 It is a debate on motion 9954, in the name of Bruce Crawford on the European Union with trawl bill LCM interim report. I would invite all members who wish to speak in this debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now. I call on Bruce Crawford to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the Finance and Constitution Committee. I would please to open this important debate this afternoon. As the report on the European Union withdrawal bill. The interim report is a combination of the committee's scrutiny of the bill since the summer recess, through to the European Union withdrawal bills, completing its passage through the House of Commons. Ultimately, the committee will produce a final report on the bill prior to the final amending stage in the House of Lords. I want to take this opportunity to put on record my sincere appreciation and thanks to my fellow committee members for the constructive and productive manner in which they approached their work on the bill. Their commitment to the Scottish Parliament and to the principles underpinning the devolution settlement have enabled us to reach a unanimous recommendation. I would also like to record in particular my thanks for support that I received during the committee's deliberation from my deputy convener, Adam Tomkins. I would also like to thank our expert advisers, Christine O'Neill and Nicola McEwen for their input into the committee's deliberations and our clerking team, led by Jim Johnson, who deserves particular recognition for the outstanding support that they provided. There has been much commentary and discussion on what the contents of the European Union withdrawal will mean for the devolution settlement in Scotland, and the territorial politics of the United Kingdom more generally. Without doubt, the bill is complex and frequently obscure in its meaning and purpose. To quote the constitutional lawyer Mark Elliott from Cambridge University, he said, to say that the bill is byzantine in nature would be to do a disservice to the emperors of Byzantium. The bill is unnecessarily complex, ambiguous and tortuous in both structure and drafting. Therefore, in scrutinising the bill, the committee sought to bring clarity to the implications of the withdrawals, bills and provisions for devolution. In doing so, we have engaged with stakeholders from sectors that will be impacted upon by Brexit, with organisations from agriculture, environmental, fishing and education sectors, as well as with academics and constitutional lawyers. We have taken evidence from the UK and Welsh Government ministers and, of course, from the minister for negotiations in Scotland's place in Europe, Mike Russell. While the bill may be complex, there is no doubt that it represents a fundamental challenge to the devolution settlement and that the bill, as it is currently drafted, undermines the principles on which the Parliament was established. There are various aspects of the bill that should undermine the institution, but I want to confine my comments here to two issues, in particular clause 11 and common frameworks. Clause 11 has been a significant focus of the committee's scrutiny, given the direct impact of the clause of the devolution settlement. In essence, the clause performs a very simple function. It removes the restriction on the legislative competence for the Scottish Parliament legislating in a manner that is incompatible with EU law. The bill replaces that with a new restriction whereby the Scottish Parliament would not be able to legislate in areas of retained EU law where such matters were outwith devolved competence prior to the UK exiting the EU. The bill places no such similar restrictions on Westminster. In effect, the bill returns EU powers to Westminster, including EU competencies that fall within devolved competencies. While, yes, there is a process in the bill for releasing powers to Holyrood, where the UK and Scottish Governments agree to releasing powers, there is no timescale in the bill governing the process. Therefore, there is no guarantee that powers will be returned to Holyrood. The UK Government has produced a list of 111 areas where EU competencies intersect with the devolution settlement. Those powers cover a wide spectrum of devolved competencies from agriculture to environment, just as matters to onshore fracking, real franchising to state aid rules. The evidence that the committee took was remarkably consistent in emphasising that not only was clause 11 undermined the devolution settlement but also that we would result in a fundamental shift in the structure of devolution from a reserved powers model to a conferred powers model. Such a shift would inevitably create an increasingly complex boundary between devolved and reserved powers. Critically, witnesses stressed that despite assurances from UK ministers that clause 11 is intended to be temporary on measure, there are no provisions in the bill to this effect. The deputy convener of the committee may disagree, but constitutional lawyers are not always necessarily known for the stridency of their position. He may, of course, be the exception to the rule. However, that was not the case for the guard to the views that the committee heard on clause 11. I want to pick out just one quote from Professor Richard Rawlings of the University College London to give a sense of strength of view the committee heard in evidence. He said of the clause that the sooner of clause 11 of the withdrawal bill is cast aside the better. An unthinking form of greater England unionism, which assumes only limited territorial difference, would be another way of characterising that. The committee has therefore been very clear in its view on clause 11. We consider that it represents a fundamental shift in the structure of devolution. Regardless of whether the Scottish Parliament obtains new powers as a result of Brexit, clause 11 will adversely impact on the intelligibility and integrity of the devolution settlement. That clause 11, as it is currently drafted, is therefore incompatible with the devolution settlement. That the clause is not a necessary precursor to the agreement of common frameworks. In short, the committee cannot recommend legislative consent to the bill unless clause 11 is replaced or removed. In the report, the committee noted the statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland on 6 December that the UK Government intended to table amendments to clause 11. If I can place my own personal view on record and state my dismay and grave concern that the UK Government did not table amendments to clause 11 at the report stage in the House of Commons as expected, the seriousness of the situation cannot be overstated. It is now imperative that the UK Government brings forward amendments to replace or remove clause 11 at the earliest opportunity in the House of Lords. In other words, if a constitutional crisis is to be averted, it is vital that the UK Government brings forward changes to the bill that properly respect the devolution settlement. I wish to comment briefly on the committee's recommendations with regard to common frameworks. Common frameworks is a term that can mean many things, but, broadly, it refers to EU policy frameworks that may require to be replicated at a UK-level post-Brexit. Such frameworks could take a variety of forms, such as legislative frameworks or looser forms of co-operation from concordates or memorandums of understanding or even a simple exchange of letters. Those frameworks are necessary in the view of the UK Government to enable the effective functioning of the UK market. Both the Scottish and Welsh Governments agree that there will be a requirement for some common UK frameworks to replace the EU frameworks post-Brexit. However, the Scottish and Welsh Governments fundamentally disagree with the UK Government on what the starting point should be for agreeing common frameworks. The UK Government believes that EU powers should be repatriated to Westminster in order to provide certainty and stability to the UK Government, particularly with regard to negotiations with the European Union. Then consideration in the view of the UK Government should be given to what powers are included in common frameworks and which powers are devolved. For the Scottish and Welsh Governments, the starting point is which devolved powers should be included in common frameworks with the consent of devolved Governments and legislators. It is important to stress that the bill contains no provisions in relation to common frameworks. Instead, they have been subject to discussions inter-governmentally. The committee has welcomed progress that has been made between the Scottish and UK Governments in developing approach to agreeing common frameworks. We also welcomed the commitment of the UK Government that common frameworks will not be imposed. However, I should say also, Presiding Officer, that the committee strongly believes that not only the process but the actual content of common frameworks must not be imposed. In addition, the committee strongly believes that the process is and is not solely a matter for Governments but must also be transparent and inclusive, enabling both this Parliament and wider stakeholders to scrutinise any agreement that is reached inter-governmentally. I want to mention briefly the Inter-Parliamentary Forum in Brexit, which brings together committee conveners and deputy conveners from the legislators across the UK, who have engaged in the scrutiny of the Brexit process. Both Adam Tomkins and myself and colleagues from the European and Delegated Powers Committee attended a meeting of the forum last week. At that meeting, we took the opportunity to stress the messages in the Finance and Constitution Committee's interim report and to stress the seriousness of the situation to colleagues and other legislators, particularly those in the house of lords, given that the bill has now moved there. I think that it is fair to say, and I hope others who in attendance were at that meeting to say that our message was well received. Presiding Officer, I am sure that you will agree that this forum of inter-parliamentary dialogue is a useful means of ensuring that the views of this committee and this Parliament are clearly heard during the Brexit process. In conclusion, the European Union withdrawal bill in the view of the Finance and Constitution Committee represents a fundamental challenge to this institution and the devolution settlement. It is imperative that the UK Government takes action urgently to ensure that the bill respects the devolution settlement. Only then would the Finance and Constitution Committee be able to recommend legislative consent. I very much look forward to hearing the views of other colleagues this afternoon in this Parliament on the unanimous report that the committee produced. I move the motion in my name. Just before I call the minister, can I remind members if they wish to take part in this debate, they should press the request-to-speak buttons. I call on Mike Russell, up to eight minutes, please, minister. Can I start by welcoming this strong report for the committee and expressing my gratitude to the committee, to the convener and the deputy convener, especially for working so hard to get such a solid and well-sourced report? I hope that today will be a consensual discussion because we are in this Parliament all agreed that elements of the withdrawal bill cannot be accepted and must be changed before legislative consent is given. I look forward to that consensual debate, which I am sure will be enhanced as I understand that Rachel Hamilton is not speaking today. I look forward to hearing from the front bench here. The committee makes many valuable recommendations and the Government will respond in more detail to them in writing. I am appearing before the committee next week and I will try to make sure that I add my comments before then. However, while there are different views in this chamber on aspects of Brexit and there definitely are those views, there is great value in the Parliament speaking with one voice on matters involving defending the powers of this Parliament and the principles of devolution. The more so, if it is doing so, is based on near-unanimous evidence, gathered from a wide range of knowledgeable and impeccable sources. It is that evidence that has led the committee unanimously to indicate, as the convener just had, that the Parliament could not pass a legislative consent motion in the words of the convener today unless and until clause 11 is removed or replaced. Now, the Scottish Government still aims to agree amendments to the bill with the UK Government that would allow legislative consent to be brought to this chamber and passed. However, the Government also has to responsibly prepare for the possibility of consent being withheld. Consent cannot simply be withheld and nothing else happens. That is why we have indicated that we will bring forward a continuity bill and work is well advanced on that. That does remain the next option if an agreement cannot be found with the UK Government. The Welsh Government is in exactly the same position. In addition, the Welsh Government and ourselves are starting on the process of briefing members of the House of Lords regarding the devolution aspects of the withdrawal bill because the UK Government has indicated that they are likely to bring an amendment. However, it cannot be just any amendment. It must be an amendment that has been agreed with the Welsh and the Scottish Government something that the UK Government itself agreed some time ago. We will brief members of the House of Lords and we look forward to hearing what happens first of all in the reading that takes place next week and then in the lengthy committee stage and then in the report stage. However, if there is no amendment, let me make it clear that there will be no legislative consent motion brought here and the continuity bill will take its time and be brought to the chamber. Patrick Harvie I am grateful for the intervention. Mr Russell says that he wants to see clause 11 amended or withdrawn, amended or removed. Is there an amendment that he can see that would make that clause tolerable, or is it in fact the position that it should be stripped from the bill altogether? Michael Russell Point in just a moment, because I want to address it. However, let me simply say that we remain clear in addition that frameworks can be delivered by agreement rather than by imposition according to published principles already agreed between the Governments. The Scottish Government is committed to involving the Scottish Parliament in this, including publishing information on progress made on narrowing the areas where frameworks will be required. We support the report's emphasis on scrutiny of the Scottish Government in the Scottish Parliament over its preparations for EU withdrawal. We emphasise the importance of the required approach of scrutiny being developed and agreed here in this Parliament. Presiding Officer, the Scottish Government supports the committee's conclusion on clause 11, partly because it has been our position from the start, but also because there is a unanimous view based on evidence in this Parliament and now a unanimous view in the Welsh Assembly. That was shown last week on a motion brought by Stephen Lewis of Pride Cymru on a continuity bill, which had unanimous support even from UKIP. Clause 11, in addition, is not necessary for establishing frameworks. There is no reason to hold back or reserve any matters that are subject to a framework. That is why we are working so hard to develop proposals that would lead to an agreed amendment. In terms of the question from Mr Harvey, I see that it is absolutely clear what must be in that amendment. It must be a quality of treatment of the Parliaments of these islands and the Governments of these islands. In other words, there must be agreement on both the subjects for frameworks and what is in those frameworks. There cannot be impositioned by any one of those Governments or Parliaments on the other and all must be consulted. We did put forward with the Welsh Government, as the chamber knows, proposed amendments