 Diolch i si 1942. He talked of it being a new stage on a journey that began long ago and which has no end. Presiding Officer, you were there to hear that speech, so was I. So were the Deputy First Minister sitting on this front bench today. So were Tavish Scott and Mike Rumbles. So was Ian Gray and Delain Smith. 26 members of this present Parliament were, so to speak, in at the beginning. Though the beginning was actually a culmination of a long campaign and struggle, which was fought again in Donald Dure's words to achieve the day when democracy was renewed in Scotland. Of course, I and all the others on these benches disagreed then with Donald Dure about the final destination of that journey, just as we disagree on that matter with others here today. Yet that was not the important thing on that opening day and it's not the important thing today. The important thing was and is to acknowledge the progress that had and has been made. To accept it on this journey together in a Parliament of minorities, a journey that the Scottish people told us to take and which they voted for by an overwhelming majority, we should find a way to secure tangible gains for our country, no matter our vision of where we wanted to end up. That's our duty because this Scottish Parliament belongs to the people of Scotland, not to us as parliamentarians nor to this Government or any Government. As elected members, we hold this place and our powers in trust for the generations that voted for them, for this generation and for the generations to come. They decide on journey and end point, not us. Presiding Officer, over the past 19 years, this Scottish Parliament has in the greatest part been good for Scotland. The powers of this Scottish Parliament have been used by administrations of different political complexions to improve the lives of many, hopefully most of the people living in Scotland, often in response to some of the most serious challenges that they face. Every one of us in this chamber has played a part in that, from securing free personal care for the elderly to abolishing tuition fees, from establishing world-leading climate change legislation to delivering equal marriage, from putting in place the UK's first smoking ban to agreeing that for the health of our nation we should introduce the minimum unit pricing for alcohol, from eliminating business rates on small enterprises to supporting innovative and profitable renewable energy generation. We have and we use these powers because we enjoy an established system of government called devolution. It may not be able to secure everything all of us want, but devolution, put in place in 1999 and strengthened by subsequent agreement with Westminster, has made our system of governance robust enough to withstand expected and unexpected challenge and difficulty, robust enough to withstand the global financial crash and to resist, at least in part, the misguided and damaging policy of austerity. Now it is our job to ensure that it is not cast aside because of a Brexit that Scotland did not vote for and which can only be damaging to our country. Today the challenge of Brexit or rather the challenge of the proposed power grab by the UK Tory Government under the guise of delivering Brexit puts our devolved settlement at risk. The Secretary of State for Scotland, who incidentally also heard Donald Dure's opening remarks as a member of this Parliament, dismissively described the issues that we are debating today as dancing on the head of a pin. It is not dancing on the head of a pin to insist that 20 years of stable devolution that has delivered good things for our fellow citizens be protected. As one of the 26s that you talked about in the first Parliament, I wonder if you would agree that Donald Dure was the champion of devolution and prior to that, ensuring that the model, unlike the Welsh model, the Scottish model, was very much designed that those powers that were reserved was quite a deliberate act. Any attempt to change that is definitely undermining what we all and Donald Dure chose to try and achieve in those days. I would agree with that. It is a good point, and the reserve model of devolution, which is not precisely the same as the Welsh model, is one that requires us to defend that and to consent when there are changes. I shall come on to that point. It is not dancing, as I said, on the head of a pin to insist that 20 years of stable devolution that has delivered good things for our fellow citizens be protected, nor to demand the powers that we use for the benefit of Scotland that have been agreed by the people of Scotland. On one view, the vulnerability of the principles of devolution to the UK Government's approach to Brexit should not surprise us. That Government cannot answer even the most basic of questions on issues such as the customs union with just months to go before a withdrawal agreement must be signed. It has dismissed this Parliament's views on wider Brexit issues, such as the single market and the triggering of article 50. It has acted recklessly towards prosperity and peace in Northern Ireland. The reality of the last 23 months is that Theresa May seems concerned only about trying to keep together the warring factions of her party, regardless of the impact of jobs, living standards or devolution. In contrast to the division at Westminster, there has been consensus in this chamber over the need to protect the Scottish Parliament's powers. The Scottish Government has always acknowledged that we must prepare our laws for withdrawal. In line with the clear majority of people in Scotland, we do not want to leave the EU, but we accept that legal preparation for Brexit is required. The UK Government, for its part, recognised that it is required to get our consent to its EU withdrawal bill. On that point, the Parliament spoke very powerfully. In the interim report of the Finance and Constitution Committee in January, it agreed unanimously that the bill was incompatible with the devolution settlement in Scotland, and it could not therefore recommend consent. Clause 11 was not an accidental clause. It encapsulates the current UK Government's view of the type of devolution it wants to see operating only by the grace and favour of Downing Street. To be fair, the UK Government eventually responded to the unanimous view of this Parliament and under Welsh Assembly and many others by making changes. However, it is still clear in its newly reformulated Clause 11 how the UK Government sees power being exercised on withdrawal from the EU. It is still clear how it views this Parliament, and that view is unacceptable, for it would abandon the way in which we have all operated for almost two decades and break the devolution settlement that we have. Will the minister explain why, contrary to his view, the view of the anti-Kingdom Government is acceptable to the Labour Government in Wales? I think that that probably is a question for the Labour Government in Wales, but I would hazard a guess at one of the factors that Scotland voted to remain in the EU and Wales voted to leave, something perhaps Tory members might want to reflect on. The UK Government wants to take power to restrict the competence of this Parliament. It wants to be able to exercise that power even in the face of an explicit decision from this Parliament that it should not do so. This is not about the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament or giving effect to the Sewell convention. This is about the UK Government, not the UK Parliament, for the first time being able to adjust the terms on which devolution operates through delegated legislation and to be able to do so without the consent or against the wishes of this Parliament. There are existing and effective powers under the original Scotland Act, which allow the competence of this Parliament or the Scottish Government to be adjusted. None of them operate in the way that is set out in the UK Government's new clause 11. Every single one of them requires changes to be passed by both the UK Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. Every single one of them requires proper democratic consent to be sought and received—real consent, not presumed consent. A section 30 order, for example, adjusting the list of reserved matters and therefore the boundaries of devolution, requires to be passed by this Parliament. It cannot become law without the consent of the Parliament and the country at effects, and there have been 30 orders passed under section 30 since the Parliament was established, all the product of agreement, all passed in this place and at Westminster. Even the section 30 order for an independence referendum was able to secure support and win the consent of both Parliaments. The UK Government says that it would not normally make these regulations without our consent, but those are not words that appear in the legislation. The legislation is actually drafted on the basis that proceeding with an order, even without consent from this Parliament, has unanimously voted against it, will be normal. It is that legislation to which we are being asked to consent. Moreover, the actual amendments to clause 11, passed by the House of Lords, say that the powers of this Parliament can be constrained for up to seven years, whether the Parliament agrees, whether it does not agree or whether it makes no decision at all. Is the minister aware that it may, even for fishing, be worse than that, in that the leaked white paper last week suggested that, beyond the seven years, the powers over fishing would be retained at Westminster? That is bitterly disappointing to fishermen. In my constituency across Scotland, is that how the Government feels too? Minister. It is indeed. Of course, it is right that it is possible with primary legislation within that period to permanently remove powers. The purpose of the constraint is apparently to enable discussion to take place on the establishment of common UK frameworks, but there is no need to impose an unprecedented, unequal and unacceptable new legislative constraint. We have already agreed that there may be the need in certain areas to establish such frameworks. In keeping with the spirit and principle of devolution, we agree that those frameworks should be the product of negotiation and agreement between Governments and Parliaments. We agree that, pending the establishment of common frameworks, both Governments should maintain existing EU law regimes across the UK. The Secretary of State for Scotland has said that frameworks should not be imposed. However, as the Finance and Constitution Committee reported, the commitment that common frameworks will not be imposed is contradicted by the consent decision mechanism that is created by the UK Government's amendments, which would allow the UK Government to proceed with regulations without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. The committee made the key point that the devolution settlement can only function effectively if there is mutual trust between all of the UK's Governments, if the substantial political agreement between Governments is given effect by political means. The answer, Presiding Officer, therefore, is to proceed through reciprocal political commitments. That was a view of all parties on the committee except the Conservatives. Today, in this motion, the Scottish Government is asking Parliament to withhold consent to the bill as it stands. This will not be the end of the process. The offer of this Parliament is still on the table. However, passing this motion means that the EU withdrawal bill must be adjusted either so that it can command the consent of this Parliament or to reflect the terms of the legislative consent motion. If the motion is passed today, that will be the will of this Parliament. What cannot happen, Presiding Officer, is what the UK Government seems to want to happen. No, I am sorry, I want to conclude. They want to ignore the reality of devolution. They want to drown out what this Parliament says, but not even they can pretend that no motion has been passed. Nor can they pretend that this Parliament is failing to face up to its responsibilities to enable the statute book for which it is responsible to be prepared. We are doing that, have done it through the continuity bill and are doing it through this process today. The actions of the UK Government, were they to impose legislation on this Parliament, would be serious and unprecedented, and they would be noted here and across Europe. If there is a failure after today's vote to adapt the bill to devolution, it will be the UK that would be breaking trust and breaking the rules, not us. Donald Durer began his famous speech in 1999 by looking at the mace that was in front of him then and is in front of us now. It has inscribed on it the first words of our founding statute, there shall be a Scottish Parliament. Twenty years ago, they were words of aspiration, a statement of constitutional intent. Now they are words of constitutional reality and of resolve. There is a Scottish Parliament and its voice must be heard. Donald Durer cautioned us in his speech that the Scottish Parliament was not an end, it was a means to greater ends. Today we are called on for the first time to protect those means by refusing to accept changes to them to which we have not agreed. To protect those means so that we can go on achieving the best ends for Scotland we can. To protect those means because the people of Scotland themselves chose them and they chose us to protect them. Accordingly, I move the motion in my name. Thank you. I call Bruce Crawford on behalf of the Finance and Constitution Committee. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I speak in this debate and my capacity is the convener of the Finance and Constitution Committee. It is fair to say that this debate marks the end of a long journey for the committee since the introduction into the House of Lords of the European Union withdrawal Bill last July. The debate might mark the end of the LCM process in the Scottish Parliament, yet it marks only the end of the beginning of the legislative process that any Brexit outcome will presage. The committee set out in January in its initial position. There might be some progress, please. Brings us to the end of the legislative consent process. Spice has confirmed to us that there might be legislative consent motion that might have to come after this. Is he aware of that? It is always possible that the House of Commons might adjust the bill and that the Parliament here would need to consider its response to that. That is always better. I am just going on the situation as it is and stands just now. The committee set out in January, as I said, its initial position on the bill in our interim report following the completion of the passage of the bill through the House of Commons. Since then, we have continued to take evidence on the bill as it has evolved in the House of Lords. Our final report on the bill considers the changes that have been made to the bill on the context of whether the recommendations that are set out in the interim report have been addressed. Although the committee's position on our interim report was unanimous, it has unfortunately not been possible to achieve the same outcome in our final report. Conservative members of the committee have descended from some of the committee's conclusions. However, I wish to thank all my fellow committee members for the positive and collaborative way in which they have approached all aspects of the scrutiny of the bill, including our final report. I also wish to thank the committee's adviser on constitutional issues, Christine O'Neill, for the expert advice that she provided to the committee throughout the scrutiny process, and so too to the clerks who, as usual, went through their job in an assiduous way. The committee recognises that there are parts of the bill where changes have been made that address some of the concerns that the committee raised in its interim report. Let me briefly mention a couple of those. The committee welcomes the amendment that has been made to afford the same protection to the Scotland Act 1998, as was previously afforded in the bill to the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The committee welcomes, too, the non-governmental amendments that have been made, such as those agreed in the House of Lords, to keep the charter of fundamental rights as part of retained EU law. Similarly, the committee welcomes the progress that the Governments have made in identifying areas that might be subject to common frameworks. Nevertheless, the committee continues to have significant concerns regarding the bill. It recognises that, despite some progress, there remain fundamental differences between the Scottish Government and UK Government relating principally to clause 11 in schedule 3, the process for agreeing common frameworks and the powers of UK ministers in devolved areas. The committee does not come to a conclusion on consent either for or against on any part of the bill, except for clause 11 in schedule 3. On clause 11, it is worth reiterating the committee's unanimous conclusion in our interim report, in which we stated that clause 11 represents a fundamental shift in the structure of devolution in Scotland. Since then, the UK Government has replaced original clause 11 with new clause 15, which places a different restriction on the legislative competence of this Parliament. The new clause 15 would not allow the Scottish Parliament to modify law in an area of retained EU law where the modification is of a kind that the UK Government has specified in regulations. Such UK regulations would be subject to a mechanism whereby consent of the Scottish Parliament would be sought. However, even when consent is made by the Scottish Parliament to refuse consent, that would not prevent the UK Parliament from approving the relevant regulations. I suggest that such an approach would not normally meet a common understanding of consent. As Zabe Lincoln observed, no man is good enough to govern another man without the other's consent. In addition to the new clause 15, the UK Government has produced a proposed inter-governmental agreement and memorandum of understanding, both of which are intended to provide non-statutory commitments on behalf of the UK Government. The proposed agreement states that the UK Government commits to making regulations through a collaborative process and that the UK Government will not normally be asked to approve clause 15 regulations without the consent of the devolved legislators. The UK Government has also made a non-statutory commitment not to bring forward legislation to modify EU law applying in England in areas covered by the clause 15 regulations. From the committee's perspective, it