 Ia Collin Michael Russell. John Swinney, thank you for the opportunity to make this statement. It is not typical for a minister to come to this chamber and tell members that they regret the introduction of legislation, but that is the situation in which I find myself today. I do regret that the Scottish Government now feels compelled to introduce the UK withdrawal from the European Union legal continuity Scotland bill. I regret it because it is about preparing for an event, the UK leaving the European Union, that I do not wish to happen, which is of course contrary to the wishes of the majority of the Scottish people, 62 per cent of whom voted to remain in the EU. I regret it because it never needed to come to this. Presiding Officer, it is important to set out how we have reached this situation and what the options are now before us. When the UK Government published its EU withdrawal bill in July last year, it was no surprise that its approach to devolution was careless and lacking in understanding. After all, since June 2016, the devolved institutions, including this Government and this Parliament, have been denied any meaningful input into the Brexit process, despite the clear and agreed terms of reference of the JMCEN of which I am a member. There was no consultation on the content of this bill prior to us seeing it in finished form two weeks before its publication. That was contrary to all good and established practice with bills that are going to require legislative consent from this Parliament. We would have been justified when the bill was published in walking away from such a burrach. Instead, and I pay tribute to all the parties in this Parliament, as a Parliament, we have put a great deal of time, resource and effort into trying to make it a workable piece of legislation to which we could all agree. Presiding Officer, no matter how much we oppose Brexit, a withdrawal bill is—we have always made this clear—a proper and necessary step. Our laws must be prepared for the day that the UK leaves the EU. If we did nothing, laws about matters such as agricultural support or the rules that ensure our high food standards would fall away entirely and many others would stop working the way they were intended. However, the bill, as drafted and which has now been passed by the House of Commons, despite amendments proposed by the Scottish and Welsh Governments and by the Opposition parties, allows Westminster to take control of devolved policy areas in order, according to the UK Government, to allow UK wide arrangements or frameworks to be put into place after Brexit. It is important to stress this fundamental point before addressing the detail. This whole debate is about the existing powers of this Parliament, powers in relation to policy areas such as farming, fishing, justice and the environment, for which this Parliament already has responsibility. The discussion about the way forward is therefore not an abstract or arcane one. It is first and foremost about protecting the devolution settlement that the people of Scotland voted for so decisively in 1997. However, it is also about the best way to run important national and local services, such as our health service, the best way to provide agricultural support such as less-favoured area payments, which are essential in Scotland but are not used in England, the best way to devise procurement roles that are tailored to Scottish need and Scottish business, and the best way to protect and enhance our particular environment, consisting, as it does, of large areas of coast and sea. At present in these islands, we have a unitary but not a uniform market. With the freedom to innovate, we have brought forward world-beating climate change legislation, are in the process of implementing minimum unit pricing for alcohol and have been able to tailor business support to specific business need. Of course, we have always been clear that we accept in principle the need for there to be UK wide frameworks on some matters. We have been working constructively with the UK and Wales to investigate those issues and to explore how such frameworks would work. The key priority for us, however, is to ensure that those are always in Scotland's interests, as this chamber would expect. Accordingly, what is covered by any UK frameworks, how they are governed and any consequent changes to the devolution settlement must only be made with the agreement of this Scottish Parliament. It is simply not acceptable for Westminster to unilaterally rewrite the devolution settlement and impose UK-wide frameworks in devolved areas without our consent. That is why we and the Welsh Government have been working so hard to ensure that the EU withdrawal bill both protects devolution but also does the job that it is supposed to do. Of course, Opposition to the EU withdrawal bill, as it is currently drafted, extends far beyond the Scottish and Welsh Governments. The Parliament's Finance and Constitution Committee concluded unanimously that clause 11, which constrains devolved powers, was incompatible with the devolution settlement, and that the clause was not necessary to enable the agreement of common frameworks. In the House of Lords, the former head of the UK civil service called the treatment of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the bill, indefensible. Lord Hope, former Deputy President of the Supreme Court and the convener of the crossbench peers, even described the bill's approach to devolution as having a touch of cromwell about it. He has also retabled the joint Scottish and Welsh Government amendments for consideration during the Lord's stages of the bill. The Scottish Parliament's First Presiding Officer, Lord Steel, described how the bill threatened Scotland's stable and sensible form of government. Faced with such an array of views from all parties, the UK Government did accept that the bill must change. Regretably, despite its promise, it has failed to bring forward an amendment in the House of Commons, though last week it finally put a proposal on the table for the Lords. However, this new amendment to the bill would still allow the UK Government to restrict the Scottish Parliament's powers unilaterally through an order made in the UK Parliament without requiring the consent of either the Scottish Parliament or the Government. Under the latest proposition set out publicly by David Lidington yesterday, the UK Government would decide whether the Scottish Parliament's powers in relation