 The next item of business is a debate on motion 10817, in the name of Michael Russell, on the UK withdrawal from the European Union Legal Continuity Scotland Bill at stage 1. I would invite all members who wish to speak in this debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now, and I call on Michael Russell to speak to and to move the motion in his name. Thank you, Presiding Officer. When I came to this chamber last week, I spoke of my regret that the Government had had to take the step of introducing this continuity bill. Today, as we consider the general principles of the bill at stage 1, I still regret the circumstances that have led the Government to take this step. They still persist. We have yet to reach agreement on satisfactory amendments with the UK Government in advance of a further meeting of the JMC-EN tomorrow and the JMC plenary, that is the Prime Minister and the First Minister's schedule for 14 March. The First Minister set out in the chamber last week the crucial issue of principle that divides the Scottish and Welsh Governments from the UK Government, that the consent of this Parliament should be required for any changes to our powers. I go into tomorrow's JMC-EN as the First Minister will go to the plenary next week, still working imaginatively and cooperatively to achieve the agreement that remains our aim. I will, of course, keep Parliament fully informed of developments. Indeed, I sent a note to all members last night, which included information of where things presently stood. Why does Henry VIII's powers in section 13 give ministers the power for 15 years to make regulations creating new public authorities without MSPs in this Parliament having any ability to amend ministers' proposals in any way whatsoever? Is that not an assault on the powers of this Parliament? We have made considerable changes to the powers that are recommended by the UK Government. I appeared before the Delegated Powers Committee yesterday and made it clear that we have met their objections that they raised with us almost entirely last year on the Government Bill. However, I point out to Mr Rumbles that this is a stage 1 debate. If Mr Rumbles wishes to bring an amendment to the bill at stage 2, which will be next week, to consider that matter, the chamber will have the opportunity to do so, and I will defend the powers in the bill with my usual vigour, and I am sure that Mr Rumbles will argue against him with his usual vigour. We are now, of course, at the first key milestone in the passage of the continuity bill through this Parliament. Although this is the first key milestone, it is far from the first parliamentary activity on the bill since introduction last week. As well as my own statement on 27 February, the Lord Adam came to make his statement on the issue of legislative competence on 28 February. We then had a very full and, I think, interesting and constructive debate in the most part on the emergency bill procedure and timetabling on 1 March, even as the snow closed in all around us. During that debate, the Government was rightly challenged on its plans on how to maximise scrutiny of this bill, given the circumstances and timeframes within which we are operating. Mr Rumbles was one of those who challenged vigorously on that issue. Members, I hope, are now aware that the arrangements that are being proposed as a result of that challenge for what is, I think, a novel and, I hope, highly effective procedure for stage 2. It will allow the maximum participation by members in this chamber to offer their views on proposed amendments to the bill, and it will allow for in-depth scrutiny by an expert committee of individual amendments that is the feature of normal stage 2 proceedings. That committee this morning, the Financial and Constitution Committee, was challenging and detailed in its scrutiny of the bill at this stage. I hope that members are satisfied with that approach. I want to pay tribute to the imaginative way that the bureau, the committees, the Government and Parliament, let me just finish, Government and Parliament officials have worked together co-operatively to develop new procedures to meet these unique circumstances. Jamie Greene. The minister asks that he hopes that members are satisfied with that approach. Does the minister think that one evidence session from one witness is absolutely sufficient to duly scrutinise this bill? I'm not satisfied, and I suspect that many other members aren't either. I think that Mr Greene needs to look at what has happened. There has not been one evidence session with one individual. There has, for example, this morning, been, in the Financial and Constitution Committee, a panel that was closely questioned for an hour and a half. I have appeared before. I believe that I am appearing at four or five committees next week, and others are doing so too. I would ask the member to consider who's responsibility this is. It is the UK Government's responsibility for pursuing Brexit. The members may not wish it. Tory members may have great difficulty in taking responsibility for their Westminster colleagues, but they have that responsibility, and they should face up to it. Now, Presiding Officer, let me consider committee scrutiny. I pay tribute to the rapid mobilisation of committees of this Parliament to examine the bill to provide the chamber with detailed insights from their perspective. Yesterday, I gave evidence to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee in an interesting session. The convener has now written to the Presiding Officer with comments, and those comments are available to every member and have been distributed. The Government, of course, will be considering carefully our response to the points, but, of course, we also provided the committee with detailed information on some specific questions that had been asked, and we will continue to do so. I noticed today, for example, that—could I please make some progress? I also noticed this morning that SPICE has issued a note of yesterday's meeting that summarises the evidence. All a whole range of things are being done to help the chamber to consider this bill and to meet the objections raised. I have sessions with the Environment and Climate Change Committee, the Equality and Human Rights Committee, the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee next week, and I should be returning to the Finance and Constitution Committee. I look forward to all those sessions. They are signs of the seriousness of intent in this Parliament in considering the continuity bill and that the maximum possible scrutiny within the timeframe is being applied. For the remainder of my remarks in opening stage 1, I want to concentrate on the purpose of the bill and its major provisions. I am sure that the chamber is well aware of the Scottish Government's view on leaving the EU. I find it difficult to overstate my own fears about the damage that is being done to the UK and Scotland through this process in almost every aspect of our political, social and economic life, which we did not vote for. However, the Scottish Government has always accepted that necessary steps have to be taken to prepare for withdrawal and that the Scottish Government and Parliament has a responsibility to play its full part in those preparations in areas for which we have legislative consequence. Hence, we have engaged with the UK withdrawal bill. Hence, we have introduced the continuity bill. A set out in section 1 1 of the bill, its purpose is to make provision for ensuring the effective operation of Scots law so far as within devolved legislative competence upon and after UK withdrawal. Neil Findlay has been asked to publish the 25 areas of contention several times. He has said that there is no agreement on that. Previously, he published 111 areas where there was going to be discussion. Maybe, as a way out of this, would he publish the 86 areas where there has been agreement? To be absolutely accurate—I want to be very accurate in that—the member asked me this question yesterday. I gave him an answer. Mr Bibby asked me this question this morning. I gave him the same answer. I put this on the record. I spoke to my Welsh counterpart about a range of issues yesterday and today. Two days ago and today, I have raised the issue of publication and I will raise the issue of publication again tomorrow at the GMCEN and my officials have raised it too. I wish to publish. It is my intention to publish. I hope that tomorrow we will agree to publish. That is the answer that I have given twice. I put it on the record for the third time and I hope that we will have that published as soon as we possibly can. As I have said, section 111 of the bill makes the provision for ensuring the effective operation of Scots law so far as within devolved legislative competence upon and after UK withdrawal. It achieves that by doing three main things. It saves all domestic devolved law that relates to the EU and separately incorporates devolved EU law that is directly applicable into domestic law. It gives the Scottish ministers the powers needed to ensure that this devolved law continues to operate effectively after the UK has left the EU and it gives Scottish ministers the power to ensure that Scotland's laws keep pace with developments in EU law. The first two of those are familiar to members from the UK withdrawal bill. That has been extensively scrutinised by committees of this Parliament. For today, I will highlight some differences from the approach in that bill. In saving currently applicable EU law, the bill has two main differences from the UK bill's approach. First, it retains for devolved matters the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is not retained by the UK bill. The Scottish Government considers that the charter is an important source of law and protections and that certainty and continuity of law and the principles that apply to that law should continue to be the same on and after exit day. Second, the Scottish Government considers that the general principles of EU law should have the same status after exit day as it did before. Again, to achieve certainty and continuity, there should, after withdrawal, be the ability to bring an action based on the general principles of EU law. The UK withdrawal bill does not allow such actions. Turning to the powers to fix the S, of course. Thank you very much. I'm really seeking your advice and guidance on the issue of scrutiny. I understand that you're seeking a deal with the UK Government. What is the standing of this legislation if a deal is achieved? And what opportunity is there for this Parliament to scrutinise that deal, given that we don't know where the areas of dispute are? I've indicated that I wish to publish further information. I've just given that commitment for the third time and I'm happy to give it again. I also gave a commitment to Patrick Harvie last week that if an agreement was likely to be reached, we would come to this chamber and we would ask the chamber for their views on the matter and particularly in terms of proceeding with this bill, which we do not think we would want to proceed with if we were able to reach an agreement. That is a commitment that I made last week. I repeat it here. Let me try to make some progress on this. The bill for devolved matters retains the charter of fundamental rights, which I have said is not retained by the UK bill. We consider the charter an important source of law and protections. We also consider that the general principles of EU law should have the same status after exit days that it did before. Turning to the powers to fix deficiencies on retained EU law following withdrawal, the Government acknowledges that criticism has been made of the scope of the equivalent parts of the UK withdrawal bill. However, despite those criticisms, the Government shares the view of the delegated powers committee on the UK bill when it said that the committee reluctantly accepts that the unprecedented task of modifying domestic legislation to preserve the statute book on leaving the European Union and the short timeframe on which it is to be done necessitates broad powers. In any other circumstances, the conferral of such wide powers would be inconceivable, but the committee accepts that in those circumstances the taking of wide powers is unavoidable. However, to address some of the criticisms made by the committee, there are, as I have indicated to Mr Rumble's, important changes made from the UK bill. Most significantly, the part can only be used when it is necessary to address a deficiency. Once that threshold, which is defined in the bill, has been reached, it is then for ministers to decide the appropriate fix for the deficiency, but there is a higher initial test for the power to be applicable. There are additional limits built into the powers. For example, they cannot be used to modify the Equality Act 2006 and the Equality Act 2010, as well as the Scotland Act 1998. In addition to the normal negative and affirmative procedures, the bill includes an enhanced version of a affirmative procedure where the powers are used to create a new public body, transfer of functions to a new public body or abolish an existing function. The Scottish Parliament is given 60 days rather than 40 days to consider the order. The Scottish ministers must also consult on the proposals and report on that consultation to the Parliament. I will. Mike Rumbles. This matter is very simple. You are taking powers to yourself for 15 years out of the hands of Parliament. Parliament can only say yes or no. It cannot do its job in legislation. That is the point. Minister, to the member, the view of the Delegated Powers Committee about the exceptional nature of the circumstances that are not of our making. I do not wish to leave the EU. I think that many people in this chamber do not wish to leave the EU. We will be happy not to do that. In the circumstances that we have created, we must have a reasonable response. We have made sure that that response is more scrutinised by this Parliament than the response from the UK Government. We are open to further discussion, debate and amendment. I have made that clear. I look forward to seeing what amendment is brought and then we can debate that in detail within the confine of the fact that this is a job that has to be done. I do not want to see it done. I would rather not leave, so would Mr Rumbles rather not leave. Within the confines of what has to be done, we have some pressures upon us. There are two aspects of the powers that I also want to mention. First, the bill allows ministers to fix deficiencies in directly applicable law in EU-devolved areas. Members will be aware that one of the criticism of the UK bill would only allow UK ministers to fix such laws. Secondly, the bill requires UK ministers to seek consent of Scottish ministers if they wish to exercise their powers in the UK bill in devolved areas. Again, that was a point made by the Delegated Powers Committee and the Finance and Constitution committees. It also illustrates how the bill has been drafted to work alongside the UK bill. Our intention remains to work closely with the UK Government on the necessary secondary legislation flowing from Brexit, whatever the eventual primary legislative arrangements. We should include consenting to UK-wide orders, touching on devolved matters and where that is the best course of action. Any such proposals would be subject to the scrutiny of this Parliament. The final aspect of the bill that I want to touch on is the keeping pace power in section 13. There are likely to be fields that we want, at least in the short term, to maintain regulatory alignment with EU rules. That will mean choosing to keep pace with developments in a particular field of regulation after UK withdrawal. For example, continuing to apply new and developing rules about food safety, which are updated regularly, without which many people and I am people in my own constituencies, for example, who export live shellfish, would not be able to operate. The Government is clear that this approach is part of a coherent continuity of law and therefore a power properly in the bill. The power is sunsetted after five years with possibility of extension by affirmative order. Given the considerable uncertainty about events, the Government considers that this is a prudent approach. Discussion of any extension will take place against the back-top of any longer term arrangements that are then in place, including agreements with the EU for market access and with the knowledge of actual use that has been made of the power over that period. I am aware of criticism of that provision. I am happy to discuss possible changes to address those, but I believe that this is a crucial power in minimising disruption from Brexit and providing coherent continuity of law over the next few years. We hear a great deal about regulatory alignment and there needs to be something in the bill that allows that to take place. I said at the start of my remarks that I remain regretful that we still need to carry on with this bill. I should also say that I think that that regret is now mingled with some admiration for the way that many members of this Parliament have reacted to what are challenging circumstances and continue to do so. They are not of our making but we need to make the best of them. I am confident that the bill will receive extensive scrutiny in the time available and the Government will and should find out a challenging process and we will face up to it. The first step is taken today and I therefore invite the Parliament to agree to the general principles of the continuity bill in the motion in my name. Thank you very much. I now call on Bruce Crawford to speak on behalf of the Finance and Constitution Committee. For point of order, Mr Crawford. I do not think that I am speaking on behalf of the Finance and Constitution Committee in this particular debate. My name was put in as a speaker on behalf of the SNP. I do not mind speaking just now. I will put my lecture. If you are speaking about the SNP, I will move to the first Opposition speaker and I will come back of that case. I call on Adam Tomkins to open for the Conservative Party. