Y First Item of Business is consideration of business motion number 15939 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick. On behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting up a timetable for the stage three consideration of the land reform bill. Any member who wishes to speak against motion should press a request button now. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 15939. Firmly moved. No member has asked to speak against the motion therefore I now put the question, the question is, that motion number 15939 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next item of business is a debate on motion number 15941 in the name of John Swinney on the Scotland Bill UK legislation. Members who wish to take part in the debate should press a request button now and I call on John Swinney to speak to and move the motion. Deputy First Minister, 13 minutes. I can well remember returning from school on 2 March 1979 to be greeted by my mother with some disappointing news. The yes campaign had not secured enough votes in the referendum to establish a Scottish Assembly. As a 15-year-old, I had been captivated by the sense of possibility that would come from the people of Scotland being able to shape our own future. A few weeks later, I joined the Scottish National Party to be my part in securing Scottish self-government. Today, for me, is a very significant day. Today, the Scottish Government is inviting Parliament to give its legislative consent to the Scotland Bill, the next step in extending the responsibilities of this Parliament and in Scotland's journey towards greater self-government. The aspiration for self-government is centred on ensuring that decisions about what happens in Scotland are made as close as possible to the people that they affect directly, decisions that reflect the views, the issues, the priorities, the hopes and the aspirations of the people of Scotland. The vibrant debate on Scotland's future, conducted during the independence referendum campaign, is what has brought us here today. Although my aspiration for independence was not sufficiently supported by the electorate, it was crystal clear that the people of our country wanted to exercise more control over their lives here in Scotland, and the political parties and the parliaments and Governments of Scotland and the United Kingdom had to make that happen. As we approach the end of this parliamentary session, it is appropriate to reflect on the journey that this Parliament has taken, in particular the momentous events of the last five years. Since 1999, this Parliament and the Government have continually evolved their powers, but the pace of devolution quickened after the former First Minister published a constitutional consultation document choosing Scotland's future in August 2007, and we began the national conversation discussing the powers that people in Scotland wanted this Parliament to have. In response, other parties and the United Kingdom Government established the Kalman commission publishing a Scotland Bill in 2010. This Scottish Parliament eventually gave its legislative consent to the last Scotland act in May 2012, so this is the second Scotland Bill that we have considered in this session. It has a remarkable regularity in coming along. We have used the powers in the 2012 act, addressing the scourge of driving, taking action on air guns, reforming stamp duty with land and buildings transaction tax. However, it was clear at the time that the 2012 act lagged behind the aspirations that the people have for this Parliament. As we have all considered whether we wished to be an independent country, an offer was made to the people of Scotland that they should vote against independence and that they would be offered a secure, modern form of Scottish home rule. The UK parties made a vow promising extensive new powers for the Scottish Parliament. The outcome of the referendum led to the establishment of the Smith commission to agree a basis for the implementation of the commitments made by the UK parties. Along with my friend and colleague Linda Fabiani, I represented the Scottish National Party on the Smith commission and agreed the contents of its report. I paid tribute to my co-commissioners here in this Parliament, Annabelle Goldie, Ian Gray, Tavish Scott and Patrick Harvie and elsewhere to Michael Moore, Greg Maclement, Maggie Chapman and Adam Tomkins. I paid particular tribute to Lord Smith, whose patient yet firm guiding direction enabled us to reach an agreement. For me, it clearly did not go far enough. As was painfully obvious during the process, for others it went far too far. However, the Smith process has delivered an agreement for additional powers that, used in the right way, can benefit the people of Scotland. Extended powers over tax, new powers over welfare, responsibilities for the Crown Estate, the British Transport Police tribunals licensing of onshore oil and gas activity. However, the Smith commission only produced a report. A bill and a fiscal framework were necessary before we could implement anything. The role of the devolution and further powers committee, under the distinguished leadership of Bruce Crawford, has been crucial in getting us to where we are today. The scrutiny of both Governments significantly and materially has improved the bill that we have before us today. Along with the diligent work of the finance committee, under the convenership of Kenneth Gibson, both committees created the tests that would be central to agreeing a fiscal framework. To me, this work highlights the excellence that we have come to expect from the strong committee system of this Parliament. Although the bill is not perfect, it reflects the efforts of many people in this chamber and beyond, much joint working between the UK and the Scottish Governments, and ministers are prepared to recommend that Parliament consents to it completing its parliamentary passage at Westminster. The Government has already set out a number of proposals to use the powers to improve the lives of the people of Scotland, a social security bill, establishing a social security agency and moving as early as possible to abolish the bedroom tax, greater support for carers, greater flexibility over universal credit payments and, as important, a social security system based on dignity and respect for the individuals that that agency has got to serve. Effective employability services that support people who are scoping with severe cuts in funding that are highlighted in the report of the Devolution Further Powers Committee. Consultation on replacing and reducing air passenger duty to boost the economy, and we have already extended the right to vote in May's elections to 16 and 17-year-olds, a right that they will exercise in a few short weeks to the close interest of all of us within this parliamentary chamber. We will set out further proposals in due course, and if we are returned as the Government in May, we will fully utilise the powers available to us. Of equal importance to the bill has been the fiscal framework that accompanies it. My overriding aim has been to secure a fiscal framework for Scotland that was fair, workable and faithful to the principles that Smith set out in his report. My approach throughout the negotiations was that I would not sign up to a deal that would impose systematic cuts to Scotland's budget. That outcome has been achieved for the Scottish interest. The fiscal framework states that Barnett will continue to determine the size of the block grant, and that this is the benchmark against which we must assess the operation of the principle of no detriment, which was central to the conclusions of the Smith commission. The Governments have agreed that the block grant adjustment for tax and benefits should be affected by using the comparable model and the Barnett formula respectively, while achieving the outcome delivered by the index per capita method for tax and benefits. Each year it will be necessary to concurrently calculate the block grant adjustment based on both the comparable and Barnett models and the IPC model. The first step will be to calculate the adjustments on the basis of the comparable and Barnett models. The second concurrent step will be to calculate the adjustments on the basis of the IPC model. Finally, if there is a difference between the Barnett comparable and IPC calculations, then there will be a reconciling adjustment to the calculations that have been made to ensure that the mechanism delivers the IPC outcome before the start of each financial year. The agreement, complex I accept, ensures that the Scottish Minister's IPC model drives the outcome of the block grant adjustment process and also crucially ensures that the Scottish budget does not carry any detriment whatsoever. After that, there can be no default by the UK Government to a funding model that would deliver detriment in the future. Future arrangements have to be agreed jointly. This is one of the key issues, one of the great benefits of the conclusion of the Smith commission report, was that the arrangements for the fiscal framework were required by Smith to be agreed jointly by the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government, making us equals in determining those issues. It is that factor that has enabled us to protect Scotland from the implications of detriment that could have arisen. The arrangement therefore fully delivers the Smith principle of no detriment, and to aid transparency the results of the two models will be presented in the annual reports to each Parliament. Besides the block grant adjustment, the fiscal framework sets out the agreement reached in other important areas such as capital and resource borrowing, funding for administration and implementation costs, and the effective policy spillovers associated with tax and welfare. It provides a governance framework for the future, making it clear that decisions in relation to the framework will be taken jointly by both Governments in the Joint Exchequer Committee. Yesterday, the two Governments published a technical annex to the fiscal framework, which sets out in further detail the agreement that was reached and published when the agreement was reached with the United Kingdom Government. I would have preferred to publish that with greater time available to members to scrutinise that before the debate, but it simply amplifies and provides more detail on the agreement that the First Minister announced to Parliament a couple of weeks ago and is therefore members to scrutinise as background to the process that has been agreed to. We have therefore an agreement on a fiscal framework that increases the Scottish Parliament's financial responsibility, is consistent with the Smith principles of no detriment and is fair to the people of Scotland and therefore in a position to recommend that Parliament provides legislative consent to the Scotland bill today. This session has seen a remarkable journey for Scotland and her Parliament. From the legislative consent motion on the 2012 act, through legislation for our referendum and the referendum itself, the enormous engagement of members of the public on the constitutional question, followed by promises to the people of Scotland of federalism and home rule, then the 10 weeks of the Smith commission, a draft Scotland bill, a UK general election, then the consideration of the bill at Westminster, hours of scrutiny by the devolution committee and the finance committee and seven months of negotiations over the fiscal framework. The result is a set of powers that do not enable us to do all that this Government would want to be able to do, but a range of powers that we will use to the full in the interests of building a stronger Scottish economy, of tackling inequality and ensuring that all of our people have the opportunity to flourish in Scotland. I believe that the more we exercise self-government here in Scotland, the more the benefits become clear to members of the public, the stronger the argument becomes for extending our powers even further. That is Scotland's journey, and I encourage the Parliament today to take a further decisive step on that journey by supporting the Government motion. Thank you, Deputy First Minister. I now call Ian Gray, Mr Gray, nine minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I rise to support the motion in Mr Swinney's name and to express my delight that we have arrived here at this debate and this question. After all, like Mr Swinney, I spent 10 weeks of my life locked in the Smith commission thrashing out an agreement on what further powers this Parliament should have. The one major thing that Smith left undone, of course, was the fiscal framework left to be negotiated between the Scottish and UK Governments. I confess that there were times when I did think that those negotiations were going to break down irrevocably and that the whole agreement would fall. That would have been a travesty, because although those negotiations were in effect between only two parties, the SNP and the Tories, they were, of course, both signatories to the Smith commission. If the Tory Government had failed to reach agreement, they would have betrayed the promise made to the Scottish people at the time of the referendum. Equally, had the Scottish Government failed to reach a deal, it would have meant that a grotesque outcome of a nationalist Government presented with the opportunity to make this Scottish Parliament one of the most powerful devolved Administrations anywhere in the world through the biggest transfer of powers to Scotland since 1999 and letting that opportunity slip through their fingers. I happily, for me, was not in the room, so I do not know why the agreement went to the wire, but I do know that I agreed with John Swinney's interpretation of no detriment in the Smith agreement that it did not apply simply on the day of devolution, but over time, too. I supported Mr Swinney, too, in arguing that the adjusted blocs should not be reduced as a result of differential changes to population, because he was correct in arguing that the Barnett formula, which is population based, already adjusts for that, so a further reduction would be superfluous. I have the highest regard for Mr Swinney as a negotiator in spite of his many other flaws. I want to take this chance to congratulate him once again on reaching a very good deal for Scotland and securing the benefits of the Smith agreement and the Consequent Scotland Act. He deserves all our thanks for that. The devolution story, which brings us here this morning, has both a longer term and a more immediate narrative, and Mr Swinney made some reference to this, too. From the moment this Parliament began, it was clear that it was imbalanced, that our Parliament had been created with a very high degree of legislative competence, indeed full powers of parliamentary legislation over many critical areas of the life of our nation, but it was also clear that we had little fiscal or financial power. The original variable rate was a flawed power and was not surprisingly never used. The common powers began to address this, but it is Smith and the New Scotland Act, which really writes the next chapter in the story of devolution. This is, of course, the final chapter in a more urgent and febrile narrative born of the referendum campaign in 2014, because Smith itself and the legislative process that has ensued delivered that vow, made in the final days of that campaign, that remaining in the United Kingdom would not mean the status quo but rather a new devolution settlement and substantial new powers for this Parliament. It is worth reminding ourselves what that promise was, since it has been misquoted, misconstrued and simply used to mislead ever since. The promise was, firstly, that this Parliament be made