to any area currently covered by EU law should be constrained or not. As a result, this new proposal remains unacceptable to both the Scottish and the Welsh Governments. UK ministers insist that we have nothing to worry about, because they will consult the devolved Administrations before deciding whether to constrain the powers of this Parliament. The track record on consultation is not encouraging. The UK Government has failed to meet similar commitments to Scotland in relation to the whole Brexit process. It is impossible to take seriously the UK Government's argument that it needs to constrain the powers of this Parliament for economic reasons. It is frankly risible that UK ministers pursuing an economically disastrous hard Brexit say that they must reserve the right to impose UK-wide frameworks in devolved areas for reasons of economic stability. Despite all that, there remains a basis on which to reach agreement. The Scottish Government remains committed to that objective. The Scottish and Welsh Governments will be meeting UK ministers next week to continue to discuss the changes that must be made. We will suggest amendments to the UK Government's proposals that would make it work with, not against, devolution. However, as a Government, we recognise the reality of the position that we find ourselves in. If there is not a change in position by the UK Government, we will be faced with legislation to which we cannot recommend that this Parliament gives consent. In that situation, we believe that the constitutional correct position, consistent with the devolution settlement, will be for the UK Government to remove those matters not consented to from this bill and for this Parliament to make its own provision in that regard. That is why we believe that it is incumbent on the Scottish Government to provide an alternative means of ensuring for areas of policy within the competence of this Parliament legal certainty and continuity in the event that the UK does leave the European Union. That is what the continuity bill that we have introduced today does. Similar steps have been taken by the Welsh Government, which published its own very similar continuity bill earlier today. My Welsh counterpart Mark Drakeford has just made a statement to the National Assembly of Wales setting out his Government's proposals. The continuity bill will, if passed, retain our EU-derived law and give the Government and Parliament the powers that they need to keep those laws operating. It will assert this Parliament's right to prepare our own statute book so that the same rules and laws will apply as far as possible after withdrawal. It has been introduced today to ensure that it can be put in place prior to the final passage of the EU withdrawal bill. That is essential if this Parliament decides not to give the Westminster bill legislative consent. The Minister for Parliamentary Business has accordingly written to you, Presiding Officer, proposing an emergency timetable that will be put to the bureau on which I hope that the Parliament will agree to later this week. That timetable proposes that all stages of the bill take place in plenary session, enabling all MSPs to participate. Members will also be able, if their committees so choose, to take evidence on the bill and I will make myself available to any such committee at any time. The period of scrutiny will be shorter than normal, but there needs to be intense examination of the proposals and the Scottish Government will do everything that it can to enable that. The continuity bill is contingency planning. It provides a sensible scheme for preparing devolved law for EU withdrawal, but if the EU withdrawal bill can be agreed and if this Parliament consents to it, the continuity bill will be withdrawn. Even if the continuity bill is passed by this Parliament, it contains provisions for its own repeal. If a deal can be reached with the UK Government, we would be able to come to Parliament with a proposal to give consent to the EU withdrawal bill and repeal this one. Finally, let me turn to your statement on the bill's legislative competence. The chamber will, I am sure, wish to know that the Presiding Officer has said that, in his view, the provisions of this bill are outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. He is entitled to that view, but we respectfully disagree. Indeed, I understand that the Welsh Presiding Officer has reached a different view to the Scottish Parliament and has issued a certificate of legislative competence. The Scottish ministers are satisfied that it is within the powers of the Parliament to prepare for the devolved legislative consequences of the decision by the UK to leave the EU. We do not agree with the Presiding Officer's view that it is incompatible with EU law to legislate in anticipation of what is to happen when EU law no longer applies. EU law itself envisages that a member state may withdraw from the EU in an orderly manner conducive to legal clarity and certainty. Under the Scotland Act, we can only introduce bills into Parliament when we are so satisfied. For this bill, the Deputy First Minister has made a statement to that effect. As the ministerial code makes clear, any such statement must have been cleared with the law officers. I can confirm, and the ministerial code allows me to confirm, that the Lord Advocate is satisfied that the bill is within the legislative competence of the Parliament. Accordingly, the Lord Advocate will be providing a written statement to that effect later today. Subject to Parliament's agreement, he will make an oral statement in this chamber on this bill tomorrow and be open to questions on it. To be clear about what that means, the Presiding Officer's statement on legislative competence does not, in any circumstance, prevent the Scottish Government from introducing or progressing any bill. By triggering article 50, the UK Government has put the UK on a path that leads out of the European Union. As I have set out, we have a duty to protect and preserve those areas of EU law that are within the responsibility of this Parliament. If we do not make those preparations now and we cannot agree to the withdrawal bill, we would have to wait until we have already left. EU law has stopped applying in Scotland before this Parliament took any necessary precautions. That would be an unacceptable basis on which to invite Parliament to do essential preparation. Article 50 has been triggered. Without a drastic change of