 Aber거든 o'r profi, iechyd, oherwydd unrhyw unrhyw unrhyw unrhyw unrhyw unrhyw unrhyw unrhyw unrhyw. Y Llywydd, mae'n g 커피 gilydd i gwaith, Iona. wrth dechrau'r glas gynedd, y dywedd yn ymwysgaf, ac mae'r fifat fach o Men, nr 1, 1, 8, 3, 0, yn yn peth Ruth Davidson, oedd yn niín honi. Mae'r gweithgaredd yn y bydd yn gwneud, wedyn ar gyflugirau'n cymdeithasol o'r cynt staniad yn ôl, ac yn digwydd ei dwylo, I call on Ruth Davidson to speak to and move the motion. Ms Davidson, you have 14 minutes or thereby please. Thank you. Deputy Presiding Officer, the Smith commission process was a remarkable feat of fast forward constitutional reform. As this Parliament debates its verdict for the first time today, let me state the facts. The proposals that were unveiled by Lord Smith coming on top of those introduced by the Kalman commission will now create here one of the most powerful parliaments of its kind anywhere in the world. Powers that will ensure real responsibility exist for the way in which money is both spent and raised. Powers that will give the Scottish Government real choice over taxation and welfare and powers that will make ministers accountable for their decisions. They are powers that will end the tired old grievance politics that have dominated our debates for too long and will instead force our government to think about the taxpayers and businesses whose efforts pay their bills. Lord Smith and all the nominees are to be congratulated for reaching this deal. It will secure the foundations for a more powerful and responsible Parliament, a Parliament that does not just spend tens of billions of pounds of hard-earned money but also a Parliament that has to think about where that money comes from, the taxpayer. There will be more decisions made in Scotland but also we keep those crucial binding elements of the union, the state pension, the single market, the shared currency. We keep those because the people of this nation instructed us to do so. I have said before in this chamber and I say again now that the only fixed constitutional settlement on the ballot in September was independence and it was expressly rejected by the voters of this country. So now, under Smith, we will be able to choose, we will be able to choose to raise taxes or to cut them, to spend more on welfare or on transport or on anything else, big decisions on fracking, on whether to lower the voting age, on the tax we pay at our airports, all to be devolved. We know that it will take time for those reforms to come into practice but what surely cannot now be doubted is the political will to bring them in. Between the two of you gentlemen, I will give way to one. Stuart Stevenson, I very much welcome new powers for this place. Does she assert that we will be more powerful than the provinces of Canada, the states of the United States, the lander of Germany, the states in Australia and can she tell us any tax in any of these places that we cannot assert? She will not have to look very far. I thank the member for his intervention. I welcome his welcome for the Smith commission powers and I tell him that I do not need to assert anything. As I said on Thursday at First Minister's questions, we asked the independent information service of this very Parliament, Mr Stevenson, to look at the point that he raised and they came back showing that even federal countries like Germany, like the lander in Germany, like the states in the United States would not have the powers over tax raising or tax spending that this legislature would have, not at this time. Let's have a look at the timetable of this, because we know that the draft clauses fleshing out the heads of the agreement will be produced by 25 January, meeting the next phase in our commitment to the people of Scotland. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has already brought together a team of leading officials in the Scotland Office, the HM Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Cabinet Office. Their task is now to work together to ensure that we get a representative coherent piece of legislation that delivers. I hope that everyone in the chamber will also welcome and acknowledge that this team will remain in place after the general election to ensure that these plans move forward into law no matter the results in May. I, for one, add my support to ensuring that where possible the reforms that we have backed should be devolved as soon as practically possible. In particular, 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland have caught the democratic bug, and I want to see them in the polling booths again in 17 months' time. I give way to the cabinet secretary. I am grateful to Ruth Davidson for giving way. I wonder if she could set out whether she believes that all of the proposals need to be delivered in one legislative instrument or whether she believes that there is an argument to continue as she set out a moment ago that, if there is a case for 16 and 17-year-olds' votes to be devolved early, is there a case for other powers to be devolved early if they do not require primary legislation? If we use the Scotland Act 2012 as our template in this in terms of constitutional change, what we saw was a single legislative instrument that transferred powers at different times through that single legislative act. First of all, I would like to say that I am pleased with the way that the pro-union parties have delivered. In September, I, along with Willie Rennie and with Joanne Lamont, jointly supported a timetable for reform. On the morning of the 19th, the Prime Minister announced that Lord Smith of Kelvin would chair an all-party deal to crack on. In October, the command paper was published well ahead of schedule. In November, the Smith commission produced its report as promised. That is a record of delivery and commitments honoured, and it contrasts, I suggest, with the way in which the SNP has behaved. On the 20th of September, as the process was already under way and as the SNP itself was being included in that process, Alex Salmond claimed that we were reneging on commitments and he accused us of shameless behaviour. We then had an untypically graceless performance from the Deputy First Minister at the launch of the report that he had signed just the night before. We had the new First Minister tweeting lines that she didn't like and standing in the chamber to decry it as an, I quote, disappointing. Then we had this pathetic spectacle of three elected SNP councillors setting fire to the document itself outside their council chambers. Signed it on Wednesday, coined about it on Thursday and burned it on Tuesday. That is not the actions of a party dealing in good faith. I know the SNP lines on this. They say that the vow wasn't honoured. Somehow they insist that the people of Scotland were let down. When what they really mean is that Smith is not full independence, so it is to them and them alone who feel aggrieved. Again, I say that independence was specifically rejected by the people of this country. They want devolution to work. We are making that happen, not at this time, and the SNP would be unwise in the extreme to place roadblocks to that development or to create straw men to knock down. I would also add that their complaints are misplaced. They are also staggeringly hypocritical. Had the outcome been different in September, the SNP would right now be trying to explain how their promises on the economy could withstand an oil price, which is nearly half what they claimed it would be. The IFS had stated that their figures already contained a £6 billion black hall, so the mind boggles at what would have happened when their fantasy economics collided with the reality of a volatile oil market. On the subject of the SNP's response to Lord Smith, I must also express disappointment at the Nationalist amendment to our motion today. Today was an opportunity for all five parties to back a path forward following the commission's proposals, and we welcome the Liberal Democrat amendment calling for more devolution within Scotland. Instead, the SNP has chosen to rewrite her motion, and it has done so purely, it seems, because the object to the use of the word significant to describe the new powers coming our way. It is pretty risible stuff, and I am afraid that it betrays once against the ideological blinkers of this nationalist government. The complete control over income tax, bans and rates, with money raised returning directly to the Scottish Government, is significant. The assignment of that is significant. Increased borrowing powers are significant. Devolution over air passenger duty and the aggregates levy are significant. In welfare, the power to top up any existing benefit is significant. The power to create any new benefit that it likes in any devolved area is significant. The devolution of attendance allowance and disability benefits are significant. Variations of housing benefit are significant. Oh, I have a long list, and I am still going, so not at this time. The devolution of the work programme, the largest welfare to work programme in UK history, is significant. Powers over elections, including changing the voting age, are significant. Devolution of the crown estate is significant. Devolution of tribunals, rail franchising and of British transport police are significant, and the power over fracking is significant. I look forward to any SNP MSP proving me wrong today, and that includes Mark McDonald, to just one of them having the good grace to stand up and say that this package of powers is a significant package. Will the member? We have been quite clear that we welcome new powers coming to this Parliament, but the member must accept that a range of organisations from Civic Scotland have expressed that they are underwhelmed by the proposals. The member talks about those with blinkers. Surely, by suggesting it, it is only the SNP who are disappointed at the extent that the Smith commission proposals go to when there is that feeling in Civic Scotland is a classic example of the unionists wearing their blinkers. I reject that entirely. Smith took measures and submissions from people right across the land. It took submissions from the institute, for example, of Charter's Accountants of Scotland, who specifically rejected corporation tax. They were the same way that the STU seeded, in the same way as many other organisations did, so I do not accept the member's point at all. Let us move on to the proposals themselves, because the challenge just now is to spell out how those new responsibilities will be used. It is a massive challenge for us all. All 128 members, every party and the Government itself now need to add to our skillset so that we are ready to make the best use of our expanded role. On tax and spending, the challenge is enormous. Instead of simply banking the annual check, it will be for this Parliament to decide how it manages its own account. That brings with it serious choices that I want to make progress. From Labour and the SNP, for example, we hear already calls to increase income taxation. That will be their choice and one that they can take to the electorate of this country. For my part, my priorities will be simple. First, I want to reduce the taxes that we will be responsible for. Earlier next year, the Scottish Conservatives will launch our low tax commission. That will examine how we can better use the basket of taxes, which we will soon have control over. It will advise us how best we go forward as a dynamic low tax nation. Secondly, we will support all moves to grow the tax base. The GERS Scotland figures show that per head of population, our income tax receipts in Scotland are lower than the UK as a whole. Get those receipts up to UK levels, however, and nearly £2 billion more per year would flow into the Scottish Government's coffers. That creates a real incentive for the Government to do so. With half of all VAT assigned here, too, there is also an incentive to grow retail sales and support Scottish businesses who make and sell things. That is the prize on offer if we drive our economy forward, and that prize, I would suggest, is significant. We will also face big challenges on how we use the new welfare powers. Again, we will no doubt differ on our approach to how those powers should be used. I support reform of our welfare system that gives help and encouragement to people to get back to work and which cuts the country's benefits bills. The SNP opposes that reform. I back a cap on the amount anyone family can claim in welfare. The SNP says that they want to lift that cap. I believe that you should not be able to claim more in benefits than the average family earns through work. The SNP does not agree. The choices that are facing ministers here are immense. The new personal independence payment system is to be devolved to the Scottish Government. The work programme will also be devolved. In addition, ministers will be able to propose entirely new benefits if they so wish. In much the same way as the Scottish Government has chosen to eliminate the spare room subsidy in Scotland, so it will have the power to act in other areas, too. They could offer a resettlement benefit for pensioners leaving jail, a payment to lone parents in parts of Scotland who need childcare, even a Scottish winter wind and rain allowance for days like today. They may choose all or none of those things. Again, the choice is there to be made. That will take time to implement. Switching over complex benefits systems to the Scottish Government, which does not currently have the technical infrastructure to support those mechanisms, means that capacity has to be built. That is something that we need to do right. We need the Scottish Government to act in good faith to ensure that capacity is built and that transition is a smooth one. Publishing his proposals last month, Lord Smith rightly described the commission's work as an unprecedented achievement. He added, and I quote directly, "...it demanded compromise from all of the parties." In some cases, that meant moving to devolve greater powers than they had previously committed to. For other parties, that meant accepting the outcome would fall short of their ultimate ambitions. It shows that, however difficult, our political leaders can come together, work together and reach agreement with one another. I believe that he was right in that assessment. I believe also that voters in Scotland expect us to agree something else too, that it is time—in fact, well past time—for us to focus on the powers that we have and those that are coming, rather than stoke false grievance on those staying reserved. People in Scotland gave us their decision. They want a powerful Scottish Parliament that remains within rather than is separate from the United Kingdom. The work put in by the Smith commission means that we have the tools to deliver on that verdict, so let's get on and use them. I move the motion in my name. I now call on John Swinney to speak to and move amendment 11830.2. I seem to have offended Ruth Davidson in the formulation of the Government's amendment today and in the comments that I have made on the subject. Although I find her exception taken to the comments that I have made on the subject rather strange, since I opened my remarks to the gathering at the National Museum of Scotland and welcomed the additional powers that are coming to the Scottish Parliament and pointed out the limitations of the settlement, which is exactly the point that Ruth Davidson has just made, which Lord Smith reflected on the fact that some parties will not believe that that is enough. It shouldn't be a particularly great surprise to anybody in the chamber that I did not believe that all of the powers that should have been delivered were delivered. Of course, as my colleagues have pointed out in interventions, that point is also made not just by the Scottish National Party but by a whole host of different organisations, whether it is the Scottish Trade Union Congress or the Engender Alliance or the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations or a whole host of other organisations that have expressed that view. There were, of course, three issues that I have raised in the Government's amendment, which are substantially different to the proposition that the Conservatives put forward, and they are material and serious points that Parliament needs to reflect on. The first is that our amendment calls on both Governments to produce draft clauses for the recommendations jointly to maintain this agreement. