 The next item of business is a statement by Michael Russell on an update on negotiations on the European Union withdrawal bill. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so if any member wishes to ask a question, I would encourage you to press your request-to-speak buttons now, and I call on the minister, Michael Russell. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and with your permission, I want to update Parliament on the negotiations that have been taking place between the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the UK Government on the issue of the EU withdrawal bill. These have become particularly intense over the past few weeks. The GMC-EN met on 8 March and the plenary met on 14 March. I spoke to David Lidington on the phone on 29 March on 6 April and again last Saturday. I met with David Lidington and Mark Drakeford last Monday. I spoke to Mark Drakeford several times in March and on Friday and Monday. I also wrote to Mr Lidington on Friday that my officials have been in almost constant contact with Welsh and UK officials in the last month. I expect to meet with Mr Lidington and Professor Drakeford again next week. Accordingly, much effort has gone into and will continue to go into seeking and, if at all possible, achieving an agreed approach to the problems presented for the devolved Administrations by the EU withdrawal bill and the Brexit process. Whenever this chamber discusses Brexit, we should always remember that the people of Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU. There were majorities to remain in every single local authority area. The Scottish Government remains as committed as ever to EU membership. This week, we have had yet more evidence of the unfolding disaster and confusion that is Brexit. The Prime Minister's refusal to countenance continued membership of the customs union, despite the evidence from her own Government of the damage that will cause, is a result of the internal tensions in her party. There is nothing to do with the best interests of any part of the country that she is meant to serve. Terrifyingly and appallingly, jobs, living standards and even the Good Friday agreement are all secondary concerns for the hard-Brexit ears, who now have the whip hand in Downing Street and, seemingly, for those Tory ministers who put their jobs before the livelihoods and future of their fellow citizens. Many I know were strongly of the view that, because of our country's democratic opposition to Brexit, and particularly the hard Brexit that is currently favoured by the UK Government, that this Parliament and this Government would have been entirely justified in taking a political decision to have nothing to do with the EU withdrawal bill. Of course, as I have told the Parliament in a previous statement, there was no consultation on the content of the bill prior to us saying it in finished form. Moreover, when we did see the bill, it was clear that what was envisaged was nothing less than a crude power grab on the powers of the Scottish people as exercised by their Scottish Parliament. However much we disagree with leaving the EU, regrettably, legal preparations must be made for EU withdrawal, which is what the withdrawal bill seeks to achieve. Even if, at the 11th hour, we were able to avoid Brexit, that would still be the case. The huge, time-consuming task of ensuring the UK's and Scotland's statute book can function properly following EU withdrawal is a necessary one. This Scottish Government has risen to the task. Working with others, different political parties, Governments of different political persuasions, communities and interest groups across Scotland, we have all striven to achieve a better, more acceptable bill. We have undertaken that work with only one absolute red line, which is this. All the preparations for Brexit can and must be done in a way that builds on and is consistent with the principles of devolution, principles that were endorsed overwhelmingly by the people of Scotland in the 1997 referendum. That cannot come as a surprise to anyone. We have repeatedly made this point over many months. We set it in December 2016 in Scotland's place in Europe. We made the point in private to the UK Government before the withdrawal bill was even introduced. We set it out in detail in September 2017 in the legislative consent memorandum for the bill. The Scottish Parliament has also on this issue spoken as one, and its voice has been heard more powerfully because of that unity. In its interim report on the bill, the Finance and Constitution Committee unanimously called the approach of the bill incompatible with the devolution settlement in Scotland. Clause 11, in particular, they warned, would adversely impact on the intelligibility and integrity of the devolution settlement and was a fundamental shift in the structure of devolution in Scotland. Let me focus on the precise words of the committee report for a second. What does it mean to say that the approach of the UK Government is incompatible with the devolution settlement? It means that Clause 11 subverts the principles of that settlement, principles that have given the people of Scotland a stable and effective Parliament for nearly 20 years supported by all parties in this place and which are throughout that time secured good government under different administrations and in response to many difficult political challenges. Presiding Officer, the very heart of those principles is this non-negotiable truth. Changes to the devolution settlement require the agreement of the Scottish Parliament. It is the foundation stone of section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 itself, under which orders adjusting the list of matters reserved