 That concludes Dovgall Questions. We will move on to the next item of business, which is a statement by Michael Russell, on the European Union withdrawal bill, and the minister will take questions at the end of his statement. Michael Russell. The statement is called on. Twenty years ago today, celebrations were taking place in this city and across the country. The day before, on 11 September 1997, the people of Scotland had voted overwhelmingly for devolution for a different Scotland served by a restored Scottish Parliament. Those celebrating that day did not represent one party or one strain of opinion and the campaign to secure that vote was cross party and no party. As SNP chief executive at the time, I worked as one of the three campaign directors alongside my Lib Dem and Labour colleagues. We made common cause with many from outside politics who had believed in a better democratic Scotland for many years. It is in that spirit, Presiding Officer, that I make this statement today. Like that campaign 20 years ago, this is not a party matter. It concerns all of us who care about the future of this country. Then we joined hands to try and create a better future for Scotland. Today we must show the same unity in defending the Parliament in which we sit and its role and duty to serve all the people of this country. In 1997 the proposition put to the people of Scotland was clear. The UK Government's white paper, published in advance in the referendum, set out the areas for which it promised that the Scottish Parliament will be responsible. It included law and home affairs, the environment, agriculture, fisheries and forestry, higher education and research. Since this Parliament was established, the range of policy matters that are our responsibility has increased. Initial expansions, giving this Parliament greater responsibility for transport, were followed by the Calman and Smith processes, which expanded our competence, albeit in a limited way, into areas such as taxation and welfare. This progressive dynamic development and expansion of devolution has, we believe, been good for this Parliament and good for everyone who lives and works in Scotland. It has made a real difference to people's lives. As the First Minister said yesterday in her speech marking two decades since the devolution referendum, after devolution we were able to look not just south but all around us, to our fellow European nations and to countries across the globe. We can contribute our ideas, learn from others and then put those ideas into practice here in Scotland. Far from narrowing our vision, devolution has widened our horizon. However, the Scottish Parliament's ability to do that, to contribute ideas, to widen horizons and to make progress for each and every citizen, is now under threat. For Presiding Officer, in the European Union withdrawal bill, the UK Government proposes that it should, for the first time since 1999, take powers for and to itself in relation to devolve policy areas in Scotland. It proposes to alter permanently the fundamental principle of devolution, as approved by three quarters of the Scottish people, in that referendum 20 years ago. The principle says that what is not reserved is devolved. We do not believe that that would be good for the people of Scotland. We do not believe that the hill farmers of Argyll in my constituency would be better served by policy and less favoured area support being made in London, which such support will never be needed when knowledge of its vital nature is scanty or non-existent. We do not believe that ambitions for cleaner air and the greener Scotland should be undermined by UK ministers who have very different environmental priorities and who have champion deregulation at every opportunity. We do not believe that the needs of Scottish families in crisis will be better understood by those who have constantly undermined the welfare state. That is why the legislative consent memorandum lodged in this Parliament today in the name of the First Minister indicates that we are not willing to bring forward a legislative consent motion at this time. We cannot recommend to this Parliament that it consents to the EU withdrawal bill as presently drafted. Although its procedures are slightly different, that is exactly the same position as the Welsh Government, which will today lodge its relevant memorandum in the name of its First Minister. Let me explain some of the detailed reasons for that stance. The present constitutional arrangements in the UK mean that all the UK's legislatures—the UK Parliament—just as much as the Scottish Parliament must act in accordance with EU law. In relation to agriculture, for example, DEFRA has at present no greater power to act incompatibly with EU law than the Scottish Government. The EU withdrawal bill would fundamentally alter that position. It would make the UK Parliament and Government the sole successor to the EU. All matters currently decided co-operatively amongst 28 EU member states and governments will be unilaterally decided by only one, the UK Government. The bill does not provide for a single new decision-making power for any of the devolved legislatures. Everything goes to London and it is for London to decide what ultimately happens to those powers. This is not a debate about whether we should leave the European Union. The position of this Government and indeed the position of the people of Scotland expressed in last year's referendum is clear on that matter. We do not want to leave. The bill is not an opportunity to veto Brexit. Such illegal power does not exist. Moreover, we frequently made it clear that, despite our wish to maintain EU membership, we recognise our obligation to prepare Scotland as best we can for what might transpire. Indeed, Brexit is going to be such a dramatic, damaging upheaval to the UK's legal systems and to our laws. It is imperative that we do everything that we can to prepare responsibly for the consequences of EU withdrawal, but certain choices in the bill, such as ending the effect of the charter of fundamental rights, will make this process even more damaging than it needs to be. The Law Society of Scotland warned last week that the UK Government should reconsider the removal of the charter of fundamental rights and take stock of concerns that are held by many about the potential for erosion of human rights that may occur. It is already clear that the Governments of these islands have a lot of work to do to try and make sure that some stability and some continuity can be achieved on exit day, and they will have to work together if that is to be done most effectively. This bill makes that much more difficult, not least because the EU withdrawal bill appears to represent a deliberate decision by the UK Government to use the process of Brexit as a cover for taking powers in areas of policy that are clearly within the responsibility of this Parliament. Let me be entirely clear about this. It is not a logical or essential part of any withdrawal bill. The new limitations are placed on the Scottish Parliament's powers, on the National Assembly for Wales's powers or on the powers of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but that is what the bill does. Clause 11 of the EU withdrawal bill contains a new limitation on devolved competence of extraordinary scope. While the bill lifts from the UK Government in Parliament the requirement that it is currently under to comply with the EU law, Clause 11 would impose on the Scottish Parliament a