 I urge Adam Ingram and others to continue to meet the representations. Many thanks. My abject apologies to members whose questions I haven't been able to call. We have to now move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 14252 in the name of John Swinney on Scotland's future, democracy and devolution. I'd invite members who wish to speak in this debate to speak to and move the motion. Deputy First Minister, if and when you are ready, you have 14 minutes to speak to the subject and move the motion, please. Presiding Officer, I welcome the opportunity of this constitutional debate, one year on from the referendum on Scotland's independence that took place on 18 September 2014. It is clear that the referendum has had a profound and positive effect on our nation and on our democracy. We have seen a level of informed and engaged debate that has reinvigorated politics in Scotland and has evolved people old and young alike across our country as part of that debate. It is worth recalling that over 3,600,000 people turned out last year and cast their vote are turned out of over 85 per cent higher than in any other election before. The result may not have been what I wanted, but we must celebrate the democratic engagement in the process that took place. There has been a real legacy from the referendum into the bargain. The turnout in the recent general election was 71 per cent in Scotland compared to 66 per cent across the United Kingdom as a whole and an increased turnout on previous United Kingdom general elections. 80 per cent of people in Scotland have discussed politics since the referendum compared to 67 per cent for the United Kingdom. The real engagement, the reinvigorated politics continues as does the close interest of the people of Scotland in how we are governed and who makes decisions and who decides who makes decisions within Scotland. The first and critical test that we face in honouring this democratic renewal is fulfilling the undertakings that were made during the referendum campaign by those opposed to independence and who were successful in the referendum to strengthen the powers of this Parliament. Today, it is exactly one year since the vow was made on the front page of the daily record. On 16 September, the Prime Minister, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg jointly promised extensive new powers for the Scottish Parliament. The vow also said that people want to see change and no vote will deliver faster, safer and better change than separation. This was not the first promise of further devolution made during the campaign. Daniel Alexander said that Scotland will have more powers over its finances, more responsibility for raising taxation and more control for parts of the welfare system, effective home rule. The Prime Minister said that the status quo is gone, this campaign has swept it away, there is no going back to the way things were. A vote for no means real change. He also said that if Scotland says that it does want to stay inside the United Kingdom, then all the options of devolution are there and are possible. Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister, talked of nothing less than a modern form of Scottish home rule and said that we are going to be within a year or two as close to a federal state as you can be in a country where one nation is 85 per cent of the population. On the back of those undertakings, with the legitimate expectation of proposals that could be accurately described as a form of home rule or near-federalism, my party and every other party in Parliament took part in the Smith commission set up by the United Kingdom Government. We in the Scottish Government had some misgivings. In particular, we had misgivings about the process. Political parties, trying to reach an agreement in a room, seemed about as far away from the participative open engaged democracy of the referendum campaign as it was possible to get. However, we accepted and respected the outcome of the referendum, and so both my party and the Scottish Government played a full and constructive role in the Smith process. We may know secret of our view that the final recommendations of the Smith commission did not go far enough, nor do we believe that the Smith commission proposals met the undertakings of the UK parties that set it up in the first place. Alex Johnston The minister has been speaking for nearly four minutes now, and I would interpret his argument as being that he signed up to the Smith commission reluctantly, and he would still like to heart back to the discussions that took place at the end of the referendum campaign. Can the minister tell me today if it is his ambition to see the full implementation of the Smith commission, or if he wishes to centre his argument at a previous point on the timeline? Alex Johnston In the course of my comments, I will answer directly the point that Mr Johnson has made, but I do not think that any conclusion that Mr Johnson could arrive at of anything that I have said or done since the publication of the Smith commission proposals in November last year has given any intention that could be misinterpreted that I want to see the full implementation of the Smith commission proposals. My problem—this is what I will come on to discuss with Parliament in the course of my remarks this afternoon—is that we are away from the full implementation of the Smith commission proposals as they were set out last November. Reflecting on the Smith commission, a settlement that leaves under Westminster control over 70 per cent of tax receipts in Scotland or 86 per cent of welfare spending in Scotland cannot be remotely described as home rule or near federalism. My judgment was that the proposals, if the UK Government implemented them in full and I will come on to that in a moment, offered enough enhancements of Parliament's powers to allow us to support the final report. I will give it to Mr Cameron. Why does he only ever refer to a percentage of welfare spending instead of a percentage of spending that most commentators would do? The reference to welfare spending is a very clearly expressed argument about welfare spending. Of course, the Smith commission does not give us more than 50 per cent control over total spending in terms of the revenue raised. Those points are well charted by what the Scottish Government has said in the past. To come to the issue that Mr Johnson raised with me about the implementation of the Smith commission, if we reflect on the efforts of the United Kingdom Government since the publication of the Smith commission, it is clear that the current approach does not implement the recommendations of the Smith commission in full, not in spirit and not in substance. Last week, the architect of the Vow himself, Gordon Brown, described the UK Government as falling short on the delivery of the recommendations of the Smith commission on Scottish devolution. In May, the unanimous report of the cross-party devolution for the powers committee supported in this chamber, provided the authoritative analysis of the UK Government's draft clauses. Their overall conclusion was that, in some critical areas, the then UK Government's clauses fall short of the Smith recommendations. In considering the actual bill that was introduced in May, the committee found that only one clause had been changed to reflect the committee's findings. Twelve were completely unchanged, and a further eight had been changed, but in a way that left it unclear whether the committee's findings had been reflected or not. Those included clauses on key areas of social security, employment programmes, the Crown Estate, borrowing and the sole convention. That position is a considerable disappointment to the Scottish Government. I think that this is one of the material points in the debate today. We are at a point where it is clear that, despite having the information, the submissions of the devolution for the powers committee and the Scottish Government, we would all describe to be one of the key players in the outcome of the referendum. Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister, who I would readily accept was a fundamental player in the conclusion of the referendum campaign and in the success of the no campaign by the promise that was made. Mr Brown is now telling parliamentary committees that the UK Government is falling short on the delivery of the recommendations of the Smith commission on Scottish devolution. That is a point that I think that Parliament has to take very serious. I am grateful to Mr Swinney for taking the intervention. He correctly describes the conclusions of the devolution for the powers committee, and I accept the points that he makes as a member of the committee at the time. Does he accept that that should not be conflated with the commitment that was given by Ed Miliband and other party leaders for extensive new powers, which are in the Scotland, albeit they may not be all the powers that we might desire? The person in danger of conflating something is Mr McDonald, in fact. The point that I am making is that I absolutely face value, judged by the devolution for the powers committee. It is an all-party committee, so I think that it is pretty neutral. The Scottish Government, who I accept, were not neutral, but I think that we have approached this in an utterly dispassionate fashion. On this question, we most definitely have. Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister, is saying that the Scotland bill does not deliver on the commitments that are made in the Smith commission. That, to me, is crystal clear evidence that the United Kingdom Government has got to move and move significantly in the course of the passage of the bill that remains in the House of Commons. That is, of course, the stage to which we will be turning shortly, where the Scotland bill will be returning to the report stage in the House of Commons. We know clearly the areas in which the bill needs to be improved. The restrictive definitions on carer and disability. The absence of new powers to create benefits in areas of devolved responsibility. The restrictions on the length of employment support programmes that can be delivered and on the type of people that can be offered help. Clarity on the Crown Estate provisions and the future economic assets like Fort Canard. A provision that protects this Parliament's interests by including clearly the full scope of the sole convention, including its need for the Parliament's consent to changes to its own competence in that of Scottish ministers, respecting the spirit of devolution by removing vetoes for UK ministers in crucial areas of universal credit and energy schemes. Those issues are amongst the issues that are required to be addressed when the report stage is reached in the House of Commons. I invite Parliament to join me in urging the Secretary of State to engage closely with the Scottish Government to produce amendments that we have already suggested to the UK Government that accurately reflect the Smith commission report and have the support of both Governments. We know that the powers of the bill fall short of the vows and the recommendations of the Smith commission and that we will continue to demand that those promises are delivered. At the same time, the Scottish Government is acting with pace and with creativity to be ready to use the limited powers that are proposed and we will do so in consultation with others. In the programme for government, we set out some early policy priorities, a social security bill in the first year of the new Parliament to give effect to our new social security powers, the abolition of the bedroom tax as soon as is possible when we have the powers to do so, improving support for people to move into employment through reform of the work programme and work choice, improving access to priority business and tourism markets by reducing air passenger duty by 50 per cent from 2018, and early action on gender balance on public boards, the abolition of fees for employment tribunals and the management of the assets of the current state in Scotland to maximise benefit to the Scottish economy and to local communities. Those are some of the early priorities of the Scottish Government to take forward, the utilisation of the powers that will come to us as a consequence of the passage of the Scotland Bill. I also want to say, Presiding Officer, a few words about the fiscal framework that will govern financial relationships between the Governments in the future. The fiscal framework must give the Scottish Government the flexibility that it needs to create a fair and prosperous Scotland and to use the powers that we have in an effective way. We know that that must be done in a responsible and a sustainable matter as we have always used our own fiscal powers as we have them. In my evidence to the France Committee inquiry, I have set out some of the key elements that we need to see in the fiscal framework. Block grant adjustments for devolved taxes reflect receipts at the point of transfer based on agreed methodology and data. Transfers for social security reflect the full cost of the benefits devolved. Changes to the block grant reflect the full cost of administering the new powers and the ability to increase the amount of capital spending materially through capital borrowing powers. Most fundamentally, we need a well-designed fiscal framework that ensures further devolution provides the right incentives and increases accountability, linking the Scottish Government's budget to Scottish economic performance. We should retain the rewards of our success as we will bear the risks. When the Scottish economy outperforms that of the rest of the UK, our spending power should increase. It is essential that the fiscal framework provides the Scottish Government with genuine flexibility and choice to pursue our own distinct policies. The framework will be agreed jointly by both Governments and we are aiming to conclude negotiations by the autumn. I am currently involved in discussions with the Treasury in this respect, but I want to make it clear to Parliament, as I have said to the French Committee before. The Scottish Government will not recommend that this Parliament gives consent to the bill without an agreed fiscal framework that is fair to Scotland. I would have no hesitation to refuse to recommend a proposal that did not provide us with the ability to use our powers properly and flexibly to support the people of Scotland to address our own priorities and to improve our economy. I want to bring my remarks to a close by reflecting on what the Scotland bill tells us about the condition of democracy in Scotland today. The driving force for what became the Smith commission process was the clear momentum for change generated during the referendum campaign, but since then we have seen a return to business as usual, illustrating graphically the mismatch between democracy and devolution in this country. The Smith commission was, in the end, a party-driven exercise that people were given little say in its process and none in its conclusions. In that process we missed many opportunities, perhaps, because of the lack of public pressure in a closed process. The Scottish Government proposed with the support of the STUC full devolution of employment law that was not supported in the Smith commission with the consequences that we have seen in the trade union bill this week. The Scottish Government, with the support of many stakeholders across Scottish society, proposed that social protection be devolved in full. Again, that was not supported by other parties and the consequences can be seen in the cuts to welfare that have been driven through Whitehall today. What demonstrates is that this Parliament must be equipped with the powers and the responsibilities to enable us to take decisions that meet the expectations, the needs, the priorities and the choices of the people of Scotland, and that is what the Scottish Government will argue for. I move the motion in mind. Thank you very much. I now call on Claire Baker to speak to and move amendment 14252.2.10 minutes, please, tight for time today, Ms Baker. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In the week of one year anniversary of the referendum, it is understandable that a lot of today's focus will be reflected on that historic day last year. Many column entries have already been filled this week and I'm sure more words will be written about it before the week is out. It is also understandable that many people today may wish to reflect on their personal experiences. The vote on 18 September was a truly remarkable day in Scotland's history and a day that will live long in everyone's memory. However, it is important that we use this opportunity to look forward. Last year, the voice of the majority of Scotland was clear and we all need to accept that result. It was to stay as part of the United Kingdom, but it was also clear that people wanted politics and democracy to change. The Smith commission and from that Scotland bill are to be one of the vehicles to deliver that change, though I caution that it is not the only one. That change will be achieved if we, politicians from across all the parties, have a change in the way that we think about politics and how it is delivered. As our amendment states, devolution is not about concentrating powers in the Scottish Parliament, it must be about empowering our communities and our local authorities. I like the title of this debate, which promises more than the motion, democracy and devolution. It is not just about securing new powers but about how we use those new powers. Labour's amendment highlights the work programme as an example of the way in which we can use new responsibilities to gain more effective results. Labour believes that local communities and organisations are best placed to deliver the programme and we would encourage the Scottish Government to look at this way of delivering. Similarly, we must push for the extension of the powers for the Crown Estate, and those powers should then be maximised to make local decision-making meaningful. In giving evidence to the Devolution Further Powers Committee, Dave Moxham of the SGEC said, it is not enough for Parliament to have a relationship with existing civil or society organisations and then to think that it has done its job. That links in with the idea that we and others have raised about citizens' duties and of other ways of creating a representative democracy. As the cabinet secretary said, the referendum was a great example of civic participation and we should not miss the opportunities to use the Scotland Bill to build on that. However, let me be clear, as things stand at the moment, the Scotland Bill in its current format does not meet our expectations. It needs to be stronger, it needs to be more reflective of the agreement from the Smith commission. That it is not as disappointing and something that I hope the Conservatives will address in their speeches today, and while I agree with much of their amendment, it glides over the reasonable concerns that are about the Scotland Act that we have before us. We did have cross-party consensus on the Devolution Further Powers Committee. As a result, we are left with two options. One is to continually complain about the bill, undermining what has been achieved, or more constructively we could propose changes that we could not just enact the Smith commission in full but possibly go further. Presiding Officer, I want to make the opportunity in today's debate to make it clear that Labour is committed to ensuring that this Parliament becomes one of the strongest devolved legislatures in the world. We want to see new powers delivered and we will do all we can to make that happen. We have a record of bringing powers to this Parliament when we believe that it is in the best interests of the Scottish people. Like others in this chamber, we have no interest in seeing the Scotland Bill fail. We want to take this opportunity to reflect a modern devolved Parliament that I believe the cross-party Smith commission set out the blueprint for. To make that progress, we need to return to the consensus that was built around the Smith commission. I welcome the statement from John Swin earlier today that the Parliament should be united on this. That will take effort from all sides, particularly the two Governments, one which almost immediately began talking down the document that they had signed up to, and the other which has seemingly closed shop and has refused so far to accept amendments from other parties. It is time to put those agendas aside and to work together. If we truly want to see the Scotland Bill succeed, then we need to strengthen the bill. I hope that the Conservative members in the chamber today will join us and will lobby their counterparts in Westminster and either House to ensure that reasonable and proportionate amendments are accepted when the bill returns to the House of Commons following the conference recess. Today, the Labour Party has unveiled new amendments to the Scotland Bill. Those amendments would devolve a further £5 billion of revenues, along with extended powers of our welfare, to design a new social security system for Scotland. MSPs would be in greater control than ever and would make us responsible for raising money that we are to spend. That includes measures to devolve. Mark McDonald? I note the call today from the Labour Party about the assignment of full VAT rather than partial assignment. Will the member accept that that is not necessarily a revenue-raising power because it would be an assignment rather than a power? Will she advise whether the Labour Party's view is that that should be based on production or consumption? That is an important distinction. I anticipate that intervention from the member having seen Stewart Hosey lining it up for the MSPs this afternoon. The SNP will know that the tax variance around VAT is restricted by the EU. However, what that would do, we believe, is give more powers to this Parliament and more control of our money that we have to spend. That would include measures to devolve all revenue from VAT. Currently, that is set at 50 per cent. That would include all revenue. It would ensure that this Parliament can top up welfare benefits, give the Scottish power powers to create any new benefits and remove any veto of the UK Government. Those are substantial changes. We can build a better, stronger, more progressive Scotland. I hope that, when those amendments come before Parliament, they will gain the support of the SNP, the Liberals and the Conservatives. It is clear that we need to move beyond any doubt on the issue of Westminster maintaining a veto over this Parliament with regard to welfare powers. That is unacceptable and something that we have moved to stop. The UK Government needs to respond more fully than it has done so far to the work of the devolved further prayers committee and to the concerns being raised by organisations about the effectiveness of the bill. We must ensure that there is full transparency as we move forward. That is as true for the Scottish Government as it is for the UK Government. We are seeing, or rather not seeing, inter-governmental discussions with regard to the Joint Exchequer Committee, a committee of which the Deputy First Minister is co-chair. On 4 September, the GEC met for its second meeting, yet no minutes of either meeting have been made public and there has been no clear statement from the Scottish Government of a preferred outcome. Considering that discussion centre on the substantive elements of the fiscal framework that will underpin the financial provisions of the Scotland Bill, the very fiscal framework that the Deputy First Minister references in his amendment is unfortunate that fuller details have not been forthcoming. I appreciate that, at certain points of the meetings, there will be a need for a sensitivity and there will need to be space for frank exchanges. Considering that all within those chambers subscribe to the notion of transparency and accountability, will the cabinet secretary take the opportunity today to commit to publishing the minutes of the meetings and to keep Parliament and, most important, people informed throughout negotiations? I see in the letter that Bruce Crawford sent to David Mundell this week that those are principles that the committee supports. The stakes that are being set by the Scottish Government are high. The First Minister has expressed the view that she will only recommend consenting the bill if the accompanying fiscal framework is also fair to Scotland and, in coverage of today's debate, the Deputy First Minister has reiterated that claim. If the Government is prepared to put all that can be gained at risk, there needs to be greater transparency, scrutiny and accountability of those decisions. I am grateful to Clare Baker for giving way. I wonder if Clare Baker would just clarify the position that the Labour Party takes on the question of the fiscal framework. Does she think that I should sign up to a fiscal framework that she does not believe to be fair to Scotland? Of course not, but we have no involvement in the negotiations. What I am asking for is greater transparency and accountability. What we have to write at the minute is the Deputy First Minister's interpretation of whether that is fair for Scotland. We are caught between your interpretation of what it is and what the Conservative's interpretation of what it is. I am arguing that everyone should be involved in that. That should be transparent and we should be able to make a proper judgment. This is an important issue—sorry, I am really short for time now—that the Scottish Government claim may lead to the rejection of powers. The public have to be aware of the negotiations as they proceed and be able to make a judgment. Otherwise, we are just finding ourselves in the very scenario that Professor Jim Gallacher warns against, where the fiscal framework becomes a private agreement between two Governments. As the Deputy First Minister will be aware, my colleague Ian Murray has written to ask that the papers published reflect, among other things, the readjustment of the Scottish Government's block grant in relation to the new tax and spending powers, as well as setting out the discussions that are around fiscal scrutiny and the current roles of the Scottish Fiscal Commission. I hope that, in his closing remarks, the cabinet secretary will take the opportunity to confirm that he will seek to publish those meetings to the finance committee, as has been the procedure previously. Decisions of such importance to the people of Scotland should not be made behind closed doors. I suspect that, if you were to ask a family at a food bank what their major concern was, it would not be the constitution. If you were to ask a patient at A&E waiting for treatment or a bed, what his major concern was, it would not be the constitution. If you asked a single parent who is struggling to find a place at college but cannot afford childcare anyway, what her major concern is, it would not be the constitution. Looking to the future, we have the opportunity to use the engagement that the referendum brought to the people of Scotland to deliver change about how we do politics, not just in Scotland but throughout the UK. The Labour Party has listened to voters, we have listened to our members and we have a bold, fresh and exciting new leadership that we will be pursuing a radical new agenda for Scotland and the UK. Excitement in Scottish politics should not constitute itself just around the constitution. It should be about changing communities, embracing opportunities and changing futures. That is why the devolution settlement that we pursue and achieve won't stop at Holyrood. I move the amendment in my name. I now call on Annabelle Goldie to speak to you and to move amendment 14252.1. Ms Goldie, six minutes please. Deputy Presiding Officer, I am delighted to take part in this debate and I am stimulated and encouraged by the Scottish Government's chosen title for the debate Scotland's future. Democracy and Devolution. At the Scotland Bill is about anything, it is about our future. A future confirmed by the democratic decision of voters last September to reject independence, to stay within the United Kingdom and to give more powers to this Parliament. As someone who believes Scotland benefits from the partnership of the United Kingdom but recognised the need for enhanced powers for this Parliament, I was delighted to serve in the Smith commission with Mr Swinney and others from across the parties and to achieve the United position reflected by the Smith agreement. Over the years, it has been a genuine pleasure to work with Mr Swinney, whether on the enterprise committee under his convenership or engaging with him in his important ministerial roles in government. I acknowledge and respect his undoubted commitment to this Parliament and his wider service to Scotland. I was there for wounded, Deputy Presiding Officer, wounded that on publication of the Smith agreement Mr Swinney appeared to have been seized by an onslaught of simultaneous amnesia, fickleness and inconstancy. Never did I think him capable of such frailties. Sadly, this much-discussed, carefully crafted and painstakingly drafted document dissembled in Mr Swinney's midst. It wasn't good enough, it wasn't big enough, it wasn't brave enough. Deputy Presiding Officer, I think that the Smith agreement was a pivotal contribution to devolution and historic in its own right, of course. I'm grateful to Ms Goldie for giving way. I'm glad that she was able to set out those words very carefully. I thought that she was in danger of accusing me of something else, as she expressed them. She shouldn't have been that surprised by my reaction to the Smith commission given that she had to put up with listening to what I was saying within the Smith commission for a full 10 weeks, in which I was arguing for more greater powers while there were responsibilities than what was secured in the Smith commission report. As ever, an adroit and gallant attempt to try and excopate himself, but in fairness to Mr Swinney, Deputy Presiding Officer, of course I understand from the perspective of the SNP that the Smith commission does not bring forward proposals for independence for Scotland, but that was never the job of the Smith commission. The referendum endorsed, enhanced evolution and rejected independence, and that's why I put down the amendment in my name to put into context the referendum result, the Smith agreement, the draft clauses and the Scotland bill. The Scotland bill is an extremely important piece of legislation, and it is entirely right that it be scrutinised at Westminster and by a committee of this Parliament. In response to the initial tag from Mr Swinney and his SNP colleagues that the Scotland bill reflects some faint-hearted, peal-wally attempt to deliver a minimal extension of powers, can I just remind the chamber that SPICE produced a fascinating analysis of the Smith agreement proposals? The Scottish Parliament will have more tax and spending powers in the majority of states in federal countries such as Australia, Germany and the United States, and in a league of sub-national legislators across the world, Scotland will be near at the top. I appreciate that the SNP wanted to devolve responsibility for a whole range of issues such as employment law, national insurance contributions and the minimum wage, but a whole range of bodies from very different perspectives such as the CBI, the STUC and the TUC had profound concerns, so those matters do not form part of the Smith agreement of the Scotland bill. I want to just make progress if you'll forgive me. In response to the more detailed analysis of the Scotland bill by the devolution further powers committee, the committee was principally concerned, I think, about four primary issues, the permanency of the Scottish Parliament, the sole convention, the welfare provisions and the crown estates. The statutory recognition in the bill of this Parliament being considered permanent, together with the obvious cross-party sentiment that the Scottish Parliament is permanent, means that political reality is the permanency of the Scottish Parliament, and I think to pretend otherwise is to dance on the head of a pin. On the sole convention, that has operated effectively and flexibly as a principle by practice and convention, but, as is so often the case with constitutional rules and protocols, it would be wrong, in my opinion, to try and introduce into the Scotland bill the process of legislative consent. That was not something the Smith agreement recommended and, in my opinion, it was right not to recommend that. On welfare, which I accept is a very sensitive issue, I would argue that the provisions, which have been extensively altered from the draft clauses, reflect the Smith agreement. If there are constructive suggestions to clarify or improve on the welfare provisions, then let us see the detail. On the crown estate, this was always recognised as technically complex. I am sure that Mr Switty and I can agree that within the Smith commission this was seen as particularly challenging, and the crown estate involves the body itself, the UK Government and the Scottish Government, all of whom will require to co-operate and agree on the new arrangements and the ability enabling legislation for that to happen. Let us be clear that the bill does what it says in the tin. It is a major extension of powers to this Parliament in acting what all parties signed up to the Smith agreement. Should we close our minds to improving the grill? No, but we must first identify what changes are proposed and then be satisfied that they are improvements. The Secretary of State for Scotland has indicated that changes will be made at the report stage of the bill and has expressly stated that he will reflect on Opposition amendments. The real debate in Scotland has now moved beyond the constitution. We cannot be hogtied and pulled back by the separatists to a question answered a year ago, and we cannot get bogged down in the separatists never-ending, because their efforts to stay stuck in the past are pulling Scotland down and holding Scotland back. Instead of remaining divided over the constitution, we should be united about