 On Tuesday, I came to this chamber to make a statement about why the Scottish ministers considered it necessary now to introduce the European Union legal continuity Scotland Bill, despite the continuing passage at Westminster of a bill with similar intent. Yesterday, the Lord Advocate came to this chamber to make, for the first time, a statement on the senior law officers' reasons for respectfully considering a bill to be within the legislative competence of this Parliament, despite a Presiding Officer deciding not to grant it a positive certificate. Today, despite the weather, I am here to set out the Government's reasons for seeking to have that bill considered under emergency procedure, and it will in a moment move the motion seeking Parliament's approval for that. The timetable proposed for dealing with this bill is not, as it has been for previous emergency bills, to deal with all stages in one day. Some of us are old enough to remember that procedure being used, for example, to restore tolls on the Erskine bridge. It has only been used very sparingly since. Parliament is rightly sparingly in its approval of the emergency procedure, but I am proposing to Parliament today that we should consider this bill as an emergency measure over the next three weeks, starting with the stage 1 debate next Wednesday, stage 2 the week after that, and stage 3 the following week. Of course. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the process that he plans to follow. Would he accept that one of the main arguments is about adequate scrutiny of the measures that we are considering? In particular, in relation to stage 2, would it not be better that those deliberations were heard in committee rather than a plenary session of the whole chamber? I want to make it clear that I am laying out the timetable as we wish to see it and as it is contained in the motion, but I am committed to work with those who are willing to support the bill and to take the bill through to find ways to meet the concerns that they have, for example, for increased scrutiny at stage 2, to see whether there is an enhanced role for committees in that scrutiny. I am very keen, as I will say in a moment, to see maximum scrutiny of this bill, and I will work with all the parties to achieve that, so I would be happy to sit down and work with the Liberals and meet others to do so. Indeed, I have had meetings with them, of course. If the minister really is keen to ensure maximum scrutiny of this bill, as he has just said, why not make it an emergency bill at all? I am about to deal with that point, as the member knows, so let me do so. I think that it is, first and foremost, entirely fitting the bill that is about defending the interests and powers of this Parliament, perhaps more than any other bill that we have ever considered. It should be scrutinised, and if we are so minded, it is approved at all stages by the whole Parliament. However, scrutiny of this bill will extend beyond the chamber, as it must. I have committed to making myself and my officials available throughout the period to the Parliament in committee, in plenary and to parties and to relevant groups. I will work tirelessly to make sure, so far as I am able, that the maximum possible scrutiny of the Government's proposals takes place. The Parliament and its committees are informed and engaged throughout. If there are changes and developments in the timetable to come in that way, I will welcome them and I will work on them. I observed on Tuesday, Presiding Officer, that echoing your own words and your published views on the bill is a novel situation. In normal times, such a bill would follow a normal timetable, but those are not normal times. Consequently, after much serious consideration, both the Welsh Government and ourselves have concluded that if the continuity bills are to defend the principles of devolution during the Brexit process, if they are to achieve their purpose, then an emergency timetable is necessary. We both sought to avoid tabling such bills. We continue to negotiate seriously and in good faith with the UK Government to try and secure an agreement regarding the UK's EU withdrawal bill that will allow our bills to be withdrawn or, if they have been enacted, to be set aside. The timetable for this process is being driven not by us but by the timetable Westminster for their withdrawal bill. It is likely that the third reading in the Lords will take place in early May. It will be submitted for royal assent shortly thereafter. It is essential that the continuity bills in Wales and Scotland become law before the EU withdrawal bill does. In the absence of an agreement about a common UK approach and in defence of devolution, this Parliament must prepare itself to assert, if it has to, the right to legislate itself about the devolved consequences of EU withdrawal. To do so, we must put in place the necessary safeguards and stopgaps, and this bill is at the heart of that process. Without it, not only are we defenceless, but our negotiating position as a Government is severely weakened. We must not only have options and choices, we must be seen to have options and choices. That is why I hope that all parties in the Parliament will back the position that I am laying out today, so that there is a united Scottish voice. A united Scottish voice, not a noisy Scottish voice. In addition, this timetable is necessary, because if—and I hope that that does not come to pass—if no agreement can be reached over the EU withdrawal bill and this Parliament chooses not to consent to it, then the UK Government and Parliament must be given the time to do what they have to do in response to that decision. They must amend their own EU withdrawal bill to remove the provisions that are not consented to and amend it so that it can work with two continuity bills. If we get to that stage, that would be a constructive alternative way forward, not the best way but a possible way, a workable way, a way that is being proposed in Wales and Scotland by Governments taking a rational, thought-through approach, rooted in the devolved settlements that are supported by our fellow citizens and which are the established constitutional order of these islands. It is unfortunate to date that the UK Government has not shown a willingness to be as constructive and collaborative as Wales and Scotland. Neil Findlay. If the EU withdrawal bill is amended to deliver the same or all-off elements to the continuity bill, what happens then? I have made it clear on Tuesday that the chamber can decide, but my view would be that the bill is no longer necessary and is therefore either not enacted or it has been enacted, then it is taken away in those circumstances. I do not anticipate any circumstances in which there is a partial bill on either side because of the timetable that exists for challenging the bills at which I have outlined to Mr Findlay earlier today, and I am happy to outline to all members. I think that that is very unlikely eventuality, and I think that it is not going to happen, but it is quite obvious that we have to do that in an emergency procedure if the bills are to fit together. It is unfortunate to date that the UK Government has not shown a willingness to be as constructive and collaborative as Wales and Scotland, but we will go on trying to change that situation when we never get tired of sensible negotiation. I am confident that this Parliament can give the bill the scrutiny that it deserves in the next three weeks. I am happy to continue that discussion across the chamber and with parties in order to do so. That is by no means inflexible. This Parliament and its committees have already held a large number of evidence sessions and debates on the EU withdrawal bill on which the continuity bill is modelled. The delegated powers and the finance and constitution committees have produced interim ports on that bill of the highest quality. The Parliament is therefore already familiar with the approach and structure of this bill. It knows about the issues that it raises, and I will ensure that the briefing material on this bill is made available as required and on the process of negotiation. I have made that commitment to the Labour Party today. We all understand the scale and gravity of the task that we are now engaged in. Brexit has thrown us all sorts of responsibilities that we did not vote for, did not seek and did not want, but we must not allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by them or succumb to the temptation by doing nothing to allow them to prevail. Ice and the Government stand ready to help the Parliament with the scrutiny bill in any and every way that I can. Even more importantly, in conclusion, I