circumstances, which of course many of us still hope for, regrettably it is more than likely that the UK is leaving the EU. This bill is a necessary response to that fact. We recognise that the bill is novel, but we should not be surprised that an event like EU withdrawal is giving rise to novel legal situations. This is the first time, since the reconvening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, that the Government has introduced a bill when the presiding officer has not been satisfied as the legislative competence. We recognise that, we are mindful of what a serious moment it is. However, the fundamental point cannot be escaped. This issue is too important for it to be either my decision or that of the presiding officer whether this bill is passed. All of us in this chamber have a duty to debate this issue over the coming weeks. All MSPs can listen to the arguments and then collectively we can all decide if this bill should become law. It will be a decision not of the Scottish Government but of this, our national Parliament, and that is how it should be. That is why we are bringing forward this bill. Presiding Officer, I began this statement by saying that I regretted having to introduce this bill and I still believe so. I regret what appears to be the unfolding disaster of Brexit. In my active front-line political life, which has lasted for more than 30 years, I have never known a time of greater instability nor a time in which it has been harder to predict what lies ahead. However, the core issue for this Parliament is simple. Our primary duty is to serve the people of Scotland and to protect their interests. It is our obligation, indeed it is our duty, to protect the devolution settlement that the people of Scotland voted for. That is what we are endeavouring to do despite all the difficulties. I welcome the cross-party agreement that has been on that substantial point. I hope that it can continue, despite the pressures on it. It is in that spirit that I make this statement to Parliament today. The Minister for Local Government, Adam Tomkins I thank the minister for early sight of his statement and Mr Finlay for even earlier sight of what it was likely to be in it. In the Scottish Conservatives view, this bill is both unwelcome and unnecessary, but I want to start with where we agree. We all agree that withdrawal from the European Union will require a significant rewriting of large parts of our statute book. We all agree that the EU withdrawal bill, which undertakes this task, is deficient and requires to be amended to bring it into line with devolution in the United Kingdom. We also, all of us, have welcomed what, until now, has been the constructive and mature approach adopted by both the Scottish and the United Kingdom Governments in the negotiations to fix the withdrawal bill so that it is fit for purpose. A fix is within reach. Both Governments have compromised and have indicated that agreement is close, not there yet but close. This is the climate of constructive serious engagement in which the SNP now introduces a continuity bill. This is the reason why we on these benches consider its introduction today to be both unwelcome and unnecessary. In that light, let me ask the minister the following specific questions. First, what reassurance can he give the chamber that his Government's continuity bill will help and will not hinder the speedy resolution of the negotiations with the UK Government on amending the withdrawal bill? Second, what can he say about the way in which the SNP has shared its proposals for a continuity bill with the UK Government? Or, indeed, with opposition parties—although perhaps I should ask that question to Mr Finlay—in advance of publication? Mr Russell repeated in his statement a few minutes ago his familiar complaint that the UK Government did not consult him on the withdrawal bill. In evidence to the Finance Committee, Mr Russell told me that he would share the continuity bill with UK ministers in advance of its publication. Did he, or is that another broken promise? The continuity bill is plainly a constitutional matter. When legislating on the constitution, if indeed it is within our legal competence to do that at all, we should proceed carefully and not in haste. Yet this bill is to be fast-tracked. How can the minister think that fast-tracking constitutional legislation through this Parliament is an appropriate way to proceed? Can I thank Adam Tomkins for those questions? Let me give him the positive answer first of all. I can give him a reassurance that we will continue to work to seek a resolution with the UK Government. However, we are in a position, as the Welsh Government is in a position, where, if we do not take this contingency step today, it will be too late to take it. I think that we should be commended for our restraint in holding off so long because we have held off because we have endeavoured to get a resolution. However, the clock is ticking and we now have to introduce this if we would have any prospect of putting this in a way and in a timescale that is complementary to those parts of the EU withdrawal bill at Westminster, which will relate to reserve matters. This is how it will operate. If this bill is passed and if this bill comes into operation as given Royal Assent, it will deal with domestic issues, devolved issues and the UK bill will deal with reserved issues. That is why the bill is constructed in the way it is so that it can fit in neatly to those concerns. We are now at the stage that we have to do that. Therefore, whilst I accept that we should take our time in so doing, we also have to get this in place so that those two things can move together. That is what we are endeavouring to do. In terms of sharing its proposals, I have to accept that trust is at a low ebb between ourselves and the UK. If you doubted that, you should have read the speech by David Lidington on Monday and the press coverage over the weekend. I find going to the JMC on Thursday and being assured of the goodwill of the UK Government and then being denounced on the front pages of the telegraph and the speech on Monday to be perhaps not a trusting relationship. I am glad to say that a copy of this bill is now in David Lidington's hands. Perhaps he will consider whether the next best stage is to have a conversation about the small but significant gap that still exists in terms of negotiation, not just between myself and him but between the Welsh Government and