to the UK Parliament must be approved, not simply in Westminster but here as well. The Scottish Government intends to protect this essential principle of devolution, but before I turn on how we will do so, I want to indicate those matters on which we have made negotiating progress and I am pleased to say that there are quite a few of them. I pay tribute to the work of David Lidington and Mark Drakeford to our respective officials and to those in this Parliament who have supported and helped the process which has been strengthened by having substantial cross-party support. I thank a number of members of the House of Lords and especially Lord Hope and Lord Mackay of Clashfairn who have shown a keen interest in the matter and have worked hard on it, as has Jim Wallace, David Steele and Daffodd Wigley. Mark Drakeford and I in our conversation yesterday confirmed that we would continue, going forward, to work together on these and all the other Brexit issues and concerns that we have in common. Together with the UK Government, we have agreed that there is an important and difficult job to be done in preparing our laws for EU withdrawal. We have agreed that, ideally, it would be done on a UK-wide basis through co-operation and collaboration between the Governments of these islands. We are agreed that, on leaving the EU, it could make sense for there to be common frameworks applying across the UK in some areas formally covered by common EU rules. Where those frameworks are in Scotland's interests, the Scottish Government is ready to discuss them. We have identified 24 areas where we should be able to work together on the basis of consent from all the Governments involved. The Secretary of State for Scotland has also said, both to the UK Parliament and here, that frameworks should not be imposed on the devolved administrations. We agree with that as well. So, those points, taken together with the principles of devolution, are the basis of something that this Government could consider recommending to Parliament. However, the key sticking point remains, as it always has been, clause 11 and the insistence of the UK Government on its right to take control of devolved powers. Let me set out to Parliament where we are at present on that issue. Tomorrow, we expect the UK Government to publish further amendments to clause 11. We have given them serious and respectful consideration, but we as a Government are absolutely and unanimously clear that we cannot support any proposal that would enable the powers of the Scottish Parliament to be constrained without the agreement of the Scottish Parliament. And the UK Government's latest proposals continue to give Westminster the power to prevent the Scottish Parliament from passing laws in certain devolved policy areas. And while we expect the amendments to include the addition of a sunset clause, the restrictions on the use of these our powers would last for up to seven years. The UK Government says that ban or legal constraint needs to be in place to prevent the Scottish Parliament from legislating in devolved matters, such as farming or fishing, while framework discussions are taking place. But it has never proposed and has indicated that it could not accept such a legal constraint for England. Any constraint placed on the UK Government will therefore be purely voluntary. Given the seemingly endless political uncertainty at Westminster, who can say what a future Prime Minister or UK Government will choose to do in the future? But during the period of restraint, the Scottish Parliament will lack the ability to ensure that our laws in these areas, environmental protection for example, can keep pace with EU law. During the same period, Westminster politicians or those that replace them of whatever political or constitutional hue will have a totally free hand to pass legislation directly affecting Scotland's fishing industry, our farmers, our environment, our public sector procurement rules, the safe use of chemicals, our food safety, the list is long, while our Parliament's hands would be tied. It is also worth noting that, while discussion and political agreement may have reduced the number of areas that may be subject to such restrictions to 24, under the UK Government's proposals, there will be nothing on the face of the bill that limits possible restrictions to these areas. Again, we are being asked to take that on trust. How could we recommend giving consent to a bill that would place Scotland in such a vulnerable position in these uncertain political times? In an effort to allay our concerns, we understand that the UK Government may also propose a further political commitment to effect that it will not normally make these regulations without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. However, that would not form part of any legislative amendment. In any event, if we agreed to this, the terms of the UK Government approach mean that it would still be for the UK Government and ultimately the House of Commons to determine what is normal and what is not. It will also be for Westminster to decide whether the Scottish Parliament is acting reasonably on any occasion and which it opps to withhold consent. In that respect, we cannot forget that the UK Government has gone out of its way during the Brexit process to remind people that it can legislate on any matter at any time. Indeed, in relation to the Sewall convention, the UK Government lawyers told the Supreme Court whether circumstances are normal is a quintessential matter of political judgment for the Westminster Parliament. Let me cut to the chase. Notwithstanding the more benign language now being used, the effect of the UK Government's latest proposals remains this. The Scottish