am sure that this Parliament stands ready to defend the interests of the people of Scotland by ensuring good governance that cannot come from a diminishing devolution, but only by respecting and building on the work that we all do in this chamber on behalf of our fellow citizens. Sometimes, and especially now, that requires us to do new things in new ways. So be it. Presiding Officer, I move that the Parliament agrees that the UK withdrawal from the European Union League and Continuity Scotland bill be treated as an emergency bill. The core problem with the motion that the minister has just moved is that there is no emergency. We do not need to take my word for that, because that is exactly what the Lord Advocate told this Parliament yesterday. Yesterday, the Lord Advocate came to this chamber and said that the reason why, in his view, this bill is within legislative competence is because none of its material provisions can come into force until after the United Kingdom has left the European Union. We know that that cannot happen for another 13 months. So yesterday, the Lord Advocate says that we've got a year and a month to legislate. Today, Mr Russell says that we've got three weeks to legislate. Now it strikes me that you don't need to be a professor of constitutional law to spot the glaring and manifest inconsistency with what the SNP is saying. Presiding Officer, emergency legislation should be avoided wherever possible. That's our starting position. Why? Because emergency legislation denies effective parliamentary scrutiny. There have been cries from right across this chamber since the withdrawal bill was published that the devolution settlement must be respected, and those are indeed cries in which we have participated and joined. But today, Presiding Officer, it is the SNP who are treating this Parliament with disdain in seeking to rush through controversial legislation significant elements of which may well be beyond our competence altogether. That isn't respecting the devolution settlement and it's not respecting this Parliament. The Government's own policy memorandum accompanying this bill says about this bill that it will, and I quote, add to the complexity of the post-exit position, and it will present serious logistical challenges. On that, we agree that this is a bill that will add complexity and will pose significant challenges, which are two further reasons why it should not be fast-tracked. On Tuesday, Presiding Officer, we said that the continuity bill was unwelcome and unnecessary. We stand by that, and today we add to it. It is unwelcome, it is unnecessary and it is dangerous, because it is when we legislate in haste that we legislate in error. This is an invitation from the SNP today to make bad law, and it is an invitation from the SNP today to make law badly. To those invitations, we, on these benches, say no thank you. It is. Patrick Harvie. I just wonder if he's used the same indignant voice to David Mundell, the minister who has in the Government, which has repeatedly failed to make the UK bill remotely acceptable or compatible with devolution. Adam Tompkins. It's not David Mundell who is trying to railroad unconstitutional legislation through this Parliament. It's the SNP supported by the Scottish Green Party, as usual. Presiding Officer, it is, as we heard earlier this week, unprecedented for any Scottish Government of any political colour to press ahead with a bill over the advice of the Presiding Officer that that bill is beyond competence. That fact alone should make us pause. By plowing on regardless, we risk bringing our Parliament into disrepute, and it seems to me we are going out of our way to invite all but inevitable challenge in the courts. Let us look briefly at the legislation we are being asked to fast track, because even to a lawyer, this legislation is far from clear cut. First, there is the vexed issue of competence. The Lord Advocate and the Presiding Officer focused on the compatibility of this bill with EU law in their respective statements about competence, but that is not the only legal limit on our lawmaking powers. It is also the case, and again this goes to the core of respecting the devolution settlement. It is also the case that we may not make law relating to matters that are properly reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. Section 6 of this bill provides for the legal status of the principle of supremacy of EU law. Yet, among the matters which the Scotland Act reserves to the UK Parliament are international relations, relations with the European Union and its institutions. How is a provision on the principle of the supremacy of EU law not one that relates to the reserved matter of the European Union and its institutions? That is precisely the sort of matter that requires detailed, careful parliamentary scrutiny with the help and assistance of the testimony of independent expert witnesses, all of which is, of course, a feature of our ordinary legislative process, but which will be cut by any decision today to fast-track this bill. It is not just a question of scrutinising the competence of this bill, however, that will be curtailed. It is scrutiny of the bill's content as well, and that content is not exactly straightforward, is it, Presiding Officer? Let us take an example. Section 5 of this bill provides that, to the extent that there is a right of action in Scots law, immediately before exit day, based on a failure to comply with any of the general principles of EU law, there is, on and after exit day, an equivalent right. Fine. Among the general principles of EU law is the doctrine of state liability. That is to say, the right that we all have to sue for damages for a sufficiently serious breach by a public authority of their legal obligations. Yet, section 8 provides that there is no right in Scots law, on or after exit day, to damages in accordance with the rule in Frankivitch. Frankivitch is simply the name of the case in which the European Court invented the doctrine of state liability. Section 5 preserves the right to sue public authorities for damages, and section 8 takes it away as a manifest and straightforward incompatibility between two provisions of the legislation, which is not, by the way, shared in the European Union with Dural Bill, because section 5 is one of those provisions of this bill that goes out of its way to distinguish itself from the European Union with Dural Bill. We are being asked to consider, in haste, legislation that the Scottish Government does not understand, legislation that has been badly drafted, legislation that is manifestly incoherent. We are being invited to make bad law, Presiding Officer, and we are being invited to make it badly. No, thank you. Neil Findlay The actions of this Parliament impact on the lives of our citizens from John O'Groats to the Mall of Galloway, and the implications of our decisions and the passing of bills can be huge for people and communities. Therefore, we must all take our individual and collective responsibility very seriously indeed. This Parliament has established practices, conventions and standing orders that are designed to protect our democracy and ensure that the laws we pass are subject to proper and in-depth scrutiny, and we are necessary amendment to make them as effective and workable as possible. Whilst we sit as members of this place in a very privileged position, we do not do so as part of a political bubble disconnected from the outside world. The public have rights within our system. They have the right to be consulted on decisions that will affect them. They have the right to submit their views and lobby their MSPs for change the right to petition, the right to submit evidence, evidence that can significantly change a bill, but in this case that either will not happen or will be severely curtailed by a truncated parliamentary timescale of just a few weeks. We should not ignore our history, rushed legislation, as we know is often bad legislation and there are many examples of this over the years. The Scottish Government and the Minister tells us that this legislation has to be passed within the short timescale, but failed to explain why there is such a rush. The Government tells us that the crucial stage 2 of the process will be taken in the chamber and not in committee. We have very serious reservations and concerns about this. Having such a vital stage of a bill taken in a full and at times rowdy chamber with all the distractions of this place is a poor replacement for the in-depth, focused scrutiny and the ebb and flow of detailed committee work. Patrick Harvie. I am grateful to Mr Finlay for giving way. I do not think that any of us would imagine