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why that has not been taken forward. It is a proposition that we have put to the Prime Minister in a letter from the First Minister. It would seem to me as we translate the Smith recommendations, which Smith himself has said—Lord Smith has said in his own report—that we will have to be translated into practical detail as a consequence of the headline commitments that have been put into the agreement, that that should be done in a spirit of openness and transparency. It would also, in the spirit of efficiency, be a much more effective way to take forward that point. What on earth is objectionable about that particular proposition? Secondly, and I hope that I might have some common ground here, that is why I made the intervention on Ruth Davidson, our amendment looks for early action from both Governments on implementation where possible and especially to allow the Parliament to extend the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds for the 2016 Scottish election. Ruth Davidson has accepted that there is an argument—indeed, she is committed to it—that we should take steps outside a substantive piece of UK legislation to legislate to enable 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the 2016 election. If we wait for the substantive UK legislation on the subject, that cannot happen. If we want it to happen—which I know that everybody in the chamber wants to be the case—we have to have early action to enable that to happen. There is unanimity in this Parliament about that point. It seems to me, from what the Secretary of State for Scotland said to the Devolution Further Powers Committee last Thursday, that the United Kingdom Government sees the argument for that point. What I cannot for the life of me understand is why there is not a reciprocal commitment to get on with legislating or taking forward actions that do not have to wait for substantive UK legislation. For example, the devolution of air passenger duty was an issue that was recommended for devolution by the Kalman commission back in 2010. There is a mechanism in the Scotland Act 2012 that could devolve that power to the Scottish Parliament without substantive legislation in the United Kingdom Parliament. I cannot for the life of me understand why that opportunity is not being seized to take that agenda forward and to devolve those responsibilities as quickly as possible. In that respect, I was heartened by the comments that were made in a letter just yesterday from Margaret Curran, the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, in which Margaret Curran has written to the Secretary of State for Scotland, pledging a variety of areas in which the Labour Party is willing to co-operate in advancing the legislation. Where Margaret Curran says, I would also like to meet with you before Christmas to discuss what other proposals that were made by the Smith commission, because she has been previously talking about 16 and 17-year-olds, may not require primary legislation and what powers we could seek to devolve through section 30 orders. That appears to me to be a point where the Labour Party, quite generously in this process, has said, let's get on with it. Let's get on with taking the steps. Why wait for the comprehensive piece of legislation? Ruth Davidson concluded her speech with the great Clarion call. Let's get on with it. I want to get on with it, but I just don't understand why the Conservatives are not prepared to get on with it. Gavin Brown. Let's just assume for a moment, Presiding Officer, that the APD were devolved tomorrow. What would he do with it? We can always set out our—let's go back to the white paper. What the white paper said is that we would halff APD with a view to halff it over time before 2020 and then move to abolishing, but let's take it in stages. What Ruth Davidson is saying is that let's do one thing. Let's devolve the power for 16 and 17-year-olds and let's do nothing else, because then let's look at other provisions such as the work programme. We all sat in the Smith commission and we signed up to words in this document that said that we will devolve the work programme at the end of the current contract. While we are doing that, we find out that the UK Government is negotiating with the work programme contractors to extend the contract—to extend it on Mr Johnson says that it is still the same contract. Mr Johnson will understand why I am just a little bit uneasy about the degree to which this represents good faith. We sat in the Smith commission and I signed up to it, and I am not seeking to escape from it. I signed up to a commitment to devolve the work programme at the end of the current contract and we now find that the contract is being extended. That is happening at a time when there appears to be no willingness—I will give way a second, Mr Robertson—to extend the early devolution of responsibilities beyond the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds, on which we are delighted to co-operate with the United Kingdom Government. I will give way to Mr Robertson. I thank the cabinet secretary. The cabinet secretary is not as disappointed as I am to hear that Ian Duncan-Smith has already said that he is not prepared to change his mind with regard to the work programme. There is a point to be regretted, but what has given me hope is the fact that the secretary of state for Scotland in his meeting with the First Minister last Thursday made it clear that he would make representations in the United Kingdom Government to determine whether something different could be done to change Mr Duncan-Smith's mind, which I hope is successful. The third difference between the Government's amendment and the Conservative motion is the last part, in which we welcome the contribution of stakeholders and the public to the work of the commission and recognise the need for continuing meaningful public consultation and engagement to ensure the credibility of the process in Scotland. Why is that important? That is important for the very simple reason that—I went through that in my response to Ms Goldie in my response to the statement last week—there are a whole host of organisations who have, in good faith, made their submissions to the Smith commission about what they would like to see devolved. They have not had those wishes fulfilled by what the Smith commission has concluded. It is now important that we engage constructively and actively with the stakeholder community in Scotland to ensure that we properly reflect their concerns and aspirations as we take forward the legislation. Those are the reasons why the Government has taken the stance that we have taken today, but there is one other point that I want to make in the chamber today, and we have covered some of that already. The Conservatives want to move the debate, quite understand the debate on what we would do with those powers. Of course, I am very happy to debate and discuss what we would do with those powers. However, there is a stage before we get to that, and that is the implementation of those powers, the actual translation of all of this agreement into legislative form. I think that it would be a sign of good faith if the United Kingdom Government was prepared to engage constructively about early implementation of those provisions. To say to people in the referendum, as we have said to them, look, you can vote no and you will get change quicker than you will get Scottish independence, and everybody was, I am afraid, unless… Does the cabinet secretary recognise the irony in having first told the world that the Government would not stick to the timescales, the schedule that it has been put in place, now that it becomes obvious that that schedule will be stuck to, to start complaining about things not being brought forward against that schedule? The point that I was coming on to make, Mr Johnson, is the fact that in the referendum people were told if they voted no, they would get more powers and they would get those powers quicker than they would get Scottish independence. Everybody was pretty broadly agreed that if Scotland had voted yes, Scotland was heading for independence in March 2016. Well, I think that it was a pretty commonly accepted view. I seem to… Well, I seem to… Mr MacDonald will have to forgive me. I will give way in my vote in the mass. It was such a seminal comment that Gordon Brown came along and said, you won't have to wait until March 2016. We'll deliver these powers even earlier. And what we're now finding is that the United Kingdom Government and certainly the Conservative Party, although I hope to hear from the Labour Party a reaffirmation of what Margaret Curran has said in her letter to the Secretary of State for Scotland, we should be getting on with the job of implementing these powers as soon as we possibly can do. And that is what the Scottish Government will press the UK Government exactly to deliver. I move the amendment. Many thanks. I now call on Tavish Scott to speak to and move amendment 11830.1. Mr Scott, you have six minutes. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would actually like us to move on from endlessly discussing process to the things that don't have to wait, as Mr Swinney very, very rightly said. Because there are many things that could be done and that's what my amendment looks at this afternoon. Because over the past seven years, the Government in Edinburgh has stripped powers away from local authorities and communities. This Government has ruthlessly centralised decisions to create the trappings of power and state here in Edinburgh. Each and every part of Scotland is lost out because of that. The judgments of local people have been overridden by an evermightier central Government. And from the Northern Isles to the Highlands and right down to the borders, communities across Scotland have been stripped of the control of the local services they need. Local councils have had their funding and their tax is determined not by the town halls of this country, but by the Scottish Government. So instead of that, we want something rather different. Around 60 front-line police stations across Scotland have closed their doors to the public under the Government. New police tactics are being imposed on local communities by the centralised national police Scotland. Armed police were routinely patrolling even the smallest villages and towns. Courts of justice have been closed across Scotland on the say so of a handful of MSPs sitting in this Parliament. Decisions on major improvements on two hospitals and health services have been taken out of the hands of local health boards and centralised here in Edinburgh. Colleges have been forced to merge and cut their local ties. A single fireboard, a single fireboard, now runs the whole country losing local knowledge in that process. Scottish Enterprise has been reorganised by the SNP so that decisions are taken now at its national headquarters in Glasgow rather than used to happen across Scotland. The Crofting Commission may be amalgamated with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Forestry Commission for Scotland. Liberal Democrats want a different approach to the one that we have here in Scotland about devolution within Scotland. We believe that local people can be trusted with more powers, not less, to shape their local areas. Local people are best placed to make decisions about the services that affect them rather than all those decisions being taken in Edinburgh. The SNP promised time and time again as they centralised that services would be flexible and responsive to local needs. People know that has not been the case. But now our calls for local devolution are not alone. As Lord Smith reflected, there is a strong desire to see the principle of devolution extended further, with the transfer of powers from Holyroods to local communities. I thank the member for giving way. Did he distinguish between local communities and local authorities and that, in some cases, it needs to go below the city council or the council level? I think that Mr Mason makes a perfectly fair observation on that. In an area such as his, I suspect that there would be a different perspective than that of mine, given the size of the local authority that he, no doubt, deals with on a day-to-day basis. The cabinet secretary today, but also in the previous discussions and statements that we have had on the Smith agreement, has cited Civic Scotland. Let me cite a few of Civic Scotland's observations as well. The Scottish Borders Council told the Smith commission in its submission that there is a pressing need for the decentralisation of powers from the Scottish Parliament to local authorities. The Scottish Association for Public Transport noted that the basis of devolution is that decisions about Scotland are best taken close to the people that they affect and with their participation and consent. SCVO said that the Scottish political parties should commit to decentralising new and existing devolved powers even further to people and communities wherever possible. The institute of chartered accountants for Scotland, I am sure, and the organisation that Mr Crawford gives high regard to, believes that in the spirit of devolution, consideration should be given as to whether the Scottish Parliament should cascade appropriate powers and responsibility down to local authorities. Since I am a great advocate of local authorities, I am sure that Mr Crawford would agree with that. I am listening very carefully to the points that Tavish Scott is making, and most of it is about the process that he criticised John Swinney, which we are talking about. I wonder if Tavish Scott could tell us, from our existing powers, what some specific examples of ideas that the Liberal Democrats have for the transfer of powers to local government? Tavish Scott centralised the police force. I would make sure that the councillors of my part of Scotland were looking after police again in the way in which you took them away from him. If you want one example alone, I would end what you did with the national police force, because that is a terrible decision, and a Government in the future will reverse that. The Electoral Reform Society Scotland believes that citizens should be able to shape the decisions that affect their lives, and that our institutions should reflect the people that they serve. I have heard much about listening to the case made by Civic Scotland and by all those organisations to the Smith commission. It strikes me that the Government should heed that. On the Crown estate, it is not enough that this Parliament has control. As my amendment makes clear, the responsibility for the management of the Crown estate's economic assets and the revenue generated must be devolved to a local authority area such as Shetland and Orkney, as the Smith commission and agreement actually says. I hope that the SNP will not block that and rather make that happen, as the agreement actually says. Can I finish by touching on the Scottish Government's financial scrutiny or rather the scrutiny of it? This is a highly centralised state, and I have argued before for a tartan office of budget responsibility for that reason. The UK Government got it right. It divorced economic and financial forecasting, which can be manipulated by politicians from central government. It established the OBR, and that OBR is no friend of any UK Chancellor, and it's not meant to be. The OBR provides an independent assessment of the nation's books, but not just for the Government, but for all representatives, policy makers, indeed for every person in this chamber. No such emphatic independent assessment is made of the Scottish Government's financial performance. The fiscal commission is not independent. It should and it must be. If Mr Swinney wants early action, as he called for in his remarks to Parliament just this afternoon, how about starting with the fiscal commission? Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. The Smith agreement comes at the culmination of an unprecedented level of debate about how our country has run, and it fulfills our promise on both the substance and the timetable for further devolution of power to this Scottish Parliament. The referendum three months ago settled the question of Scotland's place in the United Kingdom. The people of Scotland instructed all of us to make devolution work, a stronger Scottish Parliament and a stronger partnership across the United Kingdom. That is what members on this side campaign for, and we believe that Lord Smith and the party nominees on his commission should indeed be congratulated for delivering this extensive package of powers, and we will therefore support the motion before us today. In addition to spending powers over health, housing, education, justice, enterprise and many others, this Parliament now stands ready to take much greater responsibility for taxation, linking more effectively the money that Government has to spend with the performance of our economy. On welfare, it means that decisions on how best to help support our people get into work will be taken by those with the greatest understanding of the real labour market in every part of Scotland. Training for work should reflect the jobs that can be created just as efforts to boost jobs should reflect our most vital asset, the skills of our people. We can also join up policy and health, housing and work with extensive powers over disability and other welfare benefits. For the first time, the Scottish Government will have the power to create new benefits or to make top-up payments, and with more flax flexible taxation powers, the choice over whether to do so and how to fund it will now be a real one. No longer will it be good enough for Scottish ministers to simply complain about the decisions of others without being willing to take action themselves. That is a strong and ambitious extension of the Parliament's powers. In particular, on welfare issues, it would be wrong if the proposals that are contained in the Smith commission's report were to end up in a situation where, if the Scottish Government were to choose to top up, universal credit would, in return, be reduced. I think that the secretary of state made that point at committee himself in response to your own questions about where Bruce Crawford is concerned about that, but I hope that it can be taken forward in discussions that the secretary of state indicated would take place. That is a strong and ambitious extension of the Parliament's powers. That is why we signed it, and that is why the next Labour Government is committed to implementing it in a new Scotland Act in our first Queen's speech. Or, as the Deputy First Minister said, even quicker than that, on the issues that do not require legislation, as Margaret Curran indicated, we are very happy to have that conversation. I am grateful to Mr Smith for giving way—he mentioned at the outset of his remarks that he was supportive of the motion. I wonder if he is supportive of the amendment, because the amendment makes exactly that point that he has raised. The Deputy First Minister described Margaret Curran's remarks on this as generous yesterday in her remarks stand. I will come to deal with the Government's amendment shortly. Our modern Scottish Parliament is firmly entrenched in our national life, and it is right that its maturity should now be recognised with control over its own elections. However, during the progress of new legislation, we believe that it is right that, just as with the previous Scotland Bill, the Scottish Parliament should work in partnership with the UK Parliament, and we believe that the same process that was used then should be applied now. It is a simple fact, Deputy First Minister, that the legislation in the UK Parliament will be introduced by the UK Government, and we all expect it to work in the spirit of the agreement, but I have to say to the Scottish Government, let's not seek an unnecessary grievance on an issue of process before the ink is even dry. Those who held the minority view in September are entitled to continue making their case for Scotland leaving the UK, but, in doing so, they need to accept that strengthened and effective devolution is the position in which most Scots support and around which even more Scots can unite. When the full scope of the Smith agreement is implemented, our Parliament will be one of the most powerful devolved legislatures anywhere in the world. Labour likes that. We will always defend this Parliament, which we were proud to bring into being and to make the case for even greater devolution beyond Edinburgh to every community in Scotland. We will make the case for reforming the way our whole UK is governed with a constitutional convention for all of Britain, in devolution for every part of the UK that wants it an abolition of the House of Lords to be replaced with an elected Senate. Constitutional change may not be what motivates the Labour Party, but both our record and our ambition make clear our commitment. Powers should be exercised in the interests of people and at the level where the people's voice is most easily heard. Pulling and sharing risk and resource, yes, where it is in Scotland's interest to work with our closest neighbours. Taking responsibility for ourselves where we can make a difference. Devolving power away from the centre so that local government becomes more than just local administration. The parties have come together to make the Smith agreement, but we will all put our own case as to how powers should be exercised. We would use new powers to ensure that those with most pay-a-fair rate of tax, that is why we support the reinstatement of a 50p tax rate. We would reform the work programme so that it responds to the real needs of the regional economies within Scotland. Having placed the issue of double devolution at the heart of the debate, we will stand by our commitment not just to Scotland's cities but also to Scotland's islands, and we therefore support the amendment in Tavish Scott's name too. It is worth remembering the drivers behind the Smith process. Throughout and before the referendum, Scottish Labour argued that our alternative to a separate Scotland was a stronger Scotland, and that position was continually attacked by those who have always looked for faults in the devolution and denied its strengths. That is why we made a promise to come together with others, to discuss our ideas with a timetable set out in advance. We knew that we would have to compromise, and we have. We knew that it would be a challenge to meet the timetable, but we have all times proceeded with good faith. In 1997, Labour promised a Scottish Parliament and had it set up by 1999. We initiated the calm and process, and already the devolution has been strengthened. In 2014, we published our powers for a purpose, and we vowed to work with others to deliver a powerhouse parliament. When Lord Smith was appointed to his commission, a promise had been made. When we signed the Smith agreement, it became a promise kept. 2014 has been a momentous year for Scotland. 2014 is the year that Scotland rejected independence and endorsed partnership. It is the year that the parties have agreed on further powers. To 2016 and beyond, the challenge is not constitutional. It becomes political. The greatest test of political will is not collecting tools for your toolbox. It is the good to which you put the tools that you have to work. We now move to open debate. We are very tight for time today. Five minute speeches, please. Colin Lindy Annit, Linda Fabiani first, and Lewis MacDonald will follow thereafter. I've been called many a name in my day, but that's a completely new one. Thank you very much. One of the things that I'd like to start off by doing is looking at some of the myths that surround the Smith commission. I don't mean the myth that the vow was delivered, or the myth that extensive powers are likely to come, or that it will be home rule, or as near federalism as possible. I mean some of the other myths that are doing the rounds. The first one is that this potential transfer of powers will make this one of the most powerful non-sovereign parliaments in the world. I don't buy that at all. While people are shaking around spice briefings and quoting from them, perhaps they should look at the footnotes as well as the charts. For example, some countries such as Canada and Spain have differing levels of decentralisation to sub-central Governments, and they are not reflected in the chart. Regional differences in places such as Spain and Canada were not always taken into account. For example, the Basque country, where they raise all taxes and pay Madrid as the centre for their services, seems to me to be a much more powerful position than depending on a grant for most of our income. The second myth is that powers are already here. There seems to be this assumption that the Scottish Parliament now has all these powers. I've heard it out there. I've even heard it in here. We don't. We hope that they will all come. I notice that Drew Smith said that it's a fact that they will come. He may have total faith in his own party should they win the UK general election. It's very touching to see that he has faith in the Conservative party and the Lib Dems and UKIP. The powers are not already here, but let's hope that they do when their way here through the Westminster process. The third myth is that the SNP agreed with everything that was in the Smith commission that this was the best for Scotland. Negotiations were entered into, in good faith, by all concerned. It does not mean that the premise that was agreed is agreed as necessarily the best for Scotland, but it's a product of negotiation, discussion and agreement. Politics is, after all, as many have said, the art of the possible. Certainly, Mr Kelly. Linda Fabiani for taking the intervention. Can you just confirm that the SNP did sign the final agreement? Linda Fabiani. Well, you know what? I was about to say that those who espouse that view are neither naive, disingenuous or a bit daft folk can make their own minds up about that. But the reality is that we're at where we're at, and we do welcome the new powers as we support all progress for Scotland, but we are disappointed at the lack of cohesion. For example, the work programme to help people into jobs, but not job creating powers. Some benefits to assist disabled people, but not the power to halt the absolutely shameful work capability assessments that caused such stress to many people with disabilities. Yes, additional powers are welcome, but I don't believe that control over less than 30 per cent of Scotland's tax take and less than 20 per cent of welfare is extensive. I believe that that's disappointing. The Scottish Government in the shape of John Swinney and the SNP in the shape of myself entered into negotiations in good faith. The on-going discussions will, I hope, take place in good faith by all concerned. I do have some worries about that, following last week's appearance to the devolution committee by the Secretary of State for Scotland. We talked about the work programme, and I said, pointed out—I don't think that Andy Herald will disagree, and certainly that Civic Scotland agreed in all their submissions—that the work programme isn't working particularly well for Scotland, and with control we could use it much more effectively. I believe that we want our client group to do that. Was that told by the Secretary of State that they have already done an extension to the commercial providers of the work programme up until 2017? I believe that that's not in good faith. I've since heard that they are now negotiating to take it up to 2019. I think that that's really disappointing. I don't believe that it's in good faith. I would ask for some clarification from the Conservatives as to what's happening there. I'm indeed from the Liberal Democrats because the Secretary of State for Scotland is a Liberal Democrat. Let's look at getting early responses to some of those issues. I would say that the work programme is one of the most important of all. Thank you very much. The Smith agreement does indeed mark another significant stage in the progress of Scotland's devolved Parliament. For Scottish Labour, the enactment of the agreement will be another historic step on the road to a political settlement fit for purpose in a modern social democratic Scotland. John Smith said that devolution was the settled will of the Scottish people. He could not know how that will would be tested 20 years after his death, but he would have been pleased that Scotland emerged from that test with devolution strengthened, not with devolution cast aside. Just as famously Donald Dewyer said that devolution was a process, not an event, he could not know how that process would go forward, but he did know that the Scottish Constitutional Convention marked the beginning of a debate rather than the last word in an argument. His vision that brought us to this place was not of fixed powers or settled institutions, but a vision of a dynamic process of change that would change again as it evolved, matured and developed. Nor was it just about Scottish devolution, it was also about a reinvented United Kingdom with us devolved Scotland at its heart. It is that reinvention of the union that the Smith agreement helps to advance, as well as the powers and responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament. Not all the signatories to the Smith agreement, of course, are committed to a stronger union any more than they were when they joined the campaign in support of the original Scotland act in 1997, but John Swinney was explicit in his evidence to the devolution committee last week that signing the Smith agreement committed him to endorse its contents and work in good faith to implement them, and that is a commitment that all members of all signatory parties should now seek to deliver. However, for those of us who support the devolution agenda in its own right, this next step is not just about additional powers for the devolved Parliament, important though that is, it is about reaching a new balance among the member countries of this United Kingdom. If John Smith and Dondur made the case a generation ago for devolution to strengthen the union, it is important to restate that case today. Rebalancing the union means reforming Westminster, of course. The union Parliament must be fit for purpose in the 21st century, and a future UK constitutional convention must have that topic high in its agenda. However, when some in Ruth Davidson's party proposed that Westminster should be something other than the union Parliament, they are in danger of undermining the union itself, however inadvertently. William Hague led a House of Commons debate in October on devolution following the Scottish referendum, which turned out to be about English votes for English laws at Westminster and not about devolution of legislation for England from Westminster. When Mr Hague was challenged about where he might find cross-party support for those proposals, the one example that he offered was that of the SNP, which is telling in itself. In my view, if the United Kingdom is to evolve in future as a union of equal partners, then Westminster cannot be both the English Parliament and the union Parliament at the same time. John Mason will know that our members do not take part in a vote if they say on health or something like that. Does he not think that it is morally wrong that Scottish Labour MPs take part in such votes? No, I do not. John Mason comes to my aid as a witness to prove that indeed English votes for English laws is not a proposition that is compatible with a strong United Kingdom going forward. A modern union Parliament should reflect all parts of the union, both through a House of Commons directly elected by all UK citizens on an equal basis and through a second chamber representing the nations and regions of the UK. Devolution to cities and regions within England will be important there. Just as double devolution to Scotland's cities, regions and islands will be important here. However, the devolution of power in England must be devolution from Westminster, just as it has been in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland since 1997. Devolution in England once started will no doubt evolve further, as it has done in the other countries of the United Kingdom. Those issues will be resolved elsewhere, but they set the context for the Scotland bill, which will come to this Parliament to consider in the course of the next 12 months or so. Responsibility for bringing forward that legislation lies clearly with the Government of the United Kingdom and specifically with the Scotland office, as Alasdair Cymraigal told the devolution committee last week. It is not for Mr Swinney to invite himself to join in drafting UK legislation, but that legislation does have to deliver on the Smith agreement. In doing so, I hope that it will attract the support of all parties. I hope that it will also deliver on the vision of John Smith and Donald Dure and on the vote of the Scottish people in September by strengthening both the Scottish Parliament and the United Kingdom. I am grateful to Mr MacDonald. One of the points that we discussed in the committee last Thursday was the issue about translating Smith into practical reality. One of the points was about the extension of the scope of responsibilities in the Crown Estate to 200 miles. Does Mr MacDonald believe that to be inherent in the Smith commission? I think that the discussions that we had at the devolution committee last week point the way forward to how we can work together across different parliaments and both local government as well on the devolution of the Crown Estates among other things. However, the proposition that Governments should work together to advise the process is a very different thing from Governments that should work together on the process. I think that Mr Swinney should recognise that the opportunity that we all have is when the Scottish Bill comes here next year. All members of this Parliament will be offered the opportunity then to say whether that bill is fit for purpose going forward. Many thanks. Mark MacDonald, to be followed by Murdo Fraser. While there are certainly positive elements in those proposals, we are underwhelmed by the package as a whole, which does not meet our aspirations. Graham Smith, General Secretary of the STUC. Other equalities organisations also called for a quality law to be devolved, and we are disappointed that only one small transfer of powers is recommended to enable gender quotas on the boards of public bodies in