Parliament's powers could be restricted for a period of up to seven years without its consent. That is not something the Scottish Government could recommend that the Parliament approves. However, there is still a way forward. In fact, there are two possible ways forward, and I have outlined those to David Lidington. The First Minister has now outlined them to the Prime Minister today. The first is to simply remove clause 11 from the bill. Both the Scottish and UK Governments could then agree on equal terms not to bring forward legislation in devolved policy areas while negotiations or frameworks are taking place. In fact, in that way, the Scottish Government is offering exactly the same certainty now being offered by the UK Government. We could do so as we have indicated within a written and signed document that shows that neither side would unreasonably withhold agreement. We believe that if such a voluntary agreement is good enough for Westminster, it should also be good enough for Holyrood. That solution would also demonstrate equity of treatment in keeping with repeated assurances made to the people of Scotland during and after the 2014 referendum and as part of the 2016 referendum campaign. However, if the UK Government rejects this reasonable proposal, then we have another one. We could agree to abide by the present system. In that system, any regulations preventing the Scottish Parliament from legislating in devolved matters for a temporary period of time must only be introduced when that is agreed by the Scottish Parliament. That means that amendments to clause 11 must make it clear that absolute Scottish Parliament consent is required. There must be no override power for UK ministers in the withdrawal bill. That will be consistent with the way other order-making powers are currently exercised and with the devolution settlement. That is a proposal that we have repeatedly made to the UK Government. Those are practical and workable solutions to the issue that will ensure the necessary preparation for Brexit can be taken across the UK whilst protecting devolution. They are both on offer. By continuing to work with the Welsh Government and the UK, we can make progress on them, but in the end it will be for this Parliament to make the final decision. It is the Scottish Parliament that will give or withhold legislative consent to the UK-EU withdrawal bill. Later this week, following the lodging and Westminster of the UK Government's proposed amendments, the Scottish Government will lay in Parliament a supplementary legislative consent memorandum. In it, we will spell out in detail the Scottish Government's remaining concerns about the bill and suggest these options as a way forward. It will express our wish to come to an agreement with the UK Government, but it will also make it clear that if clause 11 is not removed or if the necessary changes to clause 11 are not made, we will not recommend that Parliament consents to the EU withdrawal bill as a whole. It will also set out our view on other clauses, indicate what we could accept if agreement can be reached and outline how we intend to proceed with the continuity bill, which we will defend vigorously in the courts. At the end of this process, this Parliament will decide how it wants to proceed. It will then be for the UK Government and UK Parliament to respond to that decision. It will have to do so by the third reading of the bill and the Lord's, the last opportunity to make any substantive changes to it in Westminster. That is what is required by our constitution, no less than authority on the matter than Professor Tomkins has described the Sewell Convention in this chamber as a binding rule of constitutional behaviour. Breach it, he warned, and there will be a high political price to pay indeed. It would be an outrage if the UK Government decided to use what the people of Scotland did not vote for, Brexit, to undermine what we did vote for, devolution. The UK Government has no mandate to undermine the powers of this Parliament, and therefore the Scottish Government will do everything that we can to protect the devolution settlement that people voted for so overwhelmingly more than 20 years ago. We want to agree with the UK Government and move this issue on so that we can spend time on the substantive and dangerous challenges that Brexit presents more and more pressingly to this nation, but we cannot agree at any price, and certainly not at the price of undermining this Parliament and the essential work that it does for all the people of Scotland. I thank the minister for early sight of his statement. It is deeply disappointing that the minister has come to this chamber without a deal today. As he knows, we on these benches have been critical of the process around clause 11 since last summer, but the United Kingdom Government has in recent weeks stepped up the pace, listened to the concerns that were raised and has come forward with a new offer that it will publish tomorrow. Yet it would appear for narrow political reasons the SNP once again says no. Presiding Officer, it seems that it has nothing to do with a matter at hand and everything to do with their obsession with a second referendum on independence. Can the minister confirm the following two points? In his statement, he claims that he is still working together with the Welsh Government. Has he been informed of the Welsh Government's view of the new proposed amendments to clause 11 or have they kept him out of the loop? Last September, the minister, Mr Russell, said, and I quote, we cannot envisage a situation in which Scotland would be content and Wales not be or vice versa. Has anything changed or is that still his position? Secondly, is not it the case that he, in