 That concludes topical questions. We will move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion 8205 in the name of Ivan McKee on trade Australia and New Zealand Bill, UK legislation. I would be grateful if members who wish to speak in the debate were to press their request to speak buttons now. I call on Ivan McKee to speak to and move the motion up to seven minutes, minister. Fyemdwch i'n gwneud o'r dewiscau cyda'n gweld i'r ffasgfaith i gyflosio gyda'r cyfnodd i'r ddiddordeb yn gwybod, ond oedd wrth gwrs y Ddiwg Cyffredinol iawn i'r ddifu yn ymddorach a'r debylwch a'r ddifu'r ddiwg cyffredinol iawn i'r ddifu'r dros y parwm yn y ddifu'r ddifu'r ddifu'r ddifu'r ddifu'r ddifu'r ddifu'r ddifu'r ddifu'r ddifu'r ddifu'r ddifu'r Diddorffydd, Australia a New Zealand bylwyr could provide UK Government ministers with a delegated party legislaturevaill direct to the devolved matters in Scotland by passing Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament entirely. The one thing that we can be grateful for is that the bill, despite it's grandson title, has a relatively narrow focus. Our views on the trade deals that the UK Government has agreed with Australia and with New Zealand are well-known, and the Scottish Government has no direct role in negotiating those deals are very concerned by the impact of both agreements, particularly about agrifoods. That's not today's focus. This bill is solely about the implementation of the Government procurement chapters of those agreements. As a result of those amendments, I am needed to procurement legislation to extend duties of equal treatment to bidders from Australia and New Zealand and to make some minor amendments to procedural rules. Y pryddysgu wedi gweithio'r ymerddur. The United Kingdom Government has opted in this Bill to confer a power to make these amendments by secondary legislation. The power is drafted too broadly, and a greater concern would be exisable concurrently by both UK and Scottish ministers, meaning that UK ministers would be able to exercise it in devolved areas without securing the consent of Scottish ministers. The bill also allows for the implementation of future amendments to the Australia and newies Randy Madden— It is a curious provision that includes that when the agreements have only just been reached and the perch is expected to be repealed by the UK Government's procurement bill in the coming months. Scotland's legislative consent memorandum did not recommend consent to that and the economy, fair work committees, the subsequent report that I thank for its efforts included that there should be a means for the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise regulations that are laid by the UK Government that fall within devolved competence. I and officials have engaged with counterparts in the UK Government over many months in an effort to address those concerns. I met with the UK Minister for International Trade in early December and have written to him twice since then. I met with the relevant UK Government minister earlier today. We have suggested three different ways in which the bill could be appropriately amended. The first option would be to make the provision necessary to implement those agreements on the face of the bill, allowing the Scottish Parliament to consider precisely what it might be consenting to. The second option would be to amend the power so that it is conferred solely on Scottish ministers in relation to devolved matters. The third option would be to introduce a statutory requirement for UK ministers to secure the consent of Scottish ministers before exercising the power in relation to devolved matters. Those are entirely reasonable and practical suggestions that the UK Government has unfortunately rejected out of hand. The UK Government's view, one that I do not accept, is that it must maintain a power by secondary legislation to implement international obligation in order to ensure that it is complied with. However, such a view implies that of the two Governments, it is the Scottish Government, which is the one that has difficulty with the rule of international law. I do not think that that is a conclusion that many observers would be drawing right now. Indeed, the Scottish Government has implemented international obligations in relation to procurement successfully, separately from and sometimes differently to the rest of the UK for almost 20 years now. At no point has there ever been any question mark raised over our compliance with international obligations. Daniel Johnson, I very much agree with the frustrations that the minister has set out. I was wondering if he could set out what attempts he has made to have dialogue with UK Government and UK ministers discuss these issues and find a way through. Minister, as I have already indicated in my remarks so far, I have written twice to UK Government ministers and I have met relevant UK Government ministers in the Commons previously. Just today, I met Lord Johnson, the relevant UK Government minister, in the lodge to discuss those issues. In addition to that, officials have had extensive interaction on all those issues over a period of some time now. The UK Government did not approach us with what it described as a compromise proposal or something that we have discussed with it through that dialogue. If we were willing to recommend consent to the bill, it would be willing to amend the bill so that the power would only become exerciseable by UK ministers in relation to the involved matters. If either, the Scottish ministers asked the UK Government to legislate on their behalf, which clearly would be acceptable to us, or if following a request from the UK ministers, the Scottish ministers had failed to legislate within 15 days. So, while we may have been able to secure an improvement on the idea that Scottish ministers would only have had 15 days alluricrous proposal, of course, from the arbitrary day of any such request in which to consider, draft and make any legislation, the UK Government was clear that it would not budge on the issue of consent. Of course, that is a significant matter of principle, and so I was unable to agree to their proposal. It is not for the lack of effort in our part that we have ended up in that situation, but so long as the trade Australia-New Zealand Bill contains a provision to allow UK ministers to be able to legislate in a devolved area without for seeking the consent of Scottish ministers, I cannot recommend that Parliament gives its consent. I believe that it is also worth noting that the well-saith has withheld its consent in respect of the bill as it falls within the legislative competence of the seth. I therefore move the motion. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Indeed, I moved the amendment in my name. Before I say anything further, I think that what is important to set out are issues with the Australian-New Zealand trade deal notwithstanding. Trade is undoubtedly a good thing, and I think that regardless of the circumstances that we find ourselves, we should be encouraging trade and looking for opportunities to do so, especially with places in the world such as Australia-New Zealand, where we have a lot of shared interest and a common history. However, we need to remember that the Australian-New Zealand deal was a deeply flawed trade deal. One that, in the absence of an oven-ready deal, was something rather snatched and grabbed at by UK Government desperately seeking to see upsides to the flawed Brexit that it sought to deliver. We have much sympathy with the arguments that the Scottish Government sets out. It is important that there is a role for devolved administrations and indeed devolved parliaments in approving and indeed devising trade deals. Those are arguments made by Nick Thomas Simmons and other of my colleagues in the House of Commons, and we sought to make a number of amendments to that as it went through that. Indeed, I would note that in many other jurisdictions devolved administrations and legislatures do have formal roles in the approval of trade deals such as in Belgium. I think that it is of particular concern the ability of the UK Government to make amendments without consultation if there is a refresh of this free trade agreement, essentially giving UK ministers carte blanche. That is notwithstanding. I think that there is a concern with the motion that was brought forward by the Government, because while we agree that there should be consultation with people in Scotland, I do not think that it is any more acceptable for Scottish ministers to make decisions behind closed doors that can have very significant bearing on farmers and fruit producers than it is for UK ministers, that if that is a matter of concern for the people of Scotland, then it is Parliament that ultimately should be consulted on those decisions. It is not so difficult for this place to pass instruments or legislative consent motions. It is something that we can do relatively easily and briefly, but it gives us that level of oversight. Ultimately, I would say this. People may not want to know about the detail of something that is probably relatively obscure in terms of everyday life, but it is ultimately important. I think that people in Scotland are growing weary and tired of two Governments that are constantly seeking to make constitutional ranker and disagreement the fundamental basis of their politics, rather than getting on in terms of making progress. I think that what we want to see is two Governments working together in the collective good, because regardless of your views of the constitutional arrangements and the way that they should be, ultimately, whoever is in administration in Edinburgh and whoever is in administration in London needs to work together in the collective interests of the people who live in these islands. That, quite frankly, is not what is happening right now. I draw members' attention to my register of interests as a partner in the farming business in Orkney and as a member of NFU Scotland. I am also a member of the Economy and Fair Work Committee, which considers the LCM. Can I take this opportunity to thank our committee's clerks for all their efforts in drafting our report? This debate is largely one of processes that has been discussed, but I would like to start with the bills themselves. The two free trade agreements are the first from scratch deals that the UK has negotiated since we left the EU. They are historic and reflect the deep bonds, social, familial and economic, between our three countries. They will strengthen our trade with Australia and with New Zealand, and they will deepen our ability to access their markets. They could pave the way for the UK joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. The Australia deal will see tariffs removed on all UK exports and a real boost for Scottish products, such as the iconic whisky sector and for our fashion sector, the animal welfare charter, with a non-aggressive clause that stops any rollback on welfare standards. The deal will make it easier for people to operate in each other's economies. It will remove visas allowing young people from Scotland to travel and to work in Australia for up to three years at a time. The New Zealand deal will also see tariffs dropped on all products as well as red tape slashed for the nearly 6,000 UK SMEs that export goods to the country, businesses that employ nearly a quarter of a million people across the UK. Scottish exporters will now have an advantage over international rivals in a market expected to grow by 30 per cent by the end of this decade. The UK Government estimates that the FTA with