 The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the UK withdrawal from the European Union Legal Continuity Scotland Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, the marshaled list and revised supplement to the marshaled list and the groupings. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes after the first vote of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, there will be a voting period of one minute for the first vote in a group. Members who wish to speak in any debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible after I call that group. We now refer to the marshaled list and I call amendment 14 in the name of Adam Tomkins grouped with amendments 14A and 49. Adam Tomkins to move amendment 14 and speak to all amendments in the group. I move amendment 14 in my name. It is imperative that Brexit, that is to say the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union, does not inadvertently undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom as a union of four constituent nations. Indeed, Brexit should deepen and strengthen our precious union. The United Kingdom common frameworks that we know that we are going to need in areas such as agricultural support, public procurement, environmental protection and the like will, if they are designed properly, lead to a new post-Brexit era of shared government in the United Kingdom. With the United Kingdom government and the devolved administrations working together in the common interests of all of the nations of the UK, that is exactly as it should be. We know that the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly are going to become even more powerful as a direct result of Brexit. A whole suite of powers, all of which, by the way, the SNP Green Alliance would rather say no to and would rather hold in Brussels, will be coming here. These include but are in no sense restricted to aviation, carbon capture, marine environment, maritime energy, including renewable energy, flood risk, water quality, forestry, cross-border healthcare, roads, transport, voting rights and many others. My amendment seeks to ensure that the operation of these new powers does nothing to undermine, impede or restrict the operation of the United Kingdom domestic market as it operates now. Those last words are important. This amendment imposes no new restriction on either the Scottish Parliament or Scottish ministers. This amendment takes nothing away from either our legislative competence or from ministers' executive competence. My amendment seeks to define and understand our precious union or the domestic market broadly. Of course commerce and trade are at the heart of it. The free movement of goods, capital, services and labour. Free trade was the reason why the union was established 311 years ago in 1707 and it is the reason why Scotland has prospered in the three centuries since. It is not just about trade, our union is a social and cultural union too and again my amendment recognises this and seeks to protect all of that. Scottish Conservative amendments at stage 2 tried in a variety of ways to protect the union by making this bill subject to the European Union withdrawal act for example or by making it subject to the Scotland act or both. Are we fully expected the SNP Green Alliance to vote these amendments down as they will presumably seek to vote this one down today? That's par for the course. They don't believe in the union. They want to terminate it. The Scottish Labour Party voted with the SNP Green Alliance at stage 2 to defeat our union protecting amendments. Labour didn't want this bill to be subject to the Scotland act. They voted against that proposition. They didn't want this bill to be subject to UK legislation on Brexit. They voted against that proposition. They wanted exactly what the SNP wants, namely for this bill to give the nationalists licence to use Brexit as an excuse for undermining the union, chiseling away bit by bit at Scotland's right for place at the heart of the United Kingdom. Labour's amendment today to my amendment, amendment 14A, in the name of Neil Findlay, a member of the Parliament who couldn't even be bothered to turn up for any of the stage 2 debates, reinforces our view that the Scottish Labour Party is increasingly untrustworthy on the union. Mr Findlay's amendment time limits the requirement to act compatibly with the UK's domestic market to six months, or to the coming into force of a common framework, whichever is earlier. This hands the SNP a veto, with no checks and no balances. All they have to do is to hold out for six months, refusing to sign up to any UK common framework, and thereafter they are free to act in any way they like, quite regardless of the UK's legitimate interests in preserving its market integrity. For a nationalist, no problem. But what a so-called party of the union is doing, putting such a reckless proposition to the Scottish Parliament, I have no idea, and we will not be supporting it. Finally, Mr Findlay gets to speak in this debate and I look forward to hearing how he is going to justify, one, his refusal to turn up at stage 2, and two, his amendment to my amendment, and I will respond to his points when I sum up. Finally, Presiding Officer, in this group is amendment 49 in the name of Tavish Scott, and we will be supporting this amendment. The power to keep pace with European law post Brexit provided for in section 13 of this bill is an extraordinary power. Indeed, it is an extraordinary power grab by Scottish ministers, and Tavish Scott's amendment 49 is an important and valuable constraint on its exercise. I commend the amendment in my name and the amendment in Tavish Scott's name, both of which we will be voting for, but we will not be supporting Labour's attempt to shore up the nationalist ambitions to use Brexit to undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom. Neil Findlay to move amendment 14A and speak to all amendments in the group. I wonder if, before I move the amendment, if I could ask the minister to take a few minutes to advise Parliament what his intentions are should clause 11 of the EU withdrawal bill be amended in the House of Lords, and the Government then has to bring forward legislation here to repeal this bill. What happens to all of the amendments on the environment, animal rights, human rights and so on, the protections that we have put in? Will there be another process for us to incorporate them into law? Will they be cast aside in a process that, to many people, may have looked like a political game and a waste of time? I think that it is incumbent on the cabinet secretary to advise Parliament both now and all members of this Parliament in writing what would happen in that scenario. Finally, how will this Parliament scrutinise any deal that may come forward between the Scottish and UK Governments and indeed the Welsh Government so that we can examine this in this Parliament? I am happy to say to Mr Findlay that I recognise the importance of the point that he is raising. There are elements in this bill, for example, the protections on environment, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the issues in employment that Labour has brought forward, which are different from the EU withdrawal bill in the UK and may require, if those circumstances prevail, to have further legislation. I commit myself to two things. One is to consultation with other parties on how we can protect those if we reach those circumstances. If the member will also write to me about that, I will expand on that to try to find the areas in the bill in which we can find agreement on that and to ensure that, in the event—it no means a certain event—in the event that the bill does not proceed because of an agreement in the UK, we are able to provide those protections, which are extremely important. Alan Miller, for example, said that Professor Alan Miller indicated earlier this week that he thought that the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the position that we were taking here was a far better position, as is in staff on environment and other things. I will commit myself to consulting with parties, I will commit myself to responding to the member and I will commit myself to finding a way to do so should we require to do so. I also asked the minister about scrutiny of any deal that is brought forward. How does he intend to provide Parliament with that opportunity also? I have people who have said that we will provide that opportunity for scrutiny of any deal. Nothing will be agreed unless the chamber will agree to it. Neil Findlay. 14A seeks to amend the Tory Reckon amendment. It is our view that any Brexit legislation must take account of and meet the needs of the different nations and regions of the UK in respect to devolution settlement. As such, it is of great importance that any steps to protect the UK's domestic market are not seen as being at the expense of devolution or incompatible with it. 14A is unacceptable for two reasons. It places no timeline on the restrictions being proposed and seeks to make the restrictions exclusive to Scotland's government. It is in the interests of both the rest of the UK and Scotland that equality is achieved between the regions of the UK in regards to this process. I propose my amendments as a means to address that and ensure that reciprocal arrangements are put in place. We must ensure that other Governments within the UK have an equivalent commitment that will last until common frameworks are agreed. After that point, it would no longer be necessary that this process would ensure the intent of amendment 14 while making it effective and in line with the spirit of devolution. If the Tory amendment was passed, policy innovation might be curtailed, as any Scottish Government would be prevented from deviating from practices elsewhere in the UK, practices that are deemed to distort the UK market. For example, we could not introduce public health levies, we could not introduce the smoking ban, the plastic bag tax. This would go against the spirit of devolution and the interests of our people and our democracy. We will not also not be supporting the Tavish Scott amendment as we believe that the existing wording is more appropriate. Mr Finlay has missed the point of the amendment 14 in my name, which is that it protects the domestic market as it operates before exit day. All of the examples that he gave are examples of devolution that worked before exit day and they would continue to work with devolution after exit day. I absolutely do understand the amendment. What Mr Tomkins does not understand is that any of those initiatives could not happen in the future. Similar initiatives could not happen. Mr Tomkins, when he was in one of the other many political parties that he has been in over the peace, I am sure agreed with devolution during those times, but now he is in the Tory party's party, he just does what his paymasters tell him. I think that we can try and keep the discussion to the issues at hand rather than individuals. Tavish Scott to speak to amendment 49 and others in the group. I sense there's more politics today than there was last week in stage 2. I move 49 in this group. The continued operation of the UK single market is important to businesses and individuals in Scotland after exit day. New powers are being allocated around the administrations of the UK. Extensive order making powers are being proposed for ministers in all of those administrations and in many cases there are the same powers being exercised in four different places at the same time. Every party in this chamber believes that there should be UK frameworks. The Scottish Government is constantly appalled that it has not been consulted properly. So my amendment today encourages Parliament to make sure that Scottish ministers lead by that very example, that ministers consider the impact of their proposals on the operation of the UK single market. This amendment will be the way to get reference to the importance of that market onto the face of the bill. Stage 2, Adam Tomkins moved amendments to create protected fields where the UK minister would have the power of veto on Scottish ministerial action. That put the UK ministers judge durian executioner on policy areas that everyone agrees should be part of a UK wide framework. I would argue that if the four administrations are cooperating then it shouldn't be for one of them acting alone in this case just UK ministers to veto proposals. If the intention of Adam Tomkins today is to protect the operation of the UK single market then it is a natural extension to support Neil Findlay's further amendment that makes it clear that all four administrations should be given equivalent and reciprocal commitments. Parliament has a lot of time for Adam Tomkins and his background and knowledge as a professor of constitutional law, I certainly do, but today he seeks to insert a section into a bill before even the introductory section which sets out the purpose of the bill itself. That strikes me as pretty close to parliamentary showboating. Mr Tomkins is a serious lawmaker but he should not move an amendment such as this in this area and I move 49 on that basis. I apologise, I said that we wouldn't be supporting the amendment. We will be supporting that one. After last week's 11 hours I hadn't really intended to speak in this debate but having sat down and read more closely Adam Tomkins' amendment I thought that I really had to get to my feet and make a few points. Normally Adam Tomkins knows I fully respect his position in regards to the way he makes an argument and puts across his point. We work very closely together on issues around clause 11 but I believe his amendment today is an attempt to put this Scottish Government in any future Scottish Government in a policy box and restrict its choices. It might not be the means act but if you look at in particular 3A in his amendment it is a very wide power, an open to very wide interpretation. For the purpose of this act the exercise of any power is to impede or obstruct the great and kindle domestic market but is not limited to and making of any enactment. That's a very wide power to give any future UK Government but it gets worse. That would result in any unregulated divergence material damaging to the ability of individuals, corporations, entities based in Scotland to trade or contract etc. That's a very wide power, yes surely? Adam Tomkins Very grateful to Mr Crawford for his forgiving way and indeed for his kind words. This bill is called a continuity bill. The opening words of my amendment as Mr Crawford will have noticed are to seek to preserve the operation of the domestic market in the United Kingdom post Brexit as it operates now pre-Brexit so that there is continuity between the situation now and the situation in the future. There is no more, no less. There is no greater ambition in this amendment than that. It is fully consistent with the purposes or the alleged purposes of this legislation which are to provide for continuity. Will Mr Crawford not accept that? Bruce Crawford I take Adam Tomkins at his word because that's the sort of guy I am but I don't often agree with Neil Findlay, I don't think I've ever agreed with him before actually but on this one Neil Findlay is right. This is not just about what's gone before, it's also about what this place can do in future and had we had not in place the minimum pricing, no smoking legislations, changes to future income tax even rates The Tories argue that in some way Scotland undermines our relationship with the rest of the Kingdom right now, before we even have this legislation, differential support and agriculture which already exists but probably couldn't exist in future if this amendment were to pass. Business rates can be set different business rates which should impact differently from the rest of the UK. Landfill tax which may be different, we've chosen not to at this stage but we may in future choose to make it a different level or the land and buildings tax, that could well be diverted from in the future. Those are all areas where the Tories have argued that these policies are damaging to Scotland and damaging to the internal market and potentially in future when if we do leave the European Union, I hope we don't but if we do in these circumstances there may well be an argument that Scotland should have power in future over VAT because it's only the European Union legislation that stops us having power over that VAT. If Scotland was to decide to have a different rate on VAT to the rest of the UK, potentially this amendment would undermine this Parliament's ability to do that. I understand Adam Tomkins' ability. He wants to stop undermining the UK and internal market. I think that he's flawed in that argument but I believe that his amendment either inadvertently or deliberately undermines the devolution settlement. Adam Tomkins is very good and plausible at putting across his arguments but I think that on this amendment he has been, yes, I'll give way. Neil Findlay. Just wonder what the Tory argument would be if this was in relation to local government and they tried to restrict it. The first people saying that centralisation of power. Come may this year I'll have been elected for 30 years. I know I'm beginning to look like it in one way or another. I've seen a lot of vault faces from the Tories, particularly in local government, and the way they stand up for local government now and the fig leaf they put around themselves on that is in stark contrast to the future, to the past way they have behaved as far as local government's concern. I believe that Adam Tomkins is always very good at sounding plausible but his amendment I think on this occasion he's been found out and I would encourage the chamber to vote against it. Patrick Harvie to be followed by Peter Chapman. Thank you, Presiding Officer. There's a phrase, an accusation, which is sometimes levelled at those of us who support the idea of Scottish independence but I think on this occasion is Adam Tomkins who needs this accusation levelled at him. He's stoking constitutional grudge and grievance. I think that's the basis of what he's trying to do with his amendments. I can't support any of the amendments in this group, Presiding Officer. I want to address first of all, of the lot of them the most reasonable, at least on the surface level, is that it comes from Tavish Scott about an assessment, a statement making an assessment of the impact of a draft instrument on the operation of the single market. I do think we need some kind of clarity about whether we talk about a single market, an internal market, a domestic market or what that language really represents but it might be thought reasonable that an assessment be made about the impact of a draft instrument. The implication even of that is that it is the Scottish position proposed by a Scottish Government and endorsed presumably by a Scottish Parliament that would create regulatory divergence. If regulatory divergence takes place it is the result of multiple positions which are not all the same. To blame one aspect of that rather than the other, to say that divergence, if it happens, is because of a Scottish instrument instead of a UK instrument applying elsewhere. I just think that it's an unrealistic assessment to make to say that a Scottish draft instrument is entirely responsible or what proportion of the divergence is accountable to the Scottish instrument as opposed to the other measures elsewhere. I think that Mr Harvey makes an entirely fair point, which is why the amendment that we look at involves all the Administrations and Governments of the United Kingdom to deal with exactly the point that he's just making. Amendment 49 merely places an expectation on Scottish ministers to make a statement on their assessment of the impact of their draft instrument. I still think that Scottish ministers in fulfilling that obligation will find an impossible task to disentangle what proportion of any divergence is a result of actions being taken in Scotland. Fundamentally the argument goes deeper though with the first two amendments and in particular with Adam Tompkins' amendment. I think that all of us accept that common frameworks will be necessary in some areas, whether in respect of current devolution, post Brexit devolution if indeed that happens, or even if we were one day, oh happy day, developing the same relationship with our neighbours that other independent countries have with one another. Common frameworks would probably still be necessary but common frameworks must be based on consent and consent must be active, it must be entirely voluntary and it can be withdrawn at any time. To pass legislation which restricts our ability to withdraw consent to a common framework would be entirely at odds with that basic principle. It's a principle that I think those of us who support independence should be concerned about. It's also a principle that I think those of us who believe in the union, in the strengthening and preservation of that union should also be concerned about. Because if there is going to be any approach at delivering genuine common frameworks with genuine consent and assent and affirmation on all sides then I think that Adam Tompkins is going the wrong way about it. Peter Chapman, to be followed by Johann Lamont. I will be brief and I will declare an interest as a farmer because my example is about farming. To be honest, I can't understand why any member of the chamber could possibly vote against this amendment in the name of Adam Tompkins. I also support Davish Scott in his amendment 49. In my particular industry, namely farming, the UK single market is absolutely vital to our farmers. Just to give you one example, we export over 80 per cent of our beef and 90 per cent of that goes to England and it receives a premium in that market. Any restrictions on that trade would be disastrous for our farmers. Farmers are only one example. All Scottish trade depends to a large extent on the single UK market. It's equally important for all our traders that the single UK market is protected. I would therefore expect wide support for this amendment in Adam Tompkins' name. Johann Lamont I want to make two brief points. I was aware of the briefing done around the amendment. Like many other people in the chamber, I have full respect for Professor Tompkins. I have to say that I found his contribution utterly depressing. I thought that it served his party rather than serving the serious debate that we are having in the chamber just now. The idea that the problem that we have to wrestle with just now is whether Neil Findlay attends a committee meeting or not is not appropriate. I would say to Professor Tompkins and to other people who are considering supporting his amendment that the biggest strength of the United Kingdom is that the people of Scotland see their friends across the borders of people they wish to work with, co-operate with. They don't see them as folk that they want to separate from. That is the strength of the United Kingdom. It is when the people of Scotland see in that United Kingdom that they are stronger and not weaker. I wouldn't say that we should see this as some kind of litmus test as a commitment to the United Kingdom. The second point that I want to make is really to ask further to comments made by Neil Findlay to the minister. I appreciate that we are dealing with stage 3 amendments, but I would be grateful if he responded to this. It took us two years in his parliament to repeal the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act. The plan seems to be that if we can get a deal with the UK Government, we will repeal this legislation right away. I think that that undermines the integrity and the work that has been done on this bill over the last few weeks. I would look for a commitment from the minister. First of all, he is already in discussions with the parliamentary authorities and party leaders about the scenario where a deal is reached. First, to ensure that there is full scrutiny of what that deal is. Secondly, there is a full and detailed opportunity by the committees of this Parliament to look at how the bill has changed the landscape, because it is no longer where we were at the beginning of the process when emergency legislation was first mooted. I think that it is about the credibility of this Parliament that we do not take weeks. We give people huge amounts of work to do to look at amendments and produce legislation only to turn around after a statement from the minister and say that it is okay that we will repeal the legislation. I would be grateful if he could indicate that, while he is summing up on the amendment, what his plans are to take that forward. I call Minister Michael Russell. I addressed that point immediately because I have addressed it with Neil Findlay, but I am happy to do so with Johann Lamont. I do appreciate, and I will talk about this later, the work that has been done in scrutinising this legislation and the work of all parties. I say that all parties have improved this legislation. That will be clear this afternoon, but it is clear how many amendments from all sides of the chamber we have accepted to approve the legislation. Quite clearly, there would need to be scrutiny in the circumstances in which the Government would have come to this chamber and to say under this bill, and there is a provision in this bill, which again has been changed during the process to say that we do not wish to proceed with it. The second point is that, yes, I accept that this bill has changed the landscape. I hope that it has done it positively because we have pointed to, for example, areas in which there needs to be change in divergence, for example, in the protection of environmental principles, which we have moved forward as a result of hard work from a number of members. I pay tribute to them, including Claudia Beamish, Tavish Scott and Mark Ruskell. They have all been involved in that process. Issues on protection and reporting employment and rights issues, which Neil Bibby, James Kelly and Neil Findlay have been engaged with. Later, we will consider an amendment under health, which Anna Sarwar has been engaged with. There have been areas in which we have improved issues that we have raised. I give the same commitment that I gave to Neil Findlay. We will come back to this chamber. We will discuss with the other parties. We will see the ways in which we can take those things forward. I am happy to do so in response to Neil Findlay who agreed to write him in this issue. I will sit down with him and talk those things through. We will come back to the chamber with recommendations. I have to say that those amendments are thought provoking. In the case of Professor Tomkins, the thought provoker is not entirely positive. I have to say that the idea that Mr Findlay and I would unite happily as the boogies in favour of independence is so unlikely as to be the work of fantasy. I do not often fantasise about Mr Findlay. Indeed, I hope that that first time does not arise. In those circumstances, that is a ludicrous argument. It is important to say this, because this amendment comes from a professor of constitutional law. This amendment is littered with undefined and imprecise concepts. You ask yourself why that would be, why a professor of constitutional law would come to this chamber with an amendment that cannot possibly operate. Could it possibly be because he wants this amendment to be a blockage to the operation of this bill? I simply ask the question. The meaning, for example, of single market, which appears in the heading, but not in the body of the amendment, would be contested. There is a precise meaning for the EU single market. There is no definition of the meaning for a UK single market, because indeed it is not the right term. There is an internal market, but it is not a single market within the European definition. Do we want the lawfulness of regulations to be dependent to take another example of whether a court considers that they impede, and I quote, cultural activity and behaviour? I am sure that not even my distinguished friend, the culture secretary, would endeavour to define that in a way that courts would be happy with. That is imprecise language, but the intention is precise enough. If that is, as it may well be, the manifesto for making Ruth Davidson the First Minister in 2021, it is absolutely clear what the Tories want to do. The Tories want to make every action of this chamber subject to a decision by the UK Government, every action of this chamber. If that is a manifesto, then I think that the only thing that Ruth Davidson will go on winning is a great British bake-off. The amendment is also unnecessary. Since, as Tavish Scott indicated, every party in this chamber, including the Scottish Government, is seeking the agreement on frameworks that would support the highly integrated markets that exist across the UK. Mr Harvey is right. Even in the case of independence, there would be a requirement and a need to have frameworks operating so that we move forward in a way that is productive for all of us. That is one of the principles that we agreed with the UK and Welsh Governments, since we began discussing those frameworks. There is regrettably only one Government in these islands seeking to separate itself from a single market, and it is not this one. The minister alluded to the point that I was about to make, because he agreed that if we were eventually to be embarked upon a course to independence, we would in no