 Gwneud fawr i gael'r prifysgol i ysgolion y Llyfrgell Unigol Cymru. Rwy'n gweithio â'r Lapswr, rwy'n gydag i'w mwyaf Emma Harper y happy birthday. Mae'n fawr i'w ddifennychu o'r birthday. Rwy'n gweithio i fynd bod yn hynny, ac rwy'n gweithio i'w gweithio'r cake lefydau o'r tynnu i gydag yn y pethau. I call amendment 175, in the name of Adam Tompkins, grouped with other amendments as shown in the groupings. Members will note from the groupings that there are a number of pre-emptions in this group, and I will remind members of a pre-emption when I call the relevant amendment. Adam Tompkins, to move amendment 175 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I move amendment 175 in my name. The effect of amendment 175 is simply to improve the quantity and quality of parliamentary oversight of regulations to be made under some of the key provisions of this legislation, namely sections 11, 12 and 13, which have already been debated. As currently drafted, section 14 subsection 1 requires that some, but not all, regulations made under sections 11, 12 and 13, 1 will be subject to the affirmative procedure, and my amendment simply deletes the condition so that all regulations to be made under section 11, 12 and 13, 1 would be subject to the affirmative procedure. It is a simple amendment, and there is nothing more to say about it. I move. Thank you, Jamie Greene, to speak to amendment 176 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I have seven amendments in this group, so I will, in the interests of time, speak only to my own amendments, if members allow me. Amendments 176 and 180 are very similar in wording to amendment 126, which was passed earlier. I think that there is very little point in reliving the arguments in favour of the wording, as they mirror an amendment that has already passed. For that reason, 176 and 180 are largely technical amendments at this stage in proceedings, and I hope that members will support them. They, in effect, relate to their new direction of travel and how public bodies may be amended to carrying out its functions, as was agreed earlier. The amendment is in relation to section 14. All it does seeks to do is increase the period of scrutiny time available to Parliament from 60 to 90 days before an instrument, as detailed in subsection 5, comes into force. The rationale of things will be fairly obvious. Three months instead of two months before an instrument comes into force allows, in my view, an optimal period of time required to scrutinise it through the parliamentary process. I hope that the minister will agree to this extension, as I think that it fits better with the current norms in scrutiny timelines. Moving on to amendment 182, which is a slightly different subject in relation to section 14. The amendment ensures that any regulations introduced by ministers as a result of section 14 are also accompanied by a review of their financial implications. I think that that is important, because, as the Scottish Parliament works its way through devolve, retain and do you law, there needs to be provisions in the bill whereby the Scottish ministers update Parliament on the financial implications. Looking at the financial memorandum, section 18 states that some possible uses of the powers would have more significant cost implications. The powers in the bill could be used, for example, to transfer significant regulatory functions to existing public bodies in Scotland, or to create new bodies for the purposes of exercising functions currently discharged at EU level. The financial memorandum also states that the costs are very difficult to quantify at this point, and I accept that, but it is right that when those costs are known to Parliament, Parliament should be informed. My amendment places an obligation on ministers to keep Parliament informed of the cost implications arising from regulations in section 14. I have grouped together amendments 189 to 192. That relates to section 15 of the bill. At the moment, the wording in the bill says, and I quote, such persons as they consider appropriate. That is in terms of the consultation on draft proposals that Scottish ministers must adhere to, just to repeat that, such persons as they consider appropriate. My amendments 189 introduce committees to the scrutiny process, via whichever procedure is suitable and available to them. I think that this is an important addition, because committees are best placed to scrutinise proposals for regulations introduced under section 14. 190 asks that committees are also given adequate time to consult, and where appropriate take evidence on people that it deems fit to give a plurality of opinion on the subject matter of the minister's proposal to make regulations. That seems to be naturally a better way of consulting on new regulations than simply having to or leaving to such persons as Scottish ministers consider appropriate, which is the current drafting. 192 simply defines what a relevant committee is, as this is a new term that I have introduced to the bill. Clearly, that should be whichever committee has been defined as the lead committee based on the subject matter of the regulation. I hope that members will take on board with those, which I think are quite positive amendments. Thank you. James Kelly to speak to amendment 39 and other amendments in the group. Okay, convener. I move amendment 39 in my name. That amendment seeks to introduce the affirmative power in relation to sections 11, 12 and 13, and therefore introduces greater scrutiny and transparency to the bill and enhances it in my view as a result. I want to indicate support for all other amendments in the group, with the exception of 181, in Jamie Greene's name, on the basis that it extends the time for laying of the procedure from 60 days to 90 days. I prefer the original timetable in terms of 191 in relation to Dean Lockhart's amendment. Although it is a reasonable amendment and makes some good points about additional documentation, it takes out the section in the Government amendment, which gives us a regard for representations that have been made. I think that that is a reasonable proposal from the Government, and, as such, I would prefer to see that kept in. Thank you. The minister to speak to amendment 177 in other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Let me start with other amendments. I will come to mine in a second. There are three amendments—175, James Kelly's amendment 39, red with amendment 37 in an earlier group, which would make all regulations under the main powers in the bill subject to the affirmative procedure no matter what their content. I have to say that we do not regard that as an appropriate or even possible way forward. I want to be very clear about that, because I am in this section going to accept a number of amendments. However, where amendments would actually make the bill inoperable, I have to make that clear. That is going to be a significant challenge in any case to take forward the legislative burden. Those amendments actually make it much, much harder. Amendments 178 and 179 from Jackson Carlaw go even further, and they make everything subject not to the affirmative procedure but to the enhanced affirmative procedure. Those amendments would make the bill impossible to operate. Rather than a prudent workable fallback that can be deployed in the event of no agreement and, of course, we are still working for an agreement, the Scottish Parliament would instead be left with an unworkable and impractical bill that could not be deployed effectively, because no Government and no Parliament could do so within the reasonable time. That is part of the balance to which members have referred. That pushes the balance way beyond what is operable or workable. I strongly urge the committee to reject those amendments. To focus instead on what the Government has proposed and the reassurance that we are going to work very closely with the parliamentary authorities as we do currently to manage the legislative programme going forward. The bona fideas that we have shown in earlier sections in accepting amendments is about to accept some more here now and the fact that we have taken on board all the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee. We have shown a strong willingness to move on those issues, but when something becomes inoperable it is really important that we say so and say so clearly. I do not think that I have actually said so in terms of any other amendments as strongly, but they simply do not make the bill possible to work in the way that it needs to work. Amendments 176, 180 and 182 by Jamie Greene relate to something different. They are connected to the proposal that the Scottish ministers should have the ability to redefine the general objects of a public authority in consequence of EU withdrawal. We did not ask for this power and indeed we said the last time that there was an amendment on that, which was earlier today. I seem to remember that things are merging together in a sort of legislative blur. We did indicate that we did not want this power, but the committee saw fit to pass the power. I see no point in resisting those amendments and I would suggest that they are simply accepted. That is another indication that we are willing to look at this bill and change the bill as it goes forward. Amendment 177 is an amendment in my name intended to clarify the instrument subject to the affirmative procedure. We think that regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure when they confer on a domestic public authority a function currently held by European institutions. Section 142d of the bill is introduced, set out a narrower test. This short amendment corrects the point, and I would like the committee to vote for it if they could. Amendment 181, in the name of Jamie Greene, would make the period of scrutiny given to Parliament under the enhanced affirmative procedure last for 90 rather than 60 days. Given that this is a bill about the substantial time pressures, the Scottish Government and indeed the Scottish Parliament will have to undertake in trying to deliver a programme of change required for Brexit through no timetable of our own, we think that this would be unwise. The enhanced procedure has already been enhanced by proposals for the Scottish Government and for a period of statutory consultation and for additional reports to be laid before Parliament on that consultation. The Scottish Government has moved a substantial direction in order to make the enhanced affirmative procedure much more responsive. I think that this would simply go in a direction that would make it ever harder to operate the bill. I am sure that that is not the intention. I am sure that no member would come here at the endeavour to wreck the bill. I do think that we should consider very carefully whether amendments that are well meant will have consequences that have not been considered. Jamie Greene's amendments 189, 190 and 1992 also add to the complexity of scrutiny. They would require scrutiny of proposals to legislate under the enhanced procedure by all relevant parliamentary committees. As drafted, the bill requires proposals to be laid before Parliament at the start of the process and an explanation of the consultation to be laid before Parliament at the end, where appropriate parliamentary committees could respond to such proposals with their own investigations. However, I do not want to see such a requirement set out in the face of the statute. As has been aptly demonstrated by the last week's activity, the Parliament and its officials are more than capable of responding flexibly where necessary to developing demands for evidence, investigation and scrutiny. Donald Cameron's amendment 183 misunderstands, I think, the role of the presiding officer. At present, failures to comply fully with procedural requirements relating to secondary legislation must be explained in letters to the presiding officer. The bill continues its well-established practice in relation to the enhanced affirmative procedure. Mr Cameron's amendment would change this so that the ministers had to write to the Scottish Parliament instead. The presiding officer's role in this regard is to uphold the standards that are expected of ministers by the law understanding orders. It is a scrutiny role. For consistency's sake, he should continue to have this role rather than to be weakened, which he would be by this amendment. All letters to the presiding officer from ministers in relation to subordinate legislation are published and the failures are scrutinised as an obligation by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. I thank Donald Cameron for his amendment 184 and 185. He raised an important issue that was also pursued by Patrick Harvie when I gave evidence to the committee. Given the sheer scale and complexity of the programme of legislation that is expected in relation to Brexit, we need to recognise that it is almost inevitable that we will need to lay some of our instruments in recess. In fact, as the committee will be aware, laying instruments in recess is not uncommon. It is important to note that laying in recess does not ordinarily reduce the time available for parliamentary scrutiny, because standing ordinars preserve the amount of scrutiny time by excluding any recess period longer than four days. We all recognise that regulations under the bill will be made against a hard deadline out of our control against the backdrop of uncertainty. In those circumstances, it is appropriate for the bill to set out more about what should happen when instruments need to be laid during recess. Therefore, while we agree with the sentiment behind Donald Cameron's amendments, the forum of the amendments is the problem. Amendment 184 may in some circumstances delay when an explanatory statement must be provided, since not every day is a sitting day. Amendment 185 points in the direction of the right approach. I agree that the Government should have to explain any decisions to lay instruments under the bill during recess. I am not resisting that in the slightest. What I want to undertake is to lodge amendments to the effect of the proposals at stage 3. On that basis, I would hope that the committee that either the amendments would not be moved to 184 and 185 or that the committee would reject them. Tarrish Scott's amendments 41 and 43 would make any exercise of the power under section 13 subject to enhanced affirmative procedure. I have explained elsewhere where we are reflecting on section 13 and I am sympathetic. I will come back to the Parliament on the procedure at stage 3, but I have indicated this morning that this forms part of the package of measures that we are looking at at section 13. Amendment 44 would exclude regulations under section 13 from the saving provision, for the consequences of failing to meet the 60 days laying requirement under the enhanced affirmative