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am happy to give Bruce Crawford speech if we want to swap, but perhaps not. The Scottish Conservatives will vote against this bill at stage 1 this evening because this bill is unnecessary. It is seriously flawed, it is ill thought through and it is incoherent. Err is compounded by the reckless speed with which the Government is railroading the bill through Parliament. Even worse, this bill is incompetent. Our very own Presiding Officer has told us so yet the SNP carry on regardless of the views of the Presiding Officer, regardless of the rule of law and regardless of the very devolution settlement which they claim to champion in their rhetoric yet trample all over in their actions. Let me start, Presiding Officer, with why this bill is unnecessary. We all agree that there needs to be legislation to give effect to the democratic decision of the British people in June 2016 to leave the European Union. We all agree that that legislation needs to make provision to correct and update the statute book so that it hangs together and makes sense in a post-Brexit world. We also all agree that that legislation must respect the foundations of the United Kingdom constitution, including the devolution settlements in Wales, Scotland and soon to be restored, we hope, in Northern Ireland. Nobody can seriously think that leaving the European Union means that we somehow revert back to the constitution of 1972, the year the UK joined. Leaving the European Union means, among other things, that this Parliament will get even stronger. Already, one of the most powerful devolved legislatures in the world, the Scottish Parliament will inherit a fresh suite of powers when we leave the European Union. Powers, Presiding Officer, none of which the SNP actually want despite their mocking. They don't want powers over Scottish agriculture or environmental protection or fisheries or state aid or public procurement. No, they want all of these powers to remain in Brussels. The legislation to give effect to the referendum result and to correct the statute book so that it makes sense post-Brexit is, of course, the European Union withdrawal bill, which has passed the House of Commons and is now in the House of Lords. We all agree, Presiding Officer, that that bill is flawed and needs to be amended so that it achieves its objectives fully in accordance with our devolution settlement. This Parliament has been unanimous on that point and the UK Government has listened and has undertaken to amend the bill. That amendment does not go quite far enough for the SNP, but we learned at the weekend, Presiding Officer, that we are now just a single word away from agreement between the Governments. Now, both the negotiations at government level and the all-party consensus in this Parliament have been placed in jeopardy by the SNP's so-called continuity bill. So-called because the reality, Presiding Officer, is that it is no such thing. This is not a bill designed to create continuity but to sow the seeds of confusion, even chaos. It is not a legal continuity bill, it is a legal confusion bill, a wrecking bill. It threatens to wreck the negotiations and it certainly wrecks the consensus that has existed in this Parliament. Its own policy memorandum says that this bill will, and I quote, add to the complexity of Brexit and will present serious logistical challenges. Not my words, Presiding Officer, but the Scottish Government's words and they rather give the game away, don't they? This is a Government that seems no longer all that interested in doing a deal with the UK Government on the withdrawal bill. The SNP is reverting to the stance it first took about Brexit, the stance that costs the nationalists 40 per cent of their MPs and half a million votes in June's general election. The stance that tries to maximise the complexity and challenges of Brexit in order to sow the seeds of constitutional division. That the bill is seriously flawed and ill thought through is not just my view, Presiding Officer, it is the view of a number of expert witnesses who gave evidence this morning to the Finance and Constitution Committee. Professor Alan Page of the University of Dundee said, for example, that he has considerable doubts over whether the bill constitutes an effective solution to the challenge the Scottish Parliament will face in preparing the devolved laws for the UK's withdrawal from the EU. That, he says, is for the simple reason that the bill does not resolve, indeed cannot resolve, the critical question of which EU competences are devolved and which are reserved. That is a question that can be determined only by Westminster legislation, which is why we on these benches say that the right vehicle is the EU withdrawal bill and not this wrecking bill. The Law Society of Scotland is equally critical. The Law Society rightly draws our attention to the way the bill introduces wholly new categories of law, like retained devolved EU law, which will make it more difficult, says the Law Society, to be certain about the law. How ironic then that legal certainty is one of the general principles of EU law that the bill seeks to preserve in Scots law in section 5. The reality is that this is a bill for legal uncertainty, legal confusion, legal chaos, the very opposite of legal certainty. The bill fails to meet the tests set by the very same general principles it seeks to preserve. We are, Presiding Officer, some way through the looking glass here, Mike Russell in Wonderland. The Law Society is critical of section 4, which seeks to save rights and obligations derived from EU law in Scots law after exit day, arguing that the bill needs to specify which rights and which obligations are meant. The Law Society is critical of section 5, which seeks to safeguard the general principles of EU law in Scots law after exit day, arguing that the bill needs to explain which general principles are referred to. No, I'm not going to give away to Mr Harvey, not after his disgraceful interventions in last week's debates on this issue. Even after that is done, the Law Society warns that inconsistencies between section 5 and the withdrawal bill might create complications. On this, the Law Society is rather politely pulling its punches because we know that this provision has been designed by the SNP to go out of its way to create complications. The Law Society is similarly critical of section 6 on the principle of supremacy and of section 10 on the interpretation of retained devolved EU law, pointing out that this last section, rather embarrassingly for the Government, fails to reflect what was agreed between UK and EU negotiators last December as regards the on-going jurisdiction of the Court of Justice on matters pertaining to citizens' rights. There's going to be a lot for the Finance Committee to amend on Tuesday, Presiding Officer, assuming that this bill passes stage 1 tonight, which, of course, it shouldn't. I said at the beginning of my speech that this bill is unnecessary, seriously flawed and ill-thought-through and also incoherent. I've dealt with the first three of those charges. Let me turn now to the charge of incoherence, which I think is the most serious one. The Lord Advocate was asked a number of questions last week about what will happen if this bill is passed by this Parliament, but thereafter found by the Supreme Court to have been passed incompetently. He declined to answer such questions because he said that they were speculative. But when considering the general principles of legislation, as we are this afternoon, it is wise, Presiding Officer, to consider their likely effects and their possible consequences. Here's one scenario. Suppose that there is no agreement on clause 11 of the withdrawal bill and that this Parliament presses ahead with stages 2 and 3 of this bill. The Scottish ministers have said that it should follow that the devolution provisions of the withdrawal bill would then be removed from it. I think that that is highly unlikely for the very reason that the Lord Advocate would not concede last week. The bill, if passed, is much more likely than not to be challenged in the Supreme Court. I think that we all know that. If it is struck down and if the devolution provisions of the withdrawal bill have been removed, there would then be no lawful means whatever of correcting the Scottish statute book so that it makes sense post Brexit. No sensible UK Government could allow that risk to be run. That could, of course, be theoretically possible, although I indicated to the member this morning that I thought that it was highly unlikely. The member in his question this morning indicated that the UK Government would be likely to ignore the Sewell convention in these circumstances. Is he saying that the Sewell convention is about to be suspended by the UK Government, which would be a very considerable and difficult step to take? Adam Duncan? Absolutely not, because the Sewell convention was suspended by Mike Russell last week and I'm going to quote to him exactly the provision of his speech last week that suspended the Sewell convention because he's not quite as clever as he thinks he is and he doesn't quite know what he's doing. What of Sewell? What of Sewell? I hear you cry. The UK would have to remove the devolution provisions from the withdrawal bill if we did not consent to them, wouldn't it? Well, no, Presiding Officer, because this Parliament, contrary to the advice of the Scottish Conservatives, decided last week to fast-track this bill. Now, emergency legislation is the very opposite of normal and, as has many times been pointed out, the Sewell convention applies normally. It does not apply in exceptional or abnormal circumstances. In moving the motion last week that the bill be fast-tracked, the minister, Mr Russell, said this and I quote, this is a normal situation. In normal times such a bill would follow a normal timetable but these are not normal times. There we have it, Presiding Officer, the minister's own admission repeated three times in a single sentence that Sewell no longer applies, meaning that the UK Parliament is now free to legislate on EU withdrawal even if we do not give our consent to the withdrawal bill. Not my words, but the minister's words. Far from safeguarding the interests of this Parliament, this bill and the way it is to be enacted in haste have completely undercut and indeed betrayed the interests of this Parliament. The SNP are playing games with the constitution, Presiding Officer, but they do not even understand the rules. Until the introduction of this bill, we in this Parliament had more leverage than many observers may have realised. For the House of Lords, would I think have found it very difficult to give the withdrawal bill a third reading had we declined to consent to it, but that leverage has now been traded away. We are not in normal times. Sewell does not apply. Our voice is diminished and the hand of the UK Government is vastly strengthened. Or, thanks to the SNP, great negotiating. Well done. I wish we were not here debating this bill. I wish the Scottish Secretary, David Mandel and Ruth Davidson, the Tory leader, had fulfilled their commitments that they gave to this Parliament, to the UK Parliament and the people that we represent. I wish the Tories had not made such a mess of the process of devolving powers to this Parliament, but they have failed miserably. Instead of recognising this and doing something about it, they are digging an even greater hole for themselves. In the House of Commons, Labour's Shadow Scotland Secretary Leslie Laird moved an amendment that it would have removed the EWB's proposed restrictions on the ability of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly to legislate on devolve matters, and it would have created new collaborative procedures for the creation of UK-wide frameworks for retained EU law. However, every compliant and subservient Scottish Tory MP was whipped to troops through the lobbies to trample all over the devolution settlement. In that debate, Mandel said, I know she, Leslie Laird, doesn't like it, but the bill is going to be amended. It's going to be amended not at the behest of the incoherent approach put forward by the Labour opposition, clearly a distinct lack of self-awareness there. It's going to be amended because the Scottish Conservatives have come forward with practical amendments to the bill. Ruth Davidson and Mr Tomkins told us that it would all be resolved in the commons, and then it would all be fixed in the lords. What happened to those amendments? Where are they? Did they appear during the parliamentary process? No, they did not. By 10 January, just a month later, the full extent of the Tory shambles was exposed. No amendments, no agreement and devolved powers, no dispute resolution process, nothing except a constitutional stand-off playing straight into the hands of the nationalists. Can I ask Mr Tomkins? Who instructed Tory MPs to vote the way they did? Was it the Prime Minister? Was it Ruth Davidson? Or was it Mr Mandel? I will give way to him if he is willing to tell us and tell the public what role his leader in Scotland played. Did she issue instructions or did she just follow instructions? Not even Mary Berry could deliver a bigger custer pie to Ruth Davidson than the Tory party on this one. If the Tories had supported Labour's amendment, there would have been full transparency over areas of disagreement and a dispute resolution process. Not a word of apology from the great Professor, Mr Tomkins. Wasn't it telling that the man who lectures people in constitutional law couldn't even take an intervention from teeny weeny little Patrick? There he is, exposed, exposed for what he is. As it stands today, only the cabinet secretary— Mr Findlay, just a second. I am conscious that passions are running quite high this afternoon, but a couple of members have already strayed into rather personal terms. Please keep the proceedings as formal as proper as is correct. As it stands today, only the cabinet secretary and his counterparts in the UK and Welsh Governments know what the issues are. The rest of us are in the dark about what we are being asked to vote on. Last week, for the issues of contention to be published, I put down a parliamentary question and asked in the Delegated Powers Committee and I have asked again today. It is unacceptable that we cannot see what is causing this stand-off. We have to go back to the history of devolution to get to the heart of why the Scottish Labour Party gives our cautious support to the principles of the bill. I must stress that support is not unconditional and we will seek to amend the bill. There is no blank check for the Government on this. We have very serious concerns about timetabling, about the rush nature of the bill, about the time limited for consultation, the rights of people. We represent to shape its content and the powers that it seeks to place in the hands of ministers. We have concerns about the way that this has been handled and about the Government's selective use of challenge to the rulings of the Presiding Officer. Members will recall the trade union bill in the last Parliament, when the Labour Party challenged the Presiding Officer's ruling on whether this Parliament had legislative competence over areas of that Tory bill. What happened then? Did the Scottish Government bring in the Lord Advocate to support the position that they held and we held? No. Members cheered to the echo when my friend James Kelly was excluded from the chamber for challenging that decision. The hypocrisy and double standards are there for all to see. Going back to the recent history of devolution, older members will recall that when the constitutional convention was formed, it was Labour, the STUC, the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party, the Communist Party and the Churches who all came together to work co-operatively, do the heavy lifting, long debates and compromise all round to deliver the blueprint for a new Parliament. You will notice from that list two significant omissions, no Tory Party and no Scottish National Party, both of whom were completely hostile to devolution. When we hear David Mundell and Ruth Davidson, Nicola Sturgeon and Mike Russell claim to be the defenders of the devolution settlement, let us take that with a gritter full of salt. The SNP exists to end devolution. It wants to use Brexit as another means of creating division between Scotland and the rest of the UK to advance its overall policy objective. I contrast that with the Welsh Labour Government, who have introduced a continuity bill because it wants devolution to work and so do we. We will support this bill. We want those powers coming from Brussels that would ordinarily be devolved to be exercised by this Parliament, and we will move amendments to the bill on a range of issues. Despite our reservations about the bill and the whole process, we have a duty to try to make this bill as good as it can possibly be. Finally, I say to Ruth Davidson and Mike Russell, get your people back round the table, get this sorted. Let us get back to discussing the issues that the people we represent see as our priority. Their jobs, the economy, their living standards, the health and social care service and their child's education and how we build a future for all our people. I agree with some of what Neil Findlay had to say, and I'm big enough to say so. Even if, occasionally, his judgment led him down. I'm certainly happy not to repeat any disgraceful slurs on other members of other places who think that an issue, for example, as complex as the Irish border, is no more complicated than the London congestion charge, but I note that Professor Tomkins questioned the intelligence of a member of the chamber, unimpeded, and I wonder if he would reflect on that. The discussion at the Finance and Constitution Committee today covered several aspects. It covered issues around competence, necessity and content of the bill. I would like to address my remarks mostly to the content and the changes that I think we need to make to the bill to improve it. Briefly on competence, there is clearly, as we've been told, room for disagreement on the interpretation of the questions relating to competence. Judgment calls are not definitive rulings, but it seems to me, with the greatest respect, that the view that the bill is not competent does not appear to be gaining ground when we look at the range of other views being expressed. I don't believe that we can take that as a reason not to take action. I don't think that we can take that as a reason not to take action because the bill is necessary. Should we do nothing and leave ourselves with a legal cliff edge, of course not, no one would say so. Should we trust the UK Government to its word, a word that has been broken repeatedly throughout this process? I am afraid that it has failed too many times already for us simply to trust that it will reach an acceptable agreement in the time available. Should we introduce this bill and then have the minister continue to negotiate with the UK or introduce this bill and then legislate? Neither of these is perfect, but to leave ourselves without the option of passing this bill would simply be to hand a victory to those within the UK Cabinet that Mr Tomkins had no hostile words for, no harsh words, those who are fundamentally opposed to devolution and to the respect for the right of the people of Scotland to govern themselves on matters that are already devolved within our devolved powers model. I am sure that Patrick Harvie must share my concern that this Parliament may be used as a bargaining chip in a negotiation that is happening elsewhere. Can I ask his views on whether the bill should continue, regardless of whether a deal is done or not, or what role does he think that this Parliament would have in scrutinising any deal should one be secured? Patrick Harvie? My own view is that the gap between where the UK Government currently is and what would be acceptable, certainly to me, is so significant that I find it vanishingly unlikely that the UK Government will give sufficient ground for an agreement that is acceptable. However, after we passed the bill at stage 1 tonight, as I hope we do, it will be for this whole Parliament to decide whether we consent to the bill's withdrawal in those circumstances. I am afraid that I need to move on. One of the reasons why legislation in this Parliament is a preferable route from my point of view is that it gives us the opportunity to move beyond arguments about what the UK Parliament ought to do with its legislation and actually make changes to the bill. I will advance arguments on that based on the broad principle that power should set with the majority in Parliament, not necessarily with a minority Government. Both Governments in this situation are minority Governments. Neither has a mandate for unilateral action. If it is very brief, Mr Rumbles, is Patrick Harvie satisfied with section 13, which takes powers away from this Parliament for a period of 15 years, and takes the decision making away from us? I am not going to say that I am satisfied with the detail of any section until I have seen everyone's amendments, including those that Mr Rumbles brings forward. I would like to make some progress on the specific changes that I think are necessary. The minister talks about the range of scrutiny measures that will be available for subordinate legislation, the negative, the positive and the superaffirmative procedure or the enhanced affirmative procedure. I think that there is a case not only to have some definition about that in the bill, but also for Parliament to be in a position to decide for itself that a measure currently requiring negative procedure should get positive procedure, or indeed that consultation should be necessary and the enhanced procedure should be used. I think that that decision should be available for Parliament to make through some form of sifting mechanism, whether through an independent committee or through our subject committees. In relation to section 17, which again the minister referred to, the ability for Scottish ministers to consent to measures taken by UK ministers on devolved matters. This clearly must require parliamentary consent, not merely ministerial consent. The Government has given us some verbal reassurance that parliamentary consent will always be needed. I believe that there is a case for putting that on the