 The final item of business today is a member's business debate on motion 5885 in the name of Keith Brown on protecting devolution and the Scottish Parliament. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put, but I invite members wishing to participate to press their request to speak buttons now as soon as possible. I invite Keith Brown to open the debate around seven minutes, Mr Brown. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and many thanks to those members who have supported this motion and allowed me to bring this important issue to the chamber, and of course those members who have stayed behind to listen. Frankly, it's a disgrace that we even have to debate this, but debate it, we must, because this chamber, this institution, this Parliament of ours is under attack, and, sadly, there are those within these walls who are complicit in that attack, and some explicitly others by their silence or even their absence. There is a phrase that's often trotted out about the Scottish Parliament which predates the existence of the Parliament, and it was part of the argument made during the referendum that brought it into being, and that is that devolution and the Scottish Parliament are the settled will of the Scottish people. That, for me, is a bit thus far and no further. Like Parnell, I'm more inclined to insist that no man has a right to fix the boundary of the march of a nation, and indeed all the parties in this chamber signed up to the Smith Commission that said that nothing should prevent this Parliament moving on to become independent if that's what the people of Scotland voted for. There was certainly a very broad consensus in 1999 that there were a wide range of issues best dealt with here in Scotland's Parliament rather than down the road in Westminster, and I don't see any sign of a shrinking back from that view amongst the people of Scotland. On the contrary, support for extending the powers of the Scottish Parliament have grown substantially, and support for independence is regularly the majority option in frequent opinion polls, in fact, as recently as last week. What I also see, though, are hardline unionists, those who were not part of that 1999 consensus, and have resented the very existence of this place ever since, emboldened perhaps by their experience with Brexit and fuelled by dueeid reminiscences of an empire on which the sun never set, and a golden age that never existed, trying to claw back powers to Westminster and to Whitehall. The long list of legislation detailed in the motion shows that this is not a one-off issue. They are working to a template and with scant regard to democracy. To that list, we could easily add the blocking of an independence referendum and the refusal to recognise the overwhelming opposition in Scotland to Brexit and being dragged out of the European Union. We also see this phenomenon of the craven Conservatives, who will never attack anything that might represent the interests of the people of Scotland if it conflicts with what the Government in London is doing. To give you an example, there is trust fiasco that costs Scotland perhaps around £6 billion, not a word, of criticism from the Conservatives. Let's be clear, this is not just the bullshit jock grievance mongers, as people like Jacob Rees-Mogg might describe us. For example, former Labour First Minister, Henry Rucleys, who I think would be appalled at the absences on the Labour benches tonight. Henry Rucleys has branded Tory moves to curtail Scottish ministerial engagement abroad as an attack on devolution, and he has highlighted the contempt, the disrespect and the political control and coercion of the UK Government. He highlighted the Scottish Government's absolute democratic right to be pursuing international engagement and warned that this Tory Government does not recognise the spirit of devolution. I am looking at the UK Government's intention to use a section 35 order for the first time to stop the Scottish Parliament from implementing a piece of devolved legislation, one with cross-party support and majority support from MSPs of all parties. The current Labour First Minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford, who is also more concerned about devolution than some people in this chamber, said that the moves to block the law sets, in his words, a very dangerous precedent, and that could be a very slippery slope indeed. When the unalighted Tory peer Lord Frost, who served as Boris Johnson's failed Brexit negotiator, argued that no more powers should be given to the Scottish Parliament and that some powers should be snatched back by Westminster, there were those in the Tory benches such as Murdo Fraser, Stephen Kerr and Donald Cameron, who is here tonight, who rightly condemned the column and sought to distance themselves from the proposals. I promised that Donald Cameron would mention the fact that his relative, Michael Angrum, was one of those people who spoke up in the House of Commons against the clause that allows section 35. Where is that strain of Tory these days? They avidly support Westminster's section 35 veto and they frequently call on their Westminster bosses to ignore the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament. Just this weekend, it emerged that the UK Government are blocking the deposit return scheme, as approved by this Parliament, because glass is contained in the scheme. The Welsh Government have also included glass in their scheme, but they will no doubt be told no as well. The odd thing, of course, as we know, is that the Tories have supported the inclusion of glass. I would be looking at Maurice Golden if he was here, who tweeted as long ago as 2019 that Scotland's new deposit return scheme should include glass. It is just common sense. That can only be a match to exercise inflexing constitutional muscle on the part of Westminster. Britain is financially broke and it is constitutionally broken, but even with the limited powers of devolution, this Parliament has been able to make a difference. We have been building a fairer Scotland with the Scottish child payment, the most ambitious anti-poverty measure anywhere in the UK, increased by 150 per cent in 2022. We have been creating a healthier Scotland with record high staff levels in our NHS over 28,800 more under the SNP. We are forging forward with a greener Scotland, where climate targets are among the most ambitious in the world, with a 75 per cent reduction by 2030 and net zero by 2045. We are supporting a smarter Scotland, for example, £1 billion for the Scottish attainment challenge, to support our most disadvantaged children and young people. We are promoting a wealthier Scotland with a progressive income