to clause 11, which would have removed most of the clause. We would still think that that is the best approach, but if an approach can be found to bring agreement between ourselves on the basis of equality, that will be something that we can consider. Presiding Officer, on the issue of frameworks, those frameworks, if they are required—we have always said that they may be required—need to have appropriate governance and underpinning structures. We have laid out and agreed with the UK Government the five areas that needed to be addressed before a solution could be found. The principles, the proof of concept, the governance and dispute resolution, the content of the list and the legislative approach. I want to stress here that we made good progress on the first three of those. The principles were published, and proof of concept work has been completed. The list of 111 areas has been substantially reduced and the work continues to finalise that list. We are well aware of the needs for scrutiny by this Parliament of Progress on the further steps. We noticed the strong recommendations of the committee in that regard. Of course, we need space to negotiate and information needs to be held between Governments and times, but intergovernmental confidentiality cannot always triumph against transparency. I agree with the committee's recommendations that there needs to be—yes, of course. Adam Tomkins I am grateful to the minister for giving way in the spirit of parliamentary transparency. Will the minister share with us the Scottish Government's preferred view as to how common frameworks should be enforced? Should they be enforced as a matter of law through the courts, or should they be enforced as a matter of politics through some kind of JMC or enhanced JMC machinery? Michael Russell If an agreement can be found on an amendment, I think that amendment will contain within it the means by which enforcement can take place. That is likely to be an enhanced JMC process, so not inevitably so. The Welsh Government has published very interesting recommendations in that regard, but that is only if we can get an agreement through and agreed by all of us. I want to make a word or two on some other things in the report while I still have the opportunity. We note the committee's views on powers for UK and Scottish ministers. We are strongly of the view that it is inappropriate for only UK ministers to have powers to act and devolve areas, which remains the case, alas in some areas of directly applicable EU law. There were amendments by the UK Government report in the Commons, which, although they lent heavily on clause 11, which my view was unfortunate, did concede the point. We hope that there are further amendments to make that workable in the Lords. We accept the comments made by the committee on the breads of powers for Scottish ministers. My officials have been working with the Parliament to devise suitable processes to ensure scrutiny by this Parliament. The work is making progress. The Scottish Government remains committed to securing scrutiny of statutory instruments made under the bill, and we will do our best to bring that forward. On the issue of inter-governmental relations, let me just repeat what I have said to Mr Tomkins. I do think that the Welsh Government has come up with interesting proposals and I do think that the implication of all this is a readjustment of the relationships. The joint ministerial committee has never worked as a structure. I have been a member of that on occasion over the last 10 years, most memorably in 2009, and I have to say that it is a system whose time never came and has certainly passed. We need to have a system that is rooted in statute that can be done. Presiding Officer, I will listen with interest to this debate. I will look for further discussion next week with the committee and also with the UK Government. I do hope that we can reach an agreement, but if we cannot reach an agreement, there is a way forward and the Government will take it. Can I start by echoing the thanks of the committee convener to all those who contributed to the preparation of this report? In particular, thanks should be given to all those who came to give us evidence, to the committee clerks, to Spice and to our two advisers, the last of whom, in particular, were very helpful in guiding us through the technical legal process. I should also express my thanks to the convener for the balance and measured way in which he approached the issue, ably assisted by the deputy convener, sometimes when dealing with complicated constitutional matters. There is no harm in having a professor of constitutional law on the team. When Parliament is often a confrontational environment, the report is, I believe, an excellent example of co-operative working across all members of the committee. The issues that we were dealing with were serious, controversial and potentially subject to severe party political differences. Yet, we were able to approach the issue in a consensual manner and come to an agreement on an anonymous set of conclusions. That is to the credit of committee members in the way in which we approached the issue. This afternoon's debate has reflected that consensual tone, which is a very positive development, Deputy Presiding Officer. I listened very hard to Michael Russell's speech just there. I would struggle to disagree with hardly anything that he said, which members will reflect is an extremely unusual set of circumstances in this particular chamber for a long time. The committee cuts through some of the hyperbole that we have heard about power grabs and gives, instead, a dispassionate analysis of the issues at stake around the European Union withdrawal bill and its impact on the devolution settlement. It also charts a way forward, which I believe all parties should be signing up to. The background to this, as the convener set out, is the EU withdrawal bill, which has now completed its passage through the commons and is in the House of Lords. The bill includes clause 11, which removes the restriction on the Scottish Parliament's competence that currently prevents us passing law that is incompatible with EU law. It would replace that with a new restriction on not passing laws incompatible with retained EU law. That retained EU law would be under the control of and subject to change by the UK Parliament. It has been the position of the UK Government that clause 11 does not affect the current devolution settlements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That point is contested by the Scottish Government, whose view is that clause 11 introduces a new legal constraint on the competence of devolved institutions, cutting across the reserved model of devolution that was provided in the 1998 Scotland act. It is fair to point out that the Welsh Government has similar concerns. It was the committee's view that clause 11, as drafted, does represent a substantial shift in the structure of devolution in Scotland and is incompatible with the devolution settlement. Without clause 11 being replaced or removed, the committee was not in a position to recommend legislative consent for the bill. Having identified the issue, the question is what needs to be done about it. The committee heard evidence that there were a number of alternative approaches that could be taken forward. For example, Professor Jim Gallagher suggested that a sunset clause could be placed on clause 11. However, most of the evidence that we heard pointed to common frameworks as the solution. Those would be agreements between the UK Government and the devolved Governments on areas where there is a legitimate requirement for UK-wide alignment. For example, in areas such as agriculture, the environment or fisheries, although, to a large extent, policymaking is devolved, there is clearly a requirement that certain aspects are uniform across the UK. Scottish farmers wish to sell their produce on an unrestricted basis in other parts of the United Kingdom and therefore it makes sense that food standards are uniform across the whole country. For common frameworks to work, they need to be negotiated between the different parties, not simply imposed by the UK Government. There also needs to be a requirement for parliamentary input and consent to those, so they are not determined purely by Governments in isolation. I will give one more point. There are issues to be considered around dispute resolution in the event that there are disagreements about the interpretation of those common frameworks. He makes an important point about the need for parliamentary scrutiny of decisions on frameworks that would be shared or common between the two Governments. Given that pretty much every committee of this Parliament, including our own, has found it impossible to get UK ministers to come and give evidence and answer our questions, does Mr Fraser have any reason to have confidence that that kind of parliamentary scrutiny will have purchase unless we have the direct legislative competence to say no where we wish to? What I have tried to make clear to Mr Harvey is that our party accepts the general principle that common frameworks have to be agreed between the two different Governments. We would like to see those common frameworks subject also to parliamentary consent, both to the minister and here in the Scottish Parliament. The detail of that still has to be worked out. As a matter of principle, I do not think that there is a large difference to what Mr Harvey is contending and what we are contending. Indeed, the principle that common frameworks are the way forward seems to have been agreed by both Scottish and UK Governments. When the Secretary of State for Scotland came to our committee, he accepted that clause 11, as it stands, requires to be amended before legislative consent can be given, and he undertook to do what was necessary to ensure that the bill was put into condition whereby it would receive Scottish Parliament consent. Do I have time? Within your seven minutes, I am afraid. If Mr Finlay is very brief, I will give you. Yes, please briefly, Mr Finlay. If he accepted that there had to be amendments at the UK Parliament, then why did he instruct his Tory MPs to vote against him? Murdo Fraser. Well, clearly, there is a lot of work still to be done in terms of agreeing the common frameworks that we have discussed. The Secretary of State has made it very clear that the bill requires to be amended in the House of Lords, and that will happen. He was very clear when he came to the committee, and I know that Mr Finlay was not there. He accepts that, as it stands, the bill, with clause 11, as unamended, will not get legislative consent and therefore is unlikely to proceed through the process in the houses of Westminster. Therefore, he accepts the principle that this bill does need to be changed. I would rather proceed on the tone of the debate thus far, so that we can solve those issues with co-operation rather than confrontation, despite what Mr Finlay is tempting me to do. I am over my time. I will make the final point, because it is quite important. As my colleague Adam Tomkins has made clear previously, the Scottish Conservatives are disappointed that the necessary amendments to clause 11 could not be made in the commons, and we are determined to see those rectified in the Lords. The political will is certainly there to see this happen. This has been a very detailed and important piece of work, with a great deal of constitutional significance. It is encouraging that the committee could arrive at its conclusions in unanimous fashion. It is now over to the UK Government to work with the Scottish Government, and indeed the Government of Wales, to ensure that the necessary amendments are made to the EU withdrawal bill to allow legislative consent to be granted. On this side of the chamber, we will be working closely with our Westminster colleagues to ensure that that does happen. I call Neil Finlay for up to seven minutes, please, Mr Finlay. I thank the convener, the committee and all the clerks for their important work on what is very detailed and painstaking scrutiny. The effective and democratic workings of this Parliament are extremely important respect for the parliamentary process, the accountability of the executive, respecting the will of Parliament, freedom of information and transparency are all vital for the good working of our democracy. In many of those areas, I have severe criticisms of the failings of the Scottish Government, but this unanimously agreed report aims at its criticisms quite rightly at the abject failure of the UK Government to deliver on its commitments that it previously gave to draft an amendment to clause 11 off the EU withdrawal bill that would address the concerns raised by the Parliament and the committee and make it fit. For purpose, we can remember all of the commitments that David Mundell and his Tory colleagues at Westminster made when they came before the committee. He gave the impression that this would all be resolved in the House of Commons, not the House of Lords. Those commitments appear to have been nothing more than the Secretary of State's blister, because, as we found out, the Scottish Tories couldn't deliver a Friday night takeaway, never mind this important piece of legislation, and they have no one to blame other than themselves, because they, along with the DUP, their chums in the DUP controlled the parliamentary timetable. They have the resources of the extensive civil service at their disposal, Government lawyers at their disposal, yet they failed miserably, and their on-going handling of the Brexit process lurches from one mess to the next. That is not a situation that this Parliament can accept. My party stood on a manifesto in June of returning EU powers that would be ordinarily held in devolved legislatures to this Parliament as part of the Brexit process. We stand 100 per cent by that commitment. The evidence from the committee's sessions involved in constitutional experts and academics was clear, because living as it stands is not fit for purpose. The Brexit came about because of a democratic process. The UK Government has to respect the democratic process when taking this legislation through, and we wanted it to go through, the House of Commons, while working with and respecting the role of the nations of the UK. The reality now is that unelected peers in the House of Lords will have a greater say on remedy in cause 11 than the MPs elected by the people to represent their interests in Parliament. That is not a situation that we can tolerate. Scottish Tory MPs, rather than vote to support the position of their Scottish leader, instead voted to humiliator. They voted to hand the power over this important clause to an unelected, undemocratic body, rather than support Labour's amendment, which would have introduced a presumption of devolution so that the restriction against the legislating and contradiction of retained EU law would fall at the end of the transitional period. Michael Russell Can I agree with the member on the point that he has made, and to say that the Labour amendment, which was not our preferred amendment—the one that we had done jointly with the Welsh Government—was still an amendment that was acceptable to us, and we indicated that. It was a pity that the Tory Government did not note that indication and accept that as our willingness to proceed on that basis. Neil Findlay I think that that is absolutely right, and that was a very welcome approach for Labour and the SNP working together. It would have welcomed Scottish Conservative MPs' support on that, but it folded like a pack of cards when a little pressure was applied. Rather than work to protect the integrity of the devolution settlement, it voted to undermine that settlement, actively undermine it and, for some of them, undermine its previously stated position. All the while, causing bad blood and further undermining trust and good will. All the while, in my view, playing into the hands of those who want to use Brexit as an excuse to open up other debates. Can I ask Mr Fraser what explanation he got from the Secretary of State as to why Tory MPs refused to support Labour's