forging a new Scotland. That is a big question for the Scottish Government. How do we use the powers that we have and the ones that we will get to give Scotland an exciting, stable future in an increasingly uncertain and competitive world? We can rise to that challenge, but only by looking forward, not by looking back. I move the amendment in my name. I look forward to checking the spelling of Piliwally in the official report. We are now turned to the open debate. We are just about where we should be with debate timing, so I would be grateful if members could stick to their six minutes, please. Bruce Crawford, to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm. Like many others this week, I have been reflecting on the events of the independence referendum, a decision that, in the immediate aftermath, left me utterly crushed. Strangely, a year later, I now found myself almost celebrating that historic occasion. Perhaps that is something to do with the fact that I am a car carrier member of the Tartan army, and that has allowed me to find some joy in glorious defeat. However, the referendum was also a remarkable democratic process, as John Swinney said earlier, that led to Scotland becoming a different, a better place. A Scotland with the most extraordinarily engaged people, where the bar of expectations and what Scotland can achieve or is capable of has now been raised to hither two unforeseen heights. In that context, and the now infamous vow, suggesting home rules, as I have said, and near federalism, and the Smith commission recommendations that we debate today, I do not want to re-rehearse what many individuals and organisations have spread about the Smith process being too rushed, or that they contained a lack of significant additional powers. I sincerely hope that the UK Government will respond to those calls, but we now have a Scotland bill before us entering the UK Parliament that will soon be entering its report stage. Therefore, we must do all that we can to persuade a Tory Government to implement Smith in full and to deal with the positive criticisms laid out in the Further Devolution Powers Committee constructive letter that was sent to David Mundell on Monday of this week. That is why I strongly believe that, when we come to decision time, that we should all support the Scottish Government's motion. Speaking with one voice, we will provide this Parliament with its best opportunity of saying that the Smith bill gets as close as possible to delivering Smith in full, ensuring that there is absolute clarity of intent and ironing out any potential dangers. For those who argue that the bill in its current state does indeed deliver Smith in full, as the Prime Minister was doing today at Prime Minister's questions, they know perfectly well that it does not. To pretend otherwise is doing this Parliament and, indeed, more importantly, the people of Scotland a disservice. The very reasonable letter that was sent to the Secretary of State earlier this week outlines in considerable detail, as John Swinney already alluded to, the scale of the job that remains to be done by the UK Government. For my part today, I want to concentrate on three key aspects in particular. First, I believe that there is, at the very least, a potential for dispute over whether this Parliament will have the competence to create new benefits in devolved areas. There is a significant body of evidence that argues that Parliament will only be able to create new benefits in a much narrower area. That is because the legislative mechanism used in the bill devolves the responsibility for certain specific benefits through a series of new exceptions to the existing reservations of the 1998 Scotland Act. Therefore, if a new benefit is not provided for on the bill, it is argued that it will remain explicitly reserved with no exception. That could have the effect, perhaps unintended, of limiting the policy flexibility of a future Scottish Parliament. However, it is abundantly clear from the Smith report that it places no such limitation simply stating that the Scottish Parliament will have new powers to create new benefits in areas of devolved responsibility. As Professor Eileen MacArthur said in her compelling evidence, it would be prudent to put the matter beyond doubt through the inclusion of an express provision in the bill, we should ask the UK Government to do just that. Secondly, in regard to the issue of risk and reward balance, many of are good, including Professor David Bell, that the limited basket of tax-raising powers in the bill may not produce sufficient tax receipts to increase in proportion with future liabilities, such as an ageing population. It is therefore imperative that the fiscal framework agreed between the two Governments and deals with the specific detail of how such matters will be balanced out in terms of future funding settlements. I say this because I simply cannot see any circumstances where this Parliament can safely agree to any bill unless these matters are appropriately and transparently addressed in the fiscal framework. In conclusion, I want to dance on the head of a pin on the matter of permanency of this Parliament. We all know the difficulty in this area in that, in theory, no Parliament can bind in law its successors, and any rule suggesting a particular institution's permanent constitutional fixture can never be guaranteed. Therefore, whatever provisions are finally agreed in the bill, they are likely to be largely symbolic. I accept that, but I, for one, believe strongly that symbolism and a statement of intent are hugely important as far as this institution is concerned. The Scottish Parliament was brought into being through the consent of the people in a referendum. Surely it goes without saying that it can only be disestablished with the consent of the Scottish people voting in a referendum. Such a provision must find itself into the act. Indeed, it is highly symbolic, but nevertheless a statement of intent recognising the sovereignty of the Scottish people, which I believe all in this Parliament is signed up to that concept. It is up to us to make sure that we can put as much pressure as possible on the UK Government in the coming weeks to bring forward the appropriate amendments to make sure that the Smith commission proposals are delivered in full in the areas that are outlined and in the areas that the further devolution committee has outlined in a wider context. I recommend the Government's motion to everyone that we should come behind that at the end of the day to make sure that we can get this job done. I agree with what Claire Baker said about decentralised powers, but today I want to focus on the immediate issue of the Scotland Bill, and I hope that the whole Parliament will unite in supporting the Government's motion today. I think that everybody here supports the Smith agreement, clearly the SNP wants to go a lot further. I myself would like to see Smith plus, but surely nobody in this Parliament wants to see Smith minus. Starting with social security, there are several concerns around unnecessary detail and definition, which I will come on to in a moment, but there are three fundamental problems apart from that. Firstly, the Bill is silent about the power to create new benefits in devolved areas, and that issue must be addressed. Secondly, there is the issue of top-up powers. The Bill should be amended to place it beyond out that top-up payments create new Scottish entitlements and are not discretionary in the sense that the social fund is, and that is not clear in the Bill at present. Thirdly, we have to get rid of the veto, or perhaps some would call it a perceived veto, in relation to social security. The Parliament should be informing the UK Government about its decisions on social security, and not seeking approval from that Government. That embodies what is in reality now the shared competence between the UK Parliament and social security. Moving on to unnecessary detail and definition, what could be described as the micromanagement by the UK Government of devolved social security powers? There are concerns around the word definition of disability in the Bill, what is said about carers, what is said about employability programmes and also discretionary housing payments. Andrew Tekel, who gave evidence to the Further Powers Committee last week, said that some of those issues were likely to lead to litigation. For example, the Bill says that there is significant disability. What does significant mean in a court of law? He also posed the question, what interests does the Westminster Government have in defiding carers' benefits as being payable only to people over the age of 16 who are not in work and not in education? Why does the UK Government have to narrow down the definition of carers in that way? There are also concerns about the employment programmes and about the fact that they are restricted to a particular type of person who has been employed for a particular length of time. There ought to be far more freedom there as well. Again, I agree with Claire Baker about the implementation of those at a local level. A final example of this micromanagement around discretionary housing payments is where, again, the person who is said has to be in receipt of housing benefit and not being sanctioned. Again, that is constraining the freedom of this Parliament on an area that we were said to be getting autonomy in relation to the sole issue that my former ministerial colleague Lord Sewell has. There are two issues here. I think that the first issue is the wording of the bill that says the UK Parliament—I think that this is quoting—will not normally legislate with regard to devolve matters. I do not think that we like the word normally, although I would not die in a ditch over that, I suppose, because there could well be emergency situations. However, it still sends out the wrong message. Devolve matters is slightly odd, because that wording is never used in the Scotland bill, but that is a bit of a techie detail that I shall move on from. More substantively, our current arrangements on legislative consent or sole motions are governed by devolution guidance note 10, and that does not just talk about legislation in devolve matters but also talks about this Parliament giving consent to anything that alters the legislative competence or the executive competence of the Scottish ministers. There is nothing in relation to those words in the current bill, and that is very serious, because it means that this Parliament, for example, would have no locus in terms of discussing that Scotland bill, because obviously it is altering our legislative competence, and the same would be true if the executive competence of ministers was being changed either positively or negatively. Moving on to equality issues, there is no clarity on equality issues. Again, the words in the bill—again, I think that I co-acculate except to the extent that the provision is made in the Equality Act 2006 or the Equality Act 2010—means that the proposals in terms of quotas are all going to be governed by those acts, whereas there is no clarity whatsoever about quotas. What needs to happen in terms of the Scotland act is that, given the commitment of David Mundell to quotas in a letter, he ought to make sure that, in the bill, it is explicitly stated that Scotland should have the ability to legislate for quotas, including those for 50 per cent of women in elections to the Scottish Parliament, public bodies and local authorities. Finally, VAT, Labour has put forward a proposal on that today. I totally agree with what the cabinet secretary said that the budget should be related to economic performance. I think that, albeit in a side tax, having VAT in that way enables Parliament to reap the benefits of improved economic performance, but that ought to be explicitly stated. I do not know whether the VAT issue is going to be in the bill or just in the fiscal framework. Again, I agree that the fiscal framework is absolutely fundamental. I agree that we should not consent to the bill if we do not have a fair fiscal framework, because the whole future of devolution hangs on a fair fiscal framework. If we cannot get the block grant adjustment right, for example, crucially, then devolution will fail because we will end up worse off than we are at present. It is absolutely central. I agree, obviously, about increased capital spend as well. All those issues, but I also agree with Claire Baker, all of it has to be transparent, and there has to be full discussion of that. The fiscal framework is central to that, but I hope that we can, as I said earlier, unite round the Government's motion. Obviously, we come from different positions, but I think that we can all unite round the words of that motion. Many thanks. I now call Tavish Scott to be followed by Mark McDonald. When Malcolm Chisholm said that there were two issues of the Lord's Soul, I must say that I handled that issue very delicately indeed. I had forgotten, as the Deputy First Minister reminded us, that we were 10 weeks in that hot room sweating over or something. That does not seem to be loved, so I do not quite know where I will ever get that time back again. The Government's motion appears to be a straightforward endorsement of the devolution committee's work on the current Scotland Bill. I have been a little bit surprised that the SNP has appeared to have wanted to use such an endorsement as a trigger to veto the bill in interviews that have been taken place on radio this week and, indeed, a condition for a second independence referendum. I am puzzled by that, because Mr Swinney's Government threatened the 2012 Scotland Act with a veto, but ultimately, of course, the Government accepted more powers that that bill devolved. I cannot see the circumstances where the national government here in Edinburgh would veto more powers in this Parliament. I totally accept the Deputy First Minister's point on the fiscal framework. That is a separate matter, but I struggle to imagine circumstances where this Parliament will not gain by having more powers. I am grateful to Mr Scott. Can I help him in this analysis by pointing out to him that what convinced the Scottish Government to support a legislative consent motion on the Scotland Bill 2012 was the fact that the UK Government changed the mechanism for block grant adjustment to the whole term mechanism, which was then acceptable to the Scottish Government, because that proposed by Carman would have been damaging to the fiscal interests of Scotland? I accept that point, and that is why I make the point about the fiscal framework. However, my wider point is about the powers that this Parliament can gain that other members have talked to in the context of this debate. However, I wanted to enter into the constitutional spirit of this debate in this week of all weeks. After all, Labour has a new leader, a genuine socialist. Politics is black and white again, and certainly not Blair. Neil Findlay is now the most influential Labour politician in Scotland with the ear of the leader. I wanted to make a constitutional suggestion to Team Corbyn. Team Corbyn may be a concept that takes Labour unity a little far, judging by what we have been watching. However, Labour should go back to the future, as it did in the past, and embrace devolution within England, because I believe that that is important for Scotland as well. I fear that that will not happen, because command and control socialism does not sit easily with decentralisation. I doubt, therefore, that policy shift towards the obvious and only alternative to the constitutional morass of the UK. That is a federal country, where the nations of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland figure out a coherent way of working together. That is why I believe that the intergovernmental work that the devolution committee is doing is arguably the most important part of the work that is taking place at the moment. A federal system creates a positive, unifying future for Scotland and for the rest of the UK. It is completely normal across the world for modern, complex democracies such as ours. It would be good for Scotland and it is a pity that we cannot ask Parliament to support it with a vote on my amendment this afternoon. I doubt that nationalist friends here will embrace that progressive approach of a federal UK, not in Scotland anyway, but certainly in Wales and in Northern Ireland, where nationalist parties do recognise and indeed openly articulate that future because they see the interdependence of their countries, their nations but also the benefits that can flow. The cabinet secretary mentioned last year's referendum. It would be a surprise were that not to have been raised this afternoon. I now read that Angela Constance and Richard Lockhead are leading lights of the campaign for a second referendum. Yes, two. I have to gently say to my friends on those benches that most of us generally did think when people say once in a lifetime they absolutely meant that. So, I think for many Scots are suggesting we should go down the same route as we went down last year will be a considerable ask indeed. Rather, the politics