 Rydw i ddim yn dod i gweithio y bufnod ymlaenog, ac mae'r sefydlogau trwy y diwrnod ac yn d Ignorolol eu cyfnodau i unigolion�froddau. I'm seeking… I'm seeking… I've got more than one precisely in the room, obviously. I'm seeking your clarification on the purpose and the conduct of this afternoon's session. You will know that I have expressed some concern about the level of scrutiny of this legislation. If we recall in the debate, it was confirmed that we would, in fact, one session would go in front of the finance committee. I want to commend all staff who have turned round masses of material in such a short time. We all recognise the challenges of that for committees too. However, I understand that the committee will go through the amendments that are meant by amendment group by group as is the normal process. I want to clarify the purpose of this session. My understanding was that we would, in this session, go through amendments group by group in the same way, expressing a view in those amendments in order to inform the work of the finance committee. I would be concerned, first of all, that we do not appear to have purpose-in-effect notes, which I think was an indication that we would receive those notes, and I may have misunderstood that. However, I would wish to confirm that the debate will concentrate on the amendments that have been lodged, rather than a rerun of a debate on the general principles of the legislation that we have already debated in some detail. Therefore, I seek the clarification from the presiding officer that it is the intention that we focus on the amendments that have been lodged, that we clarify their purpose in effect and that we inform the thinking of the finance committee when they go into the full stage 2. I thank Johann Lamont for the points that she raises. I will make a number of points by way of reply. This issue was discussed at length by business managers, including her own business manager at the Parliamentary Bureau last week. The very points that Johann Lamont raises were discussed and so I would urge members in all these situations to have a long chat with their own business manager just to find out what the thinking was. In this case, just to share it with all members. First of all, before I say that, I also thank Johann Lamont for her accommodation to the staff. I am also aware that our clerking staff have worked long hours to turn this around in time and have been working very hard on this bill. We had a big discussion about whether or not to have this and to discuss the amendments in a group-by-group way, as you would do if you were pursuing amendments in committee, or whether to view them in the round. We decided that if we were to take them group by group, we would essentially be second-guessing the work of the finance committee or rehearsing their business. I do not think that that is the purpose of this debate. The idea is that this debate is informed by the publication of the amendments. All the members—we have this debate now—have all the amendments published, all the members have had access to those amendments and can therefore contribute to this debate in the light of that and choose the subjects and the issues that they wish to raise in the light of that. Purpose and effect notes, as the member will also know, are entirely at the discretion of members or the Government. It has become quite a habit of late for the Government to produce purpose and effect notes, but the member will also know that that has not always been the case and it is entirely still at the discretion of minister or members. Does the member wish to make a second point? Johann Lamont, sorry, calling Johann Lamont. Regardless of whether members have an individual conversation with business managers, I am party to how that then balances out within the bureau. There is a fundamental issue, which is the purpose of this session, is to inform the thinking of those in the finance committee of the Parliament as a whole on the amendments. If we have a generalised discussion, they do not get that information. If we do not have purpose and effect, it is actually quite difficult for us to direct our comments on individual amendments. I think that that is a challenge for everyone. Can I at least ask, Presiding Officer, rules out of order, someone who simply speaks to the general principles again on this legislation and does not address their comments to individual amendments? I am sorry, but I will not rule out anybody who wishes to speak on the general principles. The point is that all members' contributions will now be informed by the publication of the amendments and they can choose which amendments to speak to or not or to talk to the general points raised by those. We discussed the issue at length, weighing up the very points that Johann Lamont has brought to our attention, and it is a difficult balance. It is a choice that we decided to give members the choice of which points they wished to raise and have the advantage of having more members speak, which I note is what all the parties have gone for. However, I welcome the points that the member raises and allow other members to be aware of the discussion that we had. On that, given that we are very pressed for time, I remind members that we are applying a new debate management approach to this debate. Normally, time is allocated absolutely, even handily, across the board. In this particular debate, we have given parties more discretion to allocate time to some members to the level that they wish to. What we will find in this debate is that some members have four minutes, some five, some seven, some 10. That has been agreed. It is the first time that we are trying this procedure, but, just in case you think that some members are getting more time than you are, that has been discussed with the business managers in advance. It is a novel procedure, exactly. We are hoping that it makes for a more discursive, less confrontational debate, Mr Swinney. On that note, I call, as our opening speaker, Michael Russell. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and, as ever, I am in positive and non-confrontational mode. I hope that that will last throughout the entire debate, and no-one will be happier than me, considering the length of day that we are looking at at the moment. Last week, I am glad that I am being counted down by Mr Swinney. I now have a challenge to meet here that I am going to remain non-confrontational despite that. Last week, this Parliament agreed overwhelmingly to the general principles of the UK withdrawal from the European Union legal continuity Scotland bill, which I am going to refer to as a continuity bill from now on. Today, we turn to detailed scrutiny. Clearly, this is an innovationless debate, and I am glad that the bureau has discussed it at such length. We will have this priesties to debate to allow all members a chance to comment on the bill and the amendments tabled. I am sure that they will do so. There are 261 or 262, depending on how you define those amendments, to be considered at this time. Later this evening—of course, yes. Mike Rumbles On one particular amendment, which is my colleague Tavish Scott's amendment 34, about section 13, I want to vote for this bill. However, I consider the powers that section 13 gives extreme powers given to ministers by section 13 not to be justified. On that basis, would the minister consider accepting Tavish Scott's amendment 34? I have considered accepting every amendment. Some have not detained me very long, some have detained me a longer period of time. I can confirm to the member that it will be my intention to accept amendments in that section, and it is my intention to do everything that I possibly can to get the member to vote for this bill. I will endeavour to do so, because I know the member is seriously objections to the section in the bill. I want him to vote for this bill, so I will endeavour to do everything that I can to make sure that the bill is acceptable to him, as well as to the wider chamber, and part of that will be to consider seriously and to bring forward views on the amendments from Tavish Scott. I wonder if the minister would clear things up right away by saying that he will remove that section of the bill. No, I know that that is what the member wants me to do, but I am not prepared to remove this section, but I am prepared at this stage to consider very radical changes to the section that will limit what can be done with the section. However, I gave some examples this morning to the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee of why I felt that the section would be important, and I am happy to expand on those this evening when we debate the amendments. Later this evening, we have the stage 2 in the Finance and Constitution Committee, which will consider the amendments formally. I am going to comment in detail on some of the issues that those amendments produce. That means that I shall deal with themes rather than individual amendments per se, but they apply to individual amendments. I shall not be rehearsing the stage 1 argument, as Joanne Lamont has indicated, that she did not want to hear. I would not want to be made to sit down as I was doing this. I want to give the members an overview of the Government's approach and to highlight a few particular areas. However, let me just tell members where we are in terms of the overall context of discussions with the UK Government on withdrawal from the EU and the devolution settlements. I can confirm those things and stand the Government's remains of the view that it is necessary to proceed with this legislation. All along, the objective of the Government and the Welsh Government has been to reach agreement on amendments to the UK Government's withdrawal bill, amendments that would address the concerns of all parties in the Parliament. Sadly, we have not yet reached such an agreement. Indeed, yesterday, the Government lodged in the House of Lords their amendment to replace the existing clause 11, which, unacceptably, constrains devolved competence. That amendment has not been agreed by the Scottish and Welsh Governments for the reason that I set out my letter to all members yesterday. Adam Toghens will know well that the finance committee of the Parliament unanimously recommended that clause 11 needed to be replaced or removed. I note that he has just used the word replaced. The Government has lodged an amendment that replaces clause 11. Will the minister not welcome that? I have indeed welcomed it on previous occasions that I welcomed it in the letter that the member would have had yesterday, which I said to all members. Unfortunately, it does not replace it in the way that we require to have it replaced, but a progress has been made. I keep saying that. We are trying to keep going with that progress. I welcome the progress that the UK Government has made. I welcome Mr Lidington's comments on reaching agreement with the devolved Administrations, which he also seeks. Obviously, the new clause would require the consent of the Parliament, so that is going to be needed. It is welcome that he is committed to further discussions. In that spirit, the Welsh and Scottish Governments offered new proposals on Thursday that we believe would take care of the UK Government's concerns, including a commitment not to withholding agreement unreasonably and to a riff in agreement on those matters. Those offers remain on the table. Tomorrow there is a meeting of the GMC plenary that the First Minister will attend. I remain hopeful that agreement can be reached, but we are not at that stage. The Parliament needs to have a backdrop. It needs to have this bill. I should also mention that, last Friday, the UK Government published a list of 24 areas from potential UK-wide frameworks. I wrote to members on Friday with that list. I would emphasise that that list was again prepared without consultation and without the agreement of the Welsh and Scottish Governments. Nevertheless, we are prepared to agree to publication in the interests of transparency. The Scottish Government is now considering the list in detail for further discussions with the UK Government. Last week, the minister told us that he could not publish the list because he did not have agreement by the other two parties. The list has now been published by one of those parties, presumably without the agreement of the other two. Now, we have a dispute about the list, so when will the cabinet secretary produce his little list so that we can compare the two? I am quite happy to release the December list, and that will indicate the changes. However, I am distressed. I am happy to do so, and I will do so, because I was waiting, as the member knows. I am trying to do this constructively. I was waiting to have the agreement of three parties. What happened on Thursday was that the UK Government produced a different version of the list without consulting either Governments, without actually telling either Governments that they were going to do so. The two Governments, the Welsh Government, agreed that the list should be published, because we believe in transparency. We said that it should be published. However, it is entirely fair to indicate that the list was jumped on the two Governments without any possibility of saying that, for example, there is a new category in the list of reserved matters, which has not been in previous lists, and we dispute, for example, two of the items on the reserved list. I am happy to publish the December list. I do not think that I am under any constraints now, but the Scottish and Welsh Governments behave correctly and honourably in this matter, and we will continue to do so. Now, let me turn to the amendments that have been tabled for stage 2. I recognise that the procedure for this bill has been unusual, including this pre-stage 2 debate, but there is enough time for the bill to be properly scrutinised, and that is what will take place. Indeed, the number and range of amendments gives me some confidence that that is the case. A lot of work has been done into preparing, publishing and grouping those amendments to allow us to have stage 2 today. I record my appreciation to members and to parliamentary officials and to civil servants for rising to this occasion. I am confident in the bill. It takes a similar approach to many issues as a UK bill, but it has benefited substantially from the detailed scrutiny of that bill by committees of this Parliament and Westminster. It will continue to do so through stage 2. We have a test of necessity before ministers can use powers in the bill. There is an enhanced affirmative procedure. There is a statutory requirement for UK ministers to seek the consensus of Scottish ministers before using their powers in devolved areas. The Charter of Fundamental Rights will continue in devolved areas. We believe that we have responded to the scrutiny of the Parliament that has carried out in the UK's bill and the recommendations of committees. We are keenly aware that this is an unusual bill. It raises questions for the Parliament. We will all feel uneasy about some of the necessary powers that the Government is seeking to implement Brexit. Those are powers that Brexit has insisted upon because the UK Government is pursuing Brexit, but we are very open—I stress that, absolutely, Presiding Officer—we are very open to suggested improvements. With that in mind, we have considered and will consider all the amendments carefully, with a view of either accepting members' proposals or identifying issues that we would want to discuss further with a view to bringing amendments at stage 3. There are a number of amendments that we will be accepting tonight, which I will detail when we get into the formal proceedings. Even Conservative members might be surprised by some of them. There are also areas that we do not think that the amendments are the right ones, where further discussion might lead us to an approach that does meet the member's concerns. No, I want to make some progress, Mr Bibby. I am sorry. I do not have unlimited time available to me. I want now briefly to highlight a few major areas that emerge in the amendments to give members a flavour of the Government approach. First of all, on scope and scrutiny of ministers' powers, at the heart of concerns about the bill are the scope of ministers' powers to change legislation and the scrutiny of those powers. Members have proposed various constraints and limitations to those powers. There are also proposals to make necessity of the test, not just for using the powers, but the way in which ministers propose to fix deficiencies. Ross Greer has proposed an additional step to allow Parliament to consider the procedures to be adopted. I find myself sympathetic to many of those amendments and their intention, if not their detail. However, I also have to consider the purpose of the bill and the practical challenge that lies ahead of this Parliament and the Government in readying devolved law for Brexit, which regrettably we have to do. In those circumstances, there is a balance to be struck. As we have always said, in creating a workable and practical system that will allow the proper level of scrutiny of the legislation to be passed within the time available. Members will be aware that Parliamentary and Scottish Government officials are working together to address a number of legislative matters that will arise as a consequence of Brexit. First and foremost, those discussions will help to ensure that there is a shared understanding of the programme of SSIs that will be required, their timing and their relative significance. They are also drafting a protocol that sets out the procedure by which the Scottish Parliament will scrutinise the consent of Scottish ministers to legislative deficiencies that are being corrected in UK statutory instruments. That detailed and technical work is on-going, and it is one part of the Government's commitment to ensure that the Parliament has the ability to scrutinise all aspects of the legislative implications. I remain of the view that good working arrangements that create confidence but can be used flexibly is a better approach than mere statutory procedural requirements. That was the overall broach endorsed by the Delegated Powers Committee to the UK bill. I think that that conclusion is valid for the continuity bill. Having said that, the Government recognises that there may be changes to the detail of scrutiny—for example, where affirmative or enhanced affirmative procedures are required—that could appear in the bill, and we will discuss that this evening. I have mentioned the keeping pace power, and I give the commitment, as I have already done, that we will look at the areas of concern, the scope of the power, the procedure for the power, the length of time the power lost, the effect of the use of the power and other parts of the UK. Of course, as Mr Finlay has raised the question of whether the power should be in the bill at all. I will talk to all those amendments at stage 2. The Government has also lodged an amendment to clarify the issue of how long the power lasts and how it is extendable. My general approach is that I understand concerns. We may not accept all the amendments today, but we will be looking to address the views that are expressed possibly by amendments at stage 3. Another group of amendments concerns environmental protections. I gave evidence on that issue this morning to the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, and