fact, was prepared to sign up to this deal today, but was overruled last week by the First Minister? Is not it the case that when it comes to consent, he was prepared to give it, but she refused? Michael Russell? Let me respond to three points, not just the two questions. On the first point, there is nothing narrow about standing up for the powers of this Parliament. That is what we were all elected to do. The heart of this matter is very simple. The issue at stake has been boiled down to its irreducible minimum, and that is this, that we can consent and move forward by consent or we can be refused the opportunity to consent. Now, the offer is on the table. I have made it very clear that there are two options in here, neither of which we would accept. I make that absolutely clear, either of which we would accept, but there has to be a decision by the UK Government to respect the devolution settlement. That is non-negotiable. To address the two points, it is up to the Welsh Government to say what their position would be. I have discussed these matters over a range of days and a range of opportunities with Mark Drakeford. As I said in my statement, the thing that we agreed last night—actually, at 25 past 5 last night, when I was on a cul-mac ferry on the way back from Mull, what we agreed last night was, no matter the decision of either Government—and we are entitled to make it—we would go on working together on the key issues that confront both administrations for Brexit. There are some things that rise above the narrow political advantage of the Tories in Brexit, and the thing that rises above it is the work that the Welsh Government and we will do to defend the devolved settlements, and we will go on doing that together. As for the final question, Mr Tomkins is clearly not close to what is being taken place. Anybody who is close to what is taking place would know that the situation as I left it with David Lidington in our conversation on Saturday is that we cannot move forward on the basis of lack of consent for the Scottish Parliament. I stand for square behind that position. As I indicated, so does the entire Government. There is no crack in that. Either, and, and either, every member of this chamber stands for square behind that. You have to ask, what are they doing here? Neil Findlay to be followed by Patrick Harvie. Thank you for saying that. I thank the cabinet secretary for the early sight of the statement. All through this process, Scottish Labour has worked with others to try and bring about a resolution to the disagreements around the devolution of powers after Brexit. That is because we believe in devolution. In the commons lesley layer put forward amendments in the House of Commons that would have resolved the situation, and disgracefully Tory MPs were whipped to oppose them. Early on in the process, we proposed standstill agreements and a sunset clause, but the cabinet secretary was dismissive of that approach until the First Minister and the cabinet secretary later went on to propose the very same. All along, we have taken the cabinet secretary at face value. I mean my colleagues, we have worked with him on the continuity bill. He has up until today shared information on latest developments and negotiations, but today I will ask no phone calls, no texts, no briefings, no nothing. All we have today is to go on this statement. I begin by acknowledging and welcoming the progress that has been made on a range of issues. It is clear, as we have asked all along, that the three Governments have worked constructively to find some compromise on some of the key issues, and progress has been made on that as welcome. Ultimately, we do not have an agreement. Again, if the Scottish Government's position is shared by the Government of Wales, is there no agreement there, too? What will happen if the Scottish Government's continuity bill is struck down by the Supreme Court? Where does that leave us? What scope is there for further last-minute progress? Picking up on Mr Tomkins' point, which I did not know, but clearly from today, the body language but lack of real language between the cabinet secretary and the First Minister would suggest that a deal—oh, now they are all pals. That would suggest that there was potentially a deal to be struck, and the cabinet secretary wanted to sign it, but it has been kiboshed by the First Minister. Is it his opinion that the Scottish Government should have an absolute veto at all times? I hope that the cabinet secretary and the First Minister are not playing political games here with another round of constitutional politicking, because that would be a betrayal of the good faith that we have invested in this process. To paraphrase the cabinet secretary in his statement, it would be an outrage for the Scottish Government to use the devolution that the Scottish people did vote for to pursue independence that the Scottish people did not vote for. I have to see a new side of Neil Findlay today. I did not realise that he was a man of such sensitivity that his antennae could tell him instantly what the state of the relationship was between myself and the First Minister, or indeed anybody else, presumably. I can assure you that the relationship with the First Minister seems fine to me, and I think that it seems fine to her, too. The reality of this situation is clear. What we need to know from Mr Findlay did not arise in his question, no doubt, because he was too busy carefully staring at us to work out whether the First Minister and I were inching together or inching apart. He did not tell us any stage whether he would stand up for the rights of the Scottish Parliament and oppose the imposition. If he indicates that he is willing to do so, I