him as well. That is the issue that I have indicated here of agreement. We cannot simply be consulted on our powers. We have to agree or consent to the changes that are being proposed. That is a small matter. I would urge Mr Tomkins to urge his colleagues in the Tory party to make that small step. Neil Findlay. I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement and for my apologies for my appalling keyboard skills, Mia Culpa. The Government's handling of the whole Brexit process has been shambolic from the beginning. The latest development lies squarely with the failure of David Mandel and Ruth Davidson, Scottish Tory leader, to deliver on commitments given to resolve issues around the devolution of powers coming from the EU. Mr Mandel and Ms Davidson gave clear commitments that outstanding issues around the transfer of powers would be resolved in the House of Commons and then whipped every single Scottish Tory MP to vote against Labour's amendment that would have delivered exactly that. Failure to resolve those matters in the Lords and David Lidington's wholly unhelpful speech yesterday have simply exacerbated the situation, playing into the hands of the SNP for whom Brexit becomes another ploy in their political strategy. Scottish Labour delivered on the devolution demands of the Scottish people and we will defend any attempts to undermine them from wherever they come. Given that we have only just had sight of the Presiding Officer's statement, I have serious concern that we have a Welsh Government able to present a competent bill to the Assembly, but that is not the situation here. We want to find a workable solution to this situation, so will the cabinet secretary agree urgent cross-party talks that will bring in the Presiding Officer and Government and parliamentary legal officers to try to find a way through this? If the Presiding Officer cannot sign off this, what precedent does it set if the Government proceeds? The cabinet secretary says that he can introduce the bill but what happens thereafter? How does the Government seek to ensure full parliamentary scrutiny takes place within such a truncated timescale and what background work has been done to date on the practicalities not just of the bill itself but the huge amount of work that would have to be done thereafter? What additional budget would be required to ensure that the Scottish Government has the personnel and capacity to deal with the consequences of passing such a bill? Scottish Labour supports the objective of the Scottish and Welsh Governments, but we want to ensure that proper parliamentary scrutiny takes place and that this situation is not exploited by parties for their own narrow party political advantage. The only moment that I have ever felt that perhaps the changes that I brought in as education secretary to the college system were a little more radical than I expected, where the failure of Neil Findlay to do a keyboard course would allow him to send emails in a competent fashion. However, there are many such courses and I am sure that we will find a college to give him one. Let me address Neil Findlay's concerns insofar as I can. The Lord Advocate will be issuing a statement this afternoon and will be available for questioning in his chamber tomorrow. I hope that the questions that Neil Findlay has in terms of some of the legal issues can be resolved in that way. I am quite willing to sit down at any time to discuss cross-party the issues of this bill. That would be a question of whether the Presiding Officer and others wishes to do so. However, I think that we are where we are. There has been a statement from the Presiding Officer. This has been issued this afternoon. We are also in a position, as I have indicated, and I have here some information that has come to hand in the last few minutes on the summary of legislative competence issues from the Welsh Presiding Officer, which I am happy to provide to Neil Findlay. There clearly is a difference of opinion here. The way to test that difference of opinion now is to move forward with the bill as we are allowed to do so and for the chamber to consider passing that bill. It is, as Mr Findlay knows and I have explained to him, a matter of timescale in terms of having to make sure that this bill is through before the EU withdrawal bill is through and that the two are complementary with each other. We do not have a great deal of flexibility, and that is why we have tried to ensure that the whole chamber is engaged in this process and the committees of the Parliament. I believe that there may be a lead and subsidiary committee, but if other committees, I am sure, wish to examine the position that I am putting forward or other ministers putting forward, they would be welcome to do so. We will work as hard as we can with all the parties across the chamber to take forward this issue, to outline the issues and to make sure that we are answering the questions. I hope that those questions will continue to come from Labour, from the Tories and the Greens and the Liberals, and we will do our best to go forward together as a Parliament. Patrick Harvie, to be full by Tavish Scott. The introduction of the bill is an absolutely necessary response to the Brexit crisis and to its incompetent mishandling by a UK Government. Members of this Parliament know very well that the UK Government is already eyeing up the opportunities that they see from deregulating, from breaking the promises that they have made on our social and environmental protections, a great many of which fall within the competence of this Parliament, not the UK Parliament in terms of Scottish matters. It falls to the responsibility of this Government and our Parliament as a whole to make sure that we stand up against that power grab. I would say, unlike Mr Russell, that the gap between what the UK Government is offering and what should be acceptable is not a small one. It requires major change from the UK Government. I am pleased that we are going to see more than the minimum level of emergency legislation and scrutiny. The first time that it was suggested that emergency legislation might be used, the minimum scrutiny necessary would have been wildly inadequate. We are now going to see nearly a month between introduction and stage 3, and that must give us all the opportunity in this chamber and in our committees to consider the implications and the contents of this bill, because that should be about parliamentary control, not