is not clear why the UK Government should be subject to a voluntary constraints, while the devolved Governments are subject to statutory constraints. The approach of the UK Government suggests that it does not trust the devolved Governments. The committee's view is that the devolved settlement cannot function effectively without mutual trust between all the Governments across the United Kingdom. Accordingly, the committee proposes that the constraints that would be placed on the Scottish Government should be on the same basis as constraints placed on the UK Government. In other words, the two Governments should agree to commit to a non-legislative political constraint not to bring forward legislation in areas where common frameworks are likely to be needed. The committee also notes that such an approach remains the preferred outcome of the Welsh Government. Such an approach would generally represent a partnership of equals. The new clause 15 is also intended to provide a mechanism to allow for the creation of common UK frameworks. However, the non-statutory approach that the committee recommends would mean that clause 15 would not be necessary to enable the agreement of common frameworks. It is worth reiterating the committee's position in our interim report on common frameworks, which was to welcome the commitment of the UK Government that common frameworks will not be imposed. The committee strongly believes that both the process for agreeing common frameworks and the actual content must be arrived at through agreement and not imposed. That remains the position of the committee. However, the committee considers the commitment made by the Secretary of State for Scotland that common frameworks will not be imposed is contradicted by the consent decision mechanism created by the UK Government's new clause 15. It is fair to say that linguistic gymnastics would be required in the bill to define a consent decision that would have provided Nadia Comanece with a perfect 10. Clause 15 would allow the UK Government to proceed with regulations without the consent of the Scottish Government. The committee's view is that a solution to this impast should rest on reciprocal political commitments being made by both governments. That will allow the discussions on common frameworks to proceed and provide the clarity and certainty that they need. Lastly, I wish to briefly comment on the powers proposed in the bill for UK ministers to legislate in devolved areas without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. In our interim report, we stated that we were deeply concerned about the lack of any statutory provision within the bill for UK ministers to seek the consent of the Scottish ministers or the Scottish Parliament to legislate in devolved areas. That concern is accentuated by the fact that the Sule convention does not apply to subordinate legislation. The committee is deeply concerned, therefore, that the provisions of the bill that we consider are cut across the devolution settlement. In conclusion, I believe that the committee has tried hard to fulfil a constructive role throughout our scrutiny of the withdrawal bill. That approach has continued in our final report where we sought to offer a positive solution to the current impasse. We consider that a current situation can be resolved through an emphasis on mutual trust and respect. Currently, that is sadly lacking. The committee recommends the inclusion of reciprocal political commitments in the proposed inter-governmental agreement as a means that would emphasise mutual respect and enable progress to be made. Such an approach would represent a genuine commitment to a partnership of equals between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. We do not discount the possibility that the two Governments may yet be able to reach agreement on alternative ways to break the current impasse, but that is our proposed solution. Regardless, without the solution, and given the fundamental differences that exist between the UK and Scottish Governments, the committee recommends that the Scottish Parliament does not consent to clause 15 and schedule 3 of the bill. We have debated the EU withdrawal bill numerous times in this chamber. Members will recall that, throughout, the Scottish Conservatives have joined parties across the Parliament in arguing that clause 11 of the bill, as introduced, was not fit for purpose and needed to be replaced. It was not fit for purpose because, as the minister and Pauline McNeill said earlier on this afternoon, it turned one of the pillars of devolution upside down. All powers, not expressly reserved to Westminster, are devolved in Scotland to us. That was the principle that the original clause 11 failed to respect, and that was our reason for arguing that it needed radical change. That change has now been delivered by a UK Government amendment agreed without division at report stage in the House of Lords. The new clause 11, now clause 15 of the bill as amended, ensures that all powers repatriated from the European Union following Brexit, which fall within devolved competence, will come here, unless they are expressly held in reserve. That is exactly as it should be. That is the fundamental change to the original clause 11 that we called for, that the Scottish Government called for and that the Finance Committee of this Parliament unanimously called for. Piers, right across the House of Lords, have recognised that, as has the Labour Government in Wales. That is what Mark Drakeford, the key minister in the Welsh Government, said about the amended clause 11. That is a deal that we can work with, which has required compromise on both sides. Our aim throughout, he said, has been to protect devolution. Comparing the original clause 11 with its amended version, Mark Drakeford said this. London has changed its position so that all powers and policy areas rest with the devolved Administrations unless specified to be temporarily held by the UK Government. Those will be areas where we all agree common UK-wide rules are needed for a functioning UK internal market. In the House of Lords, I accept the points made by Adam Drakeford and the points that Adam Drakeford made. Will you also accept that, in the letter that he sent in April, the same Mr Drakeford suggested that the preferred option of the Welsh Government was the option that was laid out by the Finance Committee? The fact is that the Welsh Government has compromised, the United Kingdom Government has compromised and the only Government that hasn't compromised is the Scottish Government. That's the reality. In the House of Lords, both Labour and Liberal Democrat peers spoke strongly in support of the amended clause 11. This is really quite a good deal, Lord Steel said. This is a considerable advance with much better arrangements, Lord Wallace of Tancanes said. Those experienced, measured and senior politicians are among the founding fathers of devolution. If this deal is good enough for them, it should be good enough for us too, and we should give it our consent today. This disagreement on clause 11 has more than once been characterised as dancing on the head of a pen. Some have unkindly described it as the dullest constitutional crisis in history. Mike Russell compared it last week with the Schleschwick-Holstein problem, and only three people understood the Schleschwick-Holstein problem and one of them went mad, so the minister had better be careful. If we strip the current disagreement back to first principles, we can perhaps more easily see what the argument is about. There are two principles at the root of this matter. First, Brexit must be delivered compatibly with our devolution settlement. Leaving the European Union in no sense means that we can somehow return to the constitution of 1972. Secondly, Brexit must not be allowed to undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom and, in particular, the integrity of the UK's internal market. That is not just in the UK's interests, it is in Scotland's interests. Scotland, remember, trades four times as much with the rest of the United Kingdom as it does with the whole of the European Union. Brexit absolutely cannot be allowed to result in the creation of new trade barriers between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Those two principles are not unionist principles, but principles on which both unionists and nationalists can and do agree. Neither are they conservative principles. They are matters that unite us all, left and right alike. I could not have supported a withdrawal bill or, for that matter, a continuity bill, which failed to respect either of those principles. I did not support the original clause 11 because it fell foul of the first principle. Brexit must be delivered compatibly with devolution. I did not and still do not support the SNP's continuity bill because it falls foul both of this principle and of the principle that the integrity of the UK's internal market must be safeguarded. However, the amended clause 11, or clause 15, as the bill stands today, does adhere to both of those fundamental principles. That is what Mark Drakeford, David Steele and Jim Wallace, among many others, have all said. That is the reason why we on these benches think that this Parliament should now give its consent to the European Union withdrawal bill. I am happy to give a way to Mr Rumbles now. Tomkins is giving way. He referred to my colleagues in the House of Lords, but I want to make sure that it is clear that I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues here will support the Scottish Government's motion because we do not want anyone to construe that we would give our consent to the UK Government's bill to leave the European Union in the first place. The cat has been let out of the bag, hasn't it? The Liberal Democrat's position here has got nothing to do with ensuring that Brexit is delivered compatibly with devolution and everything to do with trying to reverse Brexit itself. Presiding Officer, set in the context of these fundamental constitutional principles, let us delve a little into the detail of the amended clause 11. I said a few moments ago that the first thing that it does is to ensure that all powers falling within devolved competence that are repatriated from the European Union after Brexit come here to this Parliament. There is no Westminster power grab. The powers come here. This Parliament will become significantly more powerful as a direct result of Brexit. We will have new powers over energy, including renewable energy, over aviation, over noise pollution, over the marine environment, over forestry, in land use, environmental impact, carbon capture, water quality and a whole range of further powers in addition. The only exception, Presiding Officer, is where regulations are made temporarily to hold a power in reserve to ensure that that power does not inadvertently undermine or jeopardise the integrity of the UK and its internal market. Those powers, all parties, including the SNP, agree, should be exercised in accordance with UK-wide common frameworks. However, it is not just the existence of UK-wide common frameworks that all parties and all Governments have agreed to. It is the subject matters, the policy areas where those common frameworks will be needed that all parties, again including the SNP, have agreed to. The amended clause 11 will hold in reserve only powers that the SNP has already agreed should be exercised subject to a UK-wide common framework. Those powers, Presiding Officer, are all powers, each and every one of them, but we in this Parliament cannot currently exercise. Not a single power is being taken away from us as a result of the withdrawal bill. We cannot exercise those powers at the moment because they are not held here, they are held in Brussels, and that is where the SNP Green Alliance would prefer to remain. The whole argument is about powers that the SNP has already agreed should be exercised subject to a UK-wide common framework and which are currently exercised by Brussels. For those reasons, Presiding Officer, it is, frankly, baffling that we are where we are today. We should long since have moved on. There is serious work ahead and we should be getting on with it. We should be negotiating and agreeing common frameworks. We should be preparing our statute book for exit day and beyond. We should be turning our minds to how we want to exercise the new powers that are coming to us. We should be thinking about what sort of regime of agricultural subsidy or fishing support we want in Scotland. How do we keep food prices low but ensure, at the same time, that farmers and crofters are properly supported? How do we want to tailor and adapt European standards of environmental protection so that they match Scotland's needs and priorities more accurately? In short, how do we rise to the challenges that Brexit undoubtedly presents and, at the same time, take advantage of the new opportunities that it affords us? In policy areas, we have not been able to develop for ourselves for more than 45 years. Those are big questions, much bigger than the constitutional dancing on pinheads to which we are being treated again today. It is time to move on and address those questions. Let's give our consent today to the withdrawal bill and get on with the job at hand. I move the amendment in my name. Neil Findlay is open for the Labour Party. In case I forget, I move the amendment in my name. I offer a bit of friendly advice to Mr Tomkins, who is in mental health awareness this week. He has to get a more sensitive gag writer, I would think. If there is one lesson from all of this debate over the last year, it is no matter the reason, no matter the country, no matter how simplistically people try to present it, extricating any state or part of a state from a political and economic union that has been a member of for even just 40 years is a very complex, torturous, time-consuming and difficult thing to do. If we look at the negotiations around clause 11, now 15 alone, we can see the extraordinary amount of time and effort, and when it comes down to money, that has been spent. It is very important that those negotiations are. I am sure that all of us would rather have seen that amount of time and effort put into ending child poverty, addressing the inadequacies in our mental health services, building homes for the people sleeping on the streets of our city and towns today, some just yards from this Parliament. I say that because this situation was there to be avoided. There was and is no need for the stalemate that we have found ourselves in to have come about. All it needed was for the Tories and David Mundell, the Cabinet's least influential and most irrelevant member, to have, along with Ruth Davidson and Adam Tomkins, delivered the amendments to clause 11 that they said they would. Nothing more, nothing less, but their failure to deliver is what has taken us to today's position. The blame lies largely in their court. The stakes are high, certainly. Murdo Fraser. I am very grateful to Mr Finlay for giving way on the 26 April. Leslie Laird, who is the shadow Scottish Secretary, welcomed the deal between the Welsh Government and the UK Government and called on the Scottish Government to follow suit. Who speaks for the Scottish Labour Party these days? Is Mr Finlay and his colleagues or the shadow Scottish Secretary, Leslie Laird? Neil Findlay. Leslie Laird moved amendments in the House of Commons that would have resolved the situation, and your lot were whipped to vote against it. That is how we got to this situation, Mr Fraser. Mr Finlay, not your lot, please. The stakes are high. Workers across a range of sectors need a clear legislative and regulatory framework to work to. Businesses, exporters and importers need to plan ahead. The NHS and public services all need certainty for long-term planning, yet, instead of certainty, all we have is confusion. From the initial 101 areas of dispute, when creating common frameworks, I am pleased to see that there has been progress and we are down to 24. Then again, maybe not 24, because according to Mr Mundell, that number may increase again. That is not certainty, that is more uncertainty. Those are areas that ordinarily would be devolved to this Parliament under the reserved powers model of our devolved settlement. We cannot and will not support those powers being repatriated to anywhere other than this Parliament first, then consent sought to create those common frameworks and regulations. That is absolutely consistent with the Scottish Labour Party's long-held commitment and support for devolution. Labour was central to establishing the constitutional convention that let's not forget the Tories and the SNP boycotted. Labour representatives, some in this Parliament, did the heavy lifting, working across parties with the Liberals, the Greens and civic society at times having to compromise but in the end agreeing a workable model for Scotland's Parliament. Since then, despite the many huge ups and downs of that process and under intense pressure at times, we have stood resolute in defence of the devolution settlement and the constitutional change that people voted for in such big numbers in 1997. We have defended devolution at every turn, from every attack, from wherever it has come, and now we seek to strengthen it as we take post-Brexit powers over areas critical to the development of the fair, just, progressive society that we want to create. Areas such as public procurement, where we want to use the powers of this Parliament to deliver a public procurement agenda that ends discrimination, ends blacklist and addresses zero hours contracts, promotes sustainability and delivers fair pay and jobs. Taking those powers and crucially using them is not some theoretical exercise for Mr Tomkins constitutional law students, it is crucial, if we are to deliver the democratic, socialist society that we want to see and he used to. In the commons, Labour sought to improve this bill, but the Tories voted down their amendments, and the laws voted for amendments to make a bad bill better. A bill that the Tories themselves described as not fit for purpose. The Welsh Government, with a different devolution history and legal system, have worked to negotiate a system that they believe will work for them. That is their right and evidence of devolution at work. However, they have made it clear that they will continue to work with Scottish Labour and the Scottish Government to try and improve on the deal that they have struck. At the weekend, Richard Leonard and Good Faith reached out to all parties seeking talks to end the impasse. Parties in this Parliament have worked together before on this very important matter, and we believe that they can do so again. I am pleased that the minister has indicated that he is supportive of that approach. We are serious about trying to find a solution to this situation. I hope that UK ministers are too. Just as I was getting to my feet, we had an indication from David Lidington that he appears to be open to those discussions. Let me stay to the chamber. We are up for it. It appears that Mr Russell is up for it. Let's encourage the Tories to get David Lidington on board and let's get round the table and start negotiating. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I echo the thanks to my fellow committee members and everybody who has contributed to the committee's work on the issue. I begin by welcoming the unity that appears to be being shown tonight. It appears that tonight, green Labour, SNP and Liberal Democrat MSPs will stand together in defence of the Parliament that we campaigned for together 20 years ago. The Conservatives, the party that campaigned against the creation of this place, had given the general impression over those 20 years that they had accepted how wrong they were and had come to accept the existence of this Parliament. What has become glaringly obvious since this Brexit crisis began is that they still cannot come to accept the legitimacy of the distinct political will that exists in Scotland. It has been expressed in elections to this Parliament and it has been expressed in the 62 per cent remain vote two years ago and the Conservatives are ignoring both. Look, I think that everybody knows that I am not someone who sees much merit in the Conservative Party's politics, which I consider broadly despicable. However, I can still admit that I had thought that there were some Tory politicians who were basically rational and decent people. People that I could respect despite promoting a political ideology that I detest. What I have been astonished at is the speed at which they have abandoned reason and thrown their lot in with the Brexit extremists. In doing so, they are ignoring not only the views of the people that they represent on the question of Europe itself, but they are also ignoring every objective assessment of the country's best interests in favour of the delusional ramblings of their party's extremist fringe and those further right whose support they seek to win back. However, as well as that, the other aspect of Scotland's political will that the Tory position today is ignoring is the desire to have a Parliament here in Scotland that makes decisions on the same basis that was set out those 20 years ago—a model that has developed over that time but has never moved away from the principle that what is not reserved is devolved. Let's remember that the most recent development of devolution involved a commitment eagerly welcomed by Adam Tomkins and his colleagues to give the principle of legislative consent a statutory basis. We were skeptical of that promise, Presiding Officer. We were unconvinced that that promise had any real substance in law, but even I didn't imagine that just months after passing the most recent Scotland act, they would tear the whole idea up, utterly overturning the principle of consent. I understand that our education committee has been looking at the issue of consent education for young people, all well and good, an important issue that needs to be addressed, but the person most clearly in need of consent education is the Secretary of State for Scotland. Consent, if the idea is to be meaningful at all, consent must be freely given or withheld without any coercion, without any threat. It must be freely revocable, something that can be withdrawn at any time and, most important, most fundamentally, the idea of consent must be respected. If the UK Government proceeds with its apparent threat to legislate in that area without our consent, it will have entirely justified us in rejecting the bill, proving that it cannot be trusted on the principle of legislative consent. I want to turn to the Labour amendment. I cannot honestly say that I see a great deal of value in it. There have been cross-party talks here at Holyrood, organised by the Scottish Government, which Neil Findlay and I have both participated in, and I am not aware of any innovative new proposals from Labour so far. I am still in that position after hearing Mr Findlay's speech. Would another series of such meetings involving UK ministers actually force them to relent? Would it actually change their position? I doubt it. I give way to Mr Findlay. Neil Findlay. Yes, we have had cross-party discussions here with the Scottish Government. We have never had cross-party discussions when the UK Government has been at the table as well. Would it not be good for us to show a united front and put forward some ideas to break this log jump? Surely Mr Harvie would want that. If Mr Findlay wants there to be more meetings, I will come along, but I am entirely sceptical that the UK Government will relent, will change their position, and that is what needs to be changed. I see no evidence that they are about to do so. It seems to me that this is more like the magical thinking of those on the Labour front bench at Westminster, who have also given up on the country's best interests and seem positively supportive of abandoning our European future. They are rightly scathing about a UK Government that cannot even make its mind up about customs arrangements nearly two years after their self-induced Brexit crisis began, but the Labour leadership seemed only able to offer the idea that, if they were at the negotiating table, the inherent problems and contradictions of Brexit would somehow evaporate and they would simply get a better deal. That says magical thinking, and today's amendment seems a little different. However, if they want to cling to the idea that one more round of meetings will somehow persuade Mandel, Leadington and Co to relent and abandon their position, then fine. The critical point is that we must all, everyone who believes in the legitimacy of this Parliament and the distinct political will of the people we represent, stand together in defence against this EU withdrawal bill. Those who worked together to create this place must now unite to stop the demolition squad led by Ruth Davidson and Theresa May, and if we can unite in that in the final vote tonight, we will be doing our jobs. Thank you, and I call on Tavish Scott to open for the Liberal Democrats. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I let Mr Tompkins into a rather badly kept secret? The Liberal Democrats are actually in favour of staying in the European Union. He probably was one time too, and we're not going to change our view on that one iota, no matter how much shouting there is from my right. Can I also say another thing to him that he talked about the powers of this place built up over many years. Jim Wallace and David Steele, among many others, were all about that. They are also Europeans to their fingertips, but here's the difference between Jim Wallace and David Steele and the Tories. They were in favour of devolution, not against it all those years ago. We don't need any lectures on the Tories on who was for devolution and who was against it. It is, as Bruce Crawford accurately described, disappointing that the Governments have not yet reached agreement. Much more must happen between our Governments, and that has to happen with some urgency. We should be clear that the Welsh Government has said that further change is necessary as have the peers in the House of Lords, but the UK must learn the internal lessons from this on-going farce. We have consistently argued that the UK needs a strong dispute resolution mechanism that would underpin a mature partnership between the different parts of the UK. That is something that the UK and Scottish Governments should have already agreed, but we seem as far away as ever. Liberal Democrat MSPs do not believe on balance that the Scottish Parliament should give consent. There has been some movement, as has already been reflected in this debate, on the clauses that have been discussed, but not enough. We want the Scottish and UK Governments to continue to work for an agreement. People deserve much, much more than Trump's style diplomacy from London. Two years after the UK voted to leave the EU and just nine months before the formal departure, everything has happened but nothing has happened. Today's debate is very secondary to the turmoil within the UK Government. If a UK Cabinet cannot reach an agreement on its negotiating position over the future relationship with the EU, is it any surprise that they have not reached agreement with the devolved nations within the United Kingdom? Brexit and the loss of the single market is bad for the UK and bad for Scotland. Our country will be poorer, our workforce weaker, our future prospects less secure. My colleagues will not support that. We will not be handing power to the Brexiteers, to the right wing of the Conservative Party, to a Prime Minister who may be in office but certainly is not in power. We will make the case for the people to have their say on what the final Brexit offer is, even if others will not. Last week demonstrated the real nature of the internal Tory negotiations. They cannot even agree amongst themselves. Last night, Tory back benches trooped into Downing Street, and the worst Prime Minister in living memory seems to have said, don't blame me. She's set up not one but two competing cabinet committees on her customs union dilemma. Johnson and Gove have branded her position crazy, but calling a Prime Minister crazy does not constitute a sacking offence in the modern Conservative Party. It is merely a contribution to the debate. A war cabinet used to face the enemy, and a Conservative war cabinet now faces each other. Battle after battle, not against the EU, but blue on blue. Hammond versus Johnson, Gove versus Clark, Mundell versus—no, that's not fair. I can't imagine David being against anyone. This Government, surely the worst now in living memory, will not achieve an agreed position before the June EU summit. The chance of any substantial package before October is absolutely nil. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are in irrelevance to London, not because the Tories have given up on being unionists, no, of course not, but because a fight to the death over Europe trumps everything else. No Prime Minister, and by which I mean a competent one with a vision for Britain's future, and that is not Theresa May, could square Ken Clark, Nicky Morgan and Anna Subri with Rhys Morgan's right-wing hardline over the cliff, Brexit is, and yet she is still the occupant of number 10. I'll happily give way on Rhys Morgan, yes, Oliver Mundell. I'm struggling, Presiding Officer, to see how the member's views squares with that of his Liberal Democrat colleagues in the House of Lords. It just sounds like a completely different argument that's been put forward here in Scotland whilst they're down in the House of Lords saying that this is a good deal. Tavish Scott, I do. So the amendments in the House of Lords on the single market to Mr Mundell, on the customs union to Mr Mundell and on the freedom charter of freedom rights, fundamentally important to our future, what Liberal Democrats believe in, that's what they did in the House of Lords, and the question for the Conservatives, the questions for this Conservative group in this Parliament and for the Tories down in London, the Scottish Tory MPs who all claimed to speak for Scotland is, will they back those Lords amendment or will they not? We're about to find that out. So what the UK needs now is opposition. I agree with Richard Leonard's approach on a cross-party look at the Scottish position involving the UK Government, and that seemed to me the point that he and Neil Findlay were making in that Patrick Harvey rather missed. Richard Leonard also needs to carry that weight in London, that frankly Labour should be 20 points ahead of the Tories in the opinion polls, but sadly it doesn't appear that Jeremy Corbyn is a great fan of the EU nor of the single market. So if Jeremy Corbyn saves our Tory Prime Minister in the coming House of Commons votes on Europe, he will have sold out the very young people in our country who he claims are his bedrock support. That should not happen. So what are those Tory MPs and MSPs most used to back the EU single market and customs union? There are plenty of quotes illustrating all that, but they do not now. The hard Brexit line about mythical trade deals across the world is the new Nirvana, Presiding Officer, and that cannot be. The big question for those Tories is whether they support the EU withdrawal bill, as it has been amended on the Lords, on the single market, on the customs union, on the charter of fundamental rights, and that we are about to find out. That is the situation that confronts this country now. That is not a constitutional crisis. In July, the Supreme Court will determine which of the two Governments legislation can stand. They are working under our devolution laws and the constitution. They will do that and they will give certainty that should have given by politicians, but it was not. However, we are where we are on the EU and on Brexit and on the devolved powers of the devolved nations, which is frankly going round in circles. A Tory Government has set by itself not people living across the nations of the UK. No wonder that people are fed up with them. Thank you. We move into the open debate. Before we start to see the members, there is plenty of time for interventions. I would also encourage members where possible to use full names. Even members of Parliament in Westminster, please use full names, because they are a bit more respectful. I call Ash Denham. In international relations, there is something known as the rational actor theory that states will always act in their own best interests, and it can be sometimes used to predict how they will act in certain situations. International relations and politics is often about predicting behaviour, detecting red-line issues in order to move towards agreement, so that a solution can be reached where both sides feel that they have got what they needed. It might be a round-of-trade negotiations where the position of each side that is far apart in the beginning slowly inches closer and closer until the distance between them is not so great anymore. It may involve crafting a convoluted form of words, so the real meaning is diluted enough to be palatable enough to satisfy. The latest proposals from the UK Government, which I am sure were very painstakingly drafted and redrafted, on first glance looked so much more like something the Scottish Parliament could sign up to, but when examined closely, the promise that they held disintegrated, like a dried rose handled carelessly, sad tiny fragments that will not go back together. That is the problem that we have here, a state with extremely asymmetric power relations between the devolved Governments and the UK Government facing a huge challenge in the shape of Brexit. Instead of harnessing the power of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government to put all hands to the pump to make lighter work of it across these islands, the UK Government instead seems intent on breaking the pump so that it does not work for anyone. Rational actors that they are, the Scottish Government is acting in its own and also in this Parliament's best interests. The UK Government, one has to assume, thinks its acting in what its own best interests are. Consequently, we are now at an impasse. The current proposals that have been put forward by the UK Government, although not of the blanket nature that they were previously, still retain the power to restrict the Scottish Parliament's legislative competence. Then, in my view, now ludicrously incorporate a mechanism by which the consent of the Scottish Parliament is sought to any regulations proposed to be changed by the UK Government. However, regulations can be made by the UK Government once this Parliament has made a consent decision, even if that is a decision refusing consent. Instead of respecting the devolution settlement, we are now in a position where the UK has seemingly gone out of its way to mock the very idea of consent. Out in the real world, if you ask someone what they think of an explicit refusal being taken as a consent decision, it becomes very clear, very quickly, just how far down the rabbit hole the UK Government have now taken us. There will be a legislative constraint on the Scottish Government, but there is only a voluntary one on the UK Government. The proposals would, uniquely, and for the first time ever, give UK ministers the right to use secondary legislation to alter the devolved competencies of the Scottish Parliament. The UK Government wants the Scottish Government and this Parliament to trust them, and yet in this process, as the player with the greater power, they have the perfect opportunity here to show trust, to demonstrate goodwill, to recreate or to reset intergovernmental relations and to put devolution on a firm footing at this very important time. Yet they haven't. They are asking for us to trust them, but throughout they failed to show that they are worthy of this Parliament's trust. Indeed, it was not clear to the committee why the UK Government should be subject to only voluntary constraints, while the devolved Governments should be subject to statutory constraints, and further, that the devolved settlement cannot function effectively without mutual trust between all the Governments across the UK. Consequently, the committee view is that what is now called clause 15 formally clause 11 should be removed from the bill, and that a solution to the impasse would instead be reciprocal political commitments. That would be where both Governments sign up to respect and to trust each other. The fragments of trust that remain could, if that approach was taken, be rebuilt. As it stands, only one Government is acting rationally. Listening to the voice of this Parliament and removing clause 11 is in the UK's best interests, and I sincerely hope that they recognise that this evening. The UK Government should show the leadership now that is required. To present it as a continuum, as the Conservatives have today, with a Government at each end, where if both Governments just compromise a little bit more, all will be well, is a fundamentally flawed analysis. This is not a trade negotiation. We cannot compromise over the founding principle of devolution. You either have a proposal that respects it or one that does not. The committee's view is that clause 11 does not respect it, and therefore, as a committee, we recommend that this Parliament does not consent. Thank you. I call Maurice Golden to