face of the bill so that ministers are not in the position ever of being able to agree to consent to UK measures on devolved matters without the agreement of this Parliament. Finally, on urgent cases, the opportunity for ministers to effectively pass laws, change laws and then ask Parliament's approval afterwards is a massive new power. Again, I think that we need to improve the parliamentary scrutiny on that, either by means of an emergency break or a time limit between the making of an instrument and the laying of it, or indeed the measures to prevent that from happening during a parliamentary recess. Finally, Presiding Officer, I do not have time to go into detail on the submission by Scottish Environment Link, highlighting the gaps that will still exist in the place of environmental EU principles in domestic law. The action ability of those will be better than under the UK legislation, but does need to be spelled out more clearly, as well as measures to close what Link described as the environmental governance gap. I will hope to be advanced arguments for changing to the bill that will address all of those matters, and I absolutely give an assurance to others that we will take an open mind to any other amendments from whichever political party which seek to improve and strengthen parts of the bill. That is the parliamentary scrutiny of the powers that are created under the bill. I call Tavish Scott to open for the Liberal Party. We will vote for the bill at stage 1, because the Scottish Parliament is where we are. We want the Governments of the nations of the United Kingdom to agree on the powers that should be here in Edinburgh, in Cardiff, in Belfast and indeed in London. It is disappointing that the Conservative speech this afternoon did not start from that basis, start from the need for an agreement. Indeed, the briefings to the press this week suggest that it is further away than it is closer. Indeed, Adam Tomkin's speech was a speech masquerading as a parliamentary assessment of the bill, rather than what it really was, which was a political justification for the Tory position. A position that is not about the future of the nations of the United Kingdom, but about unity in the Tory party. I hope that the ministers meeting tomorrow, Ruth Davidson laughs. Well, if someone should know about unity in her party, I suppose that it is Ruth Davidson. She is obviously working very, very hard to… If Ruth Davidson wants to stand up and say what her position is, she can go right ahead. Ruth Davidson. You have to talk about party unity. Can you just remind us how his enormous group of five voted on the recent budget? Liberal Democrat, Adam Tomkin. Is that it? Is that it? Is that it? I'll tell you what we did. We voted for our constituents, and you should do the same on Europe. If a Tory started putting their constituents first on Europe, we wouldn't be in this place that we are here today. Like Neil Findlay, I share some of his concerns over the bill itself, and we will, as I'm sure the Government would expect, bring forward some amendments in a number of areas. The one aspect of Adam Tomkin's speech that I could take today is the concerns over the parliamentary scrutiny, and the concerns over the manner in which this Parliament will keep a check on what any Government of any political persuasion will do in the future. That does, to a large extent, concentrate on section 13 of this bill, because this is a truncated approach, given both the complexity of the bill and the little time that we have not to necessarily consider it, but to reflect on any evidence that any of the parliamentary committees receive. Our concerns are around that section in particular, because it does give sweeping powers to any ministers. It may not be Mr Russell in 15 years' time. Indeed, there may be few in here who would be sitting on the front bench at that time. However, to have a power that potentially leaves ministers for the next 15 years without the necessity of bringing back to Parliament—I can just finish this point and then I'll have to give way—a necessity to come back to Parliament on the actual power that it is, I do not think is a measure that we should consider lightly indeed. Michael Russell. I just want to make it clear that the proposal is five years with renewal available after scrutiny and, of course, I indicated in my opening speech that that would include, of course, a consideration of how the power had been used, but I will return to this when we have a debate about it because there are strong reasons for having some continuity. That has been supported by members of the Liberal Democrat Party in the UK Parliament because of the need for regulatory alignment. Tavishka. Let me offer a couple of reasons in addition to that one as to why I would suggest to Mr Russell that there is a better way to handle it. If he is, and I am sure he is, true to the point that he made in his opening remarks about accepting a different way to approach this issue, I hope he might accept a couple of points. Firstly, what he is encouraging Parliament to do in section 13 is to accept EU regulations post-March of next year 2019 without having any influence on what they are at all. He and I do not want to be in that position, but that is a position that we would be in and that cannot be a good way to proceed. Secondly, we would wish to make sure that those changes are compatible with Europe. If that is the case, the way to do that is to introduce legislation in this place on these matters, to make sure that this Parliament, through one of the portfolio ministers on the front bench, introduces the measures that they judge to be appropriate to keep pace with what is happening in Europe. To defeat that line of argument, Mr Russell and his colleagues need to do more than just say that there are stakeholders who have concerns, which is what the letter from the committee says to Parliament today. They need to set out the range of those concerns, the range of those stakeholders and the range of legislation that we would be brought forward. We are all aware of how many statutory instruments or instruments come from Brussels every year to the UK Parliament and, thus, to the devolved parliaments of the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, to go with the power that is in section 13 without considering what that means in practice, I do not think that that is realistic and appropriate. The final suggestion that I want to make to the minister is that we cannot have that power in isolation. He has made much and rightly made much of the need to collaborate and come to agreement with Cardiff and with—indeed, he is doing it on this bill because it is the same bill as in—at least, we are told that it is the same bill as in Cardiff—with Belfast when the Government of Belfast is back in place and indeed with London. In other words, the Administrations around the United Kingdom need to agree that this power has no mention whatsoever of the other Administrations of the United Kingdom. If we are to maintain a single market, including on things such as animal health, in which she has made an argument, and there is a real logic—belief me, as a rural member, I certainly take this from my constituency—a real logic to having animal health regulations, which are consistent across the UK for those of us who had to deal with BSE and the aftermath of all that, then there should be something in section 13 if it is to be an argument. In any way, it is appropriate that there should be agreement and discussion with the other Administrations of the United Kingdom to achieve exactly that. That is why I want to finish with the letter that the delegated powers rather committee wrote to the minister earlier, in which it sets out what happened in respect of this particular aspect of the bill. In the letter it says that the minister explained that this power has been included in the bill in response to concerns raised by stakeholders. I just simply ask in the way in which Neil Findlay is looking for clarification on the powers. I simply ask that the Government set out who they are and make sure that committees can properly look into that. The minister has been surprised that a similar power has not been included in the European Union withdrawal bill. That does not make it right to have it in London for the very reasons that we have been looking at. I would like to propose to the minister that, when he is considering a better way to achieve what he wants to achieve in section 13, the best way of the law to ensure that this place deals with primary legislation on the very measures that we would all seek to need to address but does it in a way that allows the full and proper parliamentary scrutiny? We come down to the open part of the debate. Before I call Bruce Crawford, I am going to call Graham Simpson to open on behalf of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. Graham Simpson. I am speaking as a convener. Like the EU withdrawal bill, this bill confers wide powers on ministers and, consequently, is of great interest to my committee. The timetable for considering this bill has imposed significant restrictions on the ability of the committee to apply thorough scrutiny to this bill and, as convener, I find that unacceptable. We all take our jobs seriously, and my fellow committee members, my impressive deputy convener, Stuart McMillan, Alison Harris, David Torrance and the ever-entertaining Neil Findlay, will do it as thoroughly as the limited time allows. The committee took evidence on the Delegated Powers in the bill from the minister yesterday at its meeting. We sought to answer the questions that we always seek to answer on all bills. Is it appropriate to confer these powers on the Scottish ministers? Are the powers appropriately framed? Do the powers match the policy intention, as expressed in the Delegated Powers memorandum, and are the powers subject to an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny? Having taken that evidence, the committee agreed to draw a number of the powers to the attention of the Parliament and wrote to you, Presiding Officer, this morning. Normally, we'd do a detailed report, as we did with the UK bill, and that's what should be happening here. I'm not going to cover all the powers mentioned in that letter, but I want to highlight some of them. In some of the cases, it is to welcome how the Scottish Government has responded to concerns that the committee had about similar powers in the EU withdrawal bill. In other cases, it is to note the Government's intention to bring forward amendments to respond to concerns raised by the committee. There's a remaining category of significant powers that I want to draw to the Parliament's attention. Firstly, section 11 of the bill confers a wide power on the Scottish ministers to correct failures of retained EU law, to operate effectively and also to correct deficiencies in retained devolved EU law. The committee has already considered evidence in connection with similar powers in the European Union withdrawal bill. In its report on that bill, the committee concluded that, quotes, the powers should only be available where ministers can show that it's necessary to make a change to the statute book, even if they cannot show that the particular alternative chosen is itself necessary. The committee therefore welcomes that this bill has restricted ministers' powers to making changes that are necessary rather than appropriate. Section 131 is described as a power to make provision corresponding to EU law after exit day. The Government's delegated powers memorandum describes the power as giving, quotes, Scottish ministers the ability to ensure that where appropriate, devolved law in Scotland keeps pace with post withdrawal developments in EU law. That's a very significant power and would potentially allow delegated powers to be used for a wide range of circumstances that may otherwise be considered appropriate to be done by primary legislation. The committee queried whether this power was appropriate to the purposes of this particular bill. We also queried whether there was the same urgent need for such a power and therefore whether it was appropriate to include such a power within a bill being treated as an emergency bill. The minister said that this power had been included in the bill in response to concerns raised by stakeholders and that he'd been surprised that a similar power had not been included in the European Union withdrawal bill. He explained that this power was needed for practical reasons to ensure that where appropriate, certain areas of law could keep pace with EU law. The minister suggested that environmental law and food safety law were areas in which there may be a desire to use this power to keep pace with EU law. In his view, this power was appropriate for inclusion. The committee has not taken a definitive view on this. The bill allows the Scottish ministers to set an exit day by regulations. The power does not provide any limits on the date that can be fixed. I asked the minister why the bill does not just say that exit day is the day that the UK leaves the EU since that is the factual situation. He said that the power would not be used to set a different exit day but pledged to amend the bill in response to that point. That is to be welcomed. Finally, in addition to exploring the delegated powers in the bill, the committee also asked the minister and his officials for a legal explanation as to why the bill had to be subject to the emergency procedure. The minister committed to providing that explanation. The committee has not had the opportunity to consider that response yet. We will follow the progress of the bill over the next two weeks but we should have had longer. Bruce Crawford will be followed by Christina McKelvie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This debate today is a very important occasion, perhaps more important than most. The occasion is also somewhat unique, is it not? It is a debate in which the vast majority of MSPs, if not all, strongly wish was not taking place at all. Certainly from a personal perspective I am deeply dismayed that it has proved necessary for the Scottish Government to introduce this emergency bill. However, I have reached a clear personal view. In my mind, it is without doubt a necessity for this bill to be before us today for debate. Quite simply, it is necessary for this Parliament to be in a position, if all else fails, to be able to protect the powers invested in it following the successful devolution referendum in 1997 and the Scotland Act 1998. An ax so cleverly constructed and delivered by Donald Dewar that enabled the creation of the first Scottish Parliament in over 300 years. The debate today is about so much more than just a debate about the potential impact of clause 11 of the EU withdrawal bill or the continuity bill. I recall so well the sheer joy of the opening day in July 1999 and the beginning of a new democracy in Scotland. The debate today, almost 19 years later, is about defending that very democracy that so many fought so long and so hard to create. The debate today is about protecting that precious democracy that Donald Dewar and, well as many others, allowed to come to flower in 1999. Today, let us call clearly that only party represented at Holyrood who campaigned against the creation of this institution was indeed the Tory party. There were, of course, Conservatives who supported it, but there were notable exceptions. Nonetheless, the establishment of the Conservative party was bitterly opposed. At this time, I am far from convinced that today's UK Tory party are in reality much changed in tone and attitude towards this Parliament as was the case in the past. I sincerely hope that I will be proved wrong regarding my scepticism and that agreement will be reached and that bill will become an historical irrelevance. I certainly previously hoped that agreement would be reached and arrived at and the Secretary of State for Scotland would be in a position to deliver on his promise to sort clause 11, albeit on a timescale much later than originally envisaged. However, that hope was all but dashed by the tone and attitude that was adopted recently by the Cabinet Office Minister, David Lidington. We can only assume that he is closer to the leadership of the UK Tory government than the rather forlorn figure of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who appears to have promised more than he can deliver. I disagree with Neil Findlay when he characterised the Tory Government position as a custard pie. I think that it is much more an eaten mess on this occasion. I will give that line to Ash Denham, since not so many laughed as I thought there would be. In the near future, we will know the answer as to whether agreement can be found, but I for one am not prepared to take a chance on agreement being found. There are no guarantees, and I will take some convincing that any promises for the future are deliverable. That is why the background of this continuity bill is so important, and that is why I will be voting for its general principles at decision time. I know today that the majority of Tories here at Holyrood are supporters of devolution. They clearly demonstrated that by supporting the Finance and Constitution Committee's position in declaring clause 11 incompatible with the devolution settlement. However, I ask the same Tories today that if they are not prepared to support the passing of this bill in principle at decision time and if agreement cannot be reached, will they vote with those who would protect this Parliament and vote to refuse consent to the EU withdrawal bill? Your decision day may be coming very soon. Will you side? We all want to protect this Parliament. What is the view that if the Supreme Court in due course does say that this bill is illegal and cannot go ahead? How does that protect the Parliament? That has already been addressed, Mike Russell, but I will say this to Jeremy Walfour. I have got to ask you and the rest of your colleagues, whose side will be on? Will you be protecting democracy in Scotland and this Parliament of Scotland? Or will you be taking the Tory party line from London? That is going to be the question that has come on your way very shortly. Let me outline my position in regard to the issue of competency. First, let me say that I do not disrespect the position adopted by the Presiding Officer in regard to competency. Let me put it simply. I choose to agree with the position of the Lord Advocate, Scotland's top law officer. I use that word choose deliberately because this is a matter of who we are as parliamentarians and who we choose to believe. As Patrick Harvie said earlier, we heard this morning at the Finance and Contrace Commission Committee that there is space for disagreement in this matter. It is therefore not as simple as a matter of who is right or who is wrong in terms of the finer point of law. In this view, I am reminded of the words of Donald Dewar from the opening of this Parliament and the birth of a new democracy on 1 July 1999, when he said on that fantastic day, that this is about more than our politics and our laws. This is about who we are and how we carry ourselves. When we come to decision time, let us all remember those words. This is about who we are and how we carry ourselves. Support the general principles of the bill. Vote to protect this Parliament. Vote to protect this democracy in Scotland. We owe it to the memory of those who fought so long and hard to bring this Parliament into existence, to protect the powers of this Parliament. Do the right thing. Christine McElvie to be followed by Jackson Carlaw. It is my belief that for the UK to leave the European Union is the greatest act of political self-harm over time. We have not yet properly seen the damage unfold, but when it comes, it will be, I believe, immense. The purpose of the bill before us today is abundantly clear. It will be a vital declaration of protection for every individual in Scotland preserving and defending our devolution and our very democracy. It will mitigate the impact of Brexit on this Parliament, on the Scottish Government and on Scottish society, though sadly it cannot save Scotland completely. Johann Lamont. Can I assume from what the member has said that, regardless of whether there is a deal or not, you