permanent, secondly, substantial devolution of powers over tax and welfare, and thirdly, the protection of the Barnett formula. The first was readily agreed in the commission, although it is admittedly legislatively awkward to do. The second is indisputably delivered with the devolution of some £20 billion worth of taxation and over £2 billion worth of welfare benefits, along with the new power to create our own benefits too. The third, the protection of Barnett, is delivered by the fiscal agreement and thereby we continue to benefit from the pooling and sharing of resources across the United Kingdom when it comes to the bedrock of the social solidarity that binds us together in old age, in unemployment or in starting a family. Passing, Presiding Officer, we shouldn't forget that there are a number of other important responsibilities that devolved to us, two powers over our own democratic structure and elections, and topically complete control of our unconventional gas exploitation, fracking, which allows those of us in these benches to have made clear to the Scottish public that we will ban this process. However, it is powers over tax and welfare that will transform and have already begun to transform this very Parliament, because this debate is also the latest threat in a third and deeper, longer narrative, born out of the arid years of the 80s and early 90s, when we faced a Government intent on attacking not nurturing our crucial public services, determined to break, not work with the institutions of social solidarity such as trade unions, a Government that saw division as something strong and bracing, not something weak and destructive? Does Mr Gray not think that we have a Government like that at this moment in time that are trying to break things like the trade unions and public services? Does he not think that it would be better if we had even more powers to deal with those things, rather than relying on the Tories at Westminster to deal with them? I do indeed think that we have a Government like that at the moment, and I will come to what I think about that immediately. Out of the 80s and 90s came the idea that we could have a devolved democratic institution that would allow us to stand strong and make our own decisions about the kind of Scotland that we want, and that saw this place conceived, campaigned for and then created. I think that we do have a UK Government now hell-bent on wrong-headed austerity, cutting futures rather than investing. This Parliament was made for a time like this, and the new powers that will flow from the LCM and the legislation that follows ensure that we can choose a different way. Look at yesterday's statistics on inequality and poor health and teenagers. They need us to choose a different way, or to think of our children and care today, still with more chance of finding their way to prison than to university, or our fellow citizens living with disability, seeing their support cut and cut again. It is the choice to do better for them, which is coming our way. A legislative consent motion on a wet Wednesday morning could not get more mundane than that. Yet any of us who is not excited by the opportunity that this moment presents to us has to ask themselves if they are in the right place. Anyone who sees these powers over tax and welfare and only asks themselves why I do not have more, rather than what am I going to do with this incredible opportunity should be asking themselves if they are in the right place. The truth is this—we do not leave this Parliament after this parliamentary session as we found it. However bumpy the ride, we have transformed it. However, if that was the achievement of the Parliament's session now ending, and Mr Swinney elaborated how much of our time and attention it has dominated in the past five years, if that is the achievement of the session now ending, surely now the obligation is on us to use it to transform our nation and the lives of its people. The Parliament is indisputably big enough now to do that. The question is, are we big enough to make it happen? There is no excuse for timidity now, no excuse to accept cuts that we say are unacceptable, no excuse to fail in making the investments that we say are critical, no reason to say that there is another way and then fail to take it. The hard negotiations to empower this Parliament are done and now we must make the hard choices to use its powers to stop the cuts, to protect our people and to make their future what we know it can be. Thank you, Mr Gray. I now call on Annabelle Goldie, Ms Goldie, six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I understand that this is not my final speech that will take place next week, but, in a sense, the bill encapsulates a journey for me, a marked change in my own views since 1999, and it reflects a significant development in the life of this institution. In a way, it brings me to a natural conclusion of a process in which I have been closely involved at the very point when I also reached the conclusion of my time here, perhaps an appropriate symmetry. It is also imagined that, last time that I shall face the cabinet secretary, the Deputy First Minister, in this chamber. Before proceeding to the meat of this debate, I would ask the chamber to indulge me in some very brief reflections. What we are discussing this morning is the culmination of a process that began when there was a recognition that the Scotland Act 1998 was not the end of the story, but the opening chapter to a longer one. I realised after some years that the limitations of that act were putting a break on the natural desire of this Parliament to take on more responsibility and, at the same time, putting a corset on real political responsibility. In 2007, I was one of the progenitors of the Kalman commission, which took us, as the Deputy First Minister said, to the Scotland Act of 2012. In September 2014, the Smith commission was announced by the Prime Minister, and I was delighted to be asked to serve on that, and that process culminated in the Scotland bill, the legislative consent motion for which we debate today. I have also, with pride, played my part in another place, supporting this bill and ensuring that the parliamentary and political significance of the bill is understood. The genesis of this bill was the Smith commission, and I want to acknowledge the Herculean task undertaken by a man of immense talent, Lord Smith. His wise and patient stewardship of the process ensured a positive outcome. I also pay tribute to the other members of the commission, but I particularly wish to comment, perhaps in the role of the Cabinet Secretary, my friend John Swinney. I also remember the commission, a task for him, which I recognised was never going to be easy. He and I have been members of this Parliament since 1999. We have our different political objectives. We have a robust divergence of views on a range of issues, but he skillfully prosecutes his case with focus, intelligence, integrity and courtesy. It has been my privilege to see that at first hand, whether in his convenership of the Enterprise Committee, or in budget negotiations between our two parties in the period of minority government, or in the Smith commission, or in the challenging discussions to reach agreement in the fiscal framework, or in this chamber. He has earned respect as a public figure and it has been a pleasure to work with him as a political opponent. I shall particularly miss his hugely entertaining outbursts of full indignation. Between the Smith agreement and today, much has happened. On the bill, the UK Government listened to opposition parties and others, including the Scottish Government, bringing forward a raft of amendments at report stage and, throughout the proceedings in the House of Lords, which devolved abortion law, clarified powers over welfare and put beyond any doubt that there were no vetoes contained in the bill. The bill implements the Smith commission, in line with my party's previous pledges. No one can dispute the muscle and clout now coming to the Scottish Parliament. Lord Smith said on 24 February that, when the Smith agreement was passed to the Prime Minister and the First Minister, both gave their word that they would deliver it into law. They have met that promise in full. This is a big day for the Scottish Parliament, not because I am about to leave it, nor because I have just said some nice things about Mr Swinney, but because this is the day that the Scottish Parliament prepares to graduate. Today, this Parliament gives a green light to the Scotland bill. That bill will create a powerhouse Parliament. Independent research by SPICE has shown that the Scottish Parliament will become one of the most powerful devolved legislators in the world with a higher degree of autonomy than many federal states, such as the United States, Germany and Australia. However, this is also the day, as Ian Gray said, when the public debate about our country's future moves to questions of constitutional process in grievance politics and on to the real business of using power to improve people's lives. With control over around £12 billion of income tax revenues and around £5 billion of a sign that, plus responsibility over welfare benefits worth approximately, according to recent figures, £2.7 billion, real politics is arriving. The cabinet secretary's job just got harder. Let me console him. It could be worse. He has been spared being the chancellor of an independent Scotland, facing in year 1 a £15 billion deficit, turbulent oil markets and using someone else's currency. It is healthier that, for the first time in 17 years, we have discussed setting a Scottish rate of income tax in this Parliament, and we have begun to tentatively debate the design of employment services and welfare. That party is a big challenge for the Scottish Government in designing a social security system that is fair, but also incentivises its work and constructing a tax regime that does not play Scotland at its disadvantage with the rest of the United Kingdom. I and my party wanted to see a Scottish Parliament emerge from this process, which is more politically and financially responsible and accountable. I also wanted to see reflected the overwhelming desire of the majority of people in Scotland for a stronger Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. On all that, the Scotland Bill delivers. As to how all that plays out is for our successors as members of this Parliament, and I pray that they may be blessed with wisdom. My party supports the motion in Mr Swinney's name. Thank you, Ms Goldie. I now call on Bruce Crawford to speak on behalf of the Devolution for the Powers Committee. I am delighted to speak as the convener of the Devolution for the Powers Committee. I want to thank all the members of the Devolution Committee, past and present, for the manner on which they approached their tasks. I will pay special mention to Duncan MacNeill. I will remember fondly when a witness was being evasive when Duncan would roll his sleeves up in that shipyard fashion and make sure that he answered the questions that he wanted answered. We thank you for that, Duncan. I also want to thank all our parliamentary committees that have contributed to our report. I also thank our two advisers to the committee, Christine O'Neill and Professor Nicola McEwan. Lastly, I thank the particular tribute to Stephen Henry, Stephen Herbert and Andrew Howlett. They did a remarkable job as clerks to the committee. The process around the development and negotiation proposals for further devolution has, at times, been pressurised. The process was also frequently taken place behind closed doors and a private space where two Governments could negotiate. As a parliamentary committee, we felt strongly that we are a responsibility to try and open up the process in order to place transparency, accountability and parliamentary scrutiny at the heart of our work. That light, I am grateful to all the individuals, experts, organisations and particularly civic society who engage so fully with our work, particularly in regard to the proposed welfare powers. As a committee, we set ourselves two straightforward litmus tests to be passed before we considered that the committee would be able to recommend legislative consent to the Parliament. Firstly, the Scotland Bill provisions should meet both the spirit and substance of the Smith's commission recommendations. Secondly, that any fiscal framework agreed between the two Governments must be seen to be fair and sustainable. That is, that the Scottish budget should experience no detriment. We considered both tests to be equally valid and of the same value. Presiding Officer, I want to keep my remarks on the Scotland Bill in itself brief. I do ever want to welcome the changes that the UK Government made to the bill and the role played by the Secretary of State, David Mundell, many of which will reflect the recommendations that the committee had in its interim report. Just a couple of examples. Firstly, provisions that the Scottish Parliament cannot be abolished without a referendum of the Scottish people. After all, the people of Scotland are sovereign. Secondly, a clear articulation of the new powers that is closer to the spirit and substance of Smith in relation to the new and top-up benefits, carers allowance and the ability to introduce gender quotas. However, the committee continues to have some concerns regarding the content of the Scotland Bill. For instance, on employment support, it remains the case that only the programmes relating to individuals who have been unemployed for more than a year will be devolved. Nevertheless, I can say that, on balance, we consider the Scotland Bill meets our first test for legislative consent to be agreed. The fiscal framework became the key issue in our scrutiny of the proposals for further devolution. Ultimately, it was also the critical element in the whole process, as far as both Governments were concerned. I, too, congratulate the Deputy First Minister for his negotiating skills. In doing so, I was reminded of President Kennedy's words when he said, let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate. However, it would be wrong not to recognise that the delay in agreeing a fiscal framework had a negative impact on the scrutiny that we were able to undertake on that crucial agreement. I mentioned earlier that there should be no detriment to the Scottish budget, which was a key issue for the committee. We therefore welcome the agreement that has been reached on block grant adjustment and indexation for the transitional period to 2021-22. We have some remaining concerns, and I think that those concerns are shared by the Finance Committee. It is clear that the two Governments in the evidence to us appeared to have different interpretations of what will happen if no agreement can be reached following the review of the transitional period. To be fair, the Deputy First Minister was clear about what he thinks will happen, and the chief secretary far less so. However, I would say to the chief secretary in the words of another American president, Abraham Lincoln, that he cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today. Nevertheless, we welcome the fact that there will be an independent review of the operation of the fiscal framework, which will report by the end of 2021. It is also right to recognise that, despite the agreement that has been reached, there remains significant a move detail to be agreed. All of those arrangements must be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the next session of Parliament. Despite the lack of detail in some areas and the undeniable challenges that lie ahead, the committee was on balance prepared to endorse the fiscal framework. Accordingly, we consider that both the tests that we set ourselves at the