way wish to impede the freedom of movement of people throughout these islands in the way that those in the UK Government wish to impede freedom of movement throughout Europe. I entirely agree with that, because freedom of movement is not only productive and helpful. It is essential for a whole range of the sectors within Scotland, and impeding freedom of movement in that way will be very destructive. Let me turn to Mr Finlay's amendment. I think that it is made in the right spirit. It agrees with the issue of equity, which is important. It is very tempted to have the opportunity to vote twice against the Tory amendment. I want to support Mr Finlay, and I want to vote against the whole thing, but I have to sit on and say that temptation, but I am not going to recommend it to the chamber. This bill is not the place to resolve the questions facing these islands about the complexities of governance after Brexit should it take place. The place to resolve those questions is at the negotiating table between Governments and in putting those agreements to the Parliament across the UK. Last year, the Welsh Government, I missed that point for Mr Finlay, I take an intervention. Minister Finlay says that without any hint of irony whatsoever, we want you to get back to the negotiating table and get things sorted out, so get the A. Minister Michael Russell. I spend most of my life at the negotiating table as does his friend and colleague Mark Drakeford, and I am very happy to do so again, because I was about to say that last August the Welsh Government put forward a set of proposals in terms of adjusting the governance in these islands. They came up with new ideas. I was very enthusiastic about those should be discussed. I have to say that nothing has happened. Indeed, I want to mention this afternoon in the House of Lords that there is a consideration of the devolution clauses in the withdrawal bill. There is an amendment from Lord Mackay of Clashfarn, who I have to say I have had the great privilege of discussing these issues within recent days. I know that he will also say the same in the House of Lords this afternoon. I do not agree with those amendments entirely, but he too is tackling the issue of how there should be different relationships and whether there should be some sort of council of ministers for the islands. Even distinguished, thoughtful Tories, real experts in the matters of constitutional politics, are looking at how those things should be adjusted. I cannot recommend supporting either the amendment from Professor Tomkins nor, unfortunately, the one from Mr Finlay. In any event, the bill is about what needs to happen if we cannot come to an agreement. I have been clear from the beginning that we will seek its repeal. If we come to an agreement approved by the chamber and I make that point, provision in the bill could never bring about that agreement. Finally, let me turn to Tavish Scott's amendment. How could we be tied in the use of our powers in the bill to that concept of the single market in goods and services in the UK if there is no definition of the single market in goods and services? In any case, there is already divergence. For example, if we look at ending the minimum price for alcohol, there is a divergence. If you were to apply a definition of the single market as it appears to exist, though it does not exist in the UK, but if you were to apply it, then we would already be in breach of that in some of the issues. Indeed, when we come to issues such as environmental protection later, issues such as employment protection, then we would have to find ourselves in considerable trouble. I have to say that I understand what he is trying to do, but I think that it will, unfortunately, not be possible to do it. I say that it is somebody who admires the way in which amendments from Tavish Scott have actually had a greater rate of success than almost any set of amendments at stage 2. On that occasion, I cannot accept that. This bill is about asserting the Parliament's right to legislate. At the heart of the amendment from Adam Tomkins is abdicating this Parliament's right to legislate. We cannot support it now and we would never support that. I therefore recommend that the chamber votes against the amendments in this group. Adam Tomkins will wind up on amendment 14. I think that it is important to start with an understanding of why it is important to protect the union going forward post Brexit. It is important not only for the United Kingdom but for Scotland. Scotland trades more than four times as much with the rest of the UK as it does with the whole of the EU. The Labour Party sometimes talks about having a jobs first Brexit. More than four times as many jobs in Scotland's economy depend on trade with the rest of the UK than depend on trade with the whole of the European Union. That is why it is imperative that, right at the top of the Brexit process, we in Scotland combine together to protect Scotland's rightful place at the heart of the United Kingdom, at the heart of the union. That is what this amendment seeks to do. No more and no less. Of course, it is in general terms. That is why it belongs at the beginning of an active Parliament rather than buried somewhere in the middle of it. It is criticised by some people for putting this amendment too soon in the bill and criticised by others for not putting it soon enough. It is a continuity bill, and it is a continuity provision in a continuity bill. I notice that Mr Crawford was completely incapable or perhaps unwilling to respond to my rather elementary point, I thought, that this is a provision that will change nothing. It is a provision that will simply safeguard that which needs to be safeguarded after Brexit. There is no element of this amendment that would make impossible or unlawful or illegal or difficult any kind of smoking ban, any kind of differentiated tax rates between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom if the amendment is read and understood in good faith, but not all of the contributors had sought to read it in that light. I thought that Mr Finlay's contribution was absolutely extraordinary for two reasons. One, he said that he couldn't support this amendment because it focused on Scottish ministers. This whole act, this whole bill focuses on Scottish ministers. That is entirely its problem. It is an act of the Scottish Parliament that empowers Scottish ministers, not ministers of the Crown, not Welsh ministers, nobody in Northern Ireland, but Scottish ministers to do any number of huge and extraordinary things post Brexit, none of which we should be permitting. The other extraordinary thing that Mr Finlay said was that he wanted to put a time limit on the extent to which this Parliament protects the union. I don't want to put a time limit on the extent to which this Parliament wants to protect the union. The union has endured for three centuries and it should endure for three more. I don't want to put a clock on that. It's extraordinary that Mr Finlay, representing the Scottish Labour Party, wants to time limit the protection that this Parliament gives to the union. Neil Findlay, to wind up on amendment 14A, if you want to wind up. I have nothing to add in. I think that we made our position very clear. Both speeches have shown him up for what he has. He is clearly just someone who takes his orders from the Prime Minister's office. I have nothing to add. The Tories, trying to depict themselves as the champions of devolution, have been shown up today and shown up for everything that they are. The question is that amendment 14A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote, but because it's the first vote of the day, there'll be a five-minute suspension to allow members to make sure that they're in the chamber. We'll resume, and we'll start with the vote. The question is that amendment 14A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. In that case, we'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now, and this is a 32nd division. The result of the vote on amendment 14A, in the name of Neil Findlay, is yes, 28, no, 100. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Adam Tomkins, to press or withdraw amendment 14. The question is that amendment 14A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 14, in the name of Adam Tomkins, is yes, 31, no, 97. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We move to group 2, and I call amendment 18, in the name of Donald Cameron, in a group on its own. Donald Cameron, to speak to and move amendment 18. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Less than a month ago, you stated your view that the bill falls out with the legislative competence of this Parliament. That statement was explicit and unequivocal. In the last three weeks in which this legislation has been rushed through, at times we have lost sight of that hugely significant point. However, the fact remains that, for the first time in the history of this institution, the Scottish Government has proceeded in defiance of you, the Presiding Officer, and your express view that the bill is out with the scope of our powers. This is an historic moment. If the bill passes into law, Parliament will be rubber stamping legislation in direct contradiction of the very person, in fact the only person who is compelled, not just asked but compelled to give their view on legislative competence. That concept has been said to lie at the heart of the scheme of devolution to which the act gives effect, the Scotland act, that is. Anything outside competence is not law, and here we are turning that scheme, that carefully calibrated scheme, on its head. Presiding Officer has given one reason why the bill is outside competence. At stage 2, we provided other examples. We referred to section 33 and schedule 1 of the bill, and we also referred to section 17, 2 of the bill, which represent instances in our view that are outside legislative competence. Presiding Officer, my amendment 18 attempts to assist the Government. In section 1, which is an overarching provision dealing with the purpose and effect of the bill, my amendment would provide a safety mechanism that would protect the Government and save it from itself. It would ensure that the bill will not provide Scottish ministers any powers that could be used in a way that contradicts the Scotland Act 1998, and specifically section 29 of that act, which makes provision for the legislative competence of the Parliament. That bill is hold below the waterline in many places in terms of legislative competence. My amendment provides a legal lifeboat for the Government, and I urge the minister to swim for it. We believe that this is an unnecessary and unworkable amendment. As Mr Cameron knows, the Parliament cannot legislate in contrast to the Scotland Act 1998. Therefore, his amendment is unnecessary. For that simple reason, we do not support his amendment. The Tory obsession with boats is rather interesting today. We have had a Tory MP for Aberdeen South throwing fish from a boat in the Thames. Now we have Donald Cameron urging me to get into the water and swim towards the Tories. I will resist that blandishment. This is regrettably another amendment from the Scottish Conservatives, which is ostensibly directed at making provision on the face of the act for the Scottish Parliament that ministers must act with involved competence. It is actually an amendment to try and tell us to behave ourselves. We discussed a range of similar amendments at stage 2 in the bill. The reasons for rejecting this amendment are in line with the reasons that I gave at stage 2 of the bill, and Mr Finlay has indicated one of those. All those amendments from the Tories were rejected during the bill, and I urge members to reject that. The issue of the legislative competence of the bill has been given a very full airing in the scrutiny process that we have been engaged in. Moreover, the Scotland Act makes specific provision for the situation that we are in. We are satisfied that the bill is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament for the reasons set out by the Lord Advocate. I want to make some progress. There is no need to put in this bill or any other bill, provisions that say that ministers must exercise their powers according to the Scotland Act. We are doing so. There is no question of ministers being able to use those bars in a way that does not accord with the devolution settlement. This is a legal constraint. I have heard this argument put at several occasions in stage 2, and we do not need to put it again because it was resoundly defeated at stage 2. In fact, I believe only the Conservatives back this at stage 2, and I presume that that is where we will be in a moment on this. There is a legal constraint that applies on Scottish ministers whenever they exercise any powers under an act of this Parliament. The Scotland Act tells us what is and is not within competence. We would not support lettering the statute book with unnecessary provisions of this nature, which are, as I say, designed only to remind this Government of what the Tories want us to do. Donald Cameron to wind up. Do you press or withdraw the amendment? I press the amendment, Presiding Officer. Given the cavalier attitude of the Scottish Government to the concept of legislative competence, this amendment remains completely necessary. The Scottish Government has very real, very grave problems with legislative competence in terms of this bill, and my amendment would allow them to exercise powers in a way that is within competence and, in a manner conversant with the devolution settlement, I move it and I ask for support. The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote and members will cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 18 in the name of Donald Cameron is yes, 31, no, 97. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We move to group 3, a call amendment 15, in the name of Tavish Scott in a group on its own, and Tavish Scott to speak to and move amendment 15. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Amendment 15 toughens up the may have regard to in the bill and provides a more serious test, which gives clearer guidance for retained EU law. The amendment proposes that courts and tribunals must have regard to future European judgments where relevant to their considerations. The Scottish court retains the right to assess the significance of such judgments. If the withdrawal agreement between the UK and the EU has said there will be close regulatory alignment between the EU and the UK, as many of us hope there will be, a court or tribunal in Scotland would be encouraged by this clause to pay close attention to the determined meaning of the EU regulation. The amendment means that it is perfectly acceptable for a court or tribunal having been guided to consider EU judgments to decide that none has significant relevance to the matter before it. My amendments today will help courts to understand exactly what is expected of them, and we are helping the event that the UK has a relatively good withdrawal agreement with the EU on regulatory alignment. I am grateful to the minister for his suggestions on how to improve the wording of this amendment that was tabled at stage 2, and on that basis, Presiding Officer, I so move. As Tavish Scott says, his amendment relates to group 3 on the status of judgments in the European Court and its impact post-exit day. He seeks, as he suggests, to tighten up the wording by introducing the word must, as opposed to the word may. However, at the same time, he introduces a relevance test. As such, he still leaves the option open for consideration by the court. Therefore, I do not believe that Tavish Scott's amendment has any great material impact in relation to the current drafting of the bill. As such, we are content with the current wording. I welcome the amendment. As Tavish Scott said at stage 2, it was raised by Mr Scott. We understood the point and thought that there was an importance in tightening up the amendment. It would give a clear steer to courts and tribunals about their obligation to have regard to decisions of the court of justice where those decisions are relevant. It would, importantly, retain the court's discretion in this regard, which I think is the material issue that Mr Akelle is addressing, but it does improve the situation because it can apply the duty in a flexible and proportionate way. For that reason, I would recommend that the chamber votes for Mr Scott's amendment. To wind up presser with draw. I'll simply press the amendment. Thank you very much, Mr Scott. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 15, in the name of Tavish Scott, is yes, 74, no, 54. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. We turn now to group 4. I call amendment 19, in the name of Neil Findlay, grouped with amendments, as shown in the groupings. Neil Findlay to move amendment 19 and speak to all amendments in the group. My amendments replace the use of the words necessary and what ministers consider. We believe not only the use of necessary instead of appropriate, but also the removal of what they consider to make this a more objective process than what is contained in the bill. We recognise that it will be required to adapt retained EU law to enable it to work appropriately in Scotland, and this should be the case on or after exit date. In order to do that within the timeframe that we have available, we must confer some powers on ministers to enact it. However, it is the purpose of those amendments that the power they use is necessary, not simply what they deem to be appropriate. We can also all agree that this process should, hopefully, be above party politics and as representative as possible. As that is the case, it is clear that we must make sure that any deficiencies in this bill are open to reasonable challenge by replacing the term appropriate with necessary and removing entirely any reference to what they consider we can achieve that. It is not sufficient to allow ministers to consider appropriate to guide this process. The public deserve and expect to see what is necessary and as such, those amendments redress a democratic imbalance and make the ministers in question more accountable to Parliament. We also reject amendment 23 in this group as it seeks to reverse a previous position agreed at stage 2. To speak to amendment 23 and the other amendment in this group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This group contains a large number of amendments aimed at the regulation, making, powers and the bill. Many of the issues covered by those amendments and indeed some of those amendments themselves were considered and rejected at stage 2. Let me start by setting out the considerable changes made to this bill already, with the aim of tightening the scope of and increasing the scrutiny of these regulating, making, powers. I know that that is a concern to Parliament. I understand that concern. The Scottish Government has responded to that concern. The Delegated Powers Committee made a specific recommendation about the equivalent powers in the EU withdrawal bill. It recommended that the test should be in two parts. The power should ever only be available where a test of necessity is met, and once that test is met, ministers should be empowered only to make the provision they consider appropriate, so necessary and appropriate sit together. We have included that test of necessity on the face of the bill. It is not in the EU withdrawal bill. Under the continuity bill, Scottish ministers will only be able to use the main fixing powers where it is necessary to do so with a test of necessity in the bill. The bill already, on introduction, reflected the recommendations of the Parliament's committee dedicated to the scrutiny of statutory instruments. At stage 2, a number of amendments to the scope of those powers were made. The bill contains an exhaustive list of types of deficiency and these had tests of necessity added to them as well by opposition amendments at stage 2. For example, the type of deficiency described in section 11.2d only exists where it is now necessary to make provision in connection with EU arrangements, which will no longer exist as a result of Brexit. Those are both substantial and meaningful additional restrictions on the use of the powers in the continuity bill. The position in the bill is a product of concessions made by the Scottish Government and amendments made by the Finance and Constitution Committee at stage 2. When that committee finished its consideration of the bill in this chamber late at night last week, I gave a commitment that the Government would only return at stage 3 with a proposal to reverse any of those changes if doing so was required to keep the bill operable, if the changes in other words would have prevented the bill from being able to do its job preparing our laws for EU withdrawal. Neil Findlay's amendments 22 and 29, unfortunately, would do that. They would replace the second test that I described, allowing appropriate provision to be made once the test of necessity was met with a further test of necessity. That is not what the Delegated Powers Committee recommended. It would actually make those powers effectively impossible to exercise. Sometimes the type of provision required to address a deficiency in devolved law will require a choice to be made, which domestic body will take on a function currently exercised by the EU, for example, or how to adjust a reference to an EU instrument so that it continues to work after withdrawal. Having to make that choice might be necessary and the bill already requires that, but having to choose the best options from a range of them never could be necessary. Neil Findlay's amendments 19, 20, 21, 26, 27, 28 and 45 would also seek to constrain ministerial discretion in a way that could not work. They remove references to the Scottish ministers considering things to be necessary before the powers can be used, but they beg the question if not the Scottish ministers who will be the ones exercising these important powers? Who? The test of necessity of appropriateness, all the other legal tests in the bill will all have to be considered to be met by someone, and it will of course be the Scottish ministers. It will be the Scottish ministers' judgment and discretion, which is scrutinised when these regulations come before Parliament for scrutiny, and the Scottish ministers who will be held to account. It could never be otherwise. I mentioned at stage 2 the Government's desire to make sure that the right balance was struck. As part of that balancing exercise, I commend to the chamber amendments 31 to 34 in the name of Jamie Greene. Those amendments make four further changes to the substance of the power in section 13, changing the word appropriate to the word necessary. That brings section 13 into line with changes that were made to sections 11 and 12 at stage 2. Those amendments also address a concern raised by Graham Simpson at stage 2. He had suggested the word operable. We consider that necessary is a higher test and should address those concerns, in particular given the other amendments that the Government has lodged and supported in respect of the keeping pace power. I commit, as I have said at stage 2, only to seek to reverse any amendments made if, after carefully considering them, I concluded that their effect was to render the bill or part of it inoperable. I have concluded that there is only one such amendment and I would seek the support of a Parliament in adjusting it back. Amendment 23 proposes to change the word necessary back to appropriate in section 11 to F2, but not in any of the other parts of the test. That is the one area where we think that the way in which the deficiency is described has to be by reference to the standard of appropriateness. The provision is concerned with the deficiency in law arising when retained EU law does not contain any functions which should be kept after withdrawal. The test was amended at stage 2, so it referred to a lack of functions which it is necessary to retain, but this could not work. Leaving the EU could arguably leave many functions which we might all wish to retain unnecessary. There could be functions that we would all be desperate to see kept going, but which being strictly not necessary had to be disposed of because of the amendment made at stage 2. For example, if we imagine that there was an annual report that had to be submitted to the European Commission on a matter of environmental concern, keeping that function going after withdrawal could never be said to be necessary by the test and the bill, but it might be appropriate to decide that the function of receiving the annual report should instead be conferred on the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency. Amendment 23 would allow changes like that to be made. Without it, we could be bound in law to eliminate functions when we want to see them kept. Taken with Jamie Greene's amendments, which we support, that would mean that the same scheme applied across sections 11, 12 and 13. At stress again, we have not tabled amendments to seek to reverse the new word necessary in sections 11, 2C, 11, 2D, 11, 2E or 11, 2G. We accept those. If the Parliament votes from amendment 23 and Jamie Greene's amendments 31 to 34, the result will be a strong set of logical limits on the ministerial powers in a bill applied consistently across the bill's provisions and strengthened at stage 2 and stage 3. I'd also invite the committee to reject amendment 54, which would remove in relation to the publication of a statement by ministers in such a manner as Scottish ministers consider appropriate. This is the same wording as is used in the UK bill. I'm afraid I must repeat that we don't think that its removal would add anything at all to the bill. The Scottish ministers will be responsible for publishing these statements and would, of course, have to do so in an appropriate manner. I therefore move amendment 23. I urge that the chamber votes for that. I urge that the chamber votes for amendments 31 to 34 and against the other amendments in this group. I call on Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 31. I rise to move and speak to amendments 31, 2, 3 and 4 in my name. Those amendments relate to section 13 of the bill, which gives the Scottish ministers the power to make provision corresponding to EU law after exit day. This has perhaps been one of the most contentious areas of the bill that we spent many late hours in this chamber debating at stage 2. As it stands, clauses in this bill will allow the Scottish Government to continue to implement new EU law, directives and regulations after exit day, after the UK has left EU and after the transition period has ended. It is quite reasonable to assume that we might see a situation whereby Scottish ministers will choose to implement those EU laws without any representation whatsoever in the European Parliament, no Scottish MEPs, no representation in the Council of the European Union and no Scottish representation in the Committee of the Regions. If this bill is passed today, Scotland would be a real taker rather than a real maker. The principle of no legislation without representation will simply disappear. The Scottish ministers want to implement laws where our only influence on those laws will be through lobbying efforts in Brussels and Strasbourg and to those benches that are simply unacceptable. Section 13, as it is drafted, is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to create regulatory divergence and conflict in the UK. A cynic might say that the SNP want those additional powers. They want those powers to adopt any EU regulation that they see fit to help Scotland meet the criteria of the ackee communitaire in what seems to me like a desperate attempt to align itself with Brussels. Because this Parliament should never forget that the SNP wants to rejoin the EU and hand all those powers back to Brussels, they do. My amendments to replace appropriate with necessary are important. The power to pass EU law into Scots law after exit day should only be done out of necessity, not where Scottish ministers consider appropriate. What is appropriate to me may be different from what is appropriate to the Minister, the Parliament or even indeed the country. For that reason, there may be circumstances where there is a necessity to transpose such regulation. For example, to maintain frameworks that Scotland and the UK continue to participate in after exit or where indeed it makes logical sense to do so. However, my proposal is that, although Scottish ministers will still have this power to make changes, they must do so out of necessity alone and not do so subjectively. If we pass this clause unamended, the Scottish Parliament will today be simply handing ministers a blank check. In my final seconds, I would like to say to all members that it does not matter whether you have voted, remain or leave. What is important is that this bill should not be an attempt to undermine the result of a UK-wide referendum on Europe, nor should this bill be an excuse, a backdoor excuse for the SNP to hand powers back to Brussels. I call on Tavish Scott to be followed by Patrick Harvie. I was puzzled by Jamie Greene's speech because, if I heard the minister right, he said that he was accepting 31 to 34, which I do too. I agree with Jamie Greene on those points. Indeed, they are consistent with the amendments that we debated at stage 2, and I appreciate his arguments here. I think that his speech was slightly out of line with the fact that Parliament is probably going to accept his amendments in a couple of minutes' time. I also support the minister's amendment 23, given that the change needed at stage 2 by my amendment means that subsection 2f2 is protected by a test of reasonableness at the start of subsection 2, and on that basis I take the minister's argument on that. I certainly support Neil Findlay's amendments. I take the minister's concerns about them, but much of this Parliament's concern has been about restricting appropriate ministerial discretion and allowing a more objective test on the face of the bill, and I think that there is an argument that Neil Findlay makes in regard to that point. I am not sure which is more surprising. Jamie Greene's anger at being told that his amendments are being accepted, or indeed the speed with which Conservative members, who a couple of years ago were saying how important it was to protect our place in Europe and that being a member of the European Union was a good thing, are now angry at the fact that some of us still think that. The two basic arguments that I put forward at stage 2, I accepted in general terms the change of language, but I also indicated that where Government thought that it was important for technical reasons to revisit some of those in specific places at stage 3, I would be open to that argument. I am pleased that the minister has only found it necessary to do that in one place, and I accept his amendment to do that. I think that the other general argument that in particular amendments in the name of Neil Findlay moved at stage 2 around ministers having the ability to consider something, that ministers view having a role, not just an objective test. I did not accept that argument in most instances at stage 2. I fear that if we had gone down that road, we would end up with a number of potential, perhaps lengthy and significant legal challenges to ministers taking action to introduce instruments, to introduce regulations, because somebody felt that they had not met an objective test, those objective tests not having been defined in the legislation. If there was going to be an objective test, it needs to be clear how it is to be met, and I think that it would not be clear if we had gone down the road of that group of amendments. I still take that view. Neil Findlay, to wind up and to press or withdraw the amendments in his name. The question is that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to our vote. Members may cast their votes now. Amendment 19. The result of the vote on amendment 19 in the name of Neil Findlay is yes, 59, no, 69. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 20, in the name of Neil Findlay, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to our vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 20 in the name of Neil Findlay is yes, 59, no, 69. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 21, in the name of Neil Findlay, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to our vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 21 in the name of Neil Findlay is yes, 59, no, 69. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 22, in the name of Neil Findlay, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to our vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 22 in the name of Neil Findlay is yes, 58, no, 68. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 23, in the name of the minister. The question is that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to our vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 23 in the name of the minister is yes, 73, no, 54. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We move now to group 5. I call amendment 24, in the name of the minister. Grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. I would point out that, if amendment 40 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 3 in group 6. Minister, to move amendment 24 and speak to all amendments in the group. Those are technical amendments to tidy up the bill following the amendments agreed at stage 2 and to make some minor improvements. They are minor. Six of them amendments 24, 25, 30, 35, 40 and 42 reflect the intention of amendments agreed by the Finance and Constitution Committee at stage 2 to prevent the main powers in the bill being used to establish new public authorities. That is the point that Mr Scott raised during stage 2, among others. Accordingly, the bill is amended to ensure consistent prohibitions on doing so and to remove unnecessary references to that power. Amendment 36 takes up the word broadly from broadly equivalent so that section 13 matches the changes that the committee agreed to. Sections 11 and 12 can send the modification of rights and protections. If I remember correctly, Mr Dean Lockhart was successful in his amendment on the issue of the word broadly. Amendments 57 and 64 take up a law society of Scotland technical suggestion to use the standard definition of enactment in the interpretation and legislative reform Scotland Act 2001. I am grateful for the law society of Scotland for their interest in this bill. Amendment 46 is a minor clarification to the consultation requirement in section 15. The requirement to provide reasons for considering it necessary to make provision to prevent remedy or mitigated deficiency applies only to a consultation on proposed regulations under section 11. Amendments 55 and 59 correct minor typographical errors in the wording of the two provisions. I move amendment 24 and recommend that members agree those amendments. As the minister said, those are largely minor technical or correcting amendments. There are also a number of amendments in this group that effectively streamline changes made in stage 2. Amendments 57 and 64 in the name of the minister provides some welcome clarity in relation to the definition of an enactment for the purpose of the bill. I would join the minister in thanking the law society of Scotland for their invaluable input and interest in the bill. As those amendments are largely minor and technical, my Labour colleagues and I are minded to support all amendments in the minister's name. I support amendments 25 and 30 that stop new public authorities from being created under section 11 or section 12. Many of us argued at stage 2 that if ministers want to establish a new quango to keep pace with EU law, they should bring forward primary legislation so that Parliament can decide if that new body is required, or whether the functions can be dealt with by existing bodies. The minister's amendments extend that to sections 11 and 12, and I am grateful to the minister for accepting that argument. As with Neil Bibby, I also support the other technical amendments in this group. Adam Tomkins I just moved the amendment in my name. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Oh, sorry, beg your pardon, I didn't hear that. Please shout loudly. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. No. Okay, we're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members, we cast their votes now. This is amendment 24. The result of the vote on amendment 24 in the name of the minister is yes, 128, no, zero, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. Can I call amendment 25 in the name of the minister? Yes. I've moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 26 in the name of Neil Findlay. Neil Findlay to move or not move. The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We'll move to a division. Members, we cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 26 in the name of Neil Findlay is yes, 58, no, 68, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 27 in the name of Neil Findlay. Neil Findlay to move or not move. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We'll move to a division. Members, we cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 27 in the name of Neil Findlay is yes, 58, no, 69, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 28 in the name of Neil Findlay. Neil Findlay to move or not move. The question is that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members, we cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 28 in the name of Neil Findlay is yes, 59, no, 68, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 29 in the name of Neil Findlay. Neil Findlay to move or not move. The question is that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members, we cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 29 in the name of Neil Findlay is yes, 57, no, 69, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 30 in the name of the minister to move formally. Formally moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. We are agreed. I call amendment 31 in the name of Jamie Greene. Jamie Greene to move or not move. Moved. Moved. The question is that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 32 in the name of Jamie Greene to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 33 in the name of Jamie Greene. Jamie Greene to move or not move. Lywdech chi i'r cwrddag Are we agreed? Amendment 35, in the name of the minister, to move formally. Amendment 35, be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. We are. Amendment 36, in the name of the minister, to move formally. The question is that amendment 36, be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. We are. Ond.��件事情 1, 我等you to mew, and I call on amendment 37, in the name of Tavish Scott, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. I would point out in this group that, if amendment 5 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 41 as it will be pre-empted and I would remind members that, if amendment 40 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 3. Tavish Scott, to move, amendment 37 has speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Can I just say to the Conservative Chief Whip, Maurice Golden, I thought it was only usually the Liberal Democrats who couldn't sort out how they were voting on an amendment. Can I have utter sympathy for him at these moments? Indeed. Can I move amendment 37? I hope that this in some ways helps Patrick Harvie with the debate that we were having on earlier. Indeed, the first group this afternoon. I spoke at stage 1 in the proceedings of this bill about the need for the Governments across the UK to co-operate. Scottish ministers should consult the other three administrations after taking action to keep pace with EU law under section 13 after exit day. Every political party, have we not, has spoken about the need for those framework agreements and co-ordination across the UK as powers are allocated from March 2019. Amendment 37 says that in the event that every one of the other three administrations specifically asked the Scottish Government not to make a particular regulation to keep up with UK law, then that regulation cannot proceed. However, if ministers do wish to bring that forward, given that background, then the proposal would have to be made through primary legislation. Parliament would therefore be able to look at it in detail. We could consider why the other administrations were opposed. Parliament would be able to hear from businesses, from business interests, from environmental groups, from other stakeholders. We would be able to protect the working of the UK internal market that others have mentioned already from action by a single administration. That amendment represents what I would describe as a federal idea of co-operation. It is in direct contrast to the Conservative approach, which puts control of these issues entirely in the hands of UK ministers. I also want to speak to amendment 61. That makes the commencement of section 13, which is the section of this bill of most concern to members prior to stage 2 of the bill, subject to the affirmative procedure requiring a vote in this Parliament. It must be preceded by a report from ministers setting out clearly their justification for the powers in section 13. The bill is being dealt with through a truncated scrutiny process. Amendment 61 allows Parliament to consider further at a later date and, therefore, with some due consideration, the key-paced powers being sought by ministers. It reflects the concern expressed through amendments that Mike Rumbles was able to remove section 13 from the bill, which were intended to repeat the amendment that was debated at stage 2. Mike Rumbles' amendments on the order paper make it clear how important it is for all of us to accept that section 13 powers are extensive and, in that sense, special. It is why they have been singled out by amendments at stage 2 and further amendments today to restrict the powers that ministers have within this section. Today, at stage 3, I ask Parliament to consider locking the commencement of section 13 behind an affirmative process that allows every member of this Parliament here to vote on it after consideration in the months ahead. I welcome amendment 41 from the minister, which replicates one that I moved at stage 2, and it would make sure that all section 13 orders are subject to that affirmative procedure. I recognise that the minister has significantly changed his position since stage 1. Ash Jenham's amendment 38 requires the minister to report on section 13 powers, and I support that. On that basis, I move amendment 37 and 61 in my name. Thank you very much, and I call Mike Rumbles to speak to amendment 1 and the other amendment in this group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have a number of amendments in this group to deal with section 13 powers. Those are very extensive powers. I can see Neil Findlay smiling at me, because he got in seconds before I did at stage 2 to put this amendment down. Amendments 2 and 4 are points of detail that ought to be agreed by Parliament across the chamber. Amendment 3 will be pre-empted by amendment 40. The minister is proposing amendment 41, which makes all section 13 powers subject to the affirmative procedure, and I welcome that improvement. Amendments 2 and 4 simply tidy up the wording to remove the duplication that would otherwise exist in subsection 14.2. I am pleased that section 13 powers will be locked behind an affirmative procedure. That means that every MSP will get the opportunity to vote for them or to vote to reject them whenever they come before us. My amendment 1 repeated an amendment at stage 2 to remove section 13 from the bill completely. I really do think that it is important at stage 2 and again today to show just how significant I think the powers are in that section and how very careful ministers and MSPs have to be in the way that they are to be exercised. Thank you, and I call on Ash Denham to speak to amendment 38 and the other amendments in this group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This amendment responds to concerns that members expressed at stage 2 about the Scottish Government's ability to renew the keeping pace power. The minister committed that any proposal by the Government to renew the power would be accompanied by detail about how the power had been used up to that point. That would ensure that the Parliament was fully informed about the use that the power had been put to when it was considering any proposal to renew it for a further period. Amendment 38 would require annual reports to be prepared on the use of the keeping pace power. It requires those reports to be laid before Parliament as soon as possible after the end of each year. That means that if the Scottish Government proposes to renew the keeping pace power, Parliament would be able to consider and scrutinise the ways in which the power had been used before making its decision. Thank you, and I call on the minister to speak to amendment 41 and the other amendments in this group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The amendments in this group, as we know, concern the keeping pace power. As I have recognised since this bill was first introduced to Parliament, the concerns about this power are honestly and strongly held across the chamber. I spend a lot of time talking about those concerns and reflecting upon them both before stage 2, during stage 2 and again now. I should say at the beginning that I continue to believe that it will be necessary to have a power of this sort in order to help a smoother transition from implementing EU law under section 2 of the European Communities Act to legislating without the structure of that act sitting behind so many fields of law. I think that this is a practical, useful power to have. The Government therefore will not, and it's no surprise, be recommending that the Parliament accept Mike Rumble's amendment 1, which would delete the power entirely. Yesterday, during the forestry bill, Mike Rumble said that minister, when he mentioned this clause, wouldn't know what to use such clauses for. Let me give him three examples of how this clause might be used. I've used those examples in other places, but some members may have heard them and some may not have heard them. The first is the issue of fish disease, and I speak as a former environment minister. There is a constant upgrading of European listing of fish disease, because clearly, as new fish disease is occurred, it's important that the agriculture sector knows about them and can react to them. Having a keeping pace power would simply mean that when that list is upgraded in the EU, it can be upgraded without primary legislation in this Parliament. That is a minor but exceptionally important thing to do. The second one deals with invasive species, again within the area of the environment. There is clearly a real danger from invasive species across the whole of Europe. If changes are made to the regulations, it is important that our domestic law changes, too, without primary legislation. The third is in the area of animal health, quite clearly an area where we have discussed and continue to discuss the need for a framework, but that framework needs to be updated by information from elsewhere. Those are all comparatively minor in terms of what the power is, but vitally important to the sector's concern. I believe that there is a need and there are places where that need can be reflected. Of course, we have adjusted the power since it was introduced to Parliament. I know that Mr Scott has referred to that. Let me just indicate how that power has been adjusted. The changes that have been made at stage 2 that have already been debated today and that will be made by the amendments to this group should, I hope, be enough to address the concerns of members and result in a keeping pace power that is proportionate, usable, flexible and subject to the most appropriate standard of scrutiny in this chamber and in the committees of this Parliament. The Government, first of all, has always accepted that this power should be sunsetted. At stage 2, Murdo Fraser presented to the committee what he called a menu of choices about how long the power should be capable to be renewed for. I cannot express great enthusiasm for Alucard legislation, but I think that the result reached was a fair one. The initial period for which the power will be available is now three years, with annual renewables thereafter. As an amendment also made at stage 2, those renewables cannot keep the power in force for longer than five years. The effect was well summed up by Patrick Harvie at committee. If, as we approach the end of that five years, the Government, whatever Government that is, remains with the view that the power is a good and necessary one and the Government can demonstrate that by pointing to examples of its use, then it can return to the Parliament with a bill seeking its enactment, a primary bill. That sounds right to me. As I've said, this power is intended to smooth transition between one approach to legislating and another during a period of enormous uncertainty over precisely what we will be legislating for. At stage 2, Tavish Scott was also successful with an amendment which removed the ability of this power to be used to set up public authorities in Scotland. At stage 2, also an amendment which meant that the urgent procedure could not be used for section 13 regulations was successful. The Government accepted those amendments, hasn't sought to reverse them. Earlier today, as part of stage 3 consideration, we've accepted a number of amendments to section 13 by Jamie Greene, which have replaced tests of appropriateness in this section with tests of necessity. That brings the section into line with other tests in the bill. That brings me to the amendments in this group, which contain the final set of changes that I think are required to address Parliament's concerns. My amendment 41, taken with Mr Rumble's amendments 2 and 4, which I will be supporting, will ensure that all regulations made under the keeping pace power are subject to affirmative procedure as a minimum. That will mean that the Parliament has given a positive vote on every proposal to use the keeping pace power to change devolved Scott's law corresponding to a change in EU law. The Government also supports Ash Denham's amendment 38. That would give statutory form to a commitment that I made at both stages 1 and 2. We would only ever seek the renewal of the keeping pace power to be able to demonstrate to Parliament its usefulness and its appropriateness. Ash Denham's amendment therefore requires us to lay before Parliament annually a report on the uses to which the power has been put, something suggested in a different context at stage 2. That means that Parliament will be fully informed about any proposal to renew this power and able to scrutinise in the round the uses the power has been put to. I can't recommend that Parliament accepts either of Scott's amendments 37 or 61. Amendment 37 would give the UK Government, the Welsh Government or any part of the Northern Irish Executive acting together an effective veto over a power held by this Government and Parliament. In line with the memorandum of understanding arrangements we keep other administrations well advised when our legislation touches on matters within their responsibility. But whilst I recognise and respect the concerns that lie behind this amendment a veto is unnecessary and surely cannot also be right. Amendment 61 would make commencement regulations bringing into force the keeping pace power subject to the affirmative procedure. And I believe that too is the wrong approach. Commencement regulations are not usually subject to procedure for good reasons of principle and practice. Parliament makes a decision whether a delegated power should be conferred at the point of degrees the inclusion of that power in primary legislation. It is at that point that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise the Government and debate the proposal to confer the power. It wouldn't be useful law or indeed sensible to have the debate once again using subordinate legislation to do so and setting the commencement date as effectively a proxy for the substantive question. I've set out both the Government's reasons for seeking Parliament's approval for this power as well as a significant package of changes to the power made at stage 2 and being made today at stage 3. I hope that this will be enough to satisfy Parliament that this power is being taken for good reasons. If the bill passes later today it will confer on the Government a flexible, practical power but one no more flexible and necessary and one in which this Parliament is centrally evolved at every step. I therefore recommend that the chamber votes for amendments 2, 4, 38 and 41 and against the other amendments in this group. Neil Bibby, to be followed by Neil Findlay. Neil Bibby. My Labour colleagues and I have made no secret of our reservations about this section of the bill at stage 1 and stage 2. Section 13 is widely regarded as the most controversial section of the bill, a point I've made on a number of occasions, a point that committee witnesses have made on a number of occasions and a point accepted by the minister before today and again during today's debate. The minister has not changed his view that section 13 is necessary. I do want to acknowledge the remarks he made today and at stage 2 proceedings in relation to section 13. He has, the minister has accepted the need for scrutiny and restraint in relation to section 13 and he has been clear that the power must be properly used and limited. Those remarks have provided some reassurance as indeed has the Scottish Government's openness to amendments in this area. As the minister said, amendments 169 and 173 from Murdo Fraser which limited the timescales and which section 13 powers could be exercised where accepted at stage 2. Today I welcome amendment 38 in the name of Ash Denham which introduces regular reporting on the use of section 13 powers. I also welcome the amendment 37 from Tavish Scott and I also welcome amendment 41 in the name of the minister which makes use of section 13 powers subject to the affirmative procedure. Section 13 still grants regulation making powers to Scottish ministers. Those powers are significant and far reaching. I have made clear my concerns throughout this process about section 13. I would prefer if it was not in the bill at all. If it is to pass, we should ensure that if it goes ahead with the maximum of parliamentary scrutiny and checks and balances are built into the bill and it is for those reasons that I am minded to support all amendments in the bill. Neil Findlay to be followed by Patrick Harvie. On the provision to make EU after exit day has been one of the most problematic in the bill initially. It sought to concentrate power over regulation in the hands of ministers and away from Parliament. I would have preferred to see this whole section removed and we submitted such an amendment to stage 2 however that was not accepted by the Parliament. The amendments now lodged across Parliament have diluted and put much more control and restraint on ministerial powers and for that reason we will support amendments and reject moves to hoard powers on ministerial hands at the expense of Parliament. Thank you. First of all, can I just put on record that I think as Mike Rumbles knows I misinterpreted during the stage 2 debate some earlier comments that he had made and I apologise for doing that. However, the wider point is that all of us should acknowledge and he is right, Mr Rumbles is right to remind us that the powers in section 13 are extremely significant and by approving them we are doing something which should trouble us all including ministers I think we should be troubled by the situation that we face. I don't believe however that the situation that we face and that is coming at us through the Brexit crisis over the coming years is going to be manageable if we delete section 13 altogether. I just think that that would be unreasonable. Members of other parties who took part in the stage 2 process know that I voted for a number of significant restrictions to those powers and others in the bill. All Opposition parties have managed to achieve changes which I think strike the appropriate balance and I'm grateful that the ministers are not seeking to reverse all of that and have accepted that there needs to be a balanced struck. Mr Russell said quite clearly that with that much shorter timescale Government will be able to return and ask Parliament to change that if necessary. Government doesn't have the comfort of knowing that those powers will be there for such an extended period of time. I think that we have the balance about right for a deeply imperfect and wrong situation that we are having to face. I want to say something briefly about Tavish Scott's amendments in this group. I understand the case that he makes for something closer to a federal relationship and for as long as we are part of the UK, I think that a case can be made for something that feels more like a federal relationship between the Governments of these islands but I see no appetite at all for that elsewhere and it takes more than one to tango. In this case it takes more than two to tango if we have one administration in Northern Ireland that doesn't even exist another administration at UK level which is a minority Government I see no reason why a letter from a Secretary of State not even the resolution of the Westminster Parliament should block this Parliament from taking action that by majority we consider needs to be taken or should be supported. I'm afraid that I don't support that one. However, the minister knows that I have been open to amendment 61 and I listened to his comments and I'm still not clear why the minister thinks that amendment 61 is unworkable. It requires an affirmative procedure for the regulation bringing section 13 into force and it requires only a one month period between laying a report about those issues and the laying of the regulation. Given that I don't anticipate that he wants to lay a regulation bringing that into force within a month from now I think it seems reasonable and I've listened to the minister if he wants to intervene on this to give me any clearer reason why we shouldn't be supporting section 61. I'll listen to him but I'm currently tempted to support amendment 61 because I haven't heard a clear reason why it would be unworkable. I understand that it may be inconvenient to the minister but I don't think it's unworkable. The minister will not have a chance to wind up. Mr Scott will be winding up in this section so if Mr Harvey wishes