Government control. In that context, will the minister tell us what he means when he says, if the EU withdrawal bill can be agreed and if Parliament consents to it, the continuity bill will be withdrawn? Will he commit to us that the continuity bill will not be withdrawn without this Parliament's prior agreement to it's withdrawal? We should not be left in a position where it's consent to the EU withdrawal bill or nothing. I will make that commitment. Only up until stage 1 could the Government withdraw the bill without consent. Thereafter, it will require the consent of the chamber. I will make that commitment. I am grateful for Mr Harvey's points. I think that many of them I would agree with, but I want to make an additional point that might be helpful to him. In the drafting of the bill, we have had to mirror the EU withdrawal bill as closely as possible to make it and the UK bill fit together. However, there are one or two differences. One of them I know will be something that Mr Harvey will very much approve of, which is to reintroduce the Charter of Fundamental Rights. That will be in the Scottish bill—indeed, copies of the Scottish bill have been made available, I think, a few moments ago so that people have it. There are some things that we could do in this bill that would certainly improve on the current situation. We are, of course, open to others within the necessity to meet the timescale that we have. David Scott will be followed by John McAlpine. I thank the minister, too, for the courtesy of early sight of his statement. It is certainly unfortunate that the Governments of the UK have not agreed that this is not good. This is a sensitive and delicate process that strikes the heart of the Government not just here in Scotland but the entire UK. It is also not satisfactory that we have no legal agreement on this continuity bill. The Scottish Government, I am sure, will wish to expand on the legal basis for its position. Will the Government ensure that, in addition to the Lord Advocate's statement tomorrow, there will be further opportunities for MSPs to fully scrutinise the Lord Advocate's opinion? Given what he said earlier about meetings next week, what does he expect from those meetings, given the introduction of the continuity bill today? I cannot speak for the Lord Advocate, but I am quite sure that he will want to make sure that he has a continued dialogue and will be available to have that dialogue. He will be open to question tomorrow, and I am quite sure that his statement later today will begin to lay out the basis of his opinion. In terms of what I expect to take place next week, I note that the UK Government is likely to publish its own amendment to the UK withdrawal bill without agreement from the devolved Administrations on or around 12 March, we believe, now. I think that that is an action that I am not going to criticise. I hope that they will criticise our action in producing the continuity bill, because we are all taking the steps that we need to take, given that there may not be an agreement. I hope that that does not distract from the process of trying to get an agreement, but we must be conscious of the fact that we must put in place contingencies. If they are putting in place a contingency of an amendment to the UK withdrawal bill that neither Wales or Scotland has agreed—that is the situation—we are more than entitled to publish our own and move forward in our own continuity bills, but we must recognise that dialogue is necessary to continue. That is where we are. My statements made that clear. I made that clear to Mr Tomkins and I am making it clear to Mr Scott. We will continue to have discussions and we will endeavour to do that next week. We are seeking at the present moment the right time to do that next week. The minister has just explained that the EU charter of fundamental rights will be included in the continuity bill when it is excluded from the UK's EU withdrawal bill. Can I welcome that? Could the minister give more details on how including the charter in the Scottish bill will help, for example, victims of discrimination and others whose rights are affected post Brexit? Minister, the UK Government believes and has said that its view is that those protections afforded by the EU charter of fundamental rights are already guaranteed within existing UK law. Many people do not believe that to be true and many people believe that many of the rights given in the charter will be diminished or eroded as a result of its removal. I tend towards that view and therefore I want to see the charter maintained. There are many things that the charter does in terms of stating rights that are useful and helpful to individual citizens in many circumstances. I think that lots of us have considerable fears about the possibility of substantial erosion of human and workplace and other rights as a result of leaving the EU. I have to reassurance this to the contrary by Michael Gove who does not make me feel a great deal better. I think that it is better to have a belt and braces approach and having the charter of fundamental rights in this bill is the right thing to do. I am sure that the Lord Advocate will be happy to expand on how that is to be done. He will now have a copy of the bill and he will be able to see the intentions in drafting and I am sure that he will want to answer questions on that. Jackson Carlawd, followed by Bruce Crawford. Since the minister first brought this issue to the chamber in September, we have been working with him and others to seek to find a way forward that will allow both Governments to agree. Can he confirm that it is the Government's preferred option and not just an option but the Government's preferred option that they continue to work with others to secure an agreement that would allow the Government to recommend the acceptance of an LCM by this Parliament and to thereafter withdraw any bill that is being progressed? Very simply, yes. That is the preferred option. I take Mr Harvey's point that the consent of the chamber will be required to withdraw the bill. However, yes, that is the preferred option. That is what I said in my statement and that is what I continue to say. Bruce Crawford, followed by Clare Baker. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can the minister confirm that in his statement he said that the new proposals from the UK Government to amend the EU withdrawal bill included a provision to consult the devolved Administrations before any devolved powers were constrained? Can he also confirm today that the Scottish Government will never recommend consent to a bill that gives the UK Government the unilateral right to grab whatever powers it chooses in the areas of EU law? Will the minister also agree with me that he either agrees with the principles of devolutions that were established after the referendum in 1997, or he does not? There is no middle road, there is no third way and there is no fudge in regard to protecting the powers of the Scottish Parliament, as well as the interests of the Scottish people? I have always found it virtually impossible to disagree with Bruce Crawford on this occasion that he could not put the proverbial cigarette paper between us on that issue. There is no question of us agreeing to any diminution of the Parliament's powers. I want to say that I had it put very forcibly the same point by Mark Drakeford at the GMC last week. We made it clear that he could not envisage circumstances in which the First Minister of Wales went to the National Assembly of Wales and told the National Assembly that powers that they had had since the start of devolution were to be taken away unilaterally and that they had been a consultation. They had said that they did not want them taken away but that they were going to be taken away anyway. I cannot imagine the First Minister of Scotland agreeing to that. In fact, I know that she would not. Clare Baker, to be followed by Mary Gougeon. Thank you. I share the minister's preference for an agreement with the UK Government for an amendment to the withdrawal bill that protects the devolution settlement. Given the rule in from the P.O. contradicts the Lord Advocate, the alternative that we are faced with is not straightforward. Next week, Scottish and Welsh Governments meet with the UK ministers to discuss amendments, while the Parliament's focus will be on the passage of this bill. How will the Parliament be informed of the debate and the detail around the amendments while we are focusing on the legislation that has been introduced? I think that it will be possible for us to look both ways to focus very much on ensuring that we take this issue forward, because the encompassing issue is the same issue. The encompassing issue is a necessity to have arrangements in place for that infinitely regrettable moment, which the UK Government seemed hell-bent on achieving, which is to leave the EU, which is beyond all common sense or reason. However, we are focused on that and having our law in a suitable state for that moment. It is possible for us to have a twin-track approach to that to try and find a way to do so, because the outcome in the end has to be the same. We have to have the statute book in that right way in order to do that. In order to get the statute book in the right way, we can either have a legislative consent motion so that the UK bill covers both devolved and reserved matters, or we can have two bits of legislation, one of which deals with devolved and one of which deals with reserved. That is the choice. That is what we are trying to work our way towards and in the end that is the decision that will have to be made. I note the comments from Welsh First Minister Carwyn Jones today about protecting devolution. Can the minister outline how he intends to work with other devolved administrations to ensure that the powers that already lie in Cardiff and Holyrood are not diminished? We have been working very closely with the Welsh Government and I want to give my thanks to Carwyn Jones and to Mark Drakeford in particular for the very close relationship that has built up Mark and I have spent a very considerable amount of time in quite a lot of different places over the last year or so trying to take these issues forward and we will continue to do so. It is a matter of great regret that there is no Parliament or Assembly in Northern Ireland at the present time where I think the voice that we should be hearing from Northern Ireland is a voice that would be significant in this debate. Now there would be a difference of opinion there but at the very start of the JMCEN process of Northern Irish members were Martin McGinnis and Arlene Foster. There was a balanced view coming from those two people and they were contributing very importantly to the proceedings of the JMCEN. That came to an end after the collapse of the administration as a result of which only civil servants have been present at the JMCEN from that side of the house and it has not been the same. It would be great to have the Northern Ireland Government back and that would provide a significant input but we will continue to work very strongly with Wales and our interests in those matters are identical. We cannot accept a diminution of devolution and we will not accept the diminution of devolution. Donald Cameron, to be followed by Richard Lochhead. We have heard a lot in recent months from all quarters about the need to respect the devolution settlement, a sentiment that Scottish Conservatives fully endorse. How can the minister be satisfied that the continuity bill that he proposes today respects that settlement, not least in light of the Presiding Officer's statement that the bill is outwith the legislative competence of this Parliament? I hesitate to ban the legal opinion with an advocate who is far better qualified to argue this case than I am, but I have to say that I call in my defence the Lord Advocate who may slightly trump Mr Cameron. In that sense, I use the word trump in the old sense, not in the new sense, I have to say. I would never suggest that. Therefore, this is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable step to take. Indeed, I note in the Presiding Officer's opinion that he accepts that this is a perfectly reasonable and legitimate step to take, which is to say that there is a genuine difference of opinion. The difference of opinion lies between the Lord Advocate's view and the Presiding Officer's view, and the Welsh Presiding Officer has taken a view much more in accordance with the Lord Advocate's view. In those circumstances, there is absolutely nothing wrong with moving in this way. Indeed, as I have tried to indicate in my statement, it is the right thing to do democratically because it allows this chamber to make the decision. There are one or two Tory members who are muttering about the prospect of this chamber making the decision, but I would seem, unless you do not like basic democracy, that