tax system, ensuring that the majority—52 per cent of Scottish taxpayers—pay less than elsewhere in the UK while delivering extra support for our public services. That is only scratching the surface of the benefits that devolve Government, and in particular, in my view, the SNP's policies are brought to Scotland. I could go on and list many more, or the ways in which Scotland is outperforming the rest of the UK. Teachers pay, police officers pay, crime reduction, for example, but I do not have time to list all the benefits. The list is long and impressive, but perhaps other members, when they speak, will pick up that baton. The Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government and the Scottish people need more powers, not fewer powers. The attacks by the Tories on devolution and any failure of Labour and Lib Dems—no Lib Dems are tall here tonight to oppose them—will not be unnoticed, forgiven or forgotten by the people of Scotland. The former Tory MP and Minister, Enoch Powell, not someone I have ever quoted with relish, said that power devolved is power retained. This UK Government wants to go further and see Westminster's power regained. They want to take back control. We will not let them do that. I would end with a call to members from across the chamber—at least those who are here tonight—and certainly all those who believe in devolution from the start and still do—to unite and repatriate the power that has been stolen from this Parliament and the people of Scotland. I now call Donald Cameron to be followed by Stuart McMillan in around four minutes. It is commonplace in a member's debate to congratulate the relevant backbencher on securing chamber time, often on issues pertinent to their constituency or a health campaign or something similar. On this occasion, I struggle to do so. A motion signed only by the SNP and one green MSP tells us everything. I only have four minutes of time, so I will be concise. In amongst all the hyperbole we have just heard, I want to address three specific issues mentioned in the motion. Section 35 is intrinsic to the Scotland Act. It is part and parcel of the devolution settlement. You cannot complain that devolution is under threat when the section at issue was explicitly included by Donald Dewar and the founders of devolution in the Scotland Act itself. Its use in January was justified. Whatever your views on the substance of the GRR bill, there is a powerful argument that it poses adverse consequences for UK-wide equality policy. A fact the SNP Government will warn about during the passage of the bill, and instead of working with the UK Government to resolve this amicably, the Scottish Government is heading for the courts. Secondly, on levelling up, I have made this point before, but I reiterate it. At no point did the SNP ever complain about the EU injecting funds into local communities in the decades when we were members of the EU, but now that the UK Government is doing the same, they are appalled. The SNP knows fine well that the devolution settlement allows direct investment from the UK Government to devolve policy areas. That is replicated across the world in federal or quasi-federal systems. Look at Australia, look at Canada, look at Germany, far from undermining devolution, that is strengthening. Thirdly, on Sewell, I have no doubt that Sewell is under strain and needs rethinking. But on the point of collapse, we pass LCMs regularly in this Parliament without a division. We did so only last week or the week before. The Scottish Government has itself consented to a raft of post-Brexit legislation passed by the UK Government about fisheries and animal welfare, for instance. Do we still pass legislation week after week, year after year, on Scotland only matters? Of course we do. But let none of that get in the way of the predictable SNP hysteria about a constitutional crisis, a loose talk about a full frontal attack and a scorched earth policy when it comes to devolution. Because, Deputy Presiding Officer, this is all they have left. The sound you hear is the noise of empty, empty rhetoric, the resounding gong and clanging symbol of nationalist grievance. And does any of that help the people of Scotland? Does any of that help the person waiting at a pier on Mull for a ferry that doesn't arrive? Does that help the teenager waiting months on end from mental health appointments that doesn't happen? Not one bit. Deputy Presiding Officer, if the SNP wants to use members' debate time to drag up old grievances or put a spin on new ones, they can do so. But voters are watching and wondering. They know this is a tired, directionless Government that has no new ideas even with the new First Minister. They know that the SNP first elected in 2007 with so much promise, so much hope, has let them down these last 16 years. They know that this Government, which controls the most powerful devolved legislature in the world, is not making full use of the powers it already has. They know that if the SNP just for once concentrated on what matters to people in their everyday lives, how much could improve, how much could be achieved. And, as a result, they know that when the question is asked, why is devolution failing, the answer is to be found sitting on the benches to my right. I now call Stuart McMillan to be followed by Collette Stevenson again around four minutes. Thank you very much. First of all to Mr Cameron. I think it's fair to say that the Scottish Government hasn't consented to every LCM. This member's debate is timely, and I do thank Keith Brown for securing it, but I would encourage the Scottish Government to use some of its time for a full debate on this critical issue. Now, Keith Brown touched upon the fact that there are no Lib Dems in the chamber. This is a part from yourself, Presiding Officer, but you are clearly not speaking today. I would, just to correct the record, I am not a Liberal Democrat saying that I am the presiding officer, Mr McMillan. Okay, but certainly there are no Lib Dems sitting here in the chamber, the party that claims to defend devolution, that every party in this Parliament has its own position on the constitution. I doubt whether those positions will change anytime soon, and I have been an independent supporter for as long as I can remember, and that will never change. It will come as no surprise that I want this Parliament to have the full range of powers of independence, so we can make that positive difference to the lives of present and future generations. Others in the chamber will disagree with my position, which is their right. However, whilst we do have a Parliament with limited devolved responsibilities, there should be respect for it from all quarters, yet