of today will be about the SNP's short-term political positioning on a judgment of how left-wing to be because Jeremy Corbyn's success in becoming Labour's leader and indeed his socialism can bring lost voters back to Labour. Mr Sturgeon, I suspect, will not want to lose West Central Scotland back to the old enemy, so Scotland can expect a battle on who is more left-wing and that matters in terms of what we are to look at over the constitution and the future. It also leaves the centre and the right of both British and Scottish politics. The Tories, in my view, move ever more to the right. A vindictive trade union bill, a trade union bill that not even Mrs Thatcher would have brought forward to the UK Parliament. It's actually also just bad politics because far from dividing Labour, it seems to have completely united them, so I don't think that that has worked. The issue that everybody is important for our constitution in Scotland as for our future is actually Europe. We are about to witness, as we have all seen in the past, a Tory civil war. I heard Bill Cash on the radio the other morning and I thought indeed back to the future. That matters because the European question is one SNP condition for the second referendum on Scottish independence. The SNP has said that they would not work with other pro-European parties to face down the arguments for leaving Europe. That's disappointing but possibly hardly surprising. After all, just as the First Minister of Scotland wanted David Cameron to win in May, so she wants England to vote to leave the EU because that helps the SNP, it helps the SNP and it helps the case for Scottish independence. All that makes the Liberal and Radical Progressive Centre of Politics essential. It is the gaping political hole and a great opportunity not just in the UK but in Scotland too. I say it openly to my party, it's why the Liberal Democrats will recover from the trauma of the last five years. It's increasingly clear that there are only two future courses for Scotland, independence or federalism, and that federalism is the only viable future for the UK. Scotland is well placed to provide the drive and the route map forward for that new future, a federal UK with a stable and lasting written constitution that honours the democratic decision of the people of Scotland last year. Now is the time for that new start. It is a time for a federal UK and it is time to find people who want a lasting progressive settlement for our nation amidst other nations. Thank you. I've been quite generous with the first three speakers but I must now ask everyone to try and keep to their six minutes please. Mark McDonald to be followed by Drew Smith. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. The only thing that I would say in relation to Tavish Scots marks is that I certainly never used the phrase once in a lifetime mainly because I hope that I'm going to have quite a long lifetime yet. Beyond that, I think that it's important that we look at the genesis of today's debate and where we've got to. I find it interesting that Lewis MacDonald said that we shouldn't judge the vow on the basis of what's in the Scotland Bill. If we are to take the progression from the vow giving birth to the Smith commission and the Smith commission giving birth to the Scotland Bill, we could argue that perhaps a longer gestation period would have been more beneficial. I don't think that you can rub out those very clear lines between those different processes. Indeed today the UK Government, as my colleague Bruce Crawford said, is again asserting that it is delivering on their promises to Scotland. I think that most objective analyses of what is before the Westminster Parliament would tend to disagree with that. I note the comments from both the Tories and Labour about Scotland being one of the most powerful sub-national legislatures. I point to the graph on page 26 of the unanimously agreed devolution committee report, which demonstrates that around 38 per cent of the taxes raised in Scotland will be either devolved or assigned to Scotland. Comparatively, Bask and Navarre is over 50 per cent, Quebec over 70 per cent and the other Canadian provinces over 60 per cent. That bears comparison when we're making those kinds of statements. I want to make some progress on the issues that I want to highlight. In terms of the issues that have been highlighted through the discussions and deliberations on the two committees that I set on, both finance and devolution and further powers, there is a question around both the completeness of the taxation elements and the suite of taxes and the basket of taxes that are being devolved. I note that, while we are to receive powers over income tax to this Parliament, there will not be the powers over national insurance contributions, which would strike me as being something that would provide some completeness in that element. Although we are not being given powers over the personal allowance, we are apparently going to be in a position where a zero rate could be set, which seems to me to be a bit of a faff when, essentially, that is an instrument through which personal allowance alterations can take place, except for the fact that a zero rate is applicable if Scotland wishes to increase the personal allowance element beyond that which exists at Westminster. If Westminster takes a decision to increase the personal allowance in and of itself, that will have an impact on the tax income for this Parliament. It will be interesting to see how that issue will be resolved should that decision be taken, because, obviously, it would have a material impact on the projections of the Scottish Government in terms of the income that would be available to it. The other issue around this is the issue of dividend income. I note, for example, I cast, saying that if a decision were taken in this Parliament that resulted in individuals moving income into dividends, it would reduce the tax income for this Parliament, but it would boost the tax income for the UK Parliament, UK Exchequer, because it would see the benefit off of the dividend income. Again, that is an issue that I think is going to need to be examined, particularly how that would relate in terms of no detriment. In terms of the breadth of options available, both the Royal Society of Edinburgh said that they felt that the taxes being devolved were a narrower basket of taxes than is usually the case, and the Chartered Institute of Housing said that, while the Scottish Government may appear to have the power to make changes to the social security system, it would lack sufficient fiscal levers to put changes into practice. I think that those are comments that are worth noting. I note the Labour call for full assignment. I would caution the Labour Party on saying that it will result in additional revenue, because it will result in a block grant adjustment, so it will simply be an offset. It will not be additional revenue over and above what Scotland would receive. That is why the point that I made about production versus consumption is important. If it is attached to production, there is no incentive in terms of boosting economic activity in Scotland because we would then see the benefits off the back of that production. Attachment to consumption does not necessarily carry that same incentive. If we want to see, as the Labour Party suggests, benefits through economic activity, then the attachment to production is perhaps the way that that should be pursued. In terms of the issues around borrowing in the fiscal framework, those are critical elements. What we need to see is some detail around what exactly the borrowing powers are going to entail. There has been talk that the borrowing powers will replace what is currently in place in this Parliament, in which case there is a question around how effective those borrowing powers can then be if they are replacing, rather than supplementing, what this Parliament has available to it. However, there is a wider consideration here as well. The Secretary of State for Scotland came before the Devolution Further Powers Committee on 25 June of this year. When he was asked about the flexibility for this Parliament within the fiscal framework, he said, it is not the intention that the fiscal framework should constrain the powers that are being devolved in the bill. However, paragraph 2.2.5 of the command paper from the UK Government states, in the context of Scottish devolution, the fiscal framework must ensure that Scotland contributes proportionally to the overall fiscal consolidation pursued by the UK Government. Those two statements do not tally with one another. Either this Parliament will have flexibility and there is a knock-on effect there in terms of the definition points around welfare, which I know some of my colleagues are going to speak about a little bit later on about flexibility, but either this Parliament will be giving flexibility, which is what devolution should entail, or it will be constrained. That will be the acid test of whether or not the fiscal framework matches the aspirations that were outlined in the VOW, the Smith commission, and are expected by the Scottish people. Thank you. I now call Drew Smith to be followed by Linda Fabiani. Very much, Presiding Officer. Like John Swinney, the country is in reflective mood even as we hear our concerns with the detail of the legislative provisions, which will deliver the conclusions of the Smith agreement. He was right to say that last year's referendum was an exciting time for all of us. I think that the jury is out on whether or not that unprecedented engagement with politics will be sustained into other issues and ideals, but we can certainly hope and be active that it does. On one level, I think that Annabel Goldie was right to highlight this. The result was a vote of confidence in devolution as a process, as a way of doing things, which I think at its very best does represent a partnership with her closest neighbours, respecting the principles of good government, which is closer to people and based upon sound rationales for where power should lie and, crucially, the routes that we all have to achieve the changes that we each believe in. However, it was never going to be an endorsement of the status quo, either in regards to the powers of the Scottish Parliament versus local government, as Clare Baker highlighted, or the powers at the UK level. Neither, thankfully, could it be an endorsement in terms of the current order of who holds power, because who holds power and wealth and, indeed, the most opportunity in our society? Those are the big questions of modern Scottish politics, just as they have all been throughout the last century. They are constitutional, yes, but they are also fundamental. For Labour, those remain. Who has power and who is interested in the wield it, and how is it obtained by those excludes? The test to be applied to the Scotland Bill is, first of all, how does it match up to the commitments that were made last year? Is it consistent with how Scotland voted in the referendum? For Labour, the Smith agreement went beyond proposals that we had made as a party beforehand. For the SNP, it fell short of their demands, and that, I suppose, in the end as it should be, because the majority of Scots chose union over independence. However, the purpose of the Scotland Bill is to give effect to the agreement that was reached. For Labour, just as for the SNP, the bill that is currently drafted is not quite there. I would pay tribute to Ian Murray in his role as Shadow Secretary of State for the work that he has done in pushing amendments to the bill beyond the position from which we started. Beyond the position from which my party started and beyond the position that the UK Government has taken us to. Equally, I commend the cross-party work of the devolution committee here of the Scottish Government itself. We also need to respect the fact that the SNP's victory in the general election gives it a duty to ensure delivery of that agreement and more generally to articulate the desire of its supporters to go further, either than they could. Can I say to Drude Smith that, first of all, I welcome some of the stuff that Ian Murray has been doing. I welcome the idea around full assignment of VAT, but would he accept, as was described by Professor MacLean last week, one of the architects of the Camlin Commission at our committee, that VAT, where we could assign not to evolve the whole of VAT receipts in Scotland to the Scottish Government, would not make a blind bit of difference to the policy levers that the Parliament can pull, because all that will mean is a reduction in the block grant at the end of the day. Drude Smith, I think that that takes us back to why the fiscal framework to all of this is so important. I think that we've argued that we do accept the Deputy First Minister's argument around the importance of the fiscal framework provided that there is some transparency about it and not just that the Scottish Government don't like it and therefore we should all reject it. I think that consensus is a worthy aim in what we're trying to achieve, particularly in constitutional politics, but it shouldn't be the be on end, because we all reserve the right to argue our own positions even when we're in the minority, as people who supported independence were after the referendum and as my party found itself after the general election. However, we have to face up to the fact that within our devolution debate, the Scottish political debate, the constitution itself is a contested issue. That presents a significant challenge not just to those of us who supported the result last year, but to all of us involved in Scottish politics. That might not be a challenge that the SNP particularly feels just now, but it is a challenge for all of us. Constitutional arrangements are basically rules that govern power, and since power is always capable of being challenged, I suppose that true consensus is never going to be possible, but it should always be sought. Like others have said, I enjoyed last year's referendum experience and I enjoyed some of the debates that we had here in advance of that. For the most part, it was good-natured and respectful, but we all have friends, family members or people simply just that we respect, who reach a different conclusion on the independence issue from ourselves. That's really the same issue to me in the Scotland Bill. We need to get beyond some of the cynicism around this process, which has damaged it to some extent. On one hand, we've got cynicism about what can be achieved, and then a degree of disinterest from others in achieving the most consensus possible. That's what troubles me, Presiding Officer, about this, because Scotland didn't just provide an opinion about powers for the Parliament or constitutional status, it provided an instruction. Therefore, the challenge facing us is to deliver upon what was promised, yes, and what was instructed. For my side, that's about the greatest possible degree of devolution that is not to our detriment, but we also need to be respectful of the views and aspirations of the minority. I suppose that thinking about the last year, Presiding Officer, where I should close, we could have had an opportunity throughout all of this to build a new framework for devolution that respects the outcome of the vote, delivers on the promises that were made and commands as much support as possible. I regret that we don't appear to have reached that, and all I would say in closing, Presiding Officer, is that Glorious defeat to Bruce Crawford, there may be lessons in that, there may be attractions to it, not least on this side of the house, but I really hope that we arrive at a better resting place than Glorious defeat. I hope that the UK Government does move from the current position, give support to some of the amendments that are talking about, and I'm happy to support both the Labour amendment and the government. Thank you very much, Linda Fabiani, to be followed by Anne McTaggart. I want to start with direct reference to Clause 17 of the report of the Smith Commission under the introduction of the Heads of Agreement. It says quite clearly that the parties believe that Scotland's devolution settlement should be durable but responsive to the changing needs and aspirations of the people of Scotland within the UK. As a result, it may be appropriate to devolve further powers beyond those set-out in the Heads of Agreement, where doing so would aid the implementation of the consensus that the parties reached in the report. That is so important. It reflects the speed at which the commission was obliged to work following the Prime Minister's announcement in 19 September last year and the timescale. It reflects the spirit of the Smith agreement beyond the substance. It sets out a starting point for additional powers—a floor, rather than a ceiling—in the interests of cohesion. From the commission discussions, I have no reason to doubt that, although there were many disagreements on powers to be devolved, there was consensus on the fact that powers should make sense and be cohesive. The order of reporting in the resultant Smith document