outset of our work have on balance been met, and we recommended that the Scottish Parliament gives its consent to the Scotland bill. It has been my privilege to be a convener of the devolution for the powers committee. It is now time to pass the baton of responsibility on to the next Parliament. It will have a big job ahead of it, scrutinising any new legislation that will flow from this bill. To do that job justice, it will be vital that the structures and operations of the committees in the next Parliament are made fit for purpose to deliver the changes that the people of Scotland will rightly expect. We now move to the open debate, Linda Fabiani, followed by Duncan McNeill. I am really pleased to have reached this point, which is outlined by the Deputy First Minister, has come from Kalman Scotland Act 2012 and the promises made to Scotland just before the independence referendum, federalism and home rule. In grey talks of rhetoric around this question being misleading, my contention would be that, in the days running up to our independence referendum, it was those who live in Scotland who were in fact misled. Indeed, with the understandable dissent of Alex Johnson MSP, the Devolution and Additional Powers Committee concluded that in paragraph 710, there are still some areas where we feel that the Scotland bill continues to fall short of the spirit and substance of Smith, notably in relation to the devolution of employment programmes. That is, as Mr Crawford outlined. I hear the comments that Linda Fabiani makes, but how does that equate to the remark made by Lord Smith himself that he believed that the vow and the promises of commission had been fulfilled? Lord Smith can answer from himself. What I can talk about is what we came to an agreement on in the committee with the exception of yourself. The fact is that what was agreed in Smith and outlined in the agreement has been changed and slashed in terms of funding coming in relation to the work programmes. That cannot be denied. Let's look further at this. Committee members, SNP, Labour, Lib Dem and Green concluded that the committee is disappointed with the decisions that have been taken in the area of employment programmes, both in terms of the degree of devolution and now on the stark reductions in the actual budgets that will be devolved. As I said, a complete change from what was in the Smith agreement. The committee also said that those decisions will seriously undermine a future Scottish Parliament's ability to make a meaningful change to some people's lives through tackling unemployment. Let's not pretend that this Parliament is today considering a package of additional powers that will allow this or any future Scottish Government to truly transform lives. We have to be realistic about this. During the Smith commission's sittings, there were overriding themes—the potential use of additional powers, the principle of no detriment—that both Governments should enter into further negotiations with parity of esteem as equal partners. As far as the no detriment is concerned, despite the initial attempts of the Treasury to use the negotiations in the fiscal framework to cut Scotland's budget to the tune of £7 billion, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister negotiated a deal to deliver powers promised to Scotland—some of those powers—without allowing a single penny to be removed from the Scottish budget. I think that that is something that we should thank them both for very much indeed. As far as the parity of esteem and coming together as equal partners is concerned, we discussed this at committee. It was difficult to get a very definitive answer from the Treasury Minister, but I think that this Parliament should certainly, to a one, be behind anyone who in the future goes to negotiate for Scotland and should insist that that parity of esteem and equal partnership is maintained. The other overriding theme that I mentioned was what we do with any additional powers that come our way. I am pleased that the SNP Government has already set out plans to use the new powers to be delivered. Already, there have been statements about increasing carers allowance to the same level as jobseekers allowance, abolishing the bedroom tax and having the power to do that. That is something that is very important. We have spent an awful long time mitigating the effects of what has been coming from Westminster to Scotland. Although that is not the full package of powers that we would want to truly transform lives, as I said earlier, there are things that we can do with our own powers instead of always chasing behind trying to make up for the shortfalls of a Westminster Government that, let's face it, was not voted into power by Scotland. There are other things that we can do—practicalities, allowing benefit claimants to be paid fortnightly rather than monthly. Something that is very important to families who have disabled children is scrapping that 84-day rule that removes income. As John Swinney said earlier, bringing forward a social security bill that creates a system that has dignity at its heart is very important. Despite that huge cut in the work programme, we will do what we can using those powers to support people back into employment. There are many other things that I have already stated that we will do—many other things that we can do. One of my hopes is that, in that parity of esteem and equal partnership with the Westminster Government and the Scottish Government, there will be times when we look at things and say that it would be much more sensible to make adjustment here in relation to powers. The committee mentioned that about gifted because there is an anomaly there. I am sure that there will be many other things that we can discuss that will allow both sides to have that respect, both sides to be equal partners and actually working for the best of everyone who lives in Scotland. Thank you. I now call Duncan McNeill. This is Mr McNeill's final speech on the Parliament. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I take just a moment to thank all those members of staff who served me my breakfast and put up with my ransom at the IT system supported me in the committees of the Parliament right down to Paul Grice, whose advice and support that I valued very much over that pace.  One of my first speeches as a newly elected MSP, one of your predecessors, indulged me by allowing the opportunity to announce the birth of Chloe, the second of my four grandchildren. In a few weeks' time, like this Parliament, Chloe will turn 17. One of the first of the devolution generation, who have grown up every day with a Scottish Parliament as part of their lives. As a tiny baby as she was then, she has become a beautiful young adult. In many ways, the formative years of this Parliament have mirrored that familiar journey from infancy to maturity. We certainly had our teething promos, our sleepless nights, when we tackled very early on the discrimination and inequality that was within Scottish society and what ground we have made up. Of course, the cost of this beautiful building. Sometimes we felt almost under siege at that time. Through time, we have found a place in Scottish life and we have found our confidence, but without the ability seriously to tackle that and balance it, which was referred to Ian Gray, to raise our own money. Many of the debates were dismissed by lacking political maturity and at its worst resembling that sloppy teenager complaining about not getting enough pocket money. Those tensions became so heated that we were even threatened to leave altogether. Instead, we have agreed on a new settlement, which we should at least take satisfaction at the end of this day when we will all come together and agree, as the Deputy First Minister said, that this is a significant day for us all. We are now a 17-year-old Parliament about to come of age ready to take on more responsibilities and then earn more of our keep. Excited and enthused, as others have mentioned, about the opportunities that that will provide. Of course, there will be challenges there as well. It will change politics and it will change how we do our politics, but we have been given our key to the income tax door. However, as someone who has served in Holywood, Holyrood—that was my senior moment—sometimes a Hollywood technique, I have served in this Parliament as a party whip, as a corporate body member, a committee convener and a proud chair of the Labour Party group, as someone who who has agreed strongly for those powers to come to Scotland. Even when it was not as popular within Mown Parkway, I believe that I am qualified and entitled to question whether we have demonstrated sufficient responsibility to exercise them. In my experience, it tells me that this Parliament has not kept pace with that change and it must do so soon if its work is to be effective for the people that it serves. I was reminded this week that Robin Cook came to this Parliament when he was the house leader. This Parliament was new and there were things here to be learned in his journey to reform Westminster. It saddens me to say that we now have to do a bit of learning from them and how they run their business. It will be, of course, for the next Scottish Government to decide how their policies and how the new powers can be used to implement those policies and how we should tackle the big issues that we have been discussing here, how we build a successful economy and how we transfer and transform the health service to make it even better than it is. That biggest challenge of all is inequalities that affect and exclude so many of our population. However, it will be this Parliament's responsibility to ensure that there is accountability, scrutiny and even opposition when that is necessary. We must ensure that we are capable of meeting that challenge or we will face the consequences. The role of Presiding Officer will be key in that. I pay tribute to Tisha Marwick for the job that she has done as an advocate of change in the forum for her Parliament. I know that she has said herself that she has not been able to win all of the arguments. How can we ensure that our predecessor can take on this mantle and ensure that our procedure structures and ways of working are fitting for a modern, powerful Parliament? I believe that we need to ditch the convention. I believe that, in the way that we elect a new Presiding Officer, he is integral to changing Holyrood. Why not have open election where all members are free to put themselves forward? Not just those who are favoured by the leadership or the party whips, and be allowed to stand on their own manifesto of reform, gaining a mandate that cannot be restrained by those who oppose change? Those ideas could be put forward in hustings, engaging with people beyond this Parliament on their expectations for this Parliament and cross-party support should be necessary if not compulsory. Equally, the status and independence of our committees needs to be elevated and protected so that, finally, our ambitions for our committees are realised. We all wanted our Parliament to be different from Westminster better and, in many ways, we have succeeded. However, we must be open enough to recognise that, in some ways, it has not worked where the systems are better and the power and functions of our committee are one area where we need to get right. We must also ensure that our Parliamentarians and opposition parties have resources and means to do just that. A strong opposition is vital to our democracy and we need to ensure that they are equipped to do that effectively. Alas, that will be a debate that will be taken forward by members of the next Scottish Parliament, of which I will not be one. That is my last contribution that has been said after 17 years. On my first day as MSP for Greenland and Clyde, the first elected representative to be born and bred in the area, I stood just a few feet away from Donald Dewar when he made his famous speech to open the Parliament. He said, in the quiet moments today, we might hear some echoes from the past, the shout of the welder and the din of the great Clyde shipyards. I was a cockaburner, not a welder, but I hope that I have provided more than just an echo of Scotland's industrial past. I have always tried to be an authentic voice for working people in my community and the families that live there and many communities like it. When I entered the gates of that shipyard and the lower Clyde at the tender age of 15—even younger than Chloe—I thought that I had a job for life. I could never have imagined that, 50 years later, I would represent my colleagues, my family and neighbours in the Scottish Parliament and what anona that has been. We have seen what bad Governments can do when livelihoods of thousands of men and women were taken from them, a community that was plunged into massive employment and all the associated problems they are still living with. I have seen what good Governments can do with the regeneration of that community, attracting jobs, building new homes and schools and allowing people to live healthier lives. Good Government comes when they are forced to test their ideas, build consensus and correct mistakes. Chloe and her generation will look to the Scottish Parliament for good Government, which protects people when they are vulnerable and provides them with the opportunity when they are ready to take it. I know that there are good people in this Parliament and there can be good Government, and I will watch them from afar and wish them well for their future and the future of the Scottish people. Thank you, Mr McNeill. On behalf of the Parliament, I thank you for your contribution as a member, SPCB member, committee convener and as a great parliamentarian. You have served as Parliament well and it has been a privilege to have been on the journey with you. We wish you well and all you do in the future. I, too, found a Duncan McNeill speech last night when I was looking forward to this debate, because I had some inkling that Duncan would be giving some thoughts on his very distinguished time in this place. It was actually when he was congratulating a good friend of his on becoming the Deputy Minister for Sport and Culture in November 2000. I suppose that Duncan will remember that it is some relation to Labour's consideration of where sport and culture policies should be, and he uttered the somewhat pointed phrase, I wish him, this is the new minister, every success, and I look forward to hearing less about Puccini and more about Perini. Duncan will remember that Perini was a rather indifferent left-back at Ibrox in those days, and Puccini is rather well known for other reasons. Duncan always brought those thoughts to this place, and if I may say so, he also saved me on one occasion when he was chairman of the Labour parliamentary party. I forget now what the issue was, and frankly I'd probably choose to forget what the issue was, but there is some carry-on in transport as there inevitably was, and I had to go along to the Labour group to explain whatever Jackie Baillie's laughing, so it clearly must have been something in her area, but it explained some difficulty that had happened, and Duncan said, don't worry, they won't all eat you before breakfast, but probably just later, and I was grateful to him for getting me through that particular meeting. I also wanted to reflect, if I may, on the two, as the Deputy First Minister did on what's got us here in the first place. I recall a croft discussion in the 1999 election when someone who was in the middle of his lambing, and therefore wasn't particularly keen to talk to any politician, were said to me over a gate out in the west of Shetland. Until you lot have some responsibility for both sides of a croft of counters, he meant obviously the nation's balance