I have had discussions with individual members about it. I have considerable sympathy with the purpose of those amendments. Members may have seen my letter to Graham Day yesterday as convener of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. I do not consider that the approach of the amendments provides the best way to achieve the results that are being sought and with which I agree, but we are trying to find a possible way to do so. Finally, I want to mention Presiding Officer's exit day. At the Delegated Powers Committee last week, I understood to consider this further, I did indeed have an amendment drafted to make the intention clearer. I am pleased to say that we have not had to table that amendment. We will be able to accept to propose an amendment on the issue that has been lodged. This debate is an opportunity for members to express their views on the amendments before us to inform stage 2 later today. I look forward to hearing those views and I will take them into account when we come to the formal stage 2 later today. Thank you very much. I encourage all members who wish to speak in this debate to press their request to speak button sound. I call Adam Tomkins. We said when this bill was introduced into this Parliament at the fortnight ago that it was unnecessary because the European Union withdrawal bill and in particular clause 11 of that bill would be amended. That claim has now been vindicated because the United Kingdom Government has indeed laid an amendment in the House of Lords to clause 11 of the withdrawal bill, not merely an amendment, Presiding Officer, but a provision that flips clause 11 entirely on its head. The Finance and Constitution Committee unanimously recommended that clause 11 of the withdrawal bill needed to be replaced or removed, and we have just heard from the Minister's own mouth his recognition. That is exactly what this amendment does. It replaces clause 11 so that all powers that fall within devolved competence will come here rather than rest in Westminster for an undisclosed period. In addition to that, we have the transparency from the United Kingdom Government, but not it should be noted from the Scottish Government, that we now know where the areas are, where the United Kingdom Government is of the view that there needs to be a UK common framework, whether legislatively or non-legislatively—let me finish this point and then I'll let Mr Stevenson in—to protect the legitimate interests of the United Kingdom, such that Brexit does not allow the integrity of the United Kingdom to be unpicked inadvertently or deliberately by any Government at any layer. That transparency at the UK level should, by now, have been replicated by the Scottish level. I absolutely associate myself with the remarks and the Labour benches about the disappointment—shall we put it politely—that that has not yet happened. I'm happy to give way to Mr Stevenson. Thank you for taking the intervention. Does that mean that Mr Tomkins will not be pursuing amendments 150 and 151—150 being the amendment—that means, in a protected field, that we require the consent of a Minister of the Crown, in other words elsewhere? In 151, we reserve to Westminster agriculture, environmental protection, fisheries, public procurement and state aid, because that seems at odds with what Mr Tomkins has just said about returning powers to Scotland. I'm grateful for that question. I think that those amendments are among the most important amendments that have been put down to the bill because they sketch, it seems to me, what a solution to the clause 11 issue would look like. Mr Russell wrote to all members yesterday in response to the UK Government's amendment, and he said, amongst a number of points that I disagree with, he did say something that I agree with. He said that the Scottish Parliament is being asked to agree these amendments with no certainty about the areas in which frameworks will be established. I am and always have been of the view that there is no reason why the withdrawal bill should not specify on its face the areas where frameworks are needed, whether those frameworks are legislative or non-legislative. I think that if the withdrawal bill were to be amended to do that, I think that the clause 11 issue would be solved and we could dispense with this woeful piece of emergency legislation, which will do nothing but bring this Parliament into disrepute and carry on with more important matters. I won't be withdrawing those amendments. I will be looking forward this evening to the debate on those amendments because I think that they raise issues that go to the crux of the disagreement between the Scottish and the UK Government, and they go to the crux of the issues raised by the Finance and Constitution Committee, which will be debating those issues this evening. Gafel to Mr Tomkins. On that question of the crux of this matter, where does he stand on the question of whether or not the consent of the Scottish Government or Scottish Parliament should be obtained on questions and frameworks that are already within the devolved competence of this Parliament? I stand four square with the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has said on the record both in this Parliament, Mr Swinney, and in the House of Commons, that it is his view and it is the Government's view, the United Kingdom Government's view, that common frameworks must be agreed between the Governments of these nations and not imposed by any Government on any other. That is the view of the UK Government and there has been four months. I am surprised that Mr Swinney did not already know that. I am grateful to Mr Tomkins. Can he clarify for me then whether he believes that the bill provides for the statement that he has just made to Parliament? There is nothing in the continuity bill at all about common frameworks. Mr Swinney, I am trying to deal with the second intervention that you have already made on my speech. This is a debate this afternoon on stage 2 of the bill that you have signed your name to that is a Scottish Government bill in the Scottish Parliament, the continuity bill, and there is not a word in the continuity bill anywhere about common frameworks. The Scottish ministers have said repeatedly and I have welcomed repeatedly the fact that Scottish ministers have said that they see the need for common frameworks. So why is there nothing in the bill that you introduced less than a fortnight ago that you put your name to less than a fortnight ago? Why is there nothing in that legislation on common frameworks whatever? What we are seeing from the Scottish National Party is that they say one thing but when it comes to producing legislation they do quite another. Do I have a choice? I will take Mr Russell. It is a very small point and I am grateful to whichever member gave way. It is a very small point. Is the amendment that is tabled by the UK Government in the House of Lord Gesty, does it give effect to what Mr Tomkins has said in terms of the agreement by the devolved legislatures or administrations to those frameworks? Does it allow agreement as opposed to consultation? It certainly does allow agreement. Absolutely. It is a very interestingly worded question, Mr Russell, and the answer is yes. That amendment allows agreement. I want to move on. I would really like to take as many interventions from the Government front benches as I can, Presiding Officer, but I am conscious of time. I didn't impose the time constraints on this parliamentary business. The SNP did it. I would suggest that Mr Tomkins—I note the point that Mr Tomkins speaks—is to tell Mr Tomkins how many interventions he takes. I would stress, however, that I will be as flexible as possible in terms of the time that I am allocating to Mr Tomkins. The importance of the matter, Presiding Officer. I am perfectly happy to take one more intervention from Mr Swinney, but then I will have to make progress and conclude my remarks. Can I just press Mr Tomkins, because this is an absolutely central issue. Does the amendment, tabled by the United Kingdom, to provide for frameworks, require the UK Government to seek the agreement of the Scottish Government? I have already said that that amendment allows agreement to be pursued. I have already said that I agree with the point that Mr Russell made in his letter to all MSPs yesterday that it would be useful and beneficial if the amendment could identify the substantive areas in which common frameworks will be required. That has been my position for months and it continues to be my position. I have said that very clearly on the record and I hope that that is a helpful response. I want to say finally something about the vexed issue of legislative competence. When the Lord Advocate came to this chamber to express his view about legislative competence, the debate was almost exclusively focused on the question of whether the bill is compatible with the requirement on this Parliament not to legislate in breach of European Union law. A number of us asked him questions about whether there were any other issues of competence that are raised by this bill. I have to say that a more detailed examination that we have now been able to give to this bill than was the case when the Lord Advocate was here would reveal that there are indeed a number of provisions that are manifestly and straightforwardly incompatible with the requirements imposed on us by the Scotland Act. The Scotland Act unambiguously states that this Parliament has no legislative competence to modify the Scotland Act. There are then a number of provisions that are saved from that provision, so there are a number of detailed issues with regard to the Scotland Act that, notwithstanding that broad restriction, we are able to modify. One of the provisions of the Scotland Act that we are unambiguously unable to modify is section 29, which is the provision of the Scotland Act that imposes constraints on our legislative competence. When we turn to section 33 of the continuity bill, we see that section 29 is amended, as is section 57.2. Those are provisions that it is manifestly incompetent for us to amend. Those are provisions that are unlawful. Those are provisions that, if they are tested in court—and I hope that we never have to go to court because I hope that the Scottish National Party sees the wisdom of the merit of withdrawing this bill before it goes any further—I have to say that I find it extremely difficult to see how this Parliament's legislation, if it is enacted, is going to stand judicial scrutiny. We have been vindicated on those benches in our claim that this bill is unnecessary because the withdrawal bill would be amended. We have been vindicated just a few moments ago in our claim on those benches, Presiding Officer, that it is dangerous to proceed in haste with regard to this bill. We now know that the Finance Committee might have to meet tomorrow, as well as today, to consider the amendments that we have brought forward. I hope that I am not going to be vindicated for a third time when I say that this bill brings the Parliament into disrepute and risks failing in the courts. It is not too late for the SNP to withdraw the bill. It is bad law. We should abandon it and not enact it. I do not like you being used as a pawn in a game of political brinkmanship. I do not like it when two Governments for their own narrow party advantage seek to exploit a situation for their own ends, and that appears to be what is happening here. We have the Scottish Government trying to stoke up the dispute. The Tories who marched their troops to the top of the hill only to see them falling over the edge when David Mundell and Ruth Davidson failed to deliver, digging their heels in, prolonging an avoidable situation. Last week, I called for the list of the 25 disputed areas to be published. The cabinet secretary has told us that he could not do so without the authority of the UK and Welsh Assembly. The UK Government published the list. The minister in his letter told us that he does not agree with it, but now that it has published, surely he can publish. Presumably there is now nothing stopping him. At 2.22, two minutes after I sat down, I received a reply for the minister on that very question, which said that I will reply to the member as soon as possible. I asked the minister if he could have published five minutes after the UK Government published, while he published today. He is laboring under a misapprehension, but I will happily secure that he saw that misapprehension for him. The list of items was agreed in December as a negotiating list. That was the list that I had been happy to publish last week, but I felt that it was right and decent to get the agreement of the Welsh—there are three parties to this—of course, the Welsh and the UK Governments. On Thursday, that list was superseded by another list. That list contained many of the same subjects, indeed all of the same subjects, and it made some changes to categorisation. That list therefore contains the information, but it organises it differently. I am sorry that the member does not understand us. Perhaps he should concentrate a little bit more on it. The reality is that the list contained all the same items, but, in order to make the member happy, I will make the list from December available. He will see what the UK Government has done. He will also, I hope, note two things. One is that we did not approve neither the Welsh nor ourselves approved that list. We were not consulted on this new list. The second one is that we did approve its publication. Indeed, I asked that the meeting on Thursday would be published that day. We exempted it to the publication, and so did Mark Drakeford, my Welsh colleague, aware as one of this. However, I am happy to let Mr Finlay have the list from December, and he will see the changes that have been made. Neil Findlay. I have to ask why it is like pulling teeth to get this information from the minister. He could have published ages ago, and today he can publish his interpretation of that information. That would give us a much clearer view and more transparency, because that process has not been good. That process today does not lend itself to the scrutiny of complex issues. We have not had the appropriate time to discuss and reflect on amendments or even see the cause and effect of government amendments. It is ludicrous that we have got to this stage and that Labour amendments that would have developed an open, clear and transparent process of dispute resolution were rejected in the House of Commons by Tory MPs. Now we see a late-in-a-day attempt in the House of Lords to make some progress, but that just doesn't cut it. Negotiations surely have to continue to find a solution so that this bill can be put to bed in an agreement and put in place on devolved powers, because the progress of this bill throws up many areas of concern. We all know that Mr Tomkins and his lawyer friends on the Tory benches, for them all their Christmases have come at once. I am sure that they sat up all night in their pajamas, giggling uncontrollably, drafting all of those ever-so-cliver amendments in an attempt to sabotage the bill. I am sure that the parliamentary draftsmen and women were all appreciative of the overtime, and the cabinet secretary maybe had a few sleepless nights as a result. It may indeed get Adam Tomkins and his junior council to either side of him all hot and bothered, but not a person out there in the street cares about their games. What they do care about is their jobs, about low pay, about cuts to services, about the NHS, about housing costs and about their kids' education. That is what they care about, and I wish that Mr Tomkins and his chums there paid as much attention to these issues as they did about their little parliamentary games. Can I say to the cabinet secretary to get back round the table that this can be resolved with some given-take and common sense? The differences between the two sides are clearly not insurmountable. Negotiations over these areas must continue. If agreements can be reached in areas such as forestry, water quality, maritime employment rights, railways, crime and policing, areas of medicine and much more, they can be found in the rest of the areas of dispute. Given the track record of the Government and some, for example, farm payments, we can hardly be filled with confidence about their ability to administer them effectively. In relation to the bill, Neil Bibby and James Kelly have proposed a series of amendments that focus on protecting equality and environmental rights and those of workers and consumers. Those are key labour demands throughout the Brexit process. Section 13 of the bill gives Scottish ministers powers that go beyond the continuity of EU law to create new laws. We are not opposed to creating legislation that ensures that Scotland's devolved laws keep a pace with developments in the EU after Brexit or, indeed, anywhere else across the world. However, legislation such as that should not be included in this rushed process. That clause gives ministers power to create new laws through regulations and delegated powers, which are subject to a lesser level of parliamentary scrutiny, taking powers away from Parliament into the hands of the executive. This is a power grab, too, and it is a ministerial one. If the Government wants such wide-ranging powers, it should bring it back and a separate piece of legislation so that we can consider it fully through a normal bill timetable and not rush it through this process. We have concerns about ministers having the ability to decide exit day and ministerial control in a number of other areas, and I have put down a series of amendments on those. Colin Smith and Claudia Beamish have brought forward amendments to enshrine environmental principles and animal welfare standards in the bill, and they will address those and their contributions. Presiding Officer, from the outset, Scottish Labour has said that we will defend devolution. We will seek to make that legislation better, and we will continue to do that throughout the bill. Finally, I have to say, Presiding Officer, that I find it astonishing in such an important bill that is so important to the future of the country. In 232 amendments, not one has come from a Government-backed bencher. They do not see themselves ever as parliamentarians. They see themselves as party hacks every single time. Thank you, and I declare an interest as a member of the British Veterinary Association. Presiding Officer, our shared European values have shaped the progress that we now enjoy, and the UK has worked for decades with other member states to deliver laws that give future generations the chance of inheriting a cleaner, healthier and more compassionate world. The day we leave the European Union, we must not lose one single piece of progress that was hard-won through suffering, through protests, through debate and action by citizens across Europe. That bill must hold on to the principles that protect our environment and the welfare of animals, and those principles must be the guiding foundations for our future to be built on, not to be dismantled. While the charter of fundamental rights that is now enshrined in the bill establishes the need to protect our environment, it does not incorporate the precautionary or other principles, despite what the minister said in committee this morning. Many members will be familiar with those principles. They are part of our