that this situation is perfect or can be made perfect, but does he accept that if we fail to take responsibility for examining and debating and passing Scottish legislation in this chamber, we will leave the UK Government with a perfect excuse to impose something upon us, which we have all across this chamber decided is unacceptable? Neil Findlay. I certainly do have some sympathy with that, but I want to ensure that this place does things as best as we possibly can when we have that opportunity. We would want stage 2 to take place as normal in the more effective committee room setting. No MSP will be excluded from that process. That situation should of course be entirely avoidable. David Mundell and Ruth Davidson ratted on a commitment given to this Parliament and the Welsh Assembly that all powers that would ordinarily be devolved will be following Brexit. I understand that there are 25 areas of disagreement. It is my view that, in the interests of openness, transparency and accountability, those 25 areas of disagreement are published so that we know what this dispute is all about. That is not an unreasonable request. What I find most depressing is that, even at this stage, the two Governments cannot bring themselves to find their way to an agreeable solution or process with independent adjudication if necessary, where no one has a veto and the decision of that adjudication is accepted. Surely rather than have to go through these constitutional contortions, ministers from both sides will step up to the plate and get this sorted. Finally, I can ask a few questions of the minister. If the EU withdrawal bill lacks clarity and is ambiguous, as he has said, and the continuity bill seeks to replicate it, does that leave us with an ambiguous, opaque bill, too? In the bill, it states ministers can determine exit day. Is the Government suggesting that exit day in Scotland would be different? If not, why is it in this bill? If the bill is passed, does the minister expect closer living of the EU withdrawal bill to be withdrawn? If the aim is to legislate before the EU withdrawal bill is on the statute book, has the Government factored in for any legal challenge by anyone that may scupper that timescale in that objective? Finally, given the volume of work, does the cabinet secretary believe that the Scottish Government in this Parliament has the capacity to deliver the huge volume of work that is required to enact this legislation? Those are just some, a very small number of the very serious questions, and they need very serious answers. Colin Patrick-Harvie. I certainly agree with those final comments from Mr Finlay that there are very serious questions about this process, and they need very serious answers, but we will only be able to begin that process if we pass today the resolution to designate this bill as an emergency bill. This bill is absolutely necessary as a response to the Brexit crisis. The Brexit crisis is not of this Parliament's choosing. It is not of the choosing of the people in Scotland who we represent. It is a crisis that has been brought about entirely by the Conservative Party. The UK, whatever our attitude to Scotland's constitutional debate, this is a point that should be relevant across that divide. The UK Government now appears to be at war with itself, incompetent, and in the grip of delusional hard-right ideologues. People who are willing to put their own interests ahead of the national interest, people who are willing to inflict serious damage on the economy and even put the peace process in Northern Ireland at risk for their pet political project. And their bill, their EU withdrawal bill at Westminster, is a direct assault on the devolution settlement. They have missed far too many opportunities already to fix, to repair that bill and to achieve something that can gain the consent or that deserves to gain the consent either of this Parliament or of the Welsh Assembly. This Parliament, MSPs across the political spectrum, must now take responsibility for taking forward legislation that safeguards our law, including social and environmental protections built up in the European Union, protects the devolution settlement and ensures that Parliament is in control of the process, not government. I make that point in relation to both minority Governments. Neither the Government at the UK level nor in this Parliament represents a majority and so parliamentary control must mean the majority in Parliament not the minority of government. I give way. Given your party sits on the bureau, would you make a commitment to consider fully all suggestions around the way in which we could scrutinise this bill fully, not just in the chamber but in committee? I absolutely give that commitment and many of those discussions have already taken place. As I said the other day in the chamber, the first time it was suggested that emergency legislation might be necessary, I made the point very clearly that the maximum speed that our standing orders allow would be entirely unacceptable and that whether or not a lead committee was formally designated committees should take evidence both from external witnesses and from the Government. I am pleased that that is happening in at least two committees. Others, I know, are considering their work programmes over the coming weeks and are trying to fit in opportunities. None of us are capable of achieving perfection from this chaotic constitutional crisis which the Conservative UK Government has created. We are capable of improving the situation. If we do not have this Scottish alternative to the EU withdrawal bell, we will leave the UK Government in a position where they will be able to force an unacceptable bell on us, fatally undermining the devolution settlement. There can be no doubt that this is an emergency situation and that this bell must be treated under the emergency procedures. It is far more significant than any previous emergency bell. I agree with Johann Lamont and others that we must maximise the scrutiny that is possible within the time available. We will also take action to improve this bell. Caroline Lucas, my colleague at Westminster, has worked with Opposition MPs across the political spectrum at Westminster to improve the legislation. We will seek to do the same here, putting forward positive ideas and I urge the Government to work constructively with Opposition proposals to change and improve their bell. We will certainly support the resolution to designate this bell as an emergency response to an emergency situation. Colin Tavish Scott Next week's stage 1 debate will be on Brexit on the Tory Government of Westminster and the powers of this Parliament. Today is about the process, about legislation, yes, and about the scrutiny of that legislation. Just one point on Brexit. For many of us, Mr Tomkins, leaving the EU is an emergency, just is an emergency. For many of us, this is also about pressure on the UK Government. We should not be here. This is not a Parliament that should be dealing with this legislation at all, but we are having to do something to make sure that the powers of this Parliament are protected and that is the purpose of this continuity bill. I am grateful to the minister for what he has said on stage 2. We can overdo this point about process, we can overdo parliamentary arguments about why legislation should be properly scrutinised, but arguably in this case it has never been more so, and that is why I suspect across all the parties the request of the Government and the request of the parliamentary authorities of the Bureau to make sure that this legislation is scrutinised properly and fully in stage 2 is very profound to this. It was especially the case and made yesterday by the Lord Advocate. It is fairly different times when we have a legal view from our Presiding Officer and a different legal view from our Lord Advocate, and just to compound the complexity of this issue, we have the Welsh Government and the Welsh Assembly taking a view as well, which is consistent in terms of the continuity bill with our Government here in Scotland, but a Welsh BO who has also had to make a ruling on the legislative competence of that legislation. So there are a number of aspects here which are profoundly important. On this I agree with Adam Tomkins that the importance of external advice of external experts of people who would wish to give a view both on the legality of these measures and on the different legal interpretations is profoundly important. We don't all live for the next submission from the Faculty of Advocates, but actually on this kind of issue, on the importance of what we are considering, then they and many other organisations will have important things