 I do a business, which is a statement by Michael Russell on progress in EU exit negotiations. Members who wish to ask a question of the minister would encourage them to press their request to eat burdens now. I call on Michael Russell. Just over 18 years ago, on 3 May 2000, the Parliament passed the Abolition of Feudal Tenure Bill. It was one of the earliest pieces of legislation that we tackled. It brought to an end an 800-year-old system, which had been passed itself by date for generations. In the final debate, Jim Wallace commented that the bill showed that Scotland's new Parliament would do things that Westminster would never get round to doing. A similar sentiment was expressed by others across the chamber, pointing out that land reform for Scotland had never been a priority for London. This Parliament was created to have the time, the focus and the expertise for Scottish issues that Westminster lacked, and that has been the case. Collectively, Scotland has slowly forgotten the endless occasions over many years on which Scottish priorities for legislation were sidelined by Westminster, while Scottish political imperatives ignored, such as the occasion in January 1986, when those marching to save the Scottish steel industry, the cross-party garkosh marchers, arrived in London to discover that the Prime Minister would not meet them and the official opposition would not bring their cause to debate in the Commons. However, Presiding Officer, the bad old times returned with a vengeance last week. Despite the fact that this chamber had voted by 93 to 30 against giving a legislative consent motion to the EU withdrawal bill the first time such an action has taken place, and despite the vast importance of the EU withdrawal bill for peace in Northern Ireland, the House of Commons had no time to think about or talk about the devolved nations. Instead, it just decided to legislate against the wishes of this Parliament without even a debate. No, that is not completely true. It did have 19 minutes to spare, but those 19 minutes were taken up in their entirety by a UK Government minister who has only had responsibility for relationships with the devolved nations for less than six months. Here we are again, faced with one of the key problems that devolution was meant to solve—a dependence upon an archaic out-of-touch Parliament run by a Government minister who Scotland did not elect and which thinks little and cares less for us—West Minister Groundhog Day. However, it is more damaging than before, because now we are in the midst of the worst political and governmental crisis for many generations. Our national wellbeing is threatened by a decision to leave the EU against which Scotland voted decisively. In addition, the UK Government's flagship EU withdrawal bill is in a state of utter confusion as it approaches its final stage at Westminster. A Tory civil war rages around it, as it does around the whole disastrous Brexit project, whereas the threat to jobs, living standards and rights grows more imminent by the day. What protection does Scotland have in those circumstances? What can we do to deflect, even in part, the chill hostile winds that blow from Westminster? Well-presiding officer, the Sewell Convention was meant to be one such shield. It was meant to ensure that Scotland could not be ignored, that the concerns of this Parliament would be heeded in the developing process of devolution. Last week, that, too, was a victim of Tory insularity and arrogance. In a sense, that is not surprising. A UK Government prepared to sacrifice prosperity, security and its standing in the world in order to satisfy a small, extreme group of its own backbenchers was always likely to regard the interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as expendable, too. The wellbeing of Scotland may mean nothing to Westminster, but it should be our central and overriding concern. This Scottish Government will do everything in its power to protect that wellbeing and to promote the rights and interests of everyone who lives here. We are not going to allow the process of devolution to go backwards. We are not going to have our country ignored and our rights trampled at Westminster's whim, not now and not ever. Let me turn to the withdrawal bill and the Sewell Convention. There are two distinct but connected issues that face us when we consider the matter. Firstly, the EU withdrawal bill still contains unacceptable provisions that would allow UK ministers to change by order the powers available to the Scottish people in this Parliament without this Parliament and Scotland's agreement. That breaches constitutional principles reflected in the procedures under section 30 and 63 of the Scotland Act. The second issue is that the UK Government is ignoring the vote of this Parliament to refuse legislative consent to the bill in direct breach, we believe, of the Sewell Convention. That convention is there to prevent Westminster legislating without our consent in areas within our competence or to change our powers. That is essential to the security and stability of devolution. The convention has never been breached before, but now it has been. It is even worse, because in his statement on Friday, the Secretary of