Australia could increase trade between the two countries by 53 per cent, with an increase in GVA of almost £120 million. The UK New Zealand deal could increase trade by 59 per cent. Businesses across the UK and across Scotland will benefit. The bill itself implements the procurement chapters of the two deals into UK domestic law, ensuring that the UK is not in breach of its obligations as the agreements come into force. While the UK Government's intention is that, in the future, a power in the procurement bill will allow procurement provisions in international agreements to be implemented, legislation is needed now in relation to those two agreements because they must be implemented before the procurement bill is likely to come into force. As the economy committee's report on the LCM states, there was agreement from members on a number of issues around scrutiny of the bill and an acceptance of the need for both Governments to engage constructively. However, my colleague Graham Simpson and I could not agree with the committee's recommendation that powers either conferred solely on Scottish ministers or that UK ministers should be required to obtain consent from Scottish ministers. The UK Government has made commitments to the devolved administrations to not normally legislate within devolved areas and whether it has to not do so without consultation. However, it is important that, with international relations and reserve matter, the UK Government is able to legislate to meet international obligations. If consent was put into the statute, as I know some here would want, it could discourage more consensual intergovernmental working and risk disagreements being decided in more lengthy and expensive court action. There is also the risk that consent may be withheld for political reasons, that the Scottish Government might seek to create arguments for purely political gain. I know that suggestion may come as a shock to many in this chamber. However, during our membership of the European Union, the Scottish Government was content for many of the powers that they now dispute to be held in Brussels. Presumably, given their position on EU membership, they would be happy to have them invested in Brussels again. Is it a genuine concern that the Scottish Government has over those powers? Or is it less about the concerns about the bill and more about stoking constitutional grievance? Is it that there is a sunset on this First Minister's time in office? The last act of this administration will be to leave us with one hurrah, last hurrah of divisive grievance politics. Or is it just that they don't like trade deals because the SNP has never supported a trade deal negotiated by either the UK or the EU? They didn't support the deal with Canada, they didn't support the deal with Japan, they didn't support the deal with Ukraine, they didn't support the deals with South Africa or with Singapore or with Korea, they even voted against the deal between the UK and the EU. They are content to see us leave the EU with a no-deal Brexit. Those are important deals that the UK Government has negotiated with the Governments of Australia and of New Zealand. As I have outlined, they will benefit people and businesses across the UK and across Scotland. They include important protections for key sectors and in areas such as animal welfare. On those benches, we support those agreements, and we will do so by opposing the SNP's grandstanding attempts to block them today. Jamie Halcro Johnston deserves an absolute medal for his contribution this afternoon to draw some great credit out of those two trade deals with New Zealand and Australia. The only real, tangible, so-called benefit that we have seen from Brexit in six and a half years, so I think that he deserves an absolute credit for his contribution this afternoon, because not even George Eustace has recognised the benefit of the trade agreement with Australia and New Zealand. In fact, he criticised it even though he was the minister that was in part negotiating the deal. I would have hoped that Jamie Halcro Johnston could have perhaps acknowledged that that is a pathetic set of trade deals. Of course, we support free trade. Of course, it is a benefit to Scottish producers, UK producers, the opportunity for export across the world, but to hold that up is a great success. I do not think that that is reality, and I think that Jamie Halcro Johnston truly knows that himself. We will support the motion this afternoon. Of course, there should be greater scrutiny from this Parliament. There should be an involvement of this Parliament. There should be a greater partnership between the Scottish and the UK Governments on trade deals. It is disappointing that we are here once again with the same old song. We support Labour's amendment. We think that it is appropriate for the Parliament to have the power, not just for the ministers to have the power. In fact, that is something that the Scottish Government has criticised the UK ministers for holding on to powers when they should be scrutinised by the Parliament. However, it is utterly depressing that, once again, we have two Governments that seem to be incapable of agreeing between themselves on an important area, perhaps of process, but nevertheless important for people's livelihoods. We should be able to, for the witter man, to work together to work up an arrangement for the scrutiny by this Parliament and by this Government of any international trade deals. As Daniel Johnson has highlighted, other countries manage to do that, so why can't we do that as well? It is perhaps a fact that, over the past 15 years, this Government has taken every single often cheap opportunity to attack whoever is in power Westminster. Perhaps that has led to this day that the relationship has broken so badly that both sides are