everyday language, and I am sure that most members in this chamber believe that polluters should pay or that we should look before we leap and apply the precautionary principle when the picture of hazards and risks is far from clear. However, those principles are under attack and make no mistake. Sam and Farming industrialists have spoken in this Parliament recently about regulations being over precautionary, while they pollute the seabed with chemicals that we neither measure or fully understand the impact of. Now is not the time to be weakening protection for the environment, it is time to be deepening and strengthening it. The minister talked to the powers in this bill to keep pace with European laws, but I am worried that what we will get is a principles pick and mix, with Governments ever happy to apply a precautionary approach to food safety, but not to fisheries policy. I do not want to see a pick and mix approach to the principle of animal sentience either. This is not a debate about whether animals can feel pain, it is about why the welfare of animals always needs to be a consideration when developing future policy on trade, on research, on agriculture and on fisheries. Fergus Ewing's knee-jerk reaction to condemn the UK Government when it announced that it would support a ban on live animal exports is the biggest warning side yet that the political choices as the minister put it this morning in committee on keeping pace provisions could undermine the guiding principles that we have. We have good animal welfare laws in Scotland, but they are limited in their scope. The article 13 provision on animal sentience is not perfect either, but it is strong enough to save and build on keeping pace with our scientific understanding of welfare issues. If the minister believes that there is a better way to enshrine those guiding principles into legislation, then let's see an amendment now, rather than hoping Westminster might legislate for us, as is the current Scottish Government position on animal welfare. Turning to the requirements in this bill for EU case law to have tested general principles to destruction, we can see where the precautionary and other principles have been applied already, but context is important and vested interests will hunt for reasons why their situation apparently differs. That's why my amendment disiplies the legal case law test for these principles, because our environment is vast, complex and diverse, while technology and industry is continually evolving. The application of those principles should not be restricted simply to existing case law on day 1. The bill must also point to the bodies that will take on new duties to watch, measure and protect our environment after withdrawal. Bodies that can hold up a mirror and a stick to governance when they put our environment in danger. That is the purpose behind two further amendments that I have lodged to close the governance gap, because without the ultimate threat of action by the European Court of Justice on the UK and the Scottish Government's record on air quality, I doubt that we would have had the new commitments on low-emission zones in the programme for government last year. The creation of an environment commissioner is needed alongside an environmental court, and the Government must think again on that and commit in this bill to a consultation process as the Westminster Government has already done. The bill is a necessary response to the chaos of Brexit process, but it must not replicate the errors of the UK bill. It must switch on Scotland as a progressive beacon in the aisles, guiding progress for future generations to come. I have some regard for Johann Lamont's point about the process of this Parliament, and I very much take the advice that you gave to the chamber at the beginning of this debate this afternoon about the discussion between business managers and the way in which this place is considered appropriate to take forward these measures. However, I was reminded by a colleague from Westminster last night that the Westminster has dealt with the UK bill over many, many weeks, indeed months—across, of course, two houses, but that is not the point. It is that it has taken some considerable time, and there is still much to go. That point is important for the Government here in Edinburgh to consider. Given the length of time that we are having to deal with this bill, and given the shortness—although it will not feel like that come 10 o'clock tonight, but the shortness of the period that the committee is going to take stage 2 amendments and deliberate on those two stage 2 amendments, I do believe that there is a significant onus on ministers to recognise opposition amendments when they do have merit and to give way on those where there frankly is not much an argument the other way. Not because the Government does not have an argument, but because we have not had time to reflect on those amendments. We have not had a time to consider those amendments in depth and we have not had a time to go back and to go to those amendments over a period of time. John Lamont has much hinted that we could have been rerunning last week today. I suppose that a number of things have happened since last week. Mr Russell has certainly written many letters. He has not appeared before many committees as well. In itself, that is a challenge, because I have not had a chance to catch up on the official report of this morning, even if it is yet available. I entirely take the Presiding Officer's point that the clerks have been doing some job in terms of both handling of amendments and also keeping members up to date with the proceedings of committees. However, that has certainly happened. There has been a joint ministerial committee in Europe, and tomorrow there will be one involving the Prime Minister and the First Minister as well. Those are important staging posts in that. We could read much into Adam Tomkin's debate across the front bench as to what has happened in terms of deleting clause 11 of the European Union withdrawal bill, but it seems to me the point here that I am not quite sure he entirely conceded in all those interventions was that the frameworks that are absolutely fundamental to many of the constituents that we all are here to represent, those frameworks have to be agreed between the different Governments of the United Kingdom, not laid down by Westminster and then subsequently then enacted by other Governments. They have to be agreed between all the Governments of the United Kingdom in order for those frameworks to work. I want to give two examples to Mr Tomkin's. I am grateful to Mr Scott for giving way, because that is exactly the point that I was making in my interventions to Adam Tomkin's, because I cannot see how we can in all honesty as a Parliament agree to the revised terms of the clause 11 in the UK bill because it does not make provision for the agreement of this Parliament or this Government to be required and without that we will have things done to us in devolved competence that the founders of our Parliament would not have approved of. I take that point from the Deputy First Minister and agree with it although I think it also makes the case for a dispute resolution mechanism which we have yet to fully come to terms with. I used to sit in the last Parliament on a committee chaired by Bruce Crawford, who looked into governmental machinery. We did some considerable work on that, but as yet we do not have in place across this United Kingdom a mechanism to deal with solving disputes, which we certainly are in at this time in relation to frameworks. I take the point that the Deputy First Minister makes. The two examples that I want to give are firstly on fisheries because that has certainly been of late in the news. The Chancellor of the Exchequer opined the other day, as far as I can see, that fisheries could be tradable in the negotiations that the UK Government will have at some stage on trade with the rest of the European Union. The alarm bells certainly went off in Lerwick. I am sure that they went off in pretty well other fishing ports across Scotland as well. I am actually probably quite a lot in Cornwall and many ports in England as well. I saw that he was pulled back into line fairly shortly after that by Michael Gove, although Mr Gove always worries me greatly, because it seems to me that his intentions are to become Prime Minister rather than stay in the job of environment and fisheries minister in England for much longer. The second example is on agriculture, because those are the two industries where the framework really does matter. I know that they absolutely matter in many areas of public policy, but certainly in those areas they absolutely matter. The reason that matters here is because we in Scotland take a different view to how we structure agricultural support in Scotland. It is very different south of the border, as anyone who went to the NFU AGM and listened to colleagues from England explaining their system did that night. Therefore, it is important that that framework is agreed across the nations and the Governments of the United Kingdom. It cannot be imposed, but it must be agreed for many other reasons, particularly in the case of those two principal industries. In terms of the Liberal Democrats in this bill, we will scrutinise this bill. We have laid a number of amendments. I certainly do not plan to speak for hours upon hours. I was reminded the other day that I think that Fergus Ewing has the record of speaking to an amendment to the stage 2 in committee back in, I think, the second session. I think that he spoke for just over an hour, and I countenanced against Alan Tomkins doing that tonight. Although it is a very good speech, I think that I remember. Michael Russell. It is absolutely clear that I am willing to pledge myself not to do so. If he pledges himself, perhaps Mr Tomkins would like to do so too. I was hoping that we could agree on that, but let me recognise that scrutiny role is important. We want to look at three particular measures this afternoon in terms of amendments. The first is on section 13 and on what I suppose has now described as keeping pace with European Union. We believe that this goes too far. It overreaches the measures that I think are appropriate for any Government of any political persuasion. The principal measure that we wish to propose in terms of amending that section is to ensure that Government ministers bring back a proposal in terms of why they would need that power, but to do so through a proper parliamentary process with plenty of scrutiny and plenty of appropriate time to reflect on that. It is not an emergency in this particular part of the bill. I can take the arguments that the minister makes in terms of the timetabling of this bill today and next week, but this particular section is not an emergency. That could be done properly and with careful consideration, given its import into our way of doing things in due course, arguably later in this year. I would hope that the minister will listen to that argument and deal with it. Two other areas that I want to briefly mention, Presiding Officer. The first is on regulations to create new quangor. It cannot be right to use regulation to create a new quangor. If the Government wishes to bring forward and has reason, which it may well do—any Government may well have reason to do that, then that should be brought forward as it has in the past by primary legislation and doing that correctly. Similarly, in law, where we could have circumstances if we allowed the bill to go unamended to create new criminal offences, I suspect that our learned friends in the profession of law would wish to make sure that in creating any such new criminal offences, that again is done under the full scrutiny of Parliament rather than by regulation. That is in those spirits, Presiding Officer, that we bring forward amendments this afternoon and indeed this evening. I am very pleased to be able to speak in this debate of the continuity bill in advance of stage 2 today, particularly as a number of developments have taken place since we last debated the bill last week. The minister has said that UK ministers met with the Scottish and Welsh Governments but failed to reach agreement again. The UK Government has tabled its own amendments in the House of Lords, as we have heard. The Scottish Government has offered compromise, and the UK Government has published its list of proposed devolved frameworks. There is also quite out of the blue a new list of powers such as unstated and procurement, which the UK Government claims is reserved and the devolved Governments dispute. That underlines the need for this continuity bill that we debate today. Therefore, my speech today will focus on the need for those frameworks, which are democratically agreed and not imposed on Scotland and Wales. Take back control was described by some as an attack on elites. Indeed, it became the terrorist chant of the Brexiteer Ultras. However, in the supreme irony, the UK-EU withdrawal bill hands control not to the people but to one of the most elite groups in the UK Tory ministers. The Ultras demand an end of all constraints, legal, political or even international, which could limit the UK ministers except by a UK Parliament, which can never adequately represent the people of Scotland. Scotland is just 59 seats out of 650 in the Westminster Parliament. It can never represent us adequately, yet here we see Westminster grabbing powers from a Parliament that has 100 per cent representation from Scotland. I am sure that the minister is speaking of consistency and that she would say that this Parliament should not cede powers to ministers. I think that the minister is very clear that he is listening to the opposition. The minister has made it very clear that he is listening, and those amendments will be debated later in the Finance and Constitution Committee. Adam Tomkins. Can the member just indicate which amendments she thinks that the Finance and Constitution Committee should accept this evening? I am not going to pre-empt the Finance and Constitution Committee. I do not sit on the Finance and Constitution Committee, so I think that that would be very, very inappropriate. I touched on the theme last week in my speech on the contrasting operation of the EU single market with the system as yet undefined UK ministers want to impose on us. The rules and regulations of the single market are created under leadership of commissioners appointed by democratically elected member state governments and agreed by those governments within the council and the members of the European Parliament. They are enforced by a series of agencies and the Court of Justice of the European Union mechanisms that we will leave in 12 months time. What will replace legally enforceable checks and balances across the UK once we leave the single market? Professor Michael Keating, one of the experts in this area has already said that it is not at all clear. I would contend that UK ministers clearly plan further centralisation and the triumph of their will. Yesterday, those amendments tabled to the House of Lords by the UK Government confirmed that. They set out that UK ministers would only be under a duty to consult the devolved administrations and provide information to the UK Parliament on the effect of the regulations and the consultation that it took from those devolved administrations. That is not agreement. It is therefore unacceptable and reverses the devolution settlement that 74 per cent of Scots voted for in 1997. The UK Government's actions since 2016 show that their agreement—their idea of consultation never mind agreement—is deeply flawed. They cannot be trusted to treat the devolved administrations with respect. That lack of respect, which has encoloured the entire GMC-EN process around Brexit, was on display again last week with the publication by the UK Government of the analysis of the devolved frameworks. The minister says that neither here nor as Welsh counterpart were consulted on the list that was published, and that is not the respect agenda. Of course, we need frameworks, but they must be meaningful. They must be arrived at through mutual consent. There are serious real dangers in the material that was published on Friday. Not least, the surprise news that the UK are insisting that rules around procurement and state aid are in their view reserved. Given the very different political direction between Scotland and the UK for many years on those issues, it is a very real and deep concern. Do we really want to see this right wing or future right wing UK Governments interfering in what support Scottish Governments give to Scottish businesses to protect Scottish jobs? Without agreement, there is no guarantee that the UK will give us the power to protect standards of whether we will be forced to lower them to match whatever trade deal Liam Fox agrees to. The EU single market has not been without controversy, but the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality were built into the treaties of the EU to protect the powers of parliaments like this. Subsidiarity in particular is pertinent as it illustrates the difference between what we have now and what we could have if we do not gain the guarantees that we need. The Law Society brief for this bill describes it as aiming to ensure that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen and that constant checks are made to verify that action at EU level is justified in the light of the possibilities available at national, regional and local level. Nothing like this exists in the devolution settlement. The EU is an organisation that pulls sovereignty from independent member states to give them greater influence on their shared values. As shown by the UK Government's actions in the last 24 hours, their ideas are very different. We will be consulted only, and despite being assured of a power bonanza, we find out that the principles under which this Parliament was founded will be undermined. Whose sovereignty did the Brexiteers mean when they spoke of taking back control? It appears that parliamentary sovereignty applies to Westminster, to the House of Commons but not to this chamber. We, as MSPs, are simply in the way and anoints to be ignored or trampled over on the way to Brexit. I am shocked and disappointed but, frankly, not surprised. I call Donald Cameron to be followed by Stuart McMillan. Mr Cameron, four minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and bearing in mind Joanne Lamont's strictures and the four minutes that I have, I would like to go straight to the amendments that I move in my name. Those amendments seek to provide greater clarity to sections of the bill, and I hope that members across this chamber will give them due consideration. With respect to principles of EU law, as set out in section 5, I have suggested an amendment that seeks to clarify which principles are to be included in the bill. The Law Society of Scotland identified this issue, suggesting that it would be helpful, and I quote, if the Government could identify what general principles it considers are attained in Scott's law. Given that there are several legal principles at stake, I agree with the Law Society that it is important that it is duly clarified. The Law Society also raised concerns over the approach that was taken in section 6, subsection 1. It argued that the line in that subsection has no obvious intended effect, and I therefore