think that the bill should continue? Christine McElvie. I think that the bill is in place today in order to ensure that we get that deal. If we do not get that deal, we have to protect this place. I also have to say that David Mundell gives me no reassurance that we will get a deal. David Lidington gives me no reassurance that we will get a deal. In order to protect this Parliament's power and this Parliament's place in our nation, we need this bill today. Let's make no mistake about that. The very ethos, the reconvening of this Scottish Parliament in 1999, is now under threat. It is one that would have horrified Donald Dewar. Theresa May does not seem to know from one day to the next whether she is actually trying to put in place. She has no idea. She has riddled with contradictions. She wants a hard Brexit but she does not want a hard border in Ireland. I am sorry, but those two are mutually exclusive positions. She cannot have a UK imperialistic cake and still eat from the EU cake. She needs to recognise that there are 27 other countries within a clear and long-established entity that want to protect their own interests rather than dull the UK's. While she continues her lament for British imperialism, we need to make sure that we understand what she might do next, not a mean feat. If she does not do what they are told—that is the message that we were getting last week—she wants the ability to pull back her devolution and tell us that we have all been bad children and put us on the naughty step maybe forever. Just because she cannot decide what to do about anything and totally rejects any concept that might just irritate her Brexit fanatics, such as Jacob Rees-Mogg, Boris Johnson or even the DUP, does not mean that she will not act at all. Only that she will almost certainly make the wrong decisions. In some sense, she is a hostage as much as Scotland is. Her own position is dictated to her by others. She is the proverbial puppet on a string. Brexit is not just about economics and trade. I am fed up hearing about that. It is also about the profound impacts upon all of our rights. Indeed, leaving the EU will deprive us of the benefits that have been guaranteed to us by the EU through its charter of fundamental rights, which came into effect in December 2009. The charter guarantees a far wider range of rights than the UK's 1998 Human Rights Act. It prohibits, for example, all discrimination based on sex, race, colour, ethnic origin, religion, disability, age or sexual and gender orientation. It also guarantees access to healthcare and those very, very valuable environmental protections that we all need. I am profoundly concerned that people who voted Brexit did not realise that they were voting to limit, even lose altogether our rights at work, such as their reasonable working hours and holiday leave, rights under the European courts of justice, rights in pregnancy and maternity leave and a host of other protections that seem set for the bonfire of EU legislation that will follow Brexit. For example, Vernon Bogdan, our professor of government at King's College and author of Brexit and our unprotected constitution says, Last autumn, two employees sued foreign embassies for unfair dismissal, failure to pay the minimum wage and holiday pay and breaches of the working time regulations. One embassy claimed immunity under the State Immunity Act but the Supreme Court overruled them, rights that we can lose. Opportunities to access additional power of justice will vanish on Brexit day and that makes me angry and alarmed. Brexit will reduce our rights and protections given by the European courts. People will lose their automatic EU right to healthcare anywhere else in Europe on the same terms as local population. A broken plague in Benidorm is going to be a very, very expensive business. The Conservative notion that there is no threat is utter fantasy. Since its own leader seems to have no idea what or how to guarantee those rights, human, consumer, children's employment, equality, disability, just for some would be lost post Brexit. I'm not inclined to assume that outcome will be in line with our current deal. As John Major remarked last week, there can be no Brexit outcome that will be good as the package we already have from within the EU. I hear nothing that gives me any reassurance, only a lot of anxiety and an ever-increasing sense of doom. I'll tell you who does give me reassurance. Our Lord Advocate and his detailed, considered and thought out determination, he gives me reassurance. As my colleague Mike Russell highlighted last week, we may not ultimately need the bill at all, but he has equally made it clear that it needs to be in place and in place fast to avoid the danger of the whole Westminster rickety, unguided train passing a bill that is too late for us to do anything to protect our own position in this Parliament. That would leave any Westminster Government to suddenly decide to repeal the entire devolution package. We could literally see a Scotland's fund back under Westminster rule silenced. I believe that that's unthinkable. We must have this bill and I urge my college to support the general principles of the bill at 5 o'clock today. I start with a word and defence of the reputation of Mary Berry, because were she to bake it, it would be a custard tart and not a custard pie, Mr Findlay. I say to you that she currently has a series in BBC One, Mary Berry's classic recipes for people who find cooking challenging. You'd do well to watch it. I only hope that she could have a series on Brexit for you to watch too. I remain an optimist. Maybe a little later. Not much you can tell me about baking, I fear. I remain an optimist. My colleague Adam Tomkins and I will look at the same glass of water. He will see it half empty, I will probably see it half full. Neither of us is right nor wrong, but I therefore want to be slightly more generous and to say that I continue to believe that it is the endeavour of ministers to actually secure an agreement which will render this bill unnecessary. Why do I want to continue to believe that, because both the Deputy First Minister and Mr Russell have told me that that is the case? That is why I think that the most preferable option is that that agreement is struck and that this bill does not proceed. It is worth going back to September, when Mr Russell came to the chamber and sought the support of all of us to look at the bill that had been published and to accept, as we subsequently all did and as Mr Crawford recognised, that clause 11 was unacceptable, that there was a unanimous consent across this Parliament, that that was so and that an amendment to that would be needed. We have also joined in the frustration of others that that amendment has not yet been achieved and that, for whatever reason, changes of ministers or whatever, those discussions have not yet led to a conclusion. Nor would it be fair, I think, as the sum in this debate have already characterised and as some might like to do so, that there has been absolutely no progress whatsoever in these negotiations. These negotiations have actually led to significant progress between two Governments. I remain obstructed on a key point, which the First Minister herself identified in this chamber last week, as essentially revolving around a key, fundamental and hugely important clause, a particular word whether this Parliament gives its consent or whether it is consulted on the frameworks and disagreements within the frameworks that might arise. I would like to come back to that, but I do hope that, in the discussions that take place this week and ahead of or at the very latest on March 14, when the Prime Minister and the First Minister are hopefully scheduled to meet, that the nature of an agreement, building on the work that both Governments have done, can be found in the resolution of the debate that remains over that fundamental clause so that this bill need not proceed. While I believe that that is the objective of ministers, I have to say that I do not necessarily believe that it is the objective of the whole chamber. I do think that, in his naked, unvarnished, prejudice against Westminster, expressed again by Mr Harvey today, there is a desire among some not to see agreement, but actually to see the legal confusion bill, as Mr Tomkins called it, as the preferred option. I do not think that Mr Harvey is alone. I think that there are some within the SNP who feel that way. I think that even on the front bench, Rosanna Cunningham, through her exhortations and her expostulations in our body language during these debates, has also given the impression that she would prefer no agreement was reached and that this bill was the preferred route forward for the Scottish Government. I am grateful to Mr Carlaw for giving me. Can I take him back slightly in his speech to where he gets accurately to the problem that is in this negotiation? The resolution of that point has to be considered as to whether or not it can be resolved in a fashion that either protects devolution or undermines devolution. That is what this Government is concerned to advance. Equally, Mr Carlaw would accept that the United Kingdom Government must also determine the issue on that same question. Jackson Carlaw. Jackson Carlaw. I want to come very specifically to that point. We know that there are 111 powers and I do not think that it is unreasonable to say that those are powers which the SNP in principle would prefer never again crossed the channel to these aisles and were left permanently in the hands of Brussels and not in the hands of this Parliament or Scottish Government ministers. However, we know that those 111 powers have been narrowed down to a series of powers that would require to be covered by framework agreements. The word consent or consultation, I understand the anxiety of the Scottish Government about the word consultation, but I hope that they can also understand the anxiety of others about the word consent because consent implies veto. Not just one veto but three, the veto of Wales, the veto of Northern Ireland and the veto of Scotland. The Westminster Government, charged with the sovereign responsibility of protecting the single market across the United Kingdom on which so much depends, cannot agree to an arrangement whereby any one of four parties could exercise a veto over something as fundamental as the internal working of the single market across the United Kingdom. It cannot and it will not agree to the word consent. I want to be clear with Scottish Government ministers. There are urgent talks taking place this week and in the run-up to the meeting on 14 March, but it has to be understood that the word they are seeking is as equally unacceptable as the word the UK Government has used to date is to them. Therefore, all sides have to approach these final discussions with the greatest possible imagination and resolve to arrive at an agreement. I am grateful to Mr Carlaw again. Does Mr Carlaw have to acknowledge that the constitutional structure of the United Kingdom is fundamentally different because of what the UK has legislated for with devolution? His argument that, finally, there is no role for the Scottish Government to exercise proper devolved competence where that competence has been legislated for in successive Scotland acts, that we have a right to protect that. What I have said is that I think that the agreement that has to be reached over the next few days has to be one that both Governments engage in and understand that there are wider issues simply to arrive at a point where any one of four Governments could parallelise the internal market within the United Kingdom by refusing to give consent to something as fundamental as animal welfare rights across the kingdom is not something that the Westminster Government can or will accept. My concern fundamentally as we stand here today is that this bill is adding confusion. It is consuming the narrative that needs to take place if this agreement is going to be reached. I believe that those discussions should be the primary focus of all ministers in Scotland and at Westminster over the next 10 days. It is urgent that this issue is resolved. As Adam Tomkins says, the devolution settlement that we all want to see protected will be undermined inadvertently by actions that I think could be far-reaching in their consequences to this Parliament. I think that everybody in my party agrees with those principles as well. Principle number one is that getting an agreement would be the best solution for everybody between the Scottish Government and the UK Government. I was under the impression as a backbencher that that is the direction that everybody was trying to head in. The second point is that we all agree that whatever those arrangements are, they should not pose any threat to the integrity of the UK single market. I am going to say that that does not just apply in a devolved settlement. If and when Scotland becomes an independent country, I would argue that we would need arrangements between an independent Parliament in Edinburgh and the Westminster Parliament to protect the integrity of the UK single market. We are seeing the interests of everybody in this side of the argument as well as in the interests of everybody in that side of the argument to try to get agreement. The problem is, and this is what my worry is, until last weekend I thought that everybody was striving for the same objective that Mr Karlow wants and that we want to reach an agreement and to do so within the next few days because time is beginning to run out. My worry was when I saw a briefing not in one newspaper, not in two newspapers but clearly a fairly wide briefing from Downing Street that the Tory UK Government was now intent on, quote, freezing the powers of the Scottish Parliament and that meant not devolving the outstanding 25 powers. That briefing clearly was given fairly universally and it must have been given by people who are not sharing the same objective as Jackson Carlaw and me because that briefing certainly does not help the situation one I owe to. During his speech, Jackson Carlaw suggested that there may have been a change of ministers, presumably primarily the loss of Damien Greene, who I think got this, with the replacement of David Livingston to, to be fair, has no experience in these matters in its ministerial background. My worry, particularly with that briefing, is that it is not just a change of ministers. What that briefing suggested on Sunday was that there is a change of policy by the UK Government and they are digging in their heels and deciding that we are not going to get those 25 powers. That is where I come on to the speech by Adam Tomkins, because Adam Tomkins referred to contradictions and incoherence. However, if I may say to Adam Tomkins where I think there is incoherence in his position, and he pointed this out in his speech, the Scottish Tory group, the Scottish Tory party signed up to the unanimous decision taken in this Parliament that we wanted all 111 powers. That was currently, in Brussels, devolved to the Scottish Parliament where they belong after Brexit. I think that we thought that we had unanimous agreement on those points. However, it would appear that we do not have unanimous agreement on those points. What that is about is those outstanding 25 powers. That bill has nothing to do with whether he voted for her in favour of Brexit or not. It is about the implications of Brexit for this Parliament's powers. My view is very clear. That is that there is a way forward if everybody is prepared to be reasonable and there is no change of policy, which there might be in London. That is for us to agree basically on two things. One is that the outstanding 25 powers, like the other 86 powers, will be repatriated to this Parliament from whence they came in terms of the law on devolution. They are devolved powers. Those powers belong to this Parliament. They should come back to this Parliament. In return, we need to give reassurance. Jackson Carlaw has got it wrong in terms of the word consent, meaning veto. I do not think that that is what the minister intended and I do not think that that is a correct interpretation. I am sure that the minister will clear that up in his speech. Clearly, there has to be a bit of a quid pro quo. There has to be some kind of dispute resolution procedure whereby, if there is a belief that a particular measure by a devolved Government or a Westminster Government is going to adversely affect the UK single markets integrity, there has to be a procedure. Eventually, if agreement cannot be reached, politically it is resolved by a agreed dispute resolution procedure. For the life of me, I do not know why this poses such a major problem to the UK Government. I am, unfortunately, old enough to remember the original devolution bills that were presented by the Wilson and Callaghan Governments. In there, there was a proposal, because there was no tax-raising powers for a joint checkerboard. Indeed, in the fiscal framework signed by Mr Swinney last year, or two years ago, we have a fiscal committee, a joint fiscal committee. The purpose of that is to iron out differences without having to go to the Supreme Court as the final arbiter. It seems to me that, if there is still genuine intention in the UK Government to reach agreement, and I know the rest in our party and our Government, I am absolutely convinced of that. I know that Mr Tomkins thinks otherwise, but I am absolutely convinced of that. In all reasonable people could come together and reach an agreement that we can all sign up to. That, at the end of the day, is what the Scottish people want. With your permission, I'll take Ms Lamont's. I'm afraid not. Are you down to speak, Ms Lamont? I'd like to hear what she has to say if you do. Ms Lamont, I was so mesmerised by your contribution. While you say that there's come and gone in this question, are you concerned by the suggestion by some that the purpose of the bill is to protect Scotland from Brexit, from which I read, is that it's more than simply a bargaining chip in order to encourage the UK Government to come back to the table? My view is very simple. The purpose of the bill is to protect a devolved settlement, full stop. That's what the purpose of the bill is. Nothing to do with Brexit or otherwise per se is about protecting the devolved settlement, and I believe that if the kind of solution that I've outlined is implemented, we'll do exactly that. I call Clare Baker to be followed by Tom Arthur. It's fair to say that this is unlike any stage 1 that I have participated in during my time in Parliament. Usually we have a few weeks in committee hearing important evidence, a chance to question the minister, and the time to consider a detailed report that is then recommended to Parliament. With this bill, we have not had time to pause or to catch breath. This does lead to legitimate concerns over effective scrutiny. No one wants the Parliament to be passing poor legislation that can lead to more problems than solutions and then often have unintended consequences that can cause future difficulty. I do appreciate that there have been efforts to address some of those concerns. A number of committees, including my own, are taking evidence on the bill this week and next week. I understand that the official report will be concentrating on the evidence sessions at committee to ensure that they are available to all members as soon as possible. It has also been helpful to consider the evidence previously taken by the Finance and Constitution Committee into the UK Government's EU withdrawal bill. I welcome the minister's commitment to provide briefings, but so far they are largely a summary of information that we already know. I hope that we have more substance going forward. While we have the policy memorandum, the Government needs to be more transparent about where the points of contention with the UK Government are. I recognise that the minister wants agreement from other partners on this, but I believe that MSPs would benefit from knowing more about where the disagreement lies. The assurances from the UK Government are unconvincing, but we need to know more detail about the disputes. I am most grateful to the Law Society for its briefing in advance of the debate. It identifies a number of areas where greater clarity