procedure. Like Donald Cameron's amendment 183, adding the requirement to write to the Scottish Parliament where the Scottish ministers fail to comply with procedural requirements is unnecessary and helpful and actually breaks the established system. Procedural requirements that the 60 day rule are tried and tested procedural sanctions taken seriously by the Government and scrutinised intensely by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. We would be called to account and required to report to the Parliament for any failures under the rule, and we would expect to be so, and the procedure exists so to do. On Tavish Scott's amendment 45, it requires Scottish ministers to consult the UK and devolved administrations on all enhanced affirmative regulations. I am very resistant to this for the grounds that I gave earlier when I discussed the issues of consultation. There are no relevant reserved areas or UK frameworks. We could have an unnecessary level of bureaucracy and delay. We consult on legislative proposals that affect the other administrations under the memorandums of understanding in any event where there is a relevant interest. In the terms of the establishment of frameworks—I still anticipate that frameworks would be established—this would be built into the structure of the frameworks. Neil Bibby's amendment 188 would change the framework of the UK framework to describe the consultation requirement. The language of the bill is introduced, is well known, well understood, and it imposes a strong consultation requirement on Scottish ministers. It is not clear who would be appropriate in the abstract and administrative law will require the discretion on who to consult to be exercised fairly. I would not want to see the wording changed and I invite the committee to reject this amendment. Amendment 191 by Dean Lockhart would have a detrimental effect on the statutory consultation provision. It would remove, for example, the requirement to send copies of consultations to those being consulted. It would remove the requirements of regard to any representations that they make. However, it would replace the requirement that ministers disclose their relevant legal advice to an uncertain end. For that reason alone, it should be rejected. It would wreck entirely the proportionate process that is set in ad in the bill for consulting on the instruments with the most significant policy implications, and it would result in less scrutiny and less consultation. However, I find myself in the position of accepting two other amendments in Tavish Scott, 46 and 47. To add the reasons for considering the necessity test applies to a proposed exercise of section 11, power, to matters on which statutory consultation is required as part of the enhanced procedure. However, on Tavish Scott's amendment 53 on the fees and charges scrutiny procedures, I am not clear to the purpose of the amendment and I am very doubtful about its effect. It would add a reference to sections 11, 12 and 13 to section 19, but in the regulations under section 19 would not be made under those sections, and that would lead to simply a circle of confusion. I would invite members not to support the amendment. I think that I have made it clear that there are amendments that can be accepted. There are areas in which we want to do more work with members and to bring amendments, and there are areas in that, regrettably, the effect of the amendments would be massively detrimental to the bill. We have indicated very strongly how we are trying to move to match the requirements that members of the committee are bringing and others are bringing, but there are some areas that if we were to move in this direction, the bill could not operate at all. Jackson Carlaw, to speak to amendment 178 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I realise that there is a desire to try and move matters forward, so I will probably speak slightly more briefly to the amendment that I might earlier have anticipated doing. I did come to Parliament this morning, and the first thing that I was confronted with was a message in my inbox from a group called Praying for Politicians, who told me that today we include prayers for Jackson Carlaw MSP, praying for five politicians each day. I do not know whether they followed the proceedings last night or whether they saw what the proceedings were to be today and thought a little bit of spiritual oomph might just help persuade the more silently engaged members of the committee who I failed to persuade yesterday to really exercise their endeavour in consideration of my amendments to participate. It is unusual, because I think that this is the first time that the minister has demolished my amendments before I have had an opportunity to move them. I did notice to paraphrase him that well-worn phrase that my amendments, he and his opinion, were too wee, too small and too stupid to make the enhanced affirmative procedure work. Nonetheless, I do feel it appropriate that I seek to push forward with the amendments, at least in a restricted form. Those amendments would provide greater scrutiny for ministers' new powers by making all regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. 1-7-8-1-7-9 should, of course, be read alongside one another. Sections 11-1-12-13-1 give ministers power to make provision consistent with EU legislation. Section 14 sets out how that is scrutinised and has drafted the bill breaks regulations into two categories. Some specific instances set out in 14-2 where the affirmative procedure is required and everything else in 14-3, which is negative only. 14-5 sets out some further conditions for some and only some of the regulations covered in 14-2. By removing section 14-3, there is only provision to submit those provisions to the positive procedure, effectively ensuring that the Scottish Parliament must vote on any provision created under sections 11-1-12-13-1. The Law Society of Scotland agrees with the need for ministers to consult before using those powers. The Society's comment on section 15 and its response to the Scottish Parliament's Finance and Constitution Committee states, we agree with the general proposition that Scottish ministers should consult with interested parties before making regulations under section 14-5. However, Scottish ministers must ensure that there is adequate time to consider such draft regulations. If there is general agreement that consultation and scrutiny are good things, then why not expand their application? It is difficult to see why the three basic provisions, the 14-2 A, B and C, are covered by the need to bring changes before Parliament under 14-5, but the three subsequent are covered in 14-2, D, E, F and G. The amendment would therefore increase the role of Parliament in scrutinising regulations and increase the powers that we have to hold ministers to account and choose what regulations are appropriate after we leave the EU. That is clearly a different accountability regime to the European withdrawal bill. I think that that is appropriate. We are a unicameral Parliament, a unicameral chamber and the procedures for scrutinising secretary legislation are accordingly less robust. That would ensure that this Parliament was properly accutered to undertake the task in hand. The only final comment that I would make is having spoken on health in the Parliament for many years. I am familiar with repetitive injury strain and therefore I would very much encourage those people when considering my amendment to consider using their alternative arm for the rest of the business in hand this afternoon and this evening, just in order to save that damaged limb that has had so much work to do in putting down so many of those well-considered amendments, which I have been very happy to speak to. I am still slightly puzzled by that laughter's reference, but I am really not going to go there, convener. Can I first of all take the minister's point with regard to amendments 41 and 43 that he is alive to their purpose? I appreciate that. My principle, as the minister will well understand, I appreciate that colleagues are probably heartily sick of hearing this argument now, is that none of the keep-paste powers should be exercised by a negative instrument. They should all undergo the enhanced affirmative procedure and this committee could indeed add requirements to the bill to make sure that those orders cannot be made that cause difficulty elsewhere. That is the purpose behind 41 and 43. I welcome further consideration of those and would move those in that spirit. Amendment 44 means that it is not possible for ministers to avoid the provisions of the super affirmative procedure for section 13 powers, which is the section that many of us are most concerned by in the bill. Section 14, subsection 7 to 9, offers ministers various ways and routes to avoid following the super affirmative scrutiny. Amendment 44 prevents this shortcut from being available to ministers for any of the keep-paste powers that they seek in section 13. I hope that the amendment would be seen as that. Section 13 is an unsatisfactory vehicle for the keep-paste powers, but my amendment preserves at least the super affirmative procedure for law changes. I listen to what the minister said on 45. I think that he may protest us too much on his argument about bureaucracy. I entirely take the point that none of us, most of us, do not wish to be here from first principles, but I do think that it is possible for the different administrations and Governments of these nations to agree what is and what is not subject to consultation. I did not read into 45 quite the dire protestations of gloom that the minister did in his remarks earlier on. I am grateful to his consideration for 46 and 47. I will not delay members on that. By my way of reading, amendment 53 ensures that section 13 orders—I hope that the minister will accept my principal concern—are always subject to the affirmative procedure. I take his point that, if I have drafted that in a way that has unbeknownst consequences to me, then I accept that criticism. However, the purpose behind 53 was to ensure that section 13 orders are always subject to that affirmative procedure. I would still move, convener. Thank you. Donald Cameron to speak to amendment 183 in other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I do intend to press forward with 183. I think that it is important that it is the Scottish Parliament, rather than the Presiding Officer, to whom the explanation in subsection 8 should be given. The primacy of this Parliament is important, and for that reason I think that it would be useful to press on with that. In relation to 184 and 185, I note the assurance that is given by the minister in relation to the sentiment, if not the form of those current amendments. For that reason, I will not be moving either 184 or 185 when the time comes, convener. Thank you. You will be to speak to amendment 188 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. We have established that the bill in its present form grants significant regulation making powers to Scottish ministers, straffs to Scottish statutory instruments, making regulations under section 111, section 12 or section 13, one of the bill that contains a provision following under section 14 subsection 2A, B or C cannot be laid before the Scottish Parliament unless there has been consultation in accordance with section 15. Amendment 188 in my name requires Scottish ministers to consult not with persons that they consider appropriate, as provided for in section 15, as it stands, but with appropriate persons, there is a difference. It should not be for the Scottish Government and the Scottish Government alone to decide who it is appropriate to consult with over a draft SSI relating to this bill. There are also a number of other amendments in this group that I will support as I associate my comments with what James Kelly said earlier, specifically around those amendments that will enhance parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. I hope that members will support the amendment in my name, 188. Dean Lockhart spoke to amendment 191 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. My amendment 191 seeks to improve parliamentary scrutiny. I note that there is an overlap with other amendments that are proposed by members and the proposals that are submitted by the minister. Amendment 191 would revise section 15 and require ministers to provide Parliament with additional information and additional documentation setting out materials relevant to the Parliament's consideration of regulations to be issued by ministers, including relevant legal advice and an explanation of how the proposed regulations to be issued by the ministers would amend existing law. As I said, amendment 191 should be read together with the other proposals. The purpose of my amendment is to increase parliamentary scrutiny. Is any other member of the committee wish to contribute at this stage? Just briefly, I welcome the fact that the minister is supporting 46 and 47. I think that that is very positive. I am grateful that some proposals have been brought forward on the question of instruments being laid during recess, but my initial reaction on reading the specific amendments was that something needs to be done, but is that it? I am pleased that the minister appears to be making a fairly clear commitment that he will bring forward an alternative approach to address that issue at stage 3. The last thing that I want to say about this group as a whole is that my instinct very often is to increase the level of scrutiny to which statutory instruments or regulations are subject. We need to balance that natural instinct of Parliament to want to hold ministers to stronger account against the volume of work that Parliament is going to be asked to do over the coming period. Although I might have been very open to supporting some of the other amendments that specify levels of scrutiny in relation to regulations in this group, in the light of the fact that we have already agreed a sifting process that will allow Parliament to decide for itself the level of scrutiny that will be applied and to increase the level of scrutiny that will be applied, what I would like to see is the detail of what the Government is willing to agree to in relation to the amendment that has already been passed, what changes it wants to make to that and perhaps to revisit any outstanding concerns around making specific scrutiny requirements at stage 3. I am saying that on the record so that, hopefully, our Presiding Officer might be minded to select for debate at stage 3 amendments that members still think are necessary if, in the light of those discussions around the sifting process, people still want to specify a level of scrutiny for particular types of amendments. However, I think that we should wait until we see what the sifting process is going to end up as, what further changes the Government wants to persuade us to make before we reach a final view on specific scrutiny procedures in some of the other amendments in this group. I hope that that is clear. It may not be, I do not know. Jackson Carlaw, despite the entertaining way that he presented them to us to lure us into supporting them, would effectively mean that all the regulations would then be subject to the superaffirmative procedure. Effectively, in my view, making the bill unworkable, a consultation would need to be held in the draft order and that, of course, needs 60 days to elaps to plus the time to consider all the representations that were made thereafter. Rather than helping the bill, those amendments are intended in my view to make the bill unworkable, so I think that we should not support those two particular amendments. On any other member who says that they want to contribute, so I do not have time to wind up. Thank you, convener. Contrary to what Mr Coffey just said, I do not think that any of the amendments in this group are designed to make the bill inoperable. On the contrary, they are designed to enable, in a unicameral Parliament, effective and robust parliamentary scrutiny. But, subject to that observation, I welcome the generality of the minister's constructive approach to a number of the amendments in this group. I have nothing further to add. Okay. In which case we move on to deciding on some of these amendments. The question is that amendment 175 be agreed or we all agreed. Okay. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. On amendment 175, there were five votes for, six against, amendment is therefore not agreed to. I now call amendment 38, in the name of Neil Findlay, already debated with amendment 149, James Kelly, to move or not to move. The question is that amendment 38 be agreed, or we all agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. On amendment 38, there were five votes for, six against, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 176, in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 175, Jamie Greene to move or not to move. Moved. The question is that amendment 176 be agreed, or we all agreed. We are agreed. I call amendment 39, in the name of James Kelly, already debated with amendment 175, and at this stage I remind members that if amendment 39 is agreed, I cannot call amendments 177, 178, 40 and 41. James Kelly to move or not to move. The question is that amendment 39 be agreed or we all agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. On amendment 39, there were five votes for, six against, the amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 177, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 175, minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 177 be agreed, or we all agreed. I call amendment 178, in the name of Jackson Carlaw, already debated with amendment 175, and I remind members that if amendment 178 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 40. Jackson Carlaw to move or not to move. Moved. The question is that amendment 178 be agreed or we all agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. I call amendment 178, in the name of Neil Findlay, already debated with amendment 149. James Kelly to move or not to move. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed or we all agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. Amendment 40, or five votes for, six against, the amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 41, in the name of Tavish Scott, already debated with amendment 175. Tavish Scott to move or not to move. Move, convener. The question is that amendment 41 be agreed or we all agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. Amendment 41, or five votes for, six against, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 42, in the name of Neil Findlay, already debated with amendment 149. James Kelly to move or not to move. Move. The question is that amendment 42 be agreed or we all agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. Amendment 42, or five votes for, six against, the amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 179, in the name of Jackson Carlaw, already debated with amendment 175. I remind members that if amendment 179 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 179. Jackson Carlaw to move or not to move. For a final time, move. The question is that amendment 179 be agreed to or we all agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. Amendment 179, or five votes for, six against, the amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 180, in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 175. Jamie Greene to move or not to move. Move. The question is that amendment 180 be agreed or we all agreed. We are agreed. I call amendment 43, in the name of Tawish Scott, already debated with amendment 175. Tawish Scott to move or not to move. Move. The question is that amendment 43 be agreed or we all agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. On amendment 43, there were five votes for, six against, amendment 43, therefore it is not agreed to. I call amendment 181, in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 175. Jamie Greene to move or not to move. Move. The question is that amendment 181 be agreed or we all agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. On amendment 181, there were three votes for, eight against, and the amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 182, in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 175. Jamie Greene to move or not to move. To move. The question is that amendment 182 be agreed or we all agreed. We are agreed. I call amendment 183, in the name of Donald Cameron, already debated with amendment 175. Donald Cameron to move or not to move. Move. The question is that amendment 183 be agreed or we all agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. On amendment 183, there were five votes for, six against, and the amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 184, in the name of Donald Cameron, already debated with amendment 175. Donald Cameron to move or not to move. Not to move. Thank you. I call amendment 44, in the name of Tavish Scott, already debated with amendment 175. Tavish Scott to move or not to move. Move. The question is that amendment 44 be agreed or we all agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. On amendment 44, there were five votes for, six against, and therefore amendment 44 is not agreed to. I call amendment 185, in the name of Donald Cameron, already debated with amendment 175. Donald Cameron to move or not to move. To not move. Thank you. I now call amendment 186, in the name of Maurice Golden, in a group on its own. Maurice Golden to move and to speak to amendment 186. Thank you, convener. My amendment refers to quarterly reports on the use of power. Members will see the specific entry, so no need to go through them in detail. The amendment requires ministers to make regular reports on deficiencies, they have identified and every quarter publish how many there are and how many the Scottish Parliament is expected to see soon. That is an instance where deviation from the EU withdrawal bill is justified by the fact that we are a unicameral chamber and the House of Lords in particular has a strong role in scrutinising delegated powers. We have no equivalent, so it is important that there are good processes in place for transparency and clarity on the scale of deficiencies and ministerial action to address them. The amendment is in keeping with previous amendment to section 7 on the challenges to validity of retained devolved EU law. In that respect, I urge the committee to look upon it favourably and I move the amendment. Many other members of the committee wish to speak on this amendment. Neil Bibby. Thank you, convener. I would like to indicate support for Maurice Golden's amendment at this stage. Under the circumstances that are required in the Scottish Government to produce a quarterly report on the use of section 11 powers does not seem to be onerous or excessive, it seems to be measured and appropriate. Those reports would be useful in reassuring Parliament and the public that powers granted to ministers in what I remind the committee is an exceptional piece of legislation are being used appropriately. I support the amendment in Maurice Golden's name. Thank you, convener. Similar sentiment to Neil Bibby. I think that I am still slightly amused by the inconsistency with which our Conservative colleagues apply the consistency principle. However, I do not think that the burden of complying with this amendment sounds particularly onerous, so I can see merit in the principle that motivates it. I would be interested to hear the minister's response. It seems to me that the level of work that is involved in complying with it would not necessarily be intolerable. Does the other member wish to speak? If he wishes to respond. Yes, thank you, convener. There is a later amendment that has essentially the same effect, and I had tended to favour the later amendment because I think that it will give the opportunity for some flexibility in this matter. Secondly, I think that the member slightly misunderstands the role of the committees of the Parliament, and particularly the Delegated Powers Committee, which will receive this information on a regular basis. The parliamentary authorities will have this information on a regular basis. There is already a commitment to an information flow with the parliamentary authorities. If the member had worked with the other Tory member who was proposing a later resolution, then it might have been possible just to meld those into a general reporting function. I am sorry that that has not happened, but I am not going to get over excited about it. If the committee wants to see quarterly reports so be it, there is not an unlimited resource available to the Government. It will be very much under pressure because of the pressures of Brexit. We now know from the Chancellor's statement yesterday that the allocation of funds on Brexit will not be done with any great generosity or spirit. In those circumstances, I think that I have other things that are more important to worry about at this stage, so if the committee feels inclined to support that, we will accept it within the bill. Maurice Golden, to line up. I think that this is part of scrutiny, which is essential. Ultimately, reporting to Parliament is critical. In relation to the EU withdrawal bill, clearly, if we had a second revising chamber, then the consistency of the argument could be applied equally across the legal provisions of both this bill and the EU withdrawal bill. However, as is very much apparent or should be apparent to members of this committee and members of this Parliament, we have a separate system. Therefore, on occasion, where scrutiny and ministerial accountability has to be considered, we cannot apply the exact same rationale and process. I move amendment 1. Okay, the member intends to press. Therefore, the question is that amendment 186 be agreed or well agreed. Does everyone agree? Okay. Oh, sorry. The question is that section 14 be agreed or well agreed. Your opposition is noted. I comment 187, the name of Ross Greer, already debated with amendment 174. Ross Greer, to move or not move? Move, convener. The question is that amendment 187 be agreed to or well agreed. No, there will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. Those who wish to abstain, please raise their hand. Amendment 187, there were six votes for none against five abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed to. I call amendment 188, in the name of Neil Bibby, already debated with amendment 175, and I remind members that if amendment 188 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 45 and 189. Neil Bibby, to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 188 be agreed or well agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. Amendment 188, there were five votes for six against, the amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 45, in the name of Tavish Scott, already debated with amendment 175, and I remind members that if amendment 45 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 189. Tavish Scott, to move or not move? Move, convener. The question is that amendment 45 be agreed to or well agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. On amendment 45, there were three votes for eight against, the amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 189, in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 175. Jamie Greene, to move or not move. Convener, in light of the minister's opposition to scrutiny of his new regulatory powers, I move amendment 15. The question is that amendment 159 be agreed to or well agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. On amendment 189, there were five, four, six against, the amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 190, in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 175, Jamie Greene, to move or not move. For the same reasons, I move. The question is that amendment 190 be agreed or well agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. On amendment 190, there were five, four, six against, the amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 191, in the name of Dean Lockhart, already debated with amendment 175. There are amendment members that, if amendment 191 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 46 and 47, Dean Lockhart, to move or not move. Thank you. I call amendment 46, in the name of Tavish Scott, already debated with amendment 175. The question is that amendment 46 be agreed or well agreed. I call amendment 47, in the name of Tavish Scott, already debated with amendment 175, Tavish Scott, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 47 be agreed or well agreed. We are agreed. I call amendment 192, in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 175, Jamie Greene, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 192 be agreed or well agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. I call amendment 192, in the name of Tavish Scott, to move or not move. There are five votes for, six against, amendment is therefore not agreed to. The question is that section 15 be agreed to or well agreed. Your opposition is noted. I call amendment 48, in the name of Neil Findlay, already debated with amendment 149. James Kelly, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 48 be agreed or well agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. On amendment 48, there are five votes for, six against, amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 193, in the name of Jamie Greene, grouped with amendments 194, 195, 49, 50, 51 and 196. Jamie Greene, to move amendment 193 and speak to all amendments in the