lodged an amendment indicating that this section is only a declaratory provision. In relation to the keeping pace powers in section 13, like many others, I remain deeply concerned at the ability of Scottish ministers to hold full power in section 13 to make provision corresponding to EU law after exit day. I have suggested that an amendment be added to the bill, which will make the subject to the restrictions and limitations of the Scotland Act on making provision on devolved and reserved matters and the Scottish Parliament giving its consent. I hope that others in this chamber will at least agree that ministers should not have full control without oversight in this regard and without the overarching protection provided by the devolution settlement as enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998. In relation to section 14, there are elements in my view that require correction and clarity. First, I have suggested an amendment that would mean that we are a draft SSI to which subsection 5b applies is laid. The Scottish ministers must explain to the Scottish Parliament as opposed to the Presiding Officer. Similarly, the explanation should be provided within a set timeframe as opposed to the as soon as practicable provision. I have suggested two sitting days. In addition to that, I have suggested an additional subsection that would ensure that when such an SSI is laid on a day when Parliament is in recess, ministers are held accountable and must explain why that has occurred. I have also sought to provide a definition of what constitutes a sitting day. Finally, I also believe that clarity is required with respect to legislative competence and the meaning of exit day. First and foremost, I have moved in my amendment that section 28 should be removed from the bill altogether. While the Law Society of Scotland has suggested that section 28 should be amended to reflect the exit day noted in the UK bill, I do not see the necessity for that. We do not feel that the exit day should be determined by Scottish ministers and potentially act in conflict with the exit day as set out in the UK bill. I have also included additional amendments to various lines across sections 5, 12 and 13 to reassert the importance of the Scotland Act 1998 and in particular areas that are either devolved or reserved. Ultimately, no area of the bill should attempt to supersede that act. In conclusion, I do not believe that we should be having this debate in this manner, and it is clear that more time is required to discuss the bill further. Nonetheless, I hope that members will view my amendments, and those that are submitted by my colleagues as useful and seem to add greater clarity to this bill. On those benches, we will listen and scrutinise the amendments of members across the chamber, and where they are common ground, they will have our support. But fundamentally, we remain opposed to this bill. I call Stuart McMillan to be followed by Claudia Beamish. It is clear that the debate will quickly be overtaken by the stage 2 committee that follows, but irrespective of what amendments are passed tonight, we need to try and protect this Parliament but also the powers of devolution for this Parliament. I am glad that the minister was speaking on the amendment 35. That is the one in section 13 in which he stated that he certainly would not be supporting that particular amendment. That is something that I am pleased to hear that the minister actually state. However, the bill is—I am very grateful to Mr McMillan for giving way. Which amendments does he believe the Finance and Constitution Committee should accept this evening? Stuart McMillan. I am sure that Mr Fraser wants to listen then he will hear as I progress with my speech. The bill is contingency planning and any Government that did not plan for the worst in the crisis situation that the UK faces would be undermining its electorate. Irrespective of which party or parties are running the Scottish Government, they need to be undertaking planning to protect the interests of this Parliament and of Scotland. The purpose of the continuity bill is to ensure that Scotland's laws will work properly in the day that the UK actually leaves the EU and the bill has been introduced because we recognise the need to prepare for that very serious legal consequence of leaving the EU. Despite the short time frame, the Scottish Government has committed to ensuring that the Parliament can play the greatest possible role in scrutinising the bill. Certainly, as we already know, the minister has appeared in front of a number of committees and he is going to have a long section ahead of him this evening in front of the Finance and Constitution Committee and others, no doubt, as the process continues for the next week. However, the pre-stage 2 debate and the nature of the Finance and Constitution Committee meeting this evening is the example of the openness and transparency. The minister has also prepared to work with the Parliament to get the bill through the parliamentary process. Sections 7 have amendments 108 and 109. Those have arisen from the work of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, Mr Fraser, that we did that work last week. Sections 5 amendment 28 of the bill is Mr Finlay's amendment. Mr Russell spoke in his earlier comments that the Scottish Government will put forward an amendment on that particular section. However, as a consequence of Mr Finlay putting this down first, he did not see the need to do so. However, I thought that Mr Cameron's comments a few months ago were rather interesting regarding section 28, because it seemed to conflict with the comments and discussions that we have had in the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, so I am interested to hear from Mr Simpson when he speaks on that particular section later. There needs to be that legal framework for keeping our laws going at the point of EU withdrawal. If there was not, many devolved laws in the EU law would stop working such as a system of agricultural support or a rules for ensuring food standards, and many others would become uncertain and unclear as to how they worked such as a rules of environmental protection. However, the EU withdrawal bill allows Westminster to take control of devolved policy areas in order, according to the UK Government, to allow UK-wide frameworks to be put in place after Brexit. However, no matter which way we look at it, there is a whole debate about the existing powers of this Parliament in relation to the policy areas such as farming, fishing, justice and environment. It is so crucial to what we are discussing today in this chamber. It is also about protecting the devolution agreement that people in Scotland voted for in 1997. It is the best way to run important national local services such as our NHS—I am sorry, I cannot. It is the best way to provide agricultural support such as the less favoured area payments that are essential in Scotland but are not used in England. It is the best way to devise procurement rules that are tailored to Scotland's needs, and it is the best way to protect and enhance our environment consisting, as it does, of large areas of coast and sea. The Scottish Government has acknowledged the need for legislation of this kind since the publication of Scotland's Place in Europe in December 2016. Now that the UK Government has confirmed the power grab on agriculture, fisheries, procurement, state aid and GM crops is more in reality, the public in Scotland should be fearful for their future. They should also be afraid for the economy, jobs and opportunities. That Tory power grab would not just steal powers from this Parliament, it would steal jobs and opportunities from our constituents. I urge every single member of the chamber to support the Scottish Government in what it is trying to do. Amendment is going to take place this evening and there are more than 200 of them, so some will fail and some will pass. However, I urge every single member to think of their constituents, think of their regions, think of their constituencies but also think of all this Parliament's powers. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms McMillan. I call Claudia Beamish to be followed by Alison Harris and Ms Beamish. Five minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Today we meet in this chamber to fight for what we already have, important European legislation that improves all our lives, now at risk due to the arrogance of the Conservative Party and, indeed, since Brexit, its shambolic efforts ever since. As my colleague Neil Findlay said at stage 1, we want evolution to work and we have a duty to make this continuity bill as good as it can be, although we hope that it will not be needed in the end. That is perhaps a vain hope in view of the Tory party, but never mind. This is incredibly important with regard to the environment and climate change, issues that quite obviously benefit from international effort. I want to speak today about my amendments 1 and 2 and other amendments that relate to environmental issues and to animal welfare. Our international commitments, including EU provisions, have been a key catalyst in Scotland becoming a leader on environmental protections and climate change reduction efforts. Directly transposing EU protections is a common sense approach, and I and many others feel very uneasy in handing over the potential freedom to relax environmental standards. EU environmental legislation has been instrumental with around 80 per cent of Scottish environmental law originating there. We must maintain the more specific standards and targets that tend to be in EU legislation in contrast to domestic law prior to the EU that rested on broader statements. The Institute of European Environmental Policy said that lowering the standards would result in, I quote, real and uncertain environmental and, I stress, health risks. Air pollution is one of the biggest environmental health threats that we face, as a damning example of environmental injustice disproportionately affecting children, the elderly, the ill and those living in poverty. The EU has been crucial in driving both the Scottish Government, in my view, and the EU Government, for certain, to do better, obliging mandatory compliance under the ambient air quality directive. That is an example of things that we must not risk losing. Our seas have also been better protected and enhanced thanks to the leadership in legislation from the EU. The marine strategy framework directive and the birds and habitats directives have again been crucial in passing the Marine Scotland Act and the subsequent development of both the marine plan and the vital marine protected areas. Indeed, on land, the birds and habitat directive raised the bar for biodiversity protection across Europe. Scotland is indeed an iconic home to flora and fauna, but the challenge of protection grows every day as our climate worsens. Domestic legislation enshrines those conservation efforts, but the potential for infraction proceedings depends on the details of Brexit yet to be confirmed. We cannot allow ourselves to participate in a race to the bottom on environmental protections. Falling back on other international agreements also puts the environment at risk. Comparisons with the Berne Convention and the EU Habitat Directives show substantial difference that we cannot afford to sink to. Today, I intend later to move my amendments to enshrine the principles of environmental law into Scots law, whether they originate in the case law of the European Court, the EU treaties, direct EU legislation or EU directives, and my colleague Colin Smyth's amendment 3 does the same for the principle of animal welfare, particularly important. No, I'm sorry, I haven't got time. I'm sorry, Mr Stevenson. Particularly important is that Scottish legislation on this issue is needing to be bolstered, and we will also support Mark Ruskell's amendment on animal sentience. Those issues must be recognised on the face of the bill, though. Across the chamber, we speak of sustainable development, progress with the suffusion of economic, social and environmental considerations. I quote from the cabinet secretary in his letter to my committee of yesterday, environmental protection is a core human right. Those principles affect us all. As a community activist fighting against inappropriate opencast, I was grateful for the precautionary principle, and I'm relieved that this will be reflected in the charter of fundamental human rights. However, in my view, we must go further, and I still argue for the inclusion on the face of the bill in my amendments 1 and 2. I hear what the cabinet secretary said to our committee this morning on general principles enshrined in law, as opposed to guiding principles, which it is argued or not. I also hear of his willingness to consider an equivalent in explanatory notes, and finally I grasp the cabinet secretary's outline, I hope correctly, of the possibility of referring to future relevant legislation on the face of the bill. However, I will press my amendments later, because I seek to be sure that we are robustly protecting our environment and our future of our planet, and I'm not convinced that we cannot have these protections on the face of the bill. There is a little time in hand, not a lot, but there is room for interventions. I will let members make up the time until we will run out of the extra time. I call Alison Harris to be followed by Sandra White. Alison, please. Ms Harris, I should say, gets a bit friendly with you there. I don't know why that came over me. Four minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Firstly, I wish to declare that I am a member of the DPLR committee. The Scottish Conservatives have been clear that the EU withdrawal bill, as drafted, would have to change if it was going to reflect the principles of the United Kingdom's devolved settlements. It was regrettable that amendments to the bill could not be tabled in time before the bill passed through the House of Commons, but amendments to the EU withdrawal bill should reflect discussions between the Scottish and UK Governments. I am pleased that there has been progress in those negotiations, progress that the minister referred to in his evidence to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee last week. However, the stated intent of the bill is continuity, yet in reality the bill represents discontinuity and disruption. Discontinuity in this Parliament's tradition of debate, discussion and scrutiny is a possible disruption to the process of negotiations between the UK and Scottish Governments. It is, as my colleague Adam Tomkins said last week, a wrecking bill. I hope that, as Mike Russell has stated, successful negotiations between the UK and Scottish Governments will mean that the EU withdrawal bill can be satisfied with the amended and the bill before us will not have to come into effect. Nevertheless, as parliamentarians, it is incumbent on us to address deficiencies in legislation, however constricting the circumstances. I thank Mike Russell for making himself available to the committees of this Parliament to address the numerous problems that the bill has created. Nonetheless, this is no substitute to the full process of parliamentary deliberation that such a significant bill needs. In the DPLR committee, I was able to share with Mike Russell my concerns about how little time the SNP Government intends to allow Scotland's Parliament to scrutinise this bill. The fact remains that one of the most significant pieces of proposed legislation in the Scottish Parliament's history will be scrutinised in a period of less than a month. That is why the Scottish Conservatives have brought forward a series of amendments to address obvious deficiencies in this bill. As it stands, the bill creates extraordinary powers for Scottish ministers to repeal the bill itself and to legislate in line with the EU after exit. The bill also fails to deal properly with the reality of a clearly defined exit date or the possibility of a withdrawal period. Those and numerous other issues in the bill require significant attention. The correct means of ensuring that Scotland and the whole UK are prepared to leave the EU is the EU withdrawal bill. Yes, the bill as introduced is unacceptable, but while some devolved powers intersect with returning EU powers, the whole UK is leaving the EU, and we need a bill that prepares the entire United Kingdom for exit while reflecting the integrity of our UK internal market, something that the bill before us appears to have no interest in doing. The process of negotiations between the UK and Scottish Governments has been longer than anyone would have hoped. If the will is there, I am sure that an agreement can be reached and powers can return from Brussels to Hollywood by the correct means. I hope that that can happen within a timeframe that will deem this bill irrelevant before it has even reached its final stage. While the bill is before us, it is that this Parliament's responsibility to address its obvious and numerous defects. That is why I shall be supporting the Scottish Conservative amendments to the bill. I remind the Conservatives that Scotland did not vote to leave the EU or Brexit. As we are in a day of reminding, I was reminded this morning at the health committee that it is 381 days from today until Brexit comes into force. That sent me back to thinking when I first heard about the great repeal bill. There is a paper there that I picked up at Westminster. It is called the great repeal bill, 23 February 2017. It is not a long time ago, and now look where we are just now. I want to remind them what it says about devolution. Legislating for Brexit will have significant implications for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. If the great repeal bill transposes all directly applicable EU law, it could effectively implement a range of provisions that are within devolved competence. Therefore, as long as a sewer convention is respected, that should be okay. However, we know well that a sewer convention is not being respected. It also goes on to say how the sewer convention in its statutory form includes a rider that the Government will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without consent. It also goes on to say that not using the sewer convention will bring its own political issues and raise objections in the devolved institutions. That is why we need a legal continuity bill. That is absolutely why we need that. I agree with Tavish Scott, John Swinney, John McAlpine and others that mentioned that it is absolutely essential that we have frameworks. I want to raise a number of those relating to health, as I am on the health committee now. We did take evidence this morning in regard to Brexit and health. There is a number—I am not going to read them all out from the paper—but there are 82 policy areas where non-legislative common frameworks may be required. Those take in to account blood safety and quality, clinical trials, medical products for human use, medicine prices, organ transplants, quality and safety, public health, tissues and cells, quality and safety also, cross-border healthcare as well, huge, huge issue and for more detailed discussion, which is the 24 policy areas, reciprocal healthcare. I think that those are really, really important issues. Although I am sorry that I am not speaking to the amendments that are there, simply because I am on the health committee and I am not on that committee, I think that it is something that we really need to keep in mind that those are all areas that affect the general population in an absolutely way that affects our whole lives, not just theirs but their families also. I will take an intervention on that. Thank you for taking the intervention. Which Opposition amendments to improve the continuity bill does the member think that the finance committee should accept? Sandra White Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think that if Rachel Hamilton had listened to what I said, I said that I am not speaking to any of the amendments, I am speaking to the issues that I am speaking to the issues from my committee, the health committee, I think that that has been responsible and I am asking people to look at those specifically on that respect and I think that if you actually look at the amount of issues through health that are affected by this Brexit bill, then I think that basically, and you can be quiet from shouting at the sidelines, I think that you would be wanting to look at that. I also want to raise a couple of things that were raised as well, which things are really, really important and Professor Tomkins might like to look at this particular one and particularly research funding, the workers that come from Europe to carry out research. Glasgow University has a fantastic research department, which looks at heart research, kidney research, arthritis, the amount of money that goes into that, horizon 2020, £78 billion, which we will not be able to facilitate if we are not within the EU and under Brexit. We also have the research workforce. There is 18.3 per cent, 13.4 per cent of academic staff. One of the largest in the UK Scotland has the largest research workforce. What is going to happen to these people? People this morning, when we had the evidence from professionals, they were absolutely appalled and absolutely worried that people are not actually applying for these jobs. I think that, if I am certainly right, it was down by 9 per cent already that they are not applying for research jobs, and their big worry was that other countries, and quite rightly so, are going to pick up that slack. Where does our reputation for research go when we are no longer able to access horizon 2020 or access any budgets coming from the EU? Those are things that I think should be raised, and I hope that they will be raised during the process of the bill. I am just raising it just now because I am on a health committee, and I am absolutely worried that that is going to happen, that we will not have the research facilities that we normally have. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I call Jamie Greene to be followed by Richard Lochhead. Mr Greene, four minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I may be fairly new to this Parliament and the legislative process, but nothing about this feels right to me. We have been afforded far from adequate opportunity to scrutinise this bill. It is absolutely farcical that, in just a few hours' time, this Parliament will be debating and voting on over 230 amendments. Let me tell you why that bothers me, because this legislation was either a long time in the coming, in which case why are we rushing it through the process, or was it instead hastily drafted with questionable legal foundation, in which case why should hastily drafted legislation be scrutinised in an equally hastily manner? That looks and feels to me like a dangerous combination. There is no doubt that Brexit is in a motive subject, and it is perfectly acceptable to have contradicting views on it. However, what is not acceptable is to let our personal or partisan views on the UK Government or even Brexit itself get in the way of our collective duty to make good law in this Parliament, or undermine the highly respected and highly valued way that we pass legislation. Last week, Johann Lamont asked SNP members if the bill should continue, regardless of whether there was a deal or not. One reply said that the bill is in place today in order to ensure that we get a deal. It has been used as nothing more than a bargaining tool, a slight of hand in a very dangerous game of testing this Parliament's well-established methods of passing law. However, we are where we are, so please can we at the very least ensure that any bill that is passed today is watertight. That is why those benches have lodged 147 amendments. It is why I have lodged 23. Mr Findlay might think that that is a nuisance, but I call it scrutiny. I would like to address some of the concerns that our amendments will seek to rectify this evening. That bill contains provisions that would give Scottish ministers power to make subjective decisions as to whether or not they think that the UK Government is fulfilling its obligations under international treaties, not the courts but Scottish ministers. It says that Scottish ministers should decide when exit day is. It says that Scottish ministers have the power to cherry pick which bits of EU legislation it wants to adopt into Scotland's law, even after exit day. Then it gives them the power within that to decide which bits of that EU law it wants to transpose. It allows Scottish ministers to introduce counterproductive and conflicting regulations that fly in the face of sensible frameworks and that put at risk our UK internal market, Scotland's biggest market. Worse of all, as it is currently drafted, none of that will require Parliament's consent. There are so many questions, yet so little time to debate and discuss them. Our pragmatic amendments will address problems arising from a number of other issues, too parallel and potentially conflicting approaches to the adoption of the charter of fundamental rights, variances in the approach to Frankovitch between the two withdrawal bills. Even if Scottish public authorities are adequately equipped to deal with existing EU law if it becomes Scotland's law, never mind any new ones that are transposed after Brexit. I make an appeal to MSPs right across the chamber. Judge this bill on the content, not on the context. I appeal to members of the Finance and Constitution Committee who will be voting on this this evening. If an amendment makes sense, regardless of who moved it, then please consider it, because in the absence of due scrutiny in this bill, we are relying on you to uphold the integrity of this Parliament. Can I remind members that there is some small time in hand for interventions, but it is up to members, of course, whether they wish to take interventions. I call Richard Lochhead to be followed by Neil Bibby. Mr Lochhead, five minutes, please. I should start by responding to Jamie Greene's request at the end of his speech by saying that he simply cannot divorce the content of any bill in this Parliament from its context, because that goes to the heart of why the bill is here in the first place. I recall the leave campaign and many pledges that were made during the campaign in relation to the EU referendum. We all remember the £350 million a week that was promised to the NHS. If people in the UK voted leave, of course, it is now transpired. That was bear-faced nonsense, and the Financial Times found that the Brexit and the impact of Brexit is costing the UK £350 million a week at the moment in terms of the damage to our economy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has just said that he understands from social media that we are going to be paying money into the EU post-Brexit up to 2064, so he cannot divorce the context from the content of the bill that we are debating today. One pledge that I do not recall from the leave campaign is that if the UK votes to leave and there is Brexit, that powers will be taken away from the Scottish Parliament. Yet here we are in 2018 discussing the biggest threat to Scottish devolution since the Parliament was set up in 1999, because this is an issue that has been put here in front of us to deal with, and it is the making of the UK Government. That is why the bill is here just now and how we have this emergency situation that we have to face. Of course we have the irony that one of the reasons why so many people across the UK and the Conservative Party supported leaving the EU is because they felt that it was over-centralised and that power should be brought back to the people, yet we have a situation at post-Brexit that they want power to be taken away from Scotland and centralised in London. That is one thing many people in this chamber and across Scotland do not want to see happening. The issue of UK frameworks is a very interesting one. Some people see UK frameworks as a way in which we can work together on issues of common interests to make sure that there are no unintended consequences of policies adopted north or south of the border, but it would damage both the north and south of the border. One issue might be the outbreak of animal diseases, for instance. We are quite clearly where one island makes sense to the UK framework for dealing with animal disease outbreaks groups who share the same islands. However, the reason why I think that the bill is so important is that many other people, particularly the mixture of people who are anti-devolution or grudinally support devolution within UK ministerial ranks, is that the UK framework is a smokescreen for getting power away from Scotland and getting control back from Scotland and getting control into Whitehall. For nine years, I was Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment, and my experience of just about every single UK minister that I dealt with, particularly in the Conservative Party, was that there was either anti-devolution or grudinally supported devolution, but it would do everything within its power to push the argument as far as possible to stop Scotland from taking unilateral decisions where it felt that it did not coincide with the interests of the rest of the UK or where it gave Scotland the competitive advantage. When you look at the list of reserve powers that the UK wants to hang on to, which is at the heart of this debate, it is for a reason that there is farming, fishing, animal welfare, environmental standards and so many other issues on that list that the UK Government wants to reserve. It is because the ministers looking across the UK do not want Scotland taking different decisions. Of course, we have devolution and we must not allow the UK Government to undermine devolution or erode devolution. That is why this is such an important constitutional issue for the people of Scotland. The member does not recognise that part of the importance of devolution is not just what powers we have, but how they are exercised. He is right to be sceptical about the intent of UK ministers, but it is not much better to give untrammeled power to Scottish ministers. The court doing is giving the power of the Scottish ministers to protect devolution and the democratic will of the people of Scotland. If I look at fisheries, for instance, I want to reflect on a couple of my experiences dealing with UK ministers over the years, which are very relevant to this debate. If you look at fisheries, for instance, I had a constant battle with UK ministers who did not believe that there should be any barriers put in place to stop Scottish fishermen selling Scottish fishing quota to Dutch multinationals based in England. That is because the English fleet are already sold out to foreign interests. Therefore, because they believe in the free market, UK ministers were under pressure from their Dutch constituent companies who happened to base south of the border, who said that they must not allow the Scottish administration to put barriers in place to Scotland being able to sell its quota to interests south of the border, who happened to be foreign owned. Of course, the Scottish Government, with its modest powers, did its best to try to put barriers in the way of that happening, and there has been some success in doing that. However, one of the reasons why it wants fisheries to be re-reserved to the UK Government is because it wants to eliminate those barriers so that in future Scottish ministers cannot stop them doing what they want to do for their interests south of the border, because the UK fishing ministers are not accountable to this Parliament, they are accountable to their own constituents in the House of Commons. If I take you on to agriculture, I had to deal with the farming minister after farming minister from the Conservative Government who told me, for instance, that the upland hills in Scotland and the sheep sector there and the less favoured areas, for instance, were very important for tourism. I had to explain that the reason why they are important is for social economic reasons and for producing food, not just for tourism. They did not recognise the need for distinctive policies north of the border, and they do not want to have to face audiences south of the border where Scotland has got advantage in terms of the support mechanisms that we put in place to support our sectors, and they do not want that competitive advantage put in place. There is a reason across all those powers that the UK wants to keep in Westminster, so I ask the ministers not to budge an inch and stick to the principles that protect the Scottish Revolution. The First Minister must conclude, Mr Lockhead, a call on Mr Bibby, followed by Graham Simpson. Mr Bibby, five minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officers. We discussed at length last week the issues arising from this Bill are as much about the authority of this Parliament and its place in our democracy as the process of leaving the European Union. Scottish Labour has been clear that the UK Government's withdrawal bill is not acceptable in its current form, and that we are leaving the European Union is not in dispute, but the withdrawal bill itself very much is. Labour believes that it must be amended, as Neil Findlay said, and a satisfactory conclusion must be reached. Even now, we do hope that talks between the Governments and the devolved administrations will result in the appropriate amendments to the withdrawal bill. In the meantime, the Parliament must be prepared to legislate for a credible alternative, and that is why we voted for the continuity bill at stage 1. As members know, there are 231 amendments at stage 2, which is a huge amount for any bill—never mind one that has been dealt with with an emergency process. Like many others, I am not happy with the truncated process, which has only given us since Friday to fully consider all of those 231 amendments. We have to get that legislation right. I am sure that everybody across the chamber believes that we have to get that legislation right. I would just say to members generally from other parties that there may be some amendments that I will not support at the committee at stage 2, but that does not mean that they could not be amended and that we could look at amendments at stage 3. I just think that we need to be wary of the Government acting to legislate in a haste way, but we also, as other members and other parties, need to be equally aware of that. My Labour colleagues and I will put forward a number of amendments. Many of those amendments relate to the need for clarity, legal certainty and enhanced scrutiny. Those are exceptional times, and that is an exceptional bill. It places significant regulating, making powers in the hands of the Scottish Government. The scope of those powers and the way in which they are exercised is rightly subject to amendments, not just from Labour, but from all opposition parties represented in this Parliament. There are multiple instances throughout the bill where ministers can use regulation making powers to deal with deficiencies arriving from the UK's withdrawal from the European Union to ensure that there is compliance with international obligations on the case of section 13, which is particularly controversial to make provision corresponding to EU law after exit date. The minister will recall in evidence to the Finance and Constitution Committee last week that the Law Society said that section 13 lacked clarity. Professor Alan Page warned that he could amount to a potentially major surrender by the Parliament of its legislative competence. He called it a thoroughly bad idea, and I will just remind the chamber of that. Labour will therefore seek to remove the power, if not successful, with that at least putting place checks and balances. We can see from the amendments specifically on that, from the Liberal Democrats and the Tories and other suggestions on how to do that, and I will be interested to know the Greens' position on section 13 and those amendments being put forward by Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats. We will seek to ensure that those powers are proportionate and use where necessary, rather than where the Scottish Government ministers and the Scottish Government ministers alone consider them to be appropriate. The Tory Government's withdrawal bill marginalises Parliament. That is a criticism that has been made of the bill by Labour, Liberal Democrat and SNP MPs, as well as many on the Government's own back benches. Witnesses to the committee have spelled out their evidence, the ways in which the withdrawal bill represents a power grab, not just grabbing power from the devolved administrations but from Parliament itself. It would therefore be wrong for members of the Scottish Government to condemn a UK withdrawal bill for marginalising the UK Parliament while making the same mistakes and voting against proper parliamentary scrutiny in this chamber. I urge the minister and other parties not just to give Labour amendments this evening their fullest consideration but to support them. I also want to draw the minister's attention to amendments covering the general principles of EU law, the charter of fundamental rights and other rights and protections. There are a number of amendments in my name that prevent ministers from using the powers granted by the bill to weaken or remove EU-derived rights and protections, including employment rights, equalities, health and safety, consumer standards and environmental protections. Amendments from Claudia Beamish and Colin Smyth are also worthy of support. We also propose that EU-derived rights and protections cannot be weakened or removed by any other act of this Parliament. The European Union has been a driving force behind many of the environmental consumer health and safety protections that we take for granted today. Labour's amendments safeguard those protections that fall into the vol competency from dilution by the Scottish Government and any future Scottish Government. I hope that the whole chamber will recognise the importance of those amendments. Amendments that seek to enhance scrutiny, protect environment and safeguard the rights of people of Scotland throughout the Brexit process and beyond and amendments that seek to get the balance right between the powers held by ministers and this Parliament. Thank you very much. I call Graeme Simpson to fall by Stuart Stevenson. Mr Simpson, four minutes please. Thank you. Last week I spoke in the chamber in the stage one debate in my capacity as convener of the delegated powers and law reform committee. I was limited in my remarks of course but no such restrictions apply today. That way I'll hear right now before amendments have been considered that will be in a marathon session tonight