follow by Stuart McMillan. Mr Golden, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Firstly, let me put on record my complete support for the establishment of this Parliament, even though I was not old enough to vote for it, let alone able to be a representative in the first session, as Mike Russell reflected upon in his opening remarks. Both I and my Scottish Conservative colleagues respect and back to the hilt the devolution settlement. Of course, as we prepare to leave the EU, there is a need to make sure that we are ready for the post-Brexit world. That is exactly what the UK Government is doing through the EU withdrawal bill, seeking to ensure that the United Kingdom continues to run smoothly. The initial plan was for all returning powers to be managed by the UK Government until the establishment of long-term frameworks. Quite rightly, this Parliament stood united. We all considered the plan to be unnecessary in its scope and inconsistent with the devolution settlement. However, the UK Government has proven itself to be acting in good faith, making major concessions and reducing the number of temporarily retained powers to 24 in total. Who have we got? That is not very courteous. Mr Harvie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am grateful to the member for giving way. He asks us to believe that the UK Government is acting in good faith. I suspect that that is a big part of the disagreement. His party trusts them, but a lot of us do not. Does he not understand that, if the UK Government proceeds and legislates anyway without this Parliament's consent, they will have proven our side of that argument right and his side wrong? Maurice Golden. Sorry, Presiding Officer. I should have said, so who do we have? That would be more grammatically correct, I believe. I believe that the solution to all of this is to negotiate, get round the table, do the best deal that will work for Scotland and the United Kingdom. One thing that is crystal clear is that we must have consistent regulations that apply across the United Kingdom, while long-term solutions are agreed. For example, ensuring that we maintain a consistent food labouring regime rather than diverge into multiple systems. That would hurt consumers and businesses alike. The rest of the powers returning from Brussels will come straight to this Parliament. That is a clear sign of the UK Government's commitment to devolution, a commitment that has already seen significant new powers over taxation and welfare devolved from Westminster to Scotland. The UK Government's approach to the returning powers is both reasonable and respectful of devolution. That is evidenced by the fact that the Welsh Government, who were originally opposed to previous proposals, has now endorsed it. Mark Drakeford, the Welsh finance secretary, was very clear on that point, saying that the Welsh aim has been to protect devolution and that that has been achieved. Of course, that is a temporary measure. The powers would reside with the UK Parliament for no longer than two years and the regulations coming from them would last a maximum of five. The irony of the SNP crying foul over this five-year period is that it will have taken them longer to take responsibility for the already devolved welfare powers. The SNP should be focused on the real issue. Securing the long-term frameworks needed to give business certainty, safeguard jobs and keep our economy running. To do that, we need to have common UK-wide frameworks on certain policy areas. It is a point that the UK Government and the SNP readily agree on. Mike Russell said as much last year when he accepted that some common frameworks are needed. He is absolutely right and on this because the UK market underpins much of Scotland's prosperity, accounting for more than £45 billion in trade, almost four times as much as with the EU, and accounting for half a million Scottish jobs. The UK and Welsh Governments have shown themselves willing to negotiate and agree a deal. Unfortunately, the SNP has shown that they are not yet ready to fully move past the stage of political posturing. In March, we were told that the sticking point in negotiation was down to one word, agree. If only the UK Government would amend the bill to say that the Scottish Parliament would agree to frameworks and how they governed a deal could be done, the SNP said. Simple as that, Mike Russell declared. While the agreement on the clause 11 amendments contains the word agree, the SNP will still not accept it. We were told that a lack of a sunset clause was the reason for holding up negotiations. The UK Government has included one, but there is still no sign of an agreement from the SNP. Time and again, the UK Government has engaged, given ground and tried to reach a deal. Time and again, the SNP has moved the goalposts. Even at this late hour, it is not too late for the SNP to put party politics aside, get back to the negotiating table and strike the deal that Scotland needs. The Scottish Conservatives stands ready to offer whatever assistance we can to help them to do that if the SNP is willing. Thank you. I call Stuart McMillan to be followed by Neil Bibby. Mr McMillan, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. The First Minister of this Parliament stated that there shall be a Scottish Parliament and he followed that on by saying, I'll like that. I often wonder that if the Scotland act were to be drawn up today by a Conservative Secretary of State, whether they would be able to say the same. Our second First Minister, Henry Clish, was quoted at the weekend as saying that Tory ministers will use a power grab to trample over Scotland and strike trade deals with Donald Trump. This is the same President Donald Trump that foreign secretary Boris Johnson was cooing over last weekend and trying to encourage the UK to ditch, in his words, the lunar pool of Brussels. It's also the same Boris Johnson who describes one of his trade options by his UK Government's under consideration. It's crazy. You can see why the UK Parliament would rather then have the powers over areas such as fishing, farming and the environment to name just some of the devolved areas to make new deals with others, including President Trump, and raising the ugly prospect of tea-tip on a global scale. You can also see why Dr Krusty Hughes and Dr Katie Hayward, the eminent scholars in the fields, said that devolution has been seen more as an oration than as a central concern in planning Brexit. Reformer clause 11 now, 15, excused the power balance between Scotland and the UK parents to a degree that is just not acceptable. This side of the chamber sees it as a power grab that undermines the Scotland act, while the Secretary of State for Scotland sees it as preserving the current boundaries of devolved competence, i.e., know your place and don't reach for anything more. We need to have a level playing field. We need the trust and open communication that the two institutions should have between them, and that can only be achieved if there is a balance of power between them. It is a poor attempt at a compromise. The UK Government has given a political commitment, and that is important—that, for its knowledge, is important—a political commitment that it will not normally use the clause 15 regulations without the consent of the devolved parliaments. Quite frankly, that means nothing. That would be a voluntary commitment by the UK Parliament and one that has been repeated so many times at committee that it has almost become the norm. The new clause 15 would be a statutory constraint on this Parliament, while the commitment to wield that power wisely would only be a voluntary vow, especially if it was used for something that we disagreed with. We all know how reliable vows are. The Secretary of State, David Mundell, does not want an administration in one part of the UK to effectively have a veto on issues that affect the whole of the UK. Without a hint of irony, he does not see that that is exactly what the UK Parliament is doing to Scotland and Northern Ireland with Brexit. However, it is also clearly clear that the UK Parliament is using the legislation in the same way that it might use a sledgehammer to put in a nail. What is crucial here is that the Secretary of State for Scotland has repeatedly refused to rule out overruling a decision of this Parliament if it decides to withhold consent. Clearly, he did not want to indulge in a hypothetical scenario. However, by 5 p.m. tonight, there will no longer be a hypothetical scenario. We will know exactly where that Parliament stands on the issue. The Secretary of State will then have to inform Scotland and his Government to tell us what they are going to do next. Every member of the chamber will welcome the work that has taken place to improve the UK Government's European Union withdrawal bill. Every member wants that bill to be fixed so that this Parliament can sign up to it and to work in the best interests of our constituents over the next coming years and with the huge level of uncertainty and anxiety being caused by Brexit. However, the fact that the Conservatives in this Parliament stand alone in their position is telling. They have a Government in London to adhere to instead of constituents to represent. The two reports that were published by committees in this Parliament last week were positive in this debate. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee produced a well-balanced report last Tuesday, and I refer members to sections 96, 97 and 98. Section 96 states that the report has been agreed at a time when there continues to be uncertainty about which bill or which combination of bills will be relied on. A finance and constitution committee report, although it is divided with the Conservatives plawing a lonely furrow—in the words of Adam Tomkins, utterly isolated and exposed, as he has quoted in the past—was clear in its position, particularly in sections 30, 75, 83, 96 and 97. Paragraph 30 of that report, which was unanimous, highlighted that the UK Government is giving a political commitment that it will not normally use clause 11915 regulations without the consent of the devolved Parliament. Paragraph 75, calling for the clause 1115 to be removed, was therefore understandable and it was disappointing that the Conservatives disagreed with that position to defend this Parliament. Paragraph 83 highlights the committee's unanimous view, highlighting the committee remaining deeply concerned about the lack of any statutory provision for the UK ministers to seek the consent of the Scottish ministers or the Scottish Parliament to legislate in devolved areas. If the unanimous view of a parliamentary committee states that, how can the Parliament offer any trust towards the UK ministers that they will do the right thing by this Parliament? The UK population has heard the mantra of being strong and stable, and it is clear that anything that has happened since has proven to be anything but is more fast and loose. How can the Parliament therefore offer any form of trust based on a political commitment? A week is a long time of politics, as Wilson once stated. As this Brexit process is proving to be a saga of epic proportions with an ending in sight but yet to be written. Also, politicians come and go, so one political commitment now may be different when the Westminster political actors change, as they surely will. I urge all members to trust this Parliament, support this Parliament and its powers and to reject the power grab that is at play. Please support the motion in the minister's name. Thank you. You will notice that I am being a little generous with speeches because there is time in hand. We are not having many interventions, so you have on a 30-40-seconds-year speech. Neil Bibby, followed by Emma Harper, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. There has been much debate about the hugely important issues about the customs union, the single market and the important issues of the Northern Island border, the Brexit debate. This Parliament has been dominated by our response to the UK Government's EU withdrawal bill. Brexit is entirely without precedent, and so is the withdrawal bill. As we know, the bill would ensure that the European Committees Act is repealed after more than 45 years. It would transpose all EU law into UK law, and it would grant UK and Scottish ministers substantial new powers to shape the post-Brexit statute book. However, today's debate is not just about the purpose of the withdrawal bill, but about the challenge to the devolution settlement that the bill, particularly the old clause 11, now clause 15, presents. It is about whether we are willing to grant consent to a bill that can strains, as the Scottish Government states in its motion, the legislative and executive competence of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government. My Scottish Labour colleagues and I are not willing to, because this is about safeguarding devolution, and it is about defending the principle that this Parliament may legislate in all areas that are not explicitly reserved under the Scotland Act. Bruce Crawford earlier provided a summary of the finance and constitution committee's latest report. There are three points that I want to echo from that report. Firstly, both the committee reports found overwhelming evidence that the old clause 11 represented a fundamental shift in the structure of devolution, which was incompatible with the devolution settlement. The Scotland Act, the founding statute of this Parliament, makes clear that changes to competence should only be made with the explicit consent of the Scottish Parliament. Although I recognise and welcome that the clause has been amended and it has been subject of on-going negotiations, Scottish Labour cannot accept it in its current form. Secondly, the Secretary of State has given a political commitment that the UK Government will not bring forward legislation to modify retained EU law, covering England, where clause 15 regulations apply for as long as those regulations are enforced and constraining devolution. However, it is not clear why the UK Government should be subject to its own voluntary constraints while the constraints that are placed on this Parliament are statutory. I continue to see no reason why there cannot be so-called standstill agreements based on mutual trust and understanding. The Government would agree not to bring forward legislation in areas in which common frameworks are needed, and that would in turn negate the need for clause 15 powers to be used. Finally, on that point, the committee recommended that the intergovernmental agreement could provide an alternative. The agreement could be amended to include clear commitments from all the Governments not to legislate whether there is a common framework that is likely to be needed. It would represent a political solution to a constitutional dispute. I accept that the Conservative Government may not have set out with the intention of weakening devolution or potentially sidelining this Parliament, but that is what the bill could well do. To be fair, the Scottish Conservatives realised from the very beginning that the scope of powers being granted to ministers were unacceptable. They stood with other parties in demanding action and recognised that the World Draw Bill could not proceed unchecked and unamended. However, now they are willing to accept a compromise for Scotland offered by the UK Government based on amendments that do not go far enough and which does not adequately address the concerns shared by every other party in the Parliament about new clause 15 and by the Finance and Constitution Committee. Conservative members are right that the Welsh Government has a deal that works for Wales, but I remind them and the chamber again that the preferred option of the Welsh Government is that the Governments of the UK work together to find a common approach—a common approach where there are no legislative constraints. That is Scottish Labour's preferred option too, and it should be the preferred option of everyone in this chamber, including the Scottish Conservatives. Even at this late stage, I appeal to the Scottish Conservatives to use their influence to try and make the UK Government's C sense. If there is a genuine willingness in the ranks of the Conservative Party to agree a workable solution, then they can come back with further proposals. I would rather dispute over the content of the withdrawal bill be resolved through dialogue, because today we are not in a position to consent to it, and that is a matter of regret. We have reached an impasse, and neither the Scottish or UK Governments seem able to resolve it. The time has come for Parliament to step forward and assert itself. The time has come for representatives across the Parliament on all sides to be represented in talks with the Scottish and UK Government ministers in order to ensure that a workable solution is reached. The Scottish Parliament, not just the Scottish Government, must be heard, and there must now be a cross-party push to find a way forward and break the deadlock. That is the irresponsible thing to do—to look at alternatives and to reach a deal. I will vote for the Labour amendment to not only indicate our dissatisfaction with the withdrawal bill but also to call for talks to be continued on a cross-party basis. I believe that the deadlock is not insurmountable. There is still time for the EU withdrawal bill to be amended in the UK Parliament. Where there is a political will, there is a way. A solution still can be agreed if all parties that are represented in this chamber have the will to find it. I am pleased to speak in this afternoon's debate. I am a member of the Finance and Constitution Committee, and last Thursday we released a report on the European Union Withdrawal Bill supplementary legislative consent memorandum. I would like to thank the members, the clerks and everyone who has participated in the committee work so far. Our committee concluded that there is still time for the UK Government to bring forward the required changes to the EU withdrawal from the European Union Bill. The committee's view, with the exception of the free Conservative members in the committee, is that the differences can be resolved through an emphasis on mutual trust and respect among Governments across the UK. I want to repeat what our committee convener Bruce Crawford said. He said that there is scope for a reasonable solution to be found. If there is parity and both Governments are treated equally and both are bound by political agreement, then this can be amicably resolved. The Secretary of State for Scotland, David Mundell, said that he trusted the Scottish Government and I welcome that, but it is time for his trust to be put