am very glad about that, because I want to continue to work with everybody on those issues, because the core issue is very clear. Notwithstanding the more benign language that is sometimes used by Westminster, there is a clear issue in here. Is the Scottish Parliament going to consent or is it not going to be asked for its consent? Are those restrictions going to last for seven years or are we going to have a voluntary working together? As far as the issue of the Supreme Court is concerned, we will vigorously defend our legislation, legislation that I am glad to acknowledge voted for. The chamber voted for by 95 votes to 32. We believe that that legislation is not only justifiable but necessary, and we will stick with it. In terms of working with the Government of Wales, we will go on doing so. I repeat what I had with Mark Drakeford last night. Whatever the decision of the Government of Wales, whatever the decision of the Government of Scotland, we will continue to stand together on the issues of defending devolution and will continue to ensure that our interests are defended in this process. We will go on doing that, and I am sure that Neil Finlay will not wish to drive us apart from the Labour Government in Wales. I have repeatedly said how sceptical I am that the UK Government would back down from its power grab approach. Rather than those MSPs who seem eager to sign off a deal that undermines devolution, I believe that MSPs of all political parties should be resolute. Members of this Parliament should not be undermining this Parliament or going along with a Brexit power grab, which does so. The UK Government has no mandate to undermine the powers of the Scottish Parliament, and that is absolutely right. Surely there is also now a bigger question. Is it not time, with all that we now know, about the Cambridge Analytica scandal, about the anonymous Tory donors channeling their money through the DUP and back again to avoid transparency rules, and indeed about the whistleblower revelations about the illegal co-ordination between different parts of the leave campaign? Is it not time to say that the entire EU referendum result is in question and there is no safe mandate for the UK to leave the European Union? I have the greatest sympathy for that point of view. The fact that there is all this hollow laughter from the Tories strikes me as the air of nervous laughter, because they are being caught out in what was a shabby, unpleasant campaign and with a result that does not have. That is really vitally important. That result does not have the agreement of the people of Scotland, and this is Scotland's Parliament. That may come as a surprise to the Tories, but this is Scotland's Parliament. Therefore, it is vital that there were one or two members on the Tory benches who were supporting Brexit. That was a reasonable and honourable position, but there were members on the Tory benches who, the day after the result, were clamouring to stay in the single market in the customs union and were now running away from it as fast as possible. That does not strike me as principled politics and it does not strike me as honest to the people whom they represent. Mr Harvey is absolutely correct to raise these issues, but it is equally important that we try and separate out, as this Government has tried to separate out from the beginning, the issues of making sure that there is a statute book prepared for Brexit, hopefully it will not happen, but prepared for Brexit, and the issue of opposing Brexit. We continue to oppose Brexit, but we have tried. We continue to try to get the statute book into the right condition so that it is ready. We stand ready to do so in the terms of the proposals that I have laid out here today. I would commend anybody who has influence with the UK Government. I do not know if anybody has influence in the UK Government. It strikes me as a Prime Minister who does not listen to anybody but herself. However, if anybody has influence with the UK Government, then make sure that they understand that those two offers are offers that we are happy to accept and which will conclude this matter. Tavish Scott, to be followed by Bruce Crawford. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I also thank the minister for the copy of his statement in advance. Mr Russell has made much to this Parliament, indeed in selling his approach of the very close working relationship between him and his Welsh counterpart, and indeed with the Welsh Government more generally. Indeed, he stressed that time and time again today. It now appears obvious that the Welsh Government is going to accept the UK Government's amendments tomorrow. What will he do in those circumstances? What is now the difference between Cardiff and Edinburgh? It is up to the Welsh Government, as I said, to say—I mean, I know Mr Scott likes hypothetical questions, and I think that he has a reputation for them in a previous session of this Parliament. However, I do want to go back to what I said in my statement about my discussions with Mark Drakeford, because it is absolutely clear, and both of us believe the same thing, that no matter the decisions that either side comes to, there will be continued to have. I quote again what I said. Mark Drakeford and I, in our conversation yesterday, confirmed that we will continue going forward to work together on these and all the other Brexit issues concerns that we have in common. That is the answer to the member's questions. We will continue to do that, no matter the position that either Government takes. However, no matter the position that either Parliament takes, because I have also stressed in this statement very clearly that the decision on the supplementary legislative consent