sheets, then your place will not grow up. I think today much of that than the way in which the Deputy First Minister expressed it, and Ian Gray and Annabelle Goldie is so. It is that we would take decisions on both sides of that balance sheet that we would be able to ensure our decisions, whether to invest in schools or to cut education, whether to create a fair social security system for those less fortunate in our country as us, or indeed to really debate the divisions over tax and spend affecting every citizen and every business as they should be. That is, I think, profoundly important for the future of this institution in its relevance to people, but also in terms of its real importance. Others have mentioned the Smith commission, the basis for what is being discussed here today, this legislative consent motion. I just want to share and concur with the thoughts that were expressed around Lord Smith, also my own colleague Mike Moore, and all those who served on that body and the support for it, because there was some very able support across the civil servants of both London and, if I may say so, Edinburgh as well. I also want to pay tribute to John Swinney not just for his role in that, but I also want to agree with Annabelle Goldie's assessment and Ian Gray's assessment of what has happened on the fiscal commission and genuinely thank John Swinney for that work, which is profoundly important for now, but also, in my view, for the longer term as well. The Deputy First Minister made an observation that Smith and Commission's recommendations did not go far enough for some and were too far for others, and in that, of course, that is true. They did not go far enough for me either in some areas, because I profoundly believe in the devolution not just of power within to Scotland, but within Scotland as well. If there is one area that epitomises that for me, it is the Crown Estate. It has been a long business for many of us who particularly represent the islands and who have the marine environment to consider on a day-to-day basis that the Crown Estate responsibilities do not just sit in Edinburgh, but the responsibilities and the management power, not just money and not just the net finance but are devolved to the islands. I hope that in the next Parliament, whoever is the Government of the Day and whoever is the Deputy First Minister or the First Minister is able to fully deliver what the Smith Commission agreed in that area, which was those powers and those finances that would be devolved to the island areas and, indeed, to other island areas outwith the ones that I'm fortunate enough to represent. I also agree with Bruce Crawford's observations on the Further Powers Committee. I don't know what I will do with a Thursday morning from now on after the heaven knows how many running Thursdays we have had, although I thought tomorrow was going to be a nice quiet day. I could have maybe read a few papers and caught up with a bit of background reading, but oh no, I've got to speak on crofting law tomorrow morning, so from the sublime to crofting law anyway. Let me thank Bruce Crawford in particular for his very patient and sensible convenership of that committee. The fact that we just about produced a report that had all-party agreement was down to his skills and to his patience and the very few points that Alex Johnson descends for entirely understandable political reasons are in the overall scheme of things, I would suggest, fairly minor. It is no mean achievement on the constitution, given the make-up of this place, to come up with a broadly acceptable package for all. Can I make two final points, if I may, Presiding Officer, or even one, since you're waving at me? Let me just make one. The one area that I do want the Deputy First Minister to consider carefully is that the review that has been institutionalised in this fiscal commission report is very significant, and what it may do in terms of creating problems in the future, I do believe, needs to be reflected on very closely so that we genuinely achieve all that we might out of this consent motion when it is passed later today. Thank you. I now call Alex Salmond. This is Mr Salmond's final speech in the Parliament. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I start by congratulating both Annabel Goldie and Duncan McNeill on their service to this Parliament? Their contribution has been substantial indeed. I would say to Duncan McNeill for that. I'd be aware of taking too many lessons from the Palace of Westminster. I was in the common gestory and I glanced up at the House of Lords and Unceter and it had the words, "'Adjournment for the leisure period.'" Now, I'll have to ask Annabel what to do with her time when the adjournment is on, and maybe it would be popular to introduce it into this Parliament who knows once we find out exactly what takes place in that timescale. I would also join with Duncan McNeill when thanking my constituency staff, the parliamentary staff and the governmental staff, without whom no contribution in this place would have been possible in any of our careers. I'm aware, Presiding Officer, of making a valedictory address that there is a major rival attraction down south today. However, on balance, I feel that the champion chase at Cheltenham Racecourse will not be overshadowed by my remarks. I'm grateful for the opportunity provided by this debate to reflect on the position that this Parliament and this country is now in. The legislative consent motion before us clearly does not pave the way for near-federalism, or devil to the max, or home rule, all things raised in the last days of the referendum. However, it does represent a further transfer of power from London to Scotland. That much should be welcomed. It is also to be very much welcomed that, thanks to the iron resolve of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, it was ensured that this was done according to the principles of no financial loss. It is not immediately apparent that this would have been the outcome under other leadership of this Parliament. We should remember that it is 10 years since a Labour First Minister suggested that there should be no further transfer of power from London to Scotland, and five years since a Conservative leader said that a line should be drawn in the sand. This Parliament and this country are on a journey. Under those circumstances, it is sometimes easier to see the full extent of the distance travelled when one is not at the very heart of the battle. In my first speech to this chamber, I refuted the idea that we were a divided Parliament representing a divided country. I suggested that we were not divided but diverse. All of us have experienced an extraordinary referendum campaign, one that was hard fought certainly, but one that produced a level of democratic participation and engagement of which most societies can only dream of. Yes, we are a country of different views, but we are not divided. There is, in fact, a broad consensus on the need for this Parliament to assume greater responsibility for the governance of Scotland, and we are definitely stronger, so much stronger, as a result of that. We should reflect on some of those that we have lost, Bashir Ahmad, John Farkham and Roll, Tom McCabe, David McCletchie, Margot MacDonald, five different individuals, five different parties, five different viewpoints, but still diverse rather than divided. 17 years ago, when this Parliament was reconvened, Donald Joe delivered the best speech of his life. In an elegant historical sweep, he described Scotland as a journey begun long ago, which has no end. In truth, we would do well to debate more the history and culture of this country. It is a subject worthy of discussion and, after all, it is the real reason that this place exists. However, when Donald spoke, his administration was an executive, not a Government. The Parliament anguished every time that trespassed into reserved areas, and there were real doubts as to whether the fledgling Parliament would stand the test of time. Those questions are now over. There is no doubt as to the permanence of this institution, and the only question is at what pace will the Parliament, the Scottish people and their Government assume further responsibility. Will that make us totally independent? We are not in an absolute sense. All nations are interdependent one upon the other. That fact of life has not changed regardless of the status of Scotland. However, the greater of our independence, the greater our ability to impact on the political environment around us, the greater our power will be to determine the circumstances of our fellow citizens. It will be this Parliament that decides to intervene to protect the dispossessed as we have done over the bedroom tax. It shall be this Parliament that determines the life chances of the future as we have done in nursery education. It shall be this Parliament that places no financial barrier on human potential as we have done by the abolition of tuition fees. I hope and believe that one day soon it will be this place that removes weapons of mass destruction from Scotland, this place that desires to fully commit to a renewable future, and this place that acts not just to secure but to develop Scotland's proper position in the mainstream of Europe. I wish all members well in their choices. For those retiring, you have done the nation some service. For those moving on to new careers, then think well of this Parliament. For those standing for election, I wish you all luck, albeit with varying degrees of enthusiasm. Let me leave you with these final thoughts. There is no greater honour in public life than to be a member of this Parliament. There is no greater task than to mould the public purpose of Scotland. There is no greater cause than to serve that of the people of this country. So, with that, it is goodbye from me for now. On behalf of the Parliament, I thank you for your contribution as an MSP and as the First Minister of Scotland. You served the Parliament and Scotland with distinction, and I thank you for that. The Parliament will certainly be a much duller place without you. I wish you well in all that you do in the future. Stuart Maxwell, to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm. I believe that today represents another significant step on the journey of this Parliament, and I feel privileged to have played a part in that process as a member of the Devolution Further Powers Committee. In fact, before that, I was a member of the Independence Referendum Bill Committee and before that, the Scotland Bill Committee, so I think that I have served on a considerable part of that journey. Scotland's devolution package is changing, although perhaps not to the extent that many of us had hoped. During the independence referendum campaign, we heard Gordon Brown's promise that a no vote would result in the devolution of further powers that would ensure that we get as close to federalism as it is possible to get. We also heard the current Prime Minister say that the Scotland Bill would make Scotland one of the most powerful devolved legislatures in the world. In my view, neither of those promises have been met. In fact, that is also the view of the majority of the Devolution Committee. The Scotland Bill could have and should have done more to strengthen the powers of this Parliament. I very much welcome the transfer of any further powers to the Scottish Parliament, but let's put that bill into the proper context. Under the settlement, Westminster will continue to control around 70 per cent of tax-raising powers, and a hugely significant proportion of powers over welfare and social security. Although the Scottish Parliament will have power over additional areas, it will still be without the full powers that it needs to completely protect public services and tackle inequality and transform this country in the way that it deserves. Nonetheless, further powers are coming to this Parliament. I welcome the First Minister's commitment that the SNP and Government will use those powers to keep Scotland moving forward. In fact, we have already started doing just that. On Monday, the Scottish Government launched a consultation on its plans to reform APD, which is, of course, one of the powers being transferred to Holyrood under the Scotland Bill. A report last week by the British Air Transport Association said that the UK APD rate for long-haul flights is the highest in the world. Although that may or may not be okay for London's airports, it certainly holds back the potential of Scotland's airports, including Glasgow Airport. APD, at its current rate, restricts Scotland's ability to attract and retain direct international routes. I strongly believe that the Scottish Government's plans to make Scotland more competitive in this area will be a real benefit to not only tourism industry, but it will also boost economic growth and create new job opportunities. There are several other new powers being developed that are worthy of comment, not least those over welfare. Earlier this month, Justice Secretary Alex Neil outlined initial plans for the establishment of Scotland's new social security agency, pledging to put dignity and respect at the heart of Scotland's devolved welfare system. I contrast that to the approach to welfare taken by the Tories at Westminster, and the case is clear why those powers are better held in Scotland's hands rather than those of Westminster's. We will hear later today George Osborne's budget plans, but reports that the chancellor wants to cut personal independence payments for more than 640,000 disabled people are deeply concerning. PIP is awarded to give disabled people access to simple aids and appliances that allow them to live independently. Charities have warned that those cuts will have a devastating impact on some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Those who can afford at least face losing up to £150 a week. If it comes to pass, that is a particularly nasty and regressive step taken by the chancellor. Let's just say that I wasn't surprised to read reports in the press that Ruth Davidson doesn't want George Osborne anywhere near Scotland during her party's holiday campaign. Indeed, figures published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies indicate that the number of children living in absolute poverty in the UK will increase by £2.6 million by 2020-21. As a result of the chancellor's cuts to social security. We have seen the bedroom tax that Scotland can and will do things differently, and the sooner that further welfare powers are under the control of this Parliament, the better. Presiding Officer, I want to turn now to the fiscal framework. As we have heard at the start of negotiations, the Treasury tried to force a further reduction to Scotland's budget of £7 billion over the next 10 years. Many people have praised the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister for standing up to the Treasury and securing a fair deal for Scotland, and they have been right to do so. As a result of their hard work, there will not be any detriment to Scotland's budget, despite the Treasury's attempts at a cash grab. In the future, the key success of those negotiations is that any attempt to impose a settlement on Scotland cannot happen without the agreement of the Scottish Government. This Government and this Parliament deserve that equality of esteem. Negotiations over the fiscal framework deal took the best part of a year. As our convener said in the devolution committee, it is unfortunate that these often difficult and certainly protracted discussions interfered somewhat in the devolution committee's scrutiny of the proposals. That is a point reflected in the committee's final report and one that is worth considering in the context of intergovernmental relations in the