into practice. For that reason, our committee has reached the conclusion that clause 11, which is now 15, and schedule 3 of the EU withdrawal bill should be removed and for reciprocal political commitments to be included in the intergovernmental agreement. I am interested in protecting the provenance of our Scottish brand, protecting the provenance and quality of our products if we farm to fork. During committee evidence, I was keen to explore the issue of protected geographical indication status for our specialist food and drink, not just in Scotland but across the UK. There are only 65 products with protected status in the UK, and those are crucial. Scottish whisky, Scottish beef, Scottish lamb, Scottish wild salmon, Scottish farm salmon—just to name a few. We have already heard from elsewhere that the United States is pressuring the UK to drop geographical name protections after Brexit to allow supermarkets to import cheap American imitations. It is not just a problem for Scotland. I am sure that the people of Cornwall do not want cheap imitation pasties made in Kentucky to be labelled Cornish. No more than we in Scotland want to see cheap whisky made in an industrial factory in Chicago to be labelled Scotch whisky, or artificially smoked fish from Alabama labelled Arbroath Smokies. Across the world, Scottish produce is kent for its provenance and quality. Recently, I met Tom Armstrong, the president of Dumfries and Galloway Chamber of Commerce. Tom visited China recently, and he told me that China wants the products of Scotland. They value the Scottish brand. They want high-quality produce that is grown, nurtured and procured with the best standards that Scotland is known for. It is crucial that we protect and support Scottish producers from the wee jam makers like Galloway chilies that are making chilli preserves in Galloway to the upland sheep farmers like Annan Water, who specialise in slow-grown lamb, hoget and mutton. Those small one-woman and small one-family businesses are similar across Scotland, and many may go out of business if the UK makes trade deals that lower standards, lower protections and pursue cheap, lower-quality products such as chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef. Common frameworks need not to be agreed but not absolutely imposed. We absolutely cannot impose common frameworks on the food producers, farmers, crofters and growers that contribute so much to the economy of Scotland. In closing, I would like to take a few words to talk about trust. In 2013, in an effort to pay cut payments more fairly, the EU paid an additional £190 million to the UK Government for Scottish hill farmers to bring them up to the average per hectare payments of all other EU countries. The EU and the Scottish Government trusted the UK Government to pay the £190 million to the Scottish hill farmers. The UK Government did not. The decision was made by the UK Government to only give £30 million to the Scottish farmers. Michael Gove promised to have a review about the money for Scottish hill farmers, but I see that he has now broken that promise. When we consider trusting the UK Government, we need to remember the three Ws. Yes, I will. The member speaks about the money coming from London to this place here. Would you like to comment on how the Scottish Government gets on in paying out money to the farmers north of the border? Emma Harper I thank Peter Chapman for that intervention. What I would like to ask Peter Chapman is, will you confirm that the UK Government will not override the Scottish Parliament on common frameworks? When we consider trusting the UK Government, we need to remember the three Ws, the windrush generation, the waspy women and welfare cuts. Bruce Crawford quoted the wise words of US president Abraham Lincoln, and I will too. Abraham Lincoln once said, the people when rightly and fully trusted will return the trust. I find it hard to see why our farming and food producing folk should trust the UK Government with legislative common frameworks for agricultural support, animal welfare or food geographical indications, so I trust my Government, Presiding Officer, and I support the Government's motion today not to consent on the EU withdrawal bill. Thank you. I call Murdo Fraser to follow by Alec Neil. Mr Fraser, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. When we last debated a legislative consent memorandum on the EU withdrawal bill, the position of the Scottish Conservatives was very clear, and it reflected the stance that was taken by the whole Parliament at that time. We felt that the EU withdrawal bill as presented did not properly reflect the devolution settlement, and we therefore agreed that this Parliament should not consent to it. A lot has changed in the intervening period. There have been substantial concessions made by the UK Government, which means that our concerns about the bill, as previously raised, have now been addressed. Our position now is that this Parliament should therefore give consent to the EU withdrawal bill. We previously identified that there were some 111 powers under discussion where, as they returned from the EU, would normally fall to be devolved. All but 24 of those will now be directly devolved back to Scotland. It has also been agreed that the remaining 24 will be subject to common frameworks to be agreed across the whole of the United Kingdom. Legislative powers in those areas will be held by Westminster only on a temporary, time-limited basis. We will ensure, for example, that food-labelling regulations will continue to be applied uniformly across the UK, thus protecting the UK domestic market rather than allowing regional deviation. I noticed that, on the today's programme this morning, the Brexit minister sitting on the front bench refused to accept that there was such a thing as the UK single market. I think that that will come as news to everybody involved in UK-wide trade, of course. In my opinion, it is, for example, Professor Drew Scott has written an article about it, which points—well, yes, I know that the Tories hate experts, but I think that the reality should have a check. There is no—a single market is a precise definition of what exists within the EU. There is undoubtedly a uniform—a unitary market. There is not a uniform market. Well, clearly, as they do not like any information, there is no point in talking. The minister is tying himself in knots here. What producers in Scotland want to know is that there will be seamless trade across our major market. That is the rest of the United Kingdom. That is what we are tying to protect. The concerns that we previously had were in line with those that were expressed by the Welsh Government. Indeed, Mr Russell, as the responsible minister, made it very clear previously, there was no difference in view between the Scottish and Welsh Government. He told the Parliament's Finance and Constitution Committee last September, and I quote, "...we are working very closely with Wales, and we cannot envisage a situation in which Scotland would be content and Wales would not be or vice versa." And he talked separately about how the Scottish and Welsh Governments worked in lockstep and how they were in exactly the same position. And what do the Welsh Government say now about the amended EU withdrawal bill? On 24 April, Mark Drakeford, Mr Russell's counterpart in Wales, the finance secretary, welcomed the changes to the Brexit bill with the following words. This is a deal that we can work with, which has required compromise on both sides. Our aim throughout these talks has been to protect devolution and make sure that laws and policy in areas that are currently devolved remain devolved, and that we have achieved. As Adam Tonkin told us earlier, he said, "...London has changed its position so that all powers and policy areas rest in Cardiff and Edinburgh unless specified to be temporarily held by the UK Government. These will be areas where we all agree common UK-wide rules are needed for a functioning UK internal market. London's willingness to listen to our concerns and enter serious negotiations has been welcomed." There is a stark contrast between the warm language from the Welsh Government, starting in exactly the same place as the Scottish Government, which now recognises the changes that have been made to the bill, recognising the huge steps taken by the UK Government to find compromise and the carping tone that we have heard from the SNP benches this afternoon. Indeed, we continue to see SNP representatives trying to misinterpret the effect of the EU withdrawal bill as now amended, for it is abundantly clear that this bill will not affect any power that is currently devolved to the Scottish Parliament. It applies only to EU retained law. These are powers that are currently being exercised at an EU level, so there is no Westminster power grab, as the SNP would claim. There is no question that, for example, the likes of GM crops and fracking could be imposed on Scotland against the wishes of the Scottish Parliament. Although I believe that, in both those areas, the Scottish Government has got its policy wrong and should be listening to science and evidence rather than superstition and scaremongering. If there were any doubt about that, then the statement from the Welsh Government makes it clear that the current devolved powers are in no way affected by the EU withdrawal bill and it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise. We should not forget that, in relation to all the powers that we are talking about, under EU retained law, the SNP wants to see every single one of them return to Brussels at the first opportunity and not devolve at all. This EU withdrawal bill is about delivering substantial additional powers to the Scottish Government, and it should be welcomed for that reason. While the UK Government is delivering additional devolution, the First Minister writes hysterical newspaper articles, claiming that the UK Conservatives are, and I quote, intent on demolishing devolution. Yet it is the SNP, not the Conservatives, who are opposing the devolution of those powers to this place and want to see them return in their entirety back to Brussels. There is only one explanation for the overgrown rhetoric that we have heard from the SNP, and its attempt to ramp up a grievance agenda in light of the reasonable stance taken by the Welsh Government so far. It has nothing to do with good government, nothing to do with devolution and all about trying to drum up support for a second independence referendum. No member of any party that claims to support the union should have anything to do with his nonsense, and it is a crying shame that here we have today members of the Labour Party and of the Liberal Democrats who claim they believe in the United Kingdom, aligning themselves with the separatists in the SNP, ignoring the stance taken by the Welsh Government, ignoring the stance taken by members of the Labour Party in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords, ignoring the comments of the likes of David Steele and Jim Wallace in the House of Lords and giving succor to the nationalists. They should be ashamed of themselves. If this Parliament is serious about devolution, if it really wants more powers, it should reject the political posturing of the SNP. I give its consent today to this bill. I call Alex Neil to be followed by Daniel Johnson. Mr Neil, please. It is a pleasure to follow the unifying voice of Murdo Fraser. Can I say at the start of this process of the record that I do not want to give the powers back to the EU? Right from the start of this process about the withdrawal bill, the Conservatives have been asking privately and publicly whether the SNP ministers wanted a deal. There has never been any doubt in my mind whatsoever that the SNP ministers have acted in good faith and have tried everything to get a reasonable deal for Scotland. I think that the question is, do the Tory ministers at Westminster actually want a deal? I think that when Damian Green was there, I was fairly confident that the answer to that question was yes. Although his successor, David Livington, who masterminds the Tory negotiations in this matter, is a very nice man—I have met him—he nevertheless does not, I think, understand devolution or understand Scotland. In particular, the thing that the Tories have never got to grasp with is that, although the United Kingdom is one state, we are four nations. Therefore, Northern Ireland decides what is right for Northern Ireland. Wales decides rightly what is right for Wales. Scotland decides what is right for Scotland, and ministers in London decide what is right for England. I will now take the intervention. Can I say to Ms Davidson that please do not just remain standing the whole time waiting for your intervention? I was not quite sure how long he was going to be finishing up, so my apologies. None of us are, but never mind. I understand the concern. I would like to thank the member for taking this intervention. He asked whether we were sure that the UK Government wanted a deal, and I would like to say that, yes, we are. That is why it did a deal with the Welsh Government. It is also why it amended the deal that was on the table, re-amended the deal that was on the table, and how much movement did his Government have in this process? Alex Neil I am sure that the member will listen intently. I am about to explain to her why what is on the table is unacceptable. It is unacceptable for two fundamental reasons. Despite what Murdo Fraser and Adam Tomkins say about those 24 powers coming back from Brussels to the UK, under the 1998 Scotland act, it is very clear that those 24 powers are devolved responsibilities and not part of the reserved lists in schedule 5 of that act. As devolved responsibilities, like all the other powers, they should come back directly to this Parliament, not to this Parliament via a number nine bus at Westminster. It is our responsibility to manage and run those 24 devolved responsibilities. Let me also say two other points that are important to put in the record. The first is that those 24 powers, when you look at them, matter. They matter to Scotland. The equivalent powers matter to England. They matter in Wales, and they matter in Northern Ireland. We are not dancing in the head of a pin. We are talking about powers that could have a real impact, depending on how they are used, in the economy of the entire United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom. The second point that has to be recorded is that we all have a common objective. We all agree on the need for common standards in certain matters over the entire United Kingdom. That is not the issue. The issue is how do you agree? What is the process for agreeing what those common standards should be? I will now take Mr Mundell. The member appears to make a pretty compelling case for those common frameworks, and I am interested in why he feels that that deal does not deliver that. I am just about to explain the first reason why those devolved responsibilities are, and if they are going to be taken by Westminster, it should be with our agreement per all the previous legislative requirements that have gone before the withdrawal bill. The second point is this, and this is a very important point. When you look at the role of UK ministers in London, they have two heads ministerially. They have a United Kingdom head for non-devolved matters, and they have an English head to cover the English responsibility for England in devolved responsibilities. What we have in offer is that those ministers, in effect, will be the final arbiter of what happens with those 24 powers. They cannot be, as they represent England, described as fair or neutral arbiter. What we need is a fair and neutral arbiter where there is a dispute, and there might not be that many disputes at the end of the day. The current provision where we can make a formal presentation to the House of Commons is totally inadequate. I need to finish this point because they are arithmetic of the House of Commons, where 85 per cent of the member's constituencies in England cannot expect a legislator in the House of Commons representing an English constituency to vote against—no matter how reasonable our case—they are not going to vote against their own self-interest. What is required to break that impasse is agreement that there needs to be some genuinely neutral arbiter when and if there is a dispute. Maybe some committee, chaired by somebody who is agreeable to all four administrations. However, we cannot, reasonably, either describe those two-headed ministers in London or the House of Commons as an uninterested party, as a neutral arbiter, as somebody who does not have a vested interest in a particular point of view. That is the fundamental weakness of those proposals. There is a way through this. We all want a way through this. It does not do anybody any good to have a fight that is avoidable. That fight is avoidable, but reason must reign in London, and at the moment that is not the case. To say to the Scottish people that we are going to ignore the 1998 act, both in spirit and in the letter, by changing it so that we do not require the express approval of this Parliament for what happens in Scotland, that, quite frankly, is treating the people with a total lack of respect and treating this Parliament with a total lack of respect. I say to the Tory benches, and I know some of you privately, probably have a lot of sympathy with what everyone else is saying. Make no mistake about it. The Labour benches and the Liberal benches are genuine devolutionists. They fought hard with the Tory party to try to stop independence from happening in 2014. Those benches are clearly in favour of independence, but when you have people who are genuine devolutionists who will fight tooth and nail against independence, uniting with us on this matter, there is a loud and clear message to the Tory Government in London, and that is that it is high time that you not only saw reason, but you actually made an effort to implement it as well. Thank you. I call Daniel Johnson to be followed by Christina McKelvie. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I am assuming that I don't get an Alec Neil in six minutes, but can I begin by saying— No, there is time in hand. Don't be naughty. Well, I'll see how far I get, but I stand with the debate has, I think, been almost of two debates. We have had a debate that has sought to look at what the areas of common ground and how we might actually make some progress, but we also had a debate where people have been all too eager to point figures and cry betrayal. I think that it is all too important that we have the former debate and not the latter, because what is at stake is devolution. I think that Mike Russell opened this debate well by setting out the achievements of devolution. We have achieved a great many things from this place, but I think that he missed one of the greatest achievements of devolution, which is that it has been stable, it has been robust, but it has also been dynamic. I think that the strength of devolution is marked by the lack of this kind of dispute that we have had, because that is not always how these sorts of issues resolve themselves in nation states that have multiple levels of governance and legislatures. One thinks of the United States, a form of federal government that has almost been marked by its dispute between state and federal level, whether it was the use of the National Guard at the University of Alabama to make sure that all citizens could access to that state university, or through to the new deal, the new deal that was blocked by federal government initially and was spearheaded by state government. The US is a country that has been marked by dispute, but that has not been the nature of devolution here. No, what we must do is protect the clarity that the reserved and devolved model has provided us, and that is what is at stake today. Indeed, we must reflect on the powers that are coming from the EU, because it was not ever conceived that those 24-hour powers would ever be up for consideration. Brexit was not conceived when the powers were set out in the Scotland Act. We had reserved powers, everything else was being solved, but they were also separately provided for European powers. The status of whether they were devolved or reserved was not considered. When we look at the nature of those powers, they are being very much about market regulation, and we have just heard from Alex Neil, but also Emma Harper and Maurice Golden set out. I think that it is clear why we need resolution and why we need common frameworks. The argument here is not necessarily about whether or not we need common frameworks, or whether there are things about devolution. It is about dispute, how we arrive at a conclusion when there is not agreement between Governments, and the problem with the legislation as it stands at Westminster right now is that it defaults to the decisions of the UK Government. In the first instance, consent is sought, but if it fails, then the decision of the UK Government is what stands. I think that the mistake that is being made by some members is that it seems that it is simply about the categorisation of powers. We have heard from Adam Tomkins that it is simply about dancing on the head of pin. It is not. That is to make the mistake that it is only about where powers lie. Yes, that is important, but there are three important considerations. One is where powers lie, but secondly is what direction power flows. Is it top-down, or is it bottom-up? Finally, how do we come to agreement when there is disagreement? I think that that is fundamentally important. Can I just say this to Murdo Fraser? He accuses parties on this side of the House of Betraying the Union. It is no such thing. The real betrayal of the union is to invoke constitutional crisis and threaten devolution itself, because the union relies on the devolution settlement. It is really quite that simple. It is his party that is putting it at threat. That fundamentally comes down to a division between trust and a lack of trust, perhaps, from the Scottish Government and a fundamental lack of understanding of devolution from the UK Government. The UK Government has failed to understand not just how devolution works, but the importance of devolution to Scottish people, because it is the Scottish Parliament that Scottish people see as the natural locus of power in Scotland. There has been a fundamental failure of recognition of that point. However, the Scottish Government has failed to demonstrate any form of trust at all. There has been an assumption that there would be bad faith in this process. I am grateful to the member for giving way. Can he point to any action of the UK Government throughout this Brexit crisis that deserves to have trust given in the word that they give? Does he accept that, if they legislate on this bill without our consent, they will absolutely have justified the lack of trust that I personally absolutely feel? Daniel Johnson On that latter point, I would agree with the member that, if they legislate on this bill without consent, that would demonstrate a lack of trust. However, they have moved, but we must move them further. As my colleague Neil Bibby set out very clearly, we must find—indeed, a political settlement and a solution—possible. The nature of those powers has been governed in a complicated way as they stand at the moment. The exercise of the EU powers in terms of the European frameworks is complicated, using Byzantine procedures in councils of ministers, the European Commission on Qualified Majority Voting. Surely it is simpler to find a mechanism, a way of finding agreement between four nations. Surely that is easier than finding agreement between 27. A political solution must be sought, it can be sought, and that is why the Labour Party from those benches is standing behind the proposal for multi-party talks to find that solution, to find that mechanism. Ultimately, devolution is not static. It has changed, it has evolved even through crisis, even at the very moment when some parties from this place sought to use their majority to break up the United Kingdom to seek independence. It was by through agreement, the Edinburgh agreement, that the way forward was fun. It is remarkable, in a sense, that the UK Government would come to an agreement over such a fundamental issue. It is a shame that the UK Government has forgotten that culture of consensus as a way and means of profinding solutions and ways forward through the devolution sentiment. Finally, no one will thank us for grandstanding, and as Neil Findlay pointed out at the beginning, that in many ways is a distraction from the real issues that we were sent here to solve, such as tackling inequality, tackling poverty and securing good work for all Scots. However, we must end this uncertainty, and both Governments need to get back round the table to find a mechanism for dealing with coming up with the frameworks, which we all agree must be found. Christina McKelvie, followed by Donald Cameron. Thank you very much. We have heard today the chaotic muddle that is Brexit is set to take away a lot more than jobs and trade. Without the removal of the clause formally known as 11, we enabled Theresa May's Government to begin dismantling the very framework upon which the Scottish Parliament was reconvened. What is not reserved is, therefore, devolved. That is the words in that agreement. Like a cut that begins with a trickle that then develops into an arterial gush, the damage that is Brexit is leaking and spreading. Scotland alone has 134,000 people in jobs supported by EU trade. Skilled EU nationals leaving these shores every day. I know many of them, including those in health and social care sectors, people that we need greatly in those areas. A hard Brexit could lead to a loss of 8.5 per cent of GDP in Scotland by 2030, equivalent to £2,300 per individual. That is a remarkable impoverishment, with unthinkable consequences for individuals, families and our society as a whole. On top of that insult comes the potential for real constitutional attack. We are facing a blatant and highly alarming attempt to begin withdrawing the very powers under which the Scottish Parliament was reconvened. David Mundell has repeatedly refused to say that the Scottish Government would not overrule a decision of the Scottish Parliament to withhold its consent on the EU withdrawal bill. Adam Tomkins Very grateful to Christina McKelvie for giving way. Will she please identify even a single power that the Scottish Parliament currently has, which is under threat of being taken away by the bill? Christina McKelvie All of them, because quite frankly, I do not trust those people with any of them. Under the current powers, the current UK Government proposal, we could see the powers of the Scottish Parliament changed without the consent of this Parliament for the first time ever. It is a very interesting definition of consent that we have in those proposals, as Patrick Harvie pointed out, not a definition that I understand. Is this Mrs May's strategy for dismantling the devolved powers that we have worked so hard to retrieve? I wonder. The Scottish Government is not opposed to UK-wide frameworks when they are in Scotland's best interests. We know that. What we will not tolerate is being ignored, punished and kicked to the side by those who want imperial control. We need trust and respect, qualities in very short supply in the UK Government and in many cases in this chamber to agree proposals without them being imposed upon us. That is the important point here, imposed upon us, not for us but against us. That is arguably the most serious attack on Scottish democracy since this Parliament was reconvened nearly 20 years ago—a proud day for many of us. We all worked long and hard to make devolution work, and it has largely been successful. We have made Scotland a better place, behaved with wisdom, justice, integrity—well, some of us—compassion and mostly dignity, and in doing so, we have won national and international respect as a Parliament. We should never do that down. That is something all of us, all of us in this chamber, can take justifiable pride in. Scotland Act was created, which created this place, opened with the now famous words, there shall be a Scottish Parliament. Words immortalised on the mace that sits in front of us today. Those words were not just an aspiration, they were a promise to our people, a statement that old wrongs would be righted. A declaration of intent, yes, that our new democracy would be modern, civilised, forward-thinking and we would be the keeper of our own house. The words that brought this Parliament into being most assuredly did not say there shall be a Scottish Parliament, subject to the winds of convenience of politicians in London who can strip away its powers for their own ends whenever it suits them without consent. That is not what those words say. We are not going to surrender what we have achieved. We are not going to hold the door opened while Mrs May and her acolytes trample all over this place and threaten to close us down if we do not behave ourselves and do what we are told. Sounds a bit dystopian, does it not? I never thought that it would become normal to tell someone with a terminal brain tumour that they were fit for work. I did not think either that a family using its small third bedroom to keep dialysis equipment for its young son would be ever told to pay a bedroom tax dystopian. I do not trust those people with my country. I did not think either that that family would have to face those tragedies and trials the way that we are having to face them today. EU laws preside us with protections and employment rights, equality rights, the right to belong to any religion or none, to have a safe home and food and livestock standards that cover the quality and provenance of the meat and other food that we eat. The UK Government seems to be rubbing its hands with glee while pondering which EU laws to delete or withdraw. The lack of any commitment in the bill to the charter of fundamental rights tells us everything that we need to know. It asks us to trust it. Can we do that when we see that it does not trust us? The door could soon be open to fracking, GM crops and eating chlorinated chicken—nothing that I want to see. I can never accept this attack on our freedom, our democracy or our right to do what is best for the best interests of our nation, the nation of Scotland. I am confident that this Parliament feels the same. It can be and will defend anybody who undermines the powers of this Scottish Parliament. Call it defiance, if you will, but in the philosopher and the wolf, Mark Rowland reminds us, in the end it is our defiance that redeems us. With belief and resolution, let us redeem ourselves today, support the motion and tell the UK Government to get back to the table and talk to us in a manner that demands that respect. Donald Cameron, followed by Richard Lochhead. The motion is, of course, being debated today in tandem with the equivalent motion in the Welsh Assembly just before the third reading of the Bill and the House of Lords tomorrow. Wales and Scotland were, of course, meant to present United Front. It was claimed that both Governments shared an identity of purpose and stood together. The minister was quite clear that he could not envisage a situation in which Scotland would be content and Wales would not be more vice versa. Except that it has not quite worked out that way. The Welsh Government has not played ball. The Welsh Government has quite reasonably concluded that the present deal protects devolution and has signed up to it. Mark Drakeford, the Labour Welsh Minister, has said this very afternoon, that we have defended and entrenched our devolution settlement. We have provided for the successful operation of the UK after Brexit. We have provided a good deal for the Assembly and a good deal for Wales. Good enough for Mr Drakeford, but not good enough for Mr Russell. I wonder why. Michael Russell should also quote something else that Mark Drakeford said this afternoon. He said that it was right for Wales to back down while Scotland fights on, because Wales voted leave and Scotland voted remain. If that is the excuse given, then, of course, you must accept it. There has been much talk about the devolution settlement in the House of Lords' debate last week. Lord Hope, the most senior Scottish judge in that legislature, made an important point when he cancelled against elevating the 1998 Scotland Act beyond its status, saying the purest argument that a principle does not really apply here. We are dealing with a different, more subtle situation in trying to create a functioning internal market with what has come back to us from Europe. Other commentators have said the same, the 1998 act is not some sacred text that operates in a vacuum, not least when it never envisaged Brexit. In that sense, no, I would like to make some progress, please. In that sense, I would suggest that Clause 11, as amended, is another step in the evolution of devolution, no more, no less. It has rightly addressed the significant concerns that many people had about its original form, including on these benches. It is now more targeted and proportionate. It is built on the principle of collaborative working, balanced against the responsibility of the UK Parliament—not the UK Government but the UK Parliament—to act where there is an impact across the UK in the interests of the UK as a whole. As so doing, the bill will give protection to the UK internal market and the many jobs and businesses that depend on it. Anyone voting against consent tonight should bear that in mind. The demands of the SNP, on the other hand, would lead to any devolved administration possessing an absolute veto on matters that have serious implications for the whole of the UK. It is that which truly threatens devolution. It also puts some of the hyperbole into perspective, not least the blood-curdling accusation that the Scottish Conservatives want to completely demolish devolution. What when it was a Conservative Government that extended devolution so significantly in 2016? When it was a Conservative Government that enacted the Smith commission and was responsible for the transfer of powers over income tax and welfare powers a mere two years ago? As for the power grab slogan-earing, sad to see the minister even stoop this low. However, not one power of this Parliament is being removed, Presiding Officer. Not one. In no way will this Parliament stand diminished as a result of this bill. It will stand enhanced. I am sorry, I do not have time. 111 additional powers of which are only 24 require a UK common framework. Frameworks which even the SNP accepts are necessary. The actual dispute here is over the temporary solution, which is necessary while permanent frameworks are being established. Clause 11 does not seek to construct everlasting constitutional foundations, but merely a temporary one. Whilst we are on power grabs, let me turn to the greatest irony of all. Every power coming back to the UK and Scotland, the SNP would prefer to be returned to Brussels. Imagine the scene, an independent Scotland rejoining the EU. The Scottish Government coming to this chamber and explaining that each and every one of these 111 powers now had to be automatically surrendered to Brussels. No question of consent, those powers would be swiftly gathered in, packaged up and transferred to the EU to languish in some dusty Brussels corridor in the hands of the European Commission. Gillian Martin, I agree that one of the aspects of his job is to make sure that whatever comes back from the UK Government into this part that affects Scotland is voted on and scrutinised by the people that are elected to this Parliament. Donald Cameron. Even your own Government accepts that there is a need for common frameworks in certain areas of what comes back from EU retained law. The fact is that this would be devolutionary reverse if the SNP wanted to return all the powers back to Brussels. They have perpetrated many myths during the sorry saga, but the power grab myth is the greatest sham of all. What the SNP demanded, the UK agreed to. The SNP demanded recognition that powers would be presumed to sit at a devolved level. Conceded, the SNP demanded co-decision making was an imperative. Clause 11 sets out a collaborative approach. The SNP demanded a sunset clause. Conceded, concession after concession has been made by the UK Government with absolutely no movement from the Scottish Government in return. Again, I wonder why. I respect Mike Russell. He is a pragmatic politician who I believe would have done a deal, had not others intervened. For the SNP, it is not about identity of purpose, it is about the politics. It always is. The politics only point in one direction for the SNP, as ever their eyes are on a different prize. This is just the latest move by the SNP in the game of constitutional chess. Their latest gambit aims at agitating the Scottish population towards a different outcome. In conclusion, this is a sad day. Sad because the issues at stake could have been so easily resolved if trust had been maintained. Sad because once principled unionist parties prefer a short-term strike to a long-term deal in the interests of devolution. Sad because yet once more we debate in this chamber matters on the constitution at the expense of practical everyday issues affecting the