amendment to the clause that would have guaranteed that presumption? Can you explain why? The answer to Mr Findlay's question is that there has been no change of direction or no change of policy on the UK Government's part, but a change of timing. We had hoped that we would have the amendment in the House of Commons. We are still going to have the amendment, but it is going to be in the House of Lords. If there had been a change of policy, Mr Findlay might have a point, but there hasn't been, and he doesn't. Neil Findlay Presiding Officer, neither I nor Mr Russell nor Mr Harvie or Mr Rennie might be a professor of constitutional law, but we can smell a chancer a mile away. I think that Mr Tomkins might need to get some training on how to suss people out because, obviously, he has not sussed out the Secretary of State when he told him a pack of lies. That amendment sought to put the public interest above narrow party political games, but the Scottish Tories rejected that position. I am glad that there is a committee unity on that matter and that we can work together with other parties in the national interest. We will do so. Labour has six key tests for the Brexit deal. We intend to push the UK Government all the way to meet it. The deal must lead to a strong future relationship with the EU, must maintain the benefits of the single market and customs union, must have a fair migration system in the interests of the economy and communities across the UK, and must retain hard-won rights, protections and protect our national security. Crucially, it must deliver for all the nations and all the regions of the UK. That means delivering for Scotland by working with the Scottish Parliament. We will be working collaboratively to achieve that both here and at the UK Parliament. What this episode has shown is that Ruth Davidson, despite all her tank-driving, buffalo-riding photo opportunities, is so loved by her diminishing band of Tory loyalists. Despite her chummy chats with the Prime Minister at election time, she has no influence and no say on what happens during the Brexit process. I support the committee's report and the recommendations. I now call Graeme Simpson to make a short contribution on behalf of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. Thank you very much. I am speaking in my capacity as the convener of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. We published our report on the LCM for the bill on 17 November last year. It is effectively an interim report and we are continuing to consider issues arising out of the bill. The bill confers wide and significant powers on ministers, both Scottish ministers and UK ministers, and the committee took the view that although it is unpalatable to have such wide powers, it is difficult to conceive of a different way to make the changes necessary to provide for a working statute book. Basically, if there was any other bill, the committee would have said that it was unacceptable that such wide powers should be conferred on ministers. However, the unique nature of the circumstances that give rise to the bill and the short timescale in which regulations must be made makes the conferring of wide powers unavoidable in our view. At the same time, the committee took the view that the powers as drafted are currently too wide. They provide too much scope for ministers to use them to make changes that they consider appropriate rather than the ones that are necessary and to open the possibility that they could be used to make policy changes. The committees also suggested that the powers should be limited to protect constitutional statutes. Currently, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is protected under the bill, but the protection is not extended to other constitutional statutes, including the Scotland Act 1998. The committee understands that that Scotland Act is currently subject to amendment by secondary legislation. Critically, however, that secondary legislation is subject to scrutiny in the Scottish Parliament. The committees recommended that amendments to the Scotland Act using powers under the bill should similarly be subject to scrutiny in the Scottish Parliament. The committee also considered the different legislative routes that instruments in devolved areas under the bill might follow. I am going to focus on the process for UK ministers making regulations in devolved areas. We were particularly concerned about the absence of a process for UK ministers to have to obtain the consent of Scottish ministers before legislating in devolved areas. That, of course, has been a key area of concern for everyone. The committee believes that the bill will be strengthened by such a process and it is disappointing that amendments to provide for this have not yet been agreed. Further to that, the committee considers that there should also be a process for the Scottish ministers to be held to account for their decision to consent. I welcome this debate today, Presiding Officer, and I look forward to continuing to considering the bill and to developing our thinking. I will now move on to the open debate. Speech is up to six minutes. Time is extremely tight, so unless early speakers are disciplined with themselves, it will end up with later speakers having to lose time or, indeed, even be dropped. I call Ash Denham to be followed by Alexander Burnett. The EU bill was introduced in the House of Commons by the UK Government in July last year, and recognising that the bill engages devolved competencies in a range of areas, the UK Government is now seeking the Scottish Parliament's legislative consent for that bill. The bill is complex, as other speakers have noted, in my view unnecessarily so. It does a number of things, but one of the things that it does is that it alters the legislative competence of this Parliament. This alteration is covered in what is known as clause 11 of the bill, and that was understandably of the most interest to the members of the committee, and I think that it has the most relevance to a wider audience as well. The objection to the approach taken in clause 11 and its impact upon the devolution settlement has been considered of sufficient importance for the Scottish Government to be unable to recommend consent to the bill on this ground alone, and the committee was of the same view. The new prohibition on modifying retained EU law would result in the legislative competence of this Parliament becoming more complex to assess. In particular, as retained EU law is amended over time, the boundary of devolved competence will change. In essence, it is not just where the bill and clause 11 will leave this Parliament on exit day, if you will, but the on-going cumulative effect of every day that passes, reducing that clarity day by day. The effect of clause 11 would be to give the Westminster Parliament and UK Government the unilateral power to make decisions in devolved areas previously affected by EU law. Clause 11 introduces a new legal constraint on the competence of devolved institutions, which cuts across the reserved powers model of devolution provided for in the Scotland Act 1998, and many of the witnesses to the committee agreed with this analysis. Professor Rick Rowling summarised his position on clause 11 as follows. The sooner clause 11 of the withdrawal bill is cast aside, the better. Constitutionally, maladroit, it warps the dialogue about the role and place of the domestic market concept post Brexit. As such, the occupation of legislative and executive space in the withdrawal bill appears not only a risky venture but also a lazy one, an unthinking form of greater England unionism, which assumes only limited territorial difference would be another way of characterising this. Professor Aileen Mackarr highlighted the impact of the constraint on devolved competence by commenting that it messes up what is already a complicated boundary between devolved and reserved powers. The UK Government has said that it needs clause 11, but in my view there was no evidence during the inquiry, including when we took evidence from the UK ministers themselves, that convinced me that that was the case. The existing intergovernmental mechanisms, such as they are, and I'll admit that they could be better, I think that in this case with some political will they could, I think, still cope. The committee is of the view that clause 11, as currently drafted, is incompatible with the devolution settlement in Scotland, and the committee felt that even if clause 11 was designed to be a transitional measure, it still fails to respect the devolution settlement. The committee said that, therefore, it will not be in a position to recommend legislative consent for the bill unless clause 11 is either replaced or removed. The Conservative members of the committee are to be commended for sharing that viewpoint. David Mundell and the UK Government repeatedly tell Scotland that it has Scotland's interests at heart, but by drafting the EU bill as it has, the UK Government's neglect of Scottish interests and a sheer disregard for devolution is clear for all to see now. The bill has now made its way through the commons. Despite assurances by David Mundell that it would be amended during the report stage, clause 11 is still there, untouched. There is only one rational conclusion to be drawn from this, and that is that clause 11 is precisely what Whitehall and the UK Government want it to be. The UK Government wants to cut across the devolution settlement. It is not some accidental, unintended consequence, it is quite deliberate. Through the JMCEN process, the UK Government had made commitments to respect the devolution settlement, but regrettably, they have not done so. There is a political phrase, never let a good crisis go to waste, and it seems to have been taken to heart by the UK Government on Brexit. However, that is not an opportunity to change the model of devolution from one of a reserved powers model to one of a conferred powers model, not least because it would, in my view, be unworkable, but because it would represent a fundamental shift in the relations between Governments that are already characterised by asymmetric power relations. We need only look to the Welsh devolution settlement, that of conferred powers, which was characterised by the Silk Commission in 2014 as having, and I quote, chronic uncertainties. I do not, and I am sure that the members of this Parliament would not wish that for Scotland. I would first like to extend my thanks to my fellow committee members for welcoming me in September, after moving from the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. In addition, I would like to echo the thanks that have been extended to our clerks, witnesses and those who have submitted evidence to the Finance and Constitution Committee on the European Union withdrawal Bill's legislative consent motion, resulting in the interim report that we are debating today. As shown in the report, committee members across the political divide here today are in agreement with what is currently drafted. We are unable to recommend legislative consent on the European Union withdrawal Bill. As a committee, we are agreed in our wish to see some changes to the bill, ranging from alterations to clauses 7 and 11, as well as further progress on developing and agreeing common frameworks. During the committee meetings, I had opportunities to pose questions to witnesses surrounding the issue of common frameworks. For those who have not been following all of our evidence sessions, a brief explanation of common frameworks as currently devolved Administrations are legally required to comply with EU law. However, following Brexit, those laws will fall back to the devolved Administrations. Whilst that poses an opportunity for us to take control of policy decisions, that return of laws means that there could be potential for differentiation on issues in which all devolved Administrations and the UK Government currently have common goals and values on. Therefore, establishing common frameworks is important in order for us to ensure that those goals and values are continued to be applied across the UK as a whole. In committee, we have heard people's views on the number of common frameworks, the areas that they would cover, such as agriculture, energy and the environment, and the substance of what they would look like. Although we welcome the development that is being made between the UK Government and devolved Administrations, there is still significant progress needed in order to properly scrutinise the development and agreement of the common frameworks. Following evidence sessions, we agreed that common frameworks should be agreed upon and not imposed by the UK Government in order to allow for proper due process in which the Scottish Parliament has the opportunity to consider the approach being negotiated at government level prior to giving consent to the bill. Much consideration is still needed on the bill as it stands, particularly in relation to common frameworks, but I do believe that we are making progress on many of the points that I and my colleagues make today. I know that all members in the chamber will be keen to ensure that, with Brexit, we embrace the potential for new opportunities. As the report shows, there are 111 powers returning from the European Union that intersect with a devolution settlement in Scotland. I was pleased to hear that many of the 111 powers and the issues that surround those will be resolved through common frameworks and that the UK Secretary of State for Scotland feels that the discussion on identifying those will be relatively straightforward. Examples of that include agriculture, environmental law and state aid. Herbert Smith 3 Hills, a leading global law firm, published a report outlining the potential benefits that the energy market could enjoy by being outside of the EU. One example was that the UK might be able to negotiate greater flexibility on state aid rules to carry out a swifter and lower cost decarbonisation. That may facilitate the development of new technologies such as carbon capture and storage. To that end, I must now refer members to my register of interests, particularly in relation to renewable energy projects and businesses that I am involved with. Deputy Presiding Officer, I bring attention to the state aid point that is made by Herbert Smith 3 Hills, as it stressed the importance to note that the UK would want to be able to match for funding areas that are currently administered by the EU at a centralised level. As a result, the UK could enjoy greater discretion to provide state support to energy projects on their social and strategic merits. That could give the UK greater flexibility to carry out a swifter decarbonisation agenda at a lower cost to consumers. I have no doubt that constituents across Scotland would be keen to see their costs reduced, particularly to the benefit of our environment. In conclusion, the Scottish Conservatives are keen to see changes to the EU withdrawal bill. I hope that members across the chamber will see that we are working with you and our colleagues in Westminster to get the best possible outcome for Scotland and the UK in this process. I look forward to continuing to work with my finance and constitution committee members so that we can come to a stage where we are able to recommend legislative consent on the bill in order to ensure a bright and prosperous future for Scotland. Ivan McKee, to be followed by Neil Bibby. The debate goes to the heart of the two central constitutional issues that face us today, the future relationship of the United Kingdom to the European Union and the future relationship of Scotland to the United Kingdom. We see something rare in the chamber, consensus on matters relating to our constitutional future. The report agreed unanimously by the cross-party members of the finance and constitution committee makes it clear where we are as a committee and I hope that there is a Parliament stand on the EU withdrawal bill. I take this opportunity to commend the work of my fellow committee members in reaching this consensus. Unfortunately, the consensus extends so far, as in many key matters relating