future. The devolution further powers committee has met almost 50 times since it was first set up in November 2014. In that time, we have engaged with numerous experts, witnesses, Government officials and ordinary members of the public. I thank all those who helped to inform the committee's work on the bill. The dedication and diligence of the clerking team, the spice researchers and the press support staff also deserve our appreciation and our thanks. The work of this Parliament has undoubtedly been integral to making improvements to the Scotland bill. I am particularly pleased that the permanence of the Scottish Parliament has been recognised and that it will not be possible for it to be abolished without the will of the Scottish people, as expressed in a democratic referendum. I hope that as we approach the end of this Parliament, we do so with a sense of determination that will ensure that the next Parliament will use these new powers to make Scotland better and that all those who are fortunate enough to serve in that Parliament will aspire to deliver a fairer and more prosperous country. I am very tight for time this morning to be followed by Mark MacDonald. Up to six minutes, please. No, my final speech, for which I am very grateful, given the number of distinguished final speeches that we have heard today. I would like to pay tribute to my colleague Duncan McNeill, who has been an outstanding chair of the health committee, as I found out during the last six months, but has also made a massive contribution to the Parliament in many other ways. I pay tribute to Alex Salmond, who is my colleague in two parliaments. Along with his colleagues, he has changed Scottish politics in ways that nobody on this side could have anticipated in 1999. I am not sure whether it was Annabelle Goldie's last speech or not, but I would also pay tribute to her, certainly for her many political skills, including a friendly respect for opponents. I have been so obsessed with the block grant adjustment that I am slightly in danger of neglecting the other important parts of the Scotland bill, but it was central to the whole process. If anyone does not understand all the final details of it, I can commend the technical annex, which describes it with admiral clarity. Mainly, I congratulate the Scottish Government for sticking to its guns on this, particularly in relation to the index per capita method for the block grant adjustment. I noticed at the Scottish National Party conference in Scotland that the First Minister talked about the Treasury and said that we dubbed it. I did think that it was not entirely positive for inter-government relations, but I think that it is a pretty accurate assessment of the situation. I think that it would probably be courteous to also thank the UK Government for being prepared to be flexible, no doubt under duress, but I understand that they started by advocating levels deductions, which would be a total disaster for this Parliament. They then were prepared to move to, I always have to check, I get this right, tax capacity adjusted level deduction, which was an improvement, and that is the fundamental method that is going to be used before the adjustment, but then, of course, they gave way for at least five years. I know that Stewart Maxwell and others are concerned about what is going to happen in five years' time, but it is in the agreement that nothing is prejudged, both sides must agree, and my view is that so much is going to change in politics in the next five years. We are going to have all the figures for the two methods over the next five years, so I really think that we should not get too exercise about that at this moment in time. I think that the main potential area of controversy over the next five years is the spillover effects. You know that there is talk about direct effects and behavioural effects with a material impact, and they have to be taken account of. That is a bit of a grey area, as many of the people who gave evidence to our committee have said. John Swinney last week said that the Scottish Fiscal Commission would have a role in that, as well as the OBR, and hopefully that will be resolved. We do not need to go over last week's debate on the Scottish Fiscal Commission, but I am glad about its new role. I think that one other area of outstanding concern is to do with the publication of documents. John Swinney said that he would like to publish a range of documents. The Treasury appears to be against that, but it would be helpful in the summing up of John Swinney could explain exactly what documents he has in mind now, because clearly we have the technical annex, which is the most important document, but other ones obviously are relevant. Moving on from that area, again Bruce Crawford tribute him in particular because of the work of his committee, which I have joined relatively, because I think that as many of the changes did flow from their recommendations, the Scottish Parliament, the permanence of the Scottish Parliament is more securely in legislation now. There has been progress and equality, particularly with reference to quotas on boards, which we now have powers to do, and the various social security changes that some other people have mentioned. For example, there was a new clause in the bill about new benefits in areas of devolved competence in the fiscal framework agreement. It says that there will be no clawback if there is a new benefit in a devolved area. There is a remover of restriction on competence for carers allowance. What was described as the veto on universal credit flexibility is that there is now only a matter of timing, which is an improvement, and there is a remover of the restrictions on discretionary housing payments. I think that there was progress during the course of the bill. Some concerns still about what is in the bill, about the Sewell convention, it does not cover all the strands of that. There are still areas, some small, some larger, where people would have liked to go further. One of the key ones is flagged up by the devolution more powers committee in relation to employment. I certainly supported in a previous debate about wanting, for example, the access to work programme to be devolved, which has not happened. There is also concern that the amount of money that we are getting for the programmes that we have responsibility for has reduced because of UK Government policy changes from £53 million to £7 million. Of course, there are disappointments there. We all know that this is all governed by how much money we get for welfare and by how much the UK Government is spending on welfare. As that has reduced, that is a matter of concern. Having said that, I think that we have many reasons to celebrate the changes that have been made, but many of the proposals that were in the original bill. Today is not the day to talk about the use of those tax powers. Obviously, we have disagreements on that and my latest disagreement, although I have expressed it before, was relation into air passenger duty. For another day—probably not for another day for me on air passenger duty—this is probably the last debate that I shall do with John Swinney, so it is appropriate for me also, since he has been my colleague in two parliaments, to pay respect to what I regard as his manifest political abilities. As I said, in relation to Annabelle Goldie, one of those is certainly a friendly respect for opponents. Mark McDonald, to be followed by Leslie Brennan up to six minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Having served as a member of both the Devolution of Further Powers Committee and the Finance Committee, I cannot help but feel that a gaping hole is about to open in my life, as the Scotland bill and the fiscal framework discussions no longer play such a prominent role. However, I want to pay tribute to the convenership of Bruce Crawford. One of the necessities of a Thursday morning committee is that the timescale can be truncated in terms of the ability to take evidence, and that requires the convener to run a tight ship. I think that most people would accept that, in that respect, Mr Crawford ran a very tight ship, but at the same time it was very cognisant of the fact that he wanted to ensure that all members of that committee had an opportunity to have their input to the evidence-taking sessions, so I think that he is to be congratulated wholeheartedly on his efforts in that regard. The clerking team has put in a phenomenal amount of work to make sure that the committee was kept well briefed, well informed and fed and watered as well, which was always welcome. In terms of the debate that we have had so far today, I think that we have seen a number of very thoughtful contributions, particularly the final contributions in this Parliament from Annabelle Goldie, Alex Salmond and Duncan McNeill. I was interested when Duncan McNeill analogised the Scottish Parliament's transition to that of somebody attaining various stages of life and spoke of how there had been a threat to leave, but that now, as a 17-year-old, we had decided to stay and were instead going to earn more of our own keep. I personally left home, finally, at the age of 24, so I am very much looking forward to how the next seven years of the Parliament's journey will develop. Having served on both devolution of further powers and on the finance committee, I thought that it would be remiss of me not to look a little bit at the fiscal framework and also some of the financial elements that relate. What was very clear very early on was that there was a disagreement, I think that we would term it, in terms of what no detriment constituted in relation to how the fiscal framework was to operate. It is a testament to the negotiating skills of the Deputy First Minister that he was able to arrive at a position where the Treasury agreed with the definition that the Scottish Government applied, albeit that there was perhaps a slightly more torturous route to get to the methodology, because the Treasury seemed unwilling to sign up to what the Scottish Government had initially put on the table. In terms of how things will operate in future, I think that there are a number of areas in which this Parliament is going to have to pay very close attention to and give very careful scrutiny to. The first is in relation to tax avoidance and tax evasion, because in terms of the collection of income tax and the Scottish income tax, that will remain the preserve of HMRC, and while the Scottish Government is establishing revenue Scotland for the collection of land and buildings transaction, tax and landfill tax, it has established a very strong and widely regarded as very strong anti-avoidance mechanism within that legislation. We are aware that there is still a great deal of tax that goes unpaid at a UK level, and so there will be a need to scrutinise the measures that are being taken by HMRC in relation to the collection of Scottish income tax, because that will have a material impact on the funds that are available to this Parliament for future use. The second is around some of the limitations that do exist. I am not seeking to play down the role that this Parliament will have in setting tax rates and bans in the future, but we should also remember that there are elements of income tax that will still not be in the preserve of this Parliament. The first is around personal allowance, and the second is about savings and dividend income. Should individuals be in a position to transfer income from their regular income into dividend income, that money would not be readily available to this Parliament, it would flow instead to the Treasury through dividend. I think that there needs to be some consideration given over time if that proves to be material how we go about addressing some of that. I think that the final point that I would make, Presiding Officer, is that I think that with these powers coming and with the experience that we have had in relation to how land and buildings transaction tax has operated since it was established and the forstalling that we saw at the initial stage, we need as a Parliament to consider how we do things in terms of our budget setting processes in the future, because we are now going to be in a position where we will be, as part of that budget process, announcing potentially changes to tax rates, changes to tax bans and that obviously potentially triggers behavioural change amongst those who will be paying. The further out that that change is signposted, the more likely it becomes that behavioural change will take effect and that has an impact in both that financial year and then also the coming financial year in which the changes are to take effect. So I think that we need to look very carefully at the way that the budgets are constructed within this Parliament, how they are consulted upon and we need to rethink some of the old thinking which was fine when we were only responsible for dealing with a block grant and we didn't have to worry about the potential behavioural changes that might come, but in future years if we are to be expecting a finance secretary to stand up and announce the potential tax rates some six months in advance, we have to bear in mind the behavioural effects that that could give rise to and I think we have to consider what we do with those and how we set budgets in future. Now Colin Leslie Brennan to be followed by Alison Johnstone. Thank you. It's a great honour to speak in this debate and to follow so many great parliamentarians who've shaped this place over the last 17 years and also to speaking in the debate as someone who's followed this process not as a parliamentarian but as just an ordinary punter and a local councillor. So I wish to address the areas in the Scotland Bill that have often been overlooked and where I hope the Parliament will use new powers to address inequalities and these areas are funeral payments, fixed odds, betting terminals and abortion. I welcome the devolution of the benefits for funeral expenses and with the duty of providing financial assistance to meet or reduce funeral expenses that will move from Westminster to the Scottish Government. Funeral costs can impose a considerable financial burden on those left behind and the burden not only reflects that funeral costs are subject to market forces but also that bereavement in itself may cause financial hardship. I hope that the Scottish Government can improve the current process of applying for a social fund funeral payment, which is known to be uncertain and complicated due to confusion around eligibility in the way in which family relationships are assessed and how decisions regarding responsibility for funeral costs are made. Clements are often left feeling frustrated and with the increased sense of shame for being unable to afford the funeral for their family member. Research suggests that only 55 per cent of claimants who receive a funeral payment award experience a substantial shortfall between the contribution and the amount of the cost of the funeral. Scottish Government data suggests that the typical award is approximately £1,300, whereas the average cost of a funeral is about £3,500. I hope that the next Scottish Government will rectify that and eradicate funeral poverty in Scotland. I wish to turn to part 4 of the other legislative competence, point 51, gaming machines on licensed betting premises. I occasionally enjoy a punt. I used to work as a croupier for a few years and I saw how gambling can negatively affect people's lives. As an academic, I did research in this area. Since becoming a councillor in Dundee in 2012, I have raised concerns about the proliferation of gambling opportunities, particularly fixed osbett and terminals. In March 2014, all councillors in Dundee agreed a problem gambling policy, which details a number of innovative