State for Scotland turned the convention on its head. He now says that the devolution settlements explicitly provide that, in situations of disagreement, the UK Parliament may be required to legislate without the consent of the devolved legislature. That is not so. The whole point of the Sewell convention is exactly the opposite. It is there so that, in cases of disagreement, the UK Parliament will not legislate without the consent of the devolved legislature. It does not mean, or at least it did not mean until the Mundell proclamation on Thursday, that Sewell is actually there to enable this Parliament to be overruled the moment it descents from a Westminster dictat. Of course, the Secretary of State is right to say that the convention is not absolute. It says that Westminster will not normally legislate in these matters without our consent. Not normally has not been defined, but has been understood to mean extreme circumstances, circumstances that would be clear and obvious to all. The current UK Government is changing that definition too. Now it means whenever it wants to get its way, on whatever subject it chooses, nothing more or less. Normal is what the UK Government says it is. Disagreement with the UK Government is not normal. That is not how devolution was designed. That is not how devolution is meant to operate. We now need to revisit with urgency how Sewell is defined and operated. We need to do so quickly too. There are a number of Westminster bills coming up, trade, fishing, agriculture and the withdrawal agreement itself that will require consent. We cannot have a repeat of last week. We will therefore be seeking urgent discussions with the UK Government on how, first of all, to protect Sewell before bringing forward any other legislative consent motions to this chamber. Of course, when the most recent Scotland Act was going through the UK Parliament, we argued that the references in it to the Sewell Convention would be nothing more than a convenient fig leaf, and so it has proved. At that time, we also proposed a set of provisions that should have put Sewell on a stronger statutory footing. Crucially, those provisions would have required the UK Government to consult with the Scottish Government on any bills requiring consent in advance of their introduction. They would have provided a proper statutory footing for the Sewell Convention as recommended by the Smith Commission by setting out the requirements of the convention in full on the face of the Scotland Act. Those provisions would have protected the role of this Parliament in the laws that it is responsible for, not confused it, as the UK Government's preferred provisions clearly have now done. They would also have strengthened intergovernmental working. It is therefore time to look again at how we can embed the requirement for the Scottish Parliament's consent in law. If legislation at Westminster is required to give the people of Scotland the assurance that they need on that, then we would expect, we would demand that that would swiftly follow. We must also, whilst we are at it, look at new robust intergovernmental processes. For example, by placing the JMC structure in agreed legislation with enforceable rules, including dispute resolution. The whole of the Scottish Parliament should be involved in taking this place forward, and as ever, I would welcome it and put it from across the chamber. I have asked the other parties to meet me to discuss the matter at an early date. It would be good if we could find an opportunity for an initial debate before the recess, seeking views from all sides. I would like to think that protecting this Parliament and how it works for our constituents would be an obligation for us all, and that we could find a constructive and collective way to demonstrate that. Presiding Officer, let me finally turn to the broader negotiations for EU withdrawal and the issues that arise from it, some of which require urgent action. With every week that passes, the evidence accumulates to support our position that continued EU membership is by far the best option. At a minimum, Scotland and preferably the UK as a whole should remain members of the European single market and customs union. Our analysis published earlier this year estimated that leaving the EU could result in a hit to Scotland's GDP of up to 8.5 per cent, equivalent of a loss of up to £2,300 per year for each person in Scotland by 2030. Despite the evidence, the UK Government has not listened to us, to its own analysis or even to anyone with any knowledge of the matter. To make matters even worse, the UK Government seems determined to pursue wholly unrealistic negotiating positions, wasting precious months in the process of doing so. Indeed, so serious is the situation now that one EU official was quoted by an Irish journalist at the weekend saying that talks were heading for a cataclysmic outcome. While we continue to make representations to the UK Government and seek to take us off the damaging course of a hard and unnecessary Brexit, the Scottish Government is intensifying its preparations for all exit possibilities in order to support the Scottish economy and our key sectors, what are, and will continue to be, very uncertain