to the future of Scotland we wait with trepidation for the outcomes of debates and votes in other places. We often run the risk in an environment that can encourage exaggeration of overstating the importance of matters before us, but in that case I think that many will agree that we do indeed find ourselves in danger of facing a constitutional crisis. As the report before us today makes clear that it is essential in order to avoid the outcome that the UK Government makes good on its promises to amend the EU withdrawal bill, to protect the integrity of the devolution settlement and to resolve the unacceptable situation where clause 11 of the bill redefines that settlement in ways that are found wanting by all members of the committee. Let's remind ourselves of the latest episode of how we got here. A secretary of state promised something that he could not deliver and a UK Government failed to deliver something that it promised. Those who could deliver it in the interests of those who elected them indicated that they would but then failed to follow through. Meanwhile, their elected colleagues back at home led up the Brexit path and then left in the lurch. All of this were told because time was short on a proposal that had been 18 months in the making, but now all is well because the future of our democracy rests in the hands of those who have never been elected. The best-laid scheme of mice and men and let us hope do not lead to grief and pain. Where does this leave us now? The committee with cross-party support will not recommend that the Scottish Parliament gives its consent to the EU withdrawal bill unless clause 11 is replaced or removed to do otherwise flies in the face of the devolution settlement. The core principle of devolution, everything that is not reserved is devolved, risk has been undermined in a most fundamental way by those who fail to understand or fail to recognise the implications of their ill-considered course of action. The infamous list of 111 areas where powers and devolved matters are currently exercised at European Union level may not be transferred to the control of the Scottish Parliament as a matter of concern to us all. The need for UK common frameworks is clear. The form of those frameworks may take good very depending on the policy area involved, but the committee strongly believes that the process for agreeing those frameworks and their actual content must be arrived at through agreement and not imposed. Some progress has been made. The UK Government through the GMCEU has agreed the principle that frameworks will respect devolution settlements and the democratic accountability of the devolved legislatures. However, the threat to devolution remains, so there is no cast iron guarantee that significant changes will be made to the EU withdrawal bill and that a lack of clarity as to how last month's phase 1 UK-EU agreement will impact EU-K-wide frameworks. The Scottish Government considers the problems with the EU withdrawal bill as it stands so fundamental that it cannot, as things stand, agree to a legislative consent motion. While the Scottish Government is opposed to leaving the EU, it must plan for that eventuality, and to that end the Government has indicated its intention to develop a continuity bill that could be introduced to this Parliament in the next month. While we focus on the critical constitutional issues in the committee's report, we must not lose sight of the economic impact, the damage that leaving the single market and the customs union will do to Scotland's economy and the wealth of our citizens, the threat of 80,000 job losses and damage to living standards of families up and down the country that hard breaks it will bring. The work that the Scottish Government has done and continues to do, along with the work of well-respected organisations such as Fraser of Allander Institute, spells that out in worrying detail. Beside, in conclusion, the committee is clear that the effect of the EU withdrawal bill, and of clause 11 in particular, will be to adversely impact upon the integrity of the devolution settlement in Scotland. The committee recognises that there are no provisions in the bill that guarantee that clause 11 is a temporary measure and that, even if clause 11 is designed to be a transitional measure, it fails to fully respect the devolution settlement. As a consequence, the committee is not in a position to recommend legislative consent on the bill as currently drafted. The ball is now in the court of the UK Government and the clock is ticking. If that constitutional crisis is to be averted, we need to see progress on the changes that are required to the bill. Changes are agreed on by the Welsh and Scottish Governments by our committee. We can but hope that sense will prevail and the UK Government will heed those calls to respect the devolution settlement. The referendum decision to withdraw from the EU has created significant argument and division. Passions run high on both sides. In some sense, it is remarkable that the Finance and Constitution Committee has managed to produce a unanimously agreed report on the EU withdrawal bill LCM. It is a testament to the seriousness and objectivity with which committee members approach the report, and I echo the comments that are made about the support given by clerks, advisers and witnesses. Like the majority of this Parliament, I voted for the UK to remain part of the European Union. However, the purpose of the committee's report is not to comment on arguments for or against leaving the EU. Rather, we were tasked to comment on whether the legislative process for withdrawal is robust and whether that process recognises and respects the instinct responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament. Unfortunately, the committee has concluded that the bill as it stands is not fit for purpose. We are not in a position to recommend legislative consent on the bill as it is currently drafted. Our position is also reached by both the Scottish and Welsh Governments. If we were to give approval to this LCM, we would be approving the granting of extra unfettered powers to UK ministers, undermining the Scottish Parliament and accepting a transfer of powers previously regarded as devolved to the UK Parliament. Despite assurances from the UK Government that would address the problems with the bill, identified by Scottish ministers and others, so far no solutions have been agreed in the House of Commons. Clause 11 has been at the centre of our deliberations. When the UK leaves the EU, there will be a significant transfer of power back to the UK. That includes power over matters that would otherwise be devolved. Assurances that this issue will be resolved at some point in the future are not good enough. We need to find solutions now. Powers that relate to the competence of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government should be devolved immediately. It is then our responsibility to reach an acceptable agreement with the UK Government and the UK Parliament on implementation. I do not underestimate the complexities involved here, nor do I doubt the sincerity of the parliamentary undersecretary of state, who described Clause 11 as a temporary measure, while decisions are taken on where common approaches are not needed. The problem is, as our report identified, that there are no provisions in the bill to this effect. In the words of Professor Mark Drakeford, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government and the Welsh Government, what is proposed rolls back devolution, and that is just not acceptable. On common frameworks, I welcome the commitment from the UK Government that common frameworks will not be imposed. There should be agreement, but it is not just a question of Government ministers reaching agreement. I wholeheartedly agree with the report's recommendation that the Scottish Parliament must have opportunity to consider the approach to common frameworks currently being negotiated at government levels prior to being asked to consent to the bill. The withdrawal from the EU is a very modern problem, but it has to be brought to the public attention the so-called Henry VIII powers. That relates to a process that could result in UK ministers gathering more powers without proper accountability. The House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee stated that clause 7 is notable for its width, novelty and uncertainty. It is unacceptable that the withdrawal bill should allow an apparent transfer of extensive law-making powers to government. The port is right to say that the powers in clause 7 should only be available when ministers can show that it is necessary to make a change to the statute book, even if they cannot show that the particular alternative chosen is itself unnecessary. Nor can this Parliament contemplate a situation where we have clauses 7 to 9. UK ministers could make statutory instruments in devolved areas without having to seek the consent of Scottish ministers or the Scottish Parliament. The committee has viewed that the Parliament should have the opportunity to scrutinise Scottish ministers' proposals before they grant consent to UK Government to make subordinate legislation in devolved areas. We cannot condemn the centralisation powers in the hands of UK ministers without holding Scottish ministers to the same standards. The primacy of the Scottish Parliament must be respected and protected. The debate has shone a very strong light on the working relationships between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. It is clear, as has already been said this afternoon, that they are not sufficient. I hope that this experience could lead to a new process for joint decision making and a new model for intergovernmental relations going forward. The committee suggests that new arrangements are being placed on a statutory footing. Scottish Labour has long advocated a constitutional convention to look at how powers are exercised across the United Kingdom. That position is echoed by the Welsh Labour Government in their evidence to the committee. I would urge all parties in the Parliament to consider the case for our UK council ministers in the months ahead. Finally, on January last year, the Parliament restated our support for the charter and called for an undertaking from the UK Government that nothing in this withdrawal process will weaken or undermine human rights. We should not ignore the impact that withdrawal could have on the charter of fundamental human rights going forward. All parties that are represented on the committee agreed to this report and look forward to working with other parties to address the issues that have been raised. I would like to join others in thanking my fellow committee members, our clerks and advisers and those who gave evidence to us. In fact, I think that the only people that I don't thank are those in the UK Government who have created this whole damn mess in the first place. Over the course of the inquiry that we have had, pretty much week after week, we have seen unfolding the chaotic and destructive consequences of a referendum called ostensibly to resolve internal Tory tribalism on Europe. I think that members know that I despise everything about this situation. More than anything, I think that the loss of freedom of movement, because generation after generation, century after century, kids were sent by their Governments in Europe into fields and ditches to kill one another. The generation after the Second World War built institutions that allowed us to achieve the principle of freedom of movement within the continent. The idea that young people could grow up safe in the knowledge that that would never be their fate but rather that they could see their future as living, working, learning, loving, playing, living their lives in any European country that they chose, and that is being destroyed. Whatever lies, whatever manipulation, whatever racist propaganda was used to achieve that vote to withdraw from the European Union, a UK Government could still, could still have responded to that wafer-thin decision with a balanced and careful withdrawal bill, taking the responsible way forward and doing what even so many leave campaigners promised, preparing for single market membership as a non-EU member. As Neil Findlay says, his position is to secure all the benefits of the single market. I still say to colleagues in the Labour Party that they have the power to transform this debate and build a majority at UK level for retaining full membership of the single market with all the benefits, including freedom of movement. The UK Government could certainly have presented a withdrawal bill that respected the way in which people in Scotland voted. Those are the people that we represent here as members of this Parliament, people who voted by a majority in every single council area to maintain their place in Europe, but not only a bill that respected the way that they voted in that 2016 referendum, but they could also have presented a withdrawal bill that respected the way that they voted in the 1997 referendum nearly two decades earlier. The devolution settlement endorsed overwhelmingly by voters in Scotland. What would that mean? Respecting the fact that people here voted remain would mean offering the flexibility within a withdrawal process to allow a closer relationship with Europe if that is what the people of Scotland wanted. As for respecting devolution, that would mean no new reservations or restrictions under another name. Instead, what we see, as others have pointed out, is a coach and horses driven through that devolution settlement. As Bruce Crawford put it, a reserved powers model being turned into a conferred powers model. A power grab, as the Scottish Government has described it by the UK Government. That is happening just months after the most recent Scotland Act came into force, which intended to put letters of consent, the sole process, on to a statutory footing, now thrown completely into doubt. With the possibility, perhaps, of later devolution, while only where and when and how the UK Government was to decide, there is absolutely no justification for the approach that was set out in the withdrawal bill as the UK Government introduced it. During the inquiry, we heard a clear example of an alternative way forward. There would be no need to achieve new restrictions, reservations or constraints on devolved legislative competence. The example of marine planning was given by some of the environmental organisations giving evidence to us. An area in which overwhelmingly devolved, but some reserved activities needed to be regulated or legislated for, fully devolved legislation, taken forward, consulted on separately in the two separate legislatures, collaboration and co-operation where possible between the two Governments on a basis of genuine consent that legislation passed in the two parliaments, and a common framework is what emerges from that separate legislative process. That approach is entirely possible, and it matters not what happens when we do have, as Mr Burnett said, shared values and goals, but what matters is what happens when we don't have those shared approaches. This is down to two factors. The aggressive power grab by hard-right Brexit ultras in the UK Government and a Prime Minister without the authority to base them down. And a fundamental misunderstanding that some of them have about what the UK even is. We're constantly told that the UK voted as a whole to leave, so that's what we're going to do. They think that the UK is a unitary state. It isn't today and it never was. That diversity of political sovereignty within these islands needs to be respected. This bill doesn't do it. I have very little expectation that it can be salvaged in any way that is acceptable or should be acceptable to this Parliament. It shouldn't be dealt with in the House of Lords, it shouldn't be dealt with in the House of Commons. We should reject it here in this Parliament. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm intrigued by the approach of the Conservative MPs in this chamber. The decision to move towards a co-operative approach rather than a confrontational approach, I welcomed. I was quite pleasantly surprised where Adam Tomkins did it some months ago in the chamber. I suspect—it's probably what's at the heart of this—what Michael Keating said in the evidence of the committee. He says that he talks about the clause 11 circumstance seems to be more based around reasons of convenience rather than principle. I suspect that what the Conservatives of MSPs have worked out is a gap. It's probably not that big. The problem can be resolved by working it through, because it's not based on a position of principle but more on the position of convenience. At least that's what I'm hoping is the case and that Michael Keating's is right, because then we can come to some kind of resolution. However, because they've now adopted an approach of co-operation, they need to follow through. My big concern is that time is running out. Time is really running out. We're 19 months on from the decision to leave the European Union, something that I deeply regret and I'd love to turn back, but it's something that the British people decided. We've been through the second reading in the House of Commons, we've been through the committee stage, the report stage, the third reading, and we've still not, through all that time, seen any substance about how clause 11 could be amended to the satisfaction of all the players. And now we've passed it on to the House of Lords. Now we should have some comfort, because there's some former MSPs from this Parliament who are now sitting in the House of Lords, people like Nicolle Steven, Jim Wallace and Jack McConnell, and of course Lord George Fuchs, who I'm sure will be keen to work with Mike Russell on all of these matters, as he was when he was in this chamber as well. And we've got, of course, Michael Forsythe, who I'm sure will add quite a lot of consensus to this debate and try to hunt out those solutions that we're all desperate to seek. Will the member be very pleased to note that all of the members of the House of Lords whose names have been invited to the briefing that we are holding in the House of Lords, Mark Drakeford 9, next Monday? It will be, as he says, a reunion of old friends. I would be more than intrigued to find out if George Fuchs has agreed to attend, because I think that it would be a much more colourful meeting if that was the case. But it is disappointing that we're now relying not just on unelected peers to see whether those amendments are good enough or not, but we're running out of time too. And my concern is that we may end up being bounced by design or by error into agreeing a set of amendments that we've not fully considered, we've not fully consulted or we've not fully cogitated to decide whether they're good enough. And we might be faced with a situation where we have to agree to those amendments or we're faced with a situation of potential chaos or threats of chaos. So I would urge the UK Government—and I'm sure Adam Tomkins and his colleagues will be working hard to achieve that—to get the amendments published quickly so that we can actually have some kind of debate outside Parliament rather than just inside the House of Lords, so we're not bounced by design or by error. And I think that that would be an important kind of compromise to contrast with what has happened up until now. And perhaps—this is all of this—is new territory. We've not left the European Union before, we're into virgin territory, we're into first-time trying out new things. As Michael Keating also said, I think that he's given some very good evidence to the committee, I have to say, but his evidence about those UK frameworks creating that single market, we've never had the mechanisms within the United Kingdom in the first place to consider and to set a framework against. That's why, for all of those reasons, we need to act early. We don't know what our continued relationship will be with the European Union, what kind of co-operation across the European continent we will require and what that impact will have on our relationships within the United Kingdom and, indeed, with Ireland as well. All of those factors are new, complicated and difficult to get our head around, which I think adds more weight to the argument that I'm making that, at least within the next week or so, we should see the amendments that the Conservative Government is proposing to clause 11 so that we can have some kind of comfort that we're able to consult and debate and cogitate those issues within time. I think that the report is a good report. I commend the convener and all the members of the committee and thank the committee clerks for all their hard work. I agree with the points that are out. We should have change or withdrawal that the framework should be by agreement, not by imposition. There's concern about, of course, it's seen as perhaps a resting place for the powers but there's no timescale for bringing that resting place to an end, moving from a reserved to conferred position on powers. I think that's all regrettable. One thing that I'm uncomfortable about is the clause 7. I'm just as uncomfortable with the Scottish ministers having the clause 7 powers, the Henry VIII powers as I am the UK ministers. I accept the arguments for it when in emergency circumstances, but that doesn't make it any more comfortable. I hope that the Scottish Government act with caution when they're using those powers and make sure—I know that they've given some commitments up until now to make sure that we have common agreement within the Parliament and time to consider those issues too. All of that could lead to a new way of working within the United Kingdom. Neil Bibby has referred to the Council of Ministers. I prefer to talk about moving towards a federal structure and perhaps we're making those embryonic steps towards that exact point. On that point, I will consider— I would like to try and cover a few areas in the committee's report. The significance of clause 11 and the implications for Scotland if this isn't amended. A little bit on the charter of fundamental rights, which have been left behind when the UK leaves the European Union, and a few comments if I have time on the single market and digital single market. A good place to start might be on the main feature, clause 11, although there are significant other areas of concern by the bill. The committee unanimously agreed that we cannot support a request to approve the bill unless the clause is replaced or removed altogether. Clause 11 is not compatible with and puts the devolution powers of the Scottish Parliament at risk. Even if that does turn out to be a transitional arrangement, it still fails to grasp the devolution settlement. In simple terms, it can be described as a power grab, and despite some attempts to reassure that there is no provision specifying what, when or how, those powers are to be restored to Scotland under any new arrangements. Professor Rawlings said in evidence that that was basically about trust on the lack of it, that somehow the Scottish and Welsh Administrations could not be trusted, not to embark on some kind of irresponsible legislative frenzy. He likened that to a form of greater England-usent unionism that has been mentioned by several colleagues today already. Credit in reaching this consensus, of course, has to go to all the parties who supported the position in clause 11 and to our convener, Bruce Crawford, whose determination to find common ground has given this Parliament a much stronger voice speaking up for Scotland's interests. It cannot have been easy for the Conservative group to agree to this, but they did so, recognising the dangers that an unamended clause 11 brings. Whether that was done in anticipation of the clause being amended at the report stage at Westminster, as promised by the Secretary of State, I will leave to those colleagues to explain later perhaps. However, the focus must now be on the removal or amendment to the clause in the House of Lords. One of the other important proposals in the bill concerns the intention to leave behind the charter of fundamental rights and its 54 articles. The Law Society of Scotland and others are concerned that the potential erosion of human rights if the charter is removed and the subsequent difficulty for UK courts to interpret retained EU law in the absence of the charter. Basically, what it means is that UK citizens will not have no right of action where they consider that their fundamental rights have been breached. Professor Eileen McHard told the committee that a person would no longer be able to challenge a decision made by a Government minister or a public body after Brexit. Dr Tobias Lock also told us that, in some cases, the charter provides stronger protection for people than the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to things such as the rights of children, the right to a fair trial and the protection of personal data. There are some pretty strong concerns here that the fundamental rights of the individual will be diminished if the charter is left behind after Brexit. On the matter of the so-called internal market new trading arrangements and international treaties, the committee heard concerns from a number of witnesses. Professor Keating questioned why the UK Government's starting point in talking about a UK single market was to set out which devolved competencies should be included in any common frameworks. He explained that the EU single market does not work like that and operates across broader principles based on proportionality and subsidiarity, basically only doing what needs to be done and at the most local level possible. All interpreted and enforced within the EU's single market process, there is nothing like that in the bill. I think that that is what Willie Rennie was referring to earlier. There is no indication about how the devolved Governments will participate in the market, or what their powers in relation to international trade may be should those be in connection with their own devolved competencies. A key issue that is in connection with this must surely be where do we stand in relation to the digital single market when we pull out of the single market itself? The digital single market is worth about €400 billion per year and offers all European Union citizens fair and equal access to digital services, including abolition of mobile roaming charges, access to data and content without being blocked when you move around Europe, and other consumer and data protections. Having signed the talent declaration, the UK has signed up to those principles, including the general data protection regulation that comes into force in May. The point of this is surely that it is ridiculous to suggest that we can leave the single market but stay in or develop some kind of mirror arrangement for digital services. In conclusion, I think that the committee has done an incredibly important piece of work for the people of Scotland, and this must shape the complexion of this bill over the coming weeks and months. The negotiations must focus on achieving the best and strongest trading arrangements where possible, and we should not promote a deal that worsens people's lives or our economy, or one that calls itself an internal UK market, which bears no resemblance to one. We must protect individual rights and freedoms, and clause 11 has to go, or an acceptable amendment has to emerge. It has to do that, or the constitutional issue will arise. No doubt we will divide on that, but, at least for now, the Parliament stands united in its determination to protect the powers that belong to the people of Scotland. As we have seen today, the EU withdrawal bill throws up a multitude of issues. Those must be fully debated, but we must not lose sight of the reason for this debate. The UK, including a million Scots, voted to leave the EU. Each of us has a duty to respect that decision. We should also accept that we are no longer debating whether we should leave the EU. It is happening, but rather how we get the best deal for Scotland and the entire United Kingdom. That is the premise that underlies this debate, and it speaks to a wider point. Most Scots simply want us to get on with getting a good deal that sees as little disruption as possible and as much opportunity as we can possibly get. Leave or remain, yes or no, most Scots do not define themselves with such narrow labels. The Parliament should help to deliver the best deal for Scotland, and we should all share that objective. The EU withdrawal bill is needed to ensure that the UK can leave the EU with certainty, continuity and control—again, something that we should all agree on—a smooth and orderly transition. The Conservatives are proud to have made the Scottish Parliament the most powerful it has ever been through the Scotland Act. The withdrawal bill will see this Parliament become even more powerful, and again this is something that should be supported right across the chamber. That demonstrates that there is a common purpose, which is why the Scottish Conservatives, the UK Government and the SNP all agree that we want to see the EU withdrawal bill properly amended so that this Parliament can grant legislative consent. Given that common purpose, it is disappointing but understandable that the bill could not be amended in the House of Commons. That is why we support the findings of the Finance and Constitution Committee along with other parties. Our Scottish MPs, particularly the 13 who have delivered the best budget for Scotland in a generation, have let their frustration be known at the failure to amend the bill in the Commons. The Secretary of State for Scotland has also said that he regrets that the amendments could not go forward. Common frameworks need to be agreed, which work for the benefit of all. A process must also be agreed for the scrutiny of statutory instruments, which will flow from the EU withdrawal bill. The current structure of intergovernmental relations has been shown to be simply not fit for purpose and requires to be replaced with something better. Intergovernmental relations should be placed on a statutory basis supported by an independent secretariat and a proper mechanism established for independent dispute resolution. As well as there being better relations between Governments, we also require better interparliamentary co-operation, and I hope that that is something that we can see progressed. The Prime Minister has been very clear that clause 11 will be amended, that it will be improved, and that she wants to work with the Scottish Government to do so. I stress with, because as the committee's report recommends, the various parliaments and assemblies across the United Kingdom must co-operate more effectively, and we have a duty to the people that we represent to do so. However, we also have a duty to oppose attempts at undermining co-operation, such as Labour's amendment to the bill at Westminster. That would have seen powers devolved without proper consideration and made constructive discussions between the UK and Scottish Governments pointless. There is already an assurance on the table from the UK Government to amend the existing EU withdrawal bill. The Scottish National Party proposing a separate continuity bill is not part of that constructive way forward, but despite that, the Scottish National Party is still contributing to negotiations, and we welcome that. Now, after an hour and a half or whatever, you have managed to come up with an excuse for what happened. Were you wrong in agreeing, or were your committee members wrong, in agreeing with the rest of the committee on the conclusions in the report? It was five minutes, not one and a half hours, so I point of fact there, Mr Finlay. Presiding Officer, I think that we have made clear that the process has not changed. The outcome will be the same. The Labour MPs in Parliament and indeed in this chamber are seemingly unable to understand that basic premise. We want clause 11 to be amended. We want to see the vast majority of those powers come back to this Parliament. The House of Lords will be able to deliver that, and that ultimately is good for the people of Scotland and good for Parliament itself. That is why constructive engagement must be a priority in order for this Parliament to be able to give consent to the bill in time for the UK to leave the EU. Clearly, Mr Finlay did not get that memo. Nevertheless, that can happen, and will happen, if all parties approach the process in a responsible manner. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. The debate could have had a different title today. It could have been called for what we are about to lose. May we be deeply worried? As a Brexit debate muddles along without any clear direction, we stand on the sidelines, looking on like spectators, thinking that they cannot see that this is a total mess. That has been evidenced by the many who gave evidence to the Finance and Constitution Committee on their interim report. There is a kind of manufactured notion that runs along the lines of, well, we are stuck with it now, no point in trying to do anything at this stage. Let us just leave it all for now and get on with the result. Soft, hard, agonisingly awful, are just painful. The outcome of Brexit negotiations remains unclear. Within the whole ultimate package of negotiations, at least as important as any future trade deal, lie our fundamental human rights. The big idea of universal human rights was somehow imposed upon an unwilling United Kingdom. The reality is that the United Kingdom was one of the architects of the imperative human rights agenda that grew out of the devastation of the Second World War. The European Convention of Human Rights has its roots in the philosophical tradition of universal rights, which stretches back to the enlightenment of the 18th century and the French Revolution, with Scotland very much at its centre. The first international step towards codifying those rights came when the General Assembly of the then fledgling United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on 10 December 1948. It was seen as a major success for international body, with some describing the declaration as a Magna Carta for humanity, not nobles. On 4 November 1950, the members of the Council of Europe signed the European Convention on Human Rights. The UK was one of the first members to ratify the convention when it passed through Parliament in 1951. Now, not only is the current Westminster Government happy to deny us the very rights that it embraced in 1950, Brexit could also cut off the ultimate option for anyone taking an issue to the European Court. The UK Government plans not to retain the EU charter of fundamental rights, and that is of great concern. For us in Scotland, the fundamental problem with clause 11 of the withdrawal bill is that we know why, and I think that it is because it completely contradicts the very essence of the Scottish Parliament of the devolution settlement. It takes power, some 111 of them, away from this place back to Westminster. I fearfully oppose the bill, in case anybody was in any doubt, could leave Westminster to make all the decisions without any consideration of the 5.29 million Scots represented in this Scottish Parliament. In effect, it is a total negation of everything that we have achieved to date through devolution. The Finance and Constitution Committee has discussed the evidence, we have heard it, listened to the views, we have heard that as well, and have concluded unanimously by all members that the legislative consent motion must be rejected. We want to make our own decisions in this place. Is that too much to ask? To keep the limited rights already granted to us in Scotland? That is what is going to happen here unless we act. We need to act in this Parliament with one single voice. Do we want to welcome the UK Government's commitment to respect the devolution settlement? Of course we do. Surely no one is in any doubt of that. However, trust has been damaged by the lack of promised amendments to the clause 11 of the withdrawal bill. That trust has been damaged. However, let us look a little more closely at just what we stand to lose if we become party to abandoning the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Justice. Since I was born, which was not that long ago, I have had the right not only to take a case to the European Court but to be entitled to maternity leave, to not be a victim of torture or discrimination, to be educated and enjoy fair employment practices, to be able to challenge wrongful dismissal and just to have proper entitlement to holiday days. There is so much more in the charter that I could go into but I do not have enough time. The UK Government is not going to threaten all of those, I hope, but there is already evidence that those basic rights could vanish post Brexit. There is talk just at the weekend of abandoning the working-time directive, so they want to work everybody into the ground. Like everything that we do with Brexit, we have minimum information and a constant challenge to find out more, but it would be a very naive person indeed who would assume that it will all be fine after March 2019. From farmers incomes to your rights to justice, do not underestimate the potential threat here. We need to advance these essential rights, not abandon them. Imagine a dystopian world where people become victims of a range of attacks on their liberty, their gender, their sexuality, their riddler religion or their colour, and think carefully. Is this unthinkable? Think carefully on that. Given the mute music and the rhetoric from some hard Brexiters, I fear not. I welcome the unanimous report and the work that all members of the committee have completed on the interim report and the conclusion. We must act as one voice from this place for Scotland by rejecting the legislative consent motion. Thank you very much. I call Polly McNeill. We are followed by Kate Forbes. Ms McNeill, please. What is not reserved is devolved. Key words and principles of the Scotland Act that shaped the basis of one of the world's most powerful devolved parliaments. When those words were written and inserted into the Scotland Act, it was never envisaged that Britain would leave the European Union, but, of course, it is now leaving. Those who fought for the insertion of those key words will rightly be angered at what has happened in the last week or so, where the cause 11 rides roughshod over those words. Maurice Golden calls for an orderly exit from the European Union, but I have to say that if this is the manner in which we are moving forward, there is the danger that there will be a breakdown in the trust in the process. Every committee of the Scottish Parliament is aware how much the competence of the European Union has impacted on their work. All the conveners in the room will be nodding and telling you that it is one of the first things that they learn, and it is always a surprise. Those 111 areas that we have been talking about are the areas in which those committees and this Parliament would expect those competences to return here first before they go anywhere else. Labour welcomes the unanimous decision of the Finance and Constitution Committee not to recommend a legislative consent motion at this stage, and the report sets out important aspects of the other aspects that are affecting Scotland. I would like to say that the tone of the debate today is testament to the ability of this Parliament to show its maturity and has made a serious contribution to the matter, and I commend the speech of convener Bruce Crawford. As the committee reports dates, clause 11 impacts on the integrity of the devolution settlement. In fact, the report is not shy in mincing its words where it has several paragraphs devoted to that approach. For me, any simple reading of the clause would send alarm bells to anyone who cared about the devolution settlement, just to give you some of the actual words. Can not modify or confer power by subordinate legislation to modify retained EU law? Anyone who cared about the devolution settlement would not have drafted those words in the first place. Professor Allan Page said that the clause 11 would reduce the intelligibility of the settlement, as well as making it more difficult for the Scottish Government to carry out its responsibilities. However, it was Dr Kirsty Hughes who said that it represents a centralising approach and that is more worrying. Professor Rowland, who has been widely quoted, goes as far as to see that it warps the dialogue about the role and the place of the domestic market concept post Brexit and says that it is a very risky adventure. However, in accepting the will of the people in our referendum to leave Europe, we must accept that the relationship within the United Kingdom must be a strong one and a balanced one. Therefore, we must respect the competencies of all the devolved nations every step of the way. As far back as the Kalman report, the GNC arrangements have been weak, and I think that it has been working to be done for a long time. However, it must also act in good faith and the reasons why the UK Government failed to act in good faith last week and reconcile clause 11 with the devolution principles is still unclear to me. However, that is not all that is wrong with the withdrawal bill. The importance of the common frameworks was not mentioned in the face of the bill, as Bruce Crawford and others have said. Common frameworks have been an important aspect to enable the functioning of the UK internal market. Parliamentary Under-Secretary Robin Walker MP said that we have common frameworks within Europe and there needs to be certainty and stability, but as it stands, in fact, it is the devolved nations that are left without that certainty and that stability for the time being. Neil Bibby talked about clause 7 being equally worrying. In fact, the House of Lords noted that the width, novelty and uncertainty of clause 7 is something that is worrying. They go on to say that, by what standard the failure to operate effectively is judged. I note the welcome comments of the convener of the devolved legislative competence committee, Graham Simpson, that there is clearly more work needing done to scrutinise this and, as it stands, clause 7 is unsatisfactory. I personally welcome the work of the Scottish Tory MSPs in this Parliament who have tried to provide a solution to the clause 11 problem. Murdo Fraser says that today he speaks dispassionately. I think that it was a good analysis and gives recognition to where we are. Perhaps Maurice Golden did not get that memo about being dispassionate, because, in fact, he is always in the explanation as to why the UK Government did not fix that on the floor of the House of Commons. In my personal opinion, it let down the work of those Scottish Tory MPs who were working so hard. In fact, Stephen Kerr MP said on the record that he was deeply disappointed and frustrated that clause 11 could not be amended in the Commons and that it will be attempted in the unelective House of Lords, a Tory Scottish MP, and rightly so was embarrassed by the actions of the UK Government. I am sure that David Mundell is, too, because he is the one who promised that that would be resolved. What happens to clause 11 and I will finish on that, Presiding Officer? I tend to agree with Mike Russell my personal opinion that it is probably not needed. However, what is needed moving forward is that the principle that we work together within the framework of the United Kingdom, recognising and respecting the competences of the devolved nations, is a red line for the Labour Party, a red line for this Parliament. It is not just the Scottish Government that demands this. I am afraid that that is my red line that you have to stop. I call Kate Forbes. We are followed by Jamie Greene, and Ms Forbes will be the penultimate speaker in the open debate. Thank you. I will start by reminding the chamber, because one can never be too sure, and I do hate being subjected to points of order that I am the PLO to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Constitution. Although I am not a member of the Finance and Constitution Committee, I was keen to take part in this debate because I do think that it goes right to the heart of our raison d'etre and our purpose in this Parliament. Because everybody has largely said what I was going to say, treat this as a handy wee summary with all the important quotable quotes. As a non-member, I thank the committee members for their report, which I personally have found enormously beneficial for casting a light on the murky complexities and ambiguities of current rhetoric and the EU withdrawal bill. I agree with other speakers who said that the report offers clearer analysis of the current situation than many of the pieces of analysis that I have seen and proposes tangible next steps, which again is more than can be said for much of, as I said, the murky complexities that seem to be emerging in Westminster. The committee's report states that, even if alternative approaches were proposed, clause 11 is incompatible with the devolution settlement in Scotland and, as such, the committee cannot recommend legislative consent for the bill. The irony of course, as other speakers have said, is that it comes after a series of promises, promises that were made before the EU referendum, promises that were made in the aftermath of that referendum and promises that have been made regularly ever since, from Ruth Davidson and David Mundell and others that Brexit would lead to more powers for Scotland and promises that amendments to protect the devolution settlement would be accepted. The committee's report is comprehensive in its analysis on subject matter, and of particular interest to a non-member like myself is the external evidence, particularly not least from the Welsh Government. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government summarised the entire predicament that I thought by saying that clause 11, and I quote, rolls back devolution. It says that for an indefinite period of time, and to an extent that the UK Government cannot explain to us powers that we have had since the start of devolution will be taken back to Westminster and at some future date, eaked back out to us. That is a lot of uncertainty, and I do not think that it is right that any member of this Parliament stands back and lets that uncertainty roll on. With those risks, it is democratically incredible that unelected lords will have more of a say on devolved powers than the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. It is even more to the credit of the Finance and Constitution Committee, and for every member of that committee, whatever party they are, for producing such an excellent report that protects the devolved competence of this Parliament, tries to safeguard that 111 areas where current European competence intersects with Scottish Parliament competence and, thirdly, pushes for a cast iron guarantee that significant changes will be made to the EU withdrawal bill. In my view, this debate is not explicitly about the rights and wrongs of Brexit, although I think that many speakers have eloquently laid out what their view is of the entire shambles, but it has everything to do with the vital importance of devolution and of decisions being taken by the very people who will bear the biggest impact of those decisions. I can see that in rural Scotland, particularly in the Highlands and Islands, which have benefited disproportionately from our membership of the European Union and of the powers that will have a disproportionate impact on them. Agriculture, for example, or environmental legislation, and both subjects are heavily represented in the 111 powers at risk. Although there have been many debates about the rights and wrongs of Brexit, that is about the basic respect for the devolution settlement. To push it further, I do not think that that is just in terms of clause 11 and its adverse impact on the integrity of the devolution settlement scond, but I also think that it goes right to the heart of the way in which the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly should have their say on devolved powers within the entire process. I read, like Willie Rennie, I read Professor Michael Keating's evidence where he said that the UK Government was taking, and I quote, back powers for what appears