steps to minimise harm from gambling. At that time, research noted that in Dundee there were 30 gambling venues and 19 of them, 63 per cent, within 500 metres of areas designated as the most deprived. That is particularly concerning as research results from the British gambling prevalence study shows a significant correlation between problem gambling with household income with those in the lowest income categories nearly three times as likely as the average to be defined as a problem gambler. Those not in paid work and those in manual occupations were also significantly more likely to be a problem gambler. I hope that, in the next session, the newly devolved powers will be used to address the needs for greater control over fixed osbett and terminals. I thank Lizzie Benn for taking intervention, but I agree with Lizzie Benn and accept that the powers that are in the bill to come to this Parliament are very much limited. No matter what happens with them, we will still be limited in what we can do with them. I agree that they are narrow in their scope, but I think that they could actually do a great deal of good. I would suggest that the Parliament consider actually devolving this power to local authorities, because I think that local authorities are the best place to actually take those decisions. Lastly, I want to turn to part 4 of the other legislative competence and point 52, abortion. I was deeply disappointed by the decision of the Greens to push for the devolution of abortion during the Smith commission, and I was angry with David Mundell's decision to devolve abortion as he could, and I quote, not see a convincing constitutional reason why abortion laws should not be devolved. In the run-up to the referendum in Dundee East, where I was working, the team and I spoke to 15,000 people and not one man or woman mentioned to us, and when people have spoken to across Scotland, no one was mentioned about why abortion should be devolved. To me, abortion is a human rights issue, and I strongly believe that abortion rules ought to be the same across the UK, i.e. they ought to be extended to women in Northern Ireland, thus it was not in favour of this being devolved. I do not raise this lightly, and I say this as a Catholic woman and mother. However, evidence uncovered by abortion rights Scotland, Hannah Pearson and other researchers at the University of Glasgow since 2014 has illuminated the various geographical variations across the UK and Scotland. Abortion for non-medical reasons is generally not provided in Scotland after 18 to 20 weeks, despite the legal limit in Great Biddon being 24 weeks, meaning that women seeking a late termination in Scotland are forced to travel to England. While the procedure is funded by NHS Scotland, the cost of travel and accommodation is funded by the women, which is unacceptable. I hope that, given the findings that this is rectified and that the women who are seeking a late abortion in Scotland can do so in Scotland. I hope that, with the new powers, there are further improvements in Scotland. Many thanks. We now move to Alison Johnstone to be followed by Stuart McMillan. I am sorry, but I can only give you five minutes, Ms Johnstone. At times during the year and a half, I have had the pleasure to sit on the Further Powers Committee. I have wondered whether this day would ever come. If we were finally to debate the LCM, whether the committee would have a unanimous view and what that view might be. As colleagues have rightly stated, we have got to this position to be able to recommend with unanimity to the Parliament that it gives consent, as in no small part due to the work of our clerks, witnesses, our advisers, to Spice, to the Solister's Office and to our convener, Bruce Crawford. I was really pleased to have the opportunity to witness Duncan McNeill, roll his sleeves up and see him in action. I, too, would like to thank him for his contribution to this Parliament and wish him all the very best for the future. I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Alex Salmond for his contribution. To colleagues, I would like to thank you all too. I think that we all demonstrated a willingness to work constructively on issues that have great potential to polarise. I believe that we can be proud that the legislation has been strengthened in several notable areas as highlighted as a result of the scrutiny of this committee and all committees involved. Undoubtedly, questions will continue to be asked and debate will go on. Does the Bill honour the agreement of the five parties in Scotland? Are the Smith commission recommendations delivered in full? However, what I would like to focus on in the few minutes that I have left is where we are now. I am clear that the Scotland Bill and the agreed fiscal framework have the potential to enable Scotland to take progressive strides in a direction with more opportunities and positive outcomes for the people of Scotland. I acknowledge that there are many of us in this chamber who will continue to feel constrained and frustrated that we must endure cuts that we would not vote for and will continue to build the case for independence from the ground up. There will be those in this chamber who feel that those powers are sufficient. However, in the meantime, we have a duty to positively discuss, debate and use the new powers to improve the lives of people in Scotland. It is up to us to see that they are used to their very best effect. Scotland's Government and Scotland's Parliament have an opportunity to sketch out a vision and begin to deliver it. The purpose of the debate is not to steer policy for 20 years. It is about the powers that we know we have within the fiscal framework that has been agreed for the next five years. Let us focus on those powers and on Scottish solutions to the challenges that we face. Let us become a bolder Parliament. That will not be achieved simply by focusing on what the UK Government is doing. We have powers that will enable us to do much more than decide whether or not to add one P to the UK's income tax rate. At a local level, management often revenues from many of the economic assets of the Crown of State in Scotland will enable us to invest in and unlock the power in our communities. We are agreed, as Tavish Scott has said, that devolution must not stop here in Holyrood. When decisions are made closer to home, local communities can decide how they want to use their rural land. It will give communities the ability to invest in local priorities. Power over oil and gas licensing will enable us to further ensure that Scotland rejects even more unequivocally and even more powerfully applications to further endanger our local and global environment and health and ban fracking for once and for all. The most recent GERS figures highlight the need for a just transition to a low-carbon economy. We have the potential to not only match, but exceed the renewables output of many of our European neighbours. It is clear, unfortunately, that the Westminster Government has an ideological dislike for clean green energy, energy that lends itself to democratic community ownership, and it is thwarting the development of renewables here, but we must do all that we can with the new powers to invest in the low-carbon economy that will bring real energy security and job security. Due to the incredibly tight timescales involved in our scrutiny and in the debate today, we are unable to properly discuss the potential of the devolution of energy efficiency and schemes to mitigate fuel poverty, but we will have the ability to change the design of the system, to provide us with an opportunity to look at how the system can be improved and adapted to suit Scotland's particular circumstances, our housing and our weather. We can do more with those powers and we can better care for all who care in Scotland. Let's make sure that those powers increase the carers allowance to a level that probably recognises this important work. In closing, I would like to make sure that we do all we can to include Scotland at its widest as the discussion goes forward. I know that sometimes discussions have to take place behind closed doors, but let's be as transparent as possible, and I would just like to say in response that it is absolutely right and proper that abortion be dissolved to this Parliament. Thank you. I now call on Stuart McMillan, after which we will move the closing speeches up to five minutes. Please, Mr McMillan. It certainly has been a privilege to serve on the Devolution for the Powers Committee and the predecessor committees in this Parliament. It certainly has been an interesting and fabulous journey to be on. Before I touch upon the actual report on the LCM, I would like to offer just a couple of brief comments regarding three speakers before in this debate. First of all, I would like to commend the MSP for Aberdeenshire East, and this is his final speech today. It was under the leadership of Mr Salmond to encourage me to join the SNP and, certainly for the whole desire and campaign for independence. Also, his leadership in the minority administration between 2007 and 2011 certainly helped this Parliament to grow in stature but also the people of Scotland's conference grow. I wish you well in your future, Mr Salmond. I also want to offer some comments to Duncan McNeill and Annabelle Goldie. Obviously, we have had regular dealings since 2007, and certainly we have not had too many fights, which is something that I warmly welcome, but it is also something that I believe that apart from obviously missing McNeill, we will not be slaves at the moment, but it is certainly something that the public—I believe that the public actually want to see their politicians try to work together when they possibly can. Clearly, we have political differences, but I think that, in the main, we certainly have attempted to do that since 2007, and I wish you both very well in your future. Regarding the debate in front of us today, I have certainly been very happy to put my name to the report that our committee has undertaken. Certainly one of the things about it was about what we looked at. Will the bill deliver both the letter and the spirit of the Smith commission recommendations? There are some key issues where the bill hasn't happened. Some areas where the Scotland bill still falls short are the spirit and substance of what Smith proposed, but there are some issues where I will touch upon the remaining contribution. One of which is the fixed odds betting terminals. Let's have been and spoke about this a few moments ago. It's something that I have raised previously in the Parliament. Unfortunately, when we looked at the draft clauses, there was a concern that the fixed odds betting terminals and the main element of power and regulation would still remain with Westminster. Unfortunately, the Scotland bill still falls short of what Smith has recommended, with the proliferation of the fixed odds betting terminals. The current clauses that have been in the bill are also very, very limited. They confine the Scottish Parliament to dealing with gaming machines where it's possible to stake more than £10 in a single game. That applies only to betting premises that are licensed after the date on which the clause will come into force. I certainly would like to thank the local government and regeneration committee for their input into the issue. The committee carried out extensive work on the issue of fixed odds betting terminals and supported the principle that the Scotland bill provisions should apply to existing betting premises. The committee would give the Scottish Parliament real and effective legislative powers to address the concerns that there are too many fixed odds betting terminal machines in Scotland. Paragraph 523 of the devolution committee report highlights the evidence that is applied by the Scottish Government. Paragraph 681 highlights our recommendation that the bill falls far short of fixed odds betting terminals. The second issue is that the Crown of State, which Tavish Scott spoke about earlier on, and my colleague Rob Gibson went through the evidence sessions and highlighted the issue of the Crown of State on a regular basis. The issues of the Crown of State, many issues were raised regarding the situation, regarding the future devolution and that of Fort Canaird. Paragraph 6772 welcomes the agreement reached regarding the management of the community assets and the review generated from those assets, but it also highlighted the further devolution of the powers to the island communities. Paragraph 673 highlights where the committee believed that the UK Government did not agree with us on how the draft of the clauses, unfortunately, was not agreed to. I am conscious that I have only got five minutes, and I am just about to conclude. I certainly have been delighted to be a member of the committee, and I want to be a tribute to the convener, Bruce Crawford, for how he has handled all of our deliberations and also the collegiate fashion with which he has worked with the previous deputy conveners, including Duncan McNeill. However, the members of the committee would be nothing without the assistance, the fabulous assistance, from the clerking team and everyone who has given evidence to the committee. For that, I want to be a tribute to them also, because they do huge work that sometimes is not always recognised. We now move to closing speeches. Very tight for time, up to six minutes, Mr Johnson. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. This is a debate that comes at the end of a very important process, but, as Ian Gray said, on a damp Wednesday morning, it perhaps had the potential to be a damp squib. There are two reasons why that has not happened. The first, of course, is that it has been an opportunity for a number of our distinguished members to make what will be their final contributions to this Parliament. I pay particular tribute to Annabel Goldie to Duncan McNeill, who has an extraordinary length of time to speak in this debate, for most other people. Given his experience, that is sensible. Finally, of course, Alex Salmond. However, listening to Alex Salmond's final remarks, I was suffering a bit from deja vu, because, like some of the other members in this Parliament, I think that we have heard him do that before. The thing that worried me most was that he finished his speech by saying goodbye for now. There is a possibility that he may be planning in his role as the Muhammad Ali of Scottish Politics to make that second comeback, so let's watch this space. Nevertheless, again, as Ian Gray said earlier, I am genuinely excited by the opportunities that this process has represented. It has been my pleasure to be a part of the Devolution Further Powers Committee during the last 18 months to see how that has matured and come to fruition. It has been a fascinating process, and it was kicked off of course by the referendum campaign and the outcome of that referendum. We had the vow, we had the Smith commission and then eventually we had the Scotland bill. While many criticised or pointed at the UK Government suggesting that it would not stick to the timescales that it committed to, that was never the case, and the UK Government has worked to deliver on that. I would like to pay particular tribute to David Mundell for the work that he has done in guiding the bill through Westminster. It is my view that the reason why David Mundell understood so well the processes that were in tune and delivered the bill in the way he did was that he benefited from having had six years as a member of this Parliament. That combination of experience in the two Parliaments was what delivered a near at the other end of that channel which this Parliament could communicate with, and I hope that the Government shared that quality experience in working with David. The important part of this whole process of course was the fiscal framework. I think that the negotiations towards achieving an agreement on the fiscal framework were the most important part of this process for more reasons than one. A lot has been said about parity of esteem, and sometimes that parity of esteem between two Governments can deteriorate into being something akin to parity of contempt, but it was parity. That is where this process has demonstrated a maturing of the devolved settlement and a maturing of the relationship between Scotland's two Governments. I think that the achievement of the fiscal framework agreement has delivered a good deal for Scotland. It has put in place a deal that will reflect the figures that would have been generated by the Barnett formula, and will, as a result, mean that over the next five years Scotland will be much better off than it would have been under any form of fiscal autonomy or heaven help us independence. Scotland has got a good deal and the UK Government has delivered on its promise. That is what brings us today to the point of agreeing the legislative consent motion, and of course the Conservatives at decision time today will support that legislative consent motion, because we believe that this is a good deal for Scotland. However, reflecting on the comments that have been made, particularly by some of the Government's back benches, I think that there is still a failure to understand what this deal delivers. Scotland now has a mature parliament and a Government that will, over the period of its next session, have the power to make decisions that will influence how things are done in Scotland. We have heard a few speeches that have been the typical back benchars spend-spend-spend approach to Scottish Government, but this change is about accountability. Tough decisions will have to be made about taxation, and the Scottish Government at the end of its next five-year period will have to go to the Scottish people and account for the decisions that it made on how money was raised, not just on how money was spent. That is where this delivers maturity and accountability, and that is why we on the Conservative side believe that this deal is a very important move forward in the maturing of Scotland's parliamentary democracy and self-governance. The truth is that the more Scotland's two Governments work together, the more the union dividend delivers for the Scottish people, and the more this Parliament addresses its responsibilities rather than using its power to generate grievances, the more people will realise that the decision in 2014 was the right one, that the UK Government has delivered on its promises, and that Scotland will be the better for it. We support the motion in the name of John Swinney. Presiding Officer, let me start by paying tribute to Duncan McNeill. I have known Duncan for more years than I care to remember, and in fact we worked together for a period long before the Parliament was established. I can safely say without fear of any contradiction that he has always been challenging, not just in this place. He sometimes says the things that no one else would say, but he is certainly worth listening to. I am happy to share some of my more interesting treasure trove of stories in a less public forum. Firstly loyal to his constituents, very direct in his approach, you were never in any doubt about what Duncan was thinking. I think that many people across this chamber will miss his contribution and the twinkle in his eye that told you that he was up to something. Annabelle Goldie likewise has been a superb Parliamentarian and has worked across this Parliament in order to make progress, and I wish her well in the House of Commons. Let me also wish the former First Minister well—sorry, in the House of Lords. I demoted you—actually, it is probably a promotion, but there you go. However, let me also wish the former First Minister well in his new career in the House of Commons, or should I say his second career in the House of Commons. In echoing his comments, there are certainly some people who we will miss more than others, but we will certainly miss the fact that this Parliament will be a less noisy place without him and indeed without all three of them. Let me turn to the wide-ranging debate that we have had this morning and start by thanking the members and clerks of the Devolution for the Powers Committee and the Finance Committee as well. I also want to thank those who served tirelessly on the Smith commission, in particular Lord Smith of Kelvin, who steered the entire process with considerable skill and patience. What he achieved was a consensus, however momentary that was, that has resulted in the biggest transfer of powers since the Parliament was established in 1999. For that, we should all be grateful. This will now be a powerhouse Parliament. Ian Gray was right to remind us at the Valpromis Three Things, the entrenchment of the Scottish Parliament, the devolution of substantial powers over taxation and welfare, and the protection of Barnett, all of which have been delivered today. With the transfer of disability living allowance, personal independence payment, attendance allowance, carers allowance, motability, severe disability, the shore start grant, cold weather pay, it goes on and on. This is a serious and substantial set of welfare powers. The ability to create our own benefits gives us the flexibility to respond to needs. Of course, the housing component of universal credit gives us the opportunity to scrap the bedroom tax once and for all in Scotland, and I would urge the Scottish Government to do so immediately. We also have substantial new powers over taxation too. The power to set the rates and thresholds of income tax, devolution of air passenger duty, aggregates levy, assignment of V80 and an increased range and level of borrowing as well. Of course, with those new powers, come new responsibilities, not just spending what somebody else gives us, but responsibility for raising income as well. Growing up politics, that is about the choices that we make, about the kind of country we are and the kind of country we aspire to be. In that context of new responsibilities, we need enhanced scrutiny. I am pleased that the Scottish Government and John Swinney have changed his mind and agreed to having a Scottish Fiscal Commission, which is responsible for producing the official budgetary and economic forecasts. That came about as a consequence of the UK Government's insistence and therefore I very much welcome the fiscal framework that brought that about, because the fiscal framework is as important as the Scotland bill itself, making sure that there is a robust agreement that governs our financial arrangements is critical. We on these benches supported the Scottish Government in pursuing the principle of no detriment and urged Mr Swinney to stay at the table to get the best deal possible for Scotland. I think that the Parliament can be broadly content with the result. Let me join for the second time in the space of weeks in the chorus of praise for John Swinney and his negotiating skills and pass over the temptation offered by Ian Gray to enumerate his flaws. Can I lay down a marker? I think that the agreement over the budget allocation formula is for five years. It is right that it should be subject to independent review. However, the fact that there is a difference between the view of the Deputy First Minister and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury as to what would happen should no agreement be reached after that period suggests that there is the potential for difficulty in the future. I absolutely hope that that is not the case, but I would suggest that the successor finance committee pay attention to the area, because I think that that is important moving forward. This is now about how we use those new powers. Scottish Labour has already set out our initial plans, a penny on income tax, to ensure that we invest in education and public services, a £50 new tax level for those earning over £150,000, more than doubling the maternity grant to cover over £1,000, and there will be more to follow. However, there should be no limit to the ambition of this Parliament. We should use the powers to tackle child poverty, use the powers to create jobs, use the powers to grow the economy, use the powers to make our social security system fairer. We can no longer blame Westminster for absolutely everything. There is much that we can criticise the Tories for, but the real challenge to us as a grown-up institution is what we would do differently. Do not squander this chance by doing nothing, because there really is no excuse anymore. Huge areas of policy and action are now ours. Let the next Parliament be about how we will use those new powers to create a better Scotland. Many thanks. One of the fascinating and important points of this debate has been the recognition across the political spectrum about the strength of the analysis that has been undertaken by the Devolution for the Powers Committee in this Parliament. That has been expressed right across the Parliament to the chamber. It tells us two things about this process. It tells us firstly that we have a very strong committee system in this Parliament, and we should be proud of it, and we should respect it. Secondly, it demonstrates the necessity of good, strong, effective and dispassionate leadership in our committees. Bruce Crawford has clearly demonstrated that, as has been recorded by members of all political persuasions in Parliament today. The one point of the debate that surprised me was a comment by Malcolm Trism, where he said that there was admirable clarity on the block grant adjustment in the technical annex of the fiscal framework. I am going to come to Mr Trism's Twitter feed, because I noticed this morning on his Twitter feed that Mr Trism said that he fell asleep over the equations in the fiscal framework technical accents, but it was crystal clear at 4 o'clock this morning. That encouraged me that, first of all, the equations are really quite challenging at pages 8 and 9 in the technical annex, but I am also glad to hear that somebody else has to get up at 4 o'clock in the morning to cope with life. On a serious note, I thank Malcolm Trism for the insight that he demonstrated on the fiscal framework issues and on the crucial issue of the block grant adjustment several months ago, when he has been absolutely a steadfast advocate of what the Government has argued for. It is given the Government tremendous capability and strength in our negotiating position to have the informed commentary of Mr Trism in this debate, which has enabled us to build unity across a wide cross-section of opinion within Scotland. As this will more likely be the last moment that I will have to exchange with Mr Trism, I thank him for his distinguished contribution to both the House of Commons and the Scottish Parliament and his courtesy and friendship throughout that time. It will not come as a surprise to members to hear that I am going to miss Annabelle Goldie for many reasons, but not least of which she is the only individual I think I can conceive of who could ever say to Parliament that the devolved powers originally were a corset on a political journey. I cannot believe—the front bench has been challenging me in the course of this debate—to get some other underwear reference on to the parliamentary record, and I intend to refuse the temptation to do so as I could not possibly compete with Annabelle Goldie. Annabelle Goldie has been a friend and colleague of mine for many years, and she and I served on the Enterprise Committee in the First Parliament, along with Mr McNeill. I had tried to maintain some degree of order in the process as the convener of the committee, but throughout her years as leader of the Conservative Party, as a committee member and as a wise voice in the process. Annabelle Goldie will know the thoughtful, helpful and constructive role that she has taken in the fiscal framework negotiations for which I am profoundly grateful for getting us to what I consider to be a good outcome. I wish her well in her future activities in the House of Lords. I reassure her that I have absolutely no intention of ever joining her under any circumstances possible and conceivable, but I do wish her well in her future activities. Mr McNeill made, as always, a deep and thoughtful and very personal contribution to this debate. I remember the day that he announced the birth of his granddaughter to Parliament and making that comparison between the growth of a small baby into a young woman of his granddaughter and the growth of this Parliament and the development of this Parliament. That theme was echoed by Alex Salmond in his speech where he talked about the fledgling Parliament into which we were all elected in 1999, which at many occasions felt very fragile, particularly in a media environment that had warmly welcomed and encouraged the creation of the Parliament and then spent a lot of time trying to dismantle and to damage that Parliament. Some of us made our contribution to that agenda by some of the things that we did at that time. However, it is interesting to observe, as Mr McNeill observed about his observation about the development of the Parliament over the years and as Alex Salmond did likewise, about the strong and emphatic position that the Scottish Parliament now occupies in our national life. Mr McNeill said that his granddaughter and her peers would look to this Parliament for leadership. That is, I think, a fair comment. That is what has happened to our country. This Parliament has become more central to the lives of all of our citizens within Scotland. The other common theme of Mr Salmond and Mr McNeill's speeches was the link to the industrial heritage and activity of Scotland. When the Ferguson Shipyard went into administration in the summer of 2014, I knew very clearly from the direction of my First Minister at that time what I had to do and I knew from Mr McNeill's presence at the Ferguson Shipyard the day I went there that shipyard had to be restored and resurrected and what a buoyant future it has now as a consequence of the emphatic leadership given by the former First Minister and the care and attention of the member of Parliament for Greenock and Inverclyde at that time. I pay tribute to them for that. Alex Salmond was both my predecessor and my successor in a very unique set of circumstances. I want to put on record my appreciation and admiration for the astonishing contribution that Alex Salmond has made to the national life of Scotland, which is not over yet. He is going to carry that on in the House of Commons in representing the people of Gordon. However, as First Minister of this Parliament of having the boldness to say to his colleagues in 2006, we are going to go into this election and win it and it did for some of us to sit up a bit more sharply to address that challenge, but throughout his activities he has given decisive and emphatic leadership to ensure that Scotland became a more confident country as a consequence of his efforts and for that every single one of us should be profoundly grateful to Alex Salmond for the enormous transformation that he has delivered in Scottish society. What is less known about the record of Alex Salmond is that for those of us who have been close to him, when we have faced political and personal challenges, there is nobody more trenchant and supportive and a better ally to have in those difficulties and I thank him for all of that work that he has done on our behalf. Lastly, many members have been very kind about my contribution in this debate and I thank them for that. I am going to contradict Ian Gray, I have no other flaws, none whatsoever, but I do want to close on a point of agreement with Jackie Baillie. I do agree with Jackie Baillie and I urge my colleagues to listen very carefully to what I am going to say. I agree wholeheartedly, unreservedly with Jackie Baillie, that there should be no limit on the ambitions of this parliament. That is beautiful music to my ears and we are on a journey as a country. We came into this Parliament in 1999 and we had a more limited set of powers and at various different stages along the road we have acquired more powers and we acquire a broader and more substantial range of powers today. Not as many as I would like us to have but they are welcome, substantial and they will be used with energy and intelligence and wisdom if this Government has the good fortune to be relighted on 5 May. We will devote ourselves to that task and I ask Parliament today to endorse the legislative consent motion in my name. Many thanks and thank you all for taking part in this important debate and that concludes the debate on the Scotland Bill UK legislation and it's now time to move on to the next item of business. The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the land reform Scotland Bill and in dealing with the amendments members should have the bill as amended at stage 2 the marshal list, the supplement to the marshal list and the groupings. Division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division on the bill this morning. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds and thereafter I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press the request to speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshal list to which we now move and I call group 1 and I call amendment 12 in the name of the minister group with amendments 14, 15, 20, 21, 22 and 29. Minister, if you are ready would you like to move amendment 12 and speak to all other amendments in the group please as soon as you are ready. Thank you. While this is indeed a historic day in terms of our proceedings on Scotland's land reform journey, I must also start by giving my apologies that, as members I hope will understand and realise that I am struggling today with a bad throat infection. I have very kindly the support and the help of my colleague Paul Wheelhouse who will also be helping to give us support through the amendments. Amendments 12, 20, 22 and 29 are minor amendments which tidy up the drafting of section 1 of the bill on the land rights and responsibility statement. A number of amendments were made to section 1 during stage 2 and further amendments are proposed today which have increased its size considerably making it unwieldy for the reader. Amendment 22 improves us by splitting section 1 into three sections which cover the duty to create the land rights and responsibility statement, the publication and review process of the statement and the duty to promote the statement respectively. Amendments 12, 20 and 29 are minor consequential amendments which are necessary as a result of amendment 22. Amendment 21 clarifies the duty on Scottish ministers regarding what I said out in the land rights and responsibilities statement. The duty as currently drafted requires ministers to further the objectives in the statement. This was a very helpful addition to the bill that was proposed by Mr Russell at stage 2. I said then that I was happy to accept his amendment but would have to consider whether further changes in wording would be needed at stage 3. The definition of the statement was also amended at stage 2 from a statement of ministers objectives for land reform to a statement of principles for land rights and responsibilities in Scotland. The purpose of the amendment is to tie in with that revised definition so that ministers are now required when exercising their functions and as far as reasonably practical to promote the principles set out in the statement. With amendments 14 and 15, I very much welcome those amendments from Sarah Boyack. The strength and wellbeing of our communities is right at the heart of all the work that the Scottish Government does. I am happy to accept Ms Boyack's amendments that ensure that they are given due regard in the land rights and responsibilities statement. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I note that the minister is not 100 per cent in terms of her health today and informer that I have written out all my speeches in draft for today, so if my voice goes, Claudia Beamish will stand in. I hope that we will not get to that point. What is clearly going to be a marathon session today. I very much welcome the land rights and responsibilities statement. It will help in terms of implementing this legislation. Amendment 14 and 15 replace the words fostering community resilience with supporting and facilitating community empowerment in the list of factors that Scottish ministers must have regard to with the desirability of when preparing the land rights and responsibilities statement. When I proposed adding fostering community resilience at stage 2, I did that in part because it would be in line with the spirit of our other recent land reform legislation, the Community Empowerment Scotland Act 2015. I was very keen that we established clear links between the Community Empowerment Act and the Land Reform Bill to ensure that the focus on community empowerment was maintained and strengthened. The new wording of supporting and facilitating community empowerment is more appropriate as it directly links to the kind of principles the statement will contain. It also links back to the 2015 act, which seeks to support our communities to empower themselves through the ownership and use of land. It is important that, when preparing the statement, ministers are required to have regard to the desirability of supporting and facilitating the empowerment of our communities. That will ensure that our communities remain at the heart of our land reform agenda. Community should be supported in taking responsibility for improving their interests and outcomes. I believe that the land rights and responsibilities statement could play an important part in supporting their empowerment. I very much hope that my amendments will be supported today. I am very glad that the minister is accepting them. I hope that that might mean that some of my other amendments are coming very shortly. No, I thought I would try. I will at least be glad that those two amendments are likely to get through. I am just very briefly, if I may, Presiding Officer. I just want to commend the minister's determination to be here, despite obviously not being very well. I will let my own colleagues sweat it out as to which one takes over if I am afflicted by the same problem. It is nice to be able to start the day on a note of consensus, because we are very happy with all of these amendments in this group because we believe that they improve the land rights responsibility statement. I am very happy not to wind up, but I am very happy to welcome the support that we have across the chamber. Excellent. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. We are. We are now moved to group 2. I call amendment 13 in the name of the minister group that other amendments have shown in the groupings. Minister, to move amendment 13 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. At stage 2, I brought forward amendments that required ministers in preparing both the land rights and responsibility statement and the part 4 guidance to have regard to the desirability of promoting respect for and observance of relevant human rights. At stage 2, Mr Russell and his Boyack made helpful additions to the bill by bringing forward amendments that set out that human rights included economic, social and cultural rights in certain instruments, such as the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, the voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forests, and other instruments, as Scottish ministers, after consulting the Scottish Human Rights Commission, considered to be relevant. The amendments in this group build on the issues that were raised by both Mr Russell and Ms Boyack at stage 2. Amendments 16, 17 and 19 define human rights in section 1. The definition expressly includes human rights that are contained in the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. Amendments 13 and 18 require the Scottish ministers in preparing the statement to have regard to the desirability of promoting respect for such internationally accepted principles and standards for responsible practices in relation to land, as they consider relevant. Those principles and standards include those principles and standards that are in the voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forests in the context of national food security. Human rights is defined by amendment 19 to mean the convention rights, and other human rights contained in any international convention, treaty or instrument ratified by the UK, including the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. In determining what rights are relevant for the purposes of section 1, ministers may consult the Scottish Human Rights Commission and such other persons or bodies as they consider appropriate. That reflects a point that was made by Mr Russell at stage 2 as to the assistance that the Scottish Human Rights Commission will be able to provide in considering what are relevant human rights in this context. The definition of human rights is wide enough to include other human rights that we have identified could be relevant such as rights in the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and the UN convention on the rights of the child. The voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forests are a framework document that sets out principles and internationally accepted standards for responsible practices, rather than a human rights instrument in the same sense as the international covenant or the European convention on human rights is dealt with slightly differently. Amendments 13 and 18 ensure that ministers have regard to the desirability of promoting respect for such internationally accepted principles and standards for responsible practices in relation to land, which they consider to be relevant to the preparation of the statement, including the principles and standards in the voluntary guidelines. That wording also leaves ministers open to have regard to other relevant international standards and practices in relation to land, which might come into effect in the future. Amendments 53, 54, 55, 56 and 59 apply the same approach to consideration of human rights and the voluntary guidelines in part 4 and the preparation of the part 4 guidance. Those amendments ensure that we are taking a robust approach to the interpretation and definition of human rights within the bill. Those amendments to the show demonstrate our absolute commitment to human rights in the context of the land reform debate, which is crucial to achieving our goal of ensuring that land is owned and used in the public interest for the benefit of the people of Scotland. Amendment 93 is consequential on amendments 19 and 59, which define human rights for the purposes of parts 1 and 4. The amendment removes the interpretation provision, which sets out rights that are included in the term human rights. Those amendments reflect our preferred approach of defining human rights in each part, both for accessibility and because there is not a uniform definition of human rights that can be applied throughout the bill. I move amendments 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 53, 54, 55, 56 and 59 and amendment 93, all in the name of Dr McLeod. Many thanks. I now call on Sarah Boyack. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. For us, the strengthening of the human rights underpinning of this legislation is incredibly important because it provides the context for the detail of the legislation that comes thereafter and it then provides the framework by which people will interpret the implementation of this act. It is also important in recording the fact that community rights need to sit alongside our rights as individuals. I very much welcome the amendments that we have in front of us today from the minister. That is a key issue that was raised in the stage 1 report, which had cross-party buy-in, and I think that we all felt needed to be strengthened. Mike Russell at stage 2 moved an amendment to add specific reference to the international covenant on economic and social rights, and we very much welcomed and supported that amendment. I had moved an amendment suggesting the addition of a requirement for the Scottish Government to have regard to the voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance and the tenure of land, fisheries and forests in the context of national security, national food security. By adding those references, we do not just strengthen our own legislation on land reform, we align ourselves in solidarity with other communities and other countries, and particularly those indigenous communities across the globe that some of us have met over the years in our cross-party group in international development. I welcome the fact that the minister has taken our intentions and improved the wording on our intentions and put them in the correct part of the bill, something when you move an amendment you do your best at the time. The fact that this has been taken on by the minister is very much welcome. The references to internationally accepted principles and standards are important to have in the face of this bill. The amendments from the minister also include reference to seeking the views of the Scottish Human Rights Commission. I believe that this is important to ensure that their expertise on human rights is drawn on. Their letter to the committee was trenchant and I welcome the fact that the minister has addressed the concerns that they raised with us just a couple of months ago. This revised legislation will speak to the ambition of delivering global sustainable development and acknowledging the importance of food security and the capacity to support and sustain communities. It makes the connection between our ambitions for global sustainable development goals with our ambitions for land reform and the empowerment of communities across Scotland. Scottish Labour will therefore be supporting those amendments today. Finally, I would like to put on record our thanks for the advice and work of global witnesses, because they particularly gave us good ideas and good advice about how we strengthened the human rights framework on the bill. I am glad to see that we now have those amendments in front of us that I hope we can all support. I am very pleased that the minister has brought forward those amendments that build upon the amendments at stage 2 and the stage 1 report that Sarah Borac says were supported widely across the committee. Land reform in Scotland at this particular stage is a hard thing to do. It is a hard thing to do because of the ECHR. Not that I am in any sense against ECHR, but land reform post-ECHR tends to get focused, as we saw at the start of the debate, on the individual rights of property. There are other rights, and those rights are expressed in a range of documentation, including the documents referred to in those amendments. That has been a key issue because, as Sarah Borac says, it connects us with the issues of land use and access to land that are widespread throughout the world. The work of Megan McKinnis in Global Witness in helping us to understand that, the work of Peter Peacock in Community Land Scotland, helping to bring those issues to focus and the work of Kirsten Shields and the University of Dundee should be acknowledged. We should also recognise the world-leading excellence of our own human rights framework. The work of Professor Alan Miller, the