lives of those whom we are privileged to represent. Richard Lochhead, followed by Gillian Martin. I have to confess that I am one of the oldies in that it was here in 1999 for the fanfare of the opening of the Scottish Parliament. Every time since then I have spoken in debates about powers for the Scottish Parliament, it has always been about new powers coming to the Scottish Parliament and about the vision, imagination and ambition of what we can do with those new powers to build a better Scotland. It is very regrettable and sad that I am standing here having to speak about a threat to the powers of the Scottish Parliament and a threat to take powers away from the Scottish Parliament. We should all be clear that today is a really important day in the history of devolution. Hopefully, as many of us as possible can stand together and defend our Parliament when it is under threat. The people of Scotland went to the polls in the June 2016 European Union referendum and voted remain. Parts of the UK voted leave, so we are leaving the EU. I expect that 38 per cent of Scots who voted to leave in Scotland did not appreciate that, by voting to leave the EU, they perhaps were going to contribute towards or give the ability to the UK Government to deliver a threat to the powers of the Scottish Parliament. It is ironic that people who voted leave voted to decentralise power away from Brussels to the UK, but that vote in itself is now leading to the UK Government under the guise of Brexit to centralise powers potentially back from this Parliament back to London. That is an irony that this Parliament should absolutely tackle. I have no doubt whatsoever that people across the country today watching this debate or hearing about it in the news will expect MSPs, members of the Scottish Parliament to stand together for the national interest and to protect the powers of the Scottish Parliament. Devolution is under threat. What started as a debate post-Brexit about the need for UK frameworks following Brexit has now resulted in the UK Government wanting to be able to negotiate in devolved areas without the consent of the Scottish Parliament, the undermining of devolution. That case for common frameworks in the 24 areas of policy where the UK Government says that it might want to legislate is a good case for that, because we will accept that there should be UK common frameworks. It makes sense that we share the same islands and some of the same priorities in many of the issues. However, to move into the new ground of the UK Government wanting to legislate and tackle devolution is something completely different. When Adam Tompkins stands up in the debate and says that the UK frameworks are very important so that we do not undermine the integrity of the UK or jeopardise the UK's internal market, to me that is just euphemism for the UK Government wanting the ability to put a break on Scotland doing anything different to the rest of the UK within devolved areas. UK says that it will not impose regulations in the 24 areas, but the Committee, the Finance and Constitution Committee, makes a very good point with paragraph 51 that says that the committee's view is that this commitment that common frameworks will not be imposed is contradicted by the consent decision mechanism created by the UK Government's amendments to the clause of living that would allow the UK Government to proceed with regulations without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. What is really important in this debate is to look closely at the 24 areas where the UK potentially wants to regulate without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. Let's look at those areas. Agriculture supports, GMOs, animal welfare, environmental quality and waste packaging and product regulations, fisheries management and support, food labelling, nutritional health claims, composition and labelling—just some of the 24 areas. All areas where the UK Government may, by its past track record, want to take a different policy position than the Parliament here in Scotland. We are talking about powers coming back from Brussels to the UK. Those powers, of course, were negotiated by the UK with Scottish ministers in attendance in Brussels for many, many years. For nine years, I attended those negotiations in Brussels and I often found that there was often resentment towards devolution from many of the UK Secretary of State. What that meant was that they did not like policy positions being adopted by the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government that perhaps were not flavour of the month with the party and power at UK Government level. So, if you look at fishing for instance, one area where the UK Government might potentially want to regulate without the consent of the Scottish Parliament, there was an issue where the UK Government supported the privatisation of fish quota. Just think about that for a second. The privatisation of billions of pounds worth of Scottish fish quota that would be open for anyone across the world to buy up denying opportunities for fishing communities to fish their own waters. There is also the fact that the UK Government top-slice UK quota, before it is divvied up between the devolved nations and the rest of the UK, a double benefit for fishermen south of the border. By the fact, as Alex Neil highlighted, UK ministers often have to wear two hats. There is an issue of agricultural support where the UK Government regularly in EU negotiations takes a position where we must not have direct support to Scottish farmers or the rest of the UK farmers. The only reason why we continue to have direct support for farmers in Scotland is because the UK Government was out-voted by the rest of the EU member states. Ask yourselves what the position will be post Brexit where we are not protected by the EU. To summarise the 24 areas, the reason why the UK Government wants to have the option of regulating in those areas without the consent of the Scottish Parliament is to stop Scotland doing something different and doing what we are elected to do. For Adam Tomkins of the Conservative Party to create this new category of devolved powers, so we have devolved powers that we have at the moment, and they are being protected, then we have reserved powers that are called to the Scotland Act of Stay with the UK Government, and now the third category of powers, which are the issues that are devolved, but used to be decided by Europe, and they should actually stay with the UK Government or the UK Government should have the ability to regulate on those. The point is that, within the UK, fishing, farming and the other 24 powers are devolved. There is not a third category. Once those powers come back from Brussels to the UK, they are devolved, and that is why they should come to this Parliament. I urge all parties to stand together and protect the Scottish Parliament and protect devolution today. It is a shame that the Conservative Party is not getting behind us. It seems that, when it comes to devolution, it best or look warm. At worst, it is only political experience that leads to the Scottish Conservatives to support devolution in this country. However, the rest of us, we can stand together, we can get behind this Parliament and we can get behind each other to protect devolution in this afternoon's vote, and I urge us all to do that in the sake of Scottish democracy. The last of the open debate contributions is from Gillian Martin. A fundamental responsibility of members of this Parliament is to ensure that its powers cannot be diminished without the consent of the people of Scotland. The EU withdrawal bill, to which we will ask to give our consent, gives that power over to the UK Government and aims to press ahead even if that consent is not given today. The EU withdrawal bill, as amended, would grant UK ministers the ability to restrict the powers of Scottish ministers. It would, uniquely for the first time ever in devolution, give UK ministers the right to use secondary legislation to alter the devolved competencies of the Scottish Parliament, and that affects each and every single one of us. I am deeply concerned about the lack of any statutory provision within the EU withdrawal bill for UK ministers to seek the consent of Scottish ministers or the Scottish Parliament to legislate in devolved areas, because that ultimately undermines the competence of our Parliament, and it goes against the constitution. No one is arguing that there should not be UK common frameworks, but their formation should be a joint negotiation between Parliaments, not an imposition of one Parliament's will over others, and we should have the right to vote on whether we accept them when and if the effect devolved areas, as we have done for 20 years. Take agriculture, Richard Lochhead has made mention of this in his speech to the point where I should just say what he said. However, in Scotland, 85 per cent of Scottish agricultural land is classed as less favoured areas, which takes into account the challenging geographical conditions that many of Scotland's farmers and crofters face. We know that the UK Government has confirmed that all UK farmers will continue to receive the current level of EU subsidies until 2024, but there are still so many questions to be answered on a replacement. If an LFAS-type scheme is unable to continue, the impact on rural Scotland would be devastating. A month ago, I asked whether the UK Government had carried out an impact assessment on LFAS withdrawal from the Scottish agricultural sector, and the answer was no. The recent delay by the UK Government to the promised review into how EU converges uplift payments that are distributed also does not inspire confidence on common frameworks being entrusted solely to Whitehall. If this Parliament grants its consent to the EU withdrawal bill, we cede power over the formation of frameworks for agricultural support to a Government that neither understands nor prioritises rural Scotland. Of course, fisheries are devolved, and decisions that affect the regulations of Scottish waters and vessels should be made in Scotland, for obvious reasons that have been outlined by so many of my colleagues. As Stuart Stevenson said earlier in his intervention to the minister, a recently leaked Westminster fisheries paper showed that the UK Government intends to retain a veto over international negotiations. That suggests that the UK Government is intent on imposing arrangements on Scotland. When it comes to a Brexit negotiating point, I just do not trust the UK Government to prioritise fishing over sea, the car industry. The interests of the Scottish fish industry would be, for that reason, best loan served for the Scottish Government being front and centre as those frameworks are negotiated, not waiting for the top-down edict that we cannot vote on in this Parliament. I am also concerned that the withdrawal bill sets a precedent for other Brexit-related UK legislation, in particular the trade bill. Regardless of the precedent that we consent today, we also cede power on procurement decisions. With EU procurement arrangements being out the window, what could that mean if Liam Fox ties himself in knots quoting the favour of Donald Trump over trade? A relaxation of procurement laws could well be tied up in a trade arrangement with the US that could see our public services adversely affected. Could that impact on NHS Scotland? I do not want us to be in a situation where we cannot scrutinise those bills and vote on them, so that the Conservatives should be standing alongside all of us on that. The UK Government has also refused to rule out the weakening of food and drink standards through trade deals, and the result of that might be the influx of low-grade products, as Emma Harper mentioned earlier in her speech. Ross Finney of the Food Standards Scotland agency said, that it will be difficult for Scottish stakeholders' voices to be heard, or for the needs of businesses or consumers in Scotland to be given priority. The reservation of those powers to Westminster would prevent his organisation from operating effectively. Our Government is trying to prioritise tackling obesity and alcoholism. Reservation of UK policy and legislative frameworks on food standards and labelling mean that Scotland would not have the competence to regulate in this area in order to improve public health. We all know about the issue with Scotch whisky and the EU-protected food name schemes that are in operation at the moment. There are still no answers on them either. You see a direction of travel that I do not think is particularly good for Scotland, so why would we want to relinquish any of our legal ability to legislate in devolved areas or accept new frameworks without the ability to vote on them? Bruce Crawford is right that we have been asked to trust the UK Government when they do not trust devolve Governments. Take clause 15 in section 3 of the withdrawal bill and respect the constitution and the people of Scotland. Let us not forget that the people of Scotland did not vote for any of that, but who might feel a lot better about the situation if they know that their Parliament represented them in a devolution settlement that they most definitely did vote for? We now move to the closing speeches. I would take this opportunity to remind all members that, if a member has taken part in the debate, they should be present for the beginning of the closing speeches. I move to James Kelly for around six minutes, please. I thank the finance committee officials, clerks and witnesses for the work that they put in in the production of the committee report, which was the platform for the debate. That is an important part of the process, but it is not the end of the process. That is why Labour tonight will support the Government motion, signalling that Parliament would not give its consent to the LCM on the EU withdrawal bill, but it will also put forward an amendment urging cross-party talks involving Mr Russell and David Lidington. Over the months, we have had a number of debates on that crucial issue. The debates have centred around powers, the allocation of powers and how disputes have been resolved. Essentially, we have got to the issue around clause 11, which has now become clause 15. There was a real frustration around the original clause 11, even shared by the Conservatives, in that the list of powers would be taken to a UK level rather than devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The latest proposal from the UK Parliament tries to resolve that, but it does not deal properly with the issue of dispute resolution. What would happen if there were powers in terms of retained EU law, which had been taken temporarily into the UK Parliament and there was a dispute over that and the Scottish Parliament did not consent to it? That dispute would be resolved on the floor of the House of Commons, and the Scottish Parliament would not have a vote on that. Ministers would have a say, but they would not have a vote. That creates a power imbalance. That is the fundamental issue that Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP and the Greens have with the proposal that has been put forward. From that point of view, it is important to recognise the point that Neil Findlay made, that the motion before us today is only a motion expressing a view, it is not the end of the process and therefore the proposal for cross-party talks, which has been positively received by Mike Russell, and there has been some positive indication from David Larrington that it should be explored. Patrick Harvie, who is always very exasperated by the whole process, is perhaps too keen to reach the end. It is important to bring all the parties into the process. I think that Alex Neil made a very—just let me finish this point, Mr Harvie. I think that Alex Neil—sorry, I will take you now. Patrick Harvie. James Kelly knows that I have not said that we will oppose their amendment. I am sceptical that another round of talks will offer anything. Can Labour say what they expect to have happen as a result of that? If the UK Government is not going to relent and reverse their position, what else is there? James Kelly? I think that that debate has been useful in terms of practical suggestions. Alex Neil was right to point out that if we get a situation where Labour and the Liberal Democrats who oppose independence and the SNP and the Greens who support independence get round the table and explore the issues with the UK Government, there is a potential way forward. We heard from Neil Bibby about making a very powerful contribution in putting forward the case for an intergovernmental agreement. We also heard from Alex Neil about the possibility of a committee of the regions of the different Parliament that could resolve disputes. That shows that there are still possibilities out there that can be explored by cross-party talks. I urge Patrick Harvie to take that on board. Daniel Johnson was right to point out that Mike Russell's contribution emphasised the merits of devolution. I think that the opportunity here, if that can be handled correctly, is to not only protect the devolution process but also enhance the devolution process. If we can get those common frameworks right and get them set up in such a way that they are agreed by both Governments, then we can assure that the powers that will come to this Parliament will enhance devolution. Neil Findlay quoted the example of procurement. That gives a powerful opportunity to ensure not only a fairer award of procurement contracts in Scotland but also the implementation of policies that would help to grow the Scottish economy in a fair manner. I think that there is anonis on all the parties in the chamber, not only to send a signal to tonight that the current settlement on the table is not acceptable, but we are not going to give up on that. There is a real opportunity moving forward with those cross-party talks to influence the process of the final House of Lords consideration and also the House of Commons consideration. I think that there is a duty to ensure that that happens, because not to do so would head down a disaster route where we end up in the courts, we end up in a potential chaotic situation and that would not serve the people that were sent here to serve in this Parliament well. I call Jackson Carlaw for around seven minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I start, hopefully, a note of agreement with Mike Russell and that I think that when this whole process began neither of us hoped or expected that this is where we would be this afternoon, but it is indeed where we are. I want just to refer back to the contribution of Scottish Conservatives during this whole exchange, because I think that even he might maybe