be allocated.

Tim Eagle asked what we will do about that. That is one of the first things that I will ask the UK Government minister, Nick Thomas-Symonds, with whom I have been discussing the agreement, when I speak to him later this afternoon. I will be happy to report back to Mr Eagle so that he is aware of the conclusions from that.

Tim Eagle is right to take a critical perspective on the fisheries agreement that was reached, which is a continuation of the deal that was negotiated by a Conservative Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Boris Johnson. [Interruption.]

That is a very sensible question from Foysol Choudhury. I try to talk about an agriculture, food and drink deal rather than an SPS deal, because I do not think that anybody in the real world knows what SPS is. It is a deal on what we produce on our farms, what our fishermen and fisherwomen land, and what food we export.

In this country, we produce a lot of food and drink. We export a lot of it, and a lot of it goes to the European Union. Having an SPS agreement, which the Scottish Government called for and which I impressed on the UK Government it should agree to, is something that I and the Government welcome.

Mr Choudhury may or may not be aware that the UK Government has yet to introduce the border checks that it will have to introduce under Brexit agreements. One of the advantages of the SPS agreement is that it will obviate, I think, around 90 per cent of the necessity for any kind of border checks. That is a good thing. Incidentally, that would also be the case between an independent Scotland in the European Union and the rest of the United Kingdom outside it.

If the member does not mind, I will not take the intervention now as I want to make a bit more progress.

It is important that we understand and respect that the people who have come to Scotland from the European Union and the rest of the world are just that—people. That is their defining characteristic. They are not just migration statistics, but people with the same dreams and aspirations as everyone else, and they deserve to be treated with the same dignity and respect as everyone else.

Back in 2005, the then First Minister and Scottish Labour leader said:

“The way to preserve schools and hospitals and services in this country and the way to have a strong economy in the years to come is to have more fresh talent in this country.”

Commendably, Jack McConnell also noted that immigration goes beyond the economic benefits, vital though those are for Scotland. He said that it is about our values and our place in the world, and he was right.

How far Labour has fallen since then. On Monday, instead of echoing that hopeful, optimistic, welcoming and inclusive message, the Prime Minister engaged in ugly, damaging and disgraceful rhetoric. Instead of standing up to the far right, he chose to lie down in front of Nigel Farage. For Keir Starmer to use words such as “squalid” and “strangers” and to describe those who have come to the UK as being part of “a lab experiment” was truly a new low for Labour.

Let me reassure all those from Europe and beyond who have made Scotland their home and who may well be feeling bruised and uncertain today. I say to them: the Scottish Government values what you do. Your contribution to our health service, our care homes, our businesses and our communities is immense. You are part of us. You will always be welcome, and we thank you for making Scotland your home.

Freedom of movement has been one of the European Union’s greatest achievements. The opportunity for people in Scotland to live, love and work in 27 other countries should have been celebrated, not denigrated. Like all great partnerships, the EU will of course have its moments of discussion and disagreement. However, like all good relationships, it has established mechanisms to come to agreements and make them work.

When the EU’s founding values such as equality, democracy and the rule of law can seem under threat even from some within the union, now is the time to proclaim those values even more loudly.

I will.

I always welcome economic growth, but I will not welcome holding discussions on behalf of the Parliament, the Scottish Government and the country but not involving its institutions. The European Union is sharing the text of the potential outcomes of next week’s discussions with its member states. The UK Government is not doing so with devolved Administrations. There are a few days for that to be changed. Perhaps Mr Bibby will pick up the phone to speak to his colleagues in London and ask why it has not done that.

In advance of the leaders’ summit, which will take place in London on Monday, we have outlined our position in recent publications on a youth mobility agreement, Erasmus+, creative Europe, closer energy and climate co-operation, and core needs for a veterinary, food and drink agreement with the EU. We also strongly support closer working with EU partners on defence and security.

At all times during the build-up to the summit, we have offered to be constructive partners with the UK Government, and although a number of meetings have taken place, it is unacceptable that today—only a few days from the summit—no draft text has been shared with us or other devolved Governments. That is in stark contrast to the way the EU treats its member states.

Indeed, they are, and there is largely consensus on that. At least, perhaps there is consensus—I am not entirely sure what the position of the Scottish Conservative Party is on measures that would boost our economy, support our care sector and national health service, give young people the opportunity to live and work throughout Europe, and, indeed, support continental European young people coming to this country. There is a shared agenda, and I think that there is a majority in the Parliament for it.

I hope that the UK Government is listening, and I hope, with some days to go, that it chooses to conduct its business with the devolved Administrations in the UK with the same dignity and respect that the European Union does with its member states.

Let me finish by reiterating a core point: the best relationship that Scotland and the UK can have with the EU will always be as full member states of the European Union. That is what we hope that Scotland can look forward to in the future.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the best relationship that Scotland and the UK can have with the EU is to be a member of the EU; calls on the UK Government to drop its red lines on the single market, customs union and freedom of movement; further calls on the UK Government, at its forthcoming summit with the EU, as a first step, to negotiate an ambitious veterinary, food and drink agreement, closer energy and climate co-operation, greater freedom of movement, including opportunities for young people, and further measures to lessen the ongoing economic, social and cultural damage of Brexit, and believes that it is unacceptable that the UK Government has not shared any draft summit texts with the Scottish or other devolved governments.

Does Mr Bibby agree that fishing is devolved? If he does, can he explain why the United Kingdom Government has had no detailed discussions with devolved Administrations about potentially making a deal around fishing as soon as next week? Does he find that acceptable?