to hear from the minister... I was merely indicating that if he wanted to intervene I would accept it but he hasn't offered one. I hope that I made a cogent case for rejecting amendment 61 but simply to say that I believe at what amendment 61 is doing and I'm not unsympathetic to it but it places the issue of the commencement date and yet another piece of subordinate legislation as a proxy for the substantive argument and that has not normally been done with commencement dates that it's a substantive argument that is the issue for subordinate legislation. I believe that that's the right thing to do but there are occasions in which that is the case and if Mr Harvey differs on that matter then I understand that point. I'll finish in this group by merely saying that I understand why amendment 61 feels uncomfortable to ministers but I don't think it's unworkable. To wind up in this group. Thank you. I take Patrick Harvey's point in that. On section 61 maybe I could just make the observation to the minister that he said I think if I caught him right he was not usually used but he has also said on a point that I entirely agree with we are not in usual circumstances here in any possible context and therefore this is the argument that I hope Patrick Harvey is accepting and certainly other colleagues across the chamber are accepting that there is yes an extra layer of accountability here. I appreciate that is uncomfortable for ministers and ministers believe they've gone far enough already but there is an argument that I think Parliament is making this afternoon but section 61 adds to that. On 37, I take the point that the minister makes and indeed Patrick Harvey has just made as well if that clause was a veto then I wouldn't support it either but they need to listen to the other part of the argument that I made which is if ministers believe that they have made the right case and it is the important case and it is about a policy change in Scotland they want to see that policy area which Parliament can then scrutinise all again I have sought to argue through this whole section of this bill is a level of scrutinine, a level of parliamentary accountability that I think is consistent with the concerns that members expressed across the chamber on the whole of section 13 which as the minister rightly said is now a very different beast to the one we started with three weeks ago and on that basis I'll be keen to push 37 and 61. Thank you very much and thank you too Are we agreed? No. We're not agreed. We'll move to division. Members may cast their votes now and this will be a one minute vote. Amendment 37 The result of the vote on amendment 37 in the name of Tavish Scott is yes 59, no 69 there are no obsensions the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 1 I call amendment 38 in the name of Ash Denham Ash Denham to move or not move Move. The question is that amendment 38 be agreed to Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. We now turn to group 7 and I call amendment 39 in the name of Claudia Beamish grouped with amendment 56 Claudia Beamish to move amendment 39 and speak to both amendments in the group amendment 39 is also supported by Colin Smyth MSP and obliges Scottish ministers to have regard to environmental and animal welfare guiding principles when exercising the regulation making powers in sections 11, 1, 12, 13, 1 of this bill. The regulation making powers enable Scottish ministers to ensure that the devolved EU law continues to operate effectively, comply with international obligations and keep pace with developments in EU law after UK withdrawal. With regard to these powers it is important that the bill make explicit the reference to five guiding principles included in my amendment. While the general principles are included in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the guiding principles are not enshrined in the same way. I stress section 4 of the amendment is worded so as to take account of those principles that have not been through the European Court so ministers whether or not they have case law precedent. Those guiding principles are vital in focusing minds on environmental decision making and have real application in Scotland and I will give some quick examples. The precautionary principle the first ensures that we do not take action when there is doubt. As seen in the discussion of the emerging evidence that fish farm chemicals can cause damage to burying animals' nervous systems in the food chain and marine systems in the longer term. Being led by the principle that preventative action should be taken to avert environmental damage this has been delivered action on air pollution and air quality and Glasgow City Council refer to the preventative action in their plans for the first low emission zone and the retrofitting of buses just this week. Ensuring that environmental damage is the third and is rectified that it should be rectified at source and this is essential in preventing such issues as for example electrification by animal waste entering our water courses which causes burns and rivers to be overly rich in minerals and nutrients overgrown with water plants and likely to be depleted in oxygen. The principle of polluter pays has real importance for our communities as well as our environment. The Court of Session in 2013 opencast ruling ensured that former opencast coal sites are maintained by the Scottish coal liquidators to prevent further environmental damage excuse me and has ensured that the cost isn't met by public money. Dalchwandi opencast in my region is a clear beneficiary of this principle in relation to forcing restoration and finally the recognition that animals are sentient is something that Colin Smith will speak on further. For years EU directives and treaties have focused our minds on air, marine and terrestrial environmental issues and this is fundamental that these are enshrined in our laws through this bill. I also speak in support of Mark Ruskell's amendment 56 a duty to consult is essential for guiding principles and governance in relation to the environment. This obligation is important as it relates to both compliance with the law and effective implementation. Timescale is valuable. I have already highlighted the significance through some examples of which there are many more of the guiding principles in my remarks on my amendment 39. I don't intend to rehearse these. I speak in support of both these amendments. Thank you. Mark Ruskell speaks to amendment 56 and the other amendment in this group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We might be leaving the European Union but we are certainly not leaving our environment. Those two amendments that are put forward in this group are vitally important because they save and retain the important guiding principles that have protected our environment and protected animal welfare in recent years. Not only will they protect the principles of how they exist at the moment, they will provide a foundation to build on this progress and to build future policy and future laws that protect our environment for the decades to come. I would like to thank colleagues across Labour, Liberal Democrat parties and also the Minister himself for the constructive negotiations that we have had in bringing forward these amendments. Presiding Officer, this is what mature politics looks like. There are no wrecking amendments in this group. There are only amendments that will stop our environment being wrecked. In terms of Claudia Beamish's amendment 39, she has outlined the importance of those principles. For me personally, the principle of animal sentience is absolutely vital. We see animals as sentient beings, not just simple commodities to be traded across boundaries. The principles are part of our everyday work and our environment committee just on Tuesday. We had a debate about salmon conservation where the entire debate was dominated by our interpretation of the precautionary principle. That is the right thing and should continue to go forward. In terms of amendment 56 in my name, it will ensure that there is a consultation about how we interpret these principles going forward beyond withdrawal. It will bring clarity in terms of the functions that public bodies have to monitor and to regulate our environment. I hope that there is not a governance gap on withdrawal. The role of the European Court of Justice is particularly important in this regard. We think about how instrumental ECEJ has been in terms of driving action on air quality across the UK. Anyone who has followed the debate on the low-emission zones over the last couple of days will realise just how important it is that we have an independent body that can hold public bodies to account. I note the comments from Ruth Davidson in the Scotsman today again backing environmental courts. Although the Tories weren't involved in cooking up this amendment, I certainly hope that Ruth Davidson and the Tories will be able to support this because this is the best way to deliver environmental courts in Scotland. Put it out to consultation, drive that argument further forward. I move the amendment in my name. Colin Smyth will be followed by Maurice Golden. Thank you, Presiding Officer. At stage 2 of the bill, I proposed amendment 3 that sought to establish at the principle of article 13 that recognises the sentence of animals as included as one of the general principles of EU law. Tavyscot and Mark Ruskell proposed similar amendments. At that time I did not press amendment because the minister gave a commitment to work with myself and others on proposals for stage 3. Amendment 39 in Claudia Beamish's name and supported by myself is the outcome of those discussions with the Government. I place on record my thanks to MSPs from across the chamber, the minister and Scottish Government staff for the work done to get to the stage where amendment 39 can go forward, I hope, with full cross-party support. Amendment 39 creates a clear statutory underpinning for a number of vitally important issues and I would like to speak briefly on subsection 3e on animal sentence. The principle of animal sentence is currently enshrined in law in article 13 of the treaty on the functioning of the EU as we move forward. The sentence of animals is well established, the science is conclusive and the principle is implicitly recognised in other pieces of legislation. There is no space for complacency and there is certainly no space for legal ambiguity on the matter. Most of animal health and welfare Scotland works to achieve aims based on the principle of animal sentence. It is never explicitly mentioned in the bill and the scope of the bill is narrow. It does not cover, for example, free living wild animals, animals used in scientific procedures or anything done in the normal course of fishing. Crucianly, it applies to individuals who are responsible for animals whereas article 13 applies to government policy, which is crucial. We must be clear that we as a Parliament recognise the sentence of animals and provide an unequivocal statutory basis for this principle. I therefore urge members to support amendment 39 table by Claudia Beamish and supported by myself. Maurice Golden to be followed by Patrick Harvie. Maurice Golden. Let me be first clear that we agree with the guiding principles on the environment and animal welfare. However, the codification of EU law into this bill is ultimately, in my view, superfluous. There is already an obligation under international law to apply these guiding principles as long as we are a member of the UK which is indeed a signatory to these international treaties to which we are bound. On that basis, there was no reason for me to construct amendments as have been highlighted here today. Claudia Beamish. I thank the member for taking intervention and surely the member will agree with me that some of the international laws are more or less robust than EU law but it is EU law that has been the guiding principles and indeed the general principles through the Fundamental Charter of Rights for our laws here in Scotland. It is concerning if the member does not acknowledge that and consider supporting this amendment. Maurice Golden. I thank the member for that intervention and let's be clear that with respect to this EU law is indeed undefined and I will articulate that particular point. Article 191 of the Treaty of the Functioning EU mentions but does not define the principles. Furthermore, it mentions them once in that but doesn't then elucidate what that will mean for those which reference that EU law. Furthermore, it states that union policy shall take into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the union and those principles are subject to the interpretation of the European Court. Therefore, it strikes me that those amendments are ultraveries as the European Court would be outwith the jurisdiction and therefore the interpretation of the application of those guiding principles not defined could lead to a risk of environmental harm or at the very least the unwanted change to environmental practices in Scotland. Of those principles I will provide one example. The precautionary principle was established through the Montreal protocol and furthermore laterally codified by the legally binding treaties of the Rio Declaration and Kyoto protocol which the UK is a signatory to and therefore the auspices of that principle are within the competence of how we must adhere to and dispense environmental law in Scotland. Let's look at the EU. In 2 February 2000 a communication from the commission on the precautionary principle states that in practice its scope is much wider and may be inconsistent with a high level of protection so we are leaving ourselves open in making these amendments without definition We don't know how the precautionary principle as undefined will be applied are we looking at non-proclusion, margin of safety best available technique or a prohibitory approach with respect to the application of that and therefore we are left wide open. However, these amendments represent bad law constructed badly and thus entirely in keeping with the rest of the bill. There is no clarity there is a governance gap which is created, however on that basis we do support the rationale behind these amendments and recognise that the members are with the best of intentions and therefore we will support the amendments. I think that's what you call throwing a googly at the end there but once again we hear a conservative colleague condemning for several minutes something that ultimately I'm pleased to say we're all going to be supporting now. This is a really important group of amendments we know that environmental policy has been one of the things that Europe has been good at we also know and we would be foolish to ignore that some of those leading the Brexit charge in the UK government are avoward climate change deniers for example, people who have been hostile to environmental policy on a range of issues, people who are ready to frack the country as far as they possibly can. We need to ensure that our legislation passes the test of protecting the country against that agenda. The UK legislation monumentally failed that test and I'm very pleased that this legislation will not fail it. I'm pleased also that after a stage 2 process in which three political parties brought different approaches to trying to get to essentially the same outcome they've now had the chance to sit down alongside the government and figure out a way of getting agreement on those principles and also on the actions the government needs to take to avoid a governance gap in relation to our environmental policy in Scotland. I'm grateful for everyone who's put the work in over the last wee while to reach that point. One final point Presiding Officer, as the minister mentioned in the discussion on the first group, there will be aspects of this legislation which need to be maintained even if he eventually reaches as I personally am not convinced as possible if he eventually reaches an agreement with the UK Government and asks this Parliament to strike down this legislation to repeal it after we've passed it and I again cast cold water on that scenario but if it was to happen there'll be aspects that need to be carried over this is one of them and it's something which now that we're agreeing it across parties needs to be preserved in our approach to the Brexit crisis regardless of what happens to this legislation in the negotiation between two governments. Thank you and I call on the minister Michael Russell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm pleased to agree to these amendments from Claudia Beamish and Mark Ruskell. I'm grateful to them and Colin Smyth and Tavish Scott for working with the Government to refine their stage 2 amendments to ensure appropriate regard can be given to the guiding principles on environment and animal welfare. This and a number of other amendments and groups of amendments have been the product of hard work between my officials and the members and I'm glad that that is where politics works. As I said last week at stage 2, the purpose of this bill is to ensure overall continuity of law rather than to take forward changes to our legislative policy framework. However, the proposed amendments regarding the environment have allowed us to focus our attention on how this Government best ensures we're doing everything in our power to continue to maintain, protect and enhance our environment. Something that my friend and colleague Roseanna Cunningham has as a central concern. The bill already ensures that the precautionary principle as a general principle of EU law will continue to be part of Scots law. I said last week that I will ensure that the explanatory notes to the bill are amended to clarify this. I have already shared draft wording with Mr Beamish and Mr Ruskell and other members who seek to do just that. Amendment 39 ensures that ministers will have regard to the guiding principles on the environment and animal welfare when using the regulation making powers 11-1, 12-13-1 of the bill. Whilst all EU legislation, which has rolled over through the bill, will already have been informed by the principles as part of the EU's policy development and decision making, this amendment will ensure that we are also considering the principles when we are making regulations to correct deficiencies or to keep pace with EU law. This includes when ministers are exercising these powers to rectify or alter duties or powers of public authorities. There are six support Scottish ministers clear commitment to carry through not just the letter of EU environmental law but also its spirit, which is rightly a discussion much wider in scope than just this bill. This amendment ensures that we will consult on how the environmental principles continue to guide future policy and legislation and how we continue to have effective and appropriate environmental governance following EU withdrawal. This amendment does not include a commitment to consult on animal welfare principles because of current discussions under way at Westminster. The UK is rightly considered to have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, with a strong tradition of developing legislation to prevent animal suffering since 1822. The concept that animals are sentient and can experience emotions such as terror and fury, as well as suffering physical and mental pain was implicitly recognised in Scottish legislation over a century ago. There is a clear understanding of animal welfare needs in more recent legislation in Parliament, for example, from 2006. Scottish ministers have readily agreed in principle to allow a bill introducing a duty for UK Government ministers to have regard to the welfare needs of animals as sentient beings to apply to Scottish ministers in due course through a legislative consent motion. We look forward to a Westminster bill requiring this following a recent consultation if we require to take further action that will be taken. Both amendments also make clear that when interpreting these principles in post-EU withdrawal, we will continue to consider how they are interpreted at EU level by the European courts, ensuring that our understanding of the principles continues to be informed by EU case law. We have always made clear our intention to continuing to protect and enhance Scotland's environment and ensuring that we are equipped to continue to play a leading role on addressing global challenges to our environment. Those amendments enabled our commitments in law and represent a different approach to that taken by the UK Government when no such equivalent legislative commitments have been agreed to in the withdrawal bill. It gives me a particular pleasure to have made this progress on this bill as a former environment minister. For those reasons, I commend that the chamber votes for amendments 39 and 56. Thank you very much. I call on Claudia Beamish to wind up to press or withdraw. I am delighted to press, Presiding Officer. Thank you. The question is therefore that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 2 in the name of Mike Rumbles. Mike Rumbles to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. This is amendment 2. The result of the vote on amendment 2 in the name of Mike Rumbles is yes, 96, no, 31. I call amendment 40 in the name of the minister. I would remind members that, if amendment 40 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 3. Minister to move formally. Thank you. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 4 in the name of Mike Rumbles. Mike Rumbles to move or not move. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote in amendment 4 in the name of Mike Rumbles is yes, 97, no, 31. There were no abstentions. The amendment is agreed to. I call amendment 5 in the name of Mike Rumbles. I remind members that, if amendment 5 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 41. Mike Rumbles to move or not move. I call amendment 41 in the name of the minister. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. This is amendment 41. The result of the vote in amendment 41 in the name of the minister is yes, 97, no, 31. There were no abstentions. The amendment is agreed to. I call amendment 6 in the name of Mike Rumbles. Mike Rumbles to move or not move. Not moved. I call amendment 42 in the name of the minister. Minister to move formally. Thank you. The question is that amendment 42 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We now turn to group 8. I call amendment 43 in the name of Jamie Greene, grouped with amendment 62. Jamie Greene to move amendment 43 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. At stage 2 of the proceedings, I proposed an amendment 227, including a new reporting clause. In essence, it said that Scottish ministers should lay before Parliament a report detailing how many deficiencies and retained devolved EU law had been identified, and how many regulations under section 11 would be laid before us as a result of that. I'm pleased to say that amendment was passed at stage 2 after much deliberation. It's a welcome piece of scrutiny. But this is often the case between stages 2 and 3. There is discussion on how to improve the bill. Thereafter, on the face of it, I discussed some proposals with the bill team on how to strengthen that reporting process, and we did so in the form of amendment 62, which I submitted. The problem, however, is that at the top of line 1 of amendment 62, it says, leave out section 36A. Now, section 36A was another amendment that I submitted at stage 2, which was a much wider clause around review of the entire act, and I gave a duty on the ministers to lay a report before Parliament. Again, this was agreed by consensus at stage 2. I'm afraid the amendment, as it's currently worded, if passed will take away section 36A, which I, in retrospect, feels in a very important part of the bill, and which had consensus. I think this is really just a consequence of the haste of the process of this entire bill, which has gone through. I'd like to thank the civil service team who worked with me in recent days and indeed in recent minutes to see if we could find a compromise on this, but as it stands, with the wording, leave out section 36A, I would be unable to support this and therefore appeal to the minister that he would respect the current status quo with regards to the amendments which we passed at stage 2 via consensus, including 36A, and the previous wording that I had suggested on reporting. I would appeal to him not to move these amendments if I do not do so, and if the minister does insist on moving them, I would appeal to members and I call the minister. I think that this is a genuine difficulty that has arisen for Mr Greene and, as he says, he did submit this amendment and the amendment relates to the reporting requirements on the bill. There were two proposals, a range of proposals at stage 2, including a proposal from Mr Golden about reporting, and it was accepted at stage 2 that we would endeavour to bring together those reporting requirements so that the bill worked better. As I understand it, and this has been a fast-developing situation this afternoon, there are two problems that Mr Greene has identified. One is that he is concerned that the amendment does not cover the identification reporting on the number of deficiencies in advance, as its original amendment did. I am happy to give a commitment on the record that has been provided in advance and I hoped up until a few moments ago that that would be sufficient to address its concerns. However, I understand that there is another objection to this and, as he has mentioned, the amendment would remove section 3A which calls for a general review of the act. Let me see if I can help with this too. It is up to any committee to review any act and I would expect the Finance and Constitution Committee, for example, to be willing to review this act. If the two possible objections are, and this is as far as I am aware, one of them in terms of the number of deficiencies that are identified in advance, then I commit to those deficiencies being brought forward in advance. There is no difficulty in doing so. If the issue is that there is no specific mention of a review, then I am very happy, and of course I cannot tell committees of the Parliament what to do, I am very happy to encourage a review of this act by the Finance and Constitution Committee and, quite clearly, I would like to keep reviewing the issues of Brexit. In all those circumstances, what this amendment does is it creates a cogent, these two amendments, a cogent and coherent system of reporting. That is why we wanted to make the change and that is why we agreed to have these negotiations. I am sorry, and I do not know how it has happened, but clearly at some stage Mr Greene has lodged amendments that he now disagrees with. I suppose that does happen, it does happen, but I do think that this is the best way forward, and therefore I do wish to move those amendments. Jamie Greene to wind up and to press or withdraw. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think that the notion that we have changed our mind is not the case. I think that the minister will be aware that there was a very earnest discussion between those benches and his own bill team on the wording. We did work together to improve and actually there is much to be welcome in the additional wording that is provided on how the minister will report to Parliament. There are actually very welcome words from those benches. The problem is, I think, the inadvertent addition of the line which seeks to remove an entire section of the bill which we added at stage 2 and which had consensus at stage 2 and was agreed at stage 2. I think that it should remain so I am disappointed that the minister has chosen therefore to move these amendments. Very briefly. Terry Scott. Sorry, Patrick Harvie. Patrick Harvie? He is like up there. He is like up there, Presiding Officer. Patrick Harvie, please. Let's say nothing more, Presiding Officer, about that. Can I just try to understand the situation because I'm afraid it does seem a little puzzling. Earlier, Jamie Greene was very angry at the minister accepting one of his amendments and now he's arguing against another group of his own amendments. It would have been helpful if he could have got in touch with all members and all political parties to discuss any concerns that he had with amendments. We've looked at the amendments. I think that what he's lodged here represent an improvement to the bill compared with where we were at stage 2. Can he try to be very specific? What exactly is the issue that has changed since he lodged these amendments? Jamie Greene. Thank you. I'm very happy to provide clarification to Mr Harvie on this. I actually agree, Mr Harvie, that there are additional wording being included in the amendment that was proposed by the bill team to ourselves to submit and at the time I was very happy to submit. I think that the deficiency has arised in the bill of the wider review of the act, which is 36A. I think that, as it currently stands, the reporting that the minister will have to do is only in relation to sections 11 and 17 of the bill. I stand to be corrected if that's the case. Whereas my original clause 36A, which we discussed at great length at stage 2 and which I think possibly had the support of Mr Harvie, was to have a review of the act in its entirety, not just sections or parts of it. We throw our hands up to say that, had that been spotted earlier, I would not have pressed the amendment. I apologise for that. As it stands, I would like to keep 36A as a clause in the bill. It's an important part of the bill to ensure that Parliament does review the bill in its entirety, not just bits of it as the minister is proposing at the moment. Thank you. Can I ask the member if he wishes to press or withdraw? To withdraw. I would like to move the amendment. I would like to move the amendment. Minister, I would like to move the amendment. In that case, the question is that amendment 43 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 43 in the name of Jamie Greene is yes, 97, no, 31. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. A call amendment 7 in the name of Mike Rumbles. Mike Rumbles to move or not moved. Not moved. Not moved, thank you. We turn now to group 9. And a call amendment 65 in the name of Graham Simpson. Group to the amendments 66, 44 and 44A. Graham Simpson to move amendment 65 and to speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm speaking to amendments 65, 66 and 48A in this group as convener of the delegated powers and law reform committee. The committee agreed to lodge these amendments at its meeting yesterday morning and we were unanimous. And I thank you, Presiding Officer, for agreeing at that late stage to accept them. The amendments are all concerned with assuring that Parliament is able to apply effective and proportionate scrutiny to regulations made under this bill. In particular... Stuart McMillan. Or taking the intervention and setting just to put it on the record that Mr Simpson will be very much aware that since our committee meeting yesterday both David Torrance, MSP and myself have withdrawn our support for these particular amendments as a consequence all of information that wasn't fully present at the time of the committee which will be in present after our committee meeting. Graham Simpson. Yes, the member did change his mind but what I said is we were unanimous at the meeting which we were. I'll come on to that I'm sorry that the member has raised that but I'll come on to that in my summing up. The amendments relate to section 14A in the bill as amendment amended at stage 2 and amendment 44 which seeks to replace that section. Section 14A and amendment 44 provide different approaches to the creation of a sifting process whereby a parliamentary committee, my committee in the case of amendment 44 can decide that the procedure attached to an SSI made under section 11, 12 or 13 is incorrect and a different procedure should be attached. The committee is a longstanding interest in this issue. The idea of the parliament having a role in the setting of the procedure for regulations is one that the committee recommended in its report on the European Union withdrawal bill. When the committee met yesterday morning it could see the merits in the approach taken in section 14A. Section 14A of the bill provides that regulations under sections 11, 12 and 13 should be subject to a pre-laying sifting process of 15 days during which time a committee of the parliament can decide that the procedure attached to regulations should be different from the one proposed by Scottish ministers. Subsection 7 of section 14A provides that the Scottish ministers are required to change the procedure attached to the regulations if a committee has made such a recommendation. In this regard, section 14A is a welcoming improvement on the approach taken in the European Union withdrawal bill, where ministers are not bound to proceed in accordance with the decision of the parliament. Amendment 44 which replaces section 14A puts in place a new sifting process. However, it does retain some of the same features such as the binding nature of the committee's recommendation. The crucial difference in approach is that the sifting process now takes place once the amendment has been laid and this means that if an instrument is laid as a negative it can be changed to an affirmative if that's what's recommended by my committee within 20 days of laying. The amendment also establishes a new process at subsection 10 allowing amendments to be categorised as urgent and therefore not subject to this sifting process. The committee accepted when it looked at this yesterday that there might be a need for such an urgent procedure but it was not otherwise persuaded by the new approach taken in amendment 44. Specifically, the committee was concerned about the loss of the pre-laying period for scrutiny which is provided for in section 14A of the bill. The committee was concerned that undertaking this process in the course of the normal scrutiny of an instrument would damage the quality of parliamentary scrutiny and this is the important point because members will be using the first 20 days of scrutiny to consider whether the right procedure has been attached to an instrument rather than considering the actual content of the instrument. Changing the procedure doesn't mean restarting the clock so there would be a new 40 days period for scrutiny now that it's subject to a higher level of scrutiny. It just means that the instrument will continue to progress through the same 40 day period but now subject to a different procedure. Equally the change in procedure could be accompanied by a change to the instrument again making parliamentary scrutiny more challenging in the reduced time period. The committee was also concerned about the effect of subsection 6, 7 and 8 of amendment 44. They provide respectively that the resolution of the DPLR committee changing the procedure attached to a negative instrument implies that the instrument has been revoked and that nothing further may be done under the regulations. The committee was concerned about the absence of public notice in regard to such a revocation and the impact that this might have on those affected by the relevant law. How are those affected know the instrument have been revoked? With these concerns in mind the committee considered when it looked at this yesterday that section 14a in the bill as amended at stage 2 was preferable subject to the addition of the urgent procedure which is provided for by way of amendment 66. The committee agreed yesterday to encourage the Parliament to retain this approach. Amendments 65 and 44a amend section 14a and amendment 44 in order to provide for the SIFT process that I've described to apply to regulations under section 19. Section 19 of the bill provides the Scottish ministers with a power in relation to fees and charges. The bill provides that the first exercise of this power. I wonder if I could ask Mr Arthur to stop chattering. It's rather distracting. Members, pay attention please in the chamber. The bill provides that the first exercise of this power is subject to the affirmative procedure. Subsequent exercises of the power are subject to the negative procedure although there is no limit on what those subsequent exercises of the power can do. The committee's been given the view that the affirmative procedure is appropriate for the first use of the power, that it should also be applied to future exercises of the power. It's quite conceivable that future exercises of the power will provide for significant and material increases in fees and charges and it would seem appropriate for regulations providing for such increases to be subject to the affirmative procedure. Equally the scrutiny applied to regulations should be proportionate. Therefore regulations that provide for less significant increases in fees and charges are more appropriately subject to the negative procedure. Accordingly, the committee agreed yesterday to lodge amendments to apply the sifting process to regulations under section 19 so that Parliament can take an informed view of the appropriate scrutiny procedure to attach to the instrument based on the content of that agreement, so I move amendment 65. Thank you very much, and I call on Ross Greer to speak to amendment 44 and the other amendments in this group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Happy to move amendment 44. Graham Simpson has already covered the principles of the arguments that were making here, so I'm not going to repeat that, but it's nice to say that I was very happy that Parliament at stage 2 through the committee did agree that it was the appropriate level of scrutiny for the changes that are going to be made through this process, and specifically that means that it should be Parliament through our committees that decide what instrument that should be. I have brought amendment 44 to define a more workable process for this. It addresses some of the concerns that were raised at stage 2, very valid concerns, not by those who disagreed with the principle—the principle is something that we all agreed to—about how workable we could make this. That was originally proposed. Very fair concerns were raised that that would cause significant delays for instruments coming through, particularly negative instruments on very minor changes of which we're all expecting a substantial volume at certain points in this process. We found a solution to that, which extends the scrutiny process by taking that 15 days, extending it to 20 days, within the DPLR committee's existing 20-day scrutiny period. Given the instrument that it should take and scrutiny of the substance, how they dovetail we believe that to be an appropriate solution. Members also notice that there's a new provision in the new 14A. It's also addressed by amendment 66 that specifies that the urgency provisions in section 13.1 can override the sifting arrangements. This was intended in the original 14A, but it wasn't explicit. Making it explicit is an improvement. It's also an improvement that is safeguarded. I don't think any of us would be comfortable with the urgency provisions, but we recognise their necessity. An amendment that I lodged and was passed at stage 2 to section 31 gives Parliament the opportunity to suspend those urgency powers if it believes they've been used inappropriately. This is a safeguarded process. There were areas where we disagreed with some of the concerns raised. I did not believe that it would be appropriate to remove the superaffirmative procedure from this. This should be an option that is available to committees. It's ultimately for that committee's judgment whether or not that is an appropriate procedure. I hope that members will recognise that what we've done is take the principle agreed to at stage 2 and create a more workable process for it through amendment 44 at stage 3. I call on Neil Findlay to be followed by Daniel Johnson. Thanks, Presiding Officer. We support amendments in this group as they provide for enhanced scrutiny of regulations by this Parliament. We note the letter and the comments by the convener of the delegated powers committee on these amendments and support the establishment of that sifting procedure where the committee has a say and can change the process and enhance scrutiny provided by the use of affirmative procedure and the increase in the number of days. In relation to fees and charges, I understand that where those are minor, that negative procedure would be more appropriately. The delegated powers committee takes the role of this Parliament and ensuring the scrutiny of legislation very seriously. These changes are about standing up for Parliament over ministers. Briefly, in support of these amendments, in the stage 1 debate I said that I thought that it was important that if we are seeking to protect devolution, that is much about how power is exercised as much as we concentrate on what powers we have. The proposals that Ross Greer and the committee have brought forward to enact and implement a sifting committee are very sensible ones because they give the power to Parliament and ensure that the powers being exercised by ministers that were previously democratically exercised powers in the European Union are exercised democratically in this place are very important and for those reasons I very much support those amendments. Thank you very much. I call on the minister, Michael Russell. I accepted, as Ross Greer has indicated at stage 2, the principle that given the exceptional circumstances of Brexit, the Scottish Parliament should have a role, a strong role, determining what procedure Brexit-related statutory instruments should be scrutinised under. I also emphasise the need to ensure that such a sifting process which we accepted would be flexible and proportionate enough to allow the Government to plan its legislative programme with an appropriate degree of certainty. Presiding Officer, the whole business of this legislation is to try and find a middle way between Brexit itself and the great burdens it places upon this Parliament and upon this country, something that the people of the country did not vote for and the time available. We have to find a way through that and, therefore, striking a balance is the issue. I am pleased to acknowledge that amendment 44 from Ross Greer which would replace the amendment that he made at stage 2 in our opinion strikes the right balance. I am grateful to him for developing an approach that preserves the role of Parliament in determining whether an instrument has been laid under the appropriate procedure while making the provision more workable in practice. I have to say that there were hard negotiations to go through to achieve that, but in the end we got an amendment that works and that is why it was tabled within due time. The specific issue that Ross Greer's stage 3 amendment addresses is to align the sifting process with the delegated power and law reforms committee's other scrutiny functions that once an instrument has been laid. That ensures that the timescales for laying and scrutinised supporting legislation remain manageable. Ross Greer's amendment also ensures that there is an option to disobey the sifting process in genuinely urgent cases. I believe that that is a sensible provision to include, albeit one that I hope we will not have to use. Finally, members will want to be aware that Ross Greer's stage 3 amendment puts in place a much stronger framework for parliamentary control than the equivalent of the UK withdrawal bill, which gives the UK Parliament only an advisory role. For those reasons, I welcome amendment 44 and encourage members to support it. Members will note that Graham Simpson sent a letter to the Presiding Officer yesterday proposing an alternative approach. He wishes to retain the pre-laying sift approach that Ross Greer introduced at stage 2. I believe that that would be a mistake. It would require a 15-sitting day sift to be allowed for all statutory instruments that are developed under this bill before they can be laid regardless of their significance. That is disproportionate. It would make planning the programme of support that legislation required as a consequence of a Brexit being imposed upon us, extremely difficult and potentially unmanagable. Building in a 15-day pre-laying period, along with the possibility of every instrument being upgraded to the enhanced affirmative procedure would make the scheduling of the already complex programme of legislation required and ultimately very difficult for either Government or Parliament to predict or plan for. Let me give you two facts on this. 15 days for 300-plus instruments equates to 900 more weeks in a timetable which we already know and which is already bearing down upon us. The second one is, as Ross Greer has indicated, the 20-day period is an extension and the 20-day period is not merely for considering whether sifting takes place or not. That was something within the letter that I respectfully disagree with. The 20-day period can be used for considering, of course, as well. Ross Greer's approach via amendment 44 is the efficient, flexible, proportionate approach without any loss of parliamentary control. In fact, it increases parliamentary control and meets the very objections that the Delegated Powers Committee had. I would encourage members to oppose Graham Simpson's amendment 65. The Delegated Powers Committee has also tabled amendment 44A which seeks to apply the sifting procedure to section 19, the part that provides for fees and charges in connection with the functions of Scottish public authorities. That would ensure that section 19 instruments are also subject to the sifting procedure. I have been in correspondence with the committee about this matter, which members may not know. I have pointed out that the model for procedures and changes in this bill is initial use being subject to affirmative procedure, so members are absolutely in charge, and subsequent adjustments, which will, in the greatest part, be very minor to negative procedure. The financial memorandum sets out in paragraphs 20 to 22 the guidance for calculating fees and charges and notes that bodies sponsored by the Scottish Government should and must comply with the processes set out within the Scottish Public Finance Manual. As the fees and charges regime set out in the bill, bills on standard forms and fees and charges levied will be calculated in the standard way and, of course, it is a continuity bill as they are now. According to the robust governance and guidance set out in the Scottish Public Finance Manual, the Government's view is that the provision of the bill is appropriate and sufficient and I encourage members to oppose amendment 44A. The Delegated Powers Committee has also tabled in manuscript amendment 66 that it can exist even if amendment 44 is not accepted. I would support that on a contingent basis, but I would strongly recommend members support Ross Greer's amendment 44, which was come to after a great negotiation and in fully respectful of the stage 2 process and all things flowing from it. That would provide a better solution to the very difficult circumstances in which this Parliament finds itself. Thank you, and I call on Graham Simpson now to wind up and to press or withdraw his amendment. Thank you very much. I can thank everyone who's spoken in this section. Mr Russell talks about striking a balance. This is what we're trying to do. First of all, I commend Ross Greer for bringing amendments in the first place because what Ross Greer is trying to do is to ensure effective scrutiny so as to be congratulated for that. That's what my committee is all about. The discussion that we had yesterday was the first opportunity that the committee had had to actually look at this amendment the very first. I had seen the wording over the weekend but as far as I know, I don't think the committee had. Yesterday was our first meeting so it was the first meeting that we had the opportunity to consider it and discuss it. We came to the conclusion that the amendment before us in Ross Greer's name would have the unfortunate effect of not allowing enough scrutiny time to deal with SSIs. I said earlier that we were unanimous at that point. The committee was unanimous. That situation changed. The deputy convener changed his mind as did one of his colleagues. Unfortunately, this appears to have happened as a result of some strong-arming by ministerial colleagues. Order. Let's listen to Mr Simpson. It's a most unfortunate episode. Order, please. Let's listen to Mr Simpson. Stuart McMillan. I thank Mr Simpson for taking the intervention. The discussion that we had in private session yesterday was very much thorough as I will agree to. However, Mr Simpson will also be aware that there was some very important information that was withheld from the committee during our discussion which has a consequence. Therefore, the decision that I took and my colleague took was very much not based upon the full facts of the information that should have been presented to every single member of the committee. Graham Simpson. The so-called pertinent information was that I had a conversation by telephone with Mr Russell on Friday in which he told me that they planned to back a further amendment. I had not seen the wording of that amendment. I have covered that. My conversation with Mr Russell was Mr Russell telling me what he was proposing to do. Clearly, the time and place to deal with that as a committee is when the committee meets. That's what we did yesterday. That's the position. I am moving the amendment. Thank you. The member has moved the amendment. The question is that amendment 65 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to vote. Members may cast their votes now and this is a one-minute division. The result of the vote on amendment 65 in the name of Graham Simpson is yes, 60, no, 68. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 66 in the name of Graham Simpson? Graham Simpson to move or not move. The question is that amendment 66 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 44 in the name of Ross Greer. Ross Greer to move or not move. Moved. I call amendment 44A in the name of Graham Simpson. Graham Simpson to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 44A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to vote. Members may cast their votes now. Amendment 44A. The result of the vote on amendment 44A in the name of Graham Simpson is yes, 59, no, 69. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Ross Greer to press or withdraw. Amendment 44. Moved. The question is that amendment 44 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 45 in the name of Neil Findlay. Neil Findlay to move or not to move. Moved. The question is that amendment 45 be agreed to. We are not agreed. Moved to vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 45 in the name of Neil Findlay is yes, 59, no, 69. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 46 in the name of the minister. Minister to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 46 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 8. I call amendment 8 in the name of Mike Rumbles. Mike Rumbles to move or not move. Not moved. We turn now to group 10. I call amendment 47 in the name of Neil Bibby. Group to the amendments 50 and 52. Neil Bibby to move amendment 47 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I wish to formally move amendment 47 in my name and speak in support of amendments 50 and 52 in the name of the minister on the same issue. Last week I moved a number of amendments in the name of the minister on the same issue. Last week I moved a number of amendments during the bill's stage 2 proceedings at an extended session of the Finance and Constitution Committee. The purpose of those amendments was to ensure that any regulation making powers granted to Scottish ministers as a result of this bill would not remove or weaken EU-derived rights and protections in relation to five key areas. For the record, these are related to employment, equalities, health and safety, consumer standards and the environment. There is real concern that Brexit could undermine those rights and protections that we currently enjoy as members of the European Union. Let's be clear that cannot and should not be allowed to happen. Although my amendments were not moved, the minister did give a commitment to find a way of ensuring that the concerns raised by myself and others, including Patrick Harvie, would be addressed at stage 3. Amendments in group 7, as well as the amendments in this group, are a result of that process and of constructive dialogue with the Harvie, which I welcome. Amendment 47, in my name, would expand section 16 of the bill on explanatory statements. When Scottish ministers lay an instrument or draft, it would be required to make a statement explaining what effect, if any, it would have on rights and duties relating to employment, health and safety and matters relating to consumer protection. The sifting process envidges by a number of members and by the Scottish Government would be informed by those explanatory statements. That would help to determine the best level of parliamentary scrutiny to apply to any instruments or drafts that are laid. Some members may recall concerns at stage 2 about whether similar amendments encroached on reserved areas. My stage 3 amendments therefore make clear that the requirement to make such an explanatory statement applies so far is in within devolved competency. For clarity, devolved competence is defined as being within the meaning of section 54 of the Scotland Act 1998. In addition, there is an additional reporting requirement on Scottish ministers covering rights and duties in relation to employment, health and safety and consumer protection. Those amendments therefore enhance scrutiny and, in my view, provide further assurances to those who are rightly concerned with safeguarding EU-derived rights and protections and therefore remove the amendment in my name. Thank you very much. I call the minister to speak to amendment 50 and the other amendments in this group. I thank Neil Bibby for amendment 47, which I think sensibly strikes the right balance between making sure that we have powers that are sufficiently flexible for the task ahead of us, but we also do not forget when we use those powers to be mindful of the important values set out in Neil Bibby's amendments. With those amendments made, the section 16 explanatory statement will become a powerful tool in ensuring that Parliament is able to give the appropriate amount of scrutiny to any instrument before it. It will cover matters such as equalities, employment rights, health and safety as well as set out the purpose and effect of each instrument. Some of the matters that are covered are at least to a significant extent reserved. It is of course unlikely that any instruments that are laid by the Scottish ministers could have any effect on those matters. However, it is possible that devolved provision might have a peripheral effect on such matters. It is right that the explanatory statement should explain the position if that is the case. Given the specific focus of the amendments on those matters, I think that it is appropriate in this case that the amendment makes clear that the statement applies only so far in devolved competence for the instrument to have any such effect. That is the right way of ensuring that every instrument receives the scrutiny that it deserves. My amendments 50 and 52 are consequential on Mr Bibby's amendment 47. They ensure that the statements required by amendment 47 are treated in the same way by the bill as the other elements of the statement set out in section 16. I therefore recommend that the chamber votes for all three amendments in this group 47, 50 and 52. Thank you very much. Much like the earlier discussion on the different approaches that political parties have taken in relation to the environmental arguments at another point in this bill, again we saw a stage 2 process where two different proposals came very much trying to achieve the same essential objective. I had moved an amendment that was modelled on an amendment with those two different proposals. I had moved an amendment that was modelled on an amendment that was discussed at the UK Parliament in relation to the EU withdrawal bill. Neil Bibby came with an amendment that I think had some greatest specificity in how it was framed. What we've ended up with is some discussion between, I know that Neil Bibby and those other colleagues in his office have worked hard on this alongside the Government. I'm very pleased that there is an agreement on how it is that we should set out a wider set of social rights in this bill. I'm glad that the minister will be accepting it. I'll certainly be voting for it. There's one other point that I'd like to make and it is about the wider agenda of rights, not all of which are actually covered in this bill. The minister knows that I had considered lodging an amendment in relation to the convention, the UN convention on rights of persons with disabilities but I concluded that there wasn't an appropriate place for it to fit within the bill. The minister knows that that's a convention that does interact with EU law, which the UK Government has in fact signed it but not implemented it domestically. I would encourage the minister in his contribution in this debate simply to reassert whether the Scottish Government continues to endorse that convention and will he write to the Parliament at some point when the question has been considered as to whether in fact legislative implementation in domestic law will be necessary in relation to that convention. To give the minister that assurance and also to say that it fits well into the process that I was challenged about by Mr Finlay and by Johann Lamont so that he's considered as part of the process of those things that we need in relation to as we move forward. Patrick Harvie is supporting Neil Bibby's amendment. Thank you very much. Neil Bibby to wind up to press or withdraw. I'll just press the amendment. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 47 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We turn now to group 11 and I call amendment 48 in the name of Donald Cameron, grouped with amendments 51 and 53. Donald Cameron to move amendment 48 and speak to the amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Hopefully, I can be very brief here. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that where instruments are laid during a period of recess, Scottish ministers are held accountable for that and must explain why this has occurred. During stage 2, the minister stated that we need to recognise that it is almost inevitable. I think he said that we will need the Government, that is, we'll need to lay some instruments in recess and it would be appropriate for the bill to set out more about what should happen in that instance. As a result of that, I didn't move an amendment that made provision for recess and the Scottish Government has suggested a reworded version, which is in my name in amendment 48. I welcome that constructive engagement and move amendment 48 as well as amendments 51 and 53, which are technical updating amendments all in my name. Thank you very much. I call on James Kelly. Briefly, those amendments are all sensible and cater for the Government providing an explanation where instruments have got to be laid during recess. I think that this is a reasonable precaution for this Government or any future Government and is sensible and will support all amendments in the group. Thank you. I call the minister. I welcome safeguard to the bill as I said at stage 2 in response to Donald Cameron's original amendments. Regulations under the continued bill will be made against a very hard deadline that is out of our control and with a backdrop of uncertainty. In those circumstances, it would be appropriate for the bill to set out more about what should happen when regulations under the main powers and the bill need to be laid during recess. Those amendments achieve that. I thank Mr Cameron for working with us to bring those forward. The question is that amendment 48 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 49 in the name of Tavish Scott. Tavish Scott to move or not move. Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 49 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. The result of the vote on amendment 49 in the name of Tavish Scott is yes, 59, no, 68. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 50 in the name of the minister. Minister, to move formally. The question is that amendment 50 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 51 in the name of Donald Cameron. Donald Cameron to move. The question is that amendment 51 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 52 in the name of the minister. Minister, to move formally. The question is that amendment 52 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 53 in the name of Donald Cameron. Donald Cameron to move. Moved. The question is that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 54 in the name of Neil Findlay. Neil Findlay to move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 54 in the name of Neil Findlay is yes, 59, no, 69. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 9 in the name of Mike Rumbles. Not moved. I call amendment 55 in the name of the minister. Minister, to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 55 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 10 in the name of Mike Rumbles. Not moved. I call amendment 56 in the name of Mark Ruskell. Mark Ruskell to move. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 56 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 57 in the name of the minister. Minister, to move formally. Moved. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 57 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We turn now to group 12. I call amendment 58 in the name of Ivan McKee in a group of its own. Ivan McKee to move and speak to amendment 58. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move and speak to amendment 58 in my name. The purpose of this amendment is to provide more clarity around the meaning of exit day in the bill. It is concerned with the way that the bill works at the point that the UK leaves the EU. That is an issue that was discussed at stage 2 of the bill, where there was some concern raised that the possibility existed that Scottish ministers could somehow set a different date for exit in this bill than applies in the UK Government's EU withdrawal bill. That, of course, was never the intention but a mechanism has to be put in place to ensure that where the date currently set in the UK bill changed, then the date in this bill would have to reflect any such change. At stage 2, Neil Findlay's amendments to the definition of exit date were agreed by the committee. That replaced Scottish ministers' ability to set exit day in regulations with a definition set out on the face of the bill, namely the day that the UK leaves the EU. I am grateful to the minister for working with me on this amendment, which gives more detail about what is meant by this. It links the definition in the bill to the point in time that the EU treaty stopped applying in the UK as a consequence of UK withdrawal from the EU. That ensures that the bill is tied to the legal process by which Brexit will take place. It does not remove anything from Neil Findlay's amendment to the bill. It augments and expands on it. That ensures that whatever is provided for in the withdrawal agreement, however the UK leaves the EU will be reflected in this continuity bill. I urge members to support this amendment. Adam Tomkins, to be followed by James Kelly. When the bill was introduced into this Parliament, section 28 provided that exit day means such day as the Scottish ministers made by regulations appoint. They explained that they did not really mean that because they did not want to appoint a day for exit day and they accepted an amendment or an amendment at any rate passed at stage 2 so that section 28 of the bill now reads that in this act exit day means the day that the UK leaves the European Union. That is entirely appropriate, that is as it should be and nothing more needs to be said. Contrary to what Mr McKee just said his amendment complicates the matter. It complicates the matter unnecessarily. It makes the matter less clear, not more clear. All that needs to be said is what is said currently in section 281, which is that exit day means the day that the UK leaves the European Union and for that reason this amendment should strongly be resisted. James Kelly. Arise to oppose amendment 58 in the name of Ivan McKee. Stage 1, there was concern about the definitions in relation to exit day and the way the bill was drafted left the interpretation for that in the hands of Scottish ministers. Stage 2, that issue was addressed following an amendment from Neil Findlay that made it clear that exit day is when the UK leaves the EU. I think that that is quite a clear definition that we have got as we enter stage 3. The clauses that Ivan McKee adds in relation to the treaty of the EU and the treaty of functioning of the EU only add further confusion and a potential conflict. The clear definition that we have got is drafted now is the one that is legally watertight and should remain and therefore oppose amendment 58. Thank you. Let me deal with Mr Tomkins' point first of all. I cannot imagine why that should be strongly resisted except to say that I am not sure that anybody in Let alone Scottish Fishermen would believe a word the Tories said about exit day these days. I am surprised by the position that Labour Party is taking. I have to say that we did accept and absolutely have been very helpful to an amendment from Neil Findlay but we did think and I said during stage 2 process that we might need some small and technical changes to that. That reinforces our amendment but it does make the necessary changes so that we fully understand the issue to do with EU treaties. This is entirely consistent with making it as clear as possible that we are not setting exit day. Exit day is set elsewhere. We do not want exit day. I would rather not have exit day but if we are going to have exit day there has got to be tied down very clearly and it is tied down both in Neil Findlay's amendment and amendment 58. I call Ivan McKee to wind up and to press or withdraw. Thank you very much. The question therefore is that amendment 58 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to our division. Members may cast their votes now. This is a one-minute division. The result of the vote on amendment 58 in the name of Ivan McKee is yes, 68, no, 59. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 11 in the name of Mike Rumbles. Mike Rumbles to move on. Not moved. I call amendment 12 in the name of Mike Rumbles. Not moved. Sorry, we turn to group 13 now. I call amendment 16 in the name of Murdo Fraser, grouped with amendment 17 and Murdo Fraser to move amendment 16 and speak to both amendments. Amendment 16 and 17 deal with the question of regulations being introduced by Scottish ministers in what are described in the bill as urgent cases. As drafted, section 31 provides that those regulations shall cease to have effect at the end of a period of 28 days unless those regulations are approved by a resolution of this Parliament. So, as drafted, this is granting powers to ministers to making emergency powers which will have immediate effect but will then require to be approved by Parliament and if that is not done then these regulations would cease to have effect. My amendments do not object in principle to ministers having this power but I feel that the period of 28 days to get parliamentary approval is simply too long. This is an issue about proper parliamentary scrutiny of ministerial powers. At stage 2 I moved amendments suggesting that the periods of 28 days in section 31, subsection 4 be reduced to 14 days. This would still give Scottish ministers the power to make these regulations in urgent cases but would require them to be approved by Parliament within 14 days which struck me as a reasonable period striking a balance between the need for parliamentary scrutiny and the freedom of ministers to act in urgent cases. At stage 2, the minister said that he would want to consider the matter further and I agreed not to push my amendments. At that stage, his official submission came back with a suggestion that the Government would be prepared for 21 days. That seemed to be a reasonable compromise and being a seeker of consensus at all times. I therefore brought forward my amendment 16 which is proposed to reduce the period to 21 days in subsection 5 and there is a consequential amendment in amendment number 17 which would bring subsection 4 into line with that. I am happy to move amendment 16. Thank you very much. James Kelly. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I wish to support both amendments in this group. Obviously, it relates to the scrutiny in relation to urgent cases. I think that Murdo Fraser makes a reasonable point that 28 days is perhaps too long bearing in mind that this urgent cases and 21 days is more reasonable. The Government also does have the option to seek parliamentary approval prior to that time. I would urge support for both amendments. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Michael Russell. Members in the chamber and those who might still be observing from outside the chamber will regard the outbreak of consensus as to be unique and almost a step too far to the Fraser and myself. James Kelly agreed on the amendment but still be it. I thank Murdo Fraser for allowing me the time to reflect on the time period in the provision. At stage 2, as I indicated, I saw in a great harm in the amendments, it was never intended that the time that had to be taken could be taken but 21 days strikes the correct balance. It allows a reasonable period of time. It allows Scottish ministers to make instruments of reasonable certainty but it gives the Scottish Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise the instrument and schedule the necessary vote. I was not convinced that 14 days could have achieved that balance so I am grateful for Murdo Fraser in promoting this and I think that 21 days is about right. I recommend that the chamber votes for two amendments by Murdo Fraser. Words I never thought I would hear myself saying. Murdo Fraser, to wind up and to press or withdraw? 16 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 17 in the name of Murdo Fraser. Murdo Fraser, to move. Moved. The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 59 in the name of the minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 59 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We turn now to group 14. In the name of the minister, in a group on its own, minister to move and to speak to amendment 60. Thank you. Amendment 60 in my name is a short and practical amendment, one that I hope that could be supported across the chamber. As I have often pointed to section 37 of the bill and the ability to repeal this act as evidence that this Government's good faith in seeking an agreement over the UK withdrawal bill. If that does not prove possible, I have said that the second best option involves both Governments working together on the continuity bill and the UK EU withdrawal bill can work together in Scotland in as complementary way as possible. The bills were designed in that way. I have explained on a number of occasions that subject to a number of limited policy differences, this bill has been carefully drafted to mirror equivalent provisions in the UK EU withdrawal bill. This amendment is further evidence of our good faith in seeking that outcome. It would allow the power to make ancillary provision in section 32 of the bill to make provision in consequence of or in connection with on the EU withdrawal bill when it is passed and any other legislation which is also aimed at preparing our laws for the consequences of EU withdrawal. Members have raised concerns at each stage of this bill about what would happen if the EU withdrawal bill was amended in a relevant way after this bill passed to the Scottish Parliament. I remember Tavish Scott raised issue at stage 1, Murdo Fraser asking probing questions about it in committee, was raised by the Delegated Powers Committee as well. That amendment responds to those genuine concerns. It would mean that in this situation we could come to Parliament with regulations which would make provisions ensuring that despite those amendments the two bills were still able to work together. We have no information that suggests that that may happen. That amendment would mean that if the operation of the two bills together in some way unanticipated proved awkward or required some fine tuning, and this is about fine tuning in order for it to work best, with the proposal in regulations to address that. It remains the case, and I really stress this, that any exercise of the powers would require to be consistent with the policy that has already been given effect to in the bill, as the power must be exercised for the purpose of giving full effect to this bill. At stage 2, Liam Kerr amended the ancillary provisions power, so they are unusual. It requires ministers to be satisfied that the use of the power is necessary before making provision under it. Ministers will not seek to reverse that at stage 3, and the same limitation will apply to the power when it is used for the new purpose. Ministers will have to be satisfied and the test will have to be applied that making provision of the sort and visits by this amendment is necessary before they can put anything to the Parliament. This is a sensible, modest amendment aimed squarely at the very serious, practical difficulties the Parliament might face under a possible scenario over the next 18 months trying to prepare for the consequences of Brexit. James Kelly. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In evidence to stage 1, at the finance committee, Michael Clancy of the Law Society made the point that it was important that this legislation, any legislation passed here, needed to be consistent with the appropriate sections of the EU withdrawal bill Westminster. That was a relevant point. From that point of view, sympathetic to amendment 60 was put forward by the minister this afternoon. However, I am also aware that the Delegated Powers Committee has expressed some concerns about the overarching reach of amendment 60 in terms of using granting and the potential for the Government to use too much power. Although I am convinced by the case that the minister has made I would ask for some reassurance in terms that the powers won't be overreached. It's just the minister to wind up to press or withdraw. I'm happy to give the minister that assurance. I read what the convener of the Delegated Powers Committee has said and what he's drawn attention to. That amendment was proposed directly in response to concern raised by members and by the Law Society. I take that point from James Kelly. They made good points. Brexit will be complex. We want to go with a single statute. We always have, because we recognise that operating in two acts has potential problems. If those two bills have to be operated together, however, they need to do so well. In our view, the new amendment is limited in the same way as the other ancillary powers, perhaps actually more so, but I'm happy to give James Kelly the assurance that he seeks. It's limited right to address the concerns raised by members and the Law Society which is being sought in this ancillary provision. I take it that the minister is pressing the amendment. Yes, I move. The question is that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. I call amendment 61 in the name of Tavish Scott, already debated. The question is that amendment 61 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. In the minister division, this will be a one-minute division. It's amendment 61. The result of the vote on amendment 61 in the name of Tavish Scott is, yes, 65, no, 63, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I now call amendment 62 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated. Jamie Greene to move or not move. For the four mentioned reasons, not move. Not moved. The minister is moving it. The question therefore is that amendment 62 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed, we'll move to division. Members may cast their votes now. 30 seconds. The result of the vote on amendment 62 in the name of Jamie Greene is, yes, 90, no, 36, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. We turn now to our final group, 15. Anna Sarwar on its own. Anna Sarwar to move and speak to amendment 63. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Seeing as this is the final group, I'll hold the chamber for as long as I like then. I'm not used to being popular anyway, so it's... I want to move this. Generally, I'll be brief, it's to put a duty on the Government to conduct an independent evaluation on health and social care off Brexit. This is an amendment that was moved by Westminster by Joanna Cherry, supported by more than 60 organisations in Scotland, including Campbell Scotland, the Genetic Alliance, Scotland Scottish Care, the SCVO, the other ones that are the main sponsors of the bill. What it is is a recognition that Brexit will impact on our public services, on the funding for our public services and on the workforce of our public services. We were promised £350 million extra for our NHS if we had voted for Brexit, but the reality is that Brexit will impact on our economy, on our tax receipts and on funding available to our public services. I also want to put on record my thanks to all the EU citizens who work in our health and social care system. We owe them a huge thank you. The sad reality is that we already have workforce pressures before Brexit, but Brexit will emphasise those workforce pressures and put more pressure on already overworked and undervalued staff. As I say, this amendment seeks to put a provision into Parliament to have that assessment and for that assessment to be shared with this Parliament and with the public. I hope that people in the chamber will support it today. Thank you very much and I call on the minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is an appropriate amendment to end this consideration because Anasawa has rightly indicated that Brexit will touch people's lives and will touch those lives very directly. It's interesting to reflect and concerning to reflect the issues that we've had raised in this debate and over the last three weeks. We've not just touched on the legality or otherwise of Brexit. We've not just touched on the legality or otherwise of this bill. We've not just touched on scrutiny. We've talked about, sometimes in detail, issues of the environment, animal sentience, issues of employment rights, human rights, issues today of employment and disability raised by Patrick Harvie. Now we're touching on healthcare and workforce rights. We can go through the whole process of Brexit and realise again and again that this is profoundly disturbing and profoundly damaging. We will have to take exceptional actions in Scotland in order to defend ourselves against something that we did not vote for. That weighs forward in terms of the membership of the single market and the customs union, but we can have that debate elsewhere. What this amendment illustrates is the real difficulties with which we are faced through no cause of our own and I just want to stress that very clearly. Scotland voted against Brexit and we should always remember that. I thank Anasawa for this amendment both for what it says and for the wider issue it raises. The Scottish Government is concerned about the impact of Brexit on the social care in the country. It supports conducting an independent assessment of those effects and other effects elsewhere. It is concerned about the effect on the workforce and the services that individuals will be able to access. I do wish that Mr Sarwar had lodged the amendment at stage 2. I know it very, very close-day mirrors and amendment at Westminster from my good friend and colleague Joanna Cherry. I'm sure her wording was absolutely perfect in the Westminster circumstance but in the Scottish Parliament circumstance I had worked with a member to provide an improvement in the way that we've done with other members. I'm not convinced, for example, that the period of one year from Royal Ascent is the right timescale. In many cases, the regulations required to be made under the bill won't have been made. None are likely to have been brought into force but those are perhaps more minor points. The Government will support this amendment. It's vital that the Parliament, Government and the public have the best quality information about the consequences of EU withdrawal. I've published those, most recently, in the latest version of Scotland's Place in Europe. It is the UK Government, the Tory Government that's tried to keep it secret by refusing to publish their own assessments. I support the amendment. I hope that the chamber does. Thank you very much. I ask Anas Sarwar whether he wishes to wind up, press or withdraw. Moved. The question is that amendment 63 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. On that end, consideration of amendments. As members will be aware at this point in proceedings, I'm required understanding orders to make recommendations. I'm not sorry to say those things but I'm not sorry to say these things. Those are some of my comments and I hope that the Parliament will not be just saying that I'm not sorry to say these things but I'm not sorry to say those things. I'm not sorry to say those things but I'm not sorry to say these things. I'm not sorry to say those things That's good. I'm required to understand or to decide whether or not any provision in this bill relates to a protected subject matter. That is whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In the case of this bill, in my view, no such provision does that. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority at stage three. I'm minded at this stage to take a ten-minute comfort break and to resumes at twenty past six. It is suspended for 10 minutes, so it resumes at twenty past six. 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 6, in the name of Michael Russell, on UK withdrawal from the European Union legal continuity Scotland Bill. Before I invite Michael Russell to open the debate, I call on the Deputy First Minister to signify Crown consent to the bill. I call on John Swinney. Michael Russell 9.11 of the Standing Orders. I wish to advise Parliament that Her Majesty having been informed of the purport of the UK withdrawal from the European Union legal continuity Scotland Bill has consented to place her prerogative and interests so far as they are affected by the bill at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of this bill. I invite members who now wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak buttons now. I call on Michael Russell to speak to and move the motion. Minister, seven minutes please are thereabouts. On 27 February, which seems an impossibly long time ago now, I came to this chamber to set out the Government's reasons for introducing this bill. In the three weeks and one day since then, the bill has been scrutinised by five committees of this Parliament. Over 230 amendments were considered at stage 2 during not one but two unprecedented evening committee sessions. The amount of time spent at stage 2 was longer than, for example, the Social Security Bill. We have just considered a further 65 amendments at stage 3. We now hear—I am sorry—for a further evening session to pass this bill on the timetable set out by the Parliament on 1 March. I said in our stage 2 debate another procedural innovation that the Parliament had risen to the occasion and I repeat that sentiment this evening. I want to put on record the Government's appreciation of the efforts of many people that brought the bill to the successful conclusion. Let me start with the Parliament's staff, those in the chamber office and the clerks of various committees who organised evidence sessions at short notice and received and processed the amendments at stage 2 and 3. The team at the Finance and Constitution Committee did an outstanding job in guiding the committee and other members through the complexities of the stage 2 amendments. We all owe a particular debt to the convener, my good friend Bruce Crawford, for his absolutely masterful chairing. I want to record my appreciation of those involved in the logistics, the security staff, catering, the official report, television and audio teams and other facility staff necessary to make this chamber work. All of them rose magnificently into the occasion, including the management of the Parliament under the clerks of Paul Grice. Finally, I want to thank other members for their contributions. We are all aware of the unusual features of both the legislation and the procedure. Members have ensured that both were tested to ensure that they are justified, sometimes using the great deal of imagination, one might even call it ingenuity. I believe that the bill that emerges is improved as a result of all our efforts. Let me remind members why this bill is necessary. Some nine months ago, the UK Government introduced a bill that would affect directly the competence of this Parliament and the Scottish Government. In effect, the bill sought to turn the clock back to 1973 and allow the UK Government and it alone to redesign devolution, as if the UK had never been in the EU or common market or European community. I will leave aside the difficulties of travelling time, as the late Stephen Hawking once observed that, if time travel is possible, where are the tourists from the future? However, it was clear at the outset that the provision was never going to get the agreement of any devolved administration worth its salt. It was obviously, to quote the unanimous viewer of the Finance and Constitution Committee, incompatible with the devolution settlement in Scotland, not just in Scotland but also in Wales, where our colleagues in the Welsh Government and the Welsh Assembly took a similarly robust view of the UK Government's proposals. Indeed, one of the features of this process has been the close working of the Welsh and Scottish Governments. I want to pay particular tribute to my colleague Mark Drakeford and members of this Parliament and Assembly and indeed members and peers at Westminster's from across the political parties. All have sought to address the concerns about devolution raised by the UK bill. However, despite the near unanimous calls for change to respect the principles of devolution, the UK Government has yet to agree amendments to get the consent of this Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. Healths are alternatives, the continuity bills, which would ensure that Scots law continues to operate effectively following withdrawal should the Parliament be unable to consent to many provisions of the UK's bill. We now invite the Parliament to pass this bill this evening. In parallel with our colleagues in the Welsh Assembly, whose bill is also completing its parliamentary stages, as I speak, it has indeed just gone into stage 4. I am not proposing that we have a stage 4. Indeed, I understand that, in the past few minutes, its bill has been passed. In asking the chamber to support the bill, I want to emphasise what the Government has made clear from the outset. Our aim remains to reach agreement to satisfactory changes to the UK's bill. That would be the best path, because it is desirable to have the relevant powers all in the same place. Perhaps more importantly, because reaching agreement would send an important signal. It would show that devolution will be properly respected. It will acknowledge the constitution under which we live. It would show that the different Governments in the UK can sit down and negotiate to reach a mutually acceptable outcome and have been trying to do so. It would show that this way of doing business, rather than imposition, should be the norm, no matter the political composition of the