to say about this. Lord Advocate wasn't keen to answer some hypothetical questions. He did answer a few, I thought, yesterday, but he certainly wasn't keen to answer some hypothetical questions yesterday. Nevertheless, I sense that there will be plenty of our legal friends across Scotland who will be pretty keen to give voice to their thoughts on this. How much that matters will be for Parliament to consider, and that's why Patrick Harvie, John Lamont and many others and certainly on my side of the chamber who feel very strongly that this should be stage 2 in committee. That's why that particularly matters in that sense. So this is, yes, Presiding Officer, about putting pressure on the United Kingdom Government. The timetable is incredibly tight, that is certainly true. The other side to the consideration of this measure in committee is to allow for a full examination of that timetable as well. I think that that is a profoundly important point in terms of Parliament's ability to actively and properly scrutinise proposed legislation. So we in these benches want to make sure that that stage 2 is taken in committee, but we understand the importance of the measures that have been brought in front of us. We want to make sure that the timetable that sets us out does that, but make sure that it does it in a way in which Parliament takes a full and appropriate role. Thank you very much. Now, Colin, John McAlpine to be followed by Maurice Golden. John McAlpine. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I'm very pleased to speak today in support of this continuity bill being treated as an emergency bill. It's vital that this bill is passed ahead of the EU withdrawal bill, which contains measures that amount to the greatest attack on this Parliament's powers since it was first established. When Scotland's First Minister, Donald Dure, addressed the first meeting of this reconvened Parliament, he said, quote, we reached back through the long haul to win this Parliament through the struggles of those who brought democracy to Scotland. Donald Dure is seen by many as the architect of devolution, but in that tribute he himself explained that it had many architects he may have been thinking in particular of the late John P Macintosh, whose life is commemorated outside the chamber today. He was also paying tribute to the many people whose names are now unknown who laid the foundation stones of this place, not physically but in their ideas, their actions and perhaps more importantly, their ambitions for their country. The UK Government's determination to diminish the powers of this Parliament using the EU withdrawal bill is more than a constitutional assault. This Parliament is the voice of the Scottish people and any attack on it seeks to silence the Scottish people and we cannot allow that to happen. Devolution has been seen by the people of Scotland embarking on a democratic journey and since 1999 we have made considerable progress along that road. The proposals in the UK Government's EU withdrawal bill do not just stop Scotland's people moving forward in their journey, they put us into reverse. The Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee is the secondary committee on this bill and despite the type timetable, committee members are keen to conduct some scrutiny of the bill and have already discussed ways that we can do that. The timetable is tight, but it is a timetable that has been forced on this Parliament by the UK Government and the tin year that it has shown on devolution. The Conservative Party opposed the establishment of this Parliament originally and paid the price at the ballot box, but in recent years there has been consensus across the Parliament, including the Conservatives, on the importance of maintaining the settlement that you have achieved. The European Committee report on determining Scotland's future relationship with the EU was published in March last year after extensive evidence gathering. It concluded that we believe that any power currently a competence of the EU that is to be repatriated after Brexit and which is not currently listed in schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998 should be fully devolved alongside a funding mechanism resulting in no detriment to Scotland. That conclusion was supported by all members of the committee, including Conservative colleagues. Perhaps they were reassured by evidence given to the committee by David Mundell, the Secretary of State for Scotland, when he told us, I am not looking to take away any powers that are currently exercised by the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Government. But taking powers away from the Scottish Parliament is exactly what the UK-EU withdrawal bill does. Mr Mundell failed to bring forward the Commons amendment to stop that power grab, although he had promised to do so. He should have known the consequences of his inaction and his false promises. The UK Government is taking a sledgehammer not just to Donald Dure's devolution settlements, but to the hopes, aspirations and efforts of the many generations who struggle brought democracy to Scotland and brought this Parliament into being. That, in my view, is an emergency and it demands an emergency response. Thank you. I call Maurice Golden, grateful by Johann Lamont. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The continuity bill is not an emergency bill. Indeed, as it stands, the Lord Advocate was unable yesterday to make a convincing argument that the bill is even in the competence of the Scottish Parliament. I say this on the basis of three counts. The continuity bill cannot be brought into effect now because it trespasses on EU law. The eventual effect of the bill, if enacted, may not impinge on EU law following the UK's withdrawal, but as of today, that means that the legal competence of the bill is outwith the auspices of the Scottish Parliament. The question of competence when it comes to compatibility with EU law is a matter of current legal validity, not future effect. That is the key point of legal analysis on which the Presiding Officer has relied upon in coming to his decision, and I think he was correct. Secondly, we would contend that EU law continues to be relevant to the competence of this Parliament irrespective of whether the UK is a member of the EU or not. The continuity bill implies that the Parliament as a public body can be constrained by EU law only for as long as the United Kingdom is a member state of the European Union. However, the Westminster Parliament, when creating this Parliament, has legislated to confirm the applicability and associated constraints remain irrespective of the status of the United Kingdom. Patrick Harvie. Honestly, is the member genuinely suggesting that it was the intention of the UK Parliament to bind this Parliament to treaties from which the UK had withdrawn? Is that really his suggestion? Maurice Golden. That's what the law says, Mr Harvie, and you should get up to speed with that. The third aspect of why this bill is outwith the competence of this Parliament is that this Parliament cannot legislate on reserved matters. The bill sets out provisions on the principle of supremacy of EU law, and we would contend that this relates to reserved matters, thus confirming that the bill is outwith the competence of this Parliament. Therefore, we have established that the continuity bill is outwith the competence of this Parliament, and I am confident that the Supreme Court would agree that with this analysis, if required, and in due course. I would like to turn briefly to the particular case of whether this bill should be considered as an emergency bill. The Scottish Parliament's guidance on bills defines an emergency bill as a Government bill that needs to be enacted more rapidly than the normal timetable would allow. The continuity bill cannot have effect until March 2019, and therefore this criteria cannot be met. It's worth remembering that half of the previous uses of emergency legislation procedure responded to court cases, and other two responded to situations where obvious legislative loopholes have been created had they not been passed, given the unassured passage of the budget. The present case does not respond to a court case, and no major loopholes in existing legislation would be created if it were passed in due time by the correct procedure. That's why pushing the continuity bill through is a concern in terms of full parliamentary scrutiny. That is required in order that we pass full and efficient and proper law and that creating an emergency aspect for this bill will not do that. Parliament will not be served. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Can I say that I am very concerned about this debate? Not least, I have to say by the fact that 1 million people who voted to leave the European Union seem not even to be factored into any of our debates around Europe just now. I think that that is something that we need to think about, and I say that as somebody who voted to remain. In the debate, I am not speaking particularly for my party position in this, but I am trying to think through the questions as a parliamentarian. It is important that we come to this highly unusual set of circumstances where our minds open to the arguments being presented on all sides and the willingness to test these issues, not to close them down. I am troubled by a number of things and I would look for some reassurance that we are not setting unwise precedents here. I should say that I accept that the issues around Brexit are unprecedented and it is difficult to have predicted exactly where our country now finds herself on this question. On balance, I accept the need for government to explore options to protect the devolution settlement. However, we cannot press the need to protect this institution by being tempted into being cavalier with the procedures that have underpinned it and have embedded it as an institution. I am concerned that the Presiding Officer has ruled that the bill is not competent. That must matter and if it does not matter what is the purpose of the Presiding Officer having this authority, we should not take this step lightly. Further, I am concerned at the compressed consideration of the bill. We are told that this is an emergency procedure but if we can, in the interests of the Parliament, step away from our usual processes then we should not be constrained by a definition of an emergency procedure that could not have imagined the circumstances in which we now find ourselves. I do not think, frankly, as for a Government minister to indicate that all stages should be in chamber so that all members can be involved. It is not a Government job. I also do not accept that that constitutes proper scrutiny. I do not pretend to have a full grasp of all the issues that are explored and tested in the Parliament in its daily workings but I am happy to delegate responsibility to committees to explore and test those ideas for me. Then I can reflect on their conclusions at stage 1. You cannot cross-examine in the chamber. You cannot generate a dialogue and that is what we need. I am grateful. Is the member reassured at all by the fact that the Finance and Constitution Committee is already planning to take evidence not only from external witnesses but also from the Government and has held open the option of doing so at every stage of this bill? I am reassured at that. I would contend that I would go slightly further than to have a Scotland. I think that stage 1 process is the critical stage where it affords the opportunities for voices outside the Parliament to draw conclusions on the general principles of the bill. I was very struck yesterday by the tone and thoughtfulness of the Lord Advocate and, to be fair, none of us would pretend that Professor Tomkins is without some awareness of the relevant issues. I was also struck by how far distant I felt from the argument altogether. I would want to see the Government argument tested and that of those who do not support the bill. There was unanimity on the problem that this bill is seeking to address. Why do we not have unanimity on the need for the bill itself? That is the job of the parliamentary process. Only by serious scrutiny can we draw conclusions about what is substantial and what is simply about party considerations. We need to know the difference between those two. On balance, I accept the argument that the bill should be introduced. I want a commitment that the Parliament will explore the role of the Presiding Officer in the certification of bills, if not now, then at some point in the near future. I would also make a plea that, although the bill is introduced, if seen as urgent, that does not mean that the timetable should be collapsed in a way that overly restricts scrutiny and precludes witnesses external to this Parliament being heard. If the bill is controversial and ends up in court, it is in the interests of this Parliament to be shown to have taken its scrutiny role seriously at every stage. I say this in all seriousness to the Government Minister himself who has already clearly made some helpful words here, but also to parliamentarians across this chamber. If our mission is to protect the Parliament, we must not act ourselves to undermine it. Ivan McKee. Thank you. Sometimes, Presiding Officer, life deals you a bad hand. You have to struggle on bravely through the trials and tribulations putting a brave face on it. Sometimes you have to admire the tenacity of those who do just that, facing up to adversity and all life can throw at them, turning up for work each day trying to make the most of it. The Scottish Tory front, Bench, finds himself in such a position at the moment, faced as they are with the shambles of Brexit. Remainers to a man and a woman who are faced with a situation not of their making, a direction they know is mistaken to the beat of a drum, irregular at best, often incoherent in the knowledge that those directing traffic have no idea what is around the next corner, far less how to deal with it. If that was not bad enough to their face with a leadership that sometimes looks like it is deliberately sabotaging their efforts, being sent to the crease, I say, only to find that their bat is being broken by the team captain. A Tory party in disarray of our Europe presiding officer is nothing new. I promise to be aware, by no less an authority figure than the Secretary of State for Scotland himself, that all would be well, that close 11 of the EU withdrawal bill. Sorry, Mr Ewing, we've got a point of order from Jamie Greene. Excellent. I thought this was the debate around the competency of whether this should be treated as an emergency bill. I haven't heard a single word from the member whether this should be treated as an emergency bill or not. Would you like to come to any point on that at all? Thank you, Mr Greene, for the point of order. I have to say, Mr McKee, I was thinking something along the same lines of would the member please address the central point of the emergency motion? Thank you. I was, of course, addressing myself to the remarks made by Maurice Golden earlier on. So where was I? Close 11 of the EU withdrawal bill would be amended safely in time before leaving the House of Commons where it was not to be. We now find ourselves in March, the clock is ticking, commitments made by the UK Government seem to have little value, so they trip into the TV studios to defend indefensible, trying to spin out of a mess that somebody else has created and continues to create on a daily basis and so to the specifics of the bill that we are debating today. It's intent and it's timing. Why is such a bill necessary and why is it necessary now? Politics, as in life, trust is an essential commodity and an environment where trust has been built up over time, actors can behave accordingly, cutting some slack, understanding where there is give and where there is take, securing the knowledge that working together to find a common solution is in everyone's interests. But when that trust has been destroyed, possibly deliberately so, then it's no surprise that we find ourselves in this position. When little communication has taken place on the fundamental issues around Brexit and how they will affect Scotland, it is no surprise that considerable doubt exists as to the goodwill and intent that protects the Scottish devilish settlement. The Scottish Tories know, sure. Neil Findlay. I'm not sure if there's another SNP speaker in this debate, but surely someone on the SNP backbenches has got something to say about the concerns about the scrutiny in this building or is it just the case or is it just the case that they are whipped so hard that none of them can express any concern ever. Ivan McKee. The issue that we've got and I cannot address time is where we are because of the actions of the UK Government. This bill has got to go through in time and that is the reality of it to protect the devilish settlement. The Scottish Tories know fine well and Mr Findlay knows fine well. The Scottish Government has waited until the last possible date before launching this continuity bill. To leave it any longer would mean that it would not be able to be enacted on behalf of the EU withdrawal bill and an essential prerequisite for the continuity bill to take effect as intended. In fact, the way the Scottish Tories argue against the emergency procedure