the respect agenda that Douglas Ross previously spoke about has been shredded. Over 30 years ago, John Major used the word subsidiarity to help him to secure Tory support at that time for the Maastricht Treaty. Ultimately, he helped to secure enough anti-European supporters of his party by selling the message of UK decision making within the EU. Over the years, Maastricht was never going to be enough, and the internal divisions in the Tory party regarding Europe raged until the Brexit referendum in 2016. What Scotland and Wales have witnessed since 2016 has been the erosion of the already limited powers of devolution. The Tories made many arguments against remaining in the EU, including that it was costly, centralising and democratic, and removed decision making from the UK Parliament. They now seem to have forgotten those arguments and are effectively gaslighting the people of Scotland when we dare to make the same arguments against this failed union. The internal market act was always a ruse to get the Tories back into position of control over Scotland, i.e. you can have your devolved powers as long as we agree with them. Douglas Ross in November 2020, at the policy exchange, pitched his thoughts to save his precious union. There are just a few of his quotes on that day. First of all, the UK is a partnership of nations, just like the European Union. As Scotland has two Governments and in contrast to international comparisons, there is no rigid hierarchy between the different tiers of government. They both have areas of responsibility and management. They both have a role. We will not strengthen the union by turning back the clock. We will only strengthen support for independence. The UK Government needs to do more to involve the devolved Administrations in delivering our new international role. They will have to implement trade deals, so they should have a role in producing them. With the end of freedom movement, we will need to see more flexibility in our immigration system to account for the needs of different parts of our country, which the devolved Administrations are well placed to represent. Finally, the key to this working will be a restatement of the respect agenda in engagement and communication. Despite all this from Douglas Ross, Scotland is now seeing an erosion of the powers of this Parliament. The UK Government is trying to turn the clock back and remove, piece by piece, the limited powers of devolution that are not even attempting to hide it anymore. It is brazen. Scotland has a choice to make. Are we happy to be subsumed back to the pre-devolution years, where the sole decision maker comes on a Westminster-based elite? The EU integrationism that the Tories fought against is now a UK integrationism approach to dismantle devolution. That will continue unless Scotland uses its voice to defend this Parliament and everyone who lives here. I am very grateful to Keith Brown for bringing this important debate today. This Parliament might just be 24 years old, but in the years since 1999 Scotland has made great strides thanks to devolution. That includes free university tuition, building more social housing per capita than the UK, record high health funding, the creation of Social Security Scotland, free personal care and driving forward on fair work. When Scotland voted for this Parliament, the Conservative Party was overwhelmingly against it, and some would argue that they have resented the existence of this Parliament ever since. For my colleagues here, lucky enough to be elected to this Parliament, though, I would like to think that they all support this institution and want, at the very least, to protect devolution. I actually want to see devolution enhanced, and the clear majority of us in this chamber want to see Scotland become an independent country. This Parliament is free from the threats of Westminster, vetoes and interventions. In recent months, we have seen that a Tory Westminster Government, rejected by the people of Scotland, used for the first time ever a section 35 to veto legislation approved by over two thirds of this Parliament. A couple of years ago, this Parliament unanimously voted to incorporate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scots law, but the UK Government filed a court case to stop it. The Internal Market Act paved the way for a power grab on Scotland's Parliament, and the Tories are now using it as a cover to veto another policy supported by a majority of MSPs, the deposit return scheme. Other countries can make these things work even under devolution. The Tories might not like to hear that, but that is just the way it is. The state of South Australia has had a deposit return scheme for over 45 years, even though there will not be a nationwide scheme until 2030, and glass is included in the scheme there. I should say that Labour Governments were not immune from vetoing the wishes of the Scottish people or indeed those of its own representatives from Scotland. As an example, they ignored the democratic verdict of the people of Scotland in the 1979 devolution referendum. Nowadays, we have cure-stammers, Labour, joining the Tories as born-again Brexiteers, yet again ignoring the wishes of people in Scotland. This pattern makes it pretty clear to me that, while Scotland tries to make progress within the UK, Westminster will intervene when it disagrees with policies, even though Scotland voted for the members of the Parliament and rejected the UK Government. Whether it measures to help the environment to make life that bit easier for minorities or even to protect the rights of our children, the UK Government has no shame and seemingly vetoes things just because it can. That is not democracy. The Parliament is having its powers restricted. If that is what a so-called union of equals looks like, more and more people will realise that the only way to ensure progress for us to build a fairer, greener and a more prosperous country is for Scotland to become independent so that we can chart a better path. When I saw Keith Brown's motion, I thought that I could predict the debate, and, thus far, it has lived up to my expectations. It is a debate about the constitution, in my view, rather than a focus on delivering for the people of Scotland. Scottish Labour is a party of devolution. We campaigned for it, we introduced the legislation to make it a reality, and we used its powers to the max from day one. Two decades on, where I will agree with previous speakers, is that we need better Government, but we also need stronger accountability in Scotland. What I would say to the SNP colleagues in the chamber tonight, and indeed the Tories, is whether it is our NHS, access to mental health, two-tier