Governments or their constitutional preference. I remain hopeful that an agreement can be reached. The Deputy First Minister and I have all made clear that that is our firm objective, and we will do our best to achieve it. Passing the bill will be an important sign that the Parliament is resolute in defending devolution. It is serious in its consideration of the issues at stake, and it will give us an important alternative in the negotiations that remain ahead of us. I will give way. I am very grateful to the minister for giving way. The minister will know that there are grave doubts about the legislative competence of the bill. Will he, in order to clarify and clear up those doubts authoritatively, and that can only happen in one place, and that is the United Kingdom Supreme Court? Will he undertake that the Lord Advocate should refer the provisions of this bill to the UK Supreme Court for a definitive ruling on its legislative competence? I have to say that the Scottish Government, of which the Lord Advocate is a member, has no grave doubts. It has no doubt that the bill is competent. That is absolutely clear to us. There is no need to challenge this bill in the Supreme Court. The right way ahead for any part of these islands is to accept the democratic will of this chamber if the bill passes this evening, and then to work closely together, Government to Government, to ensure that we either have, as I have indicated, an agreement between Wales and Scotland and the UK and possibly Northern Ireland if they have a working assembly again, or to allow those bills to operate in parallel, and for the UK Government to withdraw those sections of their bill that do not get legislative consent. That is the clear democratic way forward. I urge that clear democratic way forward on all the Governments of these islands, and I move the motion in my name. I would like to open with a point of consensus. My friend and colleague Murdo Fraser were always looking for consensus, and I would like to echo on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives the remarks that the minister correctly made thanking the Parliament and its staff for rising to the significant challenge of legislating for this bill in the absurdly restricted amount of time made available by the Government. I think that Parliament did rise to the challenge very successfully at stage 2, Presiding Officer. Perhaps, however, a little less so at stage 3. This afternoon, I think that we have heard a number of quite disturbing incidents. We have had amendments that appear to have been agreed with the Government that turned out not to do what was promised, and we have had serious allegations—very serious allegations—of Government ministers, and I quote, strong-arming members of a key scrutiny committee to this Parliament. Those allegations will no doubt be for others to investigate, Presiding Officer, but whatever the full position, whatever the full picture, these and other related incidents serve only to reinforce the core point that we made about this bill when it was introduced. It is bad law, Presiding Officer, which we have been asked to make badly. This bill is unwelcome and it is unnecessary. We have resisted it at every stage of its process, and we will vote against it tonight. The first reason, Presiding Officer, is because there are grave doubts about its legislative competence. Mr Russell's response to my question a few minutes ago was extraordinary. Competence is not a question of democracy, Mr Russell. It is a question of legality. The only place that can authoritatively rule on the legality of this legislation is the United Kingdom Supreme Court. The Lord Advocate should have the courage of his legal convictions, and he should use his powers under the Scotland Act. He should use his powers with respect under the Scotland Act to refer the provisions of this bill to the Supreme Court. There is first the point of its compatibility with European law, which is the point that the Presiding Officer wrote about in his opinion on legislative competence. In addition, Presiding Officer, this bill in section 33 modifies protected statutes contrary to schedule 4 to the Scotland Act. That is unlawful. In addition, Presiding Officer, this bill trespasses on reserved matters contrary to schedule 5 to the Scotland Act, in, for example, section 17, and also in the amendment agreed earlier on this afternoon in the name of Mr McKee, which is just one of the reasons why that amendment should have been strongly resisted. The Scottish Government likes to talk about respecting the devolution settlement, but it does not respect the devolution settlement willfully to enact law in this Parliament that is beyond the limits of our legislative competence. That is not respecting the rule of law and it is not respecting the British constitution and it is not respecting the devolution settlement. I give a way to the Deputy First Minister. Mr Tomkins does not accept that, for this bill to have been presented to Parliament by the Scottish Government, we would have to have sought the authority of the Lord Advocate, Scotland's principal law officer, before we could introduce such a bill to certify its legislative competence, and the Government sought that and secured that from the Lord Advocate. Of course, that is a matter of fact, Mr Swinney. As Mr Swinney well knows, that is a matter of fact, but there is more than one legal opinion about this. There is also the legal opinion of the Presiding Officer, and there are also the points that lawyers who have scrutinised this bill during the course of its rushed reckless passage through this Parliament have identified, including the ones that I have just mentioned. The only place where this can be authoritatively and determined is in the United Kingdom Supreme Court, and any Lord Advocate who was really confident about his opinion that these provisions are within confidence would have no hesitation, but to refer those provisions to the Supreme Court for a ruling. This bill is known informally as the continuity bill, but it is real purpose, and it has been exposed time and time again during the rushed proceedings on this bill. It's real purpose is not continuity. It's real purpose is to sow the seeds of division within the United Kingdom. It's real purpose is to create legal chaos and legal confusion. This was revealed even in the Government's own policy memorandum accompanying the bill, which said at paragraph 20 that this bill will, and I quote, add to the complexity of Brexit. It said, and I quote from the same paragraph, that this bill will present serious logistical challenges. That is what the Scottish National Party has been about in these proceedings, and that is why we have resisted this bill at every step of the way. In addition, the extraordinary power grab in section 13 of this bill, a provision that enables Scottish ministers to act in all manner of ways, without adequate parliamentary scrutiny, notwithstanding the valiant attempts of members across the chamber to improve what is an odious provision, will make Scotland a rule taker, will make Scotland bound by a European union of which we will cease to be a part. That cannot be consistent with democracy and it cannot be consistent with the rights and interests of this Parliament, either. What we should have been doing, Presiding Officer, instead of debating this unnecessary, unwanted and unwelcome legislation, is thinking hard about how we are going to negotiate and navigate and enforce the common frameworks that the minister and I and everybody in this Parliament agree should be agreed and not imposed as we move forward to the post-Brexit scenario. What we should have been doing, instead of debating this reckless legislation in this reckless way, is figuring out how we are going to make the best of the post-Brexit landscape, seizing the opportunities that Brexit presents us with. How are we going to design an agricultural support mechanism that suits the interests of farmers in Scotland? What are we going to do in terms of taking environmental protection forward post-Brexit? At the UK level, what are we going to do in terms of ensuring that we have appropriate industrial policy with appropriate state aids and appropriate public procurement rules? For the last 46 years, we have not been able to debate any of these questions anywhere in the United Kingdom because they have been done for us by the European Union. Brexit means that we take back control of these issues and these are the issues that we should have been debating instead of this reckless and unnecessary legislation. The First Minister is very difficult to hear if members yell. Mr Swinney, no-one is above the chair in this chamber. I now call Neil Findlay to open for Labour, please. It is always depressing to follow Boris Johnson, Presiding Officer. This bill has gone through Parliament at breakneck speed. From the outset, many of us have not, if we be honest, been comfortable with how it has been handled, how it has been rushed. We do not think that, despite the cabinet secretary's claims to the contrary, this bill has had to scrutinate the deserves from members or indeed the wider community who will be affected by it. However, we are where we are and with those concerns and with the caveats that we have raised from the outset of this process, we will give cautious support to the bill at decision time. I echo the cabinet secretary in terms of the commitment given by the staff of this Parliament. They always go beyond the call of duty. I would particularly like to single out in our own Labour staff, Madeleine Grieve, who has done a power of work on this for us. That was and is an avoidable situation. If we cast our minds back to December, we were assured by David Mundell, the Scottish Secretary, that the UK Government would make changes to its own bill and house the commons in to address concerns about the impact of the EU withdrawal bill on devolution. He said that we have been very, very clear. The committee's stage of this bill is about listening. It is about adapting to issues that have been brought forward. We have listened and will bring forward amendments to clause 11. It is going to be amended because the Scottish Conservatives have come forward with practical amendments to the bill. Adam Tomkins himself said that the bill needed to be amended to comply with the devolution settlement. The Finance and Constitution Committee of this Parliament unanimously called for the EUWB to be amended in the House of Commons to resolve those outstanding issues, but no amendment came forward in the Commons. The Labour Party put forward amendments in the House of Commons on 16 January, amendments that would have protected the devolution settlement and established a dispute resolution procedure. Yet every single Scottish Tory MP trips through the lobbies and reneged on their commitments. It looks like it is not only the Scottish fishermen who have been deceived by the Tory party. Today, the issue still lies in the House of Lords. While I am frustrated that it lies there in the hands of the unelected, I am hopeful that we will see some common sense prevail and that the devolution issue is resolved and a dispute process is put in place. We want that to work. We want devolution to work. We want everyone involved to make the retention of jobs and our trading relationships across Europe a top priority. We want to build prosperity so that we can share more equally. We believe that a customs union with the EU allows us to do that, but, of course, those areas where common frameworks should be developed with their neighbours on this island. Yesterday, along with my parliamentary colleague, Keir Starmer, I met the Scottish Whiskie Association. We agree with them that there are areas where cross-Europe and UK-wide framework agreements make business and regulatory sense. One example is in labelling. The Whiskie Association has worked very hard for years to ensure that consistent EU rules on production and labelling are in place and enforced. That has helped the sector to grow and succeed as a major export to many EU and global markets. It is in the interests of business, employees, trade unions and communities and the respective governments that common approaches are taking and developed in a respectful and collaborative manner. Let's end the frustrating stand-off and get on with it. Throughout this process, Labour has sought to play a positive role, but we have, at times, had to drag information from the minister and the Government and, at other times, we have had to act to rein in his ambition to grab powers from this Parliament and into ministerial offices. Members across the chamber have tried their level best to make this messy bill better, but we should not easily forget that it is the Tories who have gotten us into this mess, and time is running out for them to get us out of it. Thank you very much. I will call Patrick Harvie to open for the Green Party. Please, Mr Harvie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am unclear on the timing of speeches. Thank you very much. I am going to have to disappoint Mr Finlayon for just a little more than a minute. I think that Parliament has done its job fundamentally over this process, a process that we did not wish to face, a process that is inevitably imperfect, but I think that Parliament has done its job. I do not think that we should be here at the stage 3 debate, rehashing debates about competence or about whether it is an emergency bill. We have already agreed to the emergency procedures, we have already agreed to the general principles. Parliament has decided that this bill should be considered. Frankly, if its competence is ultimately challenged, I want to see the Scottish Government defend this bill robustly once we have passed it. Let us recognise, instead of rehashing that debate, the work that has been done since the introduction of the bill under extraordinary pressures of time. We have maximised committee scrutiny as much as humanly possible. We have maximised the chamber debating time with innovations to the emergency procedure. We have shifted the balance within the bill, taking some power that would have gone to Government and ensuring that it goes to Parliament instead. We have made significant changes to the contents of the legislation. Both Mr Kelly and the minister are right that this could not have been done without the support of a great many people. The committee clerks, the legislation team and a great many others, including our own teams within our party groups, who I know across party have worked hard not just to put forward our own propositions but to try and achieve consensus. Some of the most important changes that we have achieved in the bill have been done by cross-party agreement. That is the way that this Parliament was always supposed to work in the first place. We were never built as a Parliament like the bare pit of the House of Commons, two sides opposing each other, swords lines apart. The idea of this Parliament was always supposed to try to cultivate some cross-party agreement. We often fail on that, and our politics often falls back into tribal lines. On that occasion, we have managed on some significant issues of policy to achieve agreement with the Government where possible and to push the Government beyond its comfort zone on a few points as well. As a result of that, serious regulation-making powers in the bill have been restricted, both in timescale and in scope, and major improvements have been made in relation to environmental principles, social rights, scrutiny and challenge. They not only improve on the bill as it was introduced, but they clearly improve on the UK legislation that we would have ultimately been forced to accept, or that we would have given the UK Government a pretext to impose on us without legislative consent if it had not been for the introduction of that continuity bill. Over the months and years to come, we will no doubt disagree on many issues. We will disagree when Conservatives, such as Adam Tomkins, who voted remain because he knew the damage that the Brexit crisis will cause, now chance take back control. We will disagree with that. We will disagree with Labour MSPs who promise a deal that will secure the exact same benefits of membership of the single market but are not willing to commit to freedom of movement as one of the fundamentally important benefits of being in the single market. I will disagree with those in the SNP, for example, who have never supported international agreement on the control of fish stocks and seek to achieve changes that I will not be able to support as part of that. There will be a great deal that we disagree about. Fundamentally, I will disagree with those who say that we should give up the ghost, give up the principled position that the clear majority of people in Scotland voted for. We should oppose Brexit, we should respect the way that they voted, we will disagree on that as well. However, I am delighted that there has been enough of a measure of agreement on changes that were necessary to this bill. It is a better bill that will be passing than the one that was introduced, and I will be voting for it. I think that this Parliament is a stronger Parliament because people like Adam Tompkins are in it. He brings a wealth of experience and a range of what other people in other walks of life have called hinterland, which I think is very important, but I profoundly—and there is a but, Adam. Boy, there was a but after that speech, but that speech was one of the worst that I have ever heard in this place. At no time did Adam Tompkins do the decent thing at the start of that speech and say why we are here. Many of us have been raising that from the first moment that the minister had to bring this bill in front of Parliament. None of us—well, most of us would not rather be here at all—would not rather be leaving the EU. I mean to hear people making the great claim about how great Brexit is going to be when we leave. My daughter's generation, who is 26 years old, her whole generation do not think that this is right. It is not just her, but it is her first cousins who live in the south-west of England as well, who also do not think that this is right. For that generation particularly, this is a bad day, and it will be a bad day next March when we do leave this European Union as well. That is why we are here. Brexit in terms of the vote of the United Kingdom has happened, but we are also here because the Governments have yet to reach agreement across the UK. I profoundly hope that this continuity bill will be redundant at sub-stage. I hope that we have to see and know more of it. However, when will agreement on the frameworks be reached? I took heart from the language that the First Minister used in London last week when she said language around consent could not unreasonably be withheld. I hope that the UK Government moves towards that. Mike Russell mentioned in his remarks earlier on today about the amendment in the House of Lords from Lord Mackay of Clash Fern, which looks at mechanisms involving a member of each Government across the United Kingdom. There is a serious person who knows his way around the constitution or unwritten or written of this country, looking at ways in which this can be made better. I wish that people in his own party in London would take those kinds of proposals and take them on and take them forward. A couple of final points, Deputy Presiding Officer. First, Mike, the minister said that he rightly made much of those who have helped all members get where they are today. He made a remark about the ingenuity of some amendments. I have to confess that the ingenuity of most amendments, certainly from my side, came from the brilliance of the clerks of this place in interpreting my, unbelievably, inact and even exact language into what subsequently and probably quite warringly became law at some points. However, I would like to particularly thank clerks of both Bruce Crawford's committee but also the clerks who work in our parliamentary offices who did a heck of a job in no time at all and also Matthew Clark and my own staff who stayed up as late as everyone else seeking to make this happen. Also, yes, as others have said to the members of this of this Parliament, stage 2 was intensely challenging but I actually felt having been through many stage 2s in this place that that was one of the better stage 2s that we have had. More members did turn up. Some didn't but more members did. The minister took a lot of the arguments on the section 13 that was the cause of so much concern at the early stages of this bill. He did so in a productive way, some because he just lost a vote but might also be the first to accept that in the Parliament that we are. In others, he came back with amendments at a later stage and I believe that members on all sides of this chamber take some credit for the way in which that happened. Finally, this Parliament, whatever takes place in the coming weeks on frameworks and in the coming months on other aspects of the negotiations that the United Kingdom Government are having with Brussels. This Parliament will have a huge workload after March 2019 and during the transition period that follows for the subsequent number of months. I just trust that all of us are ready for that because we are certainly going to need to be. Thank you very much. Open debate, speeches of four minutes. I call Ivan McKee to be followed by Murdo Fraser. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Normally, members state at the start of their remarks how pleased they are to speak in a debate, but I must say that today, for me, that is not the case. We do not want to be having this debate. We did not want Scotland and the UK to be facing economic and social uncertainty and costs that Brexit will bring. We did not want to have to spend considerable time and resources in this place debating the UK and Scotland's withdrawal from the EU, a distraction from our work in moving Scotland forward. We would have preferred the UK Government not to have pressed forward with the EU withdrawal bill absent our amendments. Amendments are necessary to protect the devolution settlement and we would have preferred to have reached a negotiated solution with the UK Government in the form of common frameworks, something that we all agree is necessary but, on the basis of consent, not just consult and, hopefully, there is scope to reach that agreement in the coming days and weeks. Presiding Officer, this is a situation that we find ourselves in and we have to make the most of it. The continuity bill is required to put in place a necessary legislation to ensure that powers over devolved matters are decided in this Scottish Parliament. It ensures legal continuity of those powers and it prevents power over devolved matters being exercised by Westminster, and this is important on a number of levels. First, it supports the enshrinement of the devolution settlement, the basis of all the work that we do in this place, the principle of what is not reserved is devolved. It prevents setting a precedent of devolved powers being controlled by Westminster under the guise of Brexit or any other. Secondly, it is important to recognise that the matters that we are debating and the laws that we are passing here today are not some dry legal argument about the constitution. They have potentially very real consequences for people across Scotland. We have heard on the health and sports committee of the risks to our Scottish national health service that has been dragged into a UK-wide trade deal in the post-Brexit world of the distinctive Scottish approach to delivering healthcare, different from the increase in marketisation of service provision in England being compromised in that process. Of public health measures that we have taken are hoped to take in future to place restrictions on harmful products, alcohol, tobacco and the foods at the root of our obesity epidemic being constrained to protect multinational commercial interests as part of those trade deals. In this area and in many others, critical issues to the people of Scotland, the bill is intended to provide some protection by resisting steps to move the power to legislate over those devolved areas to another place. The way that the bill has been progressed through its stages by the minister and his team deserves commendation. As a sheer scale of the number of amendments and the length of the debate, it is both stage 2 and stage 3 that makes it clear that everyone has had their chance to make their case and that sufficient time has been made available to scrutinise the bill. In summary, the bill is necessary to protect the powers of this Parliament. It is the backstop that provides some protection for us from the Brexit chaos that is consuming the UK Government. The timing of the bill being brought forward now is necessary to ensure that those safeguards are in place in sufficient time. However, we should also not lose sight of the bigger picture. By intent or by omission, the actions of the UK Government represent a significant risk to the devolution settlement. It is our duty and our responsibility as members of this Scottish Parliament to protect that settlement. I shortly expect that we will pass this bill and pass it by a significant majority. We will show that the Scottish Parliament, representing the Scottish people who elected us, is standing up for Scotland, making sure that their voice is heard. I urge members to vote for this bill. I call Murdo Fraser to follow my new baby, Mr Fraser. This is not a piece of legislation that the Scottish Conservatives ever wanted to see. We made it clear from the start that we considered this bill to be unnecessary and beyond the powers of the Scottish Parliament. Nevertheless, we engaged fully in the legislative process. At stage 2, I and my Conservative colleagues put down a long list of carefully considered amendments that are looking to improve the bill. Although the majority of those were rejected by the committee, I am pleased to say that, in a number of cases, our amendments were accepted. We saw a similar pattern this afternoon at stage 3, where we made serious attempts to improve the bill, although we remain very concerned about aspects of it. It is our view that this is simply bad law, although it is better than it was when it started. We heard throughout the process from the SNP that the devolution settlement must be respected. We heard that from the minister at the start of the debate. However, the SNP Government has ignored the opinion of the Presiding Officer of the Parliament that the bill is beyond the Parliament's powers. We have also seen the SNP Government rush the bill through Parliament as emergency legislation, which has meant that, despite the best efforts of the Finance and Constitution Committee and all the members here today, it has simply not been given the level of scrutiny that it deserves, nor has it been the opportunity for external stakeholders to have their view. It has been treated as emergency legislation when there is no emergency air. I am sorry, Mr Harry, but I have only got four minutes. If you wish, I give you a little extra. We are not due to leave the EU for another year. I will give away a moment. Patrick Harvie. I am grateful that Mr Fraser knows that he has successfully improved and I supported some of his amendments. He says that the bill still fails to respect devolution. Does he acknowledge both that there is nothing in our rules that has been broken in this process or in the introduction of the bill and that the UK Government has still failed to come up with any changes that are acceptable to this Parliament to its legislation? Can I say to Mr Harvie that there might be nothing in our rules that have been broken, but the Presiding Officer has made a ruling on the legality that the Scottish Government has ignored. I do not think that that is respecting the Scottish Parliament when it does that. We have heard a lot from the Scottish Government on the subject of power grabs. Let us just be absolutely clear on one point. Every single one of the powers that we are now talking about are powers that the Scottish National Party wants to see retained in Brussels and not devolved at all. If they had their way, we would be re-entering the EU and every single one of those powers that they are claiming is the subject of a power grab would be returning in their entirety to the EU. When the Scottish National Party speakers complain about powers being retained in Westminster, they need to be honest with the Scottish people because they in fact want every single one of those powers sent back to Brussels and not exercised here at Holyrood. That includes powers overfishing that they want to see retained in Brussels with a common fishery policy. We are quite clear what we want to see. We believe in devolution. We believe in subsidiarity. We believe in powers being exercised at the lowest possible level, but we accept that, for the UK domestic market to work, there need to be common frameworks aggrieved. We need to have a situation where, for example, Scottish farmers can sell their produce freely across the whole United Kingdom because we have common standards on food quality and labouring. That is why common frameworks are important. That is why the immediate unrestricted devolution of all powers coming from Brussels simply does not make sense on any level. Even the SNP accepts in principle the need for common frameworks. The key difference between the Scottish Government's