merely to be reasons of convenience rather than of principle. Indeed, convenience rather than principle have characterised much of this entire process. I do not envy one bit the mountain that the UK Government is currently trying to climb, and I do not fancy the volume of work that will come up the road to us off the back of Brexit. Only this morning on the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, we were taking evidence of the impact of Brexit on common frameworks pertaining to the environment. A number of different guesses were made as to the number of pieces of secondary legislation that the committee might look at, and none of those figures filled me with any joy whatsoever. However, all that said, there is a principle at stake here, and that principle is about democratic accountability of this Parliament and the devolution settlement. I do believe that this entire debate goes further than clause 11, and I believe that the UK Government must work more closely with devolved Governments, particularly as the second phase of negotiations with the EU commences, as requested by Michael Russell last week. It means honouring the commitment to accept amendments, and it means honouring the commitment to the devolution settlement. Thank you very much. Before I call Mr Greene, can I welcome back Mr Golden, who was a little errant, in that you left straight after your speech when there was a convention in the chamber you waited for two speeches? That is a courtesy to other members, which I am sure they do for your speeches. I welcome the opportunity to speak in today's debate, which I think largely is focused on the motion in hand, with the exception of perhaps one or two hyperbly-filled political rants from a couple of members. There is absolutely no doubt that the EU withdrawal bill has thrown up a number of previously unforeseen constitutional issues as we navigate our way through really what is uncharted waters as the first country to leave the EU. As a result of this, I commend the work done by each individual member of the Finance and Constitution Committee for coming to a consensus on the output of the report, which is often difficult to achieve given the somewhat partisan nature of the subject. I also thank those who gave evidence to the committee in the production of the report. It is made for light reading, of course. Whilst I share not the scholarly expertise of some of those witnesses, or indeed that of my constitutionally enlightened colleague, Mr Tomkins, I would like to share some of my own thoughts today. As some of my colleagues previously alluded to in other speeches, like many in this chamber, I was disappointed to see clause 11 passed through the House of Commons in its current form, but I have every confidence that Jewish scrutiny will be given to it in the House of Lords. Indeed, I have very little doubt as to the capability of Mr Russell in making his views known to them in that process. It is important that clause 11 can be amended in a way that satisfies all parties and addresses legitimate concerns around it. All parties across the chamber should continue to work in the general spirit that has been demonstrated so far in the process and in today's debate. The Finance and Constitution Committee recommends that inter-parliamentary scrutiny should form a central part of the Brexit process, and in my view any efforts to improve both the GMC and inter-governmental relationship would be welcome. The committee saw a wide range of views and called upon the great minds of a wide range of experts. Professor Jim Gallagher from Oxford University made an interesting point about the potential sunset period in clause 11, after which appropriate powers would revert to devolved administrations—in other words, that a blanket repatriation would and should have a defined and finite time period—and that it would be seen by all Governments as a temporary measure and not a permanent one. The committee noted and agreed that, although clause 11 is designed to be a transitional measure, it does not explicitly reflect that status. There should be a more prescribed plan as to how appropriate powers repatriated from the EU will be passed on within the competencies of devolution. I think that clause 11 has filled many column inches in this debate, but I would also like to speak about what is commonly known as common frameworks. It is how those issues are interlinked where I think the focus should move on to. It is inevitable that, given the nature of the subject matters where there is a need for regulatory convergence or policy harmonisation in the UK, there will be a level of political debate and, unsurprisingly, disagreement. On issues such as the common agricultural policy, common fisheries policy, environmental strategy, energy regulation and some of the less obvious ones, as Willie Coffey pointed out, the digital single market, there are bound to be differences of opinion on the merits of which aspects require a UK-wide policy and which could or should have regional differences. Kate Forbes eloquently discussed that in her speech, but there are areas where regulatory convergence and policy harmonisation are absolutely required so as to preserve the UK internal market and to help the UK to prepare for future trade deals. I emphasise the potential impact of that on our internal market, because Scotland exports up to the tune of £50 billion to the rest of the UK each year, which is 63 per cent of our trade. However, a common framework does need a common consensus. As David Mundell told the committee last year, a common framework is not a framework that is imposed by the UK Government on devolved administrations. It is a framework that is agreed, and we have to have mechanisms by which we reach that agreement. Cabinet Office Minister David Lidington confirmed that the UK Government will shortly be publishing its analysis on where frameworks are or are not needed. In my view, more importantly, it should detail the reasons why, for therein lies the crux of the matter. Where there is a need for commonality, it is vital that a positive case for doing so is put forward at the same time. I hope that the conversation might shift to how we benefit from any new competencies at our disposal. To me, that should include an honest discussion on where current European frameworks do not work for Scotland or the UK. You could argue that, regardless of how you voted in the EU referendum, there is an expectation on us as legislators to find those opportunities where they exist and the mountains of legislation that will migrate to the UK. In closing, it would be remiss of me to speak about the subject without speaking about finance and funding. A recommendation of the report makes a valuable point that the UK's current net contribution to the EU will revert back to the UK Government, and funding that is currently derived from the EU, especially around devolved competencies, will require a new funding path. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, as they say, but the committee points out that there are important discussions that must take place on the transfer of funding obligations and commitments. I look forward to the committee's final report, as the bill progresses to the final amendment stage. Thank you very much, Mr Greene. Closing speeches, I call on James Kelly to close for Labour. Six minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Let me start by thanking the Finance and Constitution Committee, the officials, the clerks and the witnesses, along with my fellow committee members, who put a substantial body of work into their report, which has been comprehensively discussed in the Parliament this afternoon. In assessing EU withdrawal in relation to the transfer of and responsibility of powers linked to the Scottish Parliament, the legal challenge for the UK Government in taking that forward was to ensure, as Pauline McNeill outlined, that anything that logically was in the domain of the Scottish Parliament remained in the domain of the Scottish Parliament. Any new powers coming down from the EU that logically should be devolved should be a process to ensure that that devolution took place. I think that what has happened here is that there has actually been a failure to come up with a proper legal solution to this. As Neil Findlay said in his speech, the presumption should have been that all the powers that were currently devolved should remain devolved, but the advent of a clause 11 solution, essentially, as Bruce Crawford said, undermined the devolution principle. As powers were moved from the EU to the UK, the presumption was that they stayed at a UK level because there is no timescale in the legislation for an unlimited amount of time. That has caused the amount of anxiety. I think that Mike Russell is correct to point out the strength and the quality of evidence from those who spoke to the committee. They have reinforced that this has been a first of all a legal failure. Moving on, it has created political problems for the Conservative Government and the Conservative Party here in Scotland. I thought that Willie Rennie encapsulated it well by describing the situation as that a clause 11 was a matter of convenience or principle. The way that it has been handled has allowed the likes of Ash Denham and Ivan McKee to talk about the potential constitutional crisis that it might create. Serious questions have to be asked us to the political handling of that. We have heard a lot throughout the process from Adam Tomkins about the need to find a solution. When David Mundell came to the finance and constitution committee, the impression that he gave was that he was open to a solution. We would get that when the amendments came to the House of Commons. Lo and behold, we got to the amendment stage of the House of Commons and there were no amendments tabled. When the Labour amendment was put forward, it was voted down by the Government. That is a very regrettable situation to be put in. The logical and the most democratic place for that to be resolved would have been at the committee stage at the House of Commons. It is a serious error from the UK Government to allow the matter to be passed to the House of Lords. The issue that we now face is that there is a timescale issue, but time is marching on with this process. It clearly will need to be resolved at the House of Lords, but we need to see those amendments. We need to see the solution. I think that it is linked to the issues of clause 11 and the importance of common frameworks. Again, it is unusual that people talk about the importance of them, but it has not been defined on the face of the EU withdrawal bill. Neil Bibby made some very important points on common frameworks. It is also linked to the importance of intergovernment relations and the transparency of those relations. As we move through the process, it is not just in terms of trying to resolve the issues around clause 11, but the overall issue is important that there is a more robust and more transparent intergovernment relation process. In summing up, there is clearly a serious issue to be dealt with. The Finance and Constitution Committee, and I am sure that we backed up with the Parliament at the decision time, has made the view clear that there needs to be a resolution, otherwise the LCM will not be acceptable. We have ended up in a serious situation because of the failure of the Tory Government to resolve it at Westminster. I am sure that all parties are involved to make sure that we get a resolution going forward in order to avoid a situation in which the LCM is rejected by this Parliament. I am delighted to close in what has generally been a consensual debate. Following the very constructive session that we had only a few weeks ago when we discussed the culture and Europe Committee's evidence regarding the issue, I want to continue in the same vein of that debate when I spoke by reiterating the bitter disappointment that we feel on this side of the chamber that UK Government amendments could not be brought forward in the House of Commons. As I said a fortnight ago, clause 11 requires urgent and substantive change. It does not respect the devolution settlement. As I also said a fortnight ago, realistically, I believe that both Governments will reach consensus and I am firmly of the view that the requisite amendments will be brought in the House of Lords. It is worth noting that many members have made points about the House of Lords, but while that chamber may be the originator of further amendments, those will, by procedural necessity, have to return to the House of Commons for full debate and agreement in order for the bill to pass. It would be wrong to suggest, as some have, that there is some kind of democratic deficit as a result of those amendments being initiated. It will be open to MPs to make amendments in response. My Scottish Conservative colleagues, both here and in Westminster, are united in our view that we can make the EU withdrawal bill, and in particular clause 11, work for both UK Governments and the devolved Administrations when it is, hopefully, amended. In that regard, I feel that it is necessary to... Indeed. I kind of accept his point about the House of Lords and the ability of MPs to perhaps make further amendments, but does he accept my point about time? Time is running out, and the shorter the time, the more difficult it is to scrutinise effectively. Does he accept that? Mr Cameron. I do accept that time is running out, but I remain confident that a solution will be reached. In that regard, I do not so much take issue, but I would like to make a point in response to something that the minister said. That is in respect of the separate continuity bill, which, in my view, could be unhelpful and has the potential to cause fractures in the process of transferring powers to the devolved Administrations. It is also without doubt a legal minefield, as reported in the press today. There are significant questions about whether a continuity bill would even be within the competence of this Parliament, so let me be clear, none of us wants to go there. I am convinced that, anyway, the need for a continuity bill will be rendered redundant because the desire of the UK Government to find a solution to the clause 11 problem will be realised. The third reading of the bill in the comments and the noise around it should not be allowed to detract from the efforts made by all sides to the process of discussion and dialogue between both Governments as we attempt to reach a solution. Indeed, as the committee report says, it strongly believes that the process for agreeing common frameworks and the actual content must be arrived at through agreement and not imposed. We support that view, as I am sure the Government does. Ultimately, devolution is about dialogue, and to that end we want to see clause 11 amended so that it respects this Parliament and the Scotland Act 1998. I believe that that will only happen if all parties represented here respect the process currently taking place. With all that said, I want to turn briefly to the report. It is a formidable piece of work produced by the committee, significant and impressive, which makes a number of interesting points, some of which have already been covered by other members. One aspect that has only been touched on is the ability to form new trade agreements when we leave the EU. I am encouraged by the committee report's examination of the role of the devolved Administrations in playing a part in developing trade links with other countries. The report notes that Concordat between the UK Government and the Scottish Government and states at length that the UK Government recognises that the devolved Administrations will have an interest in international policymaking in relation to devolved matters, and also in obligations that are touching on devolved matters that the UK may agree as a result of concluding international agreements. I welcome that recognition, because although the Concordat is not legally binding, it provides a basis for which the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations can play a key role in our new trade process. Some members, including Willie