dentistry, failures in educational attainment, the delays that we saw with getting on and using the social security powers, setting up a Scottish energy company and, most recently, the DRS. I do not think so, thank you. The people of Scotland are clear that they want both of Scotland's Governments to work together, and that is what grown-up Governments do in Europe, even when they have totally different politics. I want to comment on the section in the motion that I agree with and recognise that the Tories have put massive pressure on the devolution settlement, particularly following Brexit. The work that the constitution, Europe, external affairs and culture committee carried out explained the tension and made a powerful case for change. That is what we in Scottish Labour are focusing on, rebuilding our relations with our European neighbours. The Erasmus replacement scheme would definitely be a start. On the GRA section 35 order, I too expressed disappointment, because that section 35 was supposed to be an enabling mechanism, not a blocking mechanism, and that principle was agreed by all parties. It is interesting that, in 1998, the Tories moved an amendment to the Scotland Bill requiring UK ministers to publish legal advice. However, the UK Government has so far refused to publish their legal advice. That would make life a little bit more interesting, I think. Collette Stevenson mentioned the DRS today's debate. For the internal market exemption for the DRS, the UK and the Scottish Governments appeared to have been working together quietly carrying out the work that is necessary under the internal market act to secure an exemption. Single-use plastics were exempted, but even from the Scottish Government's publications it is clear that months went by where the heavy lifting did not happen and months were wasted. That is now coming home to roost, not just for the SNP-Green Government, but it is a massive pressure for businesses planning ahead and a huge disappointment for those of us who want a workable scheme. The minister's statement today took absolutely no responsibility for the Scottish Government's action or lack of action in some cases. I have met key stakeholders in the past few weeks who, despite repeated requests, have not been given the opportunity to meet with the minister responsible for this scheme. We need to improve devolution and better quality of government in Scotland, but we crucially need both the UK and Scottish Governments to work together, even though they disagree with each other, for the better of Scotland, not just to grab headlines and have a fight with each other. No, thank you, I have less in a minute to go. I totally agree with some of the points in the motion about the cliff edge that the retained EU legislation bill would have created. I am proud of the work that our SCAC committee did to make the case for change. Labour strongly argued for a U-turn from the Tory Government, which they eventually delivered, but it took a lot of campaigning from us, but also from cross-party lobbying and from businesses and from stakeholders. We delivered devolution and we appear to be the only party that is still interested in transforming the settlement to make it work, because, as colleagues have said, we have been here for two decades and we need to transform the UK. That is where I think I appreciated the opportunity of this debate, because we need to move power out the centre, strengthen democracy in both Westminster and Holyrood, and empower our local authorities and communities. That has not been mentioned tonight and that is core to devolution, not leaving our councils cash-strapped for over a decade without the resources to provide the basic services that our constituents need. That is the transformative change that people across Scotland need. In summary, we need Scotland's Government, whether it disagrees or not, to co-operate where it matters in the interests of Scotland's people and businesses, and we need to elect a UK Government to get on with that job with the constitutional transformation that we need but will not be delivered by the Tories, the SNP or the Greens. I thank my friend and colleague Keith Brown for bringing this important debate to Parliament, and it is very timely, given the events of the weekend and the undermining of this Parliament's legislative competence by the actions of the Secretary of State for Scotland over DRS. I find myself tonight, as the only member of this Parliament who legislated for the establishment of this Parliament as a member of the House of Commons from 1997 to 2001. I had the privilege of listening to every debate on the floor of the house on the passage of the Scotland Act. I listened at length to Mr Cameron's relative, Michael Ancrum, in his long, long, long contributions to that debate. I also listened to contributions from the late Secretary of State for Scotland and our First Minister, Donald Dewar, and to Henry McLeish, who did all the heavy lifting on the implementation of the Scotland Act. I cannot let Sarah Boyack's speech pass without saying that I think that they would be horrified by what has now become the Labour Party's opinion in Scotland. Having listened to their contributions, Michael Ancrum's contributions and the contributions that have distinguished Liberals in the House of Commons, Jim Wallace, Ray Meekie and Michael Moore, all of whom conveyed the importance and the concept of self-government being at the heart of the project for Scottish devolution. That attitude ran through, even though I was sitting there as a Scottish nationalist. I could hear in all of the contributions from those Labour and Liberal members—Mr Ancrum did not take that view—a commitment to the concept of self-government within Scotland, and that is being shredded in front of our eyes. The Internal Market Act and the Substitute Control Act, just to mention two elements, are devastatingly damaging pieces of legislation that do not try to confront the concept of the Scotland Act that was legislated on in 1998 by the front door, but by the back door. They do it by using the exclusive Brexit to undermine the legislative competence of this Parliament, and we are now living with the consequences. To everybody in Scotland, I say that we better wake up to what is happening to the Parliament that we all voted for in the 1997 referendum. I campaigned enthusiastically in 1997, and that concept is being shredded in front of our eyes by a malicious United Kingdom Government. I say to my colleagues and other parties, and they know how seriously I take those questions, that this is happening in front of our eyes, and we have to act together collectively to try to resist it. When I sat with Maggie