incapable of agreeing, which is why we need reform of the United Kingdom and change of Governments both north and south of the border. We need to have free trade, we need to have co-operation between the two Governments. It is for the sake of the businesses that produce excellent quality products. They deserve to be able to export those across the world, but they deserve to have politicians in this Parliament scrutinising those deals, to apply our expertise to those trade deals, to make sure that they are fit for purpose. Once again, however, we have two Governments that have let us down and have been incapable of reaching agreement. I hope that one day that we will manage to get some co-operation. I suspect that it may be some time. I agree with Daniel Johnson. Of course, trade is a good thing. If you read our export growth plan, a trading nation will be very well aware that that is stated right up front and centre. It will be very well aware of the trade missions that I undertake on behalf of Scottish businesses on a relentless basis. I am often another one. Next week, with my chamber of commerce to Poland, he will be aware of his paying attention that I am part of those trade missions that I engage with the UK Government in now the no longer DIT, the DEBAT and the UK ambassadors and UK trade commissioners. We work together closely where it makes sense to support Scottish business. We will also be aware that he talks about the benefit of trade, that the biggest harm to trade has been done, of course, by Brexit. A policy that his Government still supports and, for some bizarre reason, has been unable to be able to support his party and has been unable to bring itself to recognise the faults of Brexit as it seeks to become the next UK Government. Of course, a formal process exists in other sub-national government, which is something that we have proposed to the UK Government through the right form. The outset of Brexit in 2016, with policies that we have put forward and have relentlessly attempted to engage with them, is a more structured mechanism for that to happen, something that they have refused to engage on. On the point of accountability, the Scottish ministers are, of course, accountable to the Scottish Parliament. The process, as he knows, is that the Scottish Government would take forward those proposals, but would bring them to a Parliament or through a committee, as appropriate. Of course, Parliament would have its ability to be able to scrutinise what was happening with those decisions. The point, of course, is that, despite what Willie Rennie says, it is not through our lack of trying that those trade deals are not coming here to be scrutinised by the Parliament, because the UK Government has decided to do so. Despite the fact that Jamie Halcro Johnston purred through and did not take any interventions, I shall, in the interests of open debate, take your intervention. If he and his Government are so positive towards trade, why have you voted against every single trade deal that has been put in front of me? The member should be well aware that, if he is paying attention, the Australian and New Zealand deals are very bad for Scottish agribusiness. Absolutely. If you look at the Brexit deal, the situation in Brexit, of course, is that we should be back with part of the European Union and having free trade as a consequence of that, something that we are absolutely very much in favour of. We will take each trade deal on its merits. Trade deals, as the member does not and should know, is a balance of offensive and defensive interests. We think that Scottish businesses having more harm done to it by the UK Government rushing headlong into random trade deals, then we will, of course, vote in Scottish interests as a consequence of that. Will the member make the point that, as Daniel Johnson should engage with the UK Government? I think that I made it very clear that we have engaged with the UK Government. In fact, there is a very constructive conversation and other regards about working together to secure investment with Daniel Johnson's namesake Lord Johnson this afternoon on this very issue. However, that does not take away from the fact that the UK Government has dug its heels in on this point and is denying that the devolution settlement has not been able to be played out through the powers that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish ministers have as a consequence of that. I think that Willie Rennie needed any more example of the Conservative party's unwillingness to engage on this process, the fact that Jamie Halcro Johnston would not take a single intervention from anybody in the chamber and kind of talks to that. Just to reflect on the point that Jamie Halcro Johnston made, it is not about Brussels. When we were in the European Union, those powers were not held in Brussels in the way that they are held at Westminster at the moment. EU procurement directives were implemented by Scottish ministers and not by the European Union. That is the difference. When we were part of the European Union, the powers were here and now we are not in the European Union. The UK Government has taken those powers back upon itself and is encroaching on the devolved areas, including procurement. In conclusion, we are not happy with the situation, but, of course, I think that, certainly everyone, I would hope on ourselves and everyone on this side of the chamber, would agree that devolution has to be protected and that it is important that we do so, where there is an attack from the UK Government. That is one of those, unfortunately, increasing number of examples where that indeed is the case. I move the motion. Thank you. That concludes the debate on trade. Australia and New Zealand Bill, UK legislation, and it is now time to move on to the next item of business.