express some surprise back in September when he looked around the chamber and asked for support from all sides, that he looked across to us not expecting to find it to be forthcoming, but to his surprise found that it was. We did accept that the withdrawal bill as published was unacceptable. We listened. We have worked to try and reflect and represent the concerns of the Scottish Government, because our whole objective was to get to a point where they would feel able to recommend to this Parliament the approval of an LCM this afternoon. We noted the various requests that the Scottish Government made and we believe that changes have been achieved. I do not see Bruce Crawford in the chamber, but he referred earlier on when he spoke on behalf of the committee to the fact that changes had actually been achieved to the bill and I respect the fact that he did. We also explained that that negotiation had to take account of other factors as well. I tried in the last debate that we had on this to say that this is not a bilateral discussion, this is a quadlateral discussion and that the UK Government and other parties in the other parts of the United Kingdom were concerned that, in the frameworks that had to be established, there had to be a process of agreement, but that also had to take account of the fact that the expectation that the Scottish Government could exercise a veto over what would ultimately be decided was not an acceptable outcome either. I think that it is important to emphasise despite the way that some might wish to characterise it, that our responsibility in those benches is not simply to represent the UK Government's view, but to offer a considered reflection by the Scottish Conservatives of the UK Government's position. That is why, throughout the whole process, even in the new year, we expressed frustration with the way progress was being made, we expressed frustration at the lack of an alternative clause 11 coming forward and being put on the table, but why we now believe, as do the Government in Wales, as do Labour peers in the House of Lords, as do Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords. I am not even sure if the Liberals have consulted with their two Scottish MPs in the House of Commons as to whether they entirely share the views of Liberal Democrats. I think that there are some doubts being expressed this afternoon that that is the case. We managed to achieve changes and those changes reflected many of the requests that Mike Russell made. He said that the problem was with the word agree. I may undue course. He said that the problem agreed was there with the word agree. Clause 11 was a change into the new clause 15, which expressly uses the word agreement. He talked about the need for a sunset clause. A sunset clause is now there. He talked about the need for there to be co-decision making, and that is what the whole process of the new clause 11 actually is designed to achieve. Mr Russell, in his opening, gave rather a sentimental introduction about the origins of devolution to which I think everybody would lend their support. I disagree thereafter with the conclusions that he drew. Adam Tom can set out in detail our analysis of the actual bill as now amended, and specifically of the amendments that have been made and the effect those changes would have. He quoted from Mark Dreyford. I heard what Mr Russell said in response to the Labour Party about Mark Dreyford by saying that he seemed to believe that they were more determined in Wales now to achieve Brexit than they were to stand up for the principles of devolution. I thought that that was both ungenerous and unfounded. I do not believe that is the case at all, and I believe that the Government in Wales came to believe through the course of negotiations that the outcome, just as David Steele, just as Jim Wallace, just as Labour peers in the House of Lords did, that the agreement that had been arrived at was reasonable. Neil Findlay stood up and said that this whole problem was because David Mundell, Ruth Davidson and David Lidington had failed to achieve a new clause 11. They said that they would. They did achieve a new clause 11. It is a clause 11 that the Labour Party in Wales supports. It is a clause 11 that no Labour peer in the House of Lords spoke against. I turn to Tavish Scott, who gave a long list of all the things that Liberal peers did speak against in the House of Lords. They did not speak against the particular provisions that we are discussing this afternoon, which makes a nonsense of your argument and always disproves the point that you made. I will come back to Mr Scott in a moment. I will come back to you in a moment, not only that but Lesley Laird. I have got a cue, and I will give way to Mr Findlay first. Neil Findlay. I wonder if Mr Carlaw could tell us why, when Labour put forward proposals in the House of Commons, that it would have resolved this, that it would have saved all of these discussions. I will ask him the answer, because you do not know why did the Tories get whipped to vote against it? The same way that in this Parliament, at stage 1 of a process, amendments are then considered at the report stage, and that is exactly what happened. We are now at a point where Labour in the House of Lords and Labour in Wales agree, but not Mr Findlay. One has led to the conclusion that the Labour Party in Scotland sees the political expedient argument and not actually the principle argument of devolution at all. Then we have heard arguments about a power grab. We just passed a welfare bill within the last fortnight that arose as a result of new powers being transferred to this Parliament. Derek Mackay produced a budget that increased taxes, which we opposed, but a budget that increased taxes because of new powers that the Westminster Government had transferred to this Parliament. As a result of the bill that is going through the Westminster as we leave Europe, there will be the most enormous transfer of powers to Scotland. This is not a power grab, it is a power transfer to the Scottish Parliament. I did enjoy Mr Scott's entertaining constituency association lunch speech from last Saturday, and I am sure that six of them around the table all found it very amusing, but he had nothing to say at all about the debate that we are having this afternoon. We heard all manner of arguments this afternoon. We heard from Alec Neill again about the whole misunderstanding of what we are being asked to do. We are being asked to approve a bill that says that no one member state can unilaterally change the existing arrangements being transferred from—no, it does not give the UK Government the power to do that—it says that when the powers come back from the European Parliament to the Westminster Parliament, until the frameworks are agreed, no one country within the four member states can unilaterally change those arrangements. We have been through an extended debate over the last few months. I understand and believe, ultimately, the suspicion that the Scottish Government is more motivated about producing further grievance to fight and justify an argument for independence. I am surprised that the midwives of this argument have turned out to be Mr Scott and Mr Finlay. Shame on them. This afternoon, we should recognise that there is a whole argument to be had going forward about how we best represent Scotland's interests in the discussions that are going to take place. My single worry is that Mr Russell and the Scottish Government's actions have undermined the confidence and trust that there will be in hearing Scotland's voice in those framework discussions as they proceed. That, I think, is the tragic outcome of this afternoon. We should support the LCM and allow Scotland to proceed. I call Michael Russell. Can you take us to just before decision time, please, minister? Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have to say that I doubt if there has ever been so much concern expressed for the people of Wales by the Scottish Conservatives or, indeed, by any Conservatives, I would suspect. It is a charity that this afternoon even extended to the Lib Dem peers and finally to the Lib Dem MPs. Many people Scottish Conservatives do not appear to be concerned about is the people of Scotland. The people of Scotland who voted in the vast majority for devolution in 1997—let us remember—against the express wishes of the Scottish Conservatives. That is the problem of this debate. The Scottish Conservatives have forum in being against devolution, and again this afternoon they have shown that forum. Let me confirm to the Tories that I do and did and still want this process of negotiation to lead to an agreement, but not any agreement and not at any price. What we are being asked to do this afternoon is to accept any agreement at any price or rather any Tory price. I want to confirm my agreement to the Labour amendment. I wrote to Richard Leonard yesterday to indicate what I would do at the conclusion of today's debate, and if the chamber chooses to confirm that it will not give legislative consent, I will write to David Lidington this evening, asking him to come to Scotland, to come to this Parliament and to meet the parties, including the Conservatives, to sit down and to find, if it is possible, some new ways forward. There have been ideas to mention this debate that are worth exploring. I thought that Alex Neil made a very good distinction between UK Government frameworks and UK frameworks. Although some of the proposals, for example, a way in which there could be a committee of ministers that was arbitrated, have already been raised in the House of Lords and defeated in the House of Lords, it will be worth exploring those issues. We will support the amendment at decision time and I will immediately act upon it today. But let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that at the end of the day, the Tories impose their will upon this chamber. What would that mean? I think that if we stand back and look at what it would mean, we understand the enormity of this situation. What is being proposed is that the Tories in London, using the votes of the DUP, would hand the power of veto of the decisions of this Parliament, this elected Parliament and this elected government to the Scottish Conservatives, to a minority within this chamber. That would be the effect of what took place, because the Conservatives would be able to veto anything that we chose to do for seven years. The anti-democratic action benefits only the Conservatives, and they will use the votes of the DUP to essentially muzzle this Parliament. That is not a price that we should pay. Why would they do that? Why would they offer that prize to the UK Government and UK Tories to the Scottish Conservatives? We heard the answer this afternoon. It is in exchange for fanatical support for Brexit. Those are people who were opposed to Brexit. Ruth Davidson demanded to continue in the single market in the customs union the day after the referendum. However, we have heard not a single word of criticism of Brexit this afternoon, nor will we hear that. The way to success in the Conservative Party in Scotland is to be a born-again Brexit here and to be an extreme born-again Brexit here. Of course, the person who takes to extremism like a duck to water is Murdo Fraser. He showed that this afternoon in his extreme view of Brexit. That is regrettable because it is doing damage to the very people that they exist to serve. We heard an example of it this afternoon from Peter Chapman. At the very moment when Peter Chapman was speaking up for Brexit, the people to whom, apparently, he is closest—the National Farmers Union in Scotland—were issuing a press release, talking about the ongoing uncertainty of Brexit, talking about the damage that Brexit would do to the agriculture community. In that show of fact, this is not a victimless crime. Why do the Tories attempt to grab power in this Parliament? People, interests, organisations, businesses are suffering the chaos of the Tory Brexit, and it is being backed by the Scottish Tories. There are a whole range of misconceptions that we have heard this afternoon from the Tories, too many to go through in detail. However, let me deal with three of them. First, that no present powers in this chamber are affected. Wrong. Let me just name three off the top of my head. Environmental protections, agricultural subsidy, protected geographical indicators—all, all, all affected. Secondly, that this is a debate about an issue on the head of the pin. They are not real issues that touch people's lives. Food standards. Ross Finney's letter last week indicated that very strongly. Chemicals. My constituents in mull who are trying to stop neonicotinoids coming into their water supply, that is affected. Public procurement, public procurement that leads to thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of jobs in Scotland is affected. Finally, clause 11 is fine. There are no difficulties. It does not give any threat of any description. The words not normally are apparently the parachute that saves us all. Those words are not in the legislation. They have already been rubbish by the advocate general, and the normality in the new clause 11 is the overriding of the Scottish Parliament. That is what the legislation says. Daniel Johnson talked about what is at stake in devolution, and he was right to do so, because a great deal is at stake in devolution. What we have here is undoubtedly the worst challenge to devolution, although we have had since 1999. Devolution is not just about us. Devolution is, if we should remember this, the constitutional steering group paid attention to this. The Scottish Parliament said that it should embody and reflect the sharing of power between the people of Scotland, the legislators and the Scottish Executive. Devolution is about how we all work together for the benefit of Scotland. I looked at the words of each of our First Ministers as they put forward their vision to be elected as First Minister. I quoted Donald Dure earlier in his opening remarks, but let me quote each of the others. Henry McLeish on 25 October 2000 said, This Parliament is about politics, and of course we will have political differences, but our ultimate aim is the same, the best interests of our fellow Scots. That is what devolution is about. Jack McConnell on 22 November 2002, on the day of the 1997 referendum, Scott voted yes because he wanted better politics and better government, and he believed that the Scottish Parliament would focus on their priorities. That was devolution. Alex Salmond on 16 May 2007, this Parliament is a Parliament of minorities where no one party rules without compromise or concession. It is about intelligent debate and mature discussion. That is devolution. Finally, Nicola Sturgeon, because you can always do better, Mr Finlay, you can always aspire to do better as we do, but I have been arguing this afternoon for what we have and how we use it, and I thought that was what something you wanted me to do. Nicola Sturgeon on 19 November 2014, those whom we represent expect us to give our very best. All of us must ensure that we do not disappoint them. They expect us to debate vigorously, but they do not want us to divide. Let's work together to create a future for Scotland that is worthy of their dreams and their trust. No, I won't. A future for Scotland that is worthy of their dreams and their trust, not the demands, the narrow interests or Tory party factionalism of the UK Government, not the demands of Ruth Davidson so that she and her fellow members can veto what an elected Government and an elected Parliament decides. But a future for Scotland, Presiding Officer, that's worthy and dreams of the trust of the people we are here to serve, the Scottish people, who would not forgive us if we gave away the powers that we are trying to use to improve Scotland. Thank you, and that concludes our debate on the European Union Withdrawal Bill UK legislation. We'll now move on to the next item of business. The next item is consideration of business motion 1-2-5-3, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a revised business programme for Thursday. Could I ask any member who wishes to speak against this motion to say so now, and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move the motion. Formally moved. Thank you. No one's asked to speak against the motion. The question is that motion 1-2-5-3 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I think that, although the chamber does look full, I'm going to wait till 5 o'clock to make sure that every member has a chance to be in the chamber for decision time, so I'm going to suspend for a minute and a half till 5 o'clock. Thank you, that is 5 o'clock, so we come now to decision time. The first question this afternoon is that amendment 1-2-3.1, in the name of Adam Tomkins, which seeks to amend motion 1-2-3 in the name of Michael Russell, on the European Union with Droll Bill UK legislation, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 1-2-3.1, in the name of Adam Tomkins, is yes, 30, no, 95. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 1-2-3.2, in the name of Neil Findlay, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Michael Russell, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 1-2-3.2, in the name of Neil Findlay, is yes, 93, no, 31. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The final question is that motion 1-2-3, in the name of Michael Russell, as amended, on the European Union withdrawal bill, UK legislation, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 1-2-3, in the name of Michael Russell, as amended, is yes, 93, no, 30. There were no abstentions. The motion as amended, is therefore agreed. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Parliament has now agreed that it does not consent to the European Union withdrawal bill. It is a historic and significant moment for the Scottish Parliament, and I hope with all sincerity that the UK Government will respect the views of this Parliament. In view of the decision, however, taken by Parliament, would you now write to the Parliament's assemblies and legislators of the UK to inform them of our decision? I thank Mr Crawford for his advanced notice of his point of order. He is right to point out that this is a significant matter of interest to all parts of the UK. I believe that it would be appropriate for them to be made aware of Parliament's decision this evening, and I will write to my counterparts at Westminster and the other UK legislatures to make them aware of the Parliament's position. Thank you. We'll now move to members' business in the name of Sandra White on Nagpot's 70th anniversary. We'll just take a few moments for members and the Minister to change seats.