group. At the risk of being accused of repetition, perhaps deviation or even hesitation, my amendments once again seek to remove ambiguity from the bill, in this case section 16. It is specifically amendment 193 that looks to replace the word in their opinion. You will find that on page 14 of the bill, subsection 2A. In their opinion, once again, it just leaves simply too much room for interpretation. My wording change seeks to tighten subsection 2, in that it is not just in their opinion, there being the Scottish ministers, but that the statement that they make when an instrument or draft is laid has indeed been given due diligence and ensures that ministers have taken reasonable steps to confirm that the instrument does no more than is appropriate. The phrases carrying out due diligence and taking reasonable steps are well established and commonly use legal terms to tighten any doubt over the subjectivity of the term in their opinion. I hope that it is welcomed by members. Amendment 194 is another tightening change. In its current form, the wording is details. I seek to replace that with notable findings. Details does not always include findings or important findings. In fact, superfluous or unimportant findings could still be constituted as details. Details is vague by changing the word details to key and notable findings. It technically aligns with my previous amendment on the level of detail that must be presented in the statement that the minister lays and also conforms to the language that I propose to use in amendment 193. I hope that members will agree that that indeed tightens the ambiguity in section 16. Thank you. Thank you. Dean Lockhart to speak to amendment 195, another amendment in the group. Thank you. Amendment 195 is a technical amendment that seeks to change a reference to the consultation in the singular and replace it with references to any consultations in order to clarify that multiple persons or organisations can be consulted under section 15. Thank you. I wish Scott to speak to amendment 49, another amendment in the group. The amendments are about the explanatory statements that Dean Lockhart and Jamie Greene have already mentioned in terms of the importance of the Government of the day, making clear its intention and indeed its purpose in the measures that it is bringing forward. New powers are being allocated around the Administrations of the UK by this process that different parliaments and legislatures are going through, and extensive order making powers are being proposed for ministers in all of those administrations. Therefore, we want to make sure that through this amendment, this Parliament will have the opportunity to make sure that ministers, in many ways, lead by example, that they consider the impact of their proposals on the operation of the UK single market and require them to publish the responses to their consultation with other administrations. We think that that is an important part of the explanatory statements that help any Parliament to its duties appropriately and properly and fully. Amendment 49 will be the way to get reference to the importance of that UK single market on the face of the bill. Amendment 50, together with 51, prevents ministers from short-cutting processes for proposals under section 13, which I believe is important. The bill currently provides in section 16.7 that ministers can avoid all of the requirements to make statements on necessity, equalities and consultation that are contained in section 16.226. This amendment means that the short-cutting opt-outs from this reporting requirement is not available for powers under section 13, which I suspect across all political parties have agreed is extremely important. Amendment 50 removes rather the permission to short-cut from sub-section 7. Amendment 50 specifically requires section 13 proposals to have the written justifications that, again, I suspect that many members would seek. On that basis, I would so move. Neil Bibby, to speak to amendment 196 in other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Amendment 196, in my name, and the other amendments in the group, introduce further checks and balances into the bill. Section 16 of the bill applies when a draft SSI containing regulations under section 111, section 12 and section 131 is to be laid before Parliament. For clarity, those sections related to deficiencies arising from withdrawal from the EU complying with international obligations and the powers to make provision corresponding to EU law after exit day. My amendment makes clear that an explanatory statement for a relevant SSI or draft SSI must be made in writing and published. It removes from the face of the bill the provision that the Scottish ministers decide in appropriate way to publish those statements. It is a small but significant amendment and I would ask committee members to give it their full consideration. Convener, the number of other amendments in this group, which in my judgment enhance scrutiny and improve transparency. As members are aware, there are no pre-emptions in this grouping. I will therefore support all other amendments in this grouping. In relation to Tavish Scots amendment 49, I can entirely understand why he wants to place a significant emphasis on any potential impact on the operation of what is generally referred to as the single market in goods and services within the UK. That is an important factor. I do not think that I am comfortable in suggesting that it must have so much higher status in the consideration of all the factors that might be impacted upon that it is referred to in the legislation and not other factors. It may well be the case that in considering any regulations or instruments that contain regulations under the section, the Government and the Parliament may in future be faced with a conflict between maintaining the operation of that single market and maintaining the social and environmental protections that are also important to us, which we have also talked about including in the text of the bill. The Government would be foolish to lodge a draft of an instrument that does not contain some detail on all the impacts that the regulations will have, and it will be up to Parliament to decide to what extent we want to question ministers on all those impacts and whether we want to approve or reject an instrument that ministers lay before Parliament. However, we should consider the range of factors that might be impacted rather than elevating one to a higher status. The other member from the committee wishes to take part in the debate. The outset is amendment 195 by Dean Lockhart, which I do not think makes things any clearer, but equally I am not going to go to the stake for the sake of a plural, so I will accept Dean Lockhart's amendment 195. As far as Neil Bibby's amendment 196 is concerned, I am worried that we are taking out something that is clearly understood, has meaning and has meaning in other statutes, in such a manner that Scottish ministers consider appropriate. That is also entirely consistent with the UK bill. In those circumstances, I think that this is understandable and consistent, and should not be changed for something that is going to be vaguer. Amendment 193 and 194 by Jamie Greene presents us with an interesting issue that I want to address. The first part is that the continuity bill contains a clear process for laying explanatory statements. Those amendments would make it unclear. Amendment 194 replaced the requirement to set out the details of a constitution, with one to set out its key and notable findings. That is badly defined, it is loose, it is weak and it would be subject to endless interpretation. The Parliament would not get the information that it will get in the light of what is in this bill. However, there is a more interesting issue in this amendment, because Mr Greene wants to take the words out in their opinion. He wants to take the words out in their opinion where it relates to Scottish ministers, but those are exactly the same words that exist in the UK bill. The UK bill is being approved by Mr Greene's colleagues on the ground that you should take the opinion of UK ministers, but he is endeavouring to change it here because he is not willing to take the opinion of Scottish ministers. That is an interesting approach to this bill. In actual fact, what is good enough for his colleagues at Westminster in terms of how a minister would operate is not good enough for him when he comes into this chamber. I am sorry to hear that, because I think that his amendments are wrong and weak, but I also think that the display of mindsets, which I think that we should worry about, particularly in the approach of a Scottish member to a Scottish bill in a Scottish Parliament. In terms of amendments 49 to 51 from Tavish Scott, at the risk of repeating myself, and I hate repeating myself as Mr Scott knows, we have been here before on this issue today. I think that Patrick Harvie's remarks are helpful, but I do understand where Mr Scott is coming from, and I am honestly not being patronising that. I understand and I agree with it the element, but I think that there is this triple lock that I want to explain to Mr Scott again. It may make no difference in terms of moving it, but, if it makes a difference, I would be pleased. First of all, there could be, obviously, I agree implications for other parts of the UK if Scotland is to update EU law in a way that it does not mirror, but we will, first of all, be bound by international obligations in the normal way. Secondly, if there are UK frameworks, those frameworks will contain a reference to this and how they operate. I have also stressed that it is up to this Parliament at the end of the day to decide how it operates and to decide if it wishes to do this. I think that there are three strong reasons that I have now repeated three times for not taking this approach. Mr Harvie has added the reasons in terms of what is necessary to do and the changes that it may require to have. It would greatly please me if he does not press this, but if he does press it, I do hope that members will not support it as they have not supported it on previous occasions. I think that those are all the points that I wish to make. Thank you, minister. I would like to thank members who gave a contribution to the short grouping. I think that there has been very reasonable and considerate suggestions and amendments. I thank some of the members of the committee for already in advance agreeing their support to some of them. I think that that is a very welcome approach, a very pragmatic approach. I am a little bit disappointed over by the minister's comments. The bill is going through 231 amendments. It will see very substantive differences and how we will see it stage 3 from when it was introduced. Its comparison to the drafting of the UK withdrawal bill is simply like comparing apples and pears. That will not be the same bill, and we have to approach it. I approached the bill entirely, earnestly and looking at it line by line, as every other member should have done and as the Scottish Conservatives did in great detail, which is why we are sitting here in the third session in the second night of it. I am very disappointed by the minister's simplistic view on the bill and the wording of our amendments. We are treating it in its own right, and I think that we are right to do so. It will also find it intriguing that he thinks that the words key and notable are loose in weak terms, but the words detail is not key and notable is quite profoundly specific in my view. I look forward to hopefully receiving support of the committee members in those amendments. I press 193. The question is amendment 193. We agreed to. We all agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. On amendment 193, there were five votes, four, six against. Amendment is therefore not agreed to. Amendment 194, in the name of Jamie Greene, is already debated with amendment 193. Jamie Greene to move or not move. The question is that 194 be agreed to. We all agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. On amendment 194, there were five votes, four, six against. Amendment is therefore not agreed to. Amendment 195, in the name of Dean Lockhart, is already debated with amendment 193. The question is that amendment 195 be agreed to. We all agreed. We all agreed. On amendment 49, in the name of Tavish Scott, is already debated with amendment 193. Tavish Scott to move or not move. Given the certainty of defeat, it is not moved. Thank you. On amendment 50, in the name of Tavish Scott, is already debated with amendment 193. Tavish Scott to move or not move. On amendment 51, in the name of Tavish Scott, is already debated with amendment 193. On amendment 196, in the name of Neil Bibby, is already debated with amendment 193. Neil Bibby to move or not move. The question is that amendment 196 be agreed or we all agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. On amendment 196, where five votes four, six against, the amendment is therefore not agreed to. The question is that section 16 be agreed to. We all agreed. Your opposition is noted. I now call amendment 197 in the name of Jamie Greene group with amendment 198. I would point out that if amendment 197 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 198. Jamie Greene to move amendment 197 and spoke to both amendments in the group. This amendment might seem quite drastic. It seeks to take out subsection 2 of section 17, which is the requirement for Scottish ministers' consent to certain subordinate legislation. I have done it in this way for a reason. I would like to probe the minister, hopefully, in his comments, to find some clarification on the subsection. In my view, it seems to allow a veto over subordinate legislation to Scottish ministers. Before I decide whether I move or withdraw the amendment, I would like the minister if possible to address some questions and points of this. What is the intent of this subsection? It says that subordinate legislation, to the extent that it contains devolved provision, is of no effect unless the consent of Scottish ministers was obtained before it was made, confirmed or approved. How is this lightly, for example, to impact any common frameworks in the UK? Does it allow Scottish ministers to prevent UK ministers acting via subordinate legislation after approval has been given or only if approval has been given? Does it mean that all UK subordinate legislation will only be effective if consent has been given by Scottish ministers? My concern with subsection 2, as I read it, effectively means that Scottish ministers can block subordinate legislation, which is applicable in Scotland, because it chooses not to, for whatever reason, prior to being introduced. That sounds like a worrying scenario to me, which puts in my view potential political conflicts of opinion before the application of