new limitation, tied to the EU law as it happens to exist the data withdrawal. In areas of Scottish devolved responsibility, vital to the success of our country, such as agriculture, the environment, fisheries, forestry, research or justice co-operation, the Scottish Parliament will have no say over what comes back from the EU on withdrawal or what is done with these important policy areas afterwards. Let me give another example. One I have taken directly from the House of Commons briefing paper on this bill. It used the common agricultural policy to illustrate what this approach would mean for this Parliament. It is an important part of the law on agriculture, a devolved matter, the report notes, but not one that devolved ministers will be able to amend. It continues, If the UK left the EU and did not legislate to the country, agriculture would fall within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. But notes the report, while this can be changed for England or for the UK by the UK Parliament, devolved legislatures and ministers will not have the power to modify the type of EU law that makes up the cap. The system of farming subsidies that has been developed over the last 18 years to meet particular Scottish need is only one example. There are many other areas of present devolved competence that would be put beyond the powers of this Parliament. The high standards of environmental protection that the EU has given us, our approach to food standards, the protection of our unique food and drink products, the operation of family law across national boundaries, the recognition of qualifications in our health professions, it is a long list consisting of over 100 areas where EU competencies intersect with our competencies. Yet the damage caused to the devolution settlement by clause 11 would not end when the process of EU withdrawal ends. As I have indicated, it would be a permanent change in the way that the Parliament's legislative competence is assessed. The UK Government also wants the inclusion of clause 11 in order to ensure that it can impose UK-wide frameworks following Brexit, and then in some cases trade-off Scottish rights, privileges and protections in lowest common denominator trade talks. Agriculture and fishing are particularly at risk on that approach. Last December, we set out in Scotland's place in Europe our clear acceptance that there will be the need for some common approaches across the UK to some matters when the UK withdraws from the EU. As we in the Welsh Government have made repeatedly clear, those common approaches, the areas that they cover and the way they operate, must be agreed and not imposed. However, with clause 11 in place, agreement could never be reached, since the price that the UK Government demands for an agreement would be in each case the effective reservation of the matter, putting it and the terms and operation of any framework beyond the powers of this Parliament. The UK Government's approach is not about UK frameworks, it is about UK Government frameworks, which are decided on, operated by and controlled within the UK Government. However, returning powers to the Scottish Parliament along the lines of the devolution settlement set out in the Scotland Act 1998 would not prevent the agreement of such frameworks. In fact, it would enable that agreement, because there are existing mechanisms for the two Governments to agree a common or co-ordinated approach. For example, legislation in both parliaments or in the UK Parliament with our consent, memorandum of understanding, concordats and the administrative agreement of common goals. All of those existing mechanisms are based on the existing well understood principles of devolution. Regrettably, the bill and its approach to UK-wide frameworks suggest a fundamental shift in the approach of the UK Government to such relations with the devolved nations. Again, let me quote from the House of Commons' own briefing paper. For the devolved nations, it warns Brexit will not bring back control. The retention of common frameworks, the report says, could be seen as an effective centralisation of power. Power should be devolved according to the current settlement. It should be divided between the parliaments in accordance with the principle set out in the devolution statutes and, incidentally, the strident promises of the leave campaign. The Welsh Government has made in its recent publications securing Wales's future some interesting suggestions about decision-making frameworks at the European level. Those should replicate the co-decision making that is presently seen at EU level with the four nations of the UK being equal partners in that process. We are keen to explore those ideas. However, whatever the outcome, there must be a collaborative, not a divisive approach to those matters if there is any prospect of success. The Government stands ready to negotiate and agree any common approach with the UK Government and other nations of the UK which proves necessary. Our only condition is that the UK Government observes constitutional due process and enters into those discussions on the basis of respect for the founding principles of devolution as endorsed by the Scottish people in 1997. Unfortunately, they do not seem to wish to do so. Equally, unfortunately, the bill is also problematic in other areas which must also be changed. For example, the bill gives UK ministers and Scottish ministers powers to correct deficiencies in law caused by EU withdrawal, the so-called Henry VIII powers. Henry VIII was, of course, never a king of Scotland, but he did invade the country in the campaign now known as the rough wing. It might not be entirely unfair to use the same term about the UK Government now. The version of those powers given to the Scottish ministers is compared with the one given to UK ministers limited in its scope and application. That is no bad thing in principle, except that an entire category of the laws covered by the bill directly applicable to EU instruments are given to the UK Government alone to correct. That includes directly applicable EU laws in policy areas that are the responsibility of the Parliament. That is not just a technical point. Those pieces of legislation include significant items. That means that the UK Government would have the unilateral power by delegated legislation to change laws in areas of policy that are the responsibility of the Parliament without any reference either to this Parliament or to the Scottish Government, which is accountable to it. That suggests an approach to EU withdrawal, designed not only without the appropriate respect for devolution but one that, wittingly or unwittingly, subverts it. The only appropriate way to divide powers between the Governments is this. Powers in relation to policy areas that are devolved must be for devolved ministers and devolved legislatures. Thereafter, there will be space, time and willingness to agree co-operation over the shared use of those powers in a way that respects the responsibility of this Parliament to hold to account those who make decisions in devolved areas. Our position on those powers in the bill is therefore the same as our position on agreeing common approaches across the UK. We recognise the need for some way of making the current body of EU law workable after Brexit. We have as much an interest in that as the UK Government does. We stand ready to use such powers in order, so far as we can, to promote stability following the process of withdrawal, but the