shows what a fast this process is. Now as a committee convener I'm exasperated that we've been afforded just three weeks to deal with this but as a parliamentarium I'm furious. This stunt and that's what this is has put this Parliament in a very dim light. Let's be clear the public is not in the least bit interested in this. The SNP may think they're stirring up some kind of anger through their pretend grievance. I can assure them they're not. No one outside of the Holyrood bubble is following any of this. We're really no further forward than we were last week except that we now know thanks to the cabinet office that there really is no substantive beef. We know that claims that this is an emergency are entirely bogus. Mike Russell has a funny idea of what constitutes an emergency. He reminds me of one of those people who crop up in the regular newspaper reports of those who make inappropriate 999 calls. Like the man who said his 50p coin was stuck in a washing machine at his local lawn dret and wanted police to retrieve it or the woman who wanted police to deal with a pair of noisy foxes outside her home. Inconveniences but not emergencies. The vast majority of powers returning from Brussels will start off in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. None of the existing powers of the devolved governments will be affected in any way. That's hardly a power grab. If you want to see a power grab, Mr Swinney, before you stand up, then just look at the planning bill. That's an SNP power grab. Just 24 out of 153 areas are still open to discussion. We may even get a deal this week. So what on earth are we doing here? Remember, for all the fuss, most of the SNP, Alex Neil accepted, don't even want these powers they're now complaining about. They want them to be held and controlled by Brussels. Let's be clear. This Parliament is going to get a lot more powers on Brexit day. You think the SNP will be pleased about that, but what they're desperate to do is stoke up grudges and grievance. Now, my colleague Jackson Carlaw, not here at the moment, he's a reasonable man, he shows me that John Swinney and Mike Russell really want to do a deal with the UK Government. I'm afraid their recent behaviour does not bear that out, but I do hope Mr Carlaw is right and that my perception is wrong. What I do know is that those of us who've lodged amendments to this absurd bill will do our jobs of scrutiny tonight and maybe tomorrow. The DLPR committee, which I convene, will meet again on Thursday to discuss possible amendments to stage 3. In answer to Stuart McMillan, I do welcome the amendment put forward by Neil Findlay about exit day, which says that exit day should be the same day as the UK leaves the EU, a state of fact. Mr Russell doesn't have to apologise to me for the extra time we're spending as parliamentarians, but he should certainly be saying sorry to all the parliamentary staff who've been dealing with this. I hope that the deal is done and that this is dropped so that we can all focus on the real issues. I call Stuart Stevenson to be followed by Liam Kerr. Mr Stevenson, five minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me through the chair say to Graham Simpson that from my very first speech in June 2001 I have opposed wholeheartedly, unambiguously and continuously the common fisheries policy, and I'm immensely glad that we should be leaving that. Nothing in my previous 728 speeches is at odds with that. I just direct something to the convener of the Standards Committee. Why do marshaled lists at stage 2 not have numbers against the groupings that they do at stage 3? I'm going to speak to what would be if it was numbered group 11, which is exercise of powers under section 11 and 13 integration with UK Government policy. Let me just start by looking at Jamie Greene's amendments. That's 1, 4, 8 and 1, 5, 4. Jamie Greene in his contribution said that we should have watertight law and we should judge our law by its content. Jamie Greene in both his amendments refers to UK Government policy as negotiating lines of the UK Government, as the basis upon which his amendments are founded. Neither of those things are things that are available to me, in particular the negotiating lines. Not only that, they appear to change from week to week, day to day. Whatever merits there might have been in his amendments, they certainly are not watertight law and they should be judged inadequate. However, I want to turn more substantially to Adam Tomkins' amendments. By the way, let me just say that I'm going to say that there is an amendment from the Tories that I would be prepared to accept. I'll come back to that. Keep listening. That got the Tories' attention for a brief second. No, he won't. Not from that source. The key point about Adam Tomkins' amendments 150 and 151 et al is to take back powers that we currently exercise over agriculture, environmental protection and, in particular, fisheries, because no regulations may be made under subsection 1 unless the consent of a minister of the crown is provided. I do. Adam Tomkins, to the member for giving way. Will the member not accept that there is no such thing as taking any of those powers away from this Parliament, given that this Parliament cannot currently exercise powers in any of those domains because they are subject to EU law and we may not exercise powers contrary to EU law? Stuart Stevenson. I'm afraid that Mr Tomkins is clearly not much engaged in the fishing debate. In fishing, we make our own regulations that differ from regulations, for example in requiring landing of species that were not caught on quota. They are different from the rest of the UK. They are different from what occurs elsewhere in the EU. They form part of a framework and we support frameworks. That's without doubt. The same would be true in environmental protection and agriculture. There are clear differences in agriculture where 85 per cent of our area that is under agriculture is less favoured area. In the south of the border, it is 15 per cent. Therefore, there are entirely different requirements that lead to different legislative solutions that you definitely have to have. Let me talk about the amendment that I could accept where I am in the Government. Amendment 122 says that a Minister of the Crown may not withhold consent where a common framework has been agreed. That's fine. That's okay. However, it is a simplex amendment where we need a duplex solution. In other words, I would accept that amendment if the UK withdrawal bill had exactly the same provision in relation to UK ministers' inability to act without the consent of the devolved administrations. It is possible to accept an amendment from Adam Tomkins from the Tories, but it would have to be utterly conditional. We have joint decision-making. As a minister, I have joint decision-making across the border on canals and again on my appointments to the climate change committee, where all administrations had to agree. Those are only some examples. We know that the Governments in these islands can work together effectively. Where fishing is concerned, we have got to get a solution that moves us away from 60 per cent of the fish caught in our waters being caught by foreign vessels without legal oversight from Scottish jurisdiction. We have got to get that changed and nothing that the UK Government could do, will do, have threatened to do that would take powers and the right to catch fish in our waters away from Scottish fishermen, will have my support, not now, not in the past, not ever. I call Liam Kerr to be followed by Daniel Johnson. At the outset, let me just for completeness, declare and interest, firstly as a lawyer, but also as a lawyer with a pathological dislike and intolerance for excessive legalese, ambiguity and imprecision. Throughout a legal career, which began nearly two decades ago, it has often vexed me at how often law firms I worked for were being paged large amounts of money to clear up ambiguity in legislation because the legislature has been insufficiently certain or clear in its drafting. It is perhaps aposite to note in passing that a significant amount of that was legislation generated in the first instance by Europe, in particular where a directive such as the acquired rights directive that begat Chupy or perhaps the working time directive have been left open to interpretation or insufficiently dealt with an area, the sheer volume of case law generated in the courts has been a staple source of income for law firms, whilst leaving some waiting years for resolution or redress. It is in that context that last Wednesday evening I took the draft continuity bill, the explanatory notes, the financial memorandum, the delegated powers memorandum, the policy memorandum and the presiding officer's statements on legislative competence to the Starbank in New Haven, where I looked forward to assisting the Government in ensuring that this bill is as tight as it can be. That is important. Like my colleagues, I may not agree that this bill should be enacted. I do not agree that it should be treated as emergency legislation. Actually, I do not even agree that it should have been drafted in the first place, given the likely motivations that Graham Simpson and others are suggesting, but Parliament disagrees and it is therefore incumbent upon us all to ensure that it is the best that it can be—unambiguous, uncontestable and unchallangable. Three hours later, the Starbank politely asked me to leave at closing time. I had over 50 amendments ready to lodge the next day to improve this bill. Deputy Presiding Officer, I am not a draftsman. I am a litigator. I have never before drafted a bill nor even considered amending one. Yet here I was, armed with only an ethos of reducing ambiguity and providing effective scrutiny, proposing over 50 amendments, including things as basic as clarifying the meaning of the exit date, as obvious as removing the word perspective next to withdrawal from the European Union in section 1, as fundamental as replacing whether a law is, quote, past or made with the legally precise enacted. I find that deeply concerning, and Parliament too should be concerned. That may be uncharted territory, but there is no excuse for a legislature to produce bad law, which is what we risk doing if this Parliament produces an act that may not be competent, is ambiguous and is easily challenged in the courts. The fact that, between all the parties in Holyrood, there have been introduced more than 200 amendments only serves to demonstrate how flawed it is. Court challenge is inevitable. The standing of this Parliament, the respected is accorded as a mature, competent legislative body, risks being diminished. As has been clearly demonstrated by the 232 amendments proposed and the debate this afternoon, there is a very real prospect that this legislation, this process, will act against the aim of making this respected, competent and robust. We only have to look at other legislation, which the Government introduced with the best of intentions, but now admits that it is rushed and not robust, such as offensive behaviour at football or the name person legislation. No, Mr Finlay, it is not a game. I do not giggle in my pajamas as I deploy nearly two decades of training and experience to try to get this right. I take it very seriously indeed. Mr Finlay's point about the lack of amendment from the SNP backbenchers is valid, but if he is incapable of providing effective scrutiny, he should avoid trying to mock those of us who can. I maintain the best thing that could happen is for the SNP to dump this bill now and get back to the negotiating table to secure a Brexit deal that delivers for us all. I accept that they do not want to lose face, but let's take a step back and do this properly, taking time to get it right. Daniel Johnson, followed by Christina McKelvie, five minutes please, Mr Johnson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd like to speak to four specific amendments, but before I do, I'd like to also talk about and reflect on the debate that we've had both this afternoon and indeed when the bill was introduced, because much has been talked about at devolution. Many speakers from right across this chamber have spoken about the importance and principles of devolution. People have talked in glowing and hallowed terms about Donald Trump and they are right to do so. Much of what we value in this place is thanks to him, the Scotland act, with its ingenious construction around reserved and devolved items, but more importantly, something in Donald Dure's character, his earnest and thoughtful approach to politics. I think that this Scottish Parliament has much to thank both his character as much as his wisdom in terms of the way that we do things today. Above all else, and the reason that I raise this is because I think that devolution is more than just simply what powers this Parliament has to exercise. It is about the way in which we exercise those powers and if we look at the structures that we have in this place, I think that that's clear, whether it's from our committees that seek to be consensual or indeed with the parliamentary bureau that decides parliamentary business in a hopefully consensual matter rather than simply the party of the Government, I think that we see those principles, those ideals borne out. But above all else, this Parliament must and indeed all Parliaments must seek to constrain and challenge the power of the Government. We must scrutinise, we must engage the people affected by legislation and we must come together and make decisions in this place. That's the hallmark of this Scottish Parliament but I also believe that it's at risk from this bill because if there is one deep irony it's this. Much of the criticism placed at the feet of the withdrawal bill in the UK Parliament is that it is a ministerial power grab and can I say politely this to Mr Russell that simply putting sunset clauses in the similar powers that are placed within the continuation bill is simply insufficient to deal with those dangers and in terms of constraining that power grab. But to the particular amendments firstly can I just say that I support the amendment in Neil Finlay's name, amendment 35, which seeks to remove section 13 in its entirety because this section is I think the one which causes the most worry in terms of that scope of power. Giving ministers the ability to legislate, to bring forward SSIs or to legislate on the vast scope of EU law simply I think needs greater scrutiny and control than is provided for in this bill. But should that amendment fail I would like to argue for amendments 28 and 30 because they constrain those powers by limiting the time period that they can be exercised from five years down to two. Now I have no doubt that there will be need to amend legislation to make adjustment but if that time of two years is insufficient I am sure that parliamentary time can be found. To have five years and to allow ministers to roll on those powers for further five-year periods at their discretion I think is simply undemocratic and is simply unnecessary. I also speak to amendments 37 and 39 because I do not believe, given the sheer scope of European law and the implications that it has, that it is good enough to bring forward SSIs that will legislate in those areas through the negative procedure. We must use the affirmative procedure so that those proposals are properly looked at by committee and those proposals are brought forward into this chamber so that we can all decide whether we agree with them rather than essentially do it by default waiting for the time to click on that would happen under the negative procedure. Can I also commend amendments 11 through 15, 17 and 23 that Liberal Democrats, because I think that they seek to do much of the same as my amendments made? Indeed, amendment 41, seeking to place limits on a negative procedure and using the affirmative procedure throughout section 13, is also worthy of commendation. I noticed that my time is up, so I will conclude there. It is important how we do our business in this place, not just what powers we have, but I would ask members to consider that when they think about those amendments. The need for the continuity bill is pretty much unquestionable to me, because there are many areas around EU directives and laws that are incorporated into primary legislation that bother me greatly. Those are child sexual exploitation, trafficking and human beings, domestic violence, sexual violence, child grooming and pornography, all of which, in my opinion, go further on protections in Scots law than they do in their UK equivalents. That bothers me greatly. The Victims Rights Scotland Act 2015 is another example of that. It goes further in Scots law on protections of people than UK law. The continuity bill for me enshrines into Scots law the charter of fundamental rights of which we have heard much about today. In my reading of Adam Tomkin's amendment 98 seeks to give no strength to the charter in Scots law or even a position. That worries me greatly. I am going to get on to that point. I am going to get on to the point. In Stonewall's briefing to the House of Lords on amendments to the withdrawal bill that the Stonewall briefing tells us, and I am going to quote from their briefing, retaining the charter of fundamental rights, clause 5.4 of the bill makes it clear that on leaving the EU, the charter of fundamental rights will no longer apply. While domestic law and the European Convention on Human Rights provides similar rights, the charter offers an added layer of protection. Stonewall tells us that it is deeply concerned that removal of the charter will result in the dilution of rights and strongly urges peers to support amendments to retain amendments the opposite of Adam Tomkin's. Adam Tomkin's. For the record, my amendment on the charter of fundamental rights reads as follows. The charter of fundamental rights continues to have the same legal authority in Scots law on and after exit day as it had on the day before exit day. It is an amendment designed to provide continuity, not change, in the legal status of the charter in Scots law. Christina McKelvie. Always in points of law, there is an interpretation. My interpretation is that you give no force in Scots law to the charter of fundamental rights via your amendment. That will be up to the Finance and Constitution Committee to decide that later, but I would urge them to take the lead from the Stonewall briefing and to reject amendment 9 to 8 on the same grounds that they urge the Lords to protect the charter of fundamental rights in the EU withdrawal bill of the UK. Now we know that the power grab that we feared in Scotland is coming through has been omitted by the UK Government. It was published a list of 24 devolved policy areas that it wants to keep control of after Brexit. We know that the power grab is now officially real. They have not got an answer for it, but the UK Government has never been that good at following its own advice, which is why we need to work things out for ourselves. There is a memo going around the Cabinet. I understand that it recognises that there is no argument against the claims of a power grab on Scotland's devolved powers, but there is no argument whatsoever. That is why we need the continuity bill in Scotland. The continuity bill comes into effect if the Scottish Parliament decides not to consent to the EU withdrawal bill. We have tried and tried and tried to work