memorandum will come to this Parliament, and it will be for Parliament to take a position on that. We will lay out in greater detail the things that I have indicated today, and then the Parliament will have a choice. However, I have also indicated earlier in the statement that I expect to meet with Mr Lidington and Professor Drakeford next week, and we will continue in those discussions. The view in those meetings has also been that, if we could get the Northern Ireland Assembly up and running, if we could overcome the historic mistake from the Tories of relying on DUP votes, which has made that ever more unlikely, if we could overcome that, we might also be able to have four nations sitting at those tables and trying to find a way forward on the basis of consent. I go back to that point, on the basis of consent. That is the issue that we are addressing in here, and that is the issue that we need to get resolved. Bruce Crawford will be followed by Jackson Carlaw. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can the minister please confirm that there are the correct understanding of what he has set out in his statement? Am I correct that the UK Government is proposing that there are a different set of rules for the UK, compared with here at Holyrood, in regard to some areas of the devolved powers? Am I further correct that they are proposing that the Holyrood would be bound by UK statute from acting in these devolved powers for at least seven years, whereas the UK Government will not be similarly constrained and have asked us to trust them that they will not seek to change any devolved powers in those areas? Do you believe that this proposal upholds a central principle of devolution—because this is what this is all about—that Holyrood should always give its consent to changes in devolved powers being proposed by the UK Government? Mr Crawford puts it pithily and succinctly, as ever. That is exactly the situation that we are being asked to agree to something and to accept legislative constraint upon us in those areas for a period of seven years, but there will be no equivalent legislative constraint on the UK Parliament or government. That is exactly what they are saying. I have to say that, although I am a very trusting individual, I do think that in these circumstances trust should go both ways. What we are saying is that if that is the relationship that you want to have, you trust us and we will trust you. That is, I would have thought, a very reasonable way of going ahead. If you trust us and we trust you and we write that down and we are quite prepared to put it in a written agreement, then we will have the basis of moving forward. I think that that is something that most people will look at and say, if that is how a deal should be done, do it. Jackson Carlawd will be followed by Joe McAlpine. The atmosphere is clearly heightened, but can I implore ministers to do all that they can to work to secure an agreement until the very last minute, not frankly on the basis of late and random proposals made now, but on the basis of the working amendment on offer? The minister spelled out this afternoon the concessions that the UK Government has made, but he has not spelled out what the concessions have been that the Scottish Government has made in this process. Will he do so? Given that he, Ash Denham, Stuart McMillan, all made their interventions in the last statement, absolutely fundamentally on the basis that the lock-step approach with Wales was fundamental to challenging the impression that there was anything here that could evidence a constitutional obsession with the Scottish Government, what will ordinary Scots now make of the fact that, if Wales does agree, it is Scotland alone that is now standing against an agreement clearly in the interests of the whole of the United Kingdom? The member started well with the appeal to reason, but he did not finish very well. I think that ordinary people will look at this Parliament and say that they will elect it to the Parliament to stand up for Scotland. That is what we are here for. In those circumstances, those members are prepared to stand up for Scotland. They are prepared to say that the people who voted for the devolved Parliament have the right to be listened to and the people who did not vote for Brexit have the right to be listened to, but they will also look at us and say that this is a Government that is offering a compromise. The compromise that is being offered is absolutely clear. We are prepared to voluntarily restrict the way in which we operate, the powers that we have, as long as the UK Government agrees to its own voluntary restriction, and they will both have given up substantive amounts in order to come to a fair agreement about how we would operate. That is a massive concession. I have to say that, at the beginning of the process, as I said in my statement, we have been quite entitled, given the way that we have been treated, given the way that this legislation came about, given what is in this legislation, to throw our hands up and say that enough is enough that we are not going to be treated in this way. However, I have to say that, painstakingly, over many, many months we have worked on those issues. We got to the list of 24, eventually. After a lot of work, we got the acceptance of the principles on which we would make that list, eventually. We have now got to the stage where there is a very clear choice, so I agree with Mr Carlaw. Let us not hype this up in the way that Mr Tomkins was hyping it up at the beginning. Let us keep it nice and calm. What we have got here, some of the toys cannot do that, but I can do it. Let us try to keep this nice and calm. I am afraid that they are not up to this