approach that is taken by the UK Government to the bill is preventing this necessary, in fact, essential co-operation and co-ordination. Of course, we also agree with the Opposition parties that powers this broad will require greater scrutiny from this Parliament. We therefore commit to working with this Parliament and its committees to agree a set of principles and a process that will ensure that the instruments that are made under the bill receive the appropriate scrutiny. I look forward to this Parliament's scrutiny of the withdrawal bill and of the legislative consent memorandum that the First Minister has lodged today. The Finance and Constitution Committee, the Delegated Powers Committee and members across the chamber will have a strong role to play in this, since it will affect the powers and policies that we all want to be used to improve the lives of our constituents. I also look forward to giving evidence to those committees and to making sure that the public understands exactly what the proposed EU withdrawal should mean for the Scottish Parliament and, more importantly, in their daily lives, from Shetland to Stranraer, from Eoligwri to Aymouth. The First Ministers of Scotland and Wales made all of that clear to the UK Government when the bill was first published, and that built on extensive engagement in the two weeks before when we were finally given an opportunity to see but not to change what was proposed. Thereafter, in our meetings and phone calls with the First Secretary of State, the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU and the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Deputy First Minister and I have explained in detail the consequences of the bill's approach for the devolution settlement. We have sought to establish a shared understanding of those issues and to build a way forward that allows both Governments to proceed to the essential work of discussing common frameworks and the programme of corrections to our laws that will be necessary. We have explained that it is there unnecessary policy choices set out in this bill that have hindered progress. Therefore, the Scottish Government still cannot recommend that Parliament gives consent to this bill and we have set out the reasons in detail in the memorandum. We have also been clear about what we expect and require the consequence of withholding consent to be, namely that the UK Government must make the necessary changes to the EU withdrawal bill. Of course, the UK Government has contended that their proposals are the only ones that will avoid the chaos that would arise if no frameworks or legislative structures are in place on Brexit day. That will not happen. We will ensure that it does not happen. If the UK Government is not prepared to make the appropriate amendments, this Government will consider—as the Welsh Government has confirmed, it is also considering—the options available for rapid legislation in this Parliament to allow us to prepare devolved laws for the shock of Brexit. That route is not our first choice, however, because there is a better way forward that is still available. As the two First Ministers announced after meeting in Edinburgh last month, the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government will publish a set of suggested amendments to the bill that would, if made, turn the bill into one that we could recommend to the Parliament. Those amendments will remove the unnecessary new limits on devolved competence from the bill and rearrange the regulation making powers so that they properly respect the well-established principles of devolution and the scheme in the Scotland Act 1998 and Subsequent Scotland Act 1998, as well as ensuring that the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments have the appropriate role in holding to account their Governments as they make the decisions required to prepare the UK's legal system for EU withdrawal. We therefore stand ready to work with all parliamentarians in all the Parliaments to bring forward and seek to have accepted those amendments. The issues that I have outlined today and which are given in much more detail in the memorandum are not arcane constitutional points. We are talking about the role and duty of these parliaments to help to improve the life of the citizens that they serve. We are talking about the real difference that this Parliament has made and can make in the diminution of that ability. The current proposals in the UK Government cut across, impede and diminish what we do, day in and day out, to serve everyone who lives in Scotland. We cannot allow that to happen. If there are members in this chamber who have influence with the UK Government, I would ask that they use that influence to secure the changes that the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government seek. If, however, any member believes that the right approach is to support the UK Government in such actions that go directly against 20 years of the settled will of the Scottish people and the effective operation of devolution by all the parties here, then let them say it and be judged accordingly. I think that the vast majority of our constituents would find it astonishing if there were any members elected to this Scottish Parliament who, when faced with such a challenge to the principles of devolution and the powers of the Scottish Parliament, would not put them and the people of Scotland first. That is therefore hope that we can speak as one on those matters. There are now about 40 minutes for questions. I encourage all members who wish to ask a question to press their request-to-speak buttons. I thank the minister for advance copy of his statement. I welcome his acceptance in his words of the progressive dynamic development and expansion of devolution, which has made a real difference to people's lives, all of which has occurred under both Governments led by Labour and Conservatives since 1997. Unsurprisingly, Scottish Conservatives challenged the construction placed upon the actions and motives of the UK Government now, and the ceaseless hyperbole of a so-called power grab, which the UK Government has repeatedly and expressly stated, is neither desired nor intended. I understand that the Scottish Government seemingly is ever in want of a grievance, but surely not now, so I welcome the absence of that rhetoric in the statement just delivered. The practical issue at hand is a bill to ensure arrangements are in place, not at some distant point, but in the immediate hours after the UK has withdrawn from the EU in March 2019. Whatever our wishes about the outcome of the vote, the vast majority of us campaigned for last June, we have a duty to prepare for the UK's departure from the EU. Last week in the Government's programme debate, I made clear that Brexit is not politics as normal. If, and this statement in the First Minister's memorandum suggests that it may be, there is a genuine concern matched by an equally genuine resolve to address and overcome this, then Scottish Conservatives here at Holyrood will play our part. The minister, I believe, challenged this side directly, and in that spirit I respond by saying that both I and Adam Tomkins stand ready to meet bilaterally with the deputy First Minister and Mr Russell to explore these concerns further, understand the various remedies and positions and to work where we can do, to do all we feel able to do, to secure an LCM that the Scottish Government will have confidence by placing before this Parliament. Will