suggests that they know this all too well but have no desire to see the protections offered by the continuity bill put in place. In summary, Presiding Officer, this bill is necessary to protect the powers of this Parliament. It is the backstop that provides some protection for us from the Brexit chaos that is consuming the UK Government and that the timing of this bill being brought forward now is necessary to ensure that those safeguards are in place in sufficient time. We should also not lose sight of the bigger picture by intent or by omission the actions of the UK Government represent a significant threat to the devilish settlement. It is our duty and our responsibility of members of this Scottish Parliament to protect that settlement and that is what we shall have the opportunity to do over the coming weeks by passing this emergency bill. I'm conscious that we're very tight for time but there's also a great deal of interest and Mike Rumbles, if you can make your marks very short, one minute or so. Thank you Presiding Officer. Unless the Parliament decides, the standing order says that unless the Parliament decides on a motion of the Parliament Bureau stages 1 to 3 of an emergency bill should be taken on the same day. That's because by convention an emergency bill has all party support as an intended to fix an immediate problem in Scots law which cannot wait. Evidently there is not all party support for this bill and there is not an immediate issue which cannot wait. By taking this as an emergency bill the Government ensures that all the stages must be taken by a committee of the whole House and that's the problem. We don't have the ability to call witnesses and examine evidence. We could have had a different way we could have suspended standing orders to allow stage 2 to have been taken in Parliament and that would have been the better route to have chosen. I will reluctantly vote for this motion today but only on the basis that the Finance and Constitution Committee will take formal evidence from witnesses on the bill before we get in this chamber to a vote on the stage 2 process. Thank you for keeping your marks briefly, Mr Rumbles. I call on Clare Baker to wind up for the Labour Party. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is a bill that we wish wasn't before us and an emergency process that we wish wasn't necessary. The preferred outcome would be an EU withdrawal bill from the UK Government that the devolved Governments and the Parliament could support. So why are we in this regrettable situation? There are shared serious concerns about the UK Government's approach and so far the assurances that this would be fixed have been hollow. Make no mistake, the Conservative Government is the reason we are facing this situation today and their failure to respond sufficiently to the concerns of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly is deeply disappointing and brings us to the response that has been brought forward today in order to work to safeguard our laws. However, how can MSPs be confident in the legislation that there is a degree of legal uncertainty when we look at the position of the Presiding Officer and the Lord Advocate and it does seem inevitable that this legislation will end up in the Supreme Court. We will work constructively on this legislation but we cannot ignore the challenges that we face in dealing with such a significant piece of legislation as an emergency. As members will know, it is rare for us to deal with emergency legislation and I do not believe that it has happened in a situation similar to the one that we are facing just now. This is a rushed piece of legislation and it is important that MSPs can fully engage with the process and have confidence in our considerations. Our business manager has made requests of the Bureau for MSPs to be properly supported and informed. This is a complex piece of legislation with a number of different outcomes facing us. MSPs, I think, this afternoon have made clear the importance of scrutiny and have asked what opportunities there will be for members to exercise this. We do have concerns over stage 2 in particular, which in ordinary circumstances provides us an opportunity for debate, for compromise, for consensus building, all taking place within the setting of a committee room, which members will recognise as a much different atmosphere from that that we often experience in the chamber. Often, in the committee, it gives us time for more considered reflection than the sometimes heightened atmosphere that we experience within the chamber. Is it possible for MSPs to have greater clarity over the point of consideration when it comes to division between the two Governments? That was a point raised by Neil Findlay in his comments. Is it possible for MSPs to have a greater understanding of where the points of disagreement are between the two Governments? There seems to be a level of agreement that frameworks are necessary, but it is important that we could have greater transparency, which would help us to make a judgment on the legislation that we are about to examine. That is far from an ideal situation. We are facing an extremely truncated legislative process which is frankly unacceptable, but we do accept that we are left here with little choice. The failure of the UK Government to resolve the situation is the latest test that we have seen to devolution over the settlement. The devolution settlement, and this time the risk of the devolution settlement comes from the party of the so-called defenders of the union. Devolution is the settled will of the Scottish people, and Labour has been consistent in supporting devolution and making the case for devolution. We have led the charge at Westminster with amendments to attempt to fix this bill due to the lack of resolve, initiative and political will that has come from the Conservative Government. In closing, I would urge the UK Government and the Scottish Government, along with the Welsh Government, to strain every sinew to find a solution in the short time that we face, so that we can avoid having to proceed with this, which at the moment I accept is necessary, because it is a challenging and problematic piece of legislation that we are having to deal with. Presiding Officer, we are confronted today by a narrow but fundamentally important issue, whether the continuity bill should be treated as an emergency bill and the short answer is no for several reasons. First, there is a convention that emergency legislation is required to deal with emerging events that require distant reaction from Parliament. The very first act of this Parliament was in fact emergency legislation. I am sure that there will be members who recall it. The Mental Health Public Safety and Appeals Scotland Act was introduced to close a gap in the existing legislation identified by a court decision. Five other acts, which originated as emergency bills, followed the same pattern, with one exception of budget. But they were all specific bills responding to unique ad hoc events, often court decisions requiring urgent legislation. With respect, the situation that we find ourselves in relation to the continuity bill in no way fits with that tradition. There is also a convention that emergency bills achieve consensus, as Mike Rumbles has said, and given the diversity of opinion that is expressed today, that cannot be said to exist either. Secondly, there is a question over timing. The bill is not remotely an emergency. It cannot have effect until after the UK leaves the EU. That point was central to the Lord Advocate's argument yesterday on competence. He said that the bill was within competence precisely because it would not take effect until after Brexit happens. Sorry, I do not have time. When he spoke about there being an urgent practical necessity that was in relation to the law operating after withdrawal, namely 29 March 2019 a year away, the actual urgency here is not in the coming weeks, but in the aftermath of Brexit day next year. Thirdly, and the most important reason to reject the motion is the role of this Parliament and all of us within it. The issue of emergency legislation is not an arcane debate about rules of procedure. It is not about navigating the dry legal pages of the standing orders dusted off so that lawyers and pedants can have some fun. It goes to the very purpose of what we do as a legislature. The continuity bill represents fundamental constitutional legislation. It is about the powers of the Parliament, as the minister just said. It is perhaps the most sweeping legislation that has been presented to this Parliament in terms of what it seeks to achieve by ensuring EU law is carried over into Scots law. Patrick Harvie. I assure the member that the only people having fun in the situation are expensively educated idiots like Rhys Mogg and Boris Johnson. Mr Harvie. Mr Harvie. Mr Harvie. Mr Harvie. The members that you named are not members of this Parliament, but I still urge you to be respectful to everybody that you describe in this chamber. I... I certainly... I certainly... Order, please. Sorry. I will allow you the extra minute just to allow Mr Cameron to finish his question. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I certainly offer those gentlemen the respect that they deserve. All right, Mr Harvie. That's quite enough. Mr Cameron. That's quite enough, Mr Harvie. That's quite enough. Mr Cameron, please continue. Thank you. I certainly regret taking that intervention, Presiding Officer. If there's one area where we shouldn't legislate in a hurry, it's the constitution. The Scottish Government's very own policy memorandum says it will add complexity and present serious logistical challenges. We also have the unprecedented scenario that you, Presiding Officer, have taken the view that this bill is outwith legislative competence and is thus unlawful to fund our powers. If any bill requires proper, measured, detailed scrutiny, it is this one. How long... How long does a proposed timetable give us? I don't have time. One day a week over three weeks. Three days, Presiding Officer. Three days for the bill to be assessed by this Parliament's many committees. Three days for the bill to receive due scrutiny from MSP. Three days for the bill to be debated, amended and critiqued. Such a timetable is patently insufficient. My appeal today is to MSPs of all political stripes, but it is an appeal especially to the conveners and deputy conveners of every committee of this Parliament. It's an appeal to the deputy Presiding Officers. It's an appeal to those MSPs who prize their role as parliamentarians just as highly as their role as party politicians. Whatever your views on the conduct of the UK Government or the Scottish Government in the current negotiations, whatever your views on common frameworks and internal markets, whatever your views on the rights and wrongs of Brexit and however passionately held, the motion today is about how we as a Parliament legislate. It goes to the core of what we do and the precedents we set and the people we represent. The devolution settlement is a precious, finely balanced thing. We all share the belief that it needs protection. But as parliamentarians how can we possibly protect that settlement by curtailing our well-worn procedures and rushing through legislation on the constitution of dubious legality and treating it as some kind of national emergency I urge you to vote against the motion. I call the minister Michael Russell to conclude. I do regret the Conservative view, I have to say, because as a Government I've been endeavouring to work with the Conservatives to find a way through a very difficult I'm going to treat this very seriously and I hope the Conservative front bench will do the same. We have been working very hard to try and work with the Conservatives in this Parliament and in the UK to try and find a way to defend this Parliament and the powers of this Parliament. We've done it across the parties, we've met regularly with all the parties and we would hope to continue to do so. So I regret the tone but I also regret the attempt to create a false division here because there is an emergency and there's no doubt about those circumstances. I want to treat this summing up in two parts. One is to deal with the question of the emergency and then deal with the very serious questions that have been raised by a number of members about the procedures of this Parliament. In terms of the emergency, this is an emergency in almost any definition you wish to apply. It's an emergency in terms of the timing of this. The EU withdrawal bill from the UK Government was published on the 13th of July last year. On the 19th of September last year the Welsh and Scottish Governments tabled brought forward their amendments. They were writing in terms of an amendment to the bill from the UK Government until the second half of February this year. We have shown extraordinary restraint in the process of negotiation. In terms of trying to get the change which in November and early December the UK Government accepted they wanted to bring forward and there is still no tabling of that amendment. I agree with Tavish Scott, Brexit itself is an emergency but it's an emergency instead of the way in which the UK Government treated the two other Governments engaged in this. Regrettably, there is no Government in Northern Ireland by refusing to accept that they have a responsibility to bring these matters forward timidly. There is also an emergency in the definition that Donald Cameron used. He used the words unique and ad hoc. Brexit is a unique set of circumstances and the ad hoc circumstance that brought us here is the impending failure of those negotiations, despite the good efforts of the Welsh and Scottish Governments to try and get change. The third point on emergency is the most ridiculous of all because under the argument of whether or not this could be done now but should be done on sometime after March 2019 on the definition that we've heard you could not even bring emergency legislation to this chamber on this matter on 28 March 2019 because it would be in anticipation of leaving. So you could only bring it after you have left. How'd a ridiculous point of view? I'm sorry, I have hardly any time to go through this. We have been working to endeavour to get a solution and we will continue to work to get a solution. Before I turn to some of the points of detail let me just turn to the very serious point that has been raised in terms of the procedures of this Parliament. Neil Findlay asked legitimately, was there no one on the SNP benches that was concerned about scrutiny? Yes, I'm concerned about scrutiny. That is why I wish to have as wide a debate as possible and to move as firmly as possibly I can with the Labour Party, with the Liberal Democrats and with us Mr Rumbles. Mr Rumbles. The minister agreed that we could indeed, as a Parliament, suspend standing orders to allow a committee, whichever one that is the appropriate one to do, to actually look at this at stage 2 so that we have a proper process. Minister. I entirely accept that that is possible. That is a proposal that I'm happy to discuss with the Liberal Democrats and Labour in order to get even better scrutiny. I accept that that scrutiny is not perfect. I said so in my introductory remarks. I said so on Tuesday. But nothing is set in stone. If we accept that this is emergency legislation we can sit down and have those conversations made a very, very telling point in terms of the stage 1 process. That also needs to be considered in terms of external input. We are in this situation because we have no fault of our own of the Welsh Government. We have both taken exactly the same position. I am absolutely certain. I don't speak from our Labour colleague Mark Drakeford. He is also concerned about issues of scrutiny so we will do everything possible to accommodate those and to be part of those changes but it is an emergency not as intense as we have had in other circumstances. Now let me just deal with some of the areas for consideration on this bill. Mr Finlay asked about the 25 areas. I'm happy to discuss with my colleague Mr Drakeford and also I have to say with the UK Government how we could present those but certainly I think that as much information as we could possibly give on the process of negotiation should be given. I should hope that we will be able during the process of the bill to address some of the specific issues that Mr Finlay has raised. For example, exit day is in it because the UK Government could change the exit day and unless our bill did serve its dealing with devolved powers then we might be left with a date that was inflexible so our date will go in lockstep but we have to have the ability to react to the UK Government. We would have to go and in terms of the number of statutory instruments both Governments have estimated about 800 to 1,000 statutory instruments. Now if this bill were to come into operation as intended and to work alongside the UK bill then there would be a division of labour but it is perfectly possible that we would be able to divide that up equably and fairly and we would find ourselves doing no more than we already anticipate doing of course. Does the cabinet secretary expect recess to be cancelled? Even with the withdrawal bill with the UK withdrawal bill we would be in the same situation. I