reflects that desire for cohesion. If you look at the Heads of Agreement again, pillar 2, delivering prosperity, a healthy economy, jobs and social justice, the chapter combines welfare, employment, equalities and social affairs. It is a cohesive approach with points of agreement for further discussion—a floor, not a ceiling. However, here we are with a draft Scotland bill that does not even reflect the floor. The starting point is that it is confirmed by the cross-party devolution committee in its reporting and it is confirmed by witnesses giving evidence, academics, practitioners and neutral commentators. Those draft clauses do not open the starting gate—or the clauses do not open the starting gate—let alone move along that track to cohesion. Pillar 2 calls for devolution of all employment support services currently provided by DWP. The bill includes a restriction that support must last for at least a year—a significant limitation. Pillar 2 calls for creation of new benefits and devolved areas in flexibility and universal credit. The bill gives no explicit power, there are restrictive definitions in relation to carers and there is still a veto clause on universal credit. On the equalities issue, the devolution committee has received strong advice that the Smith recommendation is not being met and that the clause is confused to say the least. So, no fulfilment of Pillar 2 of the Smith agreement, let alone a more cohesive approach, or indeed a settlement that is to quote responsive to the changing needs and aspirations of the people of Scotland, as outlined in clause 17 of the introduction to the Smith agreement. Cohesion would mean listening to practitioners and others about what would be sensible and welfare devolution. Cohesion would mean serious consideration to employment issues, meeting the commitment of devolving all employment support services and looking at whether further devolutions such as Jobcentre Plus would give a more cohesive system. Cohesion would mean the ability to use equality legislation to make our system fairer. Cohesion Plus being responsive to aspiration would mean capitalising on all of that and taking control of, for example, the full devolution of powers over the minimum wage, employment law, health and safety and trade union law. I think that particularly worth discussion just now is trade union law and I hope that the Labour Party will join with the SNP in asking ourselves and the STUC in asking for full power over trade union law. When you look at what has been proposed, it has been mentioned earlier in Westminster just now, surely that is something that we can reach agreement on to try and protect and promote the rights and responsibilities of workers in Scotland. Cohesion means pulling all the strands together, but you have to have control over the strands before you can start knitting them together to create something sensible. I think that that is what we should all be aiming for. I am aware that the Scotland office just now is punting out statements on social media and other places saying that we are meeting the terms of the Smith agreement. They quite clearly are not. I think that it is disingenuous to pretend that they are. In the House of Commons in 15 July, it was stated by the Secretary of State that it was his intention to make substantive amendments in the House of Commons when the bill comes back under the report. At the moment, the bill does not meet the Smith agreement. It does not seem to me, from the evidence that we have heard at committee, that there is the intention to get there, let alone go beyond. I would like to finish by going back to the report of the Smith commission. In his forward, Lord Smith of Kelvin said, I took on the job and the knowledge that the three leaders of the main UK parties had committed to take the recommendations, set out in the agreement and turn them into law, fulfilling their commitment to strengthen the powers of the Scottish Parliament within the UK. It is quite clear to me that that commitment is not being met, and I would call on the three main parties within the UK to meet their own commitment and work together with us to achieve the best for Scotland. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in today's debate on democracy and evolution. On Friday, it will be a year to the day since Scotland voted decisively to stay part of the United Kingdom, with a strong Scottish Parliament armed with more powers to strengthen the present constitutional arrangements to serve Scotland better, meeting the aspirations of the Scottish people for a strong Scottish Parliament, and at the same time strengthening the United Kingdom. Scottish Labour is a party of both devolution and the union. For more than 100 years now, we have led the argument for Scottish devolution within the union, and it is a cause that we have advanced out of deep seated conviction. Devolution can and should be strengthened where it is in the interests of the people of Scotland. That is why I believe that Scotland needs the full powers promised in the Smith commission to be able to create its own welfare powers and that the Scotland bill must go further to give the Scottish Parliament more control over the welfare state. At Westminster, we have put down over 80 amendments to the Scotland Bill, including amendments that would devolve housing benefit and remove the veto of UK ministers over welfare powers. Indeed, last week's report by Professor Jim Gallacher stated that the Scotland Bill must go further to give the Scottish Parliament more control over the welfare state, as yet more evidence that the UK Government should accept Labour's amendments. As my colleague Claire Baker mentioned earlier, today we have announced new amendments to the Scotland Bill that would see the Scottish Parliament take control of a further £5 billion of revenue and the powers to design a new social security system for Scotland. Those amendments include measures to assign all revenue from VAT, ensure that the Scottish Parliament can top up welfare benefits, even where the individuals have been sanctioned, and to give the Scottish Government the power to create any new benefit. Amendments have also been submitted to investigate the concerns raised by many charities across Scotland regarding the impact of new income tax powers on the gift aid system. Our amendments would significantly increase the powers that are currently in the Scotland Bill and ensure that our Parliament is one of the most powerful devolved legislatures in the world. That is a real opportunity for people across Scotland and we want to make sure that they get the powerhouse Parliament at Holyrood that they were promised. However, as Claire Baker's amendment states, we must recognise that devolution should not stop at the Scottish Parliament but should go on to create more effective delivery of public services. We know that Scotland is one of the most centralised nations in Europe, with our local authorities' powers decreasing in recent years. I believe that responsibility over key policy areas needs to be handed back over to regional government, and the new powers coming to our Parliament would be a perfect opportunity to do that. In our devolution commission report, we recommended the full devolution of responsibility for delivery of the work programme to local authorities on the basis that they are better placed to meet the requirements of local labour markets. That would enhance democratic accountability and empower people in greater local decision making. However, it is essential and right that the Scottish Parliament plays a key role in providing strategic oversight of local authority delivery of the service. In conclusion, the Scottish Labour Party is focused not just on making sure that the Scottish Parliament gets the powers that it needs, but also on how we will use those powers to improve the lives of people across the country. It was never the intention of devolution to devolve power to the Scottish Parliament only to see it accumulate powers upwards. We must use the new powers coming our way to strengthen devolution, increase in accountability and better meet people's needs. I am afraid that the extra time that we had has gone, so I must ask members to be strict with themselves, please, in keeping to the six minutes. Stuart McMillan, to be followed by Rob Gibson. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I warmly welcome this debate this afternoon. On 21 May this year, we had a debate on the devolution for the powers committee report into the draft clauses published by the former UK Government in January. As we all know, that report was signed off unanimously by all parties on the devolution for the powers committee, and that was no mean feat. I think that all credit certainly has to go to my colleague Bruce Crawford for how he managed to achieve that. But on that day when we had this debate, I spoke about the two issues, one of which was Fixed Odds betting terminals and also employment programmes. I am doing time returning to the Fixed Odds betting terminals just for a few moments, as this issue, like many other parts of the Scotland bill, is in my opinion unfinished business. The Fixed Odds betting terminals are fobtese. I have raised the Parliament on a number of occasions now, and I have been consistent in raising my concerns because these machines are damaging. I have campaigned for powers to come to this Parliament so that we can actually do something about them. At the time, I warmly welcome to the Smith's recommendations to give powers to the Parliament, even though those powers were to be limited. However, what we have in the Scotland bill now is an outcome that is going to create confusion for all. As the bill currently stands, the new powers will deliver a system whereby premises with fobtese machines or class subcategory 2B machines to govern their proper legal title will be governed by legislation from both the UK Parliament and also here. The clause in the bill will give us powers for new machines and leave existing machines to the UK Parliament. I think that that is an incredibly silly and convoluted way to actually deal with this issue, which is blighting communities across Scotland. The Law Society proposed amendments to improve this part of the bill, and I would encourage the Secretary of State to think again on the issue. If he is serious and is in listening mode, as he indicated, he was when he was in front of the Devolution Further Powers Committee in June, then he needs to be clear, he needs to clear up this FOBT mess. I also would encourage him to explain where the £10 limit came from in the clause 45 in the bill. This figure seems arbitrary, and I certainly can decide for no clear rationale for that £10 limit. The second issue that I am going to touch upon today is the definition of caners, disability and also new benefits. The section 54 of Smith was clear in terms of creating new benefits and the top-up of reserved benefits. However, the Scotland bill falls short on the provision of powers to create new benefits in devolved areas, not to mention the restrictive definition placed upon carers. However, clause 23 in the bill lacks clarity on the matter. The letter, dated 26 August from the Secretary of State to our committee, explains that the position of the UK Government, the letter says that the welfare provisions in the bill fully deliver the Smith commission agreement, but the next paragraph states that there is no power in the bill to create new benefits and areas of devolved responsibility, because the UK Government believes that the Scottish Parliament already has this power. If that actually were to be the case, and I will give the UK Government some benefit without just for this particular point, then why did the Conservative and Liberal Democrat members who were on the Smith commission sign off in section 54 of Smith? Section 54 of Smith reads that the Scottish Parliament will have new powers to create new benefits and areas of devolved responsibility, in line with the funding principle that is set out in paragraph 95. Surely the Conservative and Liberal Democrat members would have been aware of the position that was proposed by the Secretary of State when he writes by definition that if the area is one of devolved responsibility, then the Scottish Parliament has full legislative competence to enact legislation in that area, as long as that does not also relate to a reserved matter, including the provision of new benefits should it wish to do so. Either the members on Smith displayed ignorance to the so-called facts, which I do not believe are one minute, or there is now a sense of backtracking coming from Doverhouse on this particular issue. A further point that I genuinely find bizarre is that of the restrictive definition of carers. If this Parliament is to have the powers to deal with the limited additional powers that are to come through this bill, then why has the restrictive definition of carers been included in the bill? This will surely limit the actions of future governments in this Parliament and introduce some measures to assist with carers. The Secretary of State explains in his position in the letter once again, highlighting that those under 16 are not normally supported by the benefit system and that those in education are normally supported through grants, bursaries or EMA. However, the life of a carer is hard. There are many carers in Scotland, and I would expect across the UK, who are under 16, and for many, any additional assistance would be hugely beneficial, and it might allow them to continue their education with a little bit of the stress alleviated. Who knows, Presiding Officer, if we can remove this narrow definition, it might provide a further tool for future governments and also this Government to deal with the education attainment issue that has been widely discussed in recent months. Tying the hands of future governments in this Parliament by enforcing such a restrictive definition does the UK Government absolutely no credit, and it will also maintain the difficulties for young carers in Scotland. I need to bring your remarks so close. I have heard from members across the chamber where the bill either goes far enough or does not go far enough, and for me clearly it falls far short of the Smith recommendations but all members on the devolution committee have done a tremendous job in putting forward and showing how we can try to work together to get the best outcomes of our constituents, but as the bill stands, it does not do that by any manner of means. The Secretary of State needs to listen and act at the report stage. I would like to comment on a couple of items that have cropped up in the debate from the amendments from Labour and the Conservatives. There was some hint that there would be an agreement that local communities and empowering people in a greater local decision making issue with something that Labour believes in and that somehow or other the SNP was opposed to having more decentralisation. Nothing could be further from the truth indeed in terms of the Crown Estate, which I come to. We would not only talk about having decentralisation of local authorities and harbour trusts but to other local bodies. For example, that shows the decentralisation tendency, but I would like to know whether local communities actually mean local authorities in Labour's mind or whether local communities better explain that in their closing speeches. The second point that I suggest needs to be looked at is the one in which the Conservatives talk about making the Scottish Parliament one of the most powerful sub-national legislatures in the world. Do the Tories think that it is acceptable for the Scotland Bill to include vetoes over universal credit and energy schemes, despite there being no mention in Smith of the UK having the ability to veto the Scottish Government's decisions? That clearly falls far short of the Smith conditions and indeed is a lack of good faith in my view. Turning to the Crown Estate, which my own and my committee's interests have lain, the drafting of the clause is complex and much of the detail to be set out in the statutory scheme, a draft of which has been laid in the House of Commons. The assets to be transferred under the bill exclude the Crown Estate stake in Fort Canair business park, which could be worth more than £100 million. It also includes major caveats relating to defence, national security and electricity distribution, as I hinted at in my previous discussion about the Tory position. The Crown Estate is perhaps one of the areas in which the Parliament has spent the longest to try to get devolved. Indeed, some of us have been involved for the past 20 or 30 years to get aspects of it devolved. That devolution has been slower than glaciers melting, although those have speeded up, and perhaps the bill might speed it up a little bit now. The point is that the Crown Estate Act, if it were to apply properly to the new managers, then the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament have to be able to put our own legislative arrangements in place. However, what we are faced with is a treasury that is intent on giving with