with UK Government and UK-wide legislation, but they will not have it. They keep letting this down. Promises made, vows made, are not delivered. Where should we go after that? We have no trust. It is within the competence of our Parliament, as legal experts, including the Lord Advocate of this land, have concluded, and it is the only way in which we can avoid that power grab. It is our protection against our devolved powers being withdrawn. When Britain leaves the EU, there are 111 powers and responsibilities in devolved areas due to be repatriated. The UK Government in clause 11 of the EU withdrawal bill calls for all those powers to go straight to Whitehall for ministers to decide what should be given to MSPs and what should be kept in national frameworks, crumbs off the dinner table. That cannot be allowed to happen. If the intention is to retain those powers only temporarily to bring it back to the Scottish Parliament, then why on earth is there not a sunset clause in the EU withdrawal bill in order to say that to bring those powers back to Scotland even if they want to hold on to them on a temporary basis? They have not done that, and I urge Conservative colleagues here to urge their people in Westminster to make sure that protection is in place. Although we have some agreement between Governments on around 86 powers, there is still no consensus on the remaining 24. Those are important powers, such as agriculture that we have heard about, GM crops, fishing, environmental policy, public procurement, state aid, food standards, animal health and welfare, food standards, hygiene law, food labelling and chemical regulation. If Graham Simpson thinks that ordinary people out there are not interested in us, he should have been in this chamber on Saturday when we had the Women's Convention International Women's Day and listened to the questions of all of the women who asked me about the impact of the EU withdrawal bill. He should have been here that day. The UK Government believes that 24 should operate on a UK-wide basis and the Scottish Government being consulted on changes. The UK withdrawal bill suggests that they have a duty to consult, not a duty to get consent. Where are we getting that agreement, because we are not getting that agreement? The UK bill amendments in clause 11, as I said, do not give respect to this Parliament. It says, consult, it does not say agree. That is a key factor for me, because if we do not get an agreement, then what should this place do? This place has a duty to protect what it has, protect its powers and protect the people of Scotland. I would ask all the people in those benches over there to do that. Dean Lockhart, followed by Clare Adamson. The draft legislation is complex, far-reaching and a number of genuine concerns have rightly been raised during today's debate. I would like to address three of those concerns in my short contribution. First, on the new powers coming to this Parliament after Brexit, it is important to remember the two very different proposals that have been put forward by the SNP and the UK Government. The SNP's differentiated approach to Brexit mentioned during the debate would mean that powers over Scottish agriculture, fisheries and a host of trade laws would remain in Brussels. The power to introduce new laws would also stay with Brussels without any need to consult or seek the consent of this Parliament. In contrast, the UK Government's EU withdrawal bill will see substantial new powers being transferred to this Parliament. Over 100 new powers either devolved immediately after Brexit or devolved once a UK-wide framework is agreed. I will not take an intervention. If I had, I usually would, but given the time available with the legislation, I do not have the time. That is where we see the direct contradiction between the SNP's differentiated approach and the draft legislation and talk of a power grab. On the one hand, the SNP's differentiated approach would see no powers coming to this Parliament, no right of consultation or consent required for future laws imposed by Brussels, but now the SNP is complaining about a power grab over those very same powers. By virtue of the legislation, the SNP is now demanding that those very same powers are immediately transferred to this Parliament even if doing so would damage Scotland's trade with the UK common market. That is yet another example of the SNP prioritising the EU single market at the expense of our domestic UK market, which is worth four times more to Scotland's economy. Turning to the provisions of the bill itself, there is clear consensus that this draft legislation is overreaching, defective and, if passed, would damage the integrity and certainty of Scots law. A number of those concerns have been expressed by experts, including the Law Society of Scotland, and they have raised concerns that the bill introduces new categories of law that are not recognised by Scottish courts. Those concerns apply to a number of sections of the legislation, including sections 5, 6 and 9 on which I have submitted and my colleagues have submitted amendments. The real concern, Presiding Officer, is that this legislation and the new categories of law being introduced will not just impact directly on the new powers coming to Scotland after Brexit but will result in confusion over the operation of existing laws across Scotland and across the UK, resulting in years of uncertainty that will damage trade across the UK common market. The third concern that I would like to raise is one shared across the chamber. With expert responses to the legislation raising more questions than answers, it is now clear that this Parliament will be unable to properly scrutinise the legislation. Later this evening and possibly tomorrow morning, the Finance and Constitution Committee will meet to consider more than 230 amendments to the bill. Even if the committee meeting is extended into tomorrow, this timeframe provides less than two minutes for members of this Parliament to propose, consider, debate and vote on each amendment—less than two minutes per amendment. No one can describe that as proper parliamentary scrutiny. My time is short, so let me conclude by highlighting that the legislation is not fit for purpose, it will damage Scotland's long-standing and very well-deserved reputation for legal certainty and it will damage trade within our UK domestic market. The last two speakers in the open debate are Claire Adamson, followed by Ross Greer. Five minutes, please, Ms Adams. I begin this afternoon by thanking my colleagues across the chamber for their contributions in the chamber and in the various committees who have already contributed to the process that brings us here today. I particularly would like to thank the convener and members of the Finance and Constitution Committee for the interim report, one that was conducted, which was about the Parliament and the principles underlying the devolution settlement. Today, we are all responsible for the protecting the devolution of this Parliament. In their report, they say, quote, in the view of the Finance and Constitution Committee, that the European Union withdrawal bill represents a fundamental challenge to this institution and the devolution settlement. It is imperative that the UK Government takes urgent action to ensure that the bill respects the devolution settlement, only then would the Finance and Constitution Committee be able to recommend legislative consent. It could not be clearer from our colleagues on the Finance and Constitution Committee. That is why this bill is needed today, and it is far from being a stunt. It is absolutely required to ensure the future of this place. I have a real issue with the position that the Tories have taken with regarding this, especially when they consider some of the things that they have already said in this place about powers. Adam Tomkins said, on leaving the European Union, that it means among other things that this Parliament will get even stronger. Already one of the most powerful devolved legislatures in the world. One of the most powerful devolved legislatures in the world seems pretty hollow rhetoric when he is content that the UK Government has shown such contempt for this place and it is handling a year withdrawal bill that we find ourselves having to put through emergency legislation. I have listened to many contributions over the years from the Tory benches about centralisation. Indeed, again, I am sorry to pick on Mr Tomkins, but in the third of November 2016, he said, that it is well documented that Scotland is now one of the most centralised countries in Europe. Just yesterday, the Scottish Local Government partnership criticised the Scottish Government, not the United Kingdom Government, for strangling local democracy and castigated it for bossing local authorities around and controlling everything from the centre. Mr Tomkins, if it is not right for local government, how can it possibly be right for the devolved legislatures of this country to be bossed about and controlled by Westminster? The continuity bill has been described as a wrecking bill, but far from this, it is designed to protect this Parliament and the devolution settlement. Today we have heard contributions about how this should be, particularly about the amendments. As a member who has not been involved in the committee scrutinising this and not involved in the debate that will happen in the committee this afternoon, the stage 2 process, it is difficult for me to take that away from the principles, because it is about principles. We have heard that from many contributions this afternoon, from Claudia Beamish, from Mark Ruskell, talking about the principles that are in danger, the things that we are set to lose if we do not have this bill in place should it be necessary. John McAlpine also said that much has changed since we started discussing this. For me, one of the biggest things that changed was the office for budget responsibility this afternoon. It said that we could be paying the Brexit bill until 2064 that it could cost 37.1 billion and that, in every one of those years, we will be paying out more than we recruit from the Brexit process. In such uncertain times, with everything that Brexit threatens, what we have to do today is to make sure that we progress this bill, that the bill is scrutinised, that this legislation is in place to protect the devolved settlement of this Parliament. The last of the open debate contributions is three minutes from Ross Greer. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I only have a few minutes, so apologies if this is a bit rushed. It is obviously vital that we get the continuity bill right. The task at hand is unprecedented, both in terms of the scale of changes to retained EU law to make it workable and the powers being granted to ministers to make those changes. We must get the balance right to provide proper democratic oversight while allowing ministers to make the changes necessary and in a timely manner. I sincerely hope that the Government is open to the changes that I am proposing and those of all other parties. I can see amendments from all other opposition parties that the Greens are certainly interested in hearing more from and some that we will absolutely support. I'm afraid that I've just not got enough time, but I will engage Mr Finlay on this this evening. We've seen the UK Government ignore the opposition at Westminster, the devolved Governments, Parliament and Assemblies. This has created an entirely avoidable mess. We can do better, but we obviously have little time to do so. The minister made very welcome comments on the issue of appropriate parliamentary oversight and scrutiny when I raised concerns with the UK bill in September of last year. He made a commitment that the Scottish Government has, and I will quote, no desire to exercise powers without proper scrutiny and that it will work right across the chamber and with the committees to make sure that there is proper scrutiny. I have tabled several amendments to improve parliamentary oversight, two of which are particularly important. The first is to section 14 of the bill. Those are its primary scrutiny mechanisms. The bill currently sets out a list of what changes should be made by affirmative procedures and by the superaffirmative procedure. Everything else is left to the negative procedure. That current approach is potentially dangerous. It's extremely difficult to predict what changes will be needed, so a definitive list for the affirmative procedures and leaving everything else to the negative risk some major changes being made without proper scrutiny. Equally, making everything subject to the affirmative risk overwhelming the Parliament and delaying necessary and small-scale changes. My amendment would address that. It takes inspiration from an amendment at Westminster, which creates a sifting committee. That was introduced by the Conservative Chair of the Procedures Committee in the comments. The amendment would give the Parliament's committees here the power to decide upon appropriate scrutiny mechanisms, whether it is negative affirmative or superaffirmative. The current list in the bill would continue to act as a guide, but the decision on scrutiny would ultimately lie with Parliament. The second amendment is to section 31 on the urgency provisions. Again, I recognise the need to make an urgent change immediately should the situation arise, but that is a power that is open to abuse, permitting ministers to simply decide that a matter is urgent and make a change before Parliament has the chance to even look at it. My amendment would provide Parliament with the power to suspend the urgency provisions if it believes that they have been misused—an emergency break. Parliament would also have the power to reinstate them, if it believed that the problem of misuse has been resolved. Those two changes would fundamentally alter the balance of power in the bill and ensure that it is the majority in this Parliament, not a minority Government that has control. I should be clear that those amendments are not made in the ardent belief that the current Scottish Government would otherwise abuse its powers, but as a Parliament we would be failing our own institution, as well as those that it represents, if we did not do all that we could to ensure that the primacy of the selected body of the majority is established. We now move to the closing speeches. I am a bit disappointing that not everyone who took part is in the chamber. We will go to James Kelly in five minutes. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I think that in some cases it has been a challenging debate this afternoon for members. Obviously, in relation to stage 2, we have 231 amendments that the Finance and Constitution Committee will be considering later on this evening and potentially into tomorrow morning. It has been a challenge for members to pull out what are the main themes from those amendments. I think that that emphasises some of the concerns that have been raised about the process from Tavi Scott, John Lamont in the beginning and a point of order and also from Graham Simpson. I note an acceptable fact that the Parliament accepted that this is emergency legislation, but the reality is that we are proceeding through this at breakneck speed. A lot of it is complex. It takes some time to grasp the detail of some of those issues and it is going to be a real challenge for the Finance and Constitution Committee tonight to deal with those issues. I think that there is an element of frustration from MSPs across the chamber that we are not able to properly do such important legislation justice. I think that the other thing that has come out in the debate, as Neil Findlay highlighted, is to an extent how we have been used as part of the negotiating game that has gone on between the Scottish Governments and the UK Governments. You saw that in the interchange that took place between Adam Tomkins, Mr Swinney and Mike Russell. At one point, Mr Swinney and Mr Russell were both trying to intervene in Adam Tomkins. The important point of debate was the motion that the amendment had been submitted to the House of Lords. That is clearly an important area in terms of negotiations. I understand that, but it shows you how Parliament is sitting in the middle of that game. The most important event is probably going to be yesterday. John Swinney? Mr Kelly has just described the exchanges between Mr Tomkins and Mr Russell as a game. It is not a game because it is about what is the ability of this Parliament to exercise powers when it was established and envisaged that we would be able to exercise. The crucial question is whether or not the agreement of this Parliament or this Government will be sought in any of the frameworks that are envisaged in the United Kingdom arrangements, over which we have no issue about frameworks. However, whether our agreement is sought is a fundamental issue that I think anyone who respects devolution would have mine to accept. I wonder whether Mr Kelly agrees with that position. James Kelly? The key point, Mr Swinney, is how we resolve the issue. Even if Parliament proceeds and passes the legislation, which is a danger that could end up in the courts, the key point is how to resolve it and how to resolve it around the negotiating table. What I was going on to say was that the most important event of the week is probably tomorrow's meeting where the First Minister is attending. I understand that there is going to be a conversation with the Prime Minister. I think that we would all hope that there is some progress there so that we can get a resolution, because I think that the process that we are going through in terms of this legislation, although it is necessary to protect the devolution settlement, I do not think that it has been Parliament's finest hour. I think that there have been some important contributions made in relation to amendments. Claudia Beamish spoke very passionately about the important to protect the current elements of EU law in relation to the environment. She was right to highlight the fact that we did not want to see a race to the bottom. I think that there are real concerns about the provisions of section 13. I feel that the Government has gone too far in trying to establish additional powers for ministers. Neil Bibby and Daniel Johnson highlighted those very well. I thought that Mark Ruskell made an excellent speech in supporting the principle of animal sentience. I know that Colin Smyth has amendments in that area. I will be intrigued later on to see the Government's defence for the abandoning of the Frankivitch principle. I know that that is something that Tavish Scott has amendment 7 on later. It is an important principle of EU law that allows compensation for workers in relation to insolvencies. I wonder why the Scottish Government has sought to take that out. In relation to exit day, we will look at Mr Scott's amendment. That would seem to the pinpoint. We will explore it later, Mr Ruskell. In terms of exit day, I welcome the fact that there is going to be some clarity around that, because it is important for whatever your view on the arguments that we have clear when exit day is. It is absolutely essential that we try to get a resolution to that process going forward. I hope that there can continue to be constructive discussions between the Scottish and UK Governments. If we end up in a situation in which the legislation precedes in