I am going to make some progress. The enormity of clause 11 has been highlighted by numerous legal experts. Professor Alan Page noted that the Bill proposes a massive increase in the power of UK Ministers to legislate in the devolved areas. Professor Richard Rawlings noted:“The sooner clause 11 is cast aside, the better.â€Professor Stephen Tierney has noted a confusion around the Bill, made even more problematic by the fact that the interpretation of devolved competence will become an area of constant fluctuation. In evidence to the Scottish Parliament's Finance and Constitution Committee in early November, the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), stated that it was “quite possibleâ€ that the clause restricting the Scottish Parliament's competency would be “substantially reducedâ€. We are having this debate today without any action having been taken. I am deeply disappointed that the Government should have found time to table an amendment on the date of Brexit, but have failed to table anything rectifying the mess they have made of clause 11. The House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report even concluded:“The Order in Council powers in clause 11 and Schedule 3 are inappropriate and should be removed.â€Secretary of State, why has that not happened? The problem with clause 11 is not just the power grab. The Law Society of Scotland has raised concerns around the modifying of conferring power by subordinate legislation to modify retained EU law. It highlights that it is not clear what Acts of the Scottish Parliament the new provision will apply to. The Bill suggests that the provision is not intended to be retrospective and will apply only to post-exit Acts of the Scottish Parliament. But what exactly is such an Act-an Act enacted on or after exit day? That would mean that legislation would be required to comply with that restriction even if it was introduced months before exit day and even if it had been passed by the Scottish Parliament before exit day. Following the mounting pressure, lists of questions and growing criticism, the UK Government brought forward a plan of common frameworks. Although we on the Scottish National party Benches recognise that common frameworks that replace EU law across the UK may be needed in some areas, the competence in matters otherwise devolved should revert to the Scottish Parliament. The scope and content of any UK-wide framework must be agreed rather than imposed. That is the fundamental point. We welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to that principle. Although the UK Government have indicated that they wish to develop common frameworks, it is not currently clear how policy within those frameworks might be agreed. The Law Society of England and Wales has called for discussions about where common frameworks will remain and the extent of their scrutiny. Professor Michael Keating has warned of the UK Government creating a “hierarchical model of devolutionâ€ through the frameworks. With clause 11 in place, agreement can never be reached, as the price of UK Government demands for an agreement would be reservation of the matter, putting the terms and operation of the common frameworks beyond the powers of the Scottish Parliament. Reading clause 11 leaves me in no doubt of that. Whoever drafted it had absolutely no understanding of the devolution settlements of the Scotland Act 1998. The Scottish Government have published the 111 powers at risk in clause 11 of being held centrally in London despite falling under devolved competencies. Those powers range from agriculture, to justice, to environmental standards. Devolution has meant the divergence of policy across the UK. The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, passed unanimously in the Scottish Parliament, established Scotland as a world leader in tackling climate change. As the UK Government seek continually to catch up, any holding centrally in London of powers that affect this policy divergence will not only hold back the progress Scotland has made on environmental matters but prevent any legal measures that aim to deliver phased introductions on any proposal. The confusion around the effect of clause 11 deepens. When asked multiple times, as I have done, to name just one power that is currently coming back, the Secretary of State has not been able to do so. Yet the Cabinet Office says that“anythingâ€the devolved Administrations“could do before we leave the EU, they will able to do after we leaveâ€. The truth is that this Bill does not provide for a single new decision-making power for any of the devolved legislatures. Everything goes to London, and it is for London to decide what ultimately happens to these powers. Where is our sovereignty in all this? Where is the sovereignty of the people of Scotland? The Scottish Government have been clear that there is no way the Scottish Parliament can grant a legislative consent motion until this Bill is drastically dealt with. If no progress is made today on the amendments tabled in the names of Scottish and Welsh Members, there will be no change in that position. Let me make it clear: we do not want to be in the position of not granting a legislative consent motion. We want to do that, but in order for us to do so, the Government have to respect the powers that should sit in the Scottish Parliament. The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) is saying, “Really?â€ We have tried to engage in this process constructively; it would be great if the Conservatives would engage in the same way.