challenge, but I will give it a third shot. Let us keep this nice and calm. We have made an offer of a choice, and the UK Government now has the opportunity to respond to that. I urge them to be calm—they are usually calmer than the Scottish Tories—to look at the choice that they have, and let us come to the voluntary agreement that we need to get. I also urge all members and ministers to be succinct to the next few questions and answers. Joan McAlpine to be full wide, James Kelly. The minister has made it clear that the Scottish Parliament could be prevented from legislating in a wide range of devolved areas for shockingly up to seven years. What impact does he think that this could have on vital Scottish interests, particularly in the context of trade deals being struck after Brexit? The issue of trade deals is clearly very much on people's minds. The issue of the much-talked-about but fortunate-so-far-never-eaten chlorinated chicken comes to mind. There is a whole range of food safety issues, for example, which could simply be imposed upon Scotland and we would have no possibility of resisting them. We go into other areas, environmental areas, into the administration and development of agricultural policy, fishing a whole range of things that give us serious cause of concern, and that is only with the present UK Government. I know that it is always a very foolish thing to say that things could not get worse, but my experience in politics is that they often can. Can you imagine a Boris Johnston Government, a Rhys Mogg Government? I know that that sounds ridiculous, but we live in a very bizarre world. Can you imagine that? What that type of Government might want to do and would be able to do because the Scottish Parliament could not stop them doing that? If that does not concentrate minds in this chamber, I do not know what would. James Kelly is being followed by Stuart McMillan. Thank you. Can I ask the minister what would be the legal standing of the supplementary LCM that he proposes if the challenge in the courts to the EU continuity bill was successful? I think that that is a question that I would want to seek opinion on, because I do not think that I am in a position to give a legal opinion, and I do not think that I should give a legal opinion. I think that the situation is that we will proceed to defend the continuity bill, as we believe that the bill is entirely within the competence of this Parliament. We are also in a position where we will bring the supplementary legislative consent memorandum. It will go to the committee of which Mr Kelly is still a member, the Finance and Constitution Committee. I am sure that there will be a searching examination of it, and then it will be up to the chamber to decide what to do. However, I do not really want to be in a position of giving Mr Kelly a legal opinion. I know that he can get some of those closer to home, but I do not really think that I should do that. Stuart McMillan is to be followed by Maurice Golden. The ministers indicated earlier that this is not the end of the process. What remaining opportunities are there for the UK Government to put this right and amend their bill to ensure that it respects this Parliament? Minister. There remains the time for them to do so in the House of Lords at the third reading, which is presently scheduled. I understand that, for the middle of May or that timetable, of course, it can always slip. We would like to have seen this resolved earlier, but we cannot resolve it on the basis of the present discussions. I think that it is quite clear that we have made substantial progress, and it has been given on both sides. However, this is a fundamental point, and we cannot work our way round fundamental points. I know that that is something that the UK Government keeps trying to do. This is a fundamental point that we have to address, and therefore we are placing it here very clearly. However, we could resolve this this afternoon. The First Minister has written to the Prime Minister and has said that this is a choice that we think needs to be made. If the Prime Minister were to come back and choose either of those options, then it would be resolved. There is time to do that, and I hope that we are able to do it. Maurice Golden, to be followed by Ash Denham. Did the First Minister overrule the Minister on making a deal? No. Ash Denham, to be followed by Neil Bibby. The statement clearly revolves around the significant issues that are remaining over clause 11, but the minister in his statement outlined that there has been progress in other areas of the withdrawal bill. Could the minister outline what those areas are and whether they now meet the approval of the Scottish Government? I listed a whole range of those areas in my statement. I will not go back through them, but I did say that, in the conclusion of my statement, I said that we will bring forward a supplementary legislative consent memorandum later this week. It will outline in more detail those matters and will indicate what we propose to do about them, but I think that it is right to focus and I would encourage people to focus on the issue of clause 11. I think everything else is absolutely secondary now in those circumstances. Clause 11 is the issue that requires to be resolved, so we need to focus on clause 11 and we need to find a resolution to it. Neil Bibby, to be followed by Ivan McKee. I welcome and acknowledge the progress that has been made, but I also have to express disappointment and frustration that, all these months later, we still do not have a deal. The minister will know that I have pressed the case for the use of standstill agneamants and sunset clauses. He will recall that Nicola Sturgeon and Carwyn Jones wrote