the past, there is a danger that it could end up in the courts and be challenged, and that is not something that any of the parliamentarians would want. We have had some powerful speeches in this debate across the chamber, but for a stage 2 debate, disappointingly few members referred to amendments that were proposed or tried to argue for them. What I would like to do is, if I have time, to make reference to a number of the key amendments that are before us this evening. Before I do that, I want to set this all briefly in context. As we heard from Adam Tomkins and other Conservative speakers during this debate, our view is that this bill is unnecessary, poorly drafted and probably illegal. It is simply an exercise in grandstanding by the Scottish National Party Government, and we will do nothing to improve the legal framework in Scotland as we prepare for Brexit. That is not just the view of the Scottish Conservatives. Giving evidence to this Parliament's Finance and Constitution Committee last week, Professor Alan Page of Dundee University said, I have considerable doubts over whether the bill, as introduced, does constitute an effective solution to the challenge that the Scottish Parliament will face. We also heard evidence from the Law Society of Scotland on the bill, indicating that there are a huge number of issues with the original draft that required to be addressed before it will make good law. We heard SNP speaker after speaker in this debate saying that the devolution settlement must be respected. I think that there is a rich irony in those demands when you look at the way that the SNP Government is approaching this legislation. Firstly, we know that the Presiding Officer of this Parliament has ruled that this bill is beyond the Scottish Parliament's powers and that it is not competent for this Parliament to pass it, and yet that opinion has been ignored by the Scottish Government, the same party who continually demands that others respect the devolution settlement. Secondly, this is a bill being rushed through Parliament as emergency legislation. Despite the fact that there is no emergency, there is no requirement to have this bill on the statute boot within a matter of weeks when we are not due to leave the EU for another year. Indeed, by rushing through this bill, while the EU withdrawal bill is still subject to change at Westminster, we may find that the provisions passed in haste by this Parliament in this bill end up being incompatible with what is in the EU withdrawal bill, which may be subsequently changed, meaning that it has to come back to this Parliament for future amendment. We heard a number of points from Johann Lamont, Tavish Scott, Jamie Greene and others about the time provided for parliamentary scrutiny. There are some 231 amendments lodged to this bill that all have to be considered in a very short space of time by members of the Finance and Constitution Committee. Notwithstanding the greatest respect that I have for all my colleagues on that committee, that is no way to be treating a serious piece of legislation. Those of us who are used to stage 2 and stage 3 debates in this chamber will know that, when amendments are published, very often external bodies will engage with us, constituents will write to us and make a case to argue for or against particular amendments. The opportunity for that to be done in this vitally important piece of legislation has been lost because of the very short timescale of what it is being forced through. Whatever reservations the Scottish Conservatives may have about this bill, and there are many, we are not in the business of seeing this Parliament pass bad laws. That is why we have put down 147 amendments to this bill. I say to Mr Finlay in response to his tantrum earlier on in the debate. That is not about playing games, Mr Finlay. We are in the serious business in this Parliament of passing laws. That is why we are sent here by our constituents, and that is what we are paid to do. If Mr Finlay does not want to be in the business of passing laws, perhaps he needs to reconsider his career choices. Of course, Mr Finlay is Labour's Brexit spokesman. He is supposed to be providing front bench opposition from that position. What have Labour done on this bill under his guidance? They voted with the SNP for this to be emergency legislation. They voted for a timetabling motion to curtail debate, and they voted for this bill at stage 1. If that is providing opposition, Mr Finlay, I am a Dutchman. I will give way. Neil Findlay. Can I ask the Dutchman then? If his party had delivered on the promises that they gave to the UK Parliament and to this Parliament, we would not be in this position in the first place. It is your fault that we are in this position, Mr Fraser. Mr Finlay well knows that there has been an amendment lodged to the EU withdrawal bill at Westminster, but Mr Finlay's view of opposition is to keep supporting everything that the SNP front bench does, that it needs some lessons in how to deliver opposition. Briefly, I want to touch just on a number of amendments. Amendment 59, in my name, seeks to put a declaration on the face of the bill that any decisions made by the Supreme Court that all or any provisions of this act are out with the legislative competence of this Parliament must be complied with. I think that that is important, given the strong possibility of the Supreme Court ruling on the validity of this act. I have a number of amendments down, as others such as Tavish Scott and James Kenley do, to section 13, which contains extensive powers to Scottish ministers to continue to make regulations under the bill for a period of up to 15 years after the date of exiting the EU. That cannot be acceptable, and I look forward to hearing in the debate later how that can be reduced. In closing, I just want to make one more point, which I think is important. It was made in this debate by both Graham Simpson and Dean Lockhart, because, in relation to all those powers in question, all the powers in dispute between the UK Government and the Scottish Government, the SNP actually wants to see every last one of those powers retained in Brussels and not devolved at all. Indeed, if the SNP had their way, we would be re-entring the EU, and every single one of those powers that they are complaining about would be returned in their entirety to the EU and not exercised any closer to home. It is a UK Conservative Government delivering a powers bonanza to this Parliament under devolution. Powers that every single SNP member of this Parliament, with the honourable exception of Alec Neill, wants to return to Brussels at the first opportunity, and in so doing they are airbrushing from history the 38 per cent of the population who voted for Brexit. Over 1 million Scots, more than a third of SNP voters, are saying to them that they will send those powers back to Brussels. That is what the SNP would do. The whole bill is at best a waste of parliamentary time. It should be rejected by the Parliament, but, in the meantime, we will do what we can to try to improve it. Michael Russell, would you take us up to 5 o'clock, please? With pleasure, Presiding Officer. Can I start where I finished off last week in the stage 1 debate just by cautioning the chamber, particularly in the light of what we have just heard, to try to use language in a way that helps this debate and not hinders it? You cannot use the words forced through to describe a parliamentary process that has been taken place by debate with majorities on each occasion. I know that that is not a popular thing for the Conservatives, but that is true. Let me also welcome just one or two of the things that have been said by a number of people and indicate what I indicated at the beginning of this debate. We are listening very carefully to concerns that exist, for example, as Ross Greer has given on the sifting part. I entirely agree with Ross Greer that this is a question of balancing the requirements of this bill, which we did not wish to be involved in this Brexit process, with the maximum amount of parliamentary scrutiny. That is how I am going to approach all the amendments on this matter this evening, and I hope that we can have that debate and either resolve it this evening or create the circumstances in which we will resolve it when we come to stage 3. That is what we will endeavour to do. I say that that is how I am going into this evening, and that is how I am going into this evening, no matter the provocations. From what he says, I presume that he is moving towards setting up that sifting committee. I wonder if, like me, you would welcome Mr Greer's bouncing enthusiasm to sit in that sifting committee, should it be set up? Michael Russell? I am always welcome bouncing enthusiasm wherever I say it. I used to have bouncing enthusiasm myself, it seems a long time ago. That is what I used to have. There are ways to take this away. Mr Finlay does not believe me, but he has not known me as long as some other people in this chamber. The reality is that there may be other ways to do this, so there may be ways to expedite it more closely, but I am in agreement that we should endeavour to have that maximum scrutiny and let us try to find a way to do so. I would also like to recall something that Sandra White said in this debate, which is that there are 381 days until exit day. Even if there is a transition period, there is only likely to be less than two years beyond that, so there will be an urgency in getting those issues resolved. We have to balance that urgency with the issues of scrutiny, and we will endeavour to do so. I am sure that the whole chamber will endeavour to do so. That 381 days should concentrate our minds in the chaos and confusion of Brexit, which is being driven forward by the Conservatives. It is a black hole absorbing energy and money. We know from the chancellor's statement this afternoon that growth is collapsing. We know from the figures that the UK Government has produced that economic decline beckons us. In fact, the Tories know that to be true. There are very few original Brexiteers in those benches. We heard from Mr Simpson, who was one of them, whose views have not changed, but there are others who have been dragged in this position. I would ask them to pause for a second and consider what is in the interests of Scotland, not what is in the interests of the Conservative Party, because Scotland's democratic will was shown in the referendum and continues to be shown. Scotland does not want to be dragged out of Europe against this will. Therefore, the position that we have seen the Conservatives in this afternoon of endeavouring to ensure that the Tory interests in this come before Scotland's interests, we should question it. We should question it this evening when we consider each of the amendments and we should go on questioning it. At the heart of that is an issue that Mr Tomkins—no, I am sorry, I really have to make progress here—I shall mention the other in a moment, Mr Greene, do not worry. I have not forgotten your contribution. I wish I could. Mr Tomkins made a very key point. He talked about agreed not imposed, and why he was subject to the spectacle of Mr Swinney and I showing bouncing enthusiasm for intervening on him. It is a key issue. If his view had been taken on board by the UK Government, there would be no problem. We would not be having this, but it has not been taken on board. It was not taken on board in the original drafting of the bill, and it has not been taken on board in the revised or replaced clause. That is the issue—agreed not imposed. Mr Tomkins said it himself—agreed not imposed. Until the UK Government gets to that position, there can be no agreement. Mr Finlay chided me about getting round the table and getting an agreement. Round that table is not just the Scottish Government, the UK Government but the Welsh Government as well. I know his colleague, Professor Drakeford, whom I worked very closely with in the last year, and I will go round that table at any time with any request that comes in the UK Government in order to resolve that. We have been doing that, but we have been, as one on the issue, agreed not imposed. That is where we remain, with the unity of all the parties in this chamber and the unity of all the parties in the Welsh Parliament until we get to the stage of no return, where there had to be some movement on that. Otherwise, we would simply have been steamrolled, but we are still in the position—we are absolutely still in the position—that we could move to agreement. That bill has that within it. It has the capability within it, even if it has passed not to be implemented if we get to that stage. Now, there is one or two issues of detail that I just want to address. One of them comes from Professor Tomkins, who asserted absolutely ex-cathedra that section 33 of the continuity bill amending section 29 of the Scotland Act 1998 is, and I quote him, manifestly outwith competence. Well, no, it isn't. Section 1b of schedule 4 of the Scotland Act 1998 expressly allows spent provisions to be amended once Brexit happens. The reference to EU law is spent. Secondly, Alison Harris talked about one bill. That's what she wanted to see. Well, that's what we've been seeking. That's what we've been negotiating about. That's what we've sought. That's what we want—one bill. But it is one bill, agreed, not imposed. We'd be happy to have one bill if it was agreed, not imposed, to quote Professor Tomkins. Now to Jamie Greene. It's almost impossible to keep up with the misrepresentations of the legislation, but let me just deal with two of them. The bill has been hastily drafted. The bill is closely based on the UK bill. That UK bill has had numerous improvements because of the scrutiny of the bill in this place. We have responded to the scrutiny of the UK bill, and many of the provisions are identical. If you would wish to criticise the drafting, start with the UK. The second point is about parliamentary consent. All the powers under the bill require parliamentary scrutiny in the normal way. All require parliamentary approval. Those two points are simply wrong. They are not for interpretation. They are simply wrong. In addition, you then have to look at the points that Graham Simpson and Dean Lockhart made. None of the existing powers will be affected. We want, SNP wants, apparently, all powers to be held in Brussels. Neither is true. Neither is true. Mr Simpson was a Brexiteer, and I know that the Brexit campaign was full of things that have turned out not to be true, but those two remain untrue. The list is clear. Many key powers will be affected. For example, pillars 1 and 2 of cap. If Mr Simpson does not know that there are changes in the administration of common agricultural policy in Scotland, then he should know that. Similarly, we want all the powers to be held by Brussels. No, we don't. We want all the powers to be held by the Scottish people. That is what everybody in this chamber should want. That is what we are here for—popular sovereignty, not parliamentary sovereignty. I am not giving way. I have very few minutes left and a number of Tories still to contradict. Let me go on to Liam Kerr's contribution. I am sorry that he spent so much time in the Starbank hidden that his focus began to wobble a little because, quite clearly, he was not looking at the same bill as the one that is in front of me. In actual fact, the bill, as I have said, closely matches and, in places, exactly mirrors the withdrawal bill. If he is a difficulty with draftsmen, if he is a difficulty with defining things, then please refer it to them. However, some of the things, the two particular things that he raised, are also untrue. The word prospective is accurate. Prospective means that it has not happened yet, and Brexit has not happened yet. I defend the word prospective. The second one, in terms of definitions, is that he did not like the inability to define the word past. I refer him to section 27.2. That actually defines it. It is in the section, just to be helpful, called interpretation, which would know—I am sorry—that he can go back and tell the regulars of the Starbank hidden about this, but, as far as I am concerned, he has got it completely wrong. There is a tendency, of course, to try and talk down any legislation from this Government because it has been done in Scotland and to talk up legislation at Westminster. However, if he has a problem with this bill, then he should raise it with the Westminster draftsman. Finally, what we now see is that when we get to the detail of the fact, when we show that the assertions coming from the Tory benches are actually wrong, not interpretations, not just views but wrong, we hear hollow laughter. That is hollow laughter. The reality is that we have spent a lot of time this afternoon hearing things about this bill from the Tory benches that simply are not true. Now, there will be and are very strong attempts to make this bill better, coming from the Labour Party, coming from the Greens, coming from the Liberal Democrats and, just occasionally, coming from the Conservatives. I think that that is probably accidental, but there are little bits here and there that are going to improve this bill. At stages this evening, I will surprise one or two members. Their lucky evening will have come where I have said, you know, I think that that is a good idea and I think that the Scottish Government will support that. However, what we will not support is a situation in which the interests of Scotland and the legislation in Scotland are subordinated to the interests of the Tory party and keeping a Tory Government at Westminster. That will underwrite our laws not now, not ever. Now, finally, let me comment on the contribution from Richard Lockhead, which I thought was very significant this afternoon. Richard Lockhead has enormous experience, particularly in the key areas under examination this bill. He has, I think, been the longest-serving cabinet secretary in a single post since devolution alongside Mr Swinney. I think that the nine-year period in office was highly significant and I greatly enjoyed working with him, particularly with his environment minister. His analysis of reasons for the UK power grab was spot-on, except that it was too generous. It missed out a single item. What he said was, first of all, that he found many people he had worked with in Westminster to be hostile to devolution. Yes, they are. Secondly, he found many of them to be scared of any possible advantage that Scotland might have. Yes, they are. However, what has really shocked me over the past 18 months is the lack of knowledge of devolution, and the reality of the situation is that they simply do not know how it works. We will continue to endeavour to educate them on that matter. We will continue to work with them when we seek an agreement. However, I go back to the very beginning of this, Presiding Officer. We will do so on the basis of agreed not imposed. If Mr Tomkins meant that in what he said earlier, he will find people on the benches that he can work with, if he did not, there will be no agreement. Thank you very much. That concludes our pre-stage 2 debate on the UK withdrawal from the European Union legal continuity Scotland bill. Because we have moved members' business to accommodate, I should say, the finance committee, which will be meeting in this chamber at 5.45 to go through the stage 2 amendments. That concludes today's business, and I close this meeting.