gender Scotland. We have said all along that anything less than wholesale devolution of welfare would be a real missed opportunity to meet the needs of the most vulnerable people in our communities, so we are disappointed to see that today's offerings fall far short of that. John Downey, SCVO. Does this really allow Scotland to design its own economic and social policies and to diverge significantly from what is happening in England? Not very much, Professor Michael Keating. The recommendations of the Smith Commission do not go as far as we and many other civic organisations had called for in our submissions. Mary Taylor, CEO of the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. We are disappointed that the Smith Commission failed to devolve all welfare and more fiscal powers to Scotland. We consulted with hundreds of disabled people, and their near unanimous view was that we needed devomax, including the devolution of all welfare benefits, Bill Scott of Inclusion Scotland. I think that in the longer term, everybody involved may come to regret putting all the eggs in the income tax basket rather than looking at a spread of taxes. Lord Jack McConnell, former First Minister. To negate the view that is being put out that somehow the disappointment in the conclusions of the Smith Commission is confined to this party or those benches, is a range of quotes from organisations most of whom, other than Lord McConnell, who was an active campaigner for a no vote, took out an avowedly neutral stance in the referendum, but, nonetheless, put across extremely strong views of what they were. Tavish Scott scoffed at the notion of civic Scotland taking neutral stances during the referendum, very disappointed to see him besmerch. No, thank you, but see him besmerch. I have only five minutes, and Tavish Scott has the opportunity to sum up for his amendment. He can deal with it in his summing up that those organisations did indeed look for strong powers in the Smith Commission, which they did not find within it. We have looked at the issue around early transfer of powers, and it was explored at the Devolution and Further Powers Committee one second. It was explored in the Devolution and Further Powers Committee's discussions and deliberations. There is an opportunity to disaggregate some of the powers, and Scotland's airports themselves, in terms of air passenger duty, have called for it to come as soon as possible. I welcome the view that appears to come from the Labour Party that this is something that could be taken forward, and I think that that is something that we could work constructively on. I will take Mr Smith. I hope very much that we can. I wondered whether Mr Macdonald, in listing the views of Civic Scotland, would go on to quote any of their views around what the Scottish Government describes as job-creating powers, and most, if not all, of those organisations described as dangerous tax competition. It is interesting, because Mr Smith appears to suggest that you should only listen to people when they say that you should not devolve something to this Parliament. I will take the very… I will come back a lot. Let me explain that further, because we are receiving powers around welfare and taxation to this Parliament. The question is one around coherence, and whether there is a coherence to those powers and how they could be applied in Scotland. Mr Smith suggests that there is a difference between us around our views on devolution. I would suggest that the difference between us is not that I am ignorant to the strengths of devolution. I suggest that the difference between us is that he is ignorant to the delimitations of devolution and has consistently been so, because time after time in this chamber we hear the Labour Party putting the onus on the Scottish Government to react to bad decisions that are made elsewhere and to use the devolved settlement to address those. Some of the powers around welfare will come to this chamber, but at the same time there will be powers around welfare that will remain reserved. Mr Crawford at the committee highlighted, and it is interesting, again, much like members' differential views around the quality of submission from Civic Scotland. They have a differential view when it comes to listening to what SPICE have to say, because SPICE themselves have said that there is the potential for top-ups to reserve benefits or other decisions taken through devolved benefits to have an impact on the receipt of universal credit, which goes against the points outlined in paragraph 55 of the Smith commission report. It is very important, therefore, when we are talking about the ability, for example, to create new benefits or to fund top-ups, and Drew Smith said that we will have the powers to be able to fund those. We have only a limited number of taxpayers that are going to be made available to this Parliament, and I accept that that will require decisions to be taken. I am sure that Drew Smith will bring forward proposals of his own where he sees top-ups being required or new benefits being created of how those will be funded within a settlement where, essentially, income tax is the only lever that you could use to generate that significant funding unless you were to have the assignment of revenue from VAT to see significant increases. I think that we would all agree that that is not going to happen straight away, especially when we do not have those job-creating powers. I would say that Gavin Brown's intervention on Mr Swinney sums up rather neatly the whole problem in this process when he said, if you want the power, what do you want to do with it? The point about this is— Ordered, please. We must hear the member conclude. No, it is very simple, because the principle is not about what an individual political party would do with the power. The principle is around whether or not the power should rest in the hands of the Parliament of Scotland, because if we are all we are going to do is say, you cannot have this power because you will not use it the way we want to do, you are cutting off your nose despite your face. I am afraid that I must now ask members to keep to their five minutes we have run out of the little time that we had. Murdo Fraser, to be followed by Roderick Campbell. There is one thing that is absolutely in no doubt in this debate, and that is that the Smith commission has more than delivered on the vow signed by the three UK party leaders. For the avoidance of doubt, let us just remind ourselves what it said. It stated that, and I quote directly, that the Scottish Parliament is permanent, and extensive new powers for the Parliament will be delivered by the process and to the timetable agreed and announced by our three parties starting on 19 September. Those on the SNP benches should note that there was no mention of divomax, no mention of home rule and no mention of federalism. On any measure, the Smith commission proposals do represent extensive new powers over taxation, over welfare, over elections, over the Crown Estate, over transport, over consumer protection, over employment programmes, over fuel poverty programmes, over rights to fracking and much, much more. Just so that we are clear, the additional tax powers will mean that the Scottish Parliament will raise as a percentage of total tax revenue more than sub-national Governments in Greece, Portugal, Ireland, France, Italy, Norway, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Finland, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and Spain. It will also raise more than states in federal countries such as the US, Germany and Australia. That is the extensive set of powers. I will give way to the three D. Does the member not thank the member for giving way, but does he not accept that this Parliament, even after the Smith commission proposals have been enacted, will only be responsible for 40 per cent of its revenue base? In what way is that extensive? You will find from Spice that the figure is more than 50 per cent, but that puts us near the top of every devolved sub-national Government in the western world. Let us be in no doubt. When the SNP decries the powers in the Smith commission and claims that they are not extensive, they are simply misrepresenting the position and trying to con the public into thinking that what is proposed is insignificant. However, there is one thing that we could have predicted with 100 per cent accuracy before the Smith commission published its proposals is that the SNP would say that they were not enough. True to form, that is exactly what they are now saying, ignoring the international evidence about how extensive they are in relation to other countries. Of course, I need to make some progress. I understand that the SNP wanted independence, but that is precisely what the Scottish people rejected not three months ago and by a comprehensive margin. Short of that, the SNP now says that they want Devo Max as they define it, essentially independence by another name, which does not exist along the lines that they propose in a single federal country anywhere in the world. We need to move on from talking about what powers the Scottish Parliament might have to discussing what we are going to do with the powers that we currently have and those that are about to be devolved to build the stronger Scotland that we all want to see. Last week, I raised in this chamber the question of air passenger duty. For years, we have had to listen to SNP speakers in this chamber, in committee and on public platforms demanding the devolution of air passenger duty and decrying its negative impact on Scottish tourism. Now it is time for the SNP to tell us what it wants to do with its tax now being devolved. In the white paper, we were told that in the event of a yes vote, within the next parliamentary session, APDs would be cut by 50 per cent. That could have been at any point in the next six years. Of course, people voted no. What is now to happen to APDs? If it is as bad a tax as the SNP has claimed in the past, will they move quickly to cut it or eliminate it? They need to tell us. There was no clarity at all from Mr Swinney on this issue when he was questioned by Mr Brown earlier in the debate. We have seen on lands and buildings— Members, on this last minute— The Scottish Government has come forward with its proposals, which were, of course, gazumped by the chancellor last week. Many Scottish house buyers will be put at a competitive disadvantage come April unless the Scottish Government has a rethink. Let's hear what they are going to do about that. We need to know what they propose for income tax. The First Minister has hinted that there might be an increase in the top rate. That is a political choice that she and her party are free to make, but I need to be careful. There are some 13,000 individuals in Scotland paying the top rate of tax. Very many of those will work cross-border, whether they are based in London or elsewhere, as well as in Scotland. It will not take much for them to relocate their tax residency elsewhere, and an increase in the top rate of tax might see a fall in the tax take. However, those are precisely the debates that I am looking forward to having in this chamber. Parties in all science can set out their ideas on taxation and on welfare spending. Some will argue for higher taxes and some will argue for lower. What the Smith Commission allows us to do is to have that properly rounded political debate that we have been missing for the last 15 years—a debate where politicians here are properly financially accountable for their decisions. We need to move on from talking about the constitution. People in Scotland had their say on September 18, and now it is time to make devolution work better and build a grown-up Parliament for grown-up politicians. I am afraid that I have to give fair warning that I will need to cut members' microphones off at five minutes. Roderick Campbell, to be followed by James Kelly. Thank you, Presiding Officer. If I can begin briefly just to comment on the vow produced late in the day in price, imprecisely defined, in my view designed to be so imprecisely defined. I think that we should look at it in context. Gordon Brown, on the 8th of September in Lonehead, had called for a modern form of Scottish home rule within the United Kingdom. Previously, saying that Scotland had voted no, it would receive powers that would be as near to Belgium as possible in a nation where one part forms 85 per cent of the population. Mr Campbell, could you lift your microphone up, please? Is it on? I hope so. Whatever the vow was meant to mean, in no sense can Smith be construed as giving to Scotland the minimum, which I believe the majority of Scotland now wants. It is not, in my view, what any self-respecting federal state would look like. In Canada, and no disrespect to murder and his references to elsewhere, but in Canada, as Ian McWerter points out in his new book, federal provinces are constitutionally able to tax anything they want to tax, except international and internal trade, setting their own rates. Clearly, to that extent, Smith is a disappointment as time is tight. When we look at Smith, it is easy to see shortcomings on tax, not just on corporation tax and oil and petroleum tax, but on taxes such as inheritance tax and capital gains tax, which remain at Westminster. To that degree, it does not even meet the aspirations, not only of the S2UC but of the Liberal Democrats on tax. Indeed, James Mitchell, an independent commentator, has pointed out that although the Lib Dems maintained that Smith offers home rule and had long campaigned for home rule, it looks little like that proposed by two previous commissions. Let's look at what other organisations said in framing their submissions to Smith. On tax and national insurance, unison-backed devolution of national insurance, as the link with contributing benefits is becoming increasingly weak, they said. Government needs to see the full impact of their taxation policy on people's incomes. Only two taxes, APD and the aggregates levy, are devolved in full, and that was proposed in Kalman. So maybe Smith is not quite as radical as has been suggested today, and, as the Scottish Council of Voluntary Organisations pointed out in their submission to Smith, having powers over a diverse range of taxes seems an appropriate and balanced approach, too. On welfare, the Campbell commission had said nothing, of course, but their time is tight. The Campbell commission had said nothing, of course, but Liberals finally embraced with other unionist parties proposals that give control of the very modest 15 per cent of the welfare budget. My understanding, however, is that the weekend before Smith produced its report, at their Dan Firmliad conference, the Liberals did a U-turn on their previous position to a position of support—let me finish that point and I will give way—to a position of support for major welfare powers to be devolved, according to a report in Scotland on Sunday, or a major welfare reform package according to the Lib Dem website. I will give way at that point. Could he dredge anything out of his character, which is good about the Smith agreement? Roger Campbell. No, it is obviously a step forward. Just in relation to the point on welfare, the point remains that if you take PIP out of the occasion, you are left with just 6 per cent of the total social security budget having been transferred, and that, I would suggest, is very modest indeed. The National Carers Association argued in their submission to Smith that, to avoid complexity for claimants and the cost of managing two systems, it would appear to make sense to devolve the full range of welfare powers. For a moment, just a short moment in time in that week before Smith reported, a unionist seemed to be moving in that direction until it would appear that London Masters said no. The minimum wage, of course, remains reserved, and as the child poverty action group pointed out, key levers for delivering poverty, not only the minimum wage but child benefit and wider economic and fiscal powers, remain at Westminster. To echo the expert working group on welfare, powers should be considered in tandem with other fiscal powers such as the ability to create a fair tax base, greater borrowing flexibility and greater investment in job creation, which could then allow Scotland greater access to control the factors within the labour market and economy such as employment and an effect and impact on welfare issues. On equalities, Paragraph 60 of Smith says Equality Act 2010 will remain reserved, and while rightly gender quotas are coming in this Parliament's way, as Mark McDonald indicated earlier on, much more could have been done in that field. On immigration, a partial devolution of power might have enabled this Parliament to reintroduce a two-year post-study work visa, called for not only by NUS Scotland but by those august organisations, the Institute of Directors and the SCDI, among others. The SCDI's view was that without that, the economy will be undermined by continuing problems in the attraction of necessary talent. Again, experience in federal Canada is instructive, except in Paragraph 96 there is reference to that as an additional issue, which could be considered, but we need to turn that into a reality quickly, and we need to put in place the agreed recommendations at the earliest opportunity, not only in relation to 16 and 17-year-olds but generally. Presiding Officer, I think I'm going to have to stop there. Many thanks. James Kelly, to be followed by Christine Grahame. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. There can be no doubt that, compared with the original set of powers that were devolved to the Scottish Parliament when the Parliament was set up in 1999, what has now been set out in the Smith agreement is a much more substantial step forward in terms of tax and welfare, the opportunities that those set of powers present for us to make a difference to the issues that we face in our communities throughout Scotland gives us a real opportunity. I think that there are a number of implications that fall from the agreement. First of all, we all need to move on from the constitutional discussion. I think that one of the unfortunate things about this afternoon's debate quite surprisingly, I have to say, is that it's clear to me that the SNP haven't moved on yet. I listened very carefully to Mr Swinney in his 10 minutes. He was a bit like a lecturer at a seminar. We had 10 minutes of process and we had nothing about the new powers and what the new powers could do to actually make a difference. I will tell you what Mr Swinney and the SNP need to remember is that we are elected to this Parliament as politicians to represent our constituents and to work on behalf of our constituents. When we get an opportunity with the substantial enhanced powers, it's incumbent on us to make those powers work and to make a difference. I will give way, Mr Swinney. John Mason. To Kelly, if we are giving way, would you accept that it is the Conservatives who, rather than choosing a subject that we could debate that we do something, have chosen the constitution because they are fixated with it? James Kelly. I think what this debate does is it gives an opportunity to examine some of the issues that exist in Scotland and how we could use those powers to make a difference. For example, yesterday there was a study published by the Public Health Observatory examining health inequalities in Scotland. The average life expectancy of a male in drum chapel is 73 years. If you travel three miles to Bearsden, it's 10 years more, it's 83 years. Nobody in this chamber would find that acceptable. The study demonstrated that changes in health policy will have an impact on that the biggest impact would be on changes in tax and also on welfare, things that are handed down by the Smith commission in a short time. One of the aspects that the study concentrated on was that of the living wage, something that the SNP benches have voted against five times to extend the living wage to public contracts. As well as examining the powers coming down the line, you should examine the powers that you currently have in order to make a difference to health inequalities. I think that another issue that could be examined and developed is that of access to education. The SNP is always telling us how we have free education in Scotland, but the reality on the ground is that if you stay in Morningside, you have a 10 chance of getting to university. However, in the poorer areas of Glasgow, you only have a one in 10 chance, so access to free education is very limited in some of the parts of our country. In addition to that, only yesterday we saw in the fuel poverty statistics published nearly a million households now in fuel poverty. Again, that is something that is completely acceptable in today's Scotland. Again, I am sure that the people across the benches find totally unacceptable. The Smith agreement powers give us the opportunity to raise the top rate of tax of 50 pence and to introduce new benefits, which could help in addressing access to education, looking at health and equality issues and tackling the fuel poverty issues. I think that that is what the debate should be about. People in Scotland are looking for us to move on. They are looking for leadership from this chamber. It is incumbent on all of us, including the SNP Government, to provide that leadership, to provide the ideas and to make a real difference now that the constitutional debate has been resolved. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I want to start with a quote from the forward by Lord Smith to his report. Scotland voted nobody. It did so with each of the three main UK parties promising more powers to the Scottish Parliament. I was asked to lead a commission working with the five parties represented in the Scottish Parliament to agree what those new powers should be, and that is the important part for me. In doing so, I sought to give a voice to the public and the various organisations that make up the fabric of Scottish life. For me, from the start, it has failed. The five political parties had to sign the contract. First of all, those signatures were on behalf of their political priorities. In the case of the three Unionist parties, probably what the Scottish branches were told they could sign up to by London HQ. How do I know that? Because, I quote again, at Tuesday's cabinet when Alistair Carmichael read out the plans taking shape at the Smith commission table, one after another English Tory cabinet ministers challenged the plans and their implications for their brief and their department. Theresa May was amongst them, George Osborne too. Duncan Smith was said to have been the sharpest critic of what was being keywords cooked up in Scotland, fearing that his entire universal credit fabric was being unraveled. There weren't discussions with the Scottish people. There were discussions down telephone lines to London. I've only got five minutes. That de minimis offer cannot begin to meet the compromise of Divo Maxx, which, of course, was prohibited from being on the ballot paper from day one by the Unionist parties, and only surfaced as an expeditious attempt to prevent independence. Even Murdo Fraser called it, in this chamber, the so-called Vau. I notice that it didn't do that today. Nick Legge, however, prefers to call it Vau Maxx, or Vau++. How far have the Liberals and Fedalism fallen? Now, it's not even coherent—a keyword used by Mark McDonald and also used by Smith in his submission. He asked for something to be substantial and coherent. Now, we can argue about whether it's substantial. This side and that side think that it's substantial, we do not, but coherent it definitely is not coherent. One cannot touch one part of the benefits system without the whole of the benefits system being available to you. You cannot touch one tiny part of income tax without having the whole of the tax system available. This is destabilising. I can tell you something. Had the Unionist parties been astute, which we know they are not, they might have shot the independence fox for good, or at least wounded it very seriously, had full tax and welfare powers been devolved to this Parliament, but you've done completely the opposite. The Scottish people and 1.6 million voted for the full whack. 1.6 million is not a tiny minority. It's a substantial number of people. A substantial number at the last minute voted for devolution thinking that they were going to get something big, not a pig in a poke. So you've not satisfied them. How do I know you've not satisfied them? Listen to me. We have over 90,000 members in the Scottish National Party. I'll bet your membership's not going up. Why is it going up? Because people are disappointed at the way they've been cheated by the Smith commission and, by the way, my signature's not on that paper, and it would never have been on that paper. What we learn is we know that this contract, this contract, was done to the lowest common denominator so that all signatures could be there. You thought that the Smith commission would bury the independence dead. You thought it put the tin lid on it. It's done exactly the opposite. I thank you very much for that. Thank you, Jenny Marra. Order, please. Jenny Marra, to be followed by Stuart McMillan. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I thank the speakers before me for their interesting and important contributions to this debate. The Smith commission, by virtue of it being signed in agreement by all the parties in this Parliament, delivers what I think the majority of Scots voted for on 18 September. It delivers that vow that was made to the people of Scotland, the vow for safer, faster and better change in Scotland. I feel honoured to be speaking about an agreement that upholds those pillars of agreement, compromise and consensus. Ultimately, and I think that this is ultimately important, respect the democratic will of the Scottish people. In addition to that, the Smith agreement delivers us an exciting and vital reminder, and something that I'd like to focus on today, Presiding Officer. The reminder is around the decentralisation of our economy. Putting more faith and investment into our local authorities will allow us to shape and mould our economy in a way that encourages the fairer redistribution of wealth and the growth of wealth across Scotland and within each of our regions. The Labour Party has argued for such decentralisation. The SNP has stated that it would like to move towards a system of more local governance, but actions must now speak louder than words. The advantages to our economy, which the Smith agreement brings, are multiple, and in a large way all supplement this focus on decentralisation. The devolution of income tax, as we have already heard spoken about today, is one of those advantages. Powers over all rates and bans of income tax allow the Scottish Government to assess and restructure fairly, ensuring that those who pay into the public purse pay a fair amount. Public spending will more so be contingent now on the buoyancy of the Scottish economy, which should focus the attention of the Scottish Government more so on how it is managed. When it comes to business, devolution of areas of competition policy gives Scottish ministers the power to carry out full second phase investigations on particular competition issues. Addressing such issues gives a more rigorous approach to creating and supporting sustainable business in Scotland, and encourages a more organic development in our business sector. Surely, most significant to all in our economy are the new job-creating powers, which I believe the Smith agreement brings. That is where I take issue with what Linda Fabiani said this afternoon. Ms Fabiani said that we have the work programme, but we do not have job-creating powers. I would argue that we have struck the balance. We remain inside one of the strongest and most integrated economies in the world, but we have the borrowing powers of Calman with income tax and then the work programme. Those are the tools, but far, far more important, as I said to Mr Swinney in this chamber last week, and as every workman knows, is what you do with those tools—the design, the plan, the execution and then the result. I can absolutely accept that Ms Marra would disagree with me, but she also disagrees with the STUC and many other submissions by Civic Scotland that have expressed disappointment at the lack of job-creating powers. Jenny Marra, I listen with interest to the list of people that Mark McDonald read out this afternoon. I would remind Ms Fabiani that the contented are always less outspoken. I think that we discovered that during the referendum campaign. For all the organisations that Mark McDonald quoted, there are many, many, many, many organisations in Scotland that believe that the vow was delivered and exceeded and are happy with that. If I can get back to what we do with those tools, our plan is for a modern industrial economy, devolving the work programme to local authorities, meeting local economic priorities, meeting the skills gap in IT and engineering, and using our colleges as a powerhouse to drive that economy. Presiding Officer, the Smith agreement makes Scotland the most powerful devolved body of almost anywhere in the world. It will be what the Scottish Government now does with those significant new tools that will show that they will be the real proof of their ambition for Scotland. In my opinion, achievements over the past seven years of the SNP Government have been few. They only have 18 months left. I hope that they get their tools and get working. Thank you. Stuart McMillan, to be followed by Patrick Harvie. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. During the debate on the Smith commission on the 28th of October, I expressed my thoughts about what to happen. I will quote certainly from that particular debate. I suggested at the time that I believe that the Smith commission has looked at two key issues. The first one being what powers can be devolved to Scotland to bring about real social change to help us to create a stronger economy with more jobs whilst protecting public services, and the second being tackling inequality with our nation. The Smith commission had that opportunity, but I am afraid that it did not go anywhere near tackling those issues. The comments from Professor Michael Keating indicate that we will be discussing this tomorrow in the devolution committee. He indicates that proposals for devolution of welfare are piecemeal and lack coherence. I do welcome, though. I wonder if he agrees with Christine Grahame that Mr Swinney was wrong to sign the agreement. Stuart McMillan. I call John Swinney and Linda Fabiani from signing the agreement because it was something that was done. However, as Mr Swinney will recognise, there had to be compromises on all sides, as he indicated in his contribution earlier on. I do welcome the additional powers that the Smith commission actually recommends coming to Scotland. I will touch upon a couple of the positives. Paragraph 74 regarding the proliferation of the fixed-odds betting terminals, the FOBT, is an issue that I have been campaigning on in the member's debate on this very subject earlier on this year. I want to place him on record my thanks to all members who have been supportive of this particular measure, and I also want to thank Annabel Goldie for her support of that. Clearly, the details of that particular measure are still to be ironed out, but this is an important first step. I will be paying particular attention to the draft clause or clauses when they are published in January, but the main issue about the FOBTs, however, is that the regulation will still remain at Westminster as gambling is still going to be reserved. The second positive is that, concerning the franchise being extended to 16 and 17-year-olds, that has already been discussed today. The first part of paragraph 69 is the licensing of onshore oil and gas extraction, or fracking, to come to Scotland. I am concerned, however, at the timescale involved before we get the power. It is feasible, and it is certainly as feasible when everyone in the chamber will agree that the UK Government could well have granted a large number of licences, and the people of Scotland will have had no say on the applications by the time we get the powers. Alasdair Cymru, the Secretary of State, was clear about this last week in the devolution of the Further Powers Committee when he questioned the introduction of the Smith recommendations, and he stated that, I think that the expectation at the moment is still that that will proceed as a package given the range of issues with which we are dealing and the somewhat tight timeframe to which we are working. Although I welcome this power coming to Scotland, I do have the reservations. I do not have any more time, I am sorry. I want to highlight a couple of negatives, which I think merit some attention. Paragraph 39 and the formal consultative role for the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament in setting the strategic priorities for the maritime and coastguard agency, the MCA, with respect to its activities in Scotland. I genuinely welcome the Scottish Government having the power to appoint someone to the MCA advisory board and the Scottish Parliament being involved at committee level. However, two things have struck me about that particular proposal. The first one being that, while the Scottish representative has actually been listened to and her recommendations acted upon, and secondly, when we consider how much the MCA has decreased in numbers in Scotland since 2010, with coastguard stations closing and their activities taking place elsewhere, such as the Clyde closing, with Belfast and Stornwy undertaking their work, is that really just a sticking plaster approach to trying to appease areas where they have actually lost service personnel? Final minute. I believe that bringing the powers of the MCA to Scotland could have provided Scotland with the opportunity to design our own