one hand and then caveatting it with another. In clause 31.2.6, it allows us to transfer assets and contains detail of that. In clause 31.10, it stops or potentially stops the Scottish Parliament from taking those actions. The provision would appear to undercut the freedom granted by clauses 31.2 and 31.6 to modify the way in which the Crown Estate in Scotland is currently managed. What kind of devolution of powers is that? We have to ask ourselves exactly what to expect. Indeed, Professor Aileen McHarg in giving evidence last week to our committee when asked about clause 31.10 agreed that it should be struck off and indeed removed from the Scotland bill. We looked to the Conservatives to tell us what their position on that is. A further problem about the way in which we might apply ourselves to the use of the Crown Estate facilities and assets was questioned by Professor Ian McLean. He took the example that has been raised about us perhaps passing some of the assets to social enterprises and thereby reducing to some extent the potential actual value of the estate of the Crown. Under a Smith no detriment principles, another vague area, the rest of the UK could, as he said, play hardball and say, you have reduced the revenue that comes to you from the Crown Estate, so you must bear the risk of that. He said, I am simply pointing out that that is a risk to the Parliament using the powers in that way. That is not to say that it is wrong to do it, it is just a risk. Why would we have to face a risk in attempting to devolve the powers of the Crown Estate? Those are the kinds of issues that bedevil this whole process and which I think shows that the process of devolution has been made much more tortuous by the bill than the draft clauses were. The Treasury's reluctance is something that shows very bad faith indeed about its relationship with Scotland. I hope that we can get this sorted out in the next while, but I hope that the other parties of whom I have asked questions answer those questions in this debate. Mike McMahon, followed by Nigel Don. In the run-up to the referendum last year, I was a member of both the welfare reform and the finance committees, so I heard a number of eminent academics discuss a wide array of fiscal issues in the context of both independence and devolution. When it came to discussions on the devolution of powers, as members might imagine, there was a fair spread of opinion on what the complexities of that process might entail, especially when it came specifically to welfare issues. One of the SNP's favourite go-to academics, Professor John Kay, boiled down the argument quite simply to saying that it is difficult to unpick welfare issues from everything else. He suggested that we are faced with a choice of all or nothing as regards what to devolve. Other academics had some sympathy with John Kay's position, but the overwhelming majority were of the opinion that any difficulty is not simply that the benefit system is complicated, but that all changes, whatever they are, run considerable risks of some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in our society being disadvantaged further, and we have to approach whatever is done with great care. The benefit system is complex and there are many interactions. Benefits interact with each other, the interact with the tax system and the interact with other social services, most notably health and social care. Whatever we do, it is likely that benefits will be tied to—whatever benefits are tied to will have implications for other parts of the system, so we must always be aware of that. Before we start on picking bits of the settlement and asking what benefits should be devolved, we need to think about the test that we might apply to make sure that further devolution is feasible, affordable and will help with issues including poverty reduction, which should be our primary purpose. Will further devolution help to achieve those ends? There was some consensus overall that the very least devolution of housing benefit would be beneficial, but any debate on the implications of some powers and not others must also consider the sorts of problems that could arise in relation to financial co-ordination. Most importantly, before we start asking which benefit may be devolved, we need to think about the test that we might apply to make sure that further devolution is feasible. As a principle, if there is to be a devolution of benefits, we need to accept that the terms or benefits will have to vary. There is not much point in devolving benefits if the terms do not vary and benefits remain completely uniform. What that leads us to is almost the opposite of the parity principle that is used in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland works on the principle that the system must be close if not identical to what happens in the rest of Britain. That is not really a principle of devolution. If we have to look at any form of devolution, we need to talk about the opposite approach, which is the presumption that it is legitimate and even desirable for benefit conditions to be different. Having different levels of social security between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom is not new. A Scotland's poor law was certainly different in relation to the rest of the United Kingdom before the creation of the welfare state. However, what has to be recognised is going back to such a situation, irrespective of any difficulties between benefits and the tax system, as any new system is going to have a cost. There is no question about that. Ultimately, further devolution needs to be financed in a way that means that the savings that would flow from a better programme performance in Scotland would stay in Scotland, and any additional costs through higher expenditure or poorer performance should also be within the core part of the Scottish budget. That is a grown-up approach to further devolution. In arguing against Professor Kay's all-or-nothing position, it should also be noted that the Scottish Parliament has already varied the social security system in three important respects—the bedroom tax, the council tax rebate scheme and the abolition of the social fund. Labour amendments to the Scotland bill that has been lodged today would see the Scottish Parliament take control of a further £5 billion of revenue and the powers to design a new social security system for Scotland. I think that that is absolutely right, that that is what we pursue—it is a continuation of the devolution process. However, the outcome of the referendum said to me that the people of Scotland want to remain in some kind of social and economic union with the UK, but they also want that union to change and they want further devolution in this area to be a reasonable and feasible part of that change process. I think that it is clear that differences in attitudes to social security have caused enormous friction and tension in Britain, but there should be a general presumption that in a political union we share a common social security system for among other things the mobility of labour and social solidarity. That is what Scotland voted for and that is what this Parliament should be focused on delivering. I think that we have to keep our eye on the ball, and we have to accept that what is on the table at the present time is not exactly what we set out to achieve. I think that the amendments that we are putting forward will take us closer to that position, but I think that the Scottish Government has got a responsibility. Wherever actions they take in order to address the complexities that I know that the cabinet secretary is grappling with and we have seen them already through the problems around LBTT and the landfill tax, that even when it comes to small tax of that, the complexities of change make it difficult. What I would ask the cabinet secretary to take on board is that whenever he is arguing for the fiscal responsibility argument that he focuses on that and takes us all with him. I would like to address sections 1 and 2 of the bill, but I want to make it clear that, in my remarks, I am not attempting to rehearse constitutional arguments. I am at this point entirely concerned with the practicalities of the drafting of what we have before us and the evidence that has been heard, particularly by the devolution and further powers committee, as to what those amendments might mean in law. Section 1 talks about permanence. Section 1A says that the Scottish Parliament is recognised as being a permanent part of the United Kingdom's constitutional arrangements. The evidence, Presiding Officer, is that that phraseology really does not help. It is recognised that it does not do anything in law and it probably does not add to the position. Our legal systems work quite simply on the basis that the law is the law for the time being. We changed only last week, I think, the law on disclosure. We know that we are going to have to reconsider that as time goes by. We will then, if necessary, change it again and it will become the law again for the time being. We know very well that no Parliament can bind its successors and it may be that that and every other issue get revisited in the next Parliament. There is nothing to be gained by saying that something is recognised. It might as well say that Scottish Parliament is a permanent member of the United Kingdom's constitutional arrangements or actually say nothing at all. The other issue on permanence, of course, is that, despite constitutional theory to the opposite, the Treaty of Union in article 19 does say, effectively, that the Scottish legal system is understood to remain in all time coming. It has proved to be the case for several centuries and there is no reason why we shouldn't say something is permanent. I will then go on to section 2. We have the same problem with it is recognised in the context of Sewell, but I would like to deal with that in a very different way. Lord Sewell, in his discussion, when he set out the Sewell motion policy, which he did on 21 July 1998 in a debate in the House of Lords, actually set it out as a policy statement and he did so in a speech in which he actually included the text of the amendment to which he was speaking above. I therefore find it quite astonishing that the UK Government's response to Smith to say that that should be set out in statute is to quite literally put it in the statute in Lord Sewell's words. That is naive, fast soil. Quite frankly, it is the kind of legislative drafting that a first-year student should know better. If we were going to do that rest of the time, we would simply have a policy memorandum annotated with section numbers and put it in front of committees. The reality is that the Sewell convention is laid out in a Government document. It is laid out in devolution guidance number 10. It was set out in 1998. The latest version has been there since 2005. As I understand it, it has never been breached. Those are the terms that say what the convention really is. If we are going to put anything at all in statute, it should actually be that. What the guidance tells UK Government departments is what they will do. Not what they may do, but what they will do. It is entirely clear that they have to consult and section 9 of it at 2 effectively says that that consultation and agreement must have been reached before the final decision making process in Westminster. It doesn't say maybe, it says it will be done. It does on its face cover emergency and exceptional circumstances. What we have in front of us does not. What we have in front of us does also not cover the full range of the Sewell convention, and that is the fundamental point to which I would now like to return. Sewell actually covers three issues. It covers, I can point them, matters on which we may legislate. Sorry, yes, it covers legislation on the issues which we may legislate. It covers the powers of this Government, of this Parliament, pardon me, and it covers the powers of ministers. What we have before us in section 2 quite clearly does not potentially cover all of those and may only cover the first point. Scottish Government has brought forward proposals. They are in the public domain. They clearly address precisely that issue. So in summing up, Presiding Officer, what we have before us is at least badly drafted. What we have about the Sewell convention is nothing more than a naive statement of a piece of policy that was set out by Lord Sewell. The convention itself is quite clearly on paper on that Government guidance. If it is going to be legislated for, then that is what should be in the legislation, complete with exceptions which are not disputed, and it also, if it were done that way, clearly covers the powers of this Parliament and the powers of Scottish ministers, as well as the ability of UK Government to legislate on issues on which we could legislate. In preparing for today's debate, I reread the vow, the signed historic joint promise made by David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg, and carried by the daily record exactly a year ago today. I am firmly of the view that those three Westminster party leaders felt compelled to sign this promise to the people of Scotland following polling on the referendum question, because let's face it, signing a joint pledge promising extensive new powers wouldn't have been on their week by week referendum planners. However, whatever your view, what we were witnessing were people and politics meeting on the front page of a popular national newspaper, and I do think that the vow can be considered symbolic of an incredible shared experience where people and politics came together, and this change dynamic is needed and welcomed, where people are involved, taking part, sharing views and not simply having politics done on their behalf by a few representatives. In their briefing for today's debate, the Electoral Reform Society Scotland asked, one year on, have we honoured the legacy of this energised and enthused nation? The ERS, I would suggest, think not, and I am inclined to agree with them. The ERS, and witness after witness to the committee, has commented on the haste in which this particular part of the devolution process has progressed. Indeed, Professor Eileen McHarg, Professor of Public Law at the University of Strathclyde, says that it is hardly an original observation to say that the process that has been followed so far has been unsatisfactory. However, I do think that it is really important to remember what it was like in Scotland in the lead-up to the referendum, how people packed out public meeting halls, how passionate pub and kitchen table conversations were being had around the country and how it felt like we were all part of an important decision. We were learning to discuss and debate issues that mattered. That is not divisive, it is empowering. Today, we will support the Government's motion and Labour's amendment. We cannot support the amendment in Annabelle Goldie's name. The amendment asks that we continue to scrutinise the bill in an objective and constructive way to allow identification of appropriate improvements, yet it deletes reference to the unanimously agreed objective and constructive findings of the devolution committee that the bill in its current form does not fully deliver the recommendations of the commission. However, the Conservative amendment also states that extensive constitutional change is best brought about by building a broad consensus between political parties and Governments. That is very important, but it excludes, or at least it forgets to mention, the people of Scotland. Participation takes time and effort, but it leads to a better outcome. I do not believe that any considered body of experts charged with deserving optimal outcomes for people would have designed the devolution of welfare powers that are currently on offer. Without deriding the powers that will be devolved, there is real concern that those powers are not sufficient or broad enough to help us to make the system work. The Crown Estate is another area where the devolution proposals seem to have been designed by someone who really did not want this to happen. When the Smith commission says that responsibility for the management of the Crown Estate's economic assets in Scotland will be transferred to the Scottish Parliament, people understand that as a pretty simple devolution of everything, yet that is not the case. We will have a double-stream Crown Estate and a complex transfer scheme, and currently Scotland will see no financial benefit from assets like Fort Canard. In the vau, David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg agreed that the Scottish Parliament is permanent. As we on the devolution committee know, the current drafting regarding this important provision has provided academics with many challenges and continues to do so. Presiding Officer, the Smith commission was hurriedly convened, delivered its report, and now we debate whether the Scotland bill delivers its intent and the change agreed by those who represented Scotland's people on the commission. However, we need to insist and be part of a new type of politics. People I speak to are not concerned about whether or not a party leader is wearing a tie. They would like to understand and debate the need for the airman-clad House of Lords, and they believe that we need the devolution of gender politics to this Parliament. Surely that is essential to a new politics. The further devolution of the powers that we are discussing today, the way in which those powers are being devolved, mean that positive inter-governmental relations are essential. Jim McCormack in evidence noted that the Smith commission observed that the inter-governmental working was weak. He focused in particular on the impact that that could have in the context of welfare devolution. Sharing powers in relation to universal credit demands a mature relationship and a commitment to work for the greater good. The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, too, agreed that the interconnections will be complex and the people who rely on benefits are often vulnerable. We will, of course, look forward to progress at the report stage in the UK Parliament so that the bill does indeed match the spirit and substance of the Smith commission. In order to do so, we need clarity on the Sewell Convention, we need clarity on the Crown Estate, on welfare benefits, on definitions of carers and disability, employment programmes and much, much more. The Westminster Government has much to do to deliver a Scotland bill that matches the intent of the Smith commission. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak and what has been an interesting debate on Scotland's democracy. The Scottish Parliament as an institution is a direct reflection of the democratic will of the people of Scotland. Bruce Crawford, as a veteran of that first Parliament, elected in 1999, quite rightly raised the issue of the permanency of this Parliament as an institution. The question surely is this. Are we a subordinate legislature, an underling of Westminster, or are we a sovereign Parliament accountable to the people of Scotland? Part of the answer to that question was provided in the motion passed by this Parliament by 102 votes to 14 when we debated the claim of right on 27 January 2012. That motion stated that the Parliament acknowledges the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs and declares and pledges within all its actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount. I believe that the people of Scotland know where they stand. They want the Scottish Parliament to be a powerful Parliament, they want it to be a sovereign Parliament and they want it to be a permanent Parliament. It is therefore incumbent on the UK Government to heed the calls from the Devolution Further Powers Committee and to set out what steps it intends to take to give practical and legislative expression to that clear aspiration set out by the committee. Alex Johnson Is there not at least an equal and opposite requirement for this Government to acknowledge the outcome of last year's referendum and understand that this process is not a means by which to continue to campaign endlessly for the independence that the Scottish people rejected? Jim Eadie The member is absolutely entitled to put forward that point of view and I think that all of us in this chamber respect the democratic will of the people of Scotland but equally it is not democratic to deny the people of Scotland the right to determine their own future. Now it was Mrs Thatcher, a heroine of Alex Johnson's who famously was able to abolish the Greater London Council, not quite by the stroke of a pen but certainly by parliamentary Dictat, precisely because it was a creature of statute. There is nothing in the bill as Nigel Don set out compellingly in his contribution that would prevent a future UK Government hostile to the Scottish Parliament from abolishing this Parliament as an institution. The potential threat to this Parliament exists because, as A.V. Dicey stated in 1885, there is no power which under the English constitution can come into rivalry with the legislative sovereignty of Parliament. Therefore, the suggestion that an amendment should be lodged to require a referendum of the Scottish electorate to be held, if the issue of the Parliament's permanency was ever in question, as well as being subject to a vote of the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament seems to me to be an imminently sensible and constructive suggestion and one that I hope the UK Government will respond to positively. In taking those steps, the UK Government would be respecting the will of the people of Scotland and the wishes of this Parliament. It would also show due respect to the Scottish concept of popular sovereignty, resting as it does with the people, a concept that we can trace back to the declaration of our broth. That concept is in stark contrast to the unlimited sovereignty of Westminster, which the Lord President Cooper famously referred to as being a distinctively English principle that has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law. The cabinet secretary set out in some detail the fact that the vow has not been fulfilled and a number of speakers underlined the views of the devolution further powers committee that the Scotland bill does not fulfil either the spirit or the content of the Smith commission. Lewis MacDonald warned us not to conflate the two, and I think that we all heard his contribution. The cabinet secretary and Malcolm Chisholm highlighted the importance of a fair fiscal framework. Those are issues that have been the subject of expert analysis by two of my constituents, the highly respected economists Margaret and Jim Cuthbert. They warn that income tax is an unsuitable choice as the primary vehicle for giving the Scottish Parliament greater fiscal responsibility. They state that the Scottish Government is being given responsibility for living within its tax resources without being given adequate powers to grow the economy and hence its tax base. I think that we would do well to heed their warnings in relation to those proposed fiscal arrangements. Linda Fabiani lamented the lack of a cohesive approach in relation to welfare, employment and job creation and did so in a way that highlighted the need to secure further powers over those matters in order to meet the aspirations of the people of Scotland. Malcolm Chisholm highlighted the lack of clarity on new benefits and top-up payments, as did other speakers, including Stuart McMillan. Mark McDonald dealt with the issue of dividend income, according to the UK Exchequer, possibly undermining the principle of no detriment. Tavish Scott, in what I thought was an excellent contribution, not withstanding the cynical blip mid-speech, made the perfectly reasonable case that what we are seeking is a progressive and durable settlement within a family of nations. He is absolutely entitled to argue that federalism is one way of achieving that. I agreed with his conclusion that in the medium to longer term, we are looking at a federal solution or independence, and that will be the democratic will of the Scottish people, regardless of which outcome finally occurs. The publication of the Scotland bill should have been a democratic milestone, a chance for the Scottish Parliament to gain further powers to take Scotland forward. We must ensure that it does not become a fiscal and political millstone and a barrier to further progress in the years ahead. We have had a lot of positive contributions to the debate today. I have to say personally that I will reflect on a number of them. I thought that we had excellent ones, particularly from Malcolm Chisholm, when he was talking about welfare, from Nigel Dawn on a slightly technical issue, but I think that we are well covered in relation to the Sewell convention. Although I might not agree with all the conclusions that both they and others reached, there is certainly, in my point of view, food for thought and things that I will reflect on personally. I do not think that the Scotland bill is perfect, as it is. Of course, there are parts of it that could be improved. Of course, there are parts of it that are badly drafted, but, in my view, the UK Government is adhering to the spirit and substance of the Smith commission, has done and will continue to do so, so that we have the best possible bill for an enduring settlement within Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. To some members who spoke today, the approach that was taken by those who came forward with positive suggestions and did not overreg the pudding will be far more effective and do the Parliament a far greater service than those who try to produce everything that the UK Government does and challenges its intentions along the way. I say in particular to Mr Swinney, who gave a more measured speech today. I was very disappointed in his press release today, where he said this. He said in his Scottish Government press release, that the bill takes every opportunity to constrain and limit new powers and utterly fails to deliver the spirit of the Smith commission. I do not know whether John Swinney believes that or thinks that, but I do not think that anyone who is being fair-minded and reasonable and genuine about the process could believe that that statement is true. I say to Mr Swinney in particular, why not put his undoubted energy and ability into getting the best possible Scotland bill that we can instead of taking swipes like that, which I genuinely do not think that he believes to be true, but he may disagree and come back in his closing. I hear what the member is saying, but the member will be aware that the Scottish Government is writing repeatedly to the UK Government and engaged in discussions with the UK Government to precisely that end. Does he agree with the Prime Minister, who has said now on more than one occasion at the dispatch box that the Scotland bill is delivering the Smith commission recommendations in full? Yes, I do, and I think that it will continue to do so, but to say that does not mean that you do not think that it can be improved. As I acknowledge at the start, it definitely can be improved. Warning can be tightened up. Yes, there are areas where it is not perfect, so yes, but I think that by the time the process is complete, I think that we will be in a better position. I just think that it is very unfair to say that it utterly fails to deliver, because if we look at what has been discussed on the chamber today, a lot of the headline issues that were front and centre when the Smith commission was published have barely merited a mention today. Almost nothing about income tax today, the biggest tax across the country. Almost nothing, there was something, but almost nothing on VAT at the second largest tax. Almost nothing on APD, absolutely nothing on 16 and 17-year-olds being given the vote. Those were some of the headline issues, not all of them, but some of the headline issues of the Smith commission that have not gotten a mention. Why? Because both the UK Government and the Scottish Government have got on with the job and done what they are supposed to do. If we put our attentions in a similar way to where there are remaining issues, there is no doubt in my mind—not at this stage—no doubt in my mind that we can get similar results. I want to come back to a point that Annabelle Goldie made, because, again, it is easy to say, as many nationalist members have done, that the Smith commission does nothing. It transfers powers that do not add up, powers that are worth very little indeed. I would refute that absolutely, Presiding Officer. It becomes something of a cliché to use the expression of powerhouse Parliament, but I think genuinely that it is. If you look at the laws for which we have responsibility, it is quite hard to measure in cash terms, but there were very few devolved parliaments that have greater legislative reach than we do at the moment and that we will once the Scotland Bill is enacted. There were very few devolved parliaments on the planet that have greater spending power and ability than us. That is one of the reasons why the Scottish Government only talks about our spending responsibilities in welfare. They are the only political party in the world that will look at spending and tax, but when it comes to spending, they only talk about the percentage of spending that we have over welfare. Why? Because if you talk about the percentage of spending that we have as a whole, it is a big figure and one that does not suit their narrative and their argument. According to Scottish Government figures and shares this year, we are responsible for 65 per cent of all Scottish spending in here. 65 per cent of it is devolved, which puts us right at the top of devolved nations. In relation to tax, where there was a big weakness, most analysts said that there was a vertical fiscal imbalance. I think that they were right. Post-Smith, we will be responsible, again according to GERS, for approximately 40 per cent of taxes in Scotland. We are spending over 65 per cent, we are responsible for the collection of 40 per cent. As David Bell said at the time, who has been quoted by others today, implementing Smith will mean that in terms of fiscal federalism, Scotland will be closer to Canadian provinces and Swiss cantons, which are at the extreme end of the spectrum of devolved fiscal powers among OECD countries. Yes, there will be one or two others who are slightly higher, but we will be ahead of almost all of them. For that reason, I support Annabelle Goldie's amendment and urge the Scottish Government to do all that they can from their side. The debate has been about the process of devolution and its purpose. Among other things, devolution decentralises the governance of Britain and modernises the British state. Promoting Scottish devolution does not weaken the United Kingdom, it does not disadvantage other parts of the union. David Cameron's big idea of English votes for English laws is divisive and ultimately self-defeating, because it misunderstands the nature of Scottish devolution. Devolution is firmly compatible with the ideals of the European Union. It derives from the principle of subsidiarity, devolving powers and responsibilities to the most local level practically possible. That principle is essential if a union of states on the scale of the European Union is to remain democratic and locally accountable, but it is just as relevant at the level of the United Kingdom and within Scotland. That is why our amendment today calls for double devolution, the transfer of powers to this place from Westminster and the transfer of powers from here to a local community level. It also calls for local people to be empowered by greater local decision making, reversing the centralisation of Scotland's public services, which has been a feature of the past eight years. Devolution is about democracy and accountability, but that is not the whole story. Devolution in the present day is also about enabling social and economic change. Those things have not always gone together. Some of the most far-reaching social and economic reforms in Scottish history were delivered in the context of a unitary British state from nationalisation of the railways to creation of the NHS. In embracing devolution, the Labour Party has embraced it as a means to further progressive social and economic change, not as an end in itself. That is how we see the Smith agreement and the Scotland bill, and that is how we have approached today's debate. The Smith agreement covers a wide range of policy areas. Its most important provisions are to transfer tax powers to the Scottish Parliament and to provide for powers in the field of social security to be shared between Holyrood and Westminster. The tax changes increase our accountability as members of the Scottish Parliament by making us responsible for raising revenues, as well as spending it. The combination of tax and welfare powers gives us the opportunity to create a distinctive and progressive system of social security in Scotland in the context of the wider British welfare state—an opportunity to improve the lives of those who have the least. However, it is simply wrong to say that the Scotland bill has failed on all fronts or that it does not fulfil the vow to devolve extensive new powers to the Scottish Parliament in any way. Indeed, the devolution committee's interim report concluded that the bill fully reflected Smith in a number of areas but required amendment or a clarification in a number of others. Those were conclusions to which all parties agreed, though many of us wish to go further. It is true that the bill falls short in the area of welfare, as Michael McMahon and others said. It is also true to say that the Tory Government at Westminster has yet to accept any of the many amendments to the Scotland bill moved by Labour, the SNP or the Liberal Democrats. Indeed, it has made few concessions to the issues raised on a cross-party basis by the devolution for the power committee of this Parliament. Alex Johnson Will the member agree that there is a certain irony in particular in the use of both the Government and the Government's backbenchers of the issue of welfare and the demands that it would appear for