times. The Parliament will now also have to step up its focus on the technicalities of withdrawal. We owe that to the many people that we are involved with—agriculture, business, the third sector—who need information to plan for the future and who have had no information from the UK Government over the past two years. Of course, the Scottish Government will never bring to this Parliament recommendations that would restrain its competence and reduce its ability to serve the people of Scotland, but we need to press on with identifying and drafting the measures that are required to bring at least a degree of legislative continuity and certainty in these uncertain times. We will therefore be providing to this Parliament with the initial detail of the required secondary legislation at an early stage in the new session. I expect that the intensive legislative process that will follow will get under way shortly thereafter. We will give the maximum possible opportunity for proper parliamentary scrutiny of each piece of legislation, in line with the arrangements that are being developed by both Parliament and Government to assist this process and is outlined and improved during the passage of the continuity bill. More widely, on the issue of preparation, we had, of course, significant recent contributions to the overall process, such as the agriculture champions report on the development of a future agricultural strategy, published at the end of May, and the round table on environment and climate change report, published shortly thereafter. Last week, I announced the funding of a Children and Young Persons panel on Europe, and on Friday, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice published a further Scotland's Place in Europe paper on security, judicial co-operation and law enforcement. Tomorrow, Fergus Ewing will be laying out more detail about his post-Brexit plans for agriculture, and in the coming weeks and months we will be publishing more papers and inviting and proposing more involvement across a range of subjects. It is, of course, very disappointing that the response of the UK Government and the Scottish Tories to such initiatives being taken by this Government, this Parliament and to the actual vote to this Parliament has been unhelpful and is now contemptuous. This attitude means that we cannot and devolution cannot continue with a business-as-usual approach. Some of the required changes are indicated in the statement, others will come forward in time. What can never be in doubt, Presiding Officer, is that we are all here to protect and serve the best interests of the people of Scotland. We take our mandate individually and collectively from them, and we should always act with that and them at the forefront of our minds, that is, and will be this Government's firm intention going forward. Thank you very much, and I call on Adam Tomkins to be followed by Neil Findlay. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is so incoherent and inaccurate was that statement that it is difficult to know where to begin. Let's start with the Sewell Convention. This provides that Westminster will not normally legislate on devolved matters in Scotland without our consent, yet it was Mike Russell himself who told this Parliament that these are not normal times. As for Lord Sewell, he said only this week, there is no power grab, there is no constitutional crisis, and there is no breach of the convention that bears his name. Mr Russell said that these are not normal times because he was seeking approval to rush half-baked and ill-considered constitutional legislation through this Parliament using emergency procedures in defiance of the conventions of this Parliament, in defiance of the legal opinion of the Presiding Officer no less that the legislation in question was beyond our legal powers. So we on these benches will take no lessons from nationalists intent as they are on breaking up the devolved United Kingdom about how devolution in the United Kingdom should operate. They are not the guardians of devolution, they are the would-be architects of its demise. They don't believe in the devolved United Kingdom, they believe in breaking up the United Kingdom. Indeed, Presiding Officer, that's all they believe. But despite all Mr Russell's bluff and bluster, important work remains to be done, not least on the UK-wide common frameworks that we have hitherto all accepted will be needed post Brexit. So I really have only one question. Does the Minister today pledge to co-operate with the UK Government in completing that work, or is it now Scottish Government policy simply to obstruct the process, whatever the cost? Cabinet Secretary. I think it is notable that in all that there wasn't a word of apology for the 19 minutes that were devoted at Westminster, you would think that there would have been a moment for self-reflection from the Tories that the 19 minutes was a mistake. Can I deal with two points in Mr Tomkins' supposed question? The first of these is that the reality of this whole convention can actually be demonstrated, and the issue of not normally, in a piece of legislation. That piece of legislation is a Northern Ireland budget bill this year. In the explanatory notes for that