that is something that is worth doing. Therefore, those ideas will be put to the test and we will have a vigorous debate, I am sure of it, stage 1, stage 2 and stage 3, and I look forward to it. Richard Lochhead, to be followed by Daniel Johnson. Given that the current Conservative UK Government posed the biggest threat to Scottish devolution since this Parliament was reconvened in 1999 and given the enormity of the issues at stake for Scotland and our economy, I offer my support to the minister's proposal to bring the continuity bill to Parliament, but I also ask him to pay attention to negotiations across the Irish Sea because I know that, on the one hand, he will want to support the Good Friday agreement and the spirit of that agreement, but on the other hand, pay close attention to whether the UK Government is willing to give special trade arrangements to the Republic of Ireland that could place the Scottish economy at a competitive disadvantage if we are not given a deal in terms of market access to the European market. I certainly think that the issue of Ireland in the Irish border is not only vitally important but will loom very large in our considerations this week. As ever, Brexit is a fast-moving issue, but this week we have had David Liddington and Jeremy Corbyn on Monday and, whilst one speech was deeply unacceptable, the other one I think was moving in the right direction, as I have said publicly. We have a variety of things happening today, including the introduction of the continuity bills in Wales and Scotland. Tomorrow, we will have the draft legal text coming from the EU, which will deal with the Northern Irish situation among others. I suspect that that will be a very problematic moment for the UK Government in particular, particularly if you believe that the Northern Irish border is akin to that between Camden and Islington or Camden and Westminster, which is such a mind bogglingly stupid thing to have said, that it is impossible to believe that a UK foreign secretary actually said it. However, the reality of the situation is that that is an issue that will arise tomorrow. Towards the end of the week, we have the Prime Minister, who is apparently making a speech about her ideas for the next stage of the EU negotiating process. As those ideas appear to be based upon a set of proposals that the EU has already rejected, that may also lead to some interesting conclusions. We will continue to take forward what we believe is correct in this very sensitive and difficult time, but, of course, we support a peaceful resolution of the situation in Northern Ireland, a resolution that supports a Good Friday agreement, a resolution that does not also create circumstances in which Scotland would be actively disadvantaged. We say that not for pro-forma reasons, but because that has to be true in terms of how we work with others. There are five more members who still wish to ask a question. I am conscious of time, but, with the Minister and the member's assistance—in other words, brevity—we will try to get them all in. Daniel Johnson, to be followed by Christina McKelvie. The continuity bill is clearly no ordinary Government bill. It is being brought forward by the Government, but it seeks to protect the interests of this Parliament. Therefore, I am sure that the minister will agree with me that maintaining cross-party confidence in it is vital. In that context, given the decision by the Presiding Officer regarding competence, will the minister commit to a formal cross-party body, like those that we have established in the chamber, such as the Bureau and the Corporate Body, to manage and oversee the passage of this bill, rather than it being the purview of a particular minister or, indeed, the Government? No, I think that that is an impractical solution, because I cannot imagine what that would be and the time that it would take to set it up. The bureau and the other institutions are established by law—they are part of the Scotland Act. I do not think that that is a practical solution, but I have—and I do not want to be difficult—indicated my answer to Neil Finlay, and I will indicate my answer to Daniel Johnson, too. I am keen for cross-party discussion and work to continue, and I am happy that that is as broad and as deep as other members wish it to be. I am happy to make sure that we are endeavouring to work as a Parliament to make sure that that is taken forward. However, that is a Government bill. The law also requires a definition of bills, if I seem to remember from my days on the Bureau, to be other Government bills or other bills. If this is a Government bill, I think that it will be a bit late to change horses in midstream on that. However, in those circumstances, we will work closely with other MSPs and other parties, and I want to do so, and I put that on record. Christina McKelvie, to be followed by Ivan McKee. Can the minister confirm that what is at issue in this dispute over the EU withdrawal bill is what happens to the existing powers of this Parliament? Not, as has been suggested by others, and new powers. Bonanza is about the powers of this place. Absolutely. I used the word in my statement that the existing powers—Christina McKelvie is absolutely correct—is not about additional powers. It is not about new powers. It is about the powers that we have, and which would be very much undermined by the process that the UK Government is going through. We are talking about defending the existing powers of this Parliament. That should, in light of the question from Daniel Johnson particularly, unite all of us and find a way to work together to do that. Ivan McKee, to be followed by Neil Bibby. Does the minister agree with me that, as ridiculous for the UK Government to say that risks to economic stability are a reason to override the devolution settlement, given the huge damage that their own secret analysis shows will be done to Scotland's economy by the hard Brexit that they are pursuing? Minister, I do, but I would just add that the real issue in here in terms of what is at risk is that an attempt by the UK Government to present something as existing which does not exist. There is no single market in the UK, as it has presented. There is a uniform market—we do all trade together—but we have different arrangements when those are required and when the powers of this Parliament or the powers of the Welsh Assembly make it necessary to do so. Minimum unit pricing is a really classic example of