the minister and the Government therefore accept our offer, accepting their offer, I suppose, to move beyond the positioning today and add further process to substantiate the endeavour shared by us all of both securing an orderly exit from the EU but also a substantial and coherent future additional settlement of responsibilities for this Parliament? Minister. Presiding Officer, can I welcome that very warmly and say immediately that, of course, I commit myself and the deputy First Minister to meet with yourself and Mr Tomkins and to discuss these matters. I think that that is a significant step forward that we have heard here today, and I am very grateful for it. There is a way through on this matter. The Welsh Government and ourselves have worked very hard to consider what the right approach is. We do not have a monopoly of wisdom, and clearly there may be other issues to consider. So, absolutely in the spirit of the statement that I have made, I welcome that, I commit myself to have that discussion as early as possible, and let us see if we can speak as one Parliament. That would be a major step forward for all of us. Lewis MacDonald Thank you very much. I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement, and I welcome his willingness to work with all parties across the Parliament's and assemblies of the United Kingdom to seek to protect the devolution settlement and to mitigate the impact of Brexit on those that we represent. The minister is right, of course, to say that people of different parties and none campaigned 20 years ago for devolution, but it is also true to say that a Labour Government brought those proposals forward and that it did so to bring government closer to the people of all the nations and regions of our United Kingdom and to make our shared democracy stronger. The bill, as it stands, seeks to overturn the basic principle of devolution established by Donald Ewer in the Scotland Act and endorsed by that referendum 20 years ago, namely that what is not reserved is devolved. Mr Russell has talked about amendments that he has discussed and agreed with Labour ministers in Wales. I welcome that work and he will be aware, of course, of the amendments that will be proposed by Labour colleagues to address the devolution aspects of the bill at Westminster. If those amendments are passed and the principles of the devolution settlement are protected, can the minister confirm today that our legislative consent motion will then be brought forward by his Government? The bill would also take away powers from all our parliaments, including the House of Commons, and place those powers in the hands of ministers. If the bill is amended, does the minister accept that simply transferring unaccountable powers into all the areas from UK ministers to Scottish ministers would not be enough and that therefore work to increase the scrutiny powers of this Parliament in relation to those new powers would be all the more essential? Presiding Officer, in a second point absolutely, and I indicated in my statement that we don't regard those powers to be acceptable. There needs to be a framework of scrutiny and I indicated that we would be more than willing to enter into that discussion. On the diverse point, I certainly think that it is significant that last night in the House of Commons the reasoned amendment, which was proposed by Labour, contained substantial reference to the issue of devolution, was backed by SNP members and a range of others. That gives me considerable hope, as my experience of working with the Government in Wales, in particular with Professor Mark Drakeford, to whom I pay great tribute, has become a close colleague over the last year. That work together will allow us to centre on what can be achieved. It is sometimes very easy in this chamber to make a great deal of difference, and there are differences, and not least on ultimate destination. However, on this matter, there is a huge correspondence of interest to get this right. Working with Labour in this Parliament, working with other colleagues in Parliament, working with parties across the board in Wales, there is hope with some parties in Northern Ireland and working in the House of Commons, I hope that we can make substantial progress to make sure that the proposals that are presently drafted do not go forward. I confirm to the member that were the aims that we have set with the Welsh Government, the very clear aims that we have set in the amendments that were to be achieved, that would create circumstances in which a legislative consent motion would become possible, but it is not possible presently because they have not made those changes. They have not made a single change, as Ken Clark pointed out in the House of Commons last night, referring specifically to devolution. Can the minister confirm that the Scottish Government was involved in the drafting of any UK Government papers that was directly impacted on devolutions such as science or civil justice? Would the minister be prepared to be part of any future UK negotiating team to work to get the best deal for Scotland? I am afraid that we have not been involved in the drafting of any of those papers. As the members will be aware, I made that point forcibly in a letter to David Davis last week, which was released to the press. It is completely unacceptable that papers on devolved matters are being submitted in this process without the courtesy of seeking the involvement of the Scottish Government. Those papers are normally shown to our civil servants 24 to 48 hours before they are published, and there is no opportunity to change them or to comment on them in any way. They are just essentially delivered. We want, obviously, to take part in the discussion of what those issues are, and that will become more and more crucial as and when stage 2 of negotiations starts in Brussels. In terms of involvement in the UK structures, Professor Drakeford and I have indicated to the UK Government that we think that there is a role for the devolved administrations of the JMC process to fit into the monthly cycle of negotiations. We can see a place in which that would work, and we would want to continue to discuss that. It is, of course, well known that there has been no JMC since February. I should probably say today in case the information has been passed to other people who we wish to use it, that an invitation arrived strangely enough this very lunch time for a JMC to take place on the 16th of October. We will be accepting that, so that will only be eight and a half months—no, eight months and one week between JMCs, but we could fit into a monthly cycle. That would be part of the negotiating cycle. Of course, we stand ready to give the information on what we think is important to Scotland and, in fact, what is crucial to Scotland in those negotiations. Adam Tomkins, followed by Daniel Johnson. I welcome the minister's positive response to Jackson Carlaw's question a few moments ago. Like the minister, I think that a deal can and should be done to enable the withdrawal bill to pass with this Parliament's consent. In that spirit, may I ask when the minister thinks that he will be able to share with us in this chamber the sorts of amendments he considers desirable, in particular as regards future UK common frameworks after Brexit? Minister, I would be very happy to share those amendments once they are finally agreed between ourselves and the Government of Wales. I think that we are very close to that, so if the member will bear with me, I am happy to provide those as soon as we possibly can and to start to discuss how they might move forward. I am sure that the member has substantial influence with his colleagues out of the border. If he were to use that influence to promote those amendments, we would find that very useful too. We undertake to make sure that the amendments are made known. If there are views from Mr Tomkins and others on how those amendments can be improved, we are happy to listen to them, and we will arrange to meet to discuss it. Daniel Johnson, followed by Ross Greer. One of the great strengths of the Scotland Act is its simplicity. Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act sets out very clearly which powers are reserved, with the presumption being that all others are devolved. The withdrawal bill does not directly amend the Scotland Act, and that means that the conflict may not just be one of principle but one of law. Does the Scottish Government consider that that may be the case? Has it taken legal advice on the status that the bill might take, and would it consider a legal challenge to the withdrawal bill if it proceeds unamended? It is not appropriate for ministers to say whether or not they have taken legal advice, but clearly we consider these matters in every possible way, including looking at them from the standpoint of the law. Equally, it would be very foolish for me to say at any stage that we have either ruled in or ruled out legal action except to say that I believe that these matters that we are discussing today are matters of politics, and that it is a political approach that I outlined, for example, in my statement. That I think is defective, and if the political approach was to change, that there was an acceptance, as the member says, of the basic simplicity of the devolved settlement, that those things are not reserved or devolved, then that would produce a political solution to those matters. I am looking for that political solution to those matters. The repeal bill is a power grab not simply for the UK Parliament but for the UK Government over the people of these islands and their elected representatives. The Greens will certainly not be supporting legislative consent for this bill, but we believe that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government must hold ourselves to a higher standard. If the repeal bill is not adequately amended at Westminster, will the Scottish Government commit to appropriately and democratically restricting the powers that it will be given and to do so where possible with the collective agreement of this Parliament? I will make that commitment. That is a matter of concern to all of us. Even ministers should not wish to exercise untrammeled power of that nature. I think that it is important that we ensure that there is the proper scrutiny and the proper restriction in place. I am hopeful that we will secure the amendments that we wish to seek. It is quite important to understand the nature of amendments. There will be a group of amendments, I hope, and I am given additional hope this afternoon by the approach of the Conservative front bench. There are a group of amendments that will be agreed between ourselves and the Welsh Government, and I hope that cross-party in Wales would form a core that might attract support across the House of Commons, and that would be very helpful. There will, of course, be a range of other amendments that parties will take forward. The procedures of the House of Commons are arcane and strange to those of us who work in a modern Parliament, but I understand that last night there was an unseemly rush at the end of the second stage of the bill to ensure that the amendments were put on the table. People jostled each other in order to get them there because it is the order of those amendments that in some way determines how they should be taken. We will, in a calm, professional and modern way, take forward our amendments, presumably until they get to the House of Commons, in which they will be treated just like anything else, but I would hope that those amendments would attract support across the parties. Indeed, if the Conservatives are able to persuade their colleagues elsewhere, perhaps there will be a unanimity of view, which would be very helpful. However, I make the commitment to the member that we have no desire to exercise those powers without proper scrutiny, and we will, of course, work right across the chamber and with the committees to make sure that there is proper scrutiny. Of course, that is a major issue for the Westminster bill as well. Tavish Scott, be followed by Christina McKelvie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We on these benches will certainly work with Mr Russell and his Government on strengthening not weakening devolution, but I hope that he and this Parliament would expect a guarantee from the UK Government that everything that is devolved remains devolved, and that is the way in which the amendments that are planned need to be achieved, including, of course, the frameworks that should be agreed rightly across all Governments. Mr Russell said in his remarks that the process of Brexit was a cover for taking powers. Might he accept that that assumes a constitutional conspiracy within the United Kingdom Government, which I do not believe is the reality? This is a UK Government that cannot sort itself out on its Brexit negotiating position. Never mind to work out what its position is in relation to Cardiff, Belfast or Edinburgh. In that context, how does he plan to make sure that those amendments pass, and will he ensure that that guarantee that I believe that this Parliament should have is provided for without any further delay? I am trying to be in a generous and conciliatory mood, so I am not going to take the temptation that he gives me to attack the UK Government for its lack of organisation. I will let that speak for itself. The reality of the situation is that we will clearly want to ensure that, when those amendments are discussed among the parties, there is an agreement who will vote for them. Therefore, to that extent, I suppose that I put the question back to the member. I hope that his colleagues at Westminster will support them in both houses, should they require to go to a second house. I hope that all the parties will feel similar that there is an interest in supporting them. The SNP is certainly in that position. We do not nominate members to the House of Lords, so it becomes the House of Lords that will require other people to support, but there will be, of course, an interest that we know from Labour, from the Liberals, from the Green MP. I hope that, perhaps increasingly even from the Conservative Government itself, that it will guarantee that it passed. Christina McKelvie, to be followed by Rachel Hamilton. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Given that the EU withdrawal bill makes little provision for EU nationals, does the Scottish Government agree with me that the UK Government's plans to create a national register of EU nationals is divisive alienating and deeply, deeply disturbing? Instead of taking 111 devolved powers away from this place, the UK Government should be devolving immigration powers to this place to allow us to at least treat our EU nationals in this nation with some respect. I very much agree with the member and I should pay tribute to the member. I was speaking to Lord Dubbs at the weekend, who has played such a crucial role in the issue of refugee children, and he paid tribute to a number of people who have been involved with him in Scotland, including, I have to say, Christina McKelvie. He was grateful to her as he was grateful to the Scottish Government for the work that is being done. He is an inspirational figure, and we should all learn from him. I think that the issue in here of EU nationals particularly is very troubling. There was some sign of progress in the paper that came from the UK Government that there was an intention to try and get a settlement with the EU on the issue of EU nationals. There was some evidence of growing together. That has been put into reverse by the leak of the Home Office paper, whether that leak was deliberate or accidental. It is very difficult to reconcile the progress that appeared to be made on the issue of EU nationals within the negotiations with a paper that would be utterly unacceptable to the vast majority of us. I do think that the UK Government needs to clarify what its position is. If its position is to try and get an agreement with the EU on the basis of the papers being exchanged, then they are not there yet, but progress is being made. If the position is to take the Home Office paper and to use that as a basis for an immigration policy, then it would be utterly unacceptable. I certainly do agree with the member that a devolved migration policy is more needed than ever. I am very heartened by the approach of a whole range of organisations, business and other organisations that have moved to that position to do. The Chambers of Commerce, for example, have made that point, as has the STUC. A devolved migration policy applies in other places—it applies in Canada and in parts of Australia—and it would be a solution that would allow us to address our own particular problems, including the problem of depopulation. In my constituency, we have a substantial problem of depopulation that can only be resolved by attracting people into the area. That is why many of us have been so pleased that we have taken in our guile more Syrian migrants than anywhere else. A proper migration policy for Scotland devolved to Scotland would be of great importance. I hope that the UK Government will find its way towards that. Regrettably, the Prime Minister, as a former Home Secretary, is at a narrow view of migration. I think that we should take a much more generous view of migration. Despite some thinking that this is all about attacking the principles of devolution, the EU withdrawal bill means that laws and rules will continue to apply. The truth is that the EU withdrawal bill follows the spirit of devolution and the laws created by the Scottish Parliament 20 years ago. It keeps the current position to provide certainty for individuals and for businesses while we discuss future arrangements. Does the minister believe that the Scottish Government should provide as much certainty and continuity as possible for people and businesses across Scotland as we leave the EU? I do believe that we should provide as much certainty as possible, but, with the greatest respect to the member, it is not the Scottish Government that is creating the uncertainty, it is the UK Government. I do not want to fall out with the member here. I think that we have heard from the people alongside her on the members' groan. They expect me to fall out with people, but I am trying very hard not to. We have heard from the people on the front bench alongside her a positive step forward and a positive move forward. I hope that she would endorse that. I hope that she would recognise that we have clearly a genuine difference as to whether the EU withdrawal bill respects the principles of devolution. I think that, if you were to read it in its entirety, you could not but conclude that it did not respect the principles of devolution, but let us agree to differ on that and let us see if we can find some way forward to try and get progress on this matter, which has been the position of those on the front bench alongside her, and I hope that we will now be her position as well. Pauli MacNeill, to be followed by Bruce Crawford. We will, of course, on this side of the house, seek to protect the principles of the devolution settlement, that what is not reserved is devolved. That is the spirit of the devolution settlement, which is being frankly undermined by the EU withdrawal bill, as it currently stands. I would like to ask the minister, given in his opening statement, he said that, should there be progress and let us hope that there is, and this Parliament gets to the stage where it has some scrutiny job to do over it, you talked about the code decision procedure currently used by the EU, which is an interesting framework for the UK and the devolved nations. How much detail has gone into that thinking and has there been any direct discussions with the UK Government and whether it would sign up to such a framework? It has been difficult to have detailed discussions with the UK Government because it has not really given the opportunity for those detailed discussions. However, I indicated my considerable interest in the paper that the Welsh Government published, and they have thought through a lot of those issues. Our position is that we want to see as closely as possible the replication of those structures of code decision making, and the word is really important. I am glad that the member has used it. There will be a number of different ways in which that can happen. The Welsh paper, for example, looks at what you would call qualified majority voting, and I think that there are some issues in that. My discussions with UK ministers on this have tended to be brief because UK ministers have usually said that they cannot imagine circumstances in which any Westminster department would agree to code decision making. Will they have to imagine that? If, in actual fact, we are going to make this work, then, for example, a shared framework on agriculture, which appears to be one of the areas that the UK Government wishes to have a shared framework, although we have no confirmation of that, which worked on the principle of code decision making amongst the countries, would be a step forward, because then we would have a genuine ability to influence decisions and to be part of decisions. However, a structure that is simply said as the GMC tends to be that all meetings that are held in London are always chaired by a UK minister at the agenda is always set, and there are no votes. It is not going to be a framework that we could agree to. So there is progress being made in the sense that the Welsh have been thinking. We have been thinking too and supporting some of their thoughts. We want the UK Government to engage in that. It is unfortunate that Northern Ireland does not presently have a Government and a Parliament. We hope that, when that is restored and we hope that it will be restored, that that will add to that thinking. Of course, in Northern Ireland, they have experience of being able to bring together decision making in circumstances where there is considerable disagreement and polarization. I am hopeful that we could do that, but it will have to be on the basis of something new, not simply on repeating what already exists at Westminster. Bruce Crawford will be followed by Mary Gougeon. Bruce Crawford. I am glad that the minister has taken the opportunity to make this statement to Parliament today and the spirit in which the questions have both been put and answered. From a wider perspective, does