bill, it explained why that legislation was taking place, not normally, because there was no Northern Ireland Assembly. In the contrast to that, the UK Government said no such thing about the EU withdrawal bill. In fact, the UK Government, David Davis, wrote to me seeking our permission for parts of the bill. The UK Government knows when the situation is not normal, but it does not say so to the Scottish Parliament, because its definition is normal is, if you agree with us, you are normal. If you do agree with us, you are not normal. That is not a definition of normality, even for Professor Tomkins, I have to say. The President Tomkins then asked a question asking me to pledge allegiance to something. I will pledge my allegiance to the Scottish people, which is the constitutional position. Moreover, I will use that as the test of what we do, because we will go forward with issues arising, framework issues and those issues, when that is good for the Scottish people. We will not go forward with them, either when it is not good for the Scottish people or when it is being done on the definition of normal. If you are not like the Tories, you are not normal. Thank goodness, I am not normal. During the last six months, Scottish politics has gone from high far to indeed groundhog day. Two sets of competing nationalisms have been thrown insults around using this devolve power stand-off, not to seek a solution, but to stoke up mutual antagonism for narrow party advantage. David Mundell, a man who has sat in the cabinet since 2015 without anyone actually noticing that he was there, gave commitments to bring forward amendments in the Commons and completely failed to do so. Mike Russell tried to pose as a statement, but this was utterly undermined by his party in the Commons. They risked losing the opportunity to debate the evolution in the withdrawal bill when they stomped out of the chamber in their staged walk-out. Meanwhile, out there in the real world, people cannot get a GP appointment, they cannot afford to buy a home, and too many children go to bed hungry. Labour has always been constructive throughout this. We have offered amendments in the Commons and the Lords. We have amended the continuity bill, and we have called for cross-party talks, yet those two sides, such as war and factions and a family feud, shout and scream at each other irrespective of the damage that is done to his infantile and futile. Will the minister recognise that this is a minority Government in a Parliament that has a multi-party majority view on those matters? Will he insist that any new discussions with the UK and Scottish Governments are done on a cross-party basis, representing this Parliament? Will he put on the table any new proposals? Will he confirm that, had his party's position of last week prevailed, all progress to the amended clause 15 during the bill's progress would have been lost and all devolved areas would have reverted to the UK Government? There are very serious matters involved here. None of them cannot be resolved. We cannot put men on the moon. Trump and Kim Jong-un can have peace talks. Paisley and McGinnis sat in government, yet we are really going to accept a situation that two Governments cannot reach an agreement on fertiliser quality, educational qualifications, waste packaging and the rest. It is simply not good enough. Get it sorted. At the reconciliation, I confirm that I am willing to sit down with Neil Findlay. The reality of this situation is this. I asked the UK Government, if David Luddington at the conclusion of the LCM process and Neil Findlay knows this, to come to Scotland to sit down with the parties and to have that conversation. He refused to do so. I am happy to repeat that invitation today, and if the parties are willing to do so, I hope that that could get us to move forward. I have to say that there was apparently a proposal that formed the basis of the Labour amendments that were not debated last week, which, according to David Mundell at the weekend, was brought forward by Gordon Brown and Jim Gallagher. It was not terribly helpful that they did not come and speak to us, and it would have been nice if they had done so. However, I still remain committed to working across this chamber to try and get a solution, because I agree with Neil Findlay that this is not a good situation to be in. I want to get that solution, so I am committed to those reports. I am glad to work with Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. I am happy to work with the Tories if they will do so to get that solution. If we can try and get everybody in the same room to discuss that, that would be fine. Unfortunately, the noise that is taking place does not allow me to address this as clearly as I would like to, but I just want to make it clear that, if we can get those conversations, we will have those conversations. If that is helpful, I have already asked to meet the parties separately, as it happens, so that we can have those and have those separate discussions. If we can have those discussions, I will accede to the view that Mr Tomkins wants us to get into a room with Neil Findlay as quickly as possible. I will be happy to be in that room, too. Patrick Harvie, followed by Tavish Scott. You will have to come back to me. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is worth remembering that, yes, indeed, both Governments are minority Governments and have a responsibility to seek consensus, or at least agreement, where possible. It is telling that it is those in opposition at Westminster who seem very often to be failing to derail the UK Government's fundamentally destructive, chaotic Brexit project itself. I think that there has been good opportunity to have cross-party dialogue and discussion and a clear cross-party majority from this Parliament against the actions that the UK Government is proposing to take. In essence, what the UK Government is doing is treating Scotland as though it still has the right to impose direct role, and that is something that this Parliament has an absolute responsibility to reject. I think that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government would have nothing to fear in this context from inviting some international body to mediate or to achieve some degree of arbitration between the two Governments. I suspect that it is the UK that would be unwilling to have that kind of constructive dialogue. Would the Scottish Government be open to some kind of international mediation process? It is very clear that, at the moment, the UK Government simply is not listening. I think that the Scottish Government would be keen to see any input that could come from a neutral source that would in actual fact help us to move this issue forward. I cannot imagine circumstances that the UK Government would agree to, but I am happy to confirm that that would be a good idea to take forward. Patrick Harvie makes a very interesting point when he says about direct rule. The Tories are presently using the Sewell convention as if it is a substitute for direct rule. Sewell is actually there to cope with circumstances in which the system of devolved Government fails. Using the Sewell in these circumstances says that the system has failed. The definition of system failure that the Tories are applying is to say that they do not agree with us when we want to put legislation through. I think that that is a very key point that Patrick Harvie has made and it is worth remembering. Tavish Scott is followed by Bruce Crawford. It is not news that Westminster's processes are archaic at all, but what is the elephant in the room is the point that the Minister made that this is the worst political and governmental crisis for many generations. That is leaving the decision to leave the EU. Therefore, is this not the time for his party, for him as a minister, for this Government to recognise that the particular need here is to put the final EU negotiations to evolve to the British people? I am taking on what we are talking about. Those issues are mutually exclusive. I am very keen to see the Scottish people vote and in those circumstances I am sure that they would reject leaving the EU. The issue is how we make that real. That is what they did on 23 June 2016. They said that they were ignored. I have made it clear to Tavish Scott, I made it clear to Willie Rennie and I am happy to go on doing so. Can we square that circle? If we can square that circle, they will find no greater enthusiast for ensuring that that takes place. I have had those conversations with people who are involved in those campaigns south of the border and I would be happy to continue to have those conversations with the Liberal Democrats. If we can square that circle of what would happen in those circumstances, then I think that it is more than possible to move forward. I would like to move forward, because I do think that there will have to be a moment when people say, I am sorry, we do not wish this. We do not wish to be dragged into the chaotic mess that the Tories have created. This is now all about a Tory civil war. The interest of any part of the islands is being sacrificed on that altar and that is in utter disgrace. The fact that there are Tories who know that, Tories sitting in this chamber who know that and will not say it compounds the disgrace. Bruce Crawford, to be followed by Jackson Carlaw, Bruce Crawford. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Does the minister agree with me that the position adopted by the UK Government in regard to the EU withdrawal bill undermines the protection provided to the devolution settlement through the Sule convention? The minister also agrees that, while the Sule convention may not be legally binding, it is nevertheless a very important constitutional rule. Any breaking of that rule by the UK Government therefore requires a serious and substantial explanation. Has the Scottish Government received such a serious and substantial explanation from the UK Government? I have seen reported excuses made by the UK Government but, to date minister, I am aware of no serious explanation for their power grab. I think that the member makes a fair point. If any senior minister in the UK Government were to say to me that we are doing this for the following reasons and explain why that was in his terms not normal, I would be interested in having that conversation. I probably would not agree, but I would be interested in having that