is required. The bill before us does mirror the EU withdrawal bill, but as the Law Society identifies, it does then replicate many of the issues that affect the EU withdrawal bill. The Law Society describes the bill as sharing the challenges of being complex, often difficult to interpret and sometimes lacking clarity. We should take the opportunity to alter the bill and look at ways where we could improve it. The report from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee today echoes some of the issues highlighted by the Law Reform Society. Section 13.1 is described by the Law Society as the significant power to implement powers in Scotland corresponding to the EU, even if the EU law is effective after exit day. The committee has questioned whether it is not more appropriate for this to be done through primary legislation. I note that the minister has today said that it is appropriate for this power to be in the bill, but I anticipate that this is an area that will be returned to at stage 2. There are serious concerns that parliamentary scrutiny would be lacking in areas where it is necessary. In highlighting section 10 on the interpretation of retained devolved EU law, the Law Society identifies one of the challenges of this whole situation when they argue that section 10 does not currently reflect what was agreed in the 2017 joint agreement in December. The Brexit process is so fluid, but it is important that the legislation is accurate and perhaps the minister could comment on those points in closing. It should not be necessary to have this continuity bill before us, but the task that we have today is to agree the general principles. Does it achieve what it sets out to do? It aims to provide continuity for EU law, which is currently operating in devolved areas, give ministers powers to ensure that devolved law continues to operate effectively, but grants powers to enable devolved laws to keep pace with EU law after exit. It is one stop on the Brexit journey, but we should not forget that even accepting this principle was a small victory, giving a degree of continuity and recognising the strong ties that are with our legal, social and environmental laws. Those measures, whether they are through this bill or achieved through the UK bill, are essential and need to be supported, but this bill before us is as much about context as content, and the consequences for pursuing this bill are much wider than this legislation. This is probably the first time that the Parliament has considered a bill, which, although there is a great deal of disagreement, there is also agreement that it would be better if this bill were to become redundant. The next few weeks are crucial if an agreement is to be reached. One of my first roles as deputy convener of the Culture, Europe, Tourism and External Affairs Committee was to meet with representatives from the House of Lords Committee, along with Welsh committee colleagues, to share our serious concerns over clause 11 and its implications for the devolution settlement. It is clear that the EU withdrawal bill, as it stands, is not comparable with devolution, does not respect the devolution settlement and could not command the support of the devolved parliaments, but the entrangency of the UK Government has led us to this position. There was an acceptance that there needed to be changes to this bill, but they have not been forthcoming. The Conservatives are incoherent on this issue. Reaching stage 1 today cannot have been a surprise. The issue has been unresolved for months. The lack of action from the Conservative Government brought Labour to bring forward amendments at Westminster to introduce a presumption of devolution, a principle that is widely accepted. In not accepting Labour's amendments, the UK Government said that it would bring forward its own amendments to protect the devolution settlement, but they have delayed, prevallocated and come up short, meaning that no deal has been reached but time is now running out. I urge the UK Government and the Scottish Government to work as hard as they can to reach an agreement. In closing, the law society argues that there is a public interest in the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament publishing illegal advice that they have received on the legislative competence. Those are exceptional circumstances. The Parliament is prepared to advance with a bill that does not have the confidence of the Presiding Officer. It is a matter to be taken seriously, and it is one that I believe justifies the sharing of legal advice. I call Tom Arthur to be followed by Maurice Golden, Mr Arthur, please. This year marks the 20th anniversary of the passing of the Scotland Act 1998, an act that gave effect to the overwhelming wishes of the Scottish people as expressed in the devolution referendum of the preceding year. As such, it carries with it a weight and political legitimacy, perhaps more normally associated with a Britain constitution. While devolution has been and remains a process, the existence of this Scottish Parliament is the settled will of the Scottish people. For my own and subsequent generations, and I say this as the first member to speak in this debate who was not old enough to vote in the devolution referendum, this Parliament has been and remains a permanent fixture of adult life. It is the centre of Scottish civic and political life, and indeed this is a view held by a majority of people in Scotland as reflected in surveys of public opinion. Consequently, any proposed changes to the competencies of this Parliament are of a fundamentally different category to any other matters that come before us in this place for consideration. As things currently stand, the UK Government's European Union withdrawal bill presents a challenge to the powers and legitimacy of this Parliament unprecedented in the 19 years since it was reconvened. That the powers of this Parliament are under threat is not in dispute. The Finance and Constitution Committee of this Parliament reported with unanimity that the proposals contained within clause 11 of the European Union withdrawal bill as introduced by the UK Government are and I quote, incompatible with the devolution settlement in Scotland and fail to fully respect the devolution settlement. It remains the case that the best way to remove this threat to Scotland's devolution settlement is for clause 11 to be amended to the satisfaction of this Parliament and legislative consent to be subsequently granted for the EU withdrawal bill. This represents the most efficient and elegant solution to the current constitutional impasse. However, this can only be achieved if the UK Government grasps that this debate fundamentally concerns a matter of principle, namely that decisions regarding powers devolved to this Parliament must remain with this Parliament. An agreement should be achievable. However, the actions of the UK Government since June 2016 do not give cause for optimism. Meetings of the GMC have often been irregular. Assurances of a joint approach ahead of article 50 were shown to be hollow. If the UK Government's position presented to the devolved Governments is a fatal company, an amendments proposed by the Scottish and Welsh Governments which could have allowed legislative consent were dismissed by the UK Government. From this long, dismal sequence of repeated rebuffs, it is clear that the UK Government does not view the UK as a partnership of equals, as Theresa May once described the relationship between the UK and devolved Governments. Rather than Scotland being invited to lead the UK, the UK Government now seeks to impair this Parliament's ability to lead Scotland. While time remains for an agreement between the Scottish and UK Governments to be reached, we are now running out of track, as the EU with devolved Governments will shortly be entering its concluding stages at Westminster. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Scottish Government and this Parliament to make preparations for all eventualities. The introduction of the UK withdrawal from the European Union legal continuity Scotland Bill represents a correct and proportionate contingency measure should agreement not be reached. It is correct in that it will enable legal continuity post Brexit and safeguard the powers of this Parliament. It is proportionate in that it contains a mechanism for its own repeal should agreement on clause 11 be reached between the Scottish and UK Governments. On the issue of the timing of the introduction of the continuity Bill, had it been introduced prematurely, the Scottish Government would no doubt have been criticised with perhaps some justification for attempting to prejudge the outcome of negotiations with the UK Government. However, the bill has been introduced as late as reasonably possible when a count is taking of both the four-week line period prior to royal assent that the bill would face if enacted and the early estate, but the European Union withdrawal bill could be passed at Westminster. That being a stage 1 debate, we are of course being invited only to approve the general principles of the continuity Bill. However, I do wish to say that I recognise the legitimate concerns of members regarding scrutiny. I therefore welcome the work of both the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and the Finance and Constitution Committee, which is already under way. I further welcome the formal role for the Finance and Constitution Committee at stage 2. That is, of course, not ideal, however, nothing in the entire Brexit process can be described as ideal. This is a bill that I would rather we were not required to consider. I voted to remain along with the majority of my Renfisher South constituents and the overwhelming majority of the Scottish people. Being stripped of our European Union citizenship against our will is an offence to democracy in Scotland. To be faced with a UK Government seeking to unilaterally strip powers from this Parliament is intolerable. The Finance and Constitution Committee was clear. Clause 11 represents a fundamental shift in the structure of devolution. It is incompatible with and fails to fully respect the devolution settlement, and the committee is not in a position to recommend legislative consent on the withdrawal bill. The fundamental issues that led to the committee reaching these conclusions have not, as of yet, been resolved. If, ultimately, we must withhold legislative consent, then we will require our own legislation to safeguard this Parliament's powers and to ensure the stability and continuity of our laws after Brexit. It is on that basis, and we have regretted that we have found ourselves in this situation, but I support the general principles of the UK withdrawal from the European Union at a legal continuity, Scotland Bill. In 1997, the people of Scotland voted to establish a new Scottish Parliament. Like Tom Arthur, I was not old enough to vote in that referendum, but I have the utmost respect for the institution that it created. A Parliament that we have the honour of serving in, a Parliament that should ensure that Scotland prospers, a Parliament that respects the law that created it, and a Parliament that acts in accordance with both customary and codified legal practice. What we have before us today, Presiding Officer, is a bill that fails in every respect. It is outwith the competence of this Parliament. It is poorly constructed. It won't be properly scrutinised. It risks Scotland's prosperity, and it is a salacious attempt to launch a second independence referendum campaign. The Government had breached the law with the bill. Can you explain that more fully? The law, as it stands, and the practice of this Parliament, is that the Government is quite entitled to bring the bill in, even if there is no stiffening. What law has been breached? If it has not been a law, perhaps he will withdraw that allegation as it would be untrue. Maurice Golden. The bill is outwith the competence, and if you read the official report, you will see that I did not make those remarks as you suggest. But what this is, is bad law, badly constructed, which will end badly for Scotland. If the SNP is prepared to ride roughshod over the Presiding Officer and the devolution settlement in this case, what is to stop them doing it again? Just last year, Nicola Sturgeon tried to force through another independence referendum against the will of Scots. It was only when the Scottish electorate sent a clear message to the SNP at the general election that it was forced to take a pause on a new independence referendum. When will that pause be over? The truth is that the SNP is using wildcat legislation on Brexit as a dry run for forcing an emergency second independence referendum bill. I would like to make some progress. As a result, this is not a serious bill of law from a sober-minded Government. It is a Scottish National Party pamphlet masquerading as legislation. It is a classic piece of SNP theatre. I would like to take an issue, stir up grievance and force a confrontation with the UK Government. Scotland, along with the rest of the UK, is leaving the EU. I would like to hear what the member has to say. If he disagrees with it, that is democracy. Scotland, along with the rest of the UK, is leaving the EU and we must be prepared. There is a mechanism already in place to make sure that we are the UK Government's EU withdrawal bill. There are challenges to overcome. Those have been recognised before this Parliament can grant its consent, but progress has and is being made when the British and Scottish Governments sit down, talk and tackle the issues head on. That is the way that we ensure that Scotland and the rest of the UK benefit from Brexit. That is the way in which we ensure that this Parliament secures new powers and that is the way in which we ensure that the interests of the Scottish people are served. A barrel load of powers will be devolved to Scotland and that is something that I welcome. I thank the member for taking the intervention. I would like to know if the member could list the new powers that are coming to this Parliament. Maurice Golden. Aviation, noise and 85 other powers will be coming and we could publish them if your Government hadn't decided to block it. There is a barrel load coming. In fact, compared against each other, the UK Government is committed to giving more powers to this Parliament than the SNP Government. The SNP Government is hell bent on answering to its European masters, the Brussels bureaucrats, who want to give all of Scotland powers away. We are presented with a continuity bill, but it offers no continuity, only chaos. We are told that it must be treated as emergency legislation, but no matter how much they claim it to be true, there is no emergency. It will be over a year before the UK leaves the EU and yet the SNP would have us believe that we must steamroll this bill through Parliament in a matter of weeks. I am in my last minute. Why the rush? There is only one reasonable answer to this question, to avoid scrutiny. Whenever a Government tries to avoid scrutiny, it cannot be said that they are acting in the public interest. What do they have to hide? Again, there is only one reasonable answer to that question. They want to hide the fact that they do not want negotiations with the UK Government to be successful. Let me end on a more positive point. Cool heads must prevail and there is no time for putting party before country with constitutional gains. I would like to hear the concluding words of the speaker, please. Even if you do not, I will. Have you concluded? Not quite yet. One more sentence, Mr Golden. Having you open to the SNP to secure a good deal for Scotland, but this bill puts it at risk. I say to the SNP, get round the table with the UK ministers, discuss, debate and do a deal. That is what Scotland needs and that is what you must deliver. I call Stuart McMillan, followed by Rachael Hamilton. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I will try to take us back into the real world now, after that contribution. I reluctantly welcome the bill and I will be voting for its progress at 5pm this evening. I will explain why I use the term reluctantly. This Parliament is not in a situation of its own making. If the UK Government were acting like petulant children, then an agreement to safeguard the powers of this Parliament would be reached, but the power grab is well and truly under way. Our constituents need to realise that this bill before us in the Scottish Parliament, what the Scottish Government is trying to do, is to deal with the crisis being wrought upon this Parliament and Scotland by the Westminster elite marching to the beat of that DUP drum yet again and also the 60 plus Tory MPs with a vision of hard Brexit. It is clear that the UK is in crisis. It has been mismanaged and there is a lack of detail and vision about the UK when, out of the EU offered thus far by the Prime Minister, shows the contempt that she actually has for the entire UK-wide population. When the House of Lords, when this unelected House of Lords becomes the voice of reason within Westminster with the Lords Constitution Committee warning in January that, while the legislation, that is the EU withdrawal bill from the UK Government, is necessary to ensure legal continuity after Brexit, it has fundamental flaws in its current state, then it is obvious that the UK is up a creek in a piece of scrap wood, never mind a paddle and a boat. That is why this Scottish Government continuity bill is necessary, is to try and bring about some stability to the Scottish economy post-Brexit. This chamber has heard often enough about the need for stability and planning in a wide variety of issues. We have heard it year after year after year from opposition parties and the business community wants that to help their planning pre and post-Brexit. That is the common sense approach. It was also the approach that members of the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee heard just over a month ago when we went to Dublin and we met representatives from the British Irish Chamber of Commerce. The business community and Ireland are looking at what is required to assist their economy, their planning as best they can to deal with the fallout from Brexit. The UK, on the other hand, is dithering overall but are attempting a power grab at the expense of this Parliament and of Scotland. Our Influential Finance and Constitution Committee published a unanimous report highlighting that clause 11 in the UK Government Bill is incompatible with the devolution settlement in Scotland, paragraph 39. Any paragraph 40 acknowledges that a continuity bill with a reduced timetable for parliamentary scrutiny is highly likely. That report was published on 8 January. The work to produce that report was undertaken in 2017. Therefore, it should not have come as a surprise to anyone, let alone any member of this Parliament, that the continuity bill was coming if the UK Government continued to consign Scotland as a second class citizen. Paragraph 36 welcomes progress that had been taken place and notes a recent statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland that the UK Government intends to table amendments to clause 11. Those amendments are not here, they were not in the Commons and thus far they are not in the Lords. Mr Tomkins and his contribution are on trying to defend his colleagues down in London, which is a shame, because when I was at a meeting with Mr Tomkins in London only a month ago, he was defending this Parliament and defending Scotland. The fact that the UK Government has reneged on this position will not come as a surprise to some, but clearly will be embarrassing for others in this chamber. However, if the UK Government, even at this late stage, brings forward amendments to its bill that are agreeable to the Scottish Government, then this Scottish continuity bill can be removed, as Scottish ministers have previously indicated. If the bill has already been passed, then section 37 of this continuity bill will be enacted. That was once again clearly highlighted yesterday by Mr Russell when he was giving evidence to the Deliary Powers and Law Reform Committee. Mr Russell's evidence was certainly very helpful yesterday, I thought. The evidence provided Mr Russell and his letter to the DPRR committee last night following up some other points raised in the committee were certainly very useful. Once again, the level of engagement that the Scottish Government is putting into this emergency process. There are some who feel that the emergency process is unnecessary and are entitled to their view. However, as the minister indicated again in his letter to the UK Government, the EU withdrawal bill is scheduled to pass in May so that secondary legislation can start to be made and laid in Westminster. I quote, making full use of the period before the UK is due to leave the EU. It is therefore a common sense approach for the Scottish Government to work in tandem to ensure that this Parliament is not left behind. I am quite sure that there would be that wall of noise from Opposition members if the Scottish Government did not act in Scotland's interests in this matter. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary for this bill to be brought forward as emergency legislation. Secondly, as it is a point that I touched upon earlier, this bill should not have been a surprise to anyone. The Finance and Constitution Committee highlighted the possibility of the bill coming, and I believe that the Scottish Government has shown a huge amount of patience towards the UK Government, and I have given them ample time to get their act together to amend the EU withdrawal bill. The fact that the Welsh Government is also introducing a continuity bill shows that it is not just a Scotland vs Westminster issue. It highlights the arrogance that the UK Government is treating both Scotland and Wales within this unequal UK. As a result of differing legal statements from the Lord Advocate and the Presiding Officer himself, the bill has clearly opened up a line of questioning from all those who are interested in the bill. Professor McHarg, Dr McHugh... I'm afraid that you must conclude, Mr McHugh, now. Thank you very much. I'm going to be the same with everyone now. Rachel Hamilton, followed by Fulton McGeiger, please. Ironically, the best advice in emergency is never to panic. The SNP has reversed that and allowed their panic to invent an emergency. We should be absolutely clear that this is not an emergency. This is the SNP deliberately trying to rush and railroad and create a crisis where there is none. It is the result of a muddled SNP Government. First, it's battling with the reality that the United Kingdom has voted to leave the European Union. The SNP will cry that Scotland didn't vote to leave. Well, neither did I, but here I am accepting the democratic decision. I'll take the intervention. Ash Denham. It's a combination of some of the comments that I've heard from those benches so far today. I'm very much enjoying their attempt to characterise this continuity bill as solely an SNP construction. Can the member explain why the Welsh Government, which is obviously a Labour Administration, is doing exactly the same thing? Rachel Hamilton. It's absolutely clear that we all want the devolved powers to come back to the Parliament like the Welsh Government do too. The Welsh Government have a different devolution settlement to us, so their situation is different, so we cannot compare apples and pears. It seems that the SNP have a funny attitude to democracy. They have spent months claiming that devolution itself is under threat, months claiming every insult and injury. This is nonsense. It has been the SNP's insistence that they want to deal with the UK Government and it is the UK Government who have co-operated by making movement in those negotiations. I wish Mike Russell the Minister every good wish for the JMC plenary tomorrow, and I hope that the negotiations genuinely go well. After all that gnashing of teeth, all that energy spent in deep negotiations, to now introduce emergency legislation, it just beggars belief. That makes every SNP claim ring utterly hollow. SNP members will take any chance to say that Hollywood is being treated with contempt. What could be more disrespectful than rushing through emergency legislation and ignoring the presiding officer's ruling by ignoring the rules that define and defend our democratic process? The SNP can never again claim any credibility on protecting devolution. Once again, we have an SNP Government that will fall through legislation to get what it wants, and what this SNP Government wants more than anything else is independence, a second independence referendum. For once, the SNP must drop this ideological obsession and work together like they say they want to with the UK Government to get the best out of Brexit. Until this bill came before us, we were agreed that respecting the devolution settlement created over 20 years ago and protecting the integrated UK internal market was crucial. My colleagues and the SNP were even making progress on this front. This Parliament was united in its focus to deliver the best for Brexit for Scotland. We had what people want, constructive working between Scotland's two Governments. Mike Russell concluded that a withdrawal bill is necessary. He said that our laws must be prepared for the day that the UK leaves the EU. Rachael Hamilton said that the Governments were working together and they were doing what people want. I know that my constituents wanted to remain. What does she mean by that? Rachael Hamilton said that the vote was not about Scotland leaving the EU, it was about the UK leaving the EU. The bill, however, shows a retraction in the sentiment to work together, a step back from that constructive process. We should be clear that that was a choice by the SNP. That choice has the potential to undo all that we have been working together towards, respecting the devolution settlements, protecting the integrity of the EU. Rachael Hamilton said that the UK leaves the EU. That decision is not a choice by the SNP. It is a choice by the SNP. It is a choice by the SNP. It is a choice by the SNP. That is a choice by the SNP. We have to protect the needs of Scottish food producers. We must work with the UK Government and other devolved powers to ensure that their markets are not affected by divergence, and that may require a common framework. At the same time, it may be superfluous because this bill cannot work before Brexit, as James Wolff himself told the Scottish Parliament. I quote, the bill does nothing that will alter EU law or undermine the scheme of EU law while the UK remains a member of the EU. Rushed legislation, as we all know, takes the land reform bill, will not get the best Brexit for Scotland. Rushed legislation, in which this SNP Government is famous for, never achieves what it sets out to do. Nor Rushed legislation allows this Scottish Parliament to fully scrutinise the bill, as has been mentioned many times today, making a mockery of what we are elected and responsible to do here. This emergency bill is a means to bypass parliamentary scrutiny and simply make the Scottish Parliament a rubber-stamping process for what the SNP demands, no matter how unnecessary or damaging it may be. Deputy Presiding Officer, the reason this bill cannot be delivered or simple. It is unnecessary, it is rushed, it damages Parliament, belittles our role as parliamentarians. As a result of the SNP's desire for constitutional chaos, leaving the EU in 2019 means that the power will not come to the UK or Scottish Government before that time, cements the fact that the SNP's true intention behind the bill is to damage the Brexit process, undermine the Scottish Parliament and further their mission to break up Britain. As usual with the Tories, it is all talk and no action. Almost every Tory in this Parliament promised to stand up for Scotland and the interests of the people they claim to serve, but when the time came for action, they voted against proceeding with the legislation that ensures that our Parliament is not stripped of the powers when the day comes for the UK to leave the EU. I, like the vast majority of members in this Parliament and at the UK level as well, campaign for remain. As others have said, I maintain my opinion that it would be better for Scotland to continue as a full member of the European Union. However, I also accept that until the people of Scotland are given another opportunity to vote for independence, there is little I or anyway else can do to overturn the decision of the people of England to leave the EU. However, it is incumbent on all of us, as elected representatives, to fight for the best possible outcome for our constituents and ripping Scotland out of the single market and the customs union would be a disaster. That is not my opinion, it is what the leaked Brexit analysis for the Prime Minister said. It is important to note as well that the Finance and Constitution Committee recently unanimously agreed that the Brexit bill in its current form is unacceptable to this Parliament and that legislative consent should be withheld, branding it incompatible with the devolution settlement in Scotland. Specifically, the UK Government has identified policy areas where the restriction would have effect in Scotland, such as but not limited to environmental regulation, fracking, licensing, land use and public sector procurement. It is good to hear that the Welsh Parliament has taken a similar view to ours and are calling for a similar bill to be spread through its assembly to prevent a crisis in exit date. Regardless of what Rachael Hamilton says, it is a similar situation. As it currently stands, the EU will throw a bill that would give UK ministers wide powers to make legislation in devolved areas and make devolved ministers secondary powers narrower in scope than the UK ministers and subject to constraints, such as requiring UK Government consent that would not apply to UK ministers powers. Additionally, the bill outlines that Westminster would no longer be required to legislate consistently with EU law. However, the devolved legislators would. The amendments that were put forward by the Scottish Government in response devolved ministers powers to be brought into line with the UK that devolution statutes be protected from amendment by secondary legislation under the bill and are for UK ministers to seek devolved ministers consent before using secondary legislation powers in devolved areas. The Government has made it clear that the continuity bill is a backup plan and, like Alex Neil, I believe that to be 100 per cent, and its preference is to support Westminster's Brexit bill once an agreement can be reached to drop the restriction on competence under clause 11. Furthermore, the Scottish Government has repeatedly indicated that it is possible to establish UK-wide frameworks through co-operation and not when imposed upon by the UK Government with no respect for the devolution settlement. Therefore, it would be an abdication of responsibility of everybody in this chamber to sit back and hope that the Prime Minister and the Scottish Secretary will be willing or able to make the necessary changes to allow this Parliament to reasonably grant consent. The Tories oppose the introduction of the bill while simultaneously agreeing that the Parliament could not possibly grant legislative consent to the Brexit bill as it currently stands. Their contradictory stance would have Scotland in a crisis situation when the time comes to leave the EU, with hundreds of laws relating to agriculture, fisheries and environmental protection suddenly disappearing. It is time for Ruth Davidson to show the leadership that she claims that she has and get her Scottish Tory MSPs and the MPs to do what it says in the tin, stand up for Scotland. EU agricultural policy covers market regulation, rural development, food law, animal health and quality policy for agriculture products. Without the passage of the continuity bill, withdrawal would create a major legislative and policy gap in those areas, leaving many aspects of the agriculture industry in a flux. For example, payments are currently made to Scottish businesses under the Caps programme of voluntary coupled support to help beef and sheep farmers, to maintain the social and environmental benefits that their livestock bring. If the Tories have their way, we will be leaving those farmers with no domestic support post-Brexit. Therefore, the Scottish Parliament needs the jurisdiction to continue reviewing legislation specific to the interests of Scotland. That bill ensures that, as far as possible, EU laws currently in place will continue to be enforced to daily leave the EU, providing our industries with the stability and protection. It will also require UK ministers to seek devolved consent from Scottish ministers before making devolved legislation preventing the obvious power grab from Westminster. Furthermore, the bill provides a keeping pace power to allow Scotland's laws to continue and where appropriate align themselves with the EU law after withdrawal and gives the Scottish Government an enhanced role in scrutinising proposals for changes to laws as a result of withdrawal. It is important to note that, despite the emergency treatment of the bill, which is highly justified considering the urgency of passing it before the withdrawal bill is passed, the bill is still being intense and scrutinised and the Brexit Minister has offered to provide evidence at the committees in the coming weeks, as he said earlier. Finally, our fundamental rights as citizens are currently protected by EU law and it is consequently at risk due to Brexit. I think that it is particularly telling that Westminster chose not to include the charter of fundamental rights in the Brexit bill, letting us know exactly what EU withdrawal will mean for rights and equality in the UK. While the Tories may be fine disregarding the rights of their constituents, the rest of this Parliament is committed to enshrine protections such as those in domestic law prior to an exit from the EU. I urge the chamber to agree the general principles of this bill and to the Tory MSPs, I ask you to go against your whip and stand up for those who you were elected to represent. Thank you. I call the new baby to be followed by Kate Forbes. Mr Baby, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As others have said, this debate is one that the Scottish Parliament should never be having. Despite any differences about the UK leaving the EU, there has been a consensus across all parties here about the role and status of this Parliament and a common determination to protect this Parliament and its powers. However, as Neil Findlay has said, the handling of the European Union withdrawal bill by the UK Government has been nothing short of a disgrace. It is a shambles. The fact that even the Scottish Conservatives have argued for changes in the bill is testament to how bad the process has been up until now. However, what is at stake here is not in your pride of Bruce Deygo's. What is at stake is the right of this Parliament to exercise in full its jurisdiction over those policy areas that have been agreed as devolved and to have full authority on how decisions will be made on those devolved related powers that are transferred back from the EU once the UK leaves. It is a matter of profound disappointment and regret that we are having this debate. As Neil Findlay also said, the Scottish Labour Party believes that the Tory UK Government should, as a matter of urgency, bring forward amendments to its bill to avoid us having to consider our alternatives. In the meantime, the challenge for us is to consider what those alternatives might be. The conflicting legal opinions that are expressed by the Presiding Officer and the Lord Advocate illustrate the complexities of the issues and highlight the potential for the bill to be challenged in the courts. We are in the uncharted territory and it is not comfortable for this Parliament to be disagreeing with advice from its Presiding Officers. Bruce Crawford on the issue of challenging legislation passed in this place in the courts. It is true that any legislation that has passed in this place can be challenged in court at any time. Neil Bibby I accept that, Bruce Crawford, but we are not discussing any legislation and not any legislation that receives advice from the Presiding Officer saying that it is not competent. So we need to tread very carefully and make sure that this unprecedented bill is being regularly tested for competence, content and effect. Probably more so than any other bill ever scrutinised by this Parliament, we need to demonstrate that it is not a political stunt or an overreaction to an incompetent and intransigent Tory Government. As a starting point, it would be helpful for both the Presiding Officer and the Scottish Government where to publish their respective legal advice. The Law Society of Scotland has said that it would be in the public interest. This is an exceptional bill and these are exceptional times. In these exceptional circumstances it is surely in the public interest that the relevant legal opinion is put into the public domain. In exceptional circumstances the ministerial code is clear that this is allowed. This Parliament should be able to reflect on the arguments both for and against the competence of the bill. The Parliament has been asked to give legislation that is entirely without president the maximum scrutiny in limited time. In these circumstances it is incumbent on the Scottish Government to co-operate with the Parliament and provide the assurances that members require before making an informed decision about the bill, particularly at stage 2 and stage 3. I asked the minister this morning about the 25 areas of disagreement over competencies between the UK Government and the Scottish Government, which we are to understand are one of the principal reasons that this bill has been brought forward. However, the Parliament and the public still do not know what those 25 areas are. The minister hopes to provide that information in advance of stage 2 and he will raise it at the meeting tomorrow that we heard earlier. However, as I told the minister this morning, I can see no reason why we should not have this information now and before us today. It is not just Scottish Labour that is saying that. In evidence to the Finance and Constitution Committee this morning, Professor Alan Pace described the Scottish Government's position on this is not satisfactory. Professor Kirsty Hughes said that having knowledge of those 25 areas would be desirable. I would therefore ask the Scottish Government to reflect on their position and publish this information to the Parliament and more importantly to the public. Section 13 of the bill, as has been discussed in powers ministers, Scottish ministers to make provision corresponding to EU law following our exit. Already there has been considerable debate about this section of the bill that has significant powers to Scottish ministers. It would allow the Scottish Government to implement laws in Scotland, which correspond to EU law, even if that EU law takes effect after exit date. There has been a lot of debate about it and we heard evidence again at the Finance and Constitution Committee this morning. The law society says that this section of the bill lacks clarity. Also at the earlier today, Professor Aileen McHard of Strathclyde University alluded to the confusion about whether this is a keeping pace power or whether it is included in the bill for some other reason that would be harder to justify. Another witness, Professor Page, warned that this amounts to a potentially major surrender by the Parliament of its legislative competence and called it a thoroughly bad idea. I think that we should take heed of those serious warnings. The UK Government's withdrawal bill has been rightly described as a power grab, not just because of its dispute with the devolved administrations but because it could also allow the executive to sideline the UK Parliament. Just as the role of Parliament must be respected by the UK Government, so too must the role of this Parliament be respected by the Scottish Government. The minister must listen and address the concerns that have been expressed about this section in particular of the bill going forward. I am pleased to hear Patrick Harvie saying that the Greens are open minded on amendments in this area as well. I think that that is very important. Like others on the Labour benches, I have reservations about this bill, reservations about the rushed nature of the bill, the limited time available for consultation and the power that it would put in the hands of ministers rather than the hands of the Parliament. However, I will support the bill at decision time today. We are in uncharted territory. Fundamental principles underpinning the devolution settlement are at stake. Doing nothing is not an option. If the UK Tory Government will not amend the EU... Sorry, you must complete right now. ...to take account of the concerns expressed by all parties, then we must be prepared to act. Thank you very much. I call Kate Forrest followed by Joan McAlpine. I am never quite sure whether to do it, but I am the PLO to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Constitution. In last Thursday's debate, Joan Lamont commented that we have a tendency to forget the one million people in Scotland who voted leave. As a Democrat, I have some sympathy with that view, not because I necessarily agree with them but because I have a responsibility to represent my constituents. I am pleased that this debate can unite all voters because I also agree with Alex Neil that it is not about Brexit, it is about the existing powers of this Parliament and it is about protecting the devolution settlement that people in Scotland voted for so decisively in 1997 and I will not tell anyone what age I was then. As a Democrat, I think that this Parliament is responsible for representing the wishes and aspirations of the people of Scotland. We have a responsibility to protect our country's interests and freedoms and to advance policies and strategies that make Scotland safer, fairer and more prosperous. I happen to think that that is what Scotland's MPs should be doing to all 59 MPs of different parties and the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Prime Minister, none of whom should need to be convinced or persuaded to respect the devolution settlement or to honour their promises or to provide satisfactory answers on the economy, on the long-term rights of EU nationals or on the future border arrangements in Ireland to name just three. The challenge for all MPs in this Parliament in the fallout of the Brexit vote is the sense of powerlessness, despite the best-determined efforts of the Scottish Government, a Government that has published several papers on Scotland's place in Europe and whose public analysis has been far more comprehensive than the Government who is tasked with negotiating on our future. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Local Government and the Welsh Assembly summarised the entire predicament by saying that clause 11 and I quote, rolls back devolution. It says that, for an indefinite period of time and to an extent that the UK Government cannot explain to us powers that we have had since the start of devolution will be taken back to Westminster and at some future date, eaked back out to us. It has been said by Mr Tompkins and others that this bill is unnecessary and perhaps it would be if his colleagues would get their act together, respect the fears in this Parliament and across Scotland and Wales for the devolution settlement and face up to the responsibility of furthering the interests of this country and not undermining them. There has been and continues to be an option for the UK Government to resolve what is unanimously accepted as unacceptable. There were promises that Brexit would actually lead to more powers for Scotland, followed by promises to accept amendments to protect the devolution settlement. Regrettably, despite those promises, the UK Government firstly failed to bring forward an amendment in the House of Commons, and although it has finally put a proposal on the table, this amendment would still allow the UK Government to restrict the Scottish Parliament's powers unilaterally through an order made in the UK Parliament. That is what is putting everything in jeopardy, not this continuity bill. The continuity bill will come into effect if the Scottish Parliament decides not to grant consent to the EU withdrawal bill because—this is critical—to do so would be to abandon our responsibilities, our collective responsibilities, the responsibility of anybody who has ever been elected to this Parliament and will be elected in the future, our collective responsibility to represent and to further the interests and freedoms of the people of Scotland. Tavish Scott mentioned the need for some UK-wide frameworks, and the Scottish Government has always been clear that it accepts in principle the need for some UK frameworks on certain matters. However, what is covered by a UK framework and how they are governed must only be made with the agreement of the Scottish Parliament. It is not acceptable within the devolution settlement and also in the terms of how the nations of the United Kingdom operate together to rewrite the devolution settlement and impose UK-wide frameworks in devolved areas without consent. I finished where I started. There are disagreements about the rights and wrongs, the risks and benefits, the pros and cons of Brexit. There are always have been and these will continue. This debate is about the cross-party agreement inside and outside the chamber that we have a responsibility as members of the Scottish Parliament to represent and further the interests of Scotland, and we will not sign away that responsibility, no matter how temporarily. Thank you. I call Joan McAlpine to be called by Mike Rumbles. I think that Bruce Crawford, MSP, hit the nail on the head today when he asked the Scottish Conservatives whose side are you on. He generously conceded in his speech that Scottish Conservatives were now supporters of this Parliament having been on the wrong side of the campaign to establish it in 1997. That campaign resulted in a 74 per cent yes vote to reconvene this Scottish Parliament, something that it is worth reflecting on when you consider the destruction that has been wrought on this country and indeed the whole UK with a 52 per cent leave vote across the UK as a whole. Jackson Carlaw was deserving of Mr Crawford's generosity. In his speech, he said that he wanted the two Governments to reach an agreement. Although the tone of his speech was very conciliatory and measured, it concerned me that he equated the desire that the devolved Governments should consent to the intervention in their power. He suggested that that was the equivalent of a veto. To describe consent as a veto is to quote the word in a barrier of hostility in my view. I could not help but note that Michelle Ballantyne MSP also used the word veto today when her and I conducted an interview with ITV border this morning. That suggests to me that the concern expressed by Alec Neill is that there is a very hostile briefing emanating from the UK Conservatives, which is deeply confrontational to devolution is somewhere out there now. I do not think that Jackson Carlaw for a moment is hostile to devolution or this Parliament. As a member of the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee, he signed up to our Brexit reports conclusion, which I quoted before, but I make no apologies for quoting again. That conclusion said, we believe that any power currently a competence of the EU that is to be repatriated after Brexit and which is not currently listed in schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998 should be fully devolved alongside a funding mechanism resulting in no detriment to Scotland. Of course, this has not happened and the Scottish Conservatives, yes? Michelle Ballantyne, you were saying very clearly that you don't think that consent constitutes a veto. If the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Irish Parliament or the Welsh Parliament did not give consent to something, what do you call that? Joan McElfane? I call that not giving consent. I want to turn to the justification that the Scottish Conservatives have brought forward to justify this act of vandalism against this Parliament. They repeatedly suggest that only by staging the power grab can they ensure that free trade continues across the UK itself. As the minister, Michael Russell, said to the chamber last week, there is no single market in the UK as the UK Government has presented it. There is a uniform market that we all trade together, but we have different arrangements when those are required and when the powers of this Parliament or those of the Welsh assembly make that necessary. As the minister noticed, there is considerable diversity in the UK right now. There are corporation taxes in Northern Ireland and income and property taxes here, the ban on fracking here, minimum alcohol pricing and, critically, our refusal to open up the Scottish NHS to market principles as in England. The European single market that the Tories are set on leaving has a single set of rules that are interpreted and enforced by member states with the European Court of Justice as the final arbiter. It allows divergences, so long as states fit into the overall structure trade can be maintained. The Scottish Government considers that there are likely to be fields where its policy will be, at least immediately following UK withdrawal, voluntarily to maintain regulatory alignment with EU rules. That will mean choosing to keep pace with developments in a particular field of regulation after UK withdrawal. If the UK chooses otherwise, we would be allowed to do that. The EU single market gives a huge amount of flexibility to Parliament, such as this one, while allowing for fair and free trade across the borders of various member states. That is a critically important point. The EU single market has an entire set of institutions and bodies dedicated to its maintenance, bodies that are jointly controlled by its members. There is currently no mechanism like that in the UK. If the JMC process is a mechanism, goodness help us all, because that has clearly not delivered anything like respect for the devolved settlement. That is why we are facing the dilemmas that we do now. We must now construct a series of frameworks to govern how we can make law. Central to this will either be this bill or one from the UK Government. Thus far, the UK Government has had many warm words, which are welcome but little concrete action, and this Parliament's constitution committee concluded unanimously that clause 11 was incompatible with the devolution settlement, yet it still stands. It is obvious that many of the areas that are currently controlled by the EU have the potential to be viewed very differently by the Scottish Government and the UK Government in absolute terms and in interpretation. One pertinent example is the cultivation of GMOs. That is regulated at EU level under the deliberate release directive and from 2015 has been possible to restrict the cultivation of such crops. We in Scotland enjoy the benefits of that and have, along with 19 member states, ended the cultivation of GMOs here in Scotland. The Welsh and the Northern Irish Governments joined us though England did not. Where will we stand post Brexit? I wish I or frankly am afraid that you must conclude. Thank you. No, you must conclude. You must conclude. Please sit down. I call Mike Rumbles, please. Several members in this debate have made much about protecting the powers of our Parliament in this bill. That is indeed the intention of the bill and that is why I will be supporting the general principles in the stage 1 vote tonight. However, our job as MSPs is to scrutinise the detail of the bill. After all, the devil is always in the detail and oh boy is there a devil in this detail. We should be protecting the powers of our Parliament. Section 13 takes real power away from our young Parliament and delivers it. It delivers it to ministers. I just quote 1. Regulations in the subsection 1 may make any provision that could be made by an act of the Scottish Parliament. I cannot believe that it is protecting the powers of our Parliament by giving ministers this power for up to 15 years to create, for instance, new public authorities, with MSPs with us being only allowed to say yes or no. Section 13 undermines the powers of this Parliament, and it fundamentally shifts powers from Parliament to ministers. Could I ask genuinely all those MSPs who have said in this debate that this bill is about protecting the powers of our Scottish Parliament? If you have not already done so—and I hope that most of us have, but I am sure that if you have not already done so, please read section 13 in full, and unless section 13 is removed from the bill in stages 2 or 3—and I will certainly be putting down amendments if other people do not—those MSPs, such as myself and others, who are genuinely concerned about protecting the powers of the Parliament, will not be able to vote in stage 3. I will, but if I have time— I am grateful to Mike Rumbles for giving way it. Neither he nor I wish this Brexit crisis to come about, but we recognise the extraordinary job of legislative heavy lifting that will be required if we are, in fact, taken out of the European Union. Is it his view that that can be done entirely with primary legislation and not with order-making powers at all? Briefly, Mr Rumbles. No, it can be done with both. What we mustn't see over the next 15 years is our powers of primary legislation being taken away, and that's the whole point of section 15. It's 15. Read the bill properly. We can only say yes or no, if our goodness sake. Five and five and five is 15. Like many speakers in the debate, I sympathise with the view that it's regrettable that we're here this afternoon having to consider this legislation. Essentially, as many have pointed out, it's a result of failure to resolve the issues around the EU withdrawal bill, specifically clause 11. There's a general view in the Parliament that powers coming from the EU that relate to the Scottish Parliament should reside in the Scottish Parliament. It's that issue that's been of debate around the EU withdrawal bill. Regrettably, because of internal differences in the Conservative Party, that issue has not been able to be resolved. As Neil Findlay pointed out, going back to before the turn of the year, we heard a number of statements from Conservative politicians in Scotland that this issue could be resolved and that they would work constructively to bring amendments. However, when the time came on 10 January, that passed without any amendments being tabled. That's precipitated the crisis that we see today. From that point of view, the devolution settlement was under threat and the purpose of bringing forward this legislation from the Government is to protect that devolution settlement. From that point of view, we will support those general principles. However, I did have a rice mile to the number of SNP-backed benchars who have made speeches, you know, being champions of devolution. It was only this time last year that we debated having a second independence referendum and the speeches from those benches were about ripping up that devolution settlement. There were a number of issues that came out during the course of the debate. Obviously, one of the challenges here is legislative competence and the fact that we have a different view from the Presiding Officer's legal advice to that from the Lord Advocate, who has issued his certificate in support of the Government's position. Listening to some of the speeches across the chamber, people were picking what legal advice stood for their political argument. Christina McKelvie favoured the Lord Advocate's position and Rachael Hamilton favoured the Presiding Officer's position. As MSPs, it puts us in an uncharted territory and it puts us in a difficult position, because this is the first time that we have had a position in which the Presiding Officer has not issued—with the exception of Sandra White's bill—a certificate of legislative competence. Obviously, it is serious that his view is different from the Lord Advocate's view. I think that it is important that we try to resolve that issue during this process. We do not want to end up in a position in which we are in the course. From that point of view, as Neil Bibby pointed out, I know that it is not the normal position of either the Presiding Officer or the Government to publish legal advice. However, in that instance, given the gravity of the situation, I think that both the Presiding Officer and the Government should consider the publication of that legal advice. Clare Baker was right to point out the challenges around scrutiny and transparency. It is already clear from this debate that this is complex legislation and there are going to be a lot of amendments coming forward at stage 2. The deadline for stage 2 amendments is Friday, and then we are going to be here on stage 2 next Tuesday, which is only six days away. That truncated process is something that is of real concern. I added to that the fact that there have been repeated calls during this debate, and the different committees that Mr Russell has attended to publish to 25 areas, whether there is a disagreement between the Scottish Government and the UK Government as to what powers should be passed to the Scottish Parliament. It is difficult for parliamentarians to formulate appropriate amendments when there are areas that are central to the debate that are not fully transparent and before us as MSPs. I thank James Kelly for taking the intervention, but I am sure that James Kelly would agree with me that no MSP should have been surprised that there was a possibility of a continuity bill coming forward to the chamber because of the actions and inactions of the UK Government. No, I made that point, but now that we are in the process as parliamentarians, there is a real challenge as to how we work our way through those issues. If we stick to the timetable over the next two weeks, there are issues around legislative competence. There are serious challenges around scrutiny and transparency. We have heard from different members—Mike Rumbles has raised concerns about the regulations passed to ministers in relation to section 13, and there are concerns that there is too much power in the hands of ministers. Similarly, Patrick Harvie spoke about section 17 and consent in relation to subordinate legislation. There is also the issue about retained EU law that Graham Simpson raised and the potential that that will undermine legal certainty. I know that the minister has said that he is committed to addressing this, but section 28 and the ambiguity around the exit day definition is one that also has to be addressed. In summing up, the bill presents real difficult challenges for the Parliament, as I said, around legislative competence, scrutiny and some of the issues. I think that, listening to the debate, I agree with what Alex Neil and Neil Findlay said, that there is a real challenge here for the Tories to resolve their internal differences and to help to come up with a solution to that. Otherwise, we are in a position where, as parliamentarians, we have to navigate a very difficult parliamentary process, which there are legal issues around. We could end up, even if the bill was passed, with it being in the hands of the courts. That is something that nobody wants. We want a resolution that retains devolved powers where they should be in the Scottish Parliament. At stage 1, we are generally used to a consensual discussion here in the chamber. At stage 1, it is, of course, the stage where usually parties attempt to avoid head-on confrontation as they agree or tend to agree on the general principles of the bill, simply to allow it to be scrutinised in more detail at stages 2 and 3, where the technical specifics of our amendments are debated. Not today, Presiding Officer, we will be voting against this at stage 1. Let me begin with the subject of legislative competence. This is a bill that you, Presiding Officer, have deemed to be beyond the competence of this legislature, and yet you have been ignored by the Scottish Government, who charge on regardless. For the first time in the history of this Parliament, the significance of this should be lost on no one. The devolution settlement is enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998. That act is a remarkable, historic document. It is the act that gave birth to this place, this institution, this Parliament, and Tom Arthur and Bruce