view on that and the UK Government's view is that the Scottish Government is now demanding a right of veto on the terms of common frameworks. A right of veto is not just on common frameworks as they affect Scotland, but it is affecting Wales, Northern Ireland and England, too. It is no surprise that the UK Government finds that prospect a difficult one to accept. Let me just close by reflecting on why we are where we are. Ever since the Brexit referendum result, we have had a SNP flailing around trying to find a political message to dry up support for a second independence referendum. They thought that the outcome of the EU referendum with Scotland voting a different way to the rest of the United Kingdom would lead to a public clamour for a second referendum, and it simply has not happened. There is no evidence whatsoever of any public sympathy for the SNP position. The default public view in relation to Brexit, even from those who voted remain, seems to be, let's just get on with it. For the desperate shrieking that we hear from SNP politicians about power grabs, the very introduction of the bill is all about one thing, Presiding Officer, and one thing alone, stoking a constitutional grievance against the United Kingdom to promote a second independence referendum. For that reason, every unionist politician in the chamber should stand together in rejecting it. I would say to my colleagues in Labour and to the Liberal Democrats, do not be fooled by what you are hearing from the SNP. Do not vote with them in support of this ricking bill. Stand with us, stand with the unionist majority in Scotland, stand with those against a second independence referendum and vote down this bad law. Mr Fraser, more than gave your time back, I call Neil Bibby, please to be followed by Mike Rumbles. Thank you Presiding Officer. Can I first echo what other members have said in thanking all the parliamentary and committee staff, as well as their own party grouping staff, people like Madeline Grieve, for all their support and hard work during this process. The continuity bills passage through the Parliament over these past several weeks is entirely without precedent. Brexit is entirely without precedent. Never before have we had to transpose EU law into Scots law in this way. Never before have we considered legislation of this kind, a failsafe to protect the devolution settlement and in such a short space of time. This is uncharted territory. This bill is not normal and it is not perfect, but it is necessary. If no agreement can be reached with the Tory Government on the withdrawal bill, if the withdrawal bill is not successfully amended in the Lords, if this dispute over devolution itself and the authority of this Parliament cannot be resolved through agreement and consensus, then we must be prepared to act. As members have said, we must be prepared to put forward an alternative. That is why the continuity bill is necessary. It is our alternative, and it is an alternative and prepared to support at decision time. Presiding Officer, it is no secret that I and many others have reservations about various aspects of this bill. We have made the case for transparency, restraint and enhanced parliamentary scrutiny consistently throughout this process. At every stage, we have been clear that the regulation-making powers that the bill confers on to ministers must be tested. At every stage, we have sought to amend the bill and to improve it. The bill before us this evening is not the bill that was first introduced. It has evolved and it has been refined. Today, we agree to an amendment in my name that puts in place new reporting requirements on ministers covering employment rights, health and safety and consumer protection. We agreed further amendments on environmental standards. We have built in requirements for transparent reporting and additional scrutiny throughout. We agreed that section 13 of the bill, easily the most controversial section of the bill, would be subject to the affirmative procedure. We have recognised the role of the Parliament in making provisions corresponding to EU law following exit day. None of that makes the bill perfect, but it does make the bill better. It goes some way to addressing the concerns that members have expressed about concentrating too much power in the hands of ministers. Of course, even now, we may find that provisions contained within the bill are not implemented. That this contingency legislation remains a contingency. That the intransigence of the Tory Government comes to an end and common sense prevails. That an agreement on the withdrawal bill is reached and is amended and that continuity bill becomes redundant. If the Tory Government will not amend its withdrawal bill to take account of the concerns expressed by every one of the parties represented in the Scottish Parliament, we will have no option but to put in place our own alternative continuity arrangements. That means empowering ministers to act whilst ensuring that they are fully accountable to this Parliament. My Labour colleagues will cautiously support this bill, as Neil Findlay says, on the basis that it has been improved. We all recognise the benefits of negotiation and the need to reach an agreement between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. The solution to this impasse that we now face could be non-legislative. I could be in the form of a sunset clause that has been mentioned in the past few days or so-called standstill agreements where the appropriate powers are devolved but the Governments agree not to diverge until a common framework is agreed. Just as Parliament has scrutinised this bill closely and has won assurances that there will be further scrutiny in the future, so too must this Parliament have a role in scrutinising the negotiations and any deal that is agreed. However, the negotiations will fold. This Parliament must not be sidelined or marginalised by either of those Governments. Thank you. I call Mike Rumbles. We follow by Ash Denham and Ms Denham. We have a last speaker in the open debate. Mr Rumbles, please. When the Scottish Government introduced this bill, the Presiding Officer, as the neutral chair of our Parliament, declared that the bill was beyond the competence of our Parliament and therefore, if passed, is not law. The Scottish Government's senior law officer, the Lord Advocate, advised the Government that, in his view, this bill was a competent bill and would be lawful if passed. It was at this point that the Scottish Government should have recognised that, since, to say the least, there is legal dubiety about this bill, it would have been wiser not to have introduced it in the form it is in in the first place. However, it was introduced in the form it is. It progressed through stages 1 and 2, and now we have the final and important stage 3 vote. I believe that the Presiding Officer's ruling and it is not advice, it is his ruling, that this is not a competent bill, cannot simply be ignored now we are at the stage 3 vote. I won't, I want to make this point, I'm not finding this particularly easy but it's a point that I want to make. That's the point at which we passed this tonight. If we pass it tonight, if this Parliament passes it tonight, after 30 days, it will be sent to Her Majesty for royal assent. The Presiding Officer has made it clear that, if we pass this at stage 3, it is not law. I want to make this absolutely clear I want to make this absolutely clear that I do not comment on anyone else's decision to vote on this bill one way or the other. As MSPs, we all know that we must take individual responsibility for the way we individually vote in our Parliament. However, I believe the bill will be referred to the Supreme Court and the likelihood is that it will be found to be illegal as beyond the competence of our devolved Parliament. This is not funny, this is a serious point. No, I believe that our devolved Parliament's reputation will be greatly damaged and I'm not the only one that believes that, because of this referral to the Supreme Court and damaged unnecessarily, I will not be ignoring our Presiding Officer's ruling and therefore I want no part of voting for what I believe to be an illegal bill and that is why I will be voting against this bill at decision time. Thank you Mr Rumbles. I call on Ms Denham and then we move to closing speeches. The UK's continuing bulbengold attempts to negotiate withdrawal from the European Union has indeed been a sight to behold. A very unedifying spectacle of a weak and divided UK Government lurching from crisis to crisis. Not content with lowering our international standing at every possible opportunity, approaching negotiations with the 27 carried out, armed only it seems with the much derided cake strategy. The UK Government then decided to introduce its EU withdrawal bill to Westminster, drafted in such a way as to put them on a collision course for a constitutional crisis at home. This is the situation that the Scottish Parliament now finds itself in. The conclusion that must be drawn from this is that the UK Government either wants to roll back devolution or it simply fails to properly understand devolution and neither of those is good. After all, this is a UK Government that, despite repeated explanations, simply cannot seem to grasp the sheer enormity of the gulf between the meaning of the word consult and the meaning of the word consent. Now, those words may be indistinguishable in Whitehall, but in Edinburgh we can see there is a clear and understandable difference. It is the difference between devolution, as we know it, and an assault on Scotland's Parliament. The Scottish Government, faced with the mounting prospect of a no agreement scenario, really had no viable alternative. It has done what any sensible, any responsible Government would do and embarked on contingency planning in the shape of the Scottish continuity bill. It is to the credit of the Scottish Government that it has engaged with all the constructive criticism of this bill. The Finance and Constitution Committee on which I sit has waded through over 200 amendments over hours and hours, even though many of those submitted by the Conservatives who are making noises from a seated position at the moment were not designed to improve the bill but were wrecking amendments meant to derail it. The minister has listened to the debates and to the critiques and adapted the bill accordingly. Many of the constructive amendments have been accepted through the process, and the bill is now stronger and better, I believe, as a result. I am glad that the Conservatives' trivial party-plittle games did not succeed in derailing this bill, because Scotland is watching. It did not approve of what I saw, which was gleeful in schoolboy antics at a time when Scotland's future and the living standards of millions are on the line. It is certainly not for the Tories to decide to hand back the powers of this Parliament when devolution is the settled will of the Scottish people. In this entire circus that we call Brexit, from the offices of Whitehall, the committees and debates of Westminster to the negotiating rooms of the EU, Scotland is but an afterthought if it is even thought of at all. This is the only place where Scotland's interests are put first, the only place, and that is what we are here to do, and the Tories should learn that lesson. The UK Government should not be afraid or unwilling to engage with the devolved nations, and the fact that it is not able to do that means that we must act on our own behalf. This Parliament should not make any apologies for this piece of legislation if passed this evening and for standing up for Scottish interests. I am disappointed but not surprised to see that the Tories have once again fallen in behind their Westminster bosses. Their repeated platitudes about bringing powers home, taking back control or speaking for Scotland ring very hollow when they are so eager and happy even to serve up the powers of this Parliament on a silver platter. I made that very point one year ago in this chamber to howls of outrage from the benches over here, and yet—and yet—here we are—the Tories have shown again their true colours. I will be very pleased to support this bill this evening. I call on James Kelly to close for labour. Mr Kelly, please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Let other speakers, I would like to thank the work of parliamentary staff, particularly clerks and support staff on the Finance and Constitution Committee and all the party staff. I also pay tribute to MSPs who have scrutinised the legislation, which has gone through, as Neil Findlay said, at break next speed. It is not an ideal way to do legislation. There have been shortcomings in the process, but, as Tavish Scott highlighted, we ultimately agreed to that emergency process. There is therefore a responsibility on Parliament and Parliamentarians to do the job properly. I believe that, on the whole, they have done that. I think that it is important to recognise that it is the disarray in the Tory party that has brought us here. In fact, it is the disarray in the Tory party that has created this whole European crisis. Do not forget that the reason we ended up with any EU referendum was because David Cameron had to try to placate those in the Tory party who were unhappy about the then current EU policy being pursued by the Government. That drove us to a situation on 23 June, when the country voted for Brexit, something that David Cameron did not think was going to happen. He thought that he could gamble and get away with it. We see that right up to this day. Again, the division is a failure of the Tory party, Tory MSPs, Tory MPs and Government ministers to get an agreement on clause 11, put the Scottish Government in a situation where they had to bring forward this emergency legislation. Ultimately, we had some reservations at stage 1. The bill is not in any way perfect, but certainly Scottish Labour will support it because it protects the devolution settlement as opposed to the clause 11 power grab, which is dangerous. I think that there are some serious implications going forward. We heard from Mr Rumbles that we have another division in the Liberal group tonight. I would not fancy being chief whip in that group. However, I would say this in terms of what Mr Rumbles pointed out. The reality is that we have reached the end of this process and we still have different legal opinions from the Presiding Officer, the Lord Advocate and also different legal experts. There is a danger that the issue is going to end up in court, which is regrettable and not something that I am sure that the Parliament would like to see. John Mason? I thank the member for giving way. I do not always agree with him, but I think that he is making a good point here. I mean, would he agree with me that Mr Rumbles' argument was not really that strong because lots of bills and acts have been challenged in the courts? James Kelly? Yes, I think that that is true. I still do accept that it is potentially a difficult issue for the Parliament and that it could end up in the courts. Added to the fact that we have a situation where we have potentially got two competing sets of legislations. We have got the continuity bill here, an EU withdrawal bill at Westminster, and that is going to create a real kind of sense of crisis, which is a real problem. As Neil Bibby said, the bill evolved. We support it from the point of view of protecting the devolution settlement. I am sorry, I have not got time, but there are also important changes that were made in relation to the regulations that were set out in the bill. In section 13, there was too much power in the hands of ministers and not enough in the power of Parliament. Some of that has been redressed throughout the process. I also think that there have been some important amendments that have been put forward in relation to the environment and animal sentinence and the Anasarwar amendment on health. That is a bill that has been evolved. Fundamentally, it is not an ideal situation to be in, but Labour will support it, because ultimately we support protecting the devolution settlement and we will not support a situation still advocated by the Tories at Westminster, which undermines that settlement, so we will support it come decision time at half past seven. Thank you very much, Mr Kelly. I call on Donald Cameron to pose for the Conservatives. Mr Cameron, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to begin by paying tribute to the moving and principled speech of Mike Rumbles. He said that he was voting against a bill, and he is not doing so for party political reasons but for the respect that he has for the Parliament, the Presiding Officer, and the concept of legislative competence. If only his words would shake other parliamentarians from their stupa. I would like to concentrate on two points, Deputy Presiding Officer. The keeping pace power and the complexity of having different legal regimes for devolved and reserved areas. On section 13, this has been undoubtedly improved. It could not have started much worse, to be frank, and the minister acknowledges that it has conferred a very broad power, but it remains a striking political choice by this Government, which goes well beyond the UK bill. It is simply not necessary. We already have ability to make primary legislation and the Government can make secondary legislation within devolved areas. That power exists. We can quickly legislate in whatever way we like. We do not need this power. It remains an extraordinary and audacious attempt to accrue power to the executive. On the legal complications of the UK bill sitting alongside this bill, let me give one example. In both this bill and the UK bill parties, we will be working across devolved and reserved areas with 16 different definitions of the law. We will have a definition of EU-derived domestic legislation, direct EU legislation, retained EU law, retained case law, retained domestic case law, retained UK case law, retained general principles of EU law, devolved EU-derived domestic legislation. I could go on. This is a recipe for disaster. More potently, the Scottish Government's very own policy memorandum to the bill says that it will add complexity and present serious logistical challenges. It underplays this. In my view, it is a constitutional and legal horror show of epic proportions, welcomed with glee, welcomed with glee by the legal profession, I'm sure, but no one else. This has not been helped by the fact that this is emergency legislation. I have no hesitation in continuing to decry that disgraceful decision. We simply have not had enough time. The fact of the matter is that this bill has seen insufficient scrutiny and insufficient debate, which is nowhere near enough time to discuss something that will have major constitutional ramifications. We have had to rush through hundreds of amendments at stage two. This tells you everything that you need to know about this Government's attitude. Even today, with 64 amendments, we have only had a few hours to get through them all. It has had absurd results. We have seen a situation earlier when the Scottish Government moved Mr Green's amendments. We have had assertions about what happened in the delegated powers and law reform committees. This is what happens when you legislate with undue haste, Deputy Presiding Officer. We are making a mockery of ourselves, despite my disappointment at how this process has been carried out. I pay tribute, Presiding Officer, to the clerks, the parliamentary staff and everyone who has been involved in getting this bill together. It has involved late nights and early starts, and those individuals have gone above and beyond the call of duty. I thank them for that. Stage 2, especially, was convened heroically by Bruce Crawford. In the spirit of generosity, I thank the minister for conceding to some of our amendments. It remains our intention to vote against this bill. If it is to be passed by this Parliament, it is, of course, preferable that the bill is passed in a better state than it was originally in. That I am confident of, but the fundamental facts remain. If it is passed as it is likely to be, we are about to put on to the statute book legislation about the constitution of dubious legality—and it is a matter of legality—rush through this Parliament, which will complicate the Brexit process and not simplify it. Let me close, Presiding Officer. There has been much talk about the devolution settlement. Let me say this. The member is closing. Mr Crawford, sit down. There has been much talk about the devolution settlement. Stop. Please sit down. The member is closing. There has been much talk about the devolution settlement. Let me say this. You do not protect that settlement by defying the Presiding Officer on legislative competence. You do not protect that settlement by ramroding this bill through Parliament on the false pretence that this is some kind of national emergency. You do not protect that settlement by imperiling negotiations between our governments at a critical time by passing this wretched, reckless and lamentable legislation. Thank you. I call Michael Russell to close with the Government. Minister, if you wish, we can take it up till decision time. Can I, on a personal note, just start by making another set of thanks? I've reserved this to the very end. I want to thank my bill team particularly. There's a tradition in the civil service that if you get caught in a photograph in the press, you have to buy people cakes. I'm intending to buy them a very large drink tonight because they have certainly managed to help me out on every possible occasion. They've helped individual members out in the chamber, particularly with amendments. I'm grateful for the work that they've done over the last two weekends in trying to get this bill to the good stage that it's in now. If I'm doing so, I'm going to thank my private office, my constituency office and my parliamentary office staff, all of whom have supported me. It has been an unusual month. It's also been unusual because I have lived to my 65th year to find myself described in terms— well, I'm not yet 65 and I'm looking forward to Mr Finlay celebrating my 65th birthday probably by burning me an effigy, but that doesn't really matter too much. That was last year, good. He'll done a better effigy, but I've come to my 65th year to eventually be described in terms that were usually applied to punk rockers, because Gordon Lindhurst called the actions that I was taking in this bill as having the whiff of anarchy and lawlessness. I've long aspired to those things, and now I have them. My friend Rosanna Cunningham finds that remarkable, but that was at stage 2 and is on the official report. As is tonight, the mild-mannered Mr Cameron, who used the word horror show, disgracedful, mockery, defiance, railroading—there were many others as well. I really think that the Scottish Tories should calm down, because they should also think about language, because they keep talking about a good Brexit. There is no such thing as a good Brexit. Perhaps we could mitigate the damage that Brexit is going to do. Perhaps through membership of the single market and the customs union we could maintain some essential links, but for our agriculture, for our health sector, for our higher education sector, for our hospitality sector, for our environmental sector, for our employees, for ordinary citizens, perhaps not for millionaires, there is no good Brexit. You can't assemble about these matters. You can't fail to tell the truth. Brexit is the wrong thing for Scotland. This is the wrong thing for everyone living in Scotland. I think that perhaps the thing that I find hardest to take in all of this is that people who knew that up to and including on 23 June 2016, they haven't forgotten that. They know that that is still true, but now they are saying something opposite for purely party political reasons. They are going to damage Scotland absolutely irrevocably for a long period of time because they are doing things that they know are wrong. Just let that sink in. They are doing things that they know are wrong. What can we do? I hope that, as much together as we can—I have worked hard over the past few weeks to try to make sure that there is a consensus in this chamber—we should first of all defend the democratic rights of the people of this country, and that means, at this stage, defending devolution. We should insist that the UK Government listens to and recognises the views of Scotland and the need for differentiation. We should find ways to preserve our membership of the single market and the customs union as the least bad option, and we should never give up on the obligation to observe the mandate of the 2016 referendum in which Scotland rejected Brexit. Those are things that we should do, and we could do together. What we shouldn't do is pretend that Brexit will be good for Scotland. It won't. We shouldn't shrug resignedly and say, well, there's nothing can be done because there are things that can be done. We shouldn't connive with or enable those who wish to reverse devolution as a way of getting Brexit, because that is what we have seen over the last four weeks. That is a big issue, because up until the last four weeks, the Tories have—I have worked with some of them on this—tried to defend devolution, but now their actions over the past four weeks and their continued actions and their rhetoric are of a party that has decided to roll back devolution, a party that has decided to obstruct anything that defends devolution. Of course. Patrick Harvie. I'm grateful. I'm curious to know that the UK Government has been well aware that we're on course to pass the bill at stage 3 tonight. Have they, at any point, indicated the remotest hint of a clear proposal for changes that they will make to their UK-EU withdrawal bill that are compatible with devolution? Is there any movement that we should be aware of from the UK Government that shows that they are remotely interested in the devolution settlement? I'm going to try and be helpful in this situation. What I'm going to say is this. Today starts a new chapter in this story, and I'm addressing the issue by saying this. Today starts a new chapter in this story. The Scottish and Welsh Parliaments will, I hope, by the end of this evening—the Welsh Parliament has already decided—the Scottish Parliament in a few moments will decide—we will be armed with an alternative to the way in which the United Kingdom Government wishes to treat devolution. We will not go naked into the Westminster negotiating chamber any longer. We have an ability to negotiate based on an alternative that we have put in place ourselves. We can, and we will, make this bill work if we have to. We will—and I made this commitment earlier this evening—protect the issues and the key issues in this bill that we are focused on. Now the ball is firmly in Westminster's court. If they want to come to the table and discuss the issues that I hope they do, they know that we have the alternative, and they know that we are able to operate that alternative. Let us now see what takes place. No, I won't. It has, Presiding Officer, been a long three and a half weeks. It has been a long few months as the possibility of this bill became more and more likely. But there is much still to be done, and there is a key message that needs to go out from this chamber. Brexit is bad for Scotland. We need to go on making that point, because that is the basic point. We need to stop the damage that Brexit is likely to do to Scotland. We need to make it absolutely clear that those people who seek to impose Brexit on a country that did not vote for Brexit are the people who are doing down Scotland, damaging Scotland and damaging every sector of Scotland. By their works, you will know them, and the works are the works of the Tory party. Thank you. That concludes stage 3 of the continuity bill. The next item of business is consideration of four business motions. Motion 11215, to revise business tomorrow. Motion 11161, setting out a business programme, and motions 11162 and 11163 on timetables for two bills. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against those motions to say so now. I would call on Joffith Patrick to move the above mentions and motions. And no member has asked to speak against the motions. The question is that motions 11161, 11161 to 11163 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed, thank you. The next item of business is consideration of five parliamentary bureau motions. I would ask Joffith Patrick on behalf of the bureau to move motion 11164 on committee meeting times, motions 11165 and 11166 on designation of lead committees, and motions 11167 and 11168 on approval of SSIs. We turn now to decision time. The first question is that motion 1116, in the name of Michael Russell, on the UK withdrawal from the European Union legal continuity Scotland Bill at stage 3 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to division and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 1116, in the name of Michael Russell, is yes, 35, no, 32. There were no abstentions. The motion is there for agreed and the UK withdrawal from the European Union legal continuity Scotland Bill is passed. I propose to ask a single question on the five parliamentary bureau motions. Does anyone object? The question is that motions 11164 to 11168, in the name of Joffith Patrick, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time. I now close this meeting.