conversation. That has not happened. The sole thing that we can intuit from what we have seen is that, because we had the temerity to withhold legislative consent, that was sufficient to create the circumstances in which we were simply going to be overruled. That cannot be the operation of the convention, because all it means is that there is no purpose in having the convention, because any request for us to pass a legislative consent motion is pointless, because if we do not do so, we will be deemed to have done so anyway and will just be overruled. That cannot be what it was about. Interestingly enough, that is the view of the majority of Labour ministers who have undertaken those roles in devolved administrations and, indeed, in the UK Government. Malcolm Chisholm's contribution today was very helpful in that regard. I do not think that anybody who has seriously been involved in the administration of this Parliament and the devolution believes in the definition that Tories are applying, but they are applying it with a heavy hand at Westminster to the detriment of devolution. I think that we all understand that the Scottish Government does not support the UK Government's position. However, can I ask about the on-going exit negotiations now approaching their business end with the EU? What role does the cabinet secretary imagine that the First Minister and Scottish Government can now play when the First Minister has recently returned from Brussels, where she busied herself in conversations with Michel Barnier undermining the negotiating position of the member state in which the EU is charged with negotiating? Indeed, the cabinet secretary in his statement again confirmed that he simply disagrees with everything. The Government of Wales, the mayor of London may disagree, but they are working constructively to ensure that important matters are represented in the negotiations taking place. The Scottish Government is just calling for ministerial resignations. How does that help anybody in Scotland? I do not think that the member is up to speed with what is actually happening. I saw a report of a conference last week at which Carmen Jones was speaking, in which he was very strong. I have been criticising the UK Government's position and said that continued membership of the single market and the customs union was essential. That is what I said today. I think that there is a similarity still in the position that is being taken. However, let us deconstruct the logic of the position that the member has taken. If the First Minister goes to Brussels and meets Michelle Barnier and stands up for Scotland's interests, she is undermining negotiations. Ergo, that is what the member said. If she extends that logically, what the UK Government's position is is undermining Scottish interests. What she is doing is exactly what she has to do, which is to say that those are the things that are important to us. Now, it would be easier to do that if there was a mechanism by which we were confident that those issues would be represented. I have said at the JMC on many occasions that my colleague Mark Drakeford has said that at what consideration is the UK Government giving at its central concerns—I remember before one of the checkers meetings—to the issue of membership of the single market and customs union, who is speaking for that in these meetings? There is no answer, because nobody is speaking for it in those meetings. We have now started on ministerial forums. The next one will take place next week in London. So far, we have shown a list of contents to the white paper, told that the white paper was not drafted, asked for our input, and then we discovered a few days later from the press that the white paper had been drafted, but it was so controversial that it could not be shown to ministers, and therefore one does not really know what the purpose of that was. If that is genuine involvement, I think that the UK Government needs to think that again. If there was genuine involvement and discussion, and there was some indication that the views of Scotland—not just of this party, not just of this chamber, but the views of Scotland, which said that it wanted to stay and, as a minimum, needs to stay in the single market and the customs union—were being taken account of, that would be progress. However, the UK Government, as ever, has shown itself to be completely clothiered on these issues and determined only to do what its extremists want. Things that the Tories in this chamber—most of them the sensible ones—were opposed to two years ago, and are now sitting here nodding through, I repeat, knowing the damage that will be done to the people they represent. Can I suggest that we have slightly more succinct questions and succinct answers if we get through the rest of this session? Emma Harper is to be followed by James Kelly. Emma Harper. Thank you. Many Scottish products benefit from EU schemes such as protected geographical indication status, which help maintain our unique brands and promote the provenance of Scottish produce. With signs that the UK Government may attempt to erode those special statuses in order to pursue free trade deals, has the minister received any indication that the UK Government will listen