coastal protection measures in conjunction with the services that we currently possess, but unfortunately, that has been a missed opportunity. The second point concerns the work programme. Paragraph 57 was clear that the Scottish Parliament will have all powers over support for unemployed people and is on the end of it says on expiry of the current commercial arrangements. Last week we heard that that contract has been extended. During the devolution for the powers committee last Thursday, I asked the Secretary of State the following, was Lord Smith made aware of the extension when he was going through the process? The Secretary of State replied by saying, I don't know. Why would the UK Government actually keep Lord Smith in the dark over an issue of importance such as this? It begs the question, if the UK Government can do this on employment provision, what else have they actually done it with? I do not think that the report is measured up to my two recommendations in the debate that we had in October, but I do support the amendment in the name of John Swinney this afternoon. I now call Patrick Harvie to be followed by John Mason. I am shocked at some people who seem to look at the document and see a promise exceeded or over delivered. Other people look at the same document and say that the promise has been broken and that they are underwhelmed. Who could have guessed that it would end that way? Who could have guessed? Of course it was going to end that way, not only because we were on different sides of the independence debate just a couple of months ago, but also because it is being measured against a deliberately vague and ill-defined promise. It even avoided using sketchily defined terms like Divo Max. It used entirely undefined terms and was then pumped up in the media and in town hall debates to make people think that something much more substantial and defined had been promised. Can I also just deal with the question about whether we all signed it off, whether we all signed on the dotted line? If I remember rightly, we were asked to sign one copy as a souvenir for Tavish Scott, but the actual formal process—we were happy to do so. We were happy to do so. I hope that it has pride of place framed on his wall somewhere. The actual formal process was described earlier—a negotiation. Obviously, myself, Mr Swinney, Ms Babiani and others would have taken a maximalist approach and would have tried to persuade others to come as far as possible on a range of issues. Some would have taken a lot of persuasion to come even this far, and that is what resulted. It is not a contract. It is not anything that someone has signed on the dotted line saying that this is the best for Scotland. It is what came out of a process of haggling and negotiation. Let us accept that that is its nature. Ruth Davidson says that this has been a process of fast-forward constitutional reform. During the process of trying to reach the final position, that was part of the problem—the fast-forward nature of it, the breakneck speed, the inability that we had to take proper reflective evidence, to take the time to look at the arguments in depth and in a reflective way. However, now that the report has been published, it is clear that there is a need for a multi-speed approach. There will be issues, such as votes at 16, which require to be dealt with in a speedy way if we are going to do what the report says we should be able to do and have this change in time for the 2016 election. That cannot wait for a full package of legislative proposals. There will also be aspects that cannot be included in the clauses that are going to be produced by the end of January, because some aspects will require on-going negotiation between the two Governments, such as the framework for borrowing powers. That will require further detailed negotiation between the two Governments. It would be quite unreasonable to expect the detail of that to be published by the end of January, so there is clearly going to be a multi-speed approach. Far from what Drew Smith suggested, the section 30 idea on votes at 16 is somehow seeking unnecessary grievance. Quite the contrary, I think that it is simply pointing out the most sensible and straightforward approach. Mr Harvie, if you could give me the opportunity to clarify that, we have said that we support a section 30 process for votes at 16. Indeed, Margaret Curran has gone further and said that we would be prepared to consider other areas where primary legislation would not be required, so that is not what I was arguing. That is helpful. I apologise if I misheard or misinterpreted what I was saying earlier. One of the phrases that Labour has used consistently is powers for a purpose. I have argued that it is one that should be relevant to all our approaches to this debate. We have different purposes in mind. When we think about the powers that devolution should move on to, the powers that should come to this Parliament, we have different purposes in mind. Some focus on the idea of financial accountability, as though the constraints that will still exist from UK Government economic policy simply lead to economic decisions being implemented on their behalf in Scotland. Others, such as the SNP, might have purposes different from my own in relation to co-operation tax. I would argue that, even if we were independent, we should take an EU-wide approach to co-operation tax to cut down the loopholes for tax avoidance. I would certainly like to end the situation where the aviation industry is one of the most undertaxed industries that we have in this country. I know that Mr Swinney will not agree with that. Others focus on the purpose of pulling and sharing resources, flying in the face of what I would say is the coherent evidence that that is not what the UK economy does successfully, it does exactly the opposite. Finally, on the question of coherence and durability, as this has been something sought by the commission, I have to say that I am doubtful. If devolution is a process, as others have argued, I have to say that I do not think that this will be the last bit of progress that we see. I do not know where that progress will lead to eventually, but this in time, I am sure, will be seen as just one more little step in the road. Thank you. I now call John Mason to be followed by Alex Rowley. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am very happy to follow Patrick Harvie, what I think was an excellent speech. Clearly, there are some good things have come out of the Smith commission. I particularly welcome full control of the rates and bans of income tax, powers over internal Scottish elections, some benefits, licensing onshore, oil and gas, and control of the number of payday loan shops and fixed-odd betting terminals. Clearly, all of this is nothing like home rule. A lot of terms have been used, home rule being one of them. Another one is deval max, which I have never understood what that actually means. Another one is the federal system, which, as I understand it, is more about how Government structures work rather than how much power is decentralised to the individual state. However, it seems to me that home rule, which was mentioned as a promise before the referendum, is a pretty clear definition. It was a term home rule that was used in the 1886 bill for Ireland, and it listed 13 areas that would be reserved, which were the status of the crown, war and peace, the defence of the realm, international treaties, dignities or titles of honour, the booty of war, international law, treason, alienage and naturalisation, trade, navigation or quarantine, the postal and telegraph service, beacons and lighthouses, coinage and copyright. Those are obviously slightly outdated terms in some cases, but I think that the point is pretty clear that we are talking about controlling what is happening within our own country and some things happening externally. As David Steele said in 1983, the principle of home rule is different from devolution. Under home rule, sovereignty lies with the Scottish people, and we decide when it is sensible to give powers to the centre on issues like foreign affairs and defence. Effectively, that is what Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man have. They have complete control over internal affairs, and they write a cheque for the war in the Falklands or whatever. Some statements in the Smith commission, I would have to say, are actually pretty meaningless. For example, paragraph 21 talks about UK legislation will state that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are permanent institutions. Last time I looked to the UK Parliament was not able to do that. If they pass a law this year, it can be changed next year. There is no written constitution in the UK, major failing of the UK, and therefore they cannot deliver on that promise. Taxation. I am going to take one intervention, yes. Drew Smith. I am grateful to Mr Mason. As an independently minded back venture, I wondered whether he was closer to Christine Graham's view or to John Swinney's view on whether or not this document should have signed. Could I just simply ask him, would he have signed? John Mason. When the party sends me along to one of those negotiations, I will make a decision then as to whether I am signing. On taxation, we have no movement incorporation tax or inheritance tax or capital gains tax or oil and gas or fuel duty or excise duties. While I accept that full devolution of that is not possible, I think that we have to say that the assignment of revenues is very much second best. At the finance committee, we heard a variety of experts and academics arguing for and against different tax powers. For example, one argument was that it was sensible to go for land-based tax because the land cannot move, but that has been completely ignored. Despite more control over income tax, national insurance has been kept reserved, yet we have heard much evidence that national insurance is effectively an income tax and is no longer really linked to pensions and benefits. Having full control of income tax and national insurance would have allowed the two to be combined, creating a much simpler system that I think would have helped employers in particular who collect both of them, and that is something that I would have thought the Conservatives should have been supporting. Others have spoken about welfare, so I will not repeat that, but I would want to reiterate my disappointment about no devolution of the statutory minimum wage. The living wage is always going to be voluntary and we can only encourage or exhort people to do it, but we cannot force it. The issue that has been raised is that we should pursue subsidiarity and powers should not stop at Holyrood but should go further down to council levels. I am certainly comfortable with that, but it raises some questions. The Lib Dem amendment talks about local communities and local authorities, although Tavish Scott clarified that he did see the two separately. Are there sufficient checks and balances at local council level? Are council committees strong enough to keep the executive under control? Not in Glasgow, I would suggest. Should click man and shire, population 50,000 have the same powers as Glasgow, population 600,000. We have quite a lot of questions to go on that. Would we give powers to community councils? Sometimes they do not actually want them. I am happy to support the recommendations of the Smith commission. I still wonder very much if Westminster will implement them and they certainly do not go far enough. I rise to support the amendment that has been put forward in the name of Tavish Scott, and I will come to that in a tick. However, I will pick up the points that John Swinney made. It is important that we recognise that, as Lord Smith himself said, there had to be compromise and there would be parties that would want to go much further. As he said himself, this settlement might be enough for some parties and not for others. I would always go back to the late Donald Dewar, who said that, in his view, devolution was a journey. I genuinely believe that we are on the journey, and this is the next stage of that journey. That is why, for me, it is crucial that we use the powers. I think that that will be the main campaign theme that I will work on as we move forward. We use the powers that we have got and have powers over health, education, transport and justice. We use the powers that are coming through Calman and additional borrowing powers. We then use the powers that will come through the Smith commission over tax, welfare and jobs. It will be important that we do that. I reiterate the point that Drew Smith made, and that is that Margaret Curran rightly said at the weekend that we need to get on with us. Of course we do, and where negotiations can take place and where powers can be brought down further that are coming through the Smith commission, we need to be able to get on with that. We need to move and we need to be able to get on with that. Indeed, the UK Labour last week tabled an amendment to the infrastructure bill, where they were putting forward an amendment to devolve licensing for fracking into this place, as that is part of the Smith commission. I absolutely hope that all parties in here can work together and move forward in getting the powers that can be brought to this Parliament as quickly as is possible. I would also like to pick up on a point that Ruth Davidson made. Ruth Davidson and others in the Conservative party often talk about the pro-union parties. I certainly have never seen myself as pro-union and pro-Scottish and I believe that the best way forward for Scotland is to remain party in the United Kingdom, share in pooling resources where it is necessary and taking powers where it is equally necessary. However, to get to the point of the transfer of powers not just to Holyrood but as Tavish Scott talks about, the transfer of powers into local communities, I recently read The Common Wheel and in The Common Wheel they talk about that it is not just the poor that need a better Scotland. We all do and I quote they say, below the level of the Scottish Parliament, Scotland is one of the least democratic and most centralised countries in the devolved world. We have enormous, distant local authorities that manage people's communities without involving them and often without listening to them. Indeed, that is a point that John Mason also raises in this Parliament from time to time. We need to devolve powers and devolve powers further. Bruce Crawford asked earlier what powers would you devolve in terms of the work programme? For example, we would devolve the work programme surely not just into this Parliament but much further down because all the evidence is that local authorities are far more successful in a, quote, my own authority, Fife Council, where, over the past two and a half years, by investing in apprenticeships, they have created working with business over a thousand apprenticeships. We need to look at getting more powers down to local government but we also need to look at how we get more powers down to communities. I have always campaigned that I believe community councils with the right powers. You would see more interest in my constituency. There has been recently elections for three community councils where there was community enough interest in the community to create interest. The local government debate tomorrow highlights that where you have more powers at a local level, the fourth theory local government in Scotland, then you would have more interest and more people taking part. So let's be imaginative as we go forward. Let's work together to get the powers that's down. It was disappointing that Mark McDonald, for example, spent the first two and a half minutes of his speech talking about how underwhelmed he in civic Scotland was. Let's start to look at using the powers and as we move forward if we need more powers then that will be the next stage of devolution but I think the Scottish people now want us to get on with it and do a jobbywork. Thank you very much and I now call Dennis Robertson after which we will move to closing speeches. Alex Rowley and his contribution were talking about Donald Dure and the fact that we were on this journey. Devolution to the Scottish Parliament from Westminster is part of that journey and the devolution from the Scottish Parliament to local government is a journey that is also taking place. I firmly believe that when some of the speakers this afternoon were talking about a tax being devolved to Scotland, welfare being devolved to Scotland, the problem is that they are misleading the public. If we want to have this open and honest and frank debate with the population of Scotland, Scotland's people, let's be open and honest. The taxation that is coming to Scotland is less than 30 per cent. The welfare coming to Scotland is less than 20 per cent. That might be fine for some. To be perfectly honest, when we said that we had to compromise in the Smith commission, there was compromise. No one from the other parties