additional expenditure while apparently ignoring the taxation responsibilities that that would bring with it? Lewis Macdonald I think that the point was well made by Gavin Brown that income tax is an important part of the devolution package and something that should be highlighted. Of course, that does not mean that the approach of the Conservative Government on social security is one that is supported by other parties. It is disappointing that the Westminster Government has not seen fit to accept any of such a wide range of positive and helpful amendments to improve the package. For those of us who do not agree with the Tory approach to social security, I do not think that we should be deterred just because a Conservative Government digs its heels in and resists amendments to achieve social and economic reform. Mr Cameron's ministers, after all, are undermining the welfare state and the rights and freedoms of working people on a daily basis. It is hardly there for surprising that they also are resisting changes to the Scotland bill proposed by those who want to use it to create a fairer and more equal society. So, if the Conservatives at Westminster persist, so should the Opposition parties and so should we. Devolution, after all, is a process, not an event. What one Scotland act fails to deliver, another Scotland bill can propose to make happen. That has been the history of the last 18 years and if all parties cannot agree in the next few months, then it may well be the case again. Of course, devolution is a process, not an event, but nor is it a transitional demand. The failure of the Conservatives to accept Opposition amendments should not be seen as an alibi for any other party to walk away. It would simply not be credible to sign the Smith agreement, to commit to a scheme of further devolution, then to use its imperfections as an excuse to abandon the process of devolution in order to do something radically different instead. I am interested in the point that the member is articulating. Is the member saying that, if the fiscal framework results in something that would be detrimental to the Parliament, that we should still agree it because that would not be meeting up to the aspirations that we signed up to as part of Smith? Or does he believe that that fiscal framework should be rejected? What I said was that the imperfections in the Scotland bill, as currently drafted as it proceeds through Parliament, should not be used as an excuse to walk away from the process. However, the member raises the fiscal framework, and he is right to do so, because, of course, there are parallel processes under way with a view to implementing Smith. One is open and public, the process of seeking to amend the Scotland bill in the democratic forum of the House of Commons. The other is hidden and behind closed doors, the process of negotiating the fiscal framework to underpin the future sharing of power between the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments. That process of negotiation requires goodwill on both sides. It will only succeed if both Governments wanted to. There is little point in MPs seeking to improve the bill in Parliament if ministers at the same time are unwilling to negotiate in good faith with a view to making the Smith agreement work. John Swinney has always rightly emphasised the importance of getting that framework right and describing the processes in negotiation, implying that both sides must be willing to compromise and that the end result is unlikely to be perfect from either point of view. We are calling today for that process to be made more open and transparent, so that the people of Scotland and the wider United Kingdom can see what is being said and done in that negotiation on their behalf. It is important that both Governments can demonstrate their goodwill in those negotiations, so that we can see that both United Kingdom and Scottish Government ministers are indeed seeking the best way to implement the Smith agreement rather than pursuing other priorities at the expense of Scottish devolution. Of course, next year's election should not be about the Scotland Bill or a second referendum on independence or constitutional issues alone. It should be about the funding and provision of public services in Scotland, what this Parliament should do with the powers that we have and those we will acquire to close the attainment gap, address the crisis in the Scottish NHS and restore local accountability of public services. Those are the issues that matter to the people of Scotland. Devolution is a means to address those issues, not an end of itself, but all parties have signed up to the process, and now all parties need to get on and make it happen. This has been an outstanding debate this afternoon in Parliament. It has been graced by a number of very thoughtful and substantive contributions from a range of shades of opinion in Parliament, and it has helped enormously to express the view of Parliament in relation to the current status of the passage of the Scotland Bill in what is a momentous week for our country as we approached the first anniversary of the referendum last September, which I think that all of us, regardless of our perspectives except, was a triumph of participatory democracy within our country. Despite the fact, as Drew Smith fairly said, it led to different opinions being held by people close to us and in our communities than those that we represent, but nonetheless an invigorating democratic process of which we should be proud. Annabelle Goldie started her contribution today by being somewhat surprised by my reaction to the publication of the Smith commission report in November of last year. I do not think that she should have been at all surprised by my reaction to the Smith commission. The poor soul had to put up with me going on and on about it for what I have often described as 10 of the happiest weeks of my life, and those who were in the Smith commission room will realise how much of a joke that that actually is. However, Annabelle Goldie also went on to say that some of the reaction of the Government and how we handle those issues and some of the things that my colleagues say are in the sphere of being equated with angels dancing on the heads of a pin. It is wrong to characterise the issues that have been raised by members across the political spectrum in Parliament today as being somehow in that trivial way of describing some of those issues, because they are, as we have heard in the course of the debate, very substantial questions that have been raised about the implementation of the Scotland Bill and what it contributes to the process of devolve Government in Scotland. Where I completely disagree with one of the interventions that Mr Johnson made is that, when we participated in the Smith commission, Linda Fabiani and I, who represented the Scottish National Party, did not go in there and argue for Scottish independence. We accepted unreservedly the result of the referendum and we argued for strengthened powers for the Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. The submission that the Scottish National Party made to that process made that point explicitly and accepted the fact that we could not argue for independence through Smith. We had to argue for strengthened devolution and that is precisely what we did. We have, I think, a reasonable expectation that what comes out of that process is a strengthened form of devolution and one that will be implemented. I accepted in the National Museum of Scotland that Smith represented a strengthened and greater degree of powers for the Scottish Parliament. It clearly did not reach my expectations and I think that Drew Smith made that point very fairly in his contribution to the debate into the bargain. One of the key issues of the debate today has been whether the Scotland Bill is delivered on Smith or has it not. That may come down to the kind of stuff that Annabelle Goldie thinks is angels dancing on the head of a pin, but I really do think that it is important. Just about five hours ago, four and a half hours ago, the Prime Minister said to my colleague Angus Robertson, the member of Parliament for money, leader of the SNP group in the House of Commons, that he gave me a list of the things that were promised and not delivered, then we can have a very reasonable conversation. Until then, it is all bluster from the SNP. He gave me a list of the things that were promised and not delivered, then we can have a very reasonable conversation. We have heard today in Parliament a whole host of things that have not been delivered and the devolution further powers committee of this Parliament unanimously has sent several letters to the Secretary of State for Scotland, not least of which the letter that was sent by the committee on 14 September that set out a range of things that were promised and not delivered to fulfil the Prime Minister's request. Members could quite fairly then say, what have we, as the Scottish Government, been doing about that? After the publication of the Smith report in November, we offered jointly to author the clauses that would be published by the UK Government in January. The First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister on 14 November to do that, and that was not accepted. After the publication of the Smith clauses in January 2015, we offered, we published, the alterations to those clauses that would turn Smith into reality and the UK Government did not accept them. When the bill was published after the United Kingdom election, we set out on 8 June draft amendments that were published of what would make the bill into Smith. Not us trying to build beyond Smith, but us simply saying, if we make these changes, this will be what we think to be Smith. The Secretary of State for Scotland, on 8 June, on the Good Morning Scotland programme, said this. I am absolutely clear that the Scotland bill does fulfil in full the recommendations of the Smith commission and I am happy to have, as it has been described, my feet to the fire. On 8 June, the Secretary of State said that the published bill does the business, does it in full. On 15 July, in response to my colleague the Member of Parliament for Llanlithgow and Falkirk East, Martin Day, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that it is my intention to make substantive amendments in the House of Commons when the bill comes back on report. The Secretary of State, by his answer to Mr Martin Day on 15 July, clearly is accepting that what he said on Good Morning Scotland on 8 June was rubbish. So why did the Prime Minister say what he said to Angus Robertson at 12.15 this afternoon? Because that, if anything, is what can be described as bluster in the House of Commons, as a consequence of the Prime Minister's statement. I would love to hear what the ministers had to say over the last few minutes. Could he tell me quite clearly if what he is trying to do today is set out a negotiating position or is he trying to close that position down? I think that my negotiating position has been pretty well publicised. I have just said to the Parliament that what we published on 8 June was essentially the clauses that we thought would turn Smith into legislation to our satisfaction. That was a complete and utter revelation of my negotiating position. Nothing left in the cupboard to disclose was it. I would have thought that a UK Government interested in all the inter-governmental work that Mr Scott, quite understandably, always lectured me about the importance of inter-governmental work being done properly and fully. That would have said it all and we could have just settled on that. To address some of the other issues that have been raised in the debate and the fiscal framework, Mr Scott talked about how he could not conceive of the Scottish Government voting down additional powers because of the context of the fiscal framework. What I would say to Mr Scott is that Parliament has to understand the Government's position, that we see the fiscal framework and the bill as one in the same thing. There is no point in having the powers if we do not have the fiscal framework that now allows us to exercise them without prejudice to the interests of Scotland. On Clare Baker's point, he made a number of very fair and reasonable points about the transparency of the process. I have gone to the French Committee now on two occasions about the fiscal framework and I have set out a lot of the Government's thinking on the issues that we have to provide. I have also said to the French Committee that I cannot see how I can provide a running commentary on the issues that have been discussed within the Joint Exchequer Committee, of which she quite correctly says that I am the joint chair. However, I can assure her that there will be a report published after each meeting of the Joint Exchequer Committee, and that has happened on the occasions that it is met. Secondly, there will of course be the ability to have full consideration and analysis of the fiscal framework that emerges from those discussions by Parliament before we move to any acceptance of the Scotland Bill. I will only come to Parliament and recommend the acceptance of a fiscal framework if I believe that to be fair in the interests of the people of Scotland and consistent with what was envisaged by the Smith commission in its report. Malcolm Chisholm made, I thought, a couple of very substantial points about some of the elements of the Scotland Bill, which are more about micro-management than they are about devolution. Rob Gibson made the same points in relation to the Crown Estate, and we should avoid that at our peril. Devolution is about giving power to the Parliament to exercise that power, not to stipulate how powers should be used. Finally, Drew Smith made, I thought, I am always wary about praising Labour members, because I feel that it does not do the many good in turn. However, if Drew Smith forgives me, I thought that he made a really substantial contribution to the debate today about how there is an opportunity to create broader agreement about the further stages that can be made in empowering this Parliament by dialogue and discussion and debate. That has been helped by the debate today. I think that the Smith commission would have been helped by that process to a greater extent. I undoubtedly think that the Scotland Bill would be strengthened if the UK Government would respond positively to the substantive and dispassionate contribution that has been made no least by the Devolution Powers Committee but also by the Scottish Parliament into the burden. Finally, Linda Fabiani made a key point in this whole debate, which is about the need for this entire package to be cohesive. It must hide together. It must enable us to exercise the type of welfare responsibilities and imagination that Mr McMahon talked about, but it must also give us the ability to create a stronger economy to fund those provisions as a consequence. That is the bit that we think is substantially lacking in the contents of the Smith commission agreement and by its nature. If it is absent from the Smith commission agreement, it will be absent from the Scotland Bill into the bargain. That is what we must remedy. Mr MacDonald might have given us the clue. There was a Scotland Act 1998, a Scotland Act 2012, a Scotland Act 2015. Who knows that there might need to be another Scotland Act into the bargain. Thank you. That concludes the debate on Scotland's future, democracy and devolution. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 14255. In the name of Jo Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme, any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press a request-to-speak button now and a call on Jo Fitzpatrick to move motion number 14255. No member has asked to speak against the motion therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 14255, in the name of Jo Fitzpatrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. There are three questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is at amendment number 14252, in the name of Claire Baker, which seeks to amend motion number 14252, in the name of John Swinney. On Scotland's future, democracy and devolution be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 14252, in the name of Claire Baker, is as fomos. Yes, 43. No, 75. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is at amendment number 14252.1, in the name of Annabelle Goldie, which seeks to amend motion number 14252, in the name of John Swinney. On Scotland's future, democracy and devolution be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 14252.1, in the name of Annabelle Goldie, is as fomos. Yes, 13. No, 73. There were 32 abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is at motion number 14252, in the name of John Swinney. On Scotland's future, democracy and devolution be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 14252, in the name of John Swinney, is as fomos. Yes, 105. No, 13. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes the decision time. We now move to members' business. Members who leave the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.