to vital Scottish interests? This is an important example of where interests are actually more widely across these islands as a whole. All those bodies and organisations that have products protected by PGIs or protected geographical indicators know that their position will be considerably weakened, particularly in international markets, when that system is broken by leaving the EU. They are the ones who are saying to the UK Government that this must be sorted. So far, the UK Government has given no indication of sorting it at all. Indeed, I now notice that this is one of the key issues still to be resolved in the exit negotiations. This has gone up the agenda, because the EU is also worried about that, because it will undermine the links that should exist between the European protections and protections in these islands. We will continue to support everybody who is arguing for the continuation of the PGI system, even if that means bringing the two together in mutual recognition and having, unless it is crucial, continued regulatory alignment, so that those systems cannot break apart. If they do break apart, the value of them to Scottish whisky, to Scottish lamb, to Scottish beef, to our broth smoke is the value—and, I should say, to the story of my black pudding, with Dr Allan sitting next to me—the value of those things will be diminished as we go forward. James Kelly is followed by Kate Forbes. Does the minister accept the view of Jim Siller's former deputy leader of the SNP expressed at the weekend that Nicola Sturgeon has soured relations between Holyrood and Westminster? If he is serious about protecting devolution, will he specifically commit to initiating cross-party talks before the summer recess in order to attempt to bring a resolution to this impasse? On the second point, yes, I have already made that commitment to Neil Finlay. There is an invitation live to Labour for those discussions. I hope that it will be taken up. I am very keen to see progress on that. As to agreeing with Jim Siller's, it will become as no surprise to members on this bench as elsewhere. I do not agree, and it will not be the first time that I disagree with him. Kate Forbes is followed by Jamie Greene. Does the minister believe that by promising investment in the NHS in England under the guise of a Brexit dividend, Theresa May is not only treating the public like fools to quote one of her own MPs but is also shamelessly disregarding the considerable concerns about the NHS after Brexit, including the prospect of a £3.7 billion cut from public services in Scotland by 2030 and the possibility that future trade deals could open up the NHS to privatisation? Those are key issues in terms of exit. I have to say that there is something both deeply disorganised and deeply cynical about the claim for a Brexit dividend. There is no Brexit dividend. Of that, there is no doubt of any description. There is no Brexit dividend. Brexit is going to cost a very substantial sum of money. I have indicated in my statement what we expect that cost to be. Of course, it does expose the absolute desperation of the Prime Minister. This is a gesture to the Brexiteers to make sure that they might stay on side for something unpalatable that might be coming. It also opens up the Tory position on tax. It is an incredible position. In this chamber, they have argued that any tax increase, particularly for health, is absolutely wrong, completely and utterly wrong, until, of course, now south of the border, increases are good. Taxes are particularly good. We must put taxes up. So where does the Tory stand on this? It is a completely irrelevant position. It does expose the emptiness of the Scottish Tories. Many of us thought that that would happen eventually, but it simply showed that they take a position when they think that it is okay for them. The UK Government does not consult them at all. It is a bit like the EU negotiations in Scotland and England. We do not get consulted by the UK Government, but neither do the Tories here. In terms of protecting Scotland's interests, nothing in the Minister's statement talked about the powers that will require common frameworks to protect £48 billion per year market that Scotland has with the rest of the UK. Therefore, can I ask Mr Russell what his Government's policy preparations are for the scores of EU powers that we know are coming to the Scottish Parliament as a result of Brexit? I do not think that scores of powers are coming. The power grab is a power grab, no matter how you look at it. Those people who deny it either do not know because they have not read the material, or they are, unfortunately, not indicating what is true, regrettably, but that is the case. As I have indicated on the frameworks when I answered Professor Tomkins and I do not know whether perhaps he drafted this question for Mr Green before I would answer it, the reality of the situation is that we will take the interests of the people of Scotland as our guide. I am trying to finish the answer, but it is rather difficult to do with Professor Tomkins shouting in his usual fashion from his seat. I just want to put that on the record for those who do not know it. The Tories are behaving in the same British way as they