in this chamber was going to agree with John Swinney, Linda Fabiani and Patrick Harvie and move towards independence. We knew that from the outset, but what we did hope was that there was perhaps going to be maybe further devolution to make and hopefully prepare Scotland for being that better and much richer place. I fully support the powers that we have and the powers that are coming down. I sincerely hope that the agreement that we have to have those powers coming down, and I welcome Margaret Curran's intervention in the fact that those who can come to Scotland maybe that bit quicker should come to Scotland that bit quicker. That should be welcome, Presiding Officer, and I think that we should all welcome those powers. I think that there is probably one section in our society that is probably disappointed in the outcome of the Smith commission. That is people when we are looking at the opportunities for employment and people probably with disabilities. I cannot remember maybe any speaker this afternoon mentioning the opportunities for those with disabilities coming into the employment market. This is where I think that the Smith commission has fallen short for that group of people. I think that if employment law had been devolved to Scotland, we would probably have a better opportunity of making the socially unjust aspect of what we have at present for people with disabilities getting back into the employment market than is currently being brought forward within the Smith commission. Inclusion Scotland was right when it said that this process was a very quick process and it was basically quick because it said that it had to be quick. That prevented, I suppose, this better or longer dialogue with Civic Scotland to hear maybe from the people more about what the people felt that we should have devolved rather than just what we felt through the five political parties within the Smith commission came up with. I actually feel for those, and if we look at the part of the welfare that has been devolved, if we look at the DLA moving to PIP, we have said that this process should be halted within the UK Government at the moment. Nothing else should be moving towards the PIP because it is an unjust settlement. The PIP has already, in some areas, disadvantaged many people with disabilities that were on DLA in the past. They no longer have that benefit. We will look at the work capability assessment. People are still being unjustly assessed in terms of their capability for work, but there will be no alternative. When the UK Government went ahead and closed areas such as the round ploy, for instance, without having an alternative for people, that was wrong. If we are looking at trying to have respect in what people with disabilities actually want, they want respect, dignity and to go out to work, but they also need a process there to enable that to happen. The Smith commission does not afford that. That is unfortunate. I think that that is an opportunity missed. I sincerely hope that when the other parties might reflect on some of those aspects, that there are some opportunities missed. Yes, welcome what we have and welcome what we can do with what we have, but we might also reflect on perhaps what we should or perhaps could have had to enable at fairer, more just, equal Scotland. Mary, thank you. We now turn to the closing speeches. I call on Tavish Scott, six minutes please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Can I begin by thanking Lord Smith, the Secretary of State and indeed all the participants to that process, number of whom are obviously in the chamber this afternoon. I haven't had a chance to do that on the record before, and I want to just express my appreciation, I think, as John Swinney said earlier, day on this matter for broadly the tone of how those discussions took place. Patrick Harvey was quite right, we weren't all going to get what we wanted. Obviously, we came from completely opposing views as to the future constitutional settlement for this country, but on the whole I believe that that process had much to commend it in terms of actually having people sit down and talk reasonably about things that need to happen. This has been in broad terms a spirited debate about a massively important issue for the future of our country, but I want to start by defending the Cabinet Secretary and Linda Fabiani from the range of vigorous attacks they faced from their own side this afternoon. It does seem very unfair to Linda Fabiani and John Swinney to have to go through that. At least Christine Graham has been commendably clear about her position in opposing signing the agreement altogether. Christine is Parliament's great conspiracy theorist, but she certainly has given clarity to her benches on that. But other colleagues of hers, Rod Campbell, said that there was nothing good in the Smith Commission. I couldn't quite decide whether Mark Bedollad was arguing for or against it through his contribution. Stuart McMillan in fairness did say that there was some benefit, so I suppose we all might observe that he might need to tell his staff that as well. Patrick Harvey was quite right that his signature is on my copy, and I therefore consider that he's met the vow. John Mason made a couple of good points. I don't understand what Divo Maxx means either, Mr Mason, although I think that it's independence and I don't believe in that, so I suppose that that's my starting point. Let me make one other point. I thought that Mr Mason made a good point about the permanence of the institution and the debate about how you actually do that. I just observed that local government in Scotland feels the same way about us as we might consider in terms of the role of how Westminster would give effect to what was a very clear recommendation of the Smith agreement. Dennis Robertson raised the issue of a journey. The trouble for me, Mr Robertson, on the journey about the Scottish Parliament to the local government has been the wrong way round for the past seven years, and I'd like to reverse that. Linda Fabiani made one point that I completely agree with. I agree with you on the public awareness of the Scottish Parliament powers. Lord Smith observed that what we do in this place and have done in this place since 1999 isn't terribly well understood and there is a role for Parliament in that on education, health, transport, ag, fish. Indeed, on our law—it striked me when Linda Fabiani was making that point—on our law, I can only just imagine what the reaction would have been of the Government here had a Secretary of State for Scotland in London proposed the abolition of corroboration, one of the central tenants of Scots law, and all that has gone around that. Let me also just briefly mention Civic Scotland. Mark McDonald is quite entitled, as was, of course, the cabinet secretary, to quote Civic Scotland and to use the examples, but so are the rest of us entitled to observe Civic Scotland's position on lots and lots of issues. I just hope—and I'm sure that the reasonable man that is the cabinet secretary would accept—that there are two sides to that argument. Many different organisations believe that there's much to be done within Scotland, as well as the argument about powers from Westminster to Holyrood. In that regard, Alex Rowley set out a very fair test about the work programme and devolving that to a local level. I would continue that process. I think that goes hand-in-hand with Skills Development Scotland. I think that's a big national quango that doesn't work at a local level. If Bruce Crawford is no longer in his place, he was asking me that question again, I'd make a strong argument for taking Skills Development Scotland apart and devolving it to a local level. The advice that Government ministers, like Mr Swinney, need should be provided to him by that bit of the organisation that does that, but there's an organisation that is right for reform in Scotland that will provide, in my view, whether in Fife or in Shetland a much better service for sorting out the challenges around colleges, workplaces and schools that we very badly need. Can I just make a couple of other points in closing? As Ruth Davidson said when she opened the debate, this is absolutely for the future about the choices that we will make on tax welfare and on the range of responsibilities that we will get. That is a good thing. I'm sure that there will be a day when even the front bench of our Government accepts that it's a good thing because they will, as the Government of course, be able to make those choices and be held to account for them. When they propose a £50 top rate or whether it's a zero rate at the bottom to do something with personal allowances, those are all different and interesting choices that Parliament will debate. When that starts to happen, I rather suspect that it won't just be civic Scotland engaged in a somewhat arbitrary debate about what pass here and what pass there. It will be much more real to many of us and more to the point to our constituents and to every man, woman and child right across our country. Lord Smith said in his forward to his agreement that, taken together, those new powers will deliver three important overarching improvements to the devolution settlement, making it more responsive, durable and stable. The only other observation I'd make, Presiding Officer, is that I believe that there is some work to be done in this place in Parliament about the accountability of ministers to this Parliament and about how our committee system works. It's not just about what happens outside. It's also about our own procedures in this place. Many thanks and to now call on Ian Gray, six minutes please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We've heard a lot about the vow both today and otherwise, largely from those who didn't make it, didn't support it, didn't believe that it would be delivered. But now, he seemed very concerned with what it was. They've told us that it was a divo max, it was full fiscal autonomy, it was full fiscal federal autonomy with added divo megamax. According to John Mason today, it's 19th century home rule. I'm with Mr Scott on this. I don't know what any of those things mean and that's why none of them were promised. The fact is that the vow was simple. The Scottish Parliament permanent and entrenched the Barnett formula protected an extensive new powers over tax and welfare. That could be a summary of the Smith agreement. £20 billion worth of taxes and £2.5 billion of the welfare system coming to a Parliament near us and very soon 60 per cent of our spending funded by taxes for which we have some responsibility. I agree with the earlier point that he made that the promise was ill-defined and that's a point that I made myself. However, he mentions the permanence of the Parliament. Does he not acknowledge that that is something that can't be achieved in the absence of a written constitution in anything other than a symbolic way? It cannot be legally delivered. At the very least, we can look at the original Scotland act and remove the clause that says that the Westminster Parliament remains sovereign over the Scottish Parliament. That may be symbolic, but it's also significant. The Scottish Parliament not just made permanent but also made responsible for ourselves the imbalance between legislative and fiscal competence redress. A Parliament rebalanced, a Parliament transformed, a Parliament empowered. The fact is that the Smith agreement is the vow delivered on time and in spades. I am glad that the Government amendment tonight finds something positive about the Smith agreement to say, because most SNP speakers have had nothing good to say about it from one miserable contribution to the next. Indeed, the SNP reaction to Smith has been dismal. The Deputy First Minister participated in it and agreed it and then denounced it from the platform at the launch. Even before that, the First Minister herself was busy in her office through the night, trashing Smith by tweet. At FMQs that day, she warmly welcomed it and then rubbished it. Meanwhile, the former First Minister is touting himself around a Government not yet elected in a Parliament that he is not yet a member of, offering demand and supply agreements in return for enhancements to the Smith agreement. We could be forgiven for asking not just what the SNP position on Smith is, but who speaks for the SNP on the Smith agreement. No wonder some nationalist councillors were so confused that they ended up burning a document with their own Deputy First Minister's name on it agreeing to bring more powers to Scotland. It is just as well that they did not decide to burn the Smith commissioners in effigy, because they would have been a bit surprised when they got to Linda Fabiani and John Swinney. Although Linda Fabiani seems today to be a little unsure that she was actually there at the Smith commission, Christine Grahame has told her in no uncertain terms that she should not have been. Those are substantial powers. With the Smith agreement, we can, if we choose, reintroduce a 50p tax rate for Torpenners, a 10p rate to help lower earners. We can redesign the work programme to get people into work more effectively, redeploy hundreds of millions of pounds worth of disability benefits to reinject dignity and respect into the system, and that includes Mr Robertson, the work choices programme to help people with disabilities into employment. We can attach child poverty by supplementing child benefit for families under stress, reform carers allowance, give carers the rights they deserve and finally match attendance allowance and DLA to our own Scottish system of care of the elderly. In fact, Smith will enable us to create new benefits of our own, something currently disallowed by the Scotland Act. We can construct, if we wish, a whole new Scottish welfare system of benefits of our own design, built on the guarantee of UK-wide provision of pensions, social security and child benefit. Any politician who thinks that these are limited powers simply lacks imagination. Indeed, any politician who looks at this package of powers and can see only what it does not give them simply reveals themselves to be more concerned with gratuitous grievance than with effective Government on behalf of the people. Any Government who thinks that the most important thing about these new powers is not what we can do with them but who gets to write the draft legislation that gives us them has simply got the wrong priorities. Mr Swinney said that he wants to use these powers, but first he has to talk about the process of implementation. Is not that the whole problem with this Government? There is always something that they have to talk about first. For five years, they had to talk about a referendum. For two years, they had to talk about independence and now they are going to talk about the implementation of Smith. Scotland has had two years of a Government claiming that it can do nothing without independence. It cannot take. Another year of a Government claiming that it can do nothing until Smith is implemented. It is time to get on with the job now. Tavish Scott accused my dear long-standing friend Christine Grahame of being Parliament's conspiracy theorist. I just want to add to a further level of conspiracy to which Patrick Harvie began giving some details. I do not know about Patrick Harvie, but I signed two copies of the Smith commission report. Maybe Patrick Harvie was not invited to sign the other one, because I signed a copy of the Smith commission, not only for Mr Scott, but I also charity would be done for Mr Gray into the bargain. If Mr Harvie was left off that one, maybe that exempts him from being a signatory to all of the agreement, I am not sure. However, I am happy to confirm to Parliament today that I was a signatory to those two copies and that I agreed the contents of the Smith commission report, and that is the position of the Scottish Government. We are happy to take forward the proposals in the Smith commission report, but it would be a fundamentally dishonest position for me to stand in the national museum of Scotland or more importantly in the national parliament of Scotland and say that this is the summit of all my ambitions, because that would be a dishonest manifestation of the position. It might be the position—well, it is the position—I do not know if it is—actually the summit of all the ambitions of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives and the Labour Party, but it is not the summit of my ambitions. People should not disrespectfully suggest that parties who hold views that are different from others should somehow recant on things that they have believed for every moment of their adult life. That is just a policy. What I want to do is—of course, I will give way to Mr Gray. Gavin Brown makes a perfectly fair point, but does he acknowledge, though, and will he say publicly that taking together the package is significant? John Swinney? No, I will not say that, Mr Brown. The reason why I will not say that is because it does not say that in the agreement. It