law. My instinct, therefore, is to have it removed unless I can be persuaded otherwise. I am happy to speak to amendment 198. As it currently stands, section 17 requires only the consent of Scottish ministers to be given when a UK minister is changing an area of devolved law using a statutory instrument. Amendment 198 requires the consent of the Scottish Parliament, which is granted as well. That is, in some ways, the opposite of what amendment 197 from Jamie Greene seeks to achieve, thus the preemption, but it is very much in keeping with the arguments made by Conservative colleagues, particularly Mr Tomkins and, indeed, Liberal Democrat and Labour colleagues, in regard to the relative power of legislator and executive. Like my previous amendments on the sifting procedure for statutory instruments, the purpose of the amendment is to give the Parliament its rightful place and ensure that procedures are as democratically robust as possible. As it stands, the bill would allow ministers of a minority government to give consent while a majority of Parliament were opposed. The amendment brings us closer to our recent constitutional tradition through the Sule Convention of Seeking Parliamentary Consent. I don't know whether the members want to speak. I know that Adam Tomkins does. Any other members wish to speak? Patrick Harvie and I don't want to go. Thank you, convener. I have just a simple question that I would like the minister to reflect on when he responds to the amendments in this group. The question is that section 17.2, which is the focus of both amendments in this group, is one that strikes me as difficult to justify in terms of legislative competence. I wonder what the minister's take on this is, why the Scottish Government thinks that this is somehow within competence. What section 17.2 does is seek to provide an act of the Scottish Parliament for how ministers of the Crown make delegated legislation through the Westminster Parliament. That strikes me as straightforwardly and manifestly reserved unless I have missed something in the Scotland Act. I have a simple question on this, convener, which I would like the minister to reflect on, which is to explain his view, or indeed the Government's view, as to how section 17.2 is within legislative competence. Jamie Greene seems concerned in moving his amendment that section 2 would give the Scottish ministers the ability to block any subordinate legislation that was operating in Scotland passed by UK ministers if only we had the ability to do so. We do not. It clearly states that it is to the extent that it contains devolved provisions. That is purely about matters that are within the remit of this Parliament. The purpose of this Parliament is to hold ministers to account in terms of devolved functions. That is why Ross Greer's amendment improves it. It is about ensuring that this Parliament is able to hold ministers accountable for the decisions that they make, including consent that they would give under section 17.2 of the bill. I hope that members will agree that, if consent is to be sought, if it is possible to be granted, it should be granted with the agreement of this Parliament, not of ministers alone. Adam Tomkins says that the substance of the two amendments focuses on section 17.2, with two contrasting approaches. I very much prefer the approach that is outlined by Ross Greer in his speech on his amendment, which gives the Scottish Parliament the power in relation to consent rather than the approach of taking away the consent from Scottish ministers. I think that it is appropriate that Scotland should be focused around the Parliament as such. I support amendment 198 and oppose amendment 197. Let me address Adam Tomkins' point immediately. That does not prevent UK ministers from doing anything. It simply prevents what they do of having effect. It is incompetent because it only— Mr Tomkins is a constitutional lawyer. I thought that he would like the subtlety of that point, but he only likes his own subtlety, not other people's. It only affects devolved matters. It is entirely within competence, and we will argue that very vigorously. To address, however, Jamie Greene's point, I have to make it clear that I welcome the opportunity to explore that section. I cannot accept either amendment, and I know that that will upset people and may well result in a defeat in one or other of them, but I want to explain precisely why that is at this stage. Let me deal with Jamie Greene's amendment. That is, if I may use his term, the less attractive of the two. As it stands, UK ministers can make orders in devolved areas. We support that. We can see that there will be circumstances in which a UK-wide approach to fixing deficiencies will be the best approach. We have constantly said that. That is what we currently do with transpositions under the European Communities Act. However, the UK bill does not require formal consent from devolved ministers when powers are exercised in devolved areas. Scottish and Welsh Governments have proposed amendments to that effect, but they have been resisted by the UK Government so far. Hence, section 17 of the bill in effect requires UK ministers to seek formal consent from Scottish ministers in such circumstances. It follows that I cannot accept Mr Greene's amendment, which would defeat the purpose of that section. Mr Greene asks me, do I believe, that Scottish ministers should have the power to stop UK ministers exercising their rights? Yes, I do believe that that is the case. That is the legislator and there are devolved powers for this legislator. We have the right to exercise those powers. We can, of course, agree to other people exercising them on our behalf if we so consent, but we cannot have that imposed upon us to use a word that was much used earlier today and yesterday. Therefore, this clause makes it clear that we will not have that imposed. They may do what they wish, but they cannot have effect unless we say so. We have to turn to Ross Greer's amendment. We have considered carefully whether parliamentary consent should also be required to such regulations. That is a debate that we should have. It is a much more closely argued debate than the one that I have just indicated to Jamie Greene. However, the Government has come down on the side of the delegated powers and law reform committees and the finance and constitution committees' conclusion on the UK bill. That the statutory consent should be from ministers, but there should be a mechanism for Parliament to scrutinise ministers' plans before such consent is given. That will not be ministers alone, in Patrick Harvie's phrase. Parliament will scrutinise ministers' plans before such consent is given. That was the conclusion of two of the Parliament's committees, including that one. That approach keeps clear the accountability of Scottish ministers of this Parliament for their decisions and the accountability of UK ministers to Westminster for the exercise of their powers. It does not cut across that. Scottish Government and parliamentary officials have been working on a protocol for parliamentary scrutiny in circumstances in which orders would be made under powers in the UK bill, but the consent of Scottish ministers is required. The draft protocol seeks to ensure that the approval of the Scottish Parliament to the Scottish ministers' consent to the exercise of the Scottish Parliament's powers is obtained, so that the Parliament is involved again in that way. The draft protocol should be available, I believe, to ministers and members as shortly as possible, in my view, to be desirable given a debate on that. I believe that having joint working protocols in such matters is the best route. I have to urge the committee to reject both of those amendments. It may reject one with more enthusiasm than it rejects the other. It may reject one and not reject the other, but that is the opinion a whole presently, and I think that it is best to keep to the recommendations of the two committees. Just to quick points, that has been an interesting discussion. It is quite clear from the comments that Adam Tomkins made in his question that there is some ambiguity over the competence of subsection 2, and I do not think that that should be avoided or ignored. In fact, it seems that this odd clause seems like an unfortunate power grab by the minister. I say that because he is giving Scottish ministers the ability to cherry-pick via consent or not giving consent which bits of UK subordinate legislation it will give consent to and whether they will have effect or not. He is saying to the UK ministers that he can make legislation, but I will decide whether it is in effect or not. That sounds like a very dangerous scenario to be in. Entirely, outwith the entire objective of the continuity bill, it is simply nothing more than additional powers to the minister and a rather unfortunate one at that. Do you wish to pressure withdrawal of your amendment? I press. The question is that amendment 197 be agreed to, while agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. On amendment 197, there are three votes for it against the amendment that is therefore not agreed to. I now call amendment 198, the name of Ross Greer, already debated with amendment 197. Ross Greer, to move or not move? The question is that amendment 198 be agreed or while agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. Is it a second? We will count it in that case minister. Amendment 198, there were three votes for it against the amendment that is therefore not agreed to. The question is that section 17 be agreed to or while agreed. Your opposition is noted. Call of amendment 199, in the name of Neil Bibby, already debated with amendment 85. Neil Bibby, to move or not move? Not moved. The question is that section 18 be agreed to or while agreed. Your opposition is noted. I now call amendment 200, in the name of Murdo Fraser, grouped with amendment 202. Murdo Fraser, to move amendment 200 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Section 18 of the bill deals with financial matters. My amendment 200 has the effect of ensuring that provisions in this bill on finance do not compromise the fiscal framework. I could talk at great length about the operation of the fiscal framework, convener, but I sense a certain weariness on the part of committee members at this stage in proceedings. Despite the exhortations that I hear around me encouraging me to talk at length, I think that I will keep it fairly short. We are all familiar with the fiscal framework, which regulates the financial arrangements between the UK Government and the Scottish Government pursuant to the 2016 Scotland Act. Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the bill all create substantial new powers for Scottish ministers. For example, section 19 expands the right of public bodies to make charges where they are using the powers in the bill to deal with deficiencies, comply with obligations and make provision in line with EU law after exit date. Clearly there are financial powers in the bill, and of course we know that EU withdrawal will have major financial implications. Other aspects of spending policy are currently determined at a European level, returning to the UK and the due course returning to Scotland, for example in areas such as agricultural support. Clearly there will be issues where there will be an impact on the way that the fiscal framework operates. What the amendment is designed to do is ensure that with the extensive new financial powers in the bill, the complex situation of EU funding and the need to support that fiscal framework, we need to ensure that the fiscal framework is protected as it currently exists, and that the principles accepted that, as we say in the amendment, the fiscal framework must not be undermined. I can go on at great length in addition if it is required, convener, but I will leave it at that and return to it in the wind-up. Thank you, convener. I support the amendment by a motor phraser. 202 arose because much of the conversations around transposing law in the bill, very little attention has been given to our potential financial liabilities and withdrawal from the EU. It is an important point to consider. Members will be entirely not surprised that there is nothing political in my motivation behind this amendment. For the simple reason that I felt that it may have been overlooked in the bill's drafting, and I thought that it was an important issue to raise, especially with the Finance and Constitution Committee and its deliberations at stage 2. This additional section to be included after section 22 relates to our liabilities, resulting in loans paid from the European Investment Bank. I am not privy to all investments that are made by the EIB, but I do know that they include, for example, £175 million for improvements to the M8, £192 million for investment in hospitals and £50 million from the European Strategic Investment Fund as part of the Scottish Government's Scottish European Growth co-investment programme. That alone is around £417 million, I suspect that the final figure may be higher. In the interests of transparency, I would hope that members think that it is quite acceptable to ask Scottish ministers to outline to Parliament what those liabilities are as part of due diligence of the financial implications of this bill and, indeed, EU withdrawal to ensure that there are simply no unintended consequences in future Scottish budgets as a result of failing to identify them or, indeed, quantify them and, indeed, repayment terms. I have chosen deliberately the period by the end of the transition period to do this, not exit day, because, as when the Scottish ministers should report to Parliament, naturally, the carving up of the liabilities will be part of the final exit negotiation, and I also think that that should leave plentiful time for the minister to get a full realisation of the numbers and timescales, and I hope that members find this an acceptable request. Thank you. Any other member of the committee who wishes to speak on this amendment? Thank you, convener. I am slightly unclear about the issues raised in amendment 202, and I look forward to hearing the minister's response to it in any particular, whether there is already any existing practice around reporting those issues. Would we actually be adding anything by passing the amendment? In relation to amendment 200 from Murdo Fraser, protecting the principle of protecting the fiscal framework, I have three specific issues. I think that I am worried that under mine might be a rather subjective test open to a great deal of political interpretation about whether something undermines the fiscal framework. That is one concern. The second concern is that it seems to me inevitable that the fiscal framework will change during this process, either as a result of functions and the financial resources that need to