jointly offering a sunset clause as a potential solution to clause 11. We now see a sunset clause on the table, but the minister appears to be objecting to it lasting up to seven years. Does he have a specific objection to up to seven years, and if so, what timeframe would be acceptable to the Scottish Government? It is a combination of the time and the lack of consent that are the issues. A sunset clause is obviously useful to have, and we have never opposed it, but we have been doubtful about it because it is the issue of consent that is more important. The issue of consent remains at the centre of those concerns. The member says that he is frustrated that there is no solution. I am frustrated that there is no solution. To be entirely blunt about it, I could probably do without committing backwards and forwards to London to have these discussions. I could probably do without late Saturday afternoon discussions with David Littington. I am frustrated too, but my job is to make sure that I do not sell the pass. The pass here is to make sure that we defend the Scottish Parliament and the devolution settlement. I absolutely will not sell the pass on those issues. I am a key to be followed by Graham Simpson. I thank the minister for that statement updating us on the negotiations. A key point however remains that we cannot give up on the single market and the customs union despite the Tory's best attempts. Will the minister continue to fight for a differentiated solution for Scotland that will protect jobs, living standards and our economy? Yes, I will. The single market and customs union issue is vitally important. I am pleased to see that the position of the Labour Party has moved towards the customs union. I think that there was some indication in Emily Thornbray's contributions over the weekend and yesterday that further movement was possible. I welcome that, because I think that single market membership and customs union membership are absolutely vital. Of course, the UK Government knows that, because the UK Government has its own figures. The UK Government, in undertaking the analysis that we have undertaken to, has come to the conclusion that of the three options that exist, single market and customs union membership, a Canada Plus type of deal and a WTO rules deal. Even single market membership means that people are worse off, but it is far, far better than the other two. Those are facts and those are known to the UK Government. What is the most astonishing thing is that a Government that knows those things, ministers who know those things, are proceeding with a fantasy about some advantages that will exist in free trade deals elsewhere. When the figures show, that is minuscule compared to the advantages of the existing customs union. I saw the trade secretary tweeting about this at the weekend. The trade secretary knows, he knows from those figures, that those free trade agreements do not produce anything like the advantages compared to the disadvantages of leaving the customs union. I do find that, frankly—well, I think that there is only one word for it—disgusting. Graham Simpson, to be followed by Clare Haughey. Last year, Mike Russell told the Finance and Constitution Committee and I quote, I cannot envisage a situation in which Scotland would be content and Wales would not be or vice versa. Is that still his position? Mr Simpson has asked a question that was asked about four questions ago, so I would respectfully suggest that he catches up, but the situation is, as I have outlined it all afternoon—it is very strange that the Tories are so concerned with Wales. I cannot remember Tories concerned with Wales ever before. Isn't that odd? However, the reality of the situation is that it is up for the Welsh Government and the Welsh Parliament to make their decision. It is up to us—Mr Simpson is a member of the Scottish Parliament, I remind him—that it is up to the Scottish Parliament to make decisions. However, I also go back to a point that I have made many times, but I am just going to make it again. It is absolutely clear from the discussion between myself and Mr Drakeford yesterday. As I said, I was speaking from a Kalmack ferry from Mull, and I read the point again. We confirmed—well, if you do not like the answer, you should not ask the question so often. We confirmed that we would continue going forward to work together on these and on all the other Brexit issues and concerns that we have in common. That was my answer 20 minutes ago. It was my answer 10 minutes ago. It is my answer now, and if Mr Simpson comes back to it tomorrow, it will be my answer then. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank the minister for the information already provided, but can he advise what assurances the Scottish Government received from the UK Government about how devolved Governments will be consulted going forward? Minister. That is a number of the matter. Clare Haughey has just returned to it. The number of the matter is that there could be consultation, but there certainly will not be a role for decision making. In other words, we might be asked our opinion, but if our opinion is not what the UK Government want, then it does not matter. That is not how we can do business. That is not how any member of this Parliament should be able to do business. We should be able to stand there as equals, discussing those issues with other Administrations and making sure that we come to a common mind on them. That is mature politics, and that is what we should be doing. Thank you very much. That concludes our ministerial statement and questions. We will now move on to the national plan for Gaelic. We will just take a few moments for our members and the ministers to change seats.