that. Therefore, we should recognise that this is not unitary but uniform and we should work accordingly. Neil Bibby, to be followed by Alex Neil. The minister will be aware that Professor Allan Page of the University of Dundee has suggested that so-called standstill provision with the UK Government and devolved administrations agree not to exercise powers in the absence of a common framework may offer a temporary solution to clause 11. In light of those latest developments, has the minister given any further consideration to Professor Page's suggestion of standstill provisions? Does the minister now consider them a problematic alternative to clause 11 that could potentially negate the need for a continuity bill? I am familiar with Professor Page's proposal. I think that he himself was going a little cold on it subsequently because there are some substantial problems in standstill proposal. That type of voluntary restriction upon the powers of Parliament would only work if everybody was working together. We have seen no indication that the UK Government would do so. Indeed, in terms of our powers, we would also have to say what happens when we need to exercise those powers. For example, when you are dealing with certain agricultural issues or an outbreak of agricultural disease, I think that standstill seems an attractive idea. Just as sunsetting seemed an attractive idea, but there are some very substantial difficulties with it. I very briefly talked to Professor Page about it. I would always be happy to do so again, but I think that it is not as realistic an option as appeared to be when it was first suggested. In evidence to the Finance and Constitution Committee, I think that he gave some evidence to the committee. Very much indeed, Presiding Officer. Given the Lord Advocate's very welcome ruling, will the minister give a guarantee that if the UK Government or any other body mounts a challenge to the legality of the bill in the courts, that the Scottish Government will fight any such challenge tooth and nail to ensure that we can pass this legislation legitimately? I do not think that I should commit the Scottish Government to legal action, nor should I commit the Lord Advocate, but it stands to me that the type of question that the Lord Advocate would be well placed to answer tomorrow. However, I cannot imagine the position that we have taken weakening in any way, and therefore you can draw your own inference from that. Thank you. That concludes our statement and questions. Point of order, Mike Rumbles. Order under rule 9.21 of our standing orders, entitled emergency bills. In the statement just now, the minister stated that the Minister for Parliamentary Business has written to you proposing an emergency timetable for this bill, which will be put to the bureau. He also said that the shortened timetable proposes that all stages of the bill take place in plein recession. Nowhere in the statement, nor in the question and answer session, did the minister say that this bill is to be considered as an emergency bill under rule 9.21. Rule 9.214 states that the requirements in rules 9.53A to 9.53C as to minimum periods that must elaps between stages of a bill shall not apply. However, this only applies to an emergency bill. Otherwise, rule 9.53A states that the minimum period that must elaps between the day on which stage 1 is completed and the day on which stage 2 starts as 12 sitting days and rule 9.53B states that there should be 10 sitting days between stages 2 and 3. This is important for the proper scrutiny of legislation because the convention that we have established in this Parliament is that an emergency bill has all party support. An emergency bill has never been taken forward by any Government without all party support and indeed we are in new territory here as we all accept, as for the first time you have certified that this Government bill is not within the legislative competence of our Parliament. I am looking to you for guidance from you as to whether or not this is an emergency bill and a shortened timetable can be used providing that there is all party support or whether this is not an emergency bill and the rules and conventions that we have here for proper scrutiny should be adhered to. I seek genuinely your guidance. I thank Mr Humble for his point of advance notice and I can confirm that until the Parliament decides that it is an emergency bill, it is not an emergency bill. However, I would first point out that under rule 9.21 any member of the Scottish Government or junior Scottish Minister may propose that a Government bill be treated as an emergency bill. I can also confirm that the Minister for Parliament, Mr FitzPatrick, has already written to me this afternoon asking for a meeting of the bureau and I have agreed and called the meeting of the parliamentary bureau for after decision time this evening so that we can decide that this matter this evening. It will then be up, following the decision of the bureau, that proposal will be put to the Parliament and it will be up to the Parliament, up to you, all of you as members to decide whether or not to treat this as an emergency bill. I can suggest also for that point that it does not require a unanimous decision. Before we come to decision time, the next item of business is consideration of a business motion 10729 in the name of Joe FitzPatrick on behalf of the bureau setting out a revised business programme for tomorrow. I would ask any member who objects to say so now. I will call on Joe FitzPatrick to move motion 10729. No one has asked to speak against it, therefore the question is that we agree motion 10729. Are we all agreed? We are agreed and we come now to decision time. The first question is that amendment 10652.1 in the name of Miles Briggs, which seeks to amend motion 10652 in the name of Aileen Campbell on developing a Scottish healthy weight strategy, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that amendment 10652.3 in the name of David Stewart, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Aileen Campbell, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The final question is that motion 10652 in the name of Aileen Campbell, as amended on developing a Scottish healthy weight strategy, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed and that concludes decision time. We will move now to members' business. The name of Rachel Hamilton. We will just take a few moments for members and the ministers to change seats.