Rennie, noted rightly that Claw 7 should not get left behind in the general scrutiny that the committee report has undertaken. The committee report rightly, in my view, noted concern about the breadth of powers conferred on ministers by Claw 7. I also welcome the report's view that more robust parliamentary scrutiny must be exercised in relation to powers that are given to Scottish ministers over devolved competences. It is important to note that, while we recognise the need to ensure that the ministers of devolved Administrations are properly able to exercise powers, this Parliament must remain in a strong position to hold the Government of the day to account. It is clear that much work is still to be done to ensure that legislative consent to the bill can be made by this Parliament, and we on those benches want to play a constructive role in that process. I thank the committee for their efforts in bringing this report and the unified manner in which the committee has conducted their proceedings. As Murdo Fraser has said, it shows this Parliament at its very best. We all know that it is for us to get on with the job of securing a good Brexit deal for Scotland and for the UK, and we have to begin to move beyond legal technicality, important as it is, in terms of devolution, and begin to start delivering Brexit as a practical reality for the people of Scotland. I thank the chamber for what has been a largely constructive debate. I want to start perhaps with an area of disagreement. If I could offer some advice to Mr Golding, it would be that it is important in debate if you are trying to be consensual to stress the things that we can agree on, rather than the things that we cannot agree on. The legislative consent motion would be, in those circumstances, a compromise on Brexit, not an endorsement of Brexit. I am against leaving. I entirely dispute the view of Mr Golding that most Scots do not want us to get on with Brexit. There is no such thing as a good Brexit. Scotland voted against Brexit. Polls indicate that even there is a stronger view now. No good can come of it. Patrick Harvie, although I might disagree with the language, certainly I agree with his sentiment about Brexit. It is a black hole for the UK Government. It is absorbing all the time and resource and energy that could be used elsewhere. What we are debating here is compromise—the way of reaching a compromise. That is the spirit in which most of us have entered into this debate, and I think that that has been useful. We should recall that we do not have to be here, because the bill did not have to have clause 11 in it. We advised that it should not have it in it. We saw the bill two weeks before publication on 6 July. I remember it as sweltering hot today in London. I sat in David Davis' office in Downing Street and told him that clause 11 was absolutely unacceptable. That was two weeks before publication. Six months on, we still have no change to the bill. I have to say, and those are words that I rarely have offered, so I will do it now. Neil Findlay was right about this. Well, indeed, I am myself walking into a black hole here, I fear, but he was absolutely right, because this is not a failure of chronology, as Adam Tomkins indicated. This is a political failure that we are still here six months on. It is a political failure that politicians could remedy, and we are looking for that remedy to happen. I do not doubt that the bona fides of those members on the Tory side have indicated they have all indicated. Even grudgingly, the reality is that clause 11 cannot stand, but it is still in the bill. It is not time limited. There is no indication of that. It has not changed a jot or a tittle, so we really have to have that change. That change needs to take place in full democratic scrutiny. You cannot do that, with a great respect, in the House of Lords. For a start, the Scottish National Party, quite rightly, does not nominate to the House of Lords. That is a deeply unsatisfactory set of circumstances, but we are still seeking compromise, and we are going to still try to get compromise. We have tried in a number of ways to get compromise. We have tried on the issue, for example, of the single market and the customs union to offer compromise. On this bill, we are endeavouring to offer compromise. We are still hoping for the best, but it is right to prepare for the worst. I notice that Mr Cameron says that the continuity bill is not helpful. I am sorry about that, but we cannot possibly get into the situation where we have a legislative consent motion refused and nothing, a cliff edge. There has to be something to follow on. That is the continuity bill. I have every confidence that it is within the purview of this Parliament and the competence of this Parliament to bring such a bill. We have stressed that we wish to get that compromise, and that is what we are trying to get. It is interesting to note, Presiding Officer, that this Parliament has passed 166 legislative consent motions, more than any other devolved administration. There has only been one refusal, and that was the welfare reform bill in 2011. On that occasion, the refusal was opposed by the Tories and the Liberals. I will have something nice to say about Mr Rennie in a moment. The majority in this Parliament of ourselves, Labour and Greens voted against legislative consent, but that would be a unique refusal, because I presume from the nature of the debate so far and from the report that the entire chamber would refuse to give legislative consent to clause 11 if it was not amended. It is quite clear how it should be amended. I commend the contribution that we had from Pauline McNeill. Pauline McNeill, who was one of the original members of the Parliament, as I was, talked very eloquently about the founding of this Parliament. I may disagree with Pauline McNeill on the destination of this Parliament, but there is no doubt of how important the 80s and 90s were. They were too valuable to be thrown aside carelessly or deliberately by Brexit zealots. There are red lines and the red line is this. There has to be an agreement on an amendment and that amendment has to respect the devolved settlement and make sure that the parties to it are treated with equity and that they are treated equally. If those powers are coming back, then they are coming back to the devolved administrations and then there can be a decision about where they go. We have entered into discussion about how the frameworks should be put together. We have entered into discussion about the range of the frameworks. If I might just gently correct Jamie Greene, it is not a cabinet office analysis of where frameworks are and are not necessary that may be published. It is the joint work of the three administrations who have worked on that issue for many months and have tried to take it forward. When we are ready to put into the public domain final outcomes and there are not there yet of that matter, it will be put into the public domain jointly or not at all. That is symptomatic perhaps of an approach to this matter. Somehow all those decisions will be and have to be made by the UK Government. They do not. They are still ground for compromise. There is still work to be done. There have been many good contributions here, but I think that Willie Rennie was the one who put it most accurately. The clock is ticking. We need to get a debate about that. We need to see the words that are going to be suggested. We need to debate and discuss those words. We are not in that position. Six months on from when we first discussed this bill, we are not in that position. That is a failure of politics and it is a failure of the UK Government. I do hope that that failure will end soon, because if it does not, there will not be a legislative consent motion brought by this Government to the chamber for the European Union withdrawal bill. I thank our witnesses who gave us evidence. I thank our clerks who keep us right and work incredibly hard on our behalf. I thank our expert adviser, Christine O'Neill, who had the unenviable task of explaining the arcane but critically important bill to us. I thank Bruce Crawford, who is a terrific convener to work with, and the whole Parliament owes him a debt of gratitude. I want to start on fundamental principles so that we can be absolutely clear where we stand. The fundamental principle upon which devolution is based and in Scotland has always been based is that all legislative powers not expressly reserved to Westminster are devolved to us here in the Scottish Parliament. That is the constitutional principle, it seems to me, upon which any successful amendment to clause 11 will have to be based. It is also core to our system of devolution that Westminster will not normally legislate on or in relation to devolved matters without our consent. Often referred to as the Sewell Convention, this is a rule of our constitutional order, which is acknowledged in statute, albeit that, as the Supreme Court ruled in the Miller case last year, it cannot be enforced by the courts. It cannot be enforced by the courts but is nonetheless a binding rule of constitutional behaviour. Breach it and there will be a high political price to pay, as the minister just said, which is why we welcome in the finance committee unanimously the fact that both the Scottish Government and the UK Government want the EU withdrawal bill to be passed by Westminster with our consent. For that consent to be given, however, the committee is unanimously of the view that the bill will have to be amended and, in particular, clause 11 will have to be removed or replaced. It is incredibly important to recognise that both the Scottish Government and the UK Government acknowledge that. David Mundell, the Secretary of State for Scotland, said in the House of Commons in the autumn that the 111 powers that we have heard so much about fall within devolved competence, but are currently held at EU level and will be repatriated on exit day. All 111 of those powers will be exercised either by us here in the Scottish Parliament or will be exercised subject to a common framework to which the Scottish Government will be a party. That, it seems to me, is entirely to be welcomed. This is the point at the heart of the Finance and Constitution Committee's report. It is manifestly not what clause 11 says. It does, however, offer a model in the committee's view of the way forward. It is important, I think, to recognise that negotiations towards that solution between the Scottish and UK Governments are on-going, and there is a strong desire on both sides, at both official and ministerial level, to find a solution. Progress that we are told is good, and this is very much to be welcomed. However, I completely agree that, when the minister and other members have said that it is imperative that the necessary amendments are brought forward as a matter of urgency, it is time for action now and not merely words. Let me say something about common frameworks. Despite the concerns that have been raised regarding clause 11, it is important to recognise that there is widespread agreement between the Scottish and UK Governments, and also in this Parliament that common frameworks will be necessary in some areas. As I have just said, I very much welcome the progress that has been made and the committee's report welcomes the progress that has been made between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations in developing an approach to agreeing common UK frameworks. In particular, we all welcome, I think, the commitment from the UK Government that common frameworks will not be imposed on the devolved Administrations but will be agreed with the devolved Administrations. The committee is also clear in saying that any common frameworks that are agreed if they are binding must apply equally to both UK and devolved Governments. That, it strikes me, is not a detail but is an important point of principle. The minister made it in both his opening remarks and his closing a few moments ago, and it is there in the committee's report. In addition, the committee makes two further points about common frameworks. First, they must also be subject to parliamentary consent and for stakeholders more generally to be consulted. It is no good in the committee's view for these frameworks to be negotiated and agreed behind closed doors. Of course, Governments must have privacy to negotiate, but there must also be a role for us, as parliamentarians, to input into that. That also remains the view of the Government that, as those come forward, they should be subject to parliamentary consent and all the Parliament should be involved. I am talking. That is a very helpful clarification, and I thank the minister for it. I am glad to hear it. Processes will also have to be put in place with regard to the governance of frameworks in terms of monitoring, implementation and enforcement in the event that one party thinks that they are being inadvertently or perhaps even deliberately breached. It was very interesting to hear what the minister had to say about that earlier this afternoon when he thought that it might look like something in terms of an enhanced JMC process rather than any court procedure. Whatever unfolds, the committee will be continuing close scrutiny of that and other related matters. Finally, let me say something about intergovernmental relations. The Brexit process, including the withdrawal bill, places an even greater reliance upon intergovernmental processes than has hitherto been the case in the United Kingdom. The frankly dysfunctional nature of our intergovernmental relations in the United Kingdom has been the subject of many reports by parliamentary committees in all the parliaments on these islands and indeed also in academic commentary, including a few almost entirely unread pieces written by me. This is a situation that really now requires finally to be addressed as a matter of urgency, not that people do not read my work, but that we need to sort out our intergovernmental relations properly. In particular, a new structure of intergovernmental relations is required, and consideration must be given to placing that new structure on a statutory basis as the Finance and Constitution Committee has called for, and establishing processes for joint decision making. Such a structure should also be supported by an independent secretariat and provide a mechanism for independent dispute resolution, perhaps along the line that was sketched earlier by the minister. Presiding Officer, related to the issue of intergovernmental relations is that of inter-parliamentary relations in order to enhance scrutiny of intergovernmental decisions and actions. I know that this is an issue in which you personally take an interest, as does the Parliament's senior staff. The inter-parliamentary forum on Brexit, which Bruce Crawford and I attended in London last week, is an important development in this regard to be welcomed. I am pleased to say that the forum agreed last week that its next meeting would take place here in the Scottish Parliament later in what I am going to ambitiously call the spring. It is good to end this largely consensual debate on a positive note. The UK constitution needs a rebooted set of intergovernmental relations and needs to take seriously inter-parliamentary relations, too. If Brexit can act as the trigger to deliver that, it might not convert us all to born-again Brexiteers, but it might nonetheless be something that we can all welcome, whatever our views about the future of the European Union. It is my pleasure to close the debate on behalf of the Finance and Constitution Committee when I support the motion in Bruce Crawford's name. That concludes our debate on the European Union interim report. We turn immediately to decision time. There is only one question as a result of today's business. The question is that motion 9954, in the name of Bruce Crawford, on the European Union withdrawal bill LCM interim report be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time. We will now move to members' business in the name of Rona Mackay on condemns unpaid trial shifts. We will just take a few moments for our members to change seats.