the minister agree that item 3, in the terms of reference of the joint ministerial committee, en states, provides oversight of negotiations with the EU to ensure, as far as possible, that outcomes that are agreed by all four governments are secured from those negotiations? Can the minister confirm that there has been an opportunity to be so involved? What input opportunities have been provided to the Scottish Government? Does he think that the UK Government has provided the appropriate level of respect to the Scottish Government and to this Parliament in this regard? Alas, I cannot confirm that that has been the case. I wish it had been. The two principle terms of reference of GMCEN were, as the member says, oversight of negotiations but proceeded by seeking to agree the article 50 letter. We did not see the article 50 letter in any form. I think that the meeting stopped in February because I think that it was a fear that it would have to show us the article 50 letter. That did not happen, but I remain always hopeful that things will change and get better. It is a hope and opportunity now to move to that process of oversight. The committee has not met since the 8th of February, so, clearly, we have not been able to have any oversight of the first three rounds of negotiation. There has been an opportunity to talk to David Davis about what is taking place and one round or somewhat after the round and the second round, during the round and the third round after the round. However, there are not consultations or discussions of what issues are coming up or positions. David Davis said that what has happened must be spin on what has happened. We need a proper chance to discuss in advance. We know what the issues will be. We know what the process of negotiation is. We know what each round will consist of. That would focus a discussion in that monthly cycle and allow the position to come to the table that we have taken. The UK Government might be surprised on some occasions that we have a correspondence of position. We do not have on the issue of EU nationals and we have published separately on that. However, there is always a possibility that we will find areas in which our insights are useful and helpful. For example, in the article 50 letter, I suspect that Mark Drakeford and I might have noticed that Gibraltar was not mentioned and said, why do not you do something about it? We stand ready to get involved in that, but so far it has not happened. Mary Gougeon is followed by Donald Cameron. Should the UK Government not take cognisance of the concerns that are raised by the Scottish and Welsh Governments, has the minister received any assurances that UK-wide frameworks in certain areas will not be imposed by Westminster? No, I have not received those assurances. I mean quite clearly whether we are not able to consent to the bill. The proper procedure would be that the UK Government would withdraw the areas of the bill in question. We have no indication that that would happen. We are in uncharted waters, as we seem to have been all the time for the last 12 months, and we would wait and see what happens. We have had no such assurances about anything of that nature. I would have hoped that the opportunity that exists now over the next few weeks to get that right would mean that we would not get to that stage. The clock is ticking on this, so we need to know from the UK Government what they intend to do. In the discussion, we would hope to have with the Conservative Party in this Parliament, and I hope that that would be part of that. Donald Cameron is followed by Richard Lochhead. Given the spirit of cross-party working emerging between my party and his in the last hour, will the minister undertake to share his draft amendments with my party's front-bench and private before they are published? Mr Cameron appears to be something of a rush on this, I have to say. I am quite willing to do so, but I would want to make sure that my colleagues in Wales were content with that process. However, I would want to take this forward as speedily as we can and with as much confidence and trust in each other as we can, and with the ability to talk about those things in a way that is not necessarily going to send us all running to the newspapers. I have considerable time for Donald Cameron. We spend time together in our guile on a variety of things, and I think that the point that he makes is one that I understand. Let's see if we can build the trust in that that would allow such things to happen. Richard Lochhead, to be followed by James Kelly. I welcome the minister's statement and his commitment to stand up for this Parliament and Scotland's interests. In terms of funding, does he agree that Scotland potentially faces a triple whammy as a result of the UK's approach to Brexit? Firstly, it is the fact that we are leaving the EU, which means that we will lose EU funding. Secondly, it seems increasingly likely that we are going to have to pay Scottish taxpayers money to wash compensating the EU for leaving. Thirdly, if the UK Government grab responsibility for a number of key sectors in Scotland and, given its different spending priorities, those key sectors will lose out in funding in the future post-Brexit as well in Scotland. Does he therefore agree that we face a real possibility of that triple whammy? I agree that the financial issues of withdrawal have not been properly explored as yet by the UK Government and that they are many and varied. There are essentially three areas that are major areas for withdrawal. One is workforce. Increasingly, companies are beginning to realise and public bodies are beginning to realise the crippling effect that the lack of EU migrants will have, often because they just do not want to stay given the circumstances that they now face. The second one is regulation, where there is a catch cradle of regulation that is vital and important. If you look at, for example, food standards, over 90 per cent of food standards regulation in Scotland is EU regulation, and there are huge issues there. The third one is money, and it is one of the most difficult to bottom out, because it ranges from, as Mr Lochhead knows, given his vast experience in agriculture, the levels of support for agriculture, also the rural development support, but then it goes through a range of other things, infrastructure, funding, then, if one looks, for example, at education, the college sector, support for additional college places, and so it goes on. There are very serious financial issues that need to be addressed in a very short time, because, although there are guarantees given to 2020, that is a short period of time, and those guarantees also do not exist in absolute beyond 2020. There are severe financial problems that are facing a whole range of organisations, and that is one of the reasons why we have to make sure that we understand us and that we have the frameworks in place to cope with them. Although I have to say—and I am not trying to be devised if I have to say—that there are some issues in this that cannot be coped with, it will be impossible for some organisations, for example, to find labour that simply will not exist for the works that they do. 60 per cent of the abattoir sector comes from the rest of the EU, 95 per cent of the veterinary staff in abattoirs come from the rest of the EU, it would not be possible to replicate or replace that, and it is very important to realise that. It could not be done in a year or five years—it is a generational issue if at all possible, and that is a reality that we are facing. That is why the only sensible step at the present moment is to ensure continued membership of the single market and continued membership of the customs union, because if you are able to guarantee the continuity of the four freedoms, you have a chance of coping with that, otherwise you do not. James Kelly, to be followed by Ash Denham. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is clearly a difficult political situation, and obviously there is support in Parliament for the minister taking forward appropriate discussions with other parties that have evolved administration in Wales and the UK Government. Can I ask the minister how he will keep Parliament updated on the progress of these discussions? I am very happy to do so. I seem to be irregular at many of the committees, or certain of the committees in the Parliament, and I am happy to continue to do that. I am happy to continue to make statements. I am, of course, open to question in this chamber in two sets of questions that it is possible to do so. I am also very happy to have discussions with individual members. I have made it clear from the very beginning that I am happy to talk to members about particular concerns that they have and to share information with them, so at each level I will be happy to do so. I echo very much what Mr Kelly has said, that the potential for us working together to resolve that is the important thing. Therefore, there will be unusual ways of doing that that we have not done before, but we have to keep a close contact on that between all the parties. The Brexit negotiations have shown that we need a radical shift in how intergovernmental relations are managed between the UK and the devolved nations. What does the minister see as the best way forward in that? Professor Drakeford and I authored a letter together in June to David Davis that laid out proposals for the joint ministerial committee on European negotiations, accepting that the experience had not been satisfactory for any of the partners. Anybody who has been as a minister at the JMC will know that it is not a deeply enriching experience. The whole JMC structure has not worked for a long time. Indeed, all the academic study and parliamentary study of the JMC has drawn attention to the fact that it cannot really bear the weight that is put on it. Unfortunately, we have had no response to those suggestions, but there are positive constructive suggestions coming from Wales and from Scotland on that, and it would not take very much to try to get that working properly. I have mentioned in response to a question earlier about co-decision making. The JMC does not operate on anything like co-decision making. That is one way that we could move. The JMC has only once met outside London, which was in Cardiff at the end of January this year, and even that was run by the UK Government. It is always chaired by the UK minister. The balance between the delegations is always pretty astounding. Even JMCEN, without the Northern Irish, has meant that Professor Drakeford and I usually sit facing eight or 10 UK ministers. The balance can be even more dramatic, as Alasdair Allan knows, when you get to the JMC Europe, where there can be 10, 15 on one occasion. I was present 20 UK ministers and only myself and Rodri Morgan, so that was not really an equity of ours. There are ways that we can reform the JMC structure, but there has to be a willingness to talk. You also cannot create a new multilateral structure by bilateral negotiation. The way in which things have been going at the present moment has simply been bilateral negotiation between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations needs to develop into a multilateral discussion. At least we have today an indication of the meeting of the JMC, so it is a small move forward, but it needs to get a move on. Jamie Halcro Johnston will be followed by a final question from Ivan McKee. Despite the minister's objections to the process of leaving, can we be assured that the Scottish Government is planning seriously for a future outside of the EU? With the UK Government stating that we will be outside of the customs union, can the minister confirm that work to internationalise Scottish business will focus beyond the EU market, where new innovation and investment hubs seem to be targeted currently? I do not think that the member is fully conversant with the difficulties of being outside the customs union. Perhaps he has swallowed to willingly the explanations from Liam Foxx about this wonderful new world that exists out there. There is no evidence of any description of the fact that the internationalisation of business will answer those questions, partly because business is already internationalised. The most successful country in Europe in terms of internationalising business is Germany, and Germany is at the very heart of the European Union. I will caution the member to believe the spin that has come from Liam Foxx. Our belief is that continued membership of the customs union in a single market is the sensible way forward. We published that last December, before the member was in the chamber. We continue to believe that it is the right thing to do, and there are many who have come to that opinion, so we will continue to push that forward as a solution. Of course, businesses and others talk to us all the time about what is lying ahead, but many of them look at this with complete trepidation, as I have indicated. If you are involved in issues of the workforce, in issues of funding, in issues of regulation, there are no simple answers. Simply to blithely talk about the internationalisation of business perhaps shows that the member does not yet understand that. Ivan McKee Can I thank the minister for his statement and for the work that he is doing standing up for Scotland on this important issue? Can the minister provide an update on joint working between the Scottish and Welsh Governments on this matter? Yes. We meet regularly with representatives of the Welsh Government, and I was with Professor Drakeford yesterday, who attended the standing council. I attended their standing council in May. We continue to have met with other ministers presently—the Lord Advocate and the Welsh Law Officer—and Professor Drakeford in July. We have regular discussions between civil servants, and we have developed, as I said in my statement, the Welsh legislative consent memorandum that is published today alongside ours, and they are very similar, although there are slightly different processes, and we are bringing forward amendments. There continues to be an identity of interest in this, and that is what it is based upon, an identity of interest. We both believe that this is the wrong thing to happen. I am, Presiding Officer, heartened by what I have heard in this chamber today. I think that we have moved a step forward. It may well go into reverse, but I hope that it does not, and I make the commitment to meet with those people who have asked for those discussions to take it forward. If the same thing is happening in Wales—and I hope that it is happening in Wales—we have some opportunities that we did not know existed as little as an hour and a half ago. Thank you, minister, and thank all members for their contributions. We are now complete to our statement. We are going to move on to a statement from Fergus Ewing on common agricultural policy, but we will just take a few moments for members to change seats.