do in the House of Commons, and it was noted there last week, and they have been noted by viewers here. We will take the interests of the people of Scotland as the guide, and we will follow that when we are looking at the issue of frameworks. If it is good for the people of Scotland, we will do it. If it is only good for the Tories, we will not do it. John McAlpine, to be followed by Pauline McNeill. Given that the UK Government appears intent on overturning the deal that was signed with the EU last December and has taken less than a week to renege on the commitments that made to its own-back bench MPs during the EU withdrawal bill debate, can the Scottish Government trust anything that the UK Government says in the joint ministerial committee meetings or indeed in meetings of the Brexit ministerial forum? My expectations are at the lowest they have ever been in these circumstances, and I regret that, because it is a difficult thing to have those discussions. I am much more worried about the way in which this looks outside the UK. I was in Ireland last week for two days, and there was just bafflement at what was taking place. Indeed, a number of commentators recently have indicated that in Brussels and Dublin there is a view that the UK Government is now essentially in a parallel universe and involved in all sorts of arguments and discussions that are utterly meaningless, and this destroys any confidence. How can you have confidence in a Government that takes weeks upon weeks to get to a position that it puts in a paper to Brussels and that that position does not meet any of the requirements that have been laid down, as was indicated within a few days? It does just so that this is a shambolic process, and you cannot have confidence in those people who are involved in a shambolic process. The statement is going to finish at 5 past 3. There are four more members who would like to get in. Pauline McNeill. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, of course, it is right to robustly defend the devolution settlement that he has the support of this party in that regard? However, it is also important to make day-to-day progress on some key issues. In that regard, can I ask the cabinet secretary that, given that the immigration rules have been relaxed for nurses and doctors, importantly, without any new legislation being required, precisely what discussions has the cabinet secretary had with the United Kingdom Government on that point? Have you asked for a similar relaxation for workers that are needed in the Scottish interest? On that specific point of nurses and doctors, I noticed that the cabinet secretary for health has already welcomed that and is planning an initiative to move that forward, so that is welcome. It does not go nearly as far as it should do. It is important to remember that the freedom of movement is the best thing that we could have, and anything less than freedom movement is difficult. I have had discussions, for example, in the GMC format with the previous immigration minister when we have talked about the specific needs of Scotland. The information that went from the Migration Advisory Committee did that. In sectoral issues, we have raised sectoral issues, but a sectoral approach is not nearly as good as a much wider approach that freedom of movement gives. However, in the end, if we end up with a sectoral approach, we need the most open and generous approach that we could possibly have. If we look, for example, at issues such as fruit gathering on the east coast of Scotland, if we look at the hospitality industry in the member's own area as well as elsewhere, there will be huge issues in terms of shortages of staff this year. In those circumstances, a sectoral approach to those might be necessary, but it is not nearly as good as a wider approach. Richard Lochhead. Given that we have a Conservative party that the people of Scotland did not vote for using Brexit, which the people of Scotland did not vote for to attack devolution, which the people of Scotland did vote for, does the cabinet secretary agree that last week's events strike at the very heart of Scottish democracy, and that David Mundell, the secretary of Scotland, was wrong to suggest that yesterday's emergency debate in House of Commons should end the matter? Will he use every legal and political means to frustrate any attempt by the UK Government to undermine this Parliament's powers and Scotland's national interests? It is not business as usual, and that was made clear last week. It is made clear this week, and it will go on being made clear. The reality of the situation is that it does undermine devolution, and we will not tolerate that. I have indicated that statement. I am glad that there is support for that across the chamber, except among the Tories, who will of course undermine devolution, and we will go on doing so. Thank you very much. Apologies to Rachael Hamilton and Ivan McKee. We did not have time for any more questions, but that concludes our statement on progress in the EU exit negotiations. The next item of business will be a statement by Michael Matheson on complaints and conduct review. I will just take a few moments for the minister and for members to change their seats.