would hope that it would not be necessary to cancel Mr Finlay's trips to exotic parts but you never know but in the circumstances I have to point out fairly that Brexit is a manufacturer a Tory manufacturer and therefore the workload that we are talking about is not brought by me but it will be a workload that we will have to do in any case we don't anticipate it to be any substantially more weighty than we are already facing. Now there are a range of other issues that I could address, Presiding Officer but these are issues that will be addressed during the process of this bill and we will find every possible way to address them. Nobody wishes to be in these circumstances I personally would wish to wind the clock back so that we are not involved in this complete nonsense of a process that is incredibly badly mishandled by the Conservative ministers and the Conservative Government but we are regrettably, as Ivan McKee has indicated where we are, we have to move forward on it I hope that the chamber can support this and I give an absolutely solemn and firm undertaking I have not only heard but I have listened to the concerns about scrutiny and we will work with the other parties to make sure that we address as many of those as we possibly can. Thank you very much and that concludes our debate and we are going to move straight to the question which is that motion 10735 in the name of Michael Russell to treat the UK withdrawal from the European Union legal continuity Scotland bill as an emergency bill will we agree to do that? Are we agreed? We are not agreed Members will move to division and you may cast your votes now. The result of the vote on motion 10735 in the name of Michael Russell is yes, 86, 0, 27. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed. We will now move to the next item of business which is consideration of two business motions motion 10745 on a timetable for an emergency bill sorry, point of order, Patrick Harvie Thank you, Presiding Officer before the consideration of the business motion on timetabling I wonder if I could ask your guidance on its implication I am under the impression that some of my colleagues have certainly told me that committee clerks may be under the impression that deadlines for amendments may precede the debates so the stage 2 deadline might precede the stage 1 debate I know that privately in meetings of the bureau you have told us that that will not be the case If members will allow this I know that you have given a general guidance to the bureau that that will not be the case I think that it would be very helpful even if we cannot be specific about the amendment deadlines today to give a general public advice including to all of our subject committees and their members that amendment deadlines will take place after the debate for each preceding stage so that members are in a position to prepare any proposals for amendments I thank Mr Harvie for his point of order and it does indeed give me an opportunity to make the whole chamber aware of an issue that was discussed in the last meeting of the bureau The rules on emergency bill procedures allow me as Presiding Officer to make a determination on the deadlines for amendments at stages 2 and 3 and I will make any such determination having consulted with business managers on the emergency bureau and I hope that that reassures the member The point of order, Johann Lamont There were very helpful reassurances about reconsideration of the capacity of the Parliament to scrutinise I would want reassurance that while supporting this proposal it does not preclude the bureau listening and acting on the reservations that were expressed across the chamber what that timetable actually means I thank the member for the point of order We are about to move two motions that set out the timetable for the emergency bill procedure and those have been discussed already at the Parliamentary Bureau It's up for Parliament to decide whether or not to agree to this timetable Even if we agree to this timetable it would be very much up to the Parliamentary Bureau for example to discuss this matter once more and for the Parliament to rearrange the timetable so we are agreeing it would be up to the Parliamentary Bureau to bring back an alternative if you wish to do so Any other point of order The next item of business is consideration of motion 10745 on a timetable for an emergency bill and motion 10764 on a revised business programme Could I ask any member who wishes to speak against those motions or either motion to press their request to speak button now and could I call on Jofas Patrick to move the motions formally moved Thank you Mr. Jofas Patrick Can I call Maurice Golden Thank you, Presiding Officer I have no wish to rehash the debate that we have just had regarding the continuity bill and its status as an emergency bill so specifically on timetabling which those motions refer to and respecting the will of this Parliament as well as the default position is far from desirable We believe that even as emergency legislation there needs to be an increase in parliamentary scrutiny which this timetabling does not allow Given this is a highly significant piece of wide-raging legislation we believe that full parliamentary scrutiny including full involvement of committees is required I would urge this Parliament to consider a proper process for consideration of this legislation and reject the timetabling as set out in the two business motions Can I call on Jofas Patrick to respond to the Government Thank you Presiding Officer As the minister stated during the debate if the continuity bill is to achieve its purpose of defending the interests and powers of this Parliament an emergency timetable will be required to ensure that it can be in place prior to the final passage of the withdrawal bill The interim report of the Finance and Constitution Committee unanimously agreed by its members recognised that very point The interim report accepted that in the event of the Government is unable to recommend consent to the EU withdrawal bill and a continuity bill is introduced there would be a need for a timetable which would maximise the scope and time available for scrutiny That is what this business motion proposes today Presiding Officer Yes I am sure that the minister understands the gravity of the points that were made around scrutiny I am concerned that you seem to be reiterating a point that was made before this debate about the timetable I would seek reassurance that this timetable is something that you work to but that you are more than happy to look again the detail of how that scrutiny is carried forward Yes, just to confirm that I have confirmed to at least two of the other business managers that that would be my intention to work with them to make sure that the points that Johann Lamont and others made in the chamber today can be taken into account Clearly that will be a decision for the full bureau Presiding Officer, the Parliament has now agreed to treat this bill as an emergency bill If the phase timetable set out in the business motion is not agreed the default position in the standing orders is that all three stages of the bill will be taken in one day and will not fulfil the recommendations of the committee's report and it would fail to give Parliament an appropriate time to consider this important bill While the timetable that the Government is seeking is challenging it recognises that it is both appropriate and right that the Parliament should be able to consider its full and the maximum time available to allow the continuity bill to pass before the EU withdrawal bill becomes law and obviously taking into account that we need to look at how we can do that to make sure that committees and others can input into that process This timetable is not of our choosing rather it is the consequence of the exceptional circumstances we find ourselves in and therefore ask Parliament to support the proposals to ensure that the continuity bill can be appropriately scrutinised and it urge Parliament to agree the motions So the question is that motion 10745 The first question is that motion 10745 We are not agreed, we will move to a division members be cast their votes now The result of the vote on motion 10745 in the name of Joffice Patrick is yes, 86, no, 27 there were no abstentions the motion is therefore agreed The final question I should say is that motion 10764 be agreed, are we agreed We are not agreed, we will move to a vote members be cast their votes now The result of the vote on motion 10764 in the name of Joffice Patrick is yes, 86, no, 27 there were no abstentions the motion is therefore agreed That concludes our business today I now close this meeting