Chapman in the Smith commission in the aftermath of the referendum, we pleaded for the cementing of the Sewell convention so that we could go further than the concept put on the record by Lord Sewell, that the UK Parliament would not normally legislate with regard to devolve matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. We pleaded for that to be put into cement, and we have some token words that Westminster would not normally legislate over the heads of the Scottish Parliament in the 2016 Scotland act. Look what has happened since. It has been used as frequently as any element of the parliamentary process that goes through this building on a statutory instrument basis. It is now common place for this Parliament's views to be ignored by the United Kingdom Government. That was not the settlement that was crafted in 1998. If we do not wake up to the threat that is coming our way as a consequence of all of this, then we will be witnessing the dismantling of the effective competence of this Parliament. I apologise for mentioning Donald Cameron in my very last minutes, because I should allow him the opportunity to intervene if he wishes, but he can do it some other time to me. Mr Cameron accused us of not making full use of the powers available to us. This Parliament did so on DRS. It made use of the full powers available to us, and our powers and our competence have been shredded by a malicious United Kingdom Government, and all parties in this Parliament need to resist it. As you have just finished, I now call Karen Adam to be followed by Maggie Chapman around four minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I congratulate Keith Brown on bringing this motion to debate in the chamber this evening. I also echo the calls of my colleague, Stuart McMillan, that this should be, in fact, a Government debate too. This is something that we should be highlighting to the Scottish people. I want to draw attention of members to the silver mace in front of us. Without its presence in the chamber, Parliament cannot lawfully sit, debate or pass any legislation. Carved into the silver, the words, there shall be a Scottish Parliament. At the reopening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, Scotland's First Minister called this mace a symbol of the great democratic traditions from which we draw our inspiration and our strength. Of the founding words of our Parliament, he said, through long years those words were first a hope, then a belief, then a promise, now they are reality. That reality, which we call devolution, has delivered us free tuition, record high health funding, a new social security system, delivering 13 benefits, including the Scottish child payment, free prescriptions, free bus travel for over 60s and under 22s, free school meals for all children in P1 to P5, public ownership of ScotRail, free ITIS, free NHS dental care for under 26s, free period products to all who need them, better gender balance on public boards, world-leading climate targets and those, Presiding Officer, are just a handful of the achievements of this Parliament, which brings me to the very purpose of the debate today. Why, after more than two decades of devolution, are we having to debate about protecting it? Four minutes is nowhere near enough time to catalogue litany of threats the UK Government has levied upon Scottish democracy, but it is important in this debate to remind ourselves precisely why Scotland must be vigilant. The quickening creep of authoritarianism, the on-going dilution of Scotland's powers and growing disrespect from the UK Government with regard to Scottish democracy. We do not need to look far to find cause for great concern only a few weeks ago in the English Council elections. Local election observers claimed that more than 1 per cent of voters, half of whom appeared to be from minority ethnic backgrounds, were turned away from polling stations. Does she share my confusion that some parties in this Parliament seem not to be overly bothered by the issues that she raises, despite the fact that the last time this Parliament was subjected to veto-estates legislation in one form or another to this extent, Queen Anne was on the throne? I agree with my colleague that this is extremely concerning and I would have hoped that colleagues' cross-party would take this a lot more seriously than I feel is being shown by showing up in chamber today. Not content with restricting voting rights to the UK Government has also set its sights on other tenants of our democracy, including the right to protest. Protests that are deemed by the UK Government to be too noisy can now be shut down as a result of Tory legislation. So what does all this point to? An overbearing governing party at Westminster seeking to circumnavigate the foundations of democracy? Deep down the Tories know that they are losing their grip on power in the only way that can cling on to even the remote suspicion of electoral success is to remove the rights of voters and restrict the voices of those who oppose them. While those might be shocking revelations south of the border in Scotland, we have come to know, sadly, all too well the dictatorial tactics of those who simply cannot accept that the Scottish people have roundly rejected their vision of Scotland at every single election for nearly the past seven decades. In their desperation, they turned to interfering with our democracy, with our culture wars and wedge issues, criminalising asylum seekers fleeing war with illegal migration bill, blocking legislation that received a supermajority of support in this Parliament, aiming to make the lives of trans people just a little bit easier, blocking our efforts to tackle climate change with the deposit return scheme. It is clear that we must not only retain the devolved powers that we already have, but accelerate the pace at which we diverge and ultimately break away from this Westminster Government, a Government that is as morally corrupt as it is democratically bankrupt. What we need, Presiding Officer, is independence. When Tory Brexiteers claimed back in 2016, during the EU referendum campaign, that they were going to take back control, few of us thought our own Parliament would be in their sights. But that is where the disastrous Brexit project has headed. It is not enough to withdraw from the collaborative cross-national politics of the European Union. We must now also unpick the progressive politics of devolution, apparently. Centralising power in the corridors of Westminster, where anyone can have a say, so long as your pockets are deep enough and you have friends in high places, was the logical next step. We find ourselves being blocked from introducing a policy, the