Crawford talked about it. I agree with them in terms of the special nature of that act, although I disagree with them about many of the conclusions that they drew. However, the architects of that legislation, who carefully designed it, who understood the nuances of devolution and who calibrated the delicate balance between reserved and devolved authority, and the sensitivities involved, created something of wonder. It is not perfect—no act is—but it has led to remarkably little litigation and legal controversy. The concept of legislative competence is paramount to that. Section 29 of the act says that the Scottish Parliament Act is not law, as far as any provision is outside competence. The Supreme Court has said that this lies at the heart of the scheme of devolution to which the act gives effect. Anything outside competence is not law—a simple, basic, raw fact. As we all know, the act provides for you to give your ruling on legislative competence. Yes, I will. Given the context of his remarks, whether he would like to remark on the comments by Lord Hope, the former deputy president of the Supreme Court, who said that the EU withdrawal bill had a touch of cromwell about it. Donald Cameron. The members of those benches have been on record as saying that clause 11 is not fit for purpose, and I do not dispute that at all. In terms of the act, the act expressly provides for you to give your ruling on competence—it does not merely provide—it mandates its compulsory. You shall give your view. Why should you give your view, Presiding Officer? Is it a courtesy, a mere convention, or could it be that legislators saw the need for the leader of this Parliament, the person elected by us all, to head up this institution, the Presiding Officer, to be the guardian of what this Parliament legislates upon? According to the Supreme Court, those sections are designed to ensure that the Scottish Parliament confines itself to the defined areas of competence. Section 31 is entitled Scrutiny of Bills. It could not be plainer. Your ruling on legislative competence is about scrutiny. It is about examining and auditing the legislation that is introduced here. Presiding Officer, you are the gatekeeper. Last week, unequivocally and explicitly, you stated that the bill falls outside legislative competence. Yet, the Government plows on regardless, turning the Scotland Act on its head by obstinately persisting with the bill in a way that is both unnecessary and unprecedented. Bruce Crawford. Will the member also accept that the architects of the Scotland Act were clever enough to make sure that, in the design of the Scotland Act, it was also the capacity of the Government of the day to submit a bill for discussion in Parliament, despite a ruling from the Presiding Officer that was out of competence? That is the situation that we are in in reality today. The explanatory notes to the act say that it is something that this Parliament should take into account during the passage of a bill that you describe. The Lord Advocate can set out the legal views of the Government, as he did last week. There is absolutely no procedural requirement for him to do so, unprecedented again. However, not content with those new departures, the Scottish Government goes further and goes faster. Last week, we are told that this is to be emergency legislation going against the grain of every emergency bill passed so far. That remains a disgrace with every other party here, complicit in that decision and landing us with this farcical timetable to consider fundamental legislation on the constitution in the space of a mere three days. Labour and the Lib Dems piously expressed concern today, but they voted for it and for this timetable. We have heard complaints from the SNP before about not having enough time to read the Brexit impact papers. We have heard complaints that the House of Commons has not had time to debate amendments on the UK bill. Any complaints about a three-day timetable for one of the most radical constitutional bills before this Parliament? Not a whisper from the SNP benches. This is not respecting the devolution settlement, it is discrediting it. This is not defending the Scottish Parliament, it is attacking its very foundations. I would like to turn to the bill in its detail. The Scottish Government's very own policy memorandum says that it will add complexity and present serious, logistical challenges. A bill where no formal consultation was possible prior to its introduction. However, if there was a need for consultation, this is it. If there was a need for detailed evidence, oral or written, from professional bodies, from the third sector, from the vast array of people and members of the public who could be affected, this is it. There are serious concerns that the bill goes beyond that of the UK bill. On the matter of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the bill incorporates it directly into Scots law as it applies to devolved matters while it is accepted from incorporation by the UK bill. The Law Society of Scotland argued that, where the bill takes a fundamentally different approach, the Scottish Government should be permissive with suggestions to improve or clarify the bill as it passes through the Parliament. I hope that it has taken note of that. Alex Neil Can I ask him the core question at the heart of where the Tory party is? What today is Tory party policy? Is it still to transfer the outstanding 25 powers back to this Parliament or to keep them in Westminster? What is your party policy? I will come to that in a moment. Alex Neil The Law Society of Scotland noted that the bill introduces new categories of law such as retained devolved EU law, which may make it more difficult to be certain about the law. The spice briefing on section 4 talks about it being not being clear which rights will be captured by that section. Section 13 of the bill has been mentioned before. It provides powers to the ministers to make regulations to ensure that where appropriate Scots law and devolved areas can continue to keep pace with EU law after the UK has left the European Union. There is currently no comparable clause in the UK bill. The 15-year nature of one of the subsections is of grave concern. Mike Rumbles is absolutely right that it undermines this Parliament. All of those points—I am sure that others will come to them in the later stages of the bill— point to the fact that the bill does not complement or coincide with the UK bill. It is something quite different and has to be acknowledged. It assesses all the makings of a constitutional and legal minefield. I can sense every lawyer in the land rubbing their hands in glee. So many issues, Presiding Officer, so little time. On the subject of time, the real tragedy—this is what Jackson Carlaw was right about—is the timing of the bill. Negotiations are at a crucial, delicate stage. The two Governments are close to agreement, but with an enormous, important issue to determine. At this sensitive moment, at the very moment when maintaining trust between Governments is at its most critical, what happens out of nowhere the SNP gives us this bill? Alex Neil, to answer your point, everyone agreed that clause 11 was unfit for purpose. Everyone accepted the need for common frameworks. Everyone accepted that everyone was striving to reach an agreement, and the bill drives a coach and horses through that today. The UK Government has made a big concession in relation to the immediate devolution of powers. This was a major move towards the SNP. It marks a substantive change in position. The SNP faces a choice. Either it can focus on these discussions in good faith, which are coming to a head, or it can continue to play games with the constitution. There we have it, Presiding Officer. A bill outwith our powers. A Presiding Officer defied and a Parliament stripped of time to adequately scrutinise this legislation. What a mess. On these benches, we will have no truck with the SNP's gameplay. We will oppose this irresponsible lawmaking. We will support a sensible deal on Brexit that brings more powers back to Scotland. Above all else, we will oppose this wretched wrecking bill at decision time. I call on the minister, Michael Russell, to wind up the debate. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am conscious of a number of themes that have emerged this afternoon. I want to treat them carefully, but I often start with a quotation. It is from John Mahaffey, the UK ambassador to Ireland in the second world war. He said—I think that he is rather riley at one stage—that, looking at Ireland and the difficulties it had and the language that was used, phrases make history here. It also happens to be the title of a very good book of Irish political quotations. What John Mahaffey meant was that he had to be careful in difficult circumstances. He had to make sure that he did not make those circumstances worse and that he tried to use accurate and careful language to describe where he was in order that he might make some progress. I say that because I am concerned that the language that has come particularly from the Tory front bench today and also from some of the back benches. I want to just make clear the difficulties that are being caused by that and the inaccuracy that is within it. Ruth Davidson said over the weekend in an interview on television that I was on a subsequent interviewer. However, I was in a snowstorm with Davidson. I think that I was indoors during the interview. She said that the SNP Government had rammed through emergency legislation. This chamber voted 86 to 27 in a democratic vote. You cannot use those words accurately. Secondly, Rachel Hamilton said that rushed legislation was always bad legislation and pointed to the example of the land reform bill. I was on the committee of the land reform bill. There were two years of consultation and then nine months between introduction and royal assent. I understand that Rachel Hamilton does not like the land reform bill. She does not like land reform like many of those sitting round her. They feel threatened by land reform. I wonder why, but the reality is that that was not a rushed piece of legislation. We have seen other examples. Adam Tomkins' account of this morning's meeting of the committee in the evidence of the law society could be challenged at the very least. It would be challenged simply by looking at the video of that evidence being given, because there was a very constructive discussion on a whole range of issues. However, there was also other evidence given. It was not simply the law society turning up and saying, you know, woe is me. There were many discussions. Let us take, for example, section 5 on general principles and the charter. The bill has made clear steps to improve the position in the UK bill keeping the charter in Scots law. Indeed, in other evidence, in exactly that same session, Professor Eileen McHarg clearly pointed out that effective remedies to the problems that were raised by Professor Tomkins are within the bill. Presenting those issues in the accurate way is extremely important. I suppose that the nadir that we got to, although I regret Donald Cameron's use of language, the word disgrace, the description of the Liberal Democrats as pious, does not help us to try to discuss this carefully. The nadir was, of course, Mr Golden, who used a word illegal, who used the word wildcat legislation, strangely enough, words that occurred in a press release from Mr Cameron earlier today. Clearly, there has been some collusion on the choice of words. That is not illegal. The legislation creates exactly the circumstances and anticipates the circumstances that we are in. There are remedies for those circumstances. I think that it is really important to make that point clear. Freesies do make history. If we are going to debate and discuss in what are difficult times, resolution that we have to find, let us try and do so with a level of accuracy rather than what we have heard this afternoon. If we are going to do it, let us also not mis-tell our history. Of course, we have all took different positions at various times and the Constitutional Convention, and all of us did different things. Mr Arthur was too young to vote in the 1997 referendum. I ran the SNP campaign, but I also ran it jointly with Andy Miles and the Liberal Democrats and Jack McConnell from Labour. There was, of course, a working together in the yes campaign. Let us move on to the key question, which is not what we necessarily did in those referendae. Let us talk a little about the key question of what we would do now. That is the point that Bruce Crawford raised very importantly. What would we do now? Do we put the interests of devolution that devolves settlement in the forefront of our minds, or do we put something else at the forefront of our mind, whether it be shouting, in the case of Professor Tomkins, or party advantage? Let us look at that carefully. Now let me turn to some of the issues of detail before I come to the point that I want to conclude on. On the issues of detail, I am, and I have made that clear from the very beginning of this process, I will go on making it clear, open to discussion, debate and, of course, the bill is open to amendment, as I have indicated to Mr Rumbles at the start of this and make it clear here. And if there are defects in any of the clauses that members are passionate about and clearly Mr Rumbles is passionate about clause 13, then amendments can be brought forward and discussed in the normal way. And indeed, and I again pay tribute to the bureau and to all those who are involved, we have a system developed which will allow that to happen and I hope that it will happen well. But I am also happy to argue for section 13. I have to say that the wording is directly drawn from the existing provisions in the EU law in the European Communities Act 1972, and I really have to make progress on this, I'm sorry. Therefore, we believe that that power continues to be appropriate in certain circumstances, but if we have to define those circumstances more closely, if there have to be constraints upon those circumstances that the chamber wishes to see, that's an entirely legitimate aspiration to bring forward those amendments and let us debate and discuss them, and I hope that we will. And there are a range of other issues raised today which can be addressed either in evidence at stage 2 or in the willingness that I have shown to discuss this with any individual member or any group or even to be addressed at stage 3. So we have a whole range of ways of dealing with the detail of the bill and we should do so using accurate language and with a determination that no matter the views of people whether or not we should be here, that we try and get the best legislation possible. But the heart of this issue, Presiding Officer, is this. It came in two succeeding speeches this afternoon. It came from Mr Carlaw and Alec Neill. I commend both of them, though I disagree with Mr Carlaw, and I agree with Alec Neill, but I commend both of those speeches. I fear that Jackson Carlaw might even unwittingly have taken us back in this debate rather than us forward, whereas Alec Neill has tried to take us forward. He will recognise that this is the case of Respikey Prospeke, something that he himself talks about often in the motto of his old school. Kate Forbes and Neil Findlay made exactly the same point. Tomorrow we will have to address the substantive issue of whether we can get an agreement. If the UK Government has dug themselves into a position where they cannot accept the basic principle—and Kate Forbes made it—not to sign away our responsibilities, Mark Drakeford made it and she quoted Mark Drakeford in this. If the UK Government has determined not to do that, then there cannot be an agreement. However, as Alec Neill has indicated, there is the possibility of finding in the middle there some way in which we can accept the devolved settlement, which is the devolved settlement. It cannot be wished away. If the UK Government wished to alter the devolved settlement, it must come with primary legislation to alter the devolved settlement. However, if there is some way to do so and Alec Neill has indicated some of those moves, then it can be found. I was concerned with Adam Tomkins' presentation of the issue of the Sewell convention. It had eerie echoes of Jacob Rees-Mogg on the Irish border, blaming the issue on the Irish border on the EU, not on the Brexiteers. Now, let me make it absolutely clear that the Sewell convention should apply and should go on applying. Nobody in this chamber, I hope, believes otherwise. If there is any attempt to argue, as appeared to be the case, that in some sense we had sold the pass on the Sewell convention, let me put that to one side now. Let me put that firmly and cleaning. Don't blame the victim for the crime. The reality of this situation is that the Sewell convention applies and should go on, and it would be an extreme step. The type of step, I hope, is not to be anticipated by Mr Carlawney's speech. It would be an extreme step if what was to happen was that convention was to be abandoned by the UK Government. Mr Tomkins simply keeps shouting. I have tried to indicate that that is the inappropriate way to deal with those issues. The appropriate way to deal with those issues is to have the type of debate that he was involved in this morning, where there was constructive debate in the committee. I don't know what he had for his lunch, but clearly it didn't agree with him. Now, let me finish by simply saying this. I will go into tomorrow's discussions in London, as I know Mark Drakeford will, and I spoke to him at lunchtime today—hopeful, positive and purposeful. However, we will be judged in the end by the chambers to which we report, and the judgment will come on that key issue, as Kate Forbes indicated to it. Have we made sure that we stand up for and do not trade away the responsibilities and rights of this Parliament, or have we found some weakness within ourselves that does not allow us to do it? I believe that we should stand up for the rights of this Parliament, because that is standing up for the rights of the people of Scotland. However, I go in to negotiate. It is absolutely determined to try and find a way to get in agreement. Thank you. That concludes our stage 1 debate. The next item of business is consideration of motion 10784, in the name of Derek Mackay, on a financial resolution for the UK withdrawal from the European Union legal continuity Scotland Bill. I would call on Derek Mackay to move the motion. Firmily moved. Thank you very much. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 10838, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick and behalf of the bureau setting out a business programme. I would call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 108838. Firmily moved. Can I ask if any member wishes to speak against this motion? No, in that case, the question is that motion 108838 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. We come now to decision time. The first question is that motion 10817, in the name of Michael Russell, on the UK withdrawal from the European Union legal continuity Scotland Bill at stage 1 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. We are not agreed. We will move to our division and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 10817, in the name of Michael Russell, is yes 94, no 30, there were no abstentions, the motion is therefore agreed. I would just point out that because this is an emergency bill procedure and the Parliament has agreed to the general principles of the bill, stage 2 amendments should be lodged by 2 pm this Friday, that is Friday 9 March at 2 pm. The next question is that motion 10784, in the name of Derek Mackay, on a financial resolution for the continuity bill be agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. We are not agreed. We will move to our division again and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 10784, in the name of Derek Mackay, is yes 94, no 30, there were no abstentions, the motion is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time. We will move now to members' business in the name of Stuart Stevenson on electronic and internet voting. We will just take a few moments for members and ministers to change seats.