be transferred to carry out those functions being devolved, or—this is the third point—as a result of the review of the fiscal framework, which is supposed to take place anyway. I seem to remember that the Smith commission, which debated the creation of the devolved financial powers that led to the fiscal framework, agreed that it should be reviewed. If I remember rightly, that was a five-year timescale, which would place it squarely within the transition period. It may be that it is impractical to undertake a comprehensive review during the Brexit process, but I do not think that we should bind our hands and be unable to change the fiscal framework if it has to, either as a result of additional devolved functions that are coming to this Parliament or that pre-scheduled review that, with any luck, might one day help to tidy up the mess of which Adam Tomkins and I bear a share of responsibility. I am not convinced about either of the amendments in this group. The main concern of the Murdo Fraser seems to be that there could be the potential for the fiscal framework being undermined. I would have thought that implicit in the fiscal framework being in place would have been the fact that it should have the support of ministers, and that it should not be acting to undermine it. In terms of 202, like Patrick Harvie, I would be interested to hear the minister's explanation. I would have thought that there would be a mechanism in place to ensure that the value of the loan arrangements with the European investment bank can be brought into the public arena without it having to be placed on the face of the bill. James Kelly, another member wants to speak from the committee. That being the case, minister. I am conscious of the time. I do not want to digress too much, but I noticed John Scott arriving, who is the member for Trun, where my former school was. Brian Whittle is a former pupil at Mark College. I am a former Mark College pupil, and Gerald Byrn, one of my officials, is a former Mark College pupil. I make this point because I had a teacher at Mark College, a music teacher, when I was doing music in my sixth year. When I presented a composition exercise, I used to say, that it looks as if it has been done between the soup and the fish. Obviously, it was a grand school that it had many courses at dinners for the music teachers. However, the reality is that I have to say that those amendments do look as if they have been done between the soup and the fish. I will explain why in just a second. The first reason is that, although I am sure that Murdo Fraser cares deeply about the fiscal framework, nothing at all in the bill affects the matters to which his amendment refers, including the operation of the Scottish Consolidated Fund, the tax power set out in the Scotland Act and the operation of the Scottish Government's fiscal framework, which underpins the power set out in the Scotland Act 2016. It is therefore completely redundant. I have to say that any preparatory expenditure—I am sure that Mr Fraser has read the financial memorandum—any preparatory expenditure occurred under section 18 required to be confirmed in the annual budget act, or regulations for revisions made under it, and existing financial accountability and governance arrangements must continue to be adhered to. Nothing in the bill removes the requirement for the budget act processes under the Public Finance and Accountability Scotland Act 2000 to be followed, and the provisions of the Scottish Public Finance Manual will continue to apply. Changes to the framework are not within the gift of the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government or this piece of legislation, and Patrick Harvie has pointed to his review as well. The amendment is completely redundant. On asking for information on loans, I thought that the best place to ask is the person who is lending the money, the European Investment Bank. I have to say that the lack of access to the European Investment Bank is going to be a very considerable problem for Scotland. That is another of the consequences of Brexit that those backing Brexit should have thought about before they created those circumstances. We are already seeing difficulties, because the money is not available. Mr Greene has perhaps unwittingly pointed to yet another downside of Brexit, but the reality of the situation is that the people who ask for this are the EIB. The amendment is also drafted in such a way that it does not require the Scottish Government to say about its own loans. If I had done that, at least the amendment might have been competent, but it does not say that. The Scottish Government is only one recipient of loans that exist right across Scotland. The EIB has already said that it has provided more than £3 billion for direct investment in Scotland, with additional investment for UK-wide programmes. The amendment is redundant and unnecessary, and it is not even possible for it to achieve what it sets out to achieve. I would suggest that neither amendment should be preceded with, because neither of them are necessary. Both of them waste the time of this chamber, frankly. Murdoff Leazer, to wind up. I think that Mr Russell is starting to lose his temper a little bit at this stage in proceedings. Let me respond to a few of the points that have been made. First of all, Mr Harvey made three specific points. First of all, he criticised the word undermind as being too subjective. If he had read on in terms of the amendment that he had seen in section 2 paragraph B, the word undermind is actually defined, meaning any regulations, enactment or act by the Scottish ministers that materially change the fiscal framework. Mr Harvey is quite correct to say that, as time goes on, whether we have a review or anything in this bill, the fiscal framework will have to change. It is absolutely right, but that change has to come by negotiation, not by any unilateral action on the part of Scottish ministers to exhalation the powers under this act. That is why I believe that this amendment is appropriate. The worst criticism that Mr Russell could come up with of this amendment is that it was unnecessary and redundant. That is not our view, Mr Russell. Our view is that having on the face of the bill a clear statement that the fiscal framework is unaffected seems to me to make a lot of sense in terms of providing assurance that nothing that Scottish ministers will do will affect the fiscal framework. If the worst that can be said of it is redundant, it makes it highly superior to many of the other amendments that Mr Russell has himself proposed to the bill or, indeed, to the entire bill itself. On that basis, I intend to press the amendment. We are obviously coming close to the end. We are just getting a wee bit demob happy, so let us just keep going in the tone that we had previously managed to achieve. The question is that amendment 200 be agreed to. I have all agreed. In that case, there will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. On amendment 200, there were three votes for and eight against, and, therefore, amendment 200 is not agreed to. Amendment 52, in the name of Neil Finlay, is already debated with amendment 149. James Kelly, to move or not move? The question is that amendment 52 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. On amendment 52, there were five votes for and six against, and, therefore, the amendment is not agreed to. Amendment 201, in the name of Adam Tomkins, is already debated with amendment 71. Adam Tomkins, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 201 be agreed to. We are all agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. On amendment 201, there were three votes for and eight against. Amendment is, therefore, not agreed to. The question is that section 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Your opposition is noted. The question is that section 20 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Your opposition is noted again. On amendment 53, in the name of Tavish Scott, it is already debated with amendment 175. Tavish Scott, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 53 be agreed to. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. On amendment 53, there were five votes for, six against. The amendment is, therefore, not agreed to. The question is that section 21 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Your opposition is noted. On amendment 54, in the name of Neil Findlay, it is already debated with amendment 149. James Kelly, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. On amendment 54, there were five votes for, there were six against, and, therefore, the amendment is not agreed to. The question is that section 22 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Your opposition is noted. I call amendment 202 in the name of Jamie Greene, I already debated with amendment 200. Jamie Greene, to move or not move. Convener, if the minister thinks that this amendment is a waste of time, it does beg the question whether the amendment is from his backbenchers, or not move. The question is that amendment 202 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. On amendment 202, there were three votes for, and the amendment is, therefore, not agreed to. The question is that section 23 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 203 in the name of Alexander Burnett, who already debated with amendment 58. Alexander Burnett, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 203 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. On amendment 203, there were three votes for, eight votes against, and the amendment is, therefore, not agreed to. The question is that section 27 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Your opposition is noted. I call amendment 204 in the name of Jamie Greene, who already debated with amendment 58. Are there mind members that if amendment 204 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 55. Jamie Greene, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 204 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. On amendment 204, there were three votes for, eight votes against, and the amendment is, therefore, not agreed to. I call amendment 55, in the name of Neil Findlay, who already debated with amendment 58. James Kelly, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 55 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 205, in the name of Donald Cameron, who already debated with amendment 58. Donald Cameron, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 205 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. On amendment 205, there were three votes for, eight votes against, and, therefore, the amendment is not agreed to. The question is that section 29 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Your opposition is noted. I call amendment 206, in the name of Liam Kerr, who already debated with amendment 115. Liam Kerr, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 206 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. There were six, four and five against. The amendment is, therefore, agreed to. The question is that section 30 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Your opposition is noted. I now call amendment 56, in the name of Tavish Scott, grouped with amendments 57, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 213. Tavish Scott, to move amendment 56 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Let me be very brief indeed. This relates to scrutiny in urgent cases, and the two points that I want to make relate to section 13. Point 1 relates to amendment 56, which, together with the 57, make it clear that ministers cannot use the powers of urgency for section 13 proposals. Again, I simply wish to close down shortcuts from scrutiny for ministers who want this bill to equip them with the powers to keep pace with EU law. I hope that those amendments are entirely consistent with the themes that we have been pursuing over the course of the number of hours that we have been here today. I so move. Ross Greer, to speak to amendment 207 and other amendments in the group. In situations that ministers consider to be urgent under section 31, the bill permits regulations that usually be subject to the affirmative procedure to instead be introduced immediately and only subject to affirmative vote 28 days later in order to confirm the change to be made permanent. As the bill stands, ministers are obliged to lay a regulation before Parliament as soon as is practicable after signing it. That is a very open-ended term. As regulations can become law upon being signed, this urgency provision would permit a change in the law to be in effect for an unspecified period of time before even being laid before Parliament. Amendment 207 obliges ministers to lay a regulation made under this urgency provision within three working days. I hope that ministers that members who agree with that in principle but who may have an issue with the three working days time would agree to that and we could perhaps work out any issues around the timing at a technical amendment at stage 3. Ministers would still be required to lay the regulation as soon as it is practicable, but there would now be an additional legally defined time limit. Amendment 211 permits Parliament to suspend the urgency provisions by resolution if it believes that provisions have been misused in any way, such as if a minority government were thought to have circumvented appropriate scrutiny of an issue where a parliamentary majority may have been lacking—not that I am suggesting this one—would, of course. Parliament might then reinstate the urgency provision again by resolution if it believes that sufficient steps have been taken to resolve the problem that led to the misuse of the urgency provision in the first place. In line with other amendments that I have lodged, the purpose of 207 and 211 is to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny and oversight and affirm the role of that elected body in relation to government in this process. It does not place undue burden on government but it does ensure that transparency to Parliament and thus public and, in turn, essential scrutiny happens in a timely and appropriate manner. Thank you, convener. Amendments 208 and 209 deal with the question of regulations being introduced by Scottish ministers in what is described in the bill as urgent cases. As drafted, section 31 provides that the regulations shall cease to have effect at the end of a period of 28 days unless the regulations are approved by a resolution of the Scottish Parliament. As drafted, section 32 grants powers to ministers to make emergency powers that will have immediate effect but will then be required to be approved by Parliament. If that is not done, then the regulations will cease to have effect. What amendment 208 does is not object in principle to Scottish ministers having these emergency powers, but I feel that the period of 28 days to get parliamentary approval is simply too long. That is an issue about proper parliamentary scrutiny of ministerial powers. Accordingly, my amendment 208 reduces the period of 28 days in sections 31 subsection 4 to 14 days. That would still give Scottish ministers the power to make these regulations in urgent cases but does require them to be approved by Parliament within 14 days, which seems to me a reasonable period striking a balance between the need for proper parliamentary scrutiny and the freedom of ministers to act in urgent cases. Amendment 209 is simply a consequential amendment to subsection 5 to change 28 days to 14 days to bring it into line with the amended subsection 4 should amendment 208 be carried. Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 210 in other amendments in the group. Subsection 2 currently states that regulations may be made without being subject to the affirmative procedure if they contain a declaration that Scottish ministers consider that, by a reason of urgency, it is necessary to make regulations without being subject to that procedure. My amendment does two things. For this purpose, urgency should be better defined. We know that there is much discourse around the definition of words like emergency and urgency, but nonetheless the words consider that, in my view, leaves it open to ministers to decide and declare if something is urgent. Secondly, it ensures that all such regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure. I urge members to adopt this additional layer of security that due process as followed affirmative procedure is by far the best way to deal with regulations, especially those that are declared as urgent. I appreciate the minister may fall back on the defence that this makes the bill unoperable or unworkable, as previously stated, but as this relates to the passing of regulation that is deemed as urgent, then I would strongly propose that affirmative procedure is the best way to deal with that. Thank you. Adam Tomkins to speak to amendment 213 in other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I think that amendment 213 has been lodged in error, but the error was mine, unfortunately, I apologise, but I would want to record my support for all of the other amendments in this group. Okay. Any other committee member wish to speak at this stage? Neil Bibby? Thanks, convener. The right amendment is in this group dealing with section 31 of the bill, principally, and it is minded to support all of them. Section 31 has been all relates to scrutiny of regulations and urgent cases. Given the concerns that members of the committee and members in the chamber have expressed about scrutiny and transparency throughout this process, it is important that section 31 of the bill is robust. That is why I support the amendments in this group to ensure that section 31 of the bill is fair, proportionate and robust. Thank you. I think that there is general agreement that there is a need for procedures in relation to urgent matters but that they need to be limited. I am not convinced by Jamie Greene's argument and I worry that his amendment might have the effect of whatever its intentions of preventing something urgent from being taken forward urgently. I think that it may have a very serious practical effect. Naturally, I am happy to support my colleague Ross Greer and his proposals. The three-day requirement in amendment 207 is in line with existing guidance, as members will be aware that it was discussed at committee previously. I think that the normal expectation is two working days. The DPLR committee has the ability to take action if something has not been laid by the third day, so I think that a requirement on three working days is very helpful. The emergency brake provision, I hope, is something that we would never feel that we need to use. However, having it available to us is one of the things that I think would give Government the incentive to ensure that, in fact, we do not ever need to use it. I am sympathetic to the argument that, in relation to the keeping pace section, urgency is not necessarily relevant in that area. In relation to Murdo Fraser's arguments, I will certainly be open to hearing the response from the minister, but I see some merit in the arguments that Murdo Fraser has put forward on reducing the time limit. Thank you. Any other member wishes to speak at the stage? Thank you, convener. I will first say that I am glad that I had not decided to take Adam Tomkins amendment 213, or it would have been a little embarrassing to have accepted something that was not meant to be there. However, I want to be very constructive indeed, and I am approaching the last two sections in a mood not just of wishing to be helpful, but also conscious of the time, so let me do so. In relation to Ross Greer's amendment, the only amendments in the group that I have problems with, and I will come on briefly to the rest of the moment, are Ross Greer's amendment 207 and Jamie Greene's amendment and Neil Bibby's amendment. Let me explain the circumstances in which I have problems with these. The first is Ross Greer's amendment. It is not that I do not recognise the need to do so, but the three days is impossible to meet. It is impossible to meet, because standing orders allow laying of instruments during days when the office of the clerk is open. There are periods of three days and more when the office is not open. The amendment does not make clear what the consequences of a failure to lay within three days would be. In those circumstances, it is entirely legitimate that doubt could be cast over the validity of instruments. Those arrangements are robustly pleased and practised by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. If three days goes into this bill, it will mean that there are instruments that will be questioned in a way that can't be questioned now. I would ask him not to proceed with this. If he wants to proceed with something that is likely to be more accurate, I am happy to discuss that urgently over the next two or three days, but three days is simply impossible because of the other regulations that exist. Murdo Fraser's amendment, which reduced the period in which the Parliament has to approve or not approve regulations under the urgent procedure from 28 days to 14, the procedure did not take 28 days. It could be done more swiftly, but I do not think that there is any great harm in that. If Murdo Fraser will accept that I want just to reflect on this over the next few days, I might come back to say to the amendment that makes 14.21 or something, but I am not averse to putting this in the bill at the stage while we think about this at the stage. I do not want him to think that I regard this as unnecessary or wasting time in any way. I am absolutely sure that this is, I would not say in contrast to some other things, a genuine serious amendment that could be helpful, but Murdo Fraser is indicating that he accepts that I will come back and think about this over the next few days. I recognise the point of Jamie Greene's amendment 21.0, when I understand the anxiety about the situations from which urgency might arise, but I think that the amendment is actually misconceived. Urgency speaks for itself, and I doubt that if any attempt to staturally define it would make things much clearer, might only introduce unnecessary and destabilising uncertainties into the question of when the section might be used. I have said before and I want to say again that we do not want to have to rely on section 31. We would only do so when absolutely necessary, when there is urgency. We, like the UK Government in its own bill, recognise that leaving the EU is exactly the sort of situation in which we might have to move very swiftly indeed. Tavish Scott's amendments 56 and 7 are intended to prevent the urgent procedure from being used for keeping pace regulations. We have been here before, but I am happy to accept those. In terms of number 211, I am inclined to accept this again under the condition that there will require to be a conversation about some of the details within this. There are some things that I think need to be tidied up and improved, but I am trying to indicate how positive I am being 823. The only two areas that I have indicated are difficult. I would hope that Ross Greer might withdraw 207, and that would be very helpful. I hope that Jamie Greene might be persuaded to withdraw his amendment on the grounds that I do not think that it clarifies anything and could make things more difficult. I thank the minister for the tone of the remarks that he has just given to colleagues across the chamber. I am indeed his officials for the way in which he has conducted himself over the past couple of days. We started on scrutiny and we are going to finish on scrutiny. I recognise that the minister has gone a long way to recognising the concerns that Parliament has expressed on a number of occasions. Colleagues who have led individual amendments here will wish to reflect on the position that they are in vis-a-vis the Government's support or not, but we have certainly moved a long way. The only final thing that I would like to say is that I thank you, Mr Crawford, for your careful consideration of the past couple of days and your handling of what has been a long period. Thank you very much indeed. I will press your amendment at the same time. I will press it. Just so you have a bit more work to do, I will press it. The question is that amendment 56 be agreed to, and I will agree to. Amendment 57, in the name of Tabush Scott, has already been agreed to. Amendment 56, Tabush Scott, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 57 be agreed to, and I will agree to. Amendment 207, in the name of Ross Greer, has already been agreed to. Amendment 56, Ross Greer, to move or not move. I will take the minister's offer and not move. Thank you. Amendment 208, in the name of Murdo Fraser, has already BEATED with amendment 56, Murdo Fraser, to move or not move. In view of the minister's more careful comments than previously, I'll not move. Amendment 209, in the name of Murdo Fraser, has already BEATED with amendment 56, Murdo Fraser, to move or not move. I'll not move. Amendment 210, in the name of Jamie Greene, has already BEATED with amendment 56, Jamie Greene, to move or not move. I'm fully not move. The question is that section 31 be agreed to, or all agreed. Hei. E'r opositio yn gŵr. Ar y cyfgau ar y Cyfgau 211, ar y Cyfgau 211 o rheiddiw gwyr, oedd y Suddenlya ac cull y Cyfgau 56, oedd cyfgau femnwyr yn ôl. Rwyf. Cymru. Rwyf. Fe oedd y Cyfgau 211 o rheiddiw gwyr ac gwyl iawn. Mae i'r gwyr. Oedd y Cyfgau 112 o rheiddiw, oedd y Cyfgau 115 o rheiddiw gwyf o'r Cyfgau 211 o rheiddiw gwyr. Oedd y Cyfgau 211 o rheiddiw gwyr. Felly byddai defnyddio am i. A all gynnwys arlawn i ddim yn hafwyr, ddim yn hafwyr hannu! A rydym yn hyn y mae'r amgylchedd Llywodraeth 12 yn niechaf, ddim yn hynny'r amgylchedd Llywodraeth 12 yn hafwyr ymlaen. A dyna yw'r amgylchedd Llywodraeth 23, a'u rhywfodol Uddon Tomkins, rydym yn hynny'r amgylchedd Llywodraeth 56, a'u rhywfodol Uddon Tomkins yw pan gweithio. Cyflu, mae'r opositiw yn unig. Ym 2014, mae'r ddwych fel Adam Tompkins yn dderbyn, mae'n dweud o ddwyeth Lord Tompkins o ddwyth a ddwyth ac yn ddwyth ar gwyllt. Mae cwestiwnau ar y ddwyf, mae winning 2014 i mi. Mae'n ei gweithio. Mae'n ffifio, mae'n ddweud, rhaid i'r handle? Mae'n ddwyadd a'r handle. Mae'r ddwyf yn ddwyd, mae'n drwy fwyllt yn ddwyth a ddwyad. falanhiethen. FOE chir ysgareddd�anrhyw mewn ei implementiaeth Dwyr reverswyddieth datblygu apogelwyd yn cyfoeddu i fyanson. Rwy'n frech peth fydda'r prif Mon ydi'r mewn ge Noah Froswatt pan oedd y cyfle mae Oedleon i gyfodol o rhaid i ddiweddderch i y gwasanaeth yn cyfodol i Anghra blaen Rhyw ddawn. Those in favour please raise their hands. Those against please raise their hands. On section 33, on amendment 215, there were three votes for, eight against, and the amendment was therefore not agreed to. A common amendment 216 in the name of Adam Tomkins read a debate with amendment 58. Mr Tomkins to move or not move when he's already moved. The question is that amendment 5216 be agreed to or will agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour please raise their hand. All those against please raise their hand. On amendment 216, there were three votes for, eight against, and the amendment is therefore not agreed to. A common amendment 217 in the name of Adam Tomkins read a debate with amendment 58, Adam Tomkins to move or not move. The question is that amendment 217 be agreed or will agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour please raise their hand. All those against please raise their hand. On amendment 217, there were three votes for, eight against, and the amendment is therefore not agreed to. A common amendment 218 in the name of Adam Tomkins read a debate with amendment 58, Adam Tomkins to move or not move. The question is that amendment 218 be agreed to or will agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour please raise their hand. All those against please raise their hand. On amendment 218, there were three votes for, eight against, and the amendment 218 is therefore not agreed. A common amendment 219 in the name of Adam Tomkins read a debate with amendment 58, Adam Tomkins to move or not move. The question is that amendment 219 be agreed or will agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour please raise their hand. All those against please raise their hand. On amendment 19, there were three votes for, eight against, and the amendment is therefore not agreed to. A common amendment 220 in the name of Adam Tomkins read a debate with amendment 58, Adam Tomkins to move or not move. The question is that amendment 220 be agreed to or will agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour please raise their hand. All those against please raise their hand. On amendment 220, there were three votes for, and eight against, and that means that the amendment is not agreed to. I now call amendment 221 in the name of Adam Tomkins read a debate with amendment 58. Adam Tomkins to move or not move. The question is that amendment 221 be agreed to or will agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour please raise their hand. All those against please raise their hand. On amendment 221, there were three votes for, eight against, and that means that the amendment is not agreed to. I call amendment 222 in the name of Adam Tomkins read a debate with amendment 58. Adam Tomkins to move or not to move. The question is that amendment 222 be agreed to or will agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour please raise their hand. All those against please raise their hand. On amendment 222, there were three votes for, and eight against. I call amendment 223 in the name of Adam Tomkins, already debated with amendment 58. Adam Tomkins to move or not move. The question is that amendment 223 be agreed or will agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour please raise their hand. All those against please raise their hand. On amendment 223, there were three 3 votes for eight against, and therefore the amendment is not agreed to. The amendment 224, in the Adam Tompkins, has already debated with amendment 58. Adam Tompkins is to move or not move. The question is that amendment 224 will be agreed to or will be agreed to. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. Amendment 224, in the name of Adam Tompkins, has already debated with amendment 58. Adam Tompkins is to move or not move. The question is that amendment 225 will be agreed to or will be agreed to. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. On amendment 225, there were three votes for eight against. That means the amendment is not agreed to. The question is that schedule 1 be agreed to or will be agreed to. Your opposition is noted. The question is that section 34 be agreed to or will be agreed to. The question is that schedule 2 be agreed to or will be agreed to. Your opposition is noted. Amendment 226, in the name of Adam Tompkins, has already debated with amendment 71. Adam Tompkins is to move or not move. The question is that amendment 226 be agreed to or will be agreed to. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. On amendment 226, there were three votes for eight against. That means that the amendment is not agreed to. The question is that section 35 be agreed to or will be agreed to. Your opposition is noted. The question is that schedule 3 be agreed to or will be agreed to. Your opposition is noted. The question is that section 36 be agreed to or will be agreed to. Your opposition is noted. On amendment 227, in the name of Jamie Greene, grouped with amendment 228, Jamie Greene to move amendment 227 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. It seems quite apt in the final hurdle of stage 2. We are discussing the penultimate section of the bill. In this case, the repeal of the act. By the end of this debate, the chamber will have discussed 231 amendments around the implications and consequences of this bill. The bill is subject to further amendments at stage 3. Despite our best of intentions, there may be notable issues that we will not have foreseen or which have been overlooked once the bill passes, if it does so. I propose a very simple addition to the bill calling for a review of the act. Unlike other pieces of legislation that do not specify a review and rely on the normal post-legislative process, the act will be subject to quite fast-moving changes in the political and constitutional landscapes around it. It seems sensible to me and I hope to others to ask ministers to review it as soon as it is practical to see if the bill is achieving its objectives. Whether the Parliament or the courts review it first is another matter, perhaps. I have not specified the timescale on this in the hope that the minister will agree to the principle without any prescribed period. Notwithstanding my amendment section 37 on the repeal of the act remains in place. On that note, I thank you, convener, and the parliamentary staff for your diligence and patience throughout the sessions, and also to the committee members for considering my 23 amendments. On that note, I am out. Liam Kerr, to speak to amendment 228 and other amendments in the group. My amendment 228 requires that section 371 lose the words or any provision of the act. Stated purpose of section 37 is to allow ministers to repeal the act. That is fine, but this specific phrase allows them to delete any provision of the act. It doesn't put any limits on that. It is any provision that can simply be repealed. That creates the clear risk that Scottish ministers decide to repeal part of the act that, for example, improves scrutiny of regulations or that which limits their financial powers. In short, we should keep the idea that the act can be swiftly repealed but, without vacillating the committee, should strip out this partial and dangerous ability to pick and choose which bits of the act can or can't be repealed and agree to amendment 228. Thank you. Emma Harper, thank you for your birthday wishes earlier. Over the past two days, I have listened carefully to contributions from members of the committee, members in chamber and contributions from the minister. I have taken many notes which I am sure I will use as the bill proceeds. The language in the bill and the amendments is technical and as a recent addition to the committee. That has been my first experience at scrutiny at stage 2. That has been valuable and engaging. I would like to thank all involved in the process, including Parliament staff, committee clerks, convener, members and the ministerial team, as well as the minister. I would like to address or take the opportunity to speak to amendment 227 in the name of Jamie Greene. The amendment, which would be entered after section 36, as stated, would require Scottish ministers to carry out a review of the act as soon as practicable, although I think that the wording that Jamie Greene said was practical, but the written word is practicable, so that might need a bit of clarification after exit day and that this would present the opportunity for Parliament to provide a review or a report. In defining practicable, I sought the definition from websters and I thought that webster's definition, which might be meaningful to my colleague Liam Kerr MSP, is as follows. Practicable is something capable of being done or accomplished with available means or resources. With that said, I believe that amendment 227 is reasonable and will make the current bill more open and transparent, allowing Parliament to continue to scrutiny after exit day. James Kelly Thank you, convener. Very briefly, I just placed a record on behalf of myself and my colleague Neil Bibby. Thanks to yourself for the thorough way you have overseen proceedings and also for the Parliament staff who have worked through these long sessions to ensure that proceedings have moved efficiently, if maybe not quickly, because of the politicians and their long speeches. In terms of that section, I support amendment 227. I think that the idea of a review is eminently sensible. I oppose Liam Kerr's motion 228 in the sense that it pushes towards a position of full repeal, as opposed to partial repeals, which may be required in certain circumstances. I echo the warm comments and thanks that have been expressed to the committee colleagues, clerks and officials and to all the Parliament staff who have made these extraordinary sessions possible and helped us through it all. In relation to amendment 228, I will say that it seems odd to me to allow ministers by regulations to repeal the whole act, but not, for example, to decide that the urgency provisions are no longer required and that those should be repealed or that some other individual aspect is no longer required. I am not convinced by 228. In relation to 227, I am surprised that there is so much appetite. It seems to me that we are all going to have plenty to do at the time, just after the exit day, but it is fine if people want to have a review of the act. Who am I to stand on the way? No other member has indicated to want to speak. Thank you for your inspirational chairing of the committee over the last two days. You have managed to keep order in a very effective way and to calm the passions that would otherwise have arisen, which, from time to time, showed signs of breaking out what you stamped on them very professionally indeed. I thank all the officials of the committee, the parliamentary officials, the official report, those who have been in charge of the audio-official services, those who have provided sandwiches, particularly this evening, where there was ample sufficiency—last night perhaps just slightly less than we had required—and all others have taken part. Thank you also to all those members who have come to observe this. It is not often that committees are a spectator sports, and particularly not by other MSPs. Whether this is solidarity only with your Conservative colleagues—I address the Conservative members—or whether it is a genuine interest in the proceedings of this Parliament or whether it is a combination of those things, I am grateful for the ever-changing. That will not have been observed by most people, the ever-changing cast of Conservative MSPs who have flitted across the chamber—well, flitted perhaps is a generous word. Some came and stayed and some left early, but they took part in this, as did some other members. I saw Christina McKelvie yesterday, for example, observing it. This has been a unique event, and let's hope that we keep it unique. I want to make a point before I come to these amendments on what will happen next. Clearly, the Presiding Officer will set a date for stage 3 amendments and stage 3 schedule for next week. I want to make a general statement of intent. I am very aware of the decisions of the committee. It is not my intention to endeavour to reverse any decision of the committee unless it makes the bill inoperable. I make that commitment here, and I hope that that might be matched by a commitment from others to accept the rejection of ideas that have existed here. Therefore, we come into stage 3 freshly with looking at the bill to make it a better bill. I have entirely accepted that some people do not wish the bill to succeed and will wish to continue in that way and will vote against it. However, I do not see any need for a repetition of 232 amendments. I think that we know where we are with the bill now and therefore amendments that genuinely improve the bill and which have a chance of success would be the right thing to do. I make the commitment that I am not going to go into the chamber in any other spirit. I think that it is a pity that Jamie Greene did not consult his colleague Maurice Golden, because we have accepted an amendment 186 on a reporting function for this bill already. However, I do not want to end this on a cherlish nature, so that would be very unlike me. As a result of that, I am going to accept this amendment. Perhaps it would be helpful if Jamie Greene and Maurice Golden were to get together and to see whether they could bring their ideas together so that we would get one procedure for reporting. That would help everybody to cut out unnecessary bureaucracy, which I know is a Tory aim. In terms of Liam Kerr's amendment, I am tempted to say that having looked at the word practicable, I am happy to add another dictionary to the pile that would be dwelling practicable in Galakies-Gianta. However, if that would not help his understanding of these matters, particularly in the pubs in which he frequents, I think that I would just want to say that I have no great difficulty with his amendment. The purpose of this bill, undoubtedly, is to provide the circumstances that are needed should the Parliament refuse legislative consent and should we be in a position not to have an agreement on the UK bill. It is an either or. In those circumstances, I will also, in the spirit of generosity, accept this amendment. We do not have to divide on those two amendments unless we wish to do so. Convener, we will meet again very shortly. I am giving evidence to two parliamentary committees tomorrow on this bill, and then we will have the stage 3 proceedings next week. I really do hope that we can do that in the spirit that you have set in the last two days, and that we can do it in a way that is thoughtful but perhaps not quite as long as we have spent in the past more than 24 hours. There is always the temptation to retort to the minister, but on this note, I will maintain the moral high ground in that and say thank you for the feedback and also for the support for that particular amendment. I would say in all seriousness to the minister that he has made a number of commitments of the last few days to individual members across the board to revisit many aspects, especially amendments that were both drawn, and I do hope that he does do so. It is no secret that these benches oppose the introduction of this bill by hope that our actions of the last few days have proved that we played a very productive and proactive part in shaping this bill as it goes in stage 3. The question is that amendment 227 be agreed or well agreed. We are agreed. I call amendment 228, and the name of Liam Kerr will debate with amendment 227. Liam Kerr to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 228 be agreed or well agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. On amendment 228, there were eight votes for, three against. The amendment is therefore agreed to. I call amendment 229, and the name of Alexander Burnett. I will debate with amendment 59. Alexander Burnett to move or not move. I am moved. The question is that amendment 229 be agreed to. We are all agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. On amendment 229, there were three votes for, eight against. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 239, and the name of Alexander Burnett already debated. Amendment 58, Alexander Burnett to move or not move. I am moved. The question is that amendment 230 be agreed or well agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. On amendment 230, there were three votes for, eight against. It means that the amendment is not agreed to. I call amendment 231, and the name of Jamie Greene already debated. Amendment 58, Jamie Greene to move or not move. I am moved. The question is that amendment 231 be agreed to. I am well agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise their hand. All those against, please raise their hand. On amendment 231, there were three votes for, eight against. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The question is that section 37 be agreed to or well agreed. The question is that section 38 be agreed to or well agreed. Your opposition is noted. The question is that the long title be agreed to or well agreed. Your opposition is noted. That ends stage 2 considerations of the bill. Before we part for tonight, I would just like to say that we have subjected this bill to some significant and substantial scrutiny. I want to thank all members of the parliamentary staff who have supported the committee through our proceedings, all members of the parliament who have either contributed or attended at any stage, the minister and his government officials for the way they have gone about their business. Particularly the parliamentary clerks who have helped me to clamp down on any unnecessary passions that might have been arising and are in danger of causing any problems. Thank you for keeping me right also and thank you everyone genuinely. I close this session of the finance committee.