deposit return scheme, which was once supported by all parties in this chamber, which was legislated for back in 2020, before the Internal Market Act had passed, and which is wholly within the devolved competencies of this Parliament. It sounds absurd, and indeed if you ask our European colleagues for whom deposit return schemes are a long-standing part of public life, it is indeed absurd that such a constitutional crisis should be caused by a simple recycling scheme. But let's be honest, we all know that this isn't about glass bottles or recycling. This is about the Tory's fundamental and long-standing opposition to the principle of devolution. It is the same principled opposition that led to the section 35 challenge to the Gender Recognition Reform Bill. We explicitly wrote into our legislation that it would not affect the Equalities Act, yet this was not good enough. Making life a bit simpler for marginalised people is clearly less important to the Tories than taking back control from democratic devolved Governments. At least they've mostly been open about their opposition to devolution. Such behaviour is not entirely unexpected. Labour, on the other hand, the self-proclaimed architects of devolution, are just sitting back and watching as the UK Government ride roughshod over this Parliament. Their encouragement for all sides to use a common frameworks approach to resolve the GRR dispute is utterly disingenuous when we know that Westminster routinely bypasses those frameworks whenever it suits them. Keith Brown. I thank Maggie Chapman for taking the intervention. I had tried to intervene on Sarah Boyack. I was going to make the point that, although she is the only Labour Speaker, the only person left in the chamber, I believe her sincerity in saying that she supports devolution, not least going back to the time in a campaign where her father ran a marathon to raise money for the Scottish Assembly, as it was called. However, is Maggie Chapman, like me, utterly dismayed that the strongest Labour voice in defence of this Parliament is the First Minister of Wales? I think that that is pretty shocking and, in fact, a betrayal of everyone who fought so hard to ensure that Scotland had a Parliament of its own in the first place. The current situation raises serious and fundamental questions about the future of this Parliament. I am deeply concerned that the behaviour of the UK Government and the blanket powers that they have granted themselves through the internal market act will lead us into deadlock that will make much of this Parliament's work impossible. This Green and S&P Government has a democratic mandate to deliver our shared programme of policies on which we were elected. However, as it stands, between the IMA and the ultimate veto of section 35, there is a real doubt that we will be able to make much progress that the UK Government will not try to block. Just this week, a UK Government source told the media, not the Scottish Government, that they may withhold permission for greater marine protections despite this being a policy that they are already rolling out in English waters. So, what will be next? Will they try to take back free bus passes from our young people because they want a single internal market for public transport? Will they block our plans for rent controls because they put the profit of private landlords above the right to a decent affordable home? Or will they challenge our proposals to end abusive conversion practices because that too would supposedly impact the Equalities Act? It is increasingly clear that the Tory UK Government is on borrowed time and it knows it. Rishi Sunak, Alistair Jack and their colleagues seem determined to burn the place down on their way out. Members of this chamber from across all parties should be uniting to defend the democratic mandate of this Parliament and the democratically cast votes of our constituents because right now devolution faces an existential threat. Thank you before calling the next speaker. Due to the number of speakers who want to participate in the debate and given the time, I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 8.14.3 to accept a motion without notice to extend the debate up to 30 minutes. I invite Keith Brown to move such a motion. Moved. Thank you, Mr Brown. Do members object to the debate being extended up to 30 minutes? That is agreed. I therefore call the next speaker. Jim Fairlie will be followed by Christine Grahame around four minutes. I congratulate my colleague Keith Brown for bringing forward this motion, which so clearly identifies the assault on the powers of this Parliament by a UK Government led by a party who never wanted any kind of Scottish control over Scottish affairs. They are now clearly doing everything in their power to neuter our ability to govern, as is to do so by the people of Scotland for the people of Scotland. The history of the process of the tax laid out in the motion before us has been in play since the leave vote in 2016, but I am going to focus on one area in particular to give context to what it means in reality as opposed to an abstract consideration of principle. As important as the principles are, the direct effect is more important to the folk in their day-to-day lives. As a house sheep and cattle farmer with a diversified catering business, on the day the vote leave was confirmed, I was at the Royal Highland show in England, there was a palpable feeling of shock around the ground because nobody in the farming community thought it was actually possible, except it was possible in England, not Scotland. My concerns around this has gone back to the Scottish referendum, however, when my biggest fear for the farming sector was the very strong rural voices of French and German farmers advocating for the sector EU-wide, we would be lost to us and we would be at the mercy of a UK Government who had long espoused the theory that food was a global commodity that was easily enough acquired. Domestic production was not their priority and the sector would be betrayed in the same way as the fishing industry was on entering the common market. I was so concerned about it that I attended the autumn conference of the NFU where a certain David Mundell was the guest speaker. I asked him the question, where will the powers over agriculture lie now that England has overridden the people of Scotland's desire to stay in the EU? He obfuscated and said that we would now have even more powers. I went to the spring conference and asked the same question of their Scottish leader Ruth Davidson. She was more ablliant, I have to say, but essentially said the same thing as Mundell. In my follow-up I asked the same amount if the same amount of