says that this is a new range of powers. I am quite happy to say that this is a new range of powers. It is additional powers. It does not say in this agreement that it is significant, so I am not going to say anything that is not in the agreement, Mr Brown. That is my answer to your point. I will give way to Mr Campbell. Mr Campbell? The cabinet secretary agrees, however, that it is progress. John Swinney? Yes, it is. That brings me on to another interesting part of the discussion, which has been advanced today. Everybody in the union's parties has been saying just how much of a process devolution is and how much this is another step in the journey. Of course, if it is another step in the journey, there must be, by definition, some further destination. Therefore, there must be an acceptance. I will give way in a second, Mr McDonald, because I am just coming to the remark that you made. Mr McDonald, I think, said—if I wrote it down correctly, and he has the opportunity at the moment to correct me—that this was another step on the journey to get a fit for purpose constitutional settlement. That is an observation that I am happy to endorse. I am very glad that Mr Swinney does so, because what I was saying very clearly, I hope, was that the fit for purpose constitutional settlement that the Smith agreement helps to deliver is a stronger Scottish Parliament in a stronger United Kingdom. That is, if that is Mr McDonald's view, fine, but one of the other clauses that I signed up to in the Smith agreement—I will come on to your sake, Mr Smith—one of the other clauses that I signed up to in the Smith commission is clause 18. It is agreed that nothing in this report prevents Scotland from becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose. To respond to Mr Campbell's point, that is progress. It gives us more powers, it gives us more responsibility, it gives us more scope for action. Is it the summit of all my ambitions? No, it is not. I intend to make sure that we reach the destination set out in section 18 of the report. I said that I would give way to Mr Smith if he wishes it, and then I will give way to Mr Gwney. You said that Mr McDonald's description of a stronger Scottish Parliament in a stronger United Kingdom was his position. Does he not accept that it was the position that was voted for by the majority of people in Scotland? The SNP's bad faith and poor tone in response to the entire Smith commission process undermines people's belief that they genuinely do accept that result. I think that I have never, for a moment—not for one single moment since 18 September—tried to represent anything other than the fact that we did not win the referendum. I accept that entirely. I have never, for a moment—please do not get your researcher, Mr Smith—to go off and traipse through the internet to find a quote from me that somehow contradicts that. There will be none. I can save them the bother right away. I have always accepted the outcome of the referendum, but by demonstrating it, I took part in the Smith commission. Why are all those three UK parties doing cartwheel for this beautiful moment when all five political parties got together in the one room for the first time? Apparently, that was a moment of great celebration. It happened because I accepted the outcome of the referendum, but I want to move on from that outcome to deliver a settlement that will meet the ambitions and the needs of the people of Scotland. That is my democratic right to do exactly that, and the Labour Party cannot take it away from me. I have also been criticised—I better give way to Mr Beattie. I agree. I simply want to make the point that paragraph 18 to which he refers is exactly the point in which Smith recognises absolutely Mr Swinney's democratic right to continue to argue for independence. We simply ask, can he not find one positive good thing to say about the agreement that he was part of? John Swinney. Mr Gray was sitting about three or four seats away from me on the platform at the National Museum of Scotland a couple of weeks ago. When I said those words, we welcome the new powers that will come to Scotland, greater control over income tax, APD and so on. We welcome those powers, as we support all progress for Scotland, was Mr Gray not listening on that particular occasion. A lot of criticism has been levelled at me in this debate by the fact that I want to concentrate on the translation of some of the principles in the Smith commission into the detail of legislation. The conspiracy theory element is that we will not get turned into legislative reality what is in the Smith commission agreement. We had one example of the dangers last Thursday. At the devolution of further powers committee, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that the extension of the Crown of State responsibilities would go to 12 miles. That is what the Secretary of State for Scotland said. The Smith commission members know full well, because we debated this ad infinitum. In the wording that we used and specifically because of the terminology that we put into the Smith agreement at clause 33, we made specific provision for the fact that the area of the seabed covered in the devolution of the Crown of State was to go to 200 miles. That was absolutely crystal clear. I want to make sure. In a week of the Smith commission report happening, the Secretary of State for Scotland represented a position at odds with the contents of the Smith commission report. Is it any wonder that I want to make sure that we are close to the drafting of the legislation to make sure that what the Smith commission meant is turned into practical reality in the legislation that we form? That is not an unreasonable position. That is called protecting the interests of the people of Scotland. Thank you very much. I now call on Gavin Brown to wind up the debate. 10 minutes please, Mr Brown. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Today has been a very important debate and it has not been a good day, I have to say, for the Scottish Government. I think that the Scottish Government has genuinely struggled all the way through this debate and it is no wonder that it did not want a debate on their time. It just wanted a statement where it could have an uninterrupted 20-minute rant followed by friendly questions from back benchers asking them very gentle things about the Smith commission. I am staggered that nobody in the Scottish Government and even the usually reasonable Cabinet Secretary and Deputy First Minister could bring themselves to say that Smith agreement represents a significant package of powers. It does, Deputy Presiding Officer. Ruth Davidson read out a list of powers being transferred and devolved. She actually had to stop because she was going to run out of time if she carried on with the powers being devolved, but many of them represent individual significant powers. There is no bigger tax. There is no bigger tax than income tax, Deputy Presiding Officer, unless John Mason can rebut that point. John Mason accepts that there is nowhere remotely close to home rule. Gavin Brown comes from the member who did not know what home rule was, he did not know what autonomy was, he did not know what federalism was, and he is deputy to convener of the finance committee, Deputy Presiding Officer. Individualy, there are significant powers within there, with income tax being the largest, but taken as a package, how can any fair, reasonable-minded person say that this is not significant? We have heard some back benchers describe the entire package as de minimus. They do not think that the entire package, billions of pounds, is significant. Yet just a few weeks ago, the Scottish Government was saying that the legal writings, counterparts and delivery Scotland Bill gave us a significant, competitive advantage. Patrick Harvie. I am grateful. I think that most things in life carry some significance. Does he think that it is significant that some people saw fit to do the hokey-cokey with a welfare system? Gavin Brown. I am glad that Mr Harvie at least can accept that there is significance in this, but let us move on to the important point. In a serious measure, let us look at how significant the powers actually are, because anybody looking at devolution across the planet, across the ages, has generally looked at three things—the control of expenditure, the control of revenues, and the control of legislative power. I think that it is only right that we look at all three to look at how important the powers are and what kind of a Parliament it actually gives. Let me make some progress and I will give way to Mr McMillan. Every analyst on the planet talks about control of expenditure and control of revenue. Control of expenditure being one of the key measures, but the Scottish Government, since the publication of the Smith report, not one of them has talked about control of expenditure. They only want to talk about control of welfare expenditure, as if that is the new measure, the only one that matters instead of control of expenditure as a whole. We have strong powers on expenditure, Deputy Presiding Officer. Actually, we always have. It was high before the Smith agreement, but with the addition of many welfare powers, whether that is attendance allowance, carers allowance, disability living allowance and so on, the best part of £3 billion, it means that, post Smith agreement, if we go by the 12, 13 shares figures, we will be in control of £36.8 billion of a total Scottish expenditure of £65 billion. According to SPICE, the Scottish Parliament and Government will be in control of 56 per cent of expenditure within Scotland. That is a significant amount, Deputy Presiding Officer, and how do we compare to other countries across the world? We will rather helpfully Professor David Bell of Stirling University produced a graph plotting countries against each other to see how we compare on decentralisation ratios. Yes, Deputy Presiding Officer, he was able to find three countries on the planet that had higher decentralisation ratios in us, Canada, Denmark and Switzerland, perhaps the new arc of autonomy. On that chart, it showed that we were ahead of the rest of the OECD countries, including Sweden, Germany, Norway, Spain, Finland, Belgium, Austria, the Netherlands, Iceland, France, Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Belgium, yes, Ireland, that is what I said. They are very good, very good, Deputy Presiding Officer, and Italy to add in too. So there were only three and most of them were just ahead of us out of those three. If you look at control of revenues, Deputy Presiding Officer, where I have to say, where I have to accept, there was a weakness in the system with the original Scotland Act 2012. There was, but that has changed and that will change over the course of the Smith agreement. I think that there was a vertical fiscal imbalance to use the technical term. Initially, we just had council tax and business rates. That was improved by the Scotland Act 2012 and that improves vastly now. It takes us from a position, Deputy Presiding Officer, in being in charge of £4 billion worth of revenues to one where we will be in charge of around £20 billion worth of revenues. The Smith revenues, as a percentage of Scottish Government spending, means that we will be in charge of 55 per cent of the revenues for which we spend, according to SPICE. In the spirit of fairness and completeness, because I think that we will have to put the whole package on the table, the Smith revenues, as a percentage of total Scottish revenues, would be 38 per cent. Comparing us—people scoff, Presiding Officer—but again, let's compare how we do internationally. Again, David Bell of Sirling University has plotted on a graph how that compares using the 38 per cent figure. Again, in one moment, it has Canada ahead of us, it has Switzerland ahead of us and, this time, it has Spain ahead of us. All the other 14 OECD countries on the graph are below us. I will happily give way to Mr McKinnon. I am grateful to the member for taking the intervention, but I am struggling to understand why a percentage point here or there in terms of taxation powers and powers over revenue is important. Surely it is the ability of taxation to work together to improve economic growth and create wealth. It is important, and I would be interested to hear his explanation on that. I suspect that Mr McKenzie needs more than my help in order to get through this, but I do not think that £20 billion of control over revenue is insignificant. I would not describe it as just a percentage point or two. Maybe he does, but I was drawing an international comparison on a graph that is pretty stark, where there were only three countries that had a greater decentralisation ratio than Scotland would have under the Smith agreement. That was Canada, Switzerland and Spain. All the other countries plotted on that graph were either below us or significantly below us that shows that this is a serious package of powers both in terms of expenditure and in terms of revenue, too. David Bell in his conclusion to his article said this. Implementing Smith will mean that, in terms of fiscal federalism, Scotland will be closer to Canadian provinces and Swiss cantons, which are at the extreme end of the spectrum of devolved fiscal powers among OECD countries. That might not be what the nationalists want. They are perfectly entitled to crave and campaign for independence, but they cannot say what nobody can say in any objective capacity is to say that this is a de minimis package of powers and that it is not significant. I said twice that I would give way to Mr McMillan, so I will do so. Gavin Brown for taking intervention. He mentioned Professor Bell, but Professor Michael Keating suggested that the proposals for devolution of welfare, piecemeal and lack coherence in that inner submission does he agree with Professor Keating? He has managed to find an academic that disagrees, but what he has not managed to do, and I have to say what no SNP member has managed to do since the Smith commission was published and over the course of the afternoon today, is to suggest countries other than Canada, Switzerland and Spain that have a greater decentralisation ratio than Scotland would have under those proposals. The third element is control of legislation, where we have always had great powers and where those powers are extended again through the Smith agreement. In closing, I am glad that we have brought this debate forward today. We pointed out very clearly that those powers really mean something. They make a big change and, in terms of international comparisons, they are very difficult to beat. On that basis, it is time for the Scottish Government to get on with things from their ends so that we can start making a difference to people in Scotland. That is what people want. Thank you. That concludes the debate on the Smith commission. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 11832. In the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme, any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press a request-to-speak button now, and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 11832. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion 11832 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of three parliamentary bureau motions, and I ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 11833 on the designation of a lead committee, and motion 11834 and 11835 on approval of SSIs. The questions on those motions will put decision time to which we now come. There are six questions to be put as a result of today's business. Can I remind members that, in relation to today's debate, if the amendment in the name of John Swinney is agreed, the amendment in the name of Tavish Scott falls? The first question then is amendment 11830.2 in the name of John Swinney, which seeks to amend motion 11830 in the name of Ruth Davidson on the Smith commission be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 11830.2 in the name of John Swinney is as follows. Yes, 64. No, 49. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to, and the amendment in the name of Tavish Scott falls. The next question is that motion 11830 in the name of Ruth Davidson as amended on the Smith commission be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 11830 in the name of Ruth Davidson as amended is as follows. Yes, 62. No, 48. There were three abstentions. The motion as amended is therefore agreed to. The next question is that motion 11833 in the name of dolphins Patrick on the designation of a league committee be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The next question is that motion 11834 in the name of dolphins Patrick on approval for the SSI be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Llyfrin am hyfforddi o'ch wnaeth, ertwelol? Yn eich sefydliad o gynnister y spasg gael o'r dyfodol, mae'n arweinydd yw ddechreu'r ddysgu, ac mae'n gŵr o'ch gwybod yr awddi a'r ddysgu'r ddysgu. Mae'n arweinydd rwynt i ddechrau, mae'n gŵr o'ch gwybod yr awddi o'ch ddysgu.