money would be available and would the Scottish Government have full powers over agricultural policy to deliver the needs of the Scottish people? Her response was more telling this time. She said, well, he who pays the piper calls the tune. So the intent was clear from day one. Since then, the New Zealand and Australia trade deals will harm our agricultural sector. The UK Internal Market Act will harm agriculture and many other areas, as we are already hearing in this debate. The Substitut Control Act limits our powers to support sections of our community, like hill and upland farming, if the UK Government chooses to use it, as it has done with the UK Internal Market Act. All of those major issues in agriculture are tiny parts of the overall move to stifle our right as a Government and the will of our people to be governed by the people they elect to do so. The evolution was designed from the start to halt the inevitable and irreversible move for Scotland to be an independent country. And now that the confidence and the self-belief of the people of Scotland is becoming evident, they, the Westminster parties, are flexing their muscles to try to contain and control it. The Labour Party were always terrified of this day coming, so much so that they set the trap that is now being sprung by the Tories. The 1998 Scotland Act was their method of giving what they believed was just enough power to Scotland to quell any feelings of nationalism, which was not British nationalism. It was for that reason that they wrote the clause in the bill that allowed the power over constitutional affairs to be reserved. How many people voting in the election to establish this Parliament knew that the price that we would pay to Labour paymasters for that was the very inalible right to self-determination. It is that alone which ties the hands and makes obsolete the votes of the Scottish people when it comes to where our constitutional future lies. The Labour Party are the modern sellers of Scottish rights for English gold in the mould so important to Burns. They were wrong to do it and it must be reversed. The 1998 Scotland Act should be amended to repatriate the powers of the sovereign will of the people to be exercised in the normal democratic manner by the people of Scotland alone, and without needing the Governor-General to approve it. To deny that right to the people is to believe, to belie the fact that this united kingdom is a democracy. If it is not a democracy, why should the rest of the world or the people of Scotland pretend that it is? Thank you. I now call Christine Grahame for around four minutes, Ms Grahame. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. When the Scottish Parliament reconvened on 1 July 1999 after 300 years of being abolished as part of the union with England, and for the benefit of the sole occupant and the Labour benches, two occupants on the Tory benches and the deserted Liberal Democrat benches, I quote the words of Scotland's first First Minister Donald Durer. There shall be a Scottish Parliament. Through long years those words were first a hope, then a belief, then a promise. Now they are a reality. Today we look forward to the time when this moment will be seen as a turning point, the day when democracy was renewed in Scotland, when we revitalised our place in this, our united kingdom. This is more than our politics and our laws. This is about who we are, how we carry ourselves. The past is part of us, but today there is a new voice in the land, the voice of a democratic Parliament, a voice to shape Scotland, a voice for the future. Walter Scott wrote that only a man with soul so dead could have no sense, no feel of his native land. For me, for any Scott, today is a proud moment. A new stage on a journey began long ago and which has no end, close quote. I was there, I heard those lyrical words at the rebirth of this ancient Parliament. I repeat, a journey which began long ago and has no end. Many of us were then inexperienced our first steps into formalised politics, learning how to be effective. In my case it is an opposition-backed bencher and committee convener. Twenty-four years on, this Parliament has matured to find its Scottishness, its social democratic values, its distinctive priorities. I am proud of free personal care, brought in by the Labour Liberal Coalition, minimum unit pricing, free prescriptions by the SNP, concessionary fairs, free childcare and the more recent child payment. I have observed six Governments in my six sessions here, and not one of them has been perfect, but they have been accountable at the ballot box to the Scottish electorate and the electorate has spoken loud and clear for the second time in this Parliament, delivering an overall majority indisputably committed to Scottish independence. A Government that we did not vote for, for our only six Tory MPs, to the SNP45 MPs, denies, even defys devolution, let alone the democratic right of the people to referendum, interfering in devolved areas. What next? Against the will of this Parliament, which controls planning law and against the will of the Scottish people, nuclear power, power devolved is indeed power retained and for the current Tory Government, power regained. This is a red alert to all who support devolution, if not independence. We have, as a nation, travelled so far in nearly a quarter of a century regaining our Scottish voice. The remedy lies where it must with the Scottish people who are sovereign, not Westminster. Use it loud and clear at the next election. Only independence gives you the Government and policies that you vote for. That is, to this chamber, democracy. I now call Jamie Hepburn to respond to the debate. Minister, around seven minutes please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Can I also join with others in thanking Keith Brown for initiating this debate? I agree with John Swinney very much. It is important that we have this debate. Many members, Christine Grahame, we have just heard from, Collette Stevenson, Karen Adam, Stuart McMillan, and others have talked about the advances that we have secured through devolution. Maggie Chapman has talked about those that are yet to come. It is important that we have this debate, because if this Parliament cannot stand up for the advances of devolution, then who will? I am grateful for those who have taken the time to participate. I do genuinely regret that it has been limited from some quarters. In some sense, you would expect the Tories not to take part in this debate with Gusto, but I do agree very much with the remarks from Donald Cameron. He said that who signed this motion that we debate tonight, who signed it, tells us all we need to know. I could not agree with that sentiment more, Mr Cameron, and it tells us all we need to know. More disappointment has been the absence of Labour participation of 24 MSPs elected to this place. Only one has sought to contribute. That is no slight on Sarah Boyack, as with Keith Brown. I agree with him when he talks of her sincerity in her remarks on defending devolution. At least she took the time to participate in the debate, although I have to say her sense of regret that we debate the constitution rather than how we deliver for the people of Scotland seem to me to be fundamentally based on a false premise, because they are inextricably interlinked with one another. At least she took part. It is of genuine regret again that there is not a single Liberal Democrat politician who took part. I say that on the basis that we can expect it from the Tories, but when you have the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, along with others in the SNP and the Greens who fought so hard for the establishment of this institution, you would expect them to stand up when they have to be taking account of the threats to this institution. Can I say quickly to Stuart McMillan that the Scottish Government will be very happy to bring forward a debate on this very matter, because this is an issue that is sadly unlikely to go away anytime soon. The Scottish Parliament and the Government have maintained a high level of trust and support from the people of Scotland. The latest social attitude survey shows that three times as many people trusted the Scottish Government to work in Scotland's best interests than they do of the UK Government. Can I say in that regard to Sarah Boyack when she talks of two Governments working together? It is not for want of trying. I can tell you that there are many instances where I have sought to engage with the UK Government and many of my colleagues have as well. It is not often reciprocated. People in Scotland fundamentally will want decisions to be taken here in Scotland. That principle is under attack. Decisions taken by the UK Government, especially since 2016, have highlighted the inherent vulnerability of devolved institutions within the UK's constitutional system. Fundamental changes can now be seen in the relationship between the Governments and Parliaments at Westminster and Holyrood. As we have heard, the UK Government has undermined the Sule Convention and appears intent on continuing to do so. If what was unheard of prior to Brexit has been normal, as Keith Brown quoted Mark Raithford, no supporter of independence for Scotland or indeed for Wales, has said that. I quote, when it became inconvenient for the UK Government to observe Sule, it just went ahead and road roughshodd through it. That is not how devolution is supposed to work. As Keith Brown said, we have the absurdity of a Labour First Minister of Wales standing up for Scottish devolution more than the Scottish Labour Party are prepared to do. The UK Government is increasingly using novel methods to block some of this parent's legislation. It has referred the United Nations Convention to the Rights of the Child Bill to the Supreme Court. It has blocked royal assent of the Gender Recognition Reform Bill using parts of the Scotland Act that had not been used before. On the latter, one of our numbers said that something that I thought was quite telling to the BBC said of that move feels like a politically malicious act, and I think that it is about time that Viceroy Jack got back in his box. That was not said by any member of my party or of the Greens supporters of independence, but by Paul Sweeney. It would have been nice if he had been here tonight to take part in the debate. On the issue of section 35 on Donald Cameron's comments, section 35 might be in the Scotland Act, but it is meant to be in there as a last resort. The UK Government has not followed the memorandum of understanding in avoiding the use of that provision through negotiation and engagement. That goes back to the point that I have made in respect of Sarah Boyack's remarks. It is not just as simple as the Scottish Government and the UK Government working together. As we have seen with the Stule Convention, once they have set a precedent, the UK Government finds it easier to justify using a power repeatedly, eroding our hard-won settlement. Their disrespect for devolution can be seen in other ways. On the retained EU law bill, ministers received a request for legislative consent on a Friday afternoon, only to hear in the following Monday in the lords that the UK Government would proceed without that consent. We can see this from the UK Government's disregard for the mandate that the people of Scotland has given this Parliament for holding an independence referendum. Again, the UK Government's convenience supersedes Scotland's democratic principles. This dismissive approach to devolution of democracy has already had real-world effects. The internal market act imposed in Scotland demonstrates how damaging overriding this Parliament can be to the devolution. We have seen what has happened in respect of the deposit return scheme. Again, in respect of the notion that the two Governments should work together, there was an attempt of engagement over the past two years to try to secure that arrangement. The UK Government made an 11th hour attempt on Friday night to sabotage that scheme that we have legislated for. The internal market act has also given UK ministers new powers to spend directly on devolved services in Scotland, similar to levelling up and regeneration. In relation to levelling up funding, I thought that Donald Cameron was either ill-informed and I have never found him doing a man who is ill-informed or disingenuous when he suggested that the Scottish Government has never complained about the EU providing funding for the people of Scotland. The key difference, and he knows the key difference, is that that funding was provided via the Scottish Government, which enabled a coherent policy approach rather than a UK Government riding roughshod over the elected Government of Scotland. This is not what the people of Scotland voted for. That is why we need to take another constitutional path. The Government remains committed to the belief that decisions about Scotland are best made to the people who live in Scotland. First, we will always stand up for the gains made by devolution and the process of its erosion by Westminster underlines